Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Hillary's Statement on FISA
NOTE: I am an Internet Adviser to Hillary.
I wanted to share a statement Hillary just put out on her FISA 'no' vote:
July 9, 2008
One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.
The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration's surveillance activities. Some of the legislation's provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration's surveillance activities.
While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the president's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.
But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens -- and in particular to New Yorkers -- all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.
Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used -- and used within the law -- for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.
====
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
give me a break. Obama flipping on FISA and Hillary voting against it DOES NOT mean Hillary was better, it means Obama was worse than thought. Now they are both similar political triangulators. She voted for Iran last year and for Iraq in '02. This makes OBama liek her for certain but doesn't make Hillary any better. Nor make McCain better, he sounds more and more like he is in nursery school every day. Did you see the Vetran guy dismantle his fabrications vis a vis McCain's record with Vets, on their issues? If media was truthful he would be trailing Barr. If Obama had any confidence in the reason he was popular he wouldn't be shifting.
Look, an intern to Senator Lugar who campaigned last time for Lieberman, I never really bought he was more liberal than Teddy Kenney, Bernie Saunders, Feingold, Boxer, etc. He is a politician and all I hope is if he wins, just by being black he will move the country forward. I do now fear his Supreme Court appointments maay be closer to Scalia than Marshall...
Thank you Senator Clinton. I appreciate your courageous stand on this legislative travesty. If only a majority of your colleagues had the same courage.
They don't. And the Obamites don't know what the heck hit them.
I never knew payback would come so quickly. Watch as the Obama Cult runs in circles, screams and shouts, all the while trying to act snarky and cool.
It just gets better by the minute.
I'm still for Hill
And this is just another reason why
If Hillary was the "presumptive" Dem nominee, she would have voted EXACTLY as Obama did. Her losing made it SOOO much easier to take the "high" road on this one.
Why do I say this?
Simple. The GOP willattack on the Security front at every chance and no Dem nominee for POTUS want to llok as if they are doing anything to retard that process. As bad as FISA is, most of the sheep in the masses don't know, don't care and don't reall ywant to know. Just as long as they get the feeling the Govt is doing something to protect them.
Those of us that really know, really care and erally want to know - do not number enough to make anyone the POTUS. Therefore, ANY Dem nominee is pretty much forced into voting "YES" on pieces of crap legislation like FISA.
Our best bet is to get a Dem (Obama) into the White House and hopefully then he and Congress can make the necessary changes to FISA that is needed. The unfortuante thing is that it is much harder to change it, as Russ Feingold stated on Countdown (if I remember correctly) last night. Feingold also stated that there is a bigger chance of amending FISA after the fact, if Obama is POTUS.
Exactly! I believe she would have voted the way that would have been the easiest politically, even though both she and Obama seem to share the same views about the bill.
I agree, and yet... the fact is no matter how it's spun, she remained consistent and Obama looked weak.
I pray to God she doesn't think she is getting back into the race because of this. I don't trust her.
I don't agree. Hillary made her position on FISA crystal clear in the primaries. Her vote and her reasoning is entirely consistent.
She delivered.
If you see her, please thank her for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq. That worked out real well.
Twenty eight Senators DIDN"T and Hillary isn't the only one who COULD be nominated by Democrats in the Convention in Denver. Obama has chosen, as he has shown ever since Hillary suspended her campaign, that he is going to tougher than George Bush, more militaristic than Donald Rumsfeld, and way smarter than Carl Rove. How any of his supporters can justify this man's unmasking of himself as the man to complete George Bush's third term beats me. But Obama has worked hard to present himself as some sort of magical leader, not a politician, but a statesman. Yet we have his recent moves to the right.....NOT to the center....BUT to the RIGHT, and the FISA bill is just exactly what I and many other Clinton Democrats feared from the beginning.
I thought Obama was different??? I thought Obama's excuse for voting present so many times were because he opposed parts of bills etc..???
