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

[erikpritchard]

Senator Obama, your decision to allow blanket wiretapping is without principal. You are selling out in order to sell yourself better (at least your advisers say so) to the voters. A man of principal doesn't sell out and say, "Gosh, it was the best I could do." Men of principal live and die by their principals.

It's not about whether I trust you or any other potential president to safeguard the constitution and my civil liberties. The constitution exists so men like you do not have the authority to sell out in the first place.

What is the price of your integrity?

[cynicalismo]

Go back to GO. Forget the primaries, previous promises.a­nd positions. You are faced with a choice among nominees for the presidency. . Your goals are to avoid a reprise of the Bush years, change the direction of the Supreme Court, end the subtle AND overt violations of the Bill of rights and the U.S. Constitutiion, restore reasonable regulation of financial markets, the communications and pharmaceutical industries, withdraw from Iraq in orderly and honorable fashion and repair America's reputation before the world , (Ooops! I left out that famous Bush goal: GET Bin Laden! )

So, who gets your vote? McCain?? who will fight for none of your goals, who promises to go back to the past? Nader??who stands not the slightest chance of winning and who will bolster McCain's chances by drawing votes away from Obama. the one candidate who can be depended upon to work in the right direction. Making the right choice is a no--brainer

I voted for Hillary in the Florida primary, but I will vote, unhesitatingly, for Obama in November

If you're opposed to the Iraq war, outraged at the thought of further tax cuts for the rich, decry the existence of rempant poverty in the richest country in the world, favor universal health coverage, yearn for a return to the America that was the envy of the world. you must vote Democrat. You must vote for Obama!

[kinogod]

I thought the Clintons lost the nomination, but the more Barak Obama campaigns for the general, the more I see the core principles he ran on morph like the Clintons. If I wanted a "politician of the polls" I'd have voted for the Clintons. I wanted a politician that stood for core principles and a new kind of politics.

Barak Obama can explain away his support of the wretched and mistaken FISA compromise bill, but his capitulation on this core principle is disturbing. But we now have other dangerous precedents in his campaign for president.­..moving toward McCain on Iraq, tallying with the gun lobby, voting for the death penalty in an effort to move away from the Dukakis debacle.

In every of these moves, one sees MORE OF A LESS PRINCIPLED POLITICIAN and LESS OF A NEW LEADER. I am getting supremely disappointed. What is more troubling still, is the amount of old-school political cronies who now work and help the Obama campaign, many of them the same political hacks that helped run Kerry and Gore into the ditch. The newest "helper" comes from Team Bush. Funny how their employment by the Obama campaign coincides with the "changed message" and "the worst week in Obamas message to the American People."

Buyers remorse can be brutal, especially if you are elected and really disappoint.

[EuLupu]

Well said. There is NO "movement to the center" as the media try to name it, it is just a 360 to the OLD politics that are crashing all the CHANGE and HOPE message that Obama had. He can see himself as a "savvy politician" but this doesn't make for the disappointment caused to his "grass roots" supporters. At this time Obama looks to strike deals and forget about what got him here. And I am getting tired of his reference to "Chicago community organizer" talents.

[cynicalismo]

Try qcting grown-up about this election. If you want the next four to eight years to bring you a Supreme Çourt stacked with Alito clones, vote Republican.

No issue in this election is more important than controlling Supreme Court nominations, but if you need other issues, think regulatory agencies, health coverage and Iraq war. Vote McCain or Nader if you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the Constitutiion subverted and America slipping downhill as a democracy.

It' will take time and hard work to get us back on course after the Bush years. Four to eight years of Bush masquerading as McCain and he USA may never get back on an even keel again.

Even if Obama modifies his previous positions, he will still be a better choice than McCain. If it comes down to a choice between evils, grownups choose the lesser evil. Stop whining about the fact that Obama is indeed trimming his sails to catch the breeze and get out there and work for his election.

[rthom]

Dear Santa,
What's with the lump of coal. Looks like a bunch now, with campaign finance, NAFTA, FISA, and now Iraq and abortion. Don't worry though, the Kool-Aid is great!
Merry Christmas,
Virginia

[wdw101]

coal has a high BTU

[rem]

First, let me say that I intend to vote for Barack Obama as well as aggressively support him. However, he needs to take stronger stands. If it truly is the removal of civil liability "potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses." Why not say you would only support the bill if the liability law remains as it is now? That would be taking a stand.

Why must we always be like Charlie Brown and the Republicans always like Lucy taking away the football. It is almost as if GWB is saying "this time I won't remove the football."

