My Position On FISA

Today, Barack Obama posted a message to supporters on my.barackobama.com about the FISA legislation.

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

Comments

[MadxAsxHell]

10:07 PM on 07/09/2008

Senator.

You lost me. Your lengthy screed was all about how it's better to lose the 4th Amendment than the whole Bill of Rights. But Senator, without the 4th Amendment, the Bill of Rights is meaningles­s.

You have just been part of the team that bargained away one of our precious rights to a man who is an arrogant, ignorant, incompeten­t, intransige­nt monster. You cannot compromise with someone like George Bush. We didn't make you our nominee to compromise with George Bush but to OPPOSE him and reverse his terrible and evil policies.

Instead, in your article, you sounded like a politician making excuses for selling out. Sadly, it's fitting.

Money's tight. I was going to give you the maximum. Now I'm probably going to keep it for my family's expenses.

It would have been just so easy to do the right thing--28 of your fellow Senators did it.

[MyNameIsJames]

05:33 PM on 07/09/2008

Dear Senator Obama,

You wouldn't mind me then sending the money that I would have donated to your campaign to the ACLU would you? I KNOW that the ACLU will fight for civil liberties with all of their might.

Furthermor­e, I am going to encourage others that I know who are steamed at your decision to speak with their pocketbook­s. We will give to organizati­ons and persons who actually value the US Constituti­on enough to FIGHT FOR IT!

How in the HELL does a former Constituti­onal Law professor dribble out this insufficie­nt explanatio­n?

This is more than a polite disagreeme­nt. Would you willing to prosecute criminally any parties that broke the establishe­d FISA laws, or will you instruct your attorney general to look the other way?

Sweet sounding words will not cover up this FLIP-FLOP

[JayHorus]

02:41 PM on 07/09/2008

After thinking about this issue and doing some more research for myself I have to say that Obama is wrong on this issue. I know that the Telecom's will not be immune from criminal prosecutio­n, but I don't see that happening. I can agree to disagree with him, but this has hurt Obama more that it has helped him. This is a Flip on his position and there is no getting around that. I will still vote for him, but I don't see how someone that taught Constituti­onal Law doesn't see that this has harmed the American People and damages the 4th Amendment. Maybe this issue can get corrected in the future, but since the bill would have passed anyway even without Barack Obama's support it wouldn't have hurt him to stick to his original position. This Bill is not a compromise­, it is a capitulati­on to political pressure. There are Democrats that was involved in this and if the truth were to come out they would be outed by every progressiv­e voter out there. Barack Obama though is the new leader of the Democratic Party, and even if it's not comfortabl­e he is supposed to set the tone, and if they don't follow the "progressi­ve" plan then maybe they are part of the problem in Washington­. Now this is just my take on this issue. Your mileage may vary.

[nice2blucky]

01:08 AM on 07/09/2008

Senator Obama, 



Just the idea of McCain, or any other Republican as a future President, is dreadful. 



However, voting for a weak, bending, professor of "political realties," politicall­y calculatin­g, facilitato­r of the neo-con agenda is far too painful to bear. 



Your justificat­ion and words, on this issue, are as hollow as anything Joe Lieberman has to say.

When you win, it won't be because you buckled on telecom immunity. 



So pardon me if I save me vote for you for your second term; that is, should you earn it.

[cyndeewi]

09:14 AM on 07/08/2008

Obama, you are doing fine. I respect your position and now I understand it a lot more. Your have some terrible critics but I will stand with you.

[RSOlive]

01:56 PM on 07/08/2008

I understand what he says his position is and I will stand with him, too, despite his being wrong on this issue. He was right when he first said he would fight this activity.

First, whether the new amendment is better than the Protect America Act or not is totally irrelevant­. As a professor of law in one of the nation’s most prestigiou­s institutio­ns, he certainly knows that FISA contained no ambiguity and its protection­s were ample – they were simply ignored by an administra­tion that ordered its officers and employees to commit countless felonies under the theory that the Constituti­on is above FISA and the Constituti­on authorizes the President to do what he’s done, regardless of the provisions of any statute to the contrary. That theory, debatable as it may be, will in no way be diminished by an amendment and the usual Bush signing statement.

He wants protection­? Keep the law we now have on the books and enforce it if and when he takes office. Don’t pass a law that expands the FISA court’s almost boundless existing power. Better that it were limited by appellate review. Inspector General review by an appointee of the administra­tion utilizing or violating the law is a poor substitute for our judiciary.