Also, HRC would not have voted differently she co-sponsored Dodds Bill for crying out loud. It's just more excuses for King Obama's flip flopping. Lie Lie Deny Deny
You make yourself sound ignorant when you bring up the "present" votes in the Illinois State Legislature. He only voted "present" less than 3% of the time. That hardly qualifies as "so many."
The right wingnuts are going to lambast Sen. Obama as weak on defense ANYWAY! No matter what he says or does to try and appease them, that will be one of their attacks. So, why not take on one of their attacks, i.e., he's a man of little conviction who votes this way or that, says this or that just to get votes, by standing up for our Constitution? No, he just bowed down to King George the Stupid as did way too many of his colleagues. Sen. O -- I'm going to remember this and I will not forgive you!
I noticed, however, that Senator Clinton was silent on the merits of the FISA bill prior to the actual vote. I could find no evidence of her attempting to slow the progress of this bill as Sen. Feingold did. That being the case, this self-serving statement smells a little bit like Monday morning quarterbacking.
As is usual, you have ignored the facts. Ms. Clinton said during the primary season she would not vote to re-authorize the FISA act. And she did not waver.
The first reworking of FISA which passed the Senate, had Hillary voting yes and Barack voting no. They both flipped!
No, Funky, just not true. Your idealistic, firm, statesmanlike, Messiahlike Obama flipped. Clinton has always called for a FISA bill that doesn't destroy American privacy and civil rights but still protects our national security, and if you read the above blog you will see that she is still calling for that but not this "compromise" bill. Amazing to me that all of the Obamacons here on HuffPo, for the most part, are unable to pass any criticism on this man, try to tar Hillary with the brush they should be using on Obama.
I can't believe I ever supported or worked on the campaign for Clinton! Some of us finally realized that she will do anything to get control and we quit. We saw what she was really like behind the scenes, and had had enough. You can say what you like about how wonderful she is, but in private she's manipulative and will bad-mouth anyone to be in control. At least Sen. Obama isn't afraid to vote differently on some issues than the Washington Democratic "old-timers," and will explain his reasons openly. As Sen. Feingold said on TV, he's for Obama and thinks that if he's president, he will very likely go after the telecoms and those in the present administration through the courts. As for us losing our freedoms, Bush has already taken them away, so it's no different than it has been for some time. And you can't count on McCain to be any different than Bush. My best hope right now is Sen. Obama.
So, basically all of the arguments from Obamanation is...
Hillary voted against taking away our rights, for all of the wrong reasons.
Obama voted for taking away our rights, for all of the right reasons.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
You've got it! That flows from the basic rule of thumb. Hillary is always wrong. Obama is always right.
Good God, you are such a drama queen.
Whereas you're a rational queen?
Sorry, Mr. Daou, Hillary Clinton is a political opportunist of the first rank. If the situation were reversed and Clinton were the presumptive nominee of the party, she would have done exactly what Obama has done (and maybe vice versa for him!) Obama has taken the stand he has because if he had voted no on FISA, the Republicans would have battered him to hell in the general election as being unpatriotic, soft on terrorism, and possibly a closet Muslim. As it is, he is "damned if you do and damned if you don't do" because they are now charging him with being a flip-flopper. Hillary Clinton not only ran to the center early during the primary season, she ran to the right with her votes on Iraq and Iran. God knows how much further right she would have had to run if she were the nominee. What is certain is that she would not have turned to pleasing the liberal and progressive bloggers.
And I'd like to point out to the Obama bashers that in his first statement on how he was going to vote there was buried a little comment that when he became president, he would review the law. I would rather Obama become president now and show that he is right later. Sorry, that's just the way you have to deal with the Republicans.
another one who knows nothing about how hard Hillary works!! We will soon see who the real oppurtunist is!!
The Republicans are battering him now for being the worst flip-flopper in presidential history! I hardly think his vote was an attempt to avoid their criticism. If so, then he's pretty darn stupid. Any politician who makes emphatic statements about his position, reverses that position, and doesn't even attempt to offer a reasonable explanation is due criticism.