"when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountabl­e." --Barack Obama (above)

[lifeinfullcolor]

I remember the Boland Ammendment and how the Reagan administration decided it wasn't necissary to abide by the rules put in place. If Congress continues to slap the wrist and then the people continue to vote them back in office, this country will continue it's downward spiral. The democrats in 2006 were voted in to change the rampant abuse of power the Bush administration with the republican congress were allowed to make. Telecom immunity should have nothing to do with the FISA bill, it makes the bill appear only to be a corporate get out of jail free card. If this democratic congress is sincere about change, then they'll remove the immunity clause, vote on the FISA bill, but not use it as a scare tactic. Mr. Obama, please don't make me have to vote for Nader again, because you show me how simular the democrats are to the republicans, that the only way the people will get back the government is to find a strong third party, please, don't make me, don't change but be the change we've waited for.

[katemadison]

oh please. Vote for Nader if you want to. It worked so well in 2000.

And when President McCain does something you don't like, he'll surely do a lengthy post explaining his reasoning and then you can write to him complaining about how he's not up to your standards.

[Drjimmy72296]

Oh stop it. The Nader cost Gore the election bit is a gigantic steaming pile of you know what.

Nader had nothing to do with Gore's loss. NOTHING. Blame the tens of thousands of South Florida Jews who "voted" for Pat Buchanan. I mean Christ. The Republicans stole the damn election and the Supreme Court let them do it. Nader had nothing to do with it.

Gore is more to blame than Nader. He was an unlikable stiff who couldn't even carry his own damn state. But that's right. He was running to the middle, listening to his consultants.

O bama should wise up and learn from the mistakes that Gore, Kerry and Hillary all made.

[ckfan]

Senator Obama - Thank you for coming to The Huffington Post and presenting your position. You did this knowing you would be criticized by the very voters who supported you in the primary. Has any other candidate ever done this????

[uhappytoo]

Has any other candidate done what? Gone public about a change in position? Did you really ask that? Or are you just limiting it to the three years of HuffPost's existence that would make it impossible for any other presidential candidate from previous elections to have come here?

[deminmo]

The problem is Senator Obama, you are not yet
the President. And these companies that jumped
at the chance to be a part of this survellience, will
not face civil lawsuits, and the people who have
already filed those suits will not see justice. I am
one of those who believe Bush has a lot of time to
poke into American's business in the name of "homeland
security". He has already expanded his powers of
President, so there is no real limit to what he could
chose to do in the next 5 months.

[sclucie]

Here's an idea. Stop. Stop sending those companies your money. Stop writing that montly check. Throw away you cell phone. Stop your wireless internet. Those businesses could not exist without the overwhelming support of the American people and we as culpable as anyone else.

[Drjimmy72296]

So it's not telecoms who spy on people it's people who spy on people.

[kingofscotts]

Good point about him not being President yet.

And the other troubling thing about him saying "when I am sworn in" is what if he IS NOT SWORN IN.

Is he really telling us that there is no possible way he can lose the election?

Because if he does lose and while unlikely it is certainly possible he will have just helped hand this same failed and illegal legislation to McCain.

Also why should we trust Obama to make sure everything is kosher once elected. That's complete b.s.
the point is he doesn't deserve those powers as neither does any other would be POTUS.

I also find the statement "and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe".

He appearantly isn't "convinced" he is "persuaded". Just like Bush was "persuaded" by Cheney et. al. that war with Iraq was a swell idea.

Obama is a joke and will sellout all his supposed convictions to get elected.

And please stop telling us every chance you get that you "organized communities". Those of us from "your community" no it's a b.s. resume stuffer and you didn't actually do much at all.

[Schmanet]

Right now I'm still with you Senator Obama. But I did not knock on doors, make phone calls, and sit at polls for someone who is going to turn into a typical politician. I did all those things for you, because I truly believed you were different. You are the first politician I have volunteered for since Bobby Kennedy, and I'm less than thrilled with your recent direction. Don't forget your base as you go after this nomination. I have been truly proud to support you. Please continue to make us proud!

[MarkInEugene]

Very well said and I completely agree.

We have high hopes for you, Senator Obama, and a lot of my conservative friends are laughing at what they perceive as my gullibility right now. They are using the same adjectives to describe you that I've have used to describe the current administration: manipulative, opportunistic, two-faced, self-serving. I don't believe them.

Please give us the forthright, honorable, ethical, and visionary Administration this country so desperately needs. Please clean up Washington and remove the rot in our institutions. We're counting on you!

[FACINGREALIT]

Exactly what part of the 4th Amendments (probable cause) are you guys missing when you speak of warrentless searches.

Second - FISA 1978 was a foreign intelligence survellience bill which was designed to prescribe procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law)

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 would provide immunity for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other U.S. telecommunications companies against 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government's NSA electronic surveillance program conduct a warrantless spying program after the September 11th attacks.

The bill would also

Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.

Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

Prohibit the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

CORRECT - the ONLY PART OF FISA being disputed is the 40 lawsuits that are pending. FISA does not give immunity going forward - just retroactively to those pending but now provides SAVE GUARDS against FUTURE ABUSE?

How is this abusing 4th Amendment going forward?