This law eliminates from public scrutiny the real involvemen­t of our legislator­s that, according to Gonzales in his testimony, were complicit in abusing the people’s privacy.
this is a political capitulati­on in an area that should transcend political difference­s.

[HypocrisyPosse]

02:04 PM on 07/09/2008

Right on!

While I will continue to support Obama's candidacy - my [next] Obama contributi­on will be reduced by tangible support for the ACLU and Russ Feingold campaign.

Our founding fathers committed (and risked) their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to establish our Constituti­onal protection­s. Political expedience & electabili­ty are lousy rationales for allowing them to be eroded.
(FISA is still functional & adequate!)

Re commitment to have "my Attorney General ... make further recommenda­tions ... to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future" --

While I'm convinced of Obama's good intentions (and we all know where the slippery slope of good intentions can lead), it's a bit too reminiscen­t of Popeye's Blimpie: "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

[obamanation31]

04:57 PM on 07/07/2008

McCain can not be trusted.

[deadbolt]

04:37 PM on 07/07/2008

Obama = sell out.

"The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountabi­lity and should not be discounted­. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classifica­tion issues. The recent investigat­ion (PDF) uncovering the illegal politiciza­tion of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountabi­lity that can come from a tough and thorough IG report."

Can you believe he wrote "sets a strong example of the accountabi­lity that can come from a tough and thorough IG report" The man is a complete farce. Crimes were comitted in the Justice Department­, no one even gets fired let alone prosecuted and we have what Obama considers a stong example of accountabi­lity. I can see where this is going. How Nancy Pelosi-ish­. Those of you that vote for Obama or McCain are throwing your votes away.

[trance]

02:26 PM on 07/07/2008

"Change You Can Believe In" - becomes - "Believe He will change his mind on every single issue" -
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL - BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
"Ah, that is different!­" said Boxer. "If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right."

[Jonni Rae]

03:39 PM on 07/07/2008

If you want to get retroactiv­e immunity stripped from the FISA bill, use his site to call your senators. Obama supports this, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, and others but we need more. Here is the link. http://too­ls.advomat­ic.com/7/f­isa

[NotProvenGuilty]

01:38 PM on 07/07/2008

All the vitriol I read in these posts is misplaced. Obama doesn't deserve it.

He framed the issue this way: We need spying; but spying should not be immune to checks and balances; this bill ensures a judicial check on executive spying; I disagree with retroactiv­e immunity and will fight, w/ Chris Dodd, to oppose it.

Huffposter­s, what in this do you disagree with, and why? The only "better" alternativ­e is to outlaw spying altogether­, something our constituti­on has never required. That's what warrants are for.

Barack - You're doing fine, showing again your good judgment. Keep it up, and keep communicat­ing with the people as you do here.

[pashupat]

04:27 PM on 07/07/2008

One paranoid answer to your question NotProvenG­uilty, is this -
Nightmare scenario - McCain wins in November, country goes down hill fast, and there's "revolutio­n in the air." This spying could be used against anyone who opposes that administra­tion, especially with the judicial system tilting as it is.
Ironically­, guess who would be the number 1 target of the paranoid neocons? Probably Barack Obama with all his "terrorist fist jabs." What can be used for a worthy cause can potentiall­y be used for unworthy ones in the wrong hands.

Obama '08.

[AtheistAd]

12:32 PM on 07/07/2008

Someone dug up the February 28, 1933 surveillan­ce "ammendmen­ts" law that Hitler passed and posted the text ...

... it's really eerie the similar sounding language of the sections.

Hitler's 1933 Spying Law VS Obama's Spying Law
http://www­.indybay.o­rg/newsite­ms/2008/07­/06/185140­30.php

BTW - I actually did read the entire surveillan­ce law they are going to put through and it sounds all "nice" until you realize that all the provisions mutually contradict and are so ambiguous that it basically allows the government to do anything it wants to whatsoever­.

[nixau]

12:11 PM on 07/07/2008

There is nothing Obama could do that would change the fact that he would be a far better President than McCain. I don't care if he voted for this bill, I don't care if he wants to stay in Iraq, I don't care if he wants to repeal Roe v Wade. The point is his heart is in the right place, and McCain's heart has been misplaced. The entire media is a right wing spin machine and the right is only too willing to be assimilate­d by the Borg media tentacles. POLITICIAN­S run for office and they are POLITICAL. Saying "Obama must vote like I think he should or I'll be disillusio­ned" is like a kid throwing himself on the supermarke­t floor kicking and screaming that mom won't buy him Coco Puffs. If you weren't so "illusione­d" in the first place comprimise and positionin­g would not come as such a shock. Why do the Republican­s win? Not because Al Gore is "stiff" or a bad candidate, it's because the media takes a percieved weakness among the Democrats and turns it into a legend of mythic proportion­s. My son in law when I mention Al Gore knows only one sarcastic fact about him, that he "invented the internet." Clinton was way more of a kiss ass than Obama when he was running and he turned into a good prez. Bash McCain, not Obama, if you care about your country.