[sherbug]

It doesn't violate any 4th Amendment rights. The whole hoop-de-la is about Obama said he would not support granting immunity to telecoms who had broken the law. He said it in recent times and now a faction of his supporters are offended that he now support the Bill granting immunity.

Obama explained that he will support this Bill because the ability to wiretap at all is due to expire soon. To withhold support because the telecoms will not be retroactively prosecuted would not serve the greater good. Accept or reject his explanation, it is what it is and this Bill will most likely pass the Senate.

The faction of Obama supporters who consider this to be a deal breaker are not calling for the heads of the House of Representative who passed this Bill. They are not calling for the head of G.W. Bush who asked for this Bill. No, they are calling for the head of Obama because they feel Obama will do anything to win.

[TonalCrow]

Quote:
------
It doesn't violate any 4th Amendment rights.
------

The bill permits the warrantless interception of all of our foreign communications (e.g., your visits to many websites) and probably most of our domestic communications, their infinite retention, and their use to, among other things, initiate criminal investigations. The communications collected can include anything, including conversations with your doctor, your psychiatrist, your pastor -- and your lawyer.

That "doesn't violate any 4th Amendment rights" only for the uninformed, the mendacious, and the lovers of tyranny.

[uhappytoo]

You are correct when you note that the current legislation extends the 72-hour period of "free" surveillance to 7 days. But you only hit the edge of the 30-day extension. The new law would permit the government to start a wire tap, wait 7 days before submitting an application for the tap, and then the court has 30 days more to review the request. In some cases the 30 days can be extended.

That allows a potential illegal wire tap to be in place for as long as 60 days before the FISA court orders it removed. This bill increases the potential for abuse. Especially now that a federal judge ruled last week that the existing FISA is the law of the land, and that all presidents must abide by it and it alone. That completely sets aside Bush's Article II argument that he said gave him the power to do anything he pleases while acting as commander in chief.

Barack Obama has only argued that we should have a FISA law, while making no argument as to why the existing one should be replaced.

[sclucie]

And exactly how did you acccess this site?

[DonDavis]

Bushies Spy on Obama’s Website, to See Who Opposes Spying
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1983

[3arthling]

Funny, in a "gee, I hope this isn't actually happening" kind of way.

[Bub]

Senator Obama:

You don't have to move to the right to broaden your appeal. The right's policies have produced nothing but a train wreck. The nation is moving to the left. If you stand tall, and stand pat, they will come to you. It was already happening before you moved to the right, you already had a double digit lead.

If you move to the right while the public moves to the left, what left is their for them to choose from? When you move to the right, you are, in fact, to some matter of degree, endorsing your opponent.

You ran for the nomination of the Democratic party. You got it. Now your job is to sell Democratic ideals and policies to the general public. We're not talking Marx and Lenin, we're talking Roosevelt and Truman. We chose you because you are a great communicator. It shouldn't be to hard to sell peace and prosperity to the public, especially these days, especially with someone with your talent.

Reagan didn't get elected selling a refined version of the welfare state. He got elected selling people on his principles, not him adopting other peoples principles. When you move to the right, you dilute your own brand and you endorse that of your opponent.

I can't fault you in what you are doing. Lots of Dems have tried it before. Kerry most recently. Good luck with that.

.

[3arthling]

Amen.

[wadenelson1]

I'm one more, Obama. Give the telcom's immunity for wiretapping, in VIOLATION of the Constitution, and you're losing my vote.

If YOU are not the candidate who will stand up to protect our freedom, then who will? You can, you will, you must.

[fumes]

the only presidential candidate that wanted the federal government out of our lives FOR REAL got tossed under that bus last january ~ dr ron paul of texas ~ our loss!

[kevenseven]

Barack:

I want to make this clear for you:

Your position on FISA s u c k s!

[fumes]

second that!!

[sandman323]

Thanks for the explanation, Sen. Obama. But you must understand that if you really believe in the rights of the American people, you would never vote for a bill that infringes upon those rights. It's great that you are willing to compromise, but on some issues, you cannot compromise.

I would rather you compromise with the retroactive telecom immunity, rather than compromising our privacy rights. Instead, the American people will certainly lose on both accounts, because too many legislators seem that they are too afraid to fight even telecom immunity, fully. Almost all I see is lip-service.

Don't just assume that the American people-right, left, or center-will trust you just because you are different than Bush. Americans trust politicians and their government very little these days. You must earn that trust, and this is not the way to go. At least that is my opinion, for I represent no one but me.

I will still vote for you, Sen. Obama, but I am deeply troubled by this decision.

[marykins123]

Thanks Barack, for the explanation. One thing I appreciate, and one we have lacked in our White House, is honest rhetoric with we the American citizens. When you become President of our nation, please use this kind of talking "with" the leaders of the world. These leaders of world powers I am certain are as turned off as I have been with the way Bush/Cheney talk "at" you and give the "my way or the highway". Thank you again.....­and go get um.......1­97 days until you take the oath of this fine nation!!!