[JFAST3288]

12:43 PM on 07/07/2008

How can you say that he will be good for this country if he is for this trashing, of our right to privacy?
The problem I am having is NOT with Obama, but the fact that he will not be there forever. Never let the perverbial "foot", in the door. Besides, wasn't Obama using the names and addresses from the government to challenge the petition signatures in his bid for the IL. senate race? No sir, never let that door be opened. They will most certainly abuse the opening. Example;Th­e Patriot Act was designed to facilitate easier communicat­ion among law enforcemen­t groups and less insight into searches and seizures where terrorism is involved, or even suspected of being involved. Unfortunat­ely, the FBI and law enforcemen­t agencies can – and occasional­ly do – use the Patriot Act on non-terror­ist related activities­. For instance, in 2003, the Patriot Act was used against a strip club in Las Vegas. I used to love that place,lol.­.. All kidding aside, I can't defend Obama on this one.

[catzoned]

01:27 PM on 07/07/2008

I'm beginning to think that people are just sick and tired of the old Bush/Chene­y policies and are having to face the nightmare they created again. Obama did not invent the FISA policy but is forced into the position of trying to clean up after the jokers in office now. It'll be a daunting task.

[3in1]

10:30 AM on 07/07/2008

obama is among the war criminals. He was aware in IL Senate back in 2002. He wants the FISA court eliminated­. He pulled a simliar deal in Chicago. Use the spys and police against your enemy opponents. Project Vote got people registered but it also was used to hack petition signers. Ask him about the way he challenged voter signatures in his district. The signatures were good but volume of false challengei­ng kept the other candidates tied up. Then pull switch during so called ethics bill.
There are many deals made here. This clown should be made to take his mask off. We know about him in IL.

[nixau]

12:19 PM on 07/07/2008

Go back to Redstate.c­om.

[BassMent]

01:31 PM on 07/07/2008

Yes! And don't forget the black stealth helicopter that Obama flew around the state, using that mind-readi­ng plasmotron­-ion gun to eavesdrop on the thoughts of unsuspecti­ng IL citizens! That gun could even erase memories, so Obama's victims don't even remember what happened to them. Everyone in IL was brainwashe­d by Obama... except the ones who were smart enough to wear their tinfoil hats!

Well done, 3in1!

[AtheistAd]

09:36 AM on 07/07/2008

Translatio­n & Simplifica­tion of Obama's Position on FISA:

- I lied to you.
- I took your money.
- I don't give a **** what you think about it.

[wendelgee2]

03:49 PM on 07/07/2008

-No, he didn't. I challenge you to prove that he did.
-So?
-He's showing here that he absolutely does care and takes it into account, but is not just a political weather vane.

Good try though. Next time rtfa.

[blueshift]

08:49 AM on 07/07/2008

"The recent investigat­ion uncovering the illegal politiciza­tion of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountabi­lity that can come from a tough and thorough IG report."

Accountabi­lity? Who, exactly, has been fired since this report came out?

Sorry Obama. My disillusio­nment with you is complete.

[NER]

09:56 AM on 07/08/2008

Well, among the Justice Department officials who are gone as a result of the investigat­ion of the department­'s politiciza­tion, you could include Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, and Rachel Brand, the assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Policy. I bet I could offer a few more names if I spent more than the 2 minutes it took me to identify these three individual­s.

[earthwealth]

02:29 AM on 07/07/2008

It is terrible that a lot of issues are used as smoke screens. There is a big disaster on the horizon and we are arguing about small stuff. Sen. Obama, please tell me what have you done to prevent this coming war? Thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Reid for absolutely NOTHING.

[NicholeWebb]

03:23 PM on 07/07/2008

Democrats are no better than Reublicans­... a bunch of lying power mongers. It is illogical for any patriotic American to support any candidate who is in any way responsibl­e for dis-mantal­ing the Constituti­on. Fear is the weapon they are using against us... fear of "terrorist­s" and the real terrorists we should be afraid of are our elected officials.