He earned this black mark.
Why he did it? I haven't a clue, other than Pelosi wanted it. He owes her big-time. He also has many contributers from the telecom industry. I'd suggest that money talks. Mostly, I think he wants the power of the bill if he's president. They nearly always do.
The criticism against Hillary and her vote and her thoughtful analysis as to why she voted the way she did is nothing short of pettiness. It's so obvious that bloggers are steamed that she remained consistent with her stated position prior to the vote. She actually walked her talk.
Now that she's back in the Senate, is she going to co-sponsor another bill to make flag burning illegal?
nk007--Slow down, sparky. No one is looking to deny Obama the nomination. This issue is much bigger than the election. Your knee-crooking deference to Obama is naive and distrurbing. Why are you incapable of seeing that Obama played progressives for fools in the primary: NAFTA gate, AIPAC, faith-based initiatives, and the FISA vote all paint the portrait of a caluclating, convictionless individual who relied on corporate-style sloganeering and feel-good advertising to cloud where he stands on some of the central challenges that face the country. Or perhaps they paint the picture of someone who did represent his beliefs faithfully, but who lacks the courage and conviction to carry them out. Many of us have written to Obama to express our disapproval of his vote (which I think hurts his chances in November). Will you?
Obama didn't play anyone for fools. Those of us who actually took the time to read about his past and look at his records knew all along that was not nearly as progressive as many other candidates--particularly Edwards. I didn't support Obama because he was the most progressive, hardly, if anything I disagreed with his positions more than I did Clinton's. However, knowing that I had more disagreements with him than with other candidates I still chose to support him for reasons other than how progressive he is. I'm not going to go into all of those reasons because they seem to be lost on those who oppose him no matter how it's spelled out. Just know that neither I nor anyone I know who actually looked into the man's positions were not fooled and are not feeling betrayed. Just because Republicans say he's the most liberal senator, doesn't make it so.
hey Camel54--I would be very interested to know why you voted for a candidate when you didn't agree with where he stood on most of the issues. identity politics, perhaps?? swept up in the religious fervor of the campaign?? prefer the glossy, substance-free approach to primary campaigning?? Obama made you feel good?? It would be great to know why you treat your democracy so trivially.
All of a sudden Hillary wants to defend the constitution. Good. Let her go back to the senate and take up the work of Senator Kennedy. Hillary could be a great blessing to us all if she would apply her experience on behalf of the people instead of thinking just of herself.
you are kidding - right? Have you any idea how hard Hillary works? Obviously NOT!!
America is foolish for not nominating her - but democrats are good at being stupid!!
Hard work does not a wiseman make!
America dodged a bullet by not nominating her.
I imagine it is hard for supporters of Obama, some of whom voted out of a genuine sense of idealism, to accept the grave consequences of his vote. What makes this vote especially galling is Obama's craven reversal of an earlier promise to filibuster any bill with telecom immunity, his calcuated pandering to liberal democrats in the primary, his lack of conviction even though he is supposedly a scholar of constitutional law.
As for Clinton and the other democrats who voted to protect our rights: yes, many of them did authorize the use of force in Iraq. But let's take a step back. Who would have ever thought that Bush would occupy Iraq with large numbers of soldiers for this long? The military itself was completely unprepared for such an event, which is why they had not post-Hussein plan of action. It was a bad, short-sighted vote, but it was not one that consciously undermined the freedoms that our country was based on. It is stupid to dismiss the votes of the few senators who showed more courage than Obama yesterday because "voted for the war."
For those of you who claim that Clinton and the other democrats who voted against increased government surveillance and the gutting of checks and balances "had nothing to lose" with their vote:
THEY ALSO HAD NOTHING TO GAIN. The only thing that can be said about Obama is that, on this issue, he is no worse than McCain.
voting to give the president war powers - without a vote by congress to declare war - is indeed a subjugation of the checks and balances between branches of government - and a grave one. So, I reject at least some of the thesis here. Had Mrs. Clinton written this during the primary - or had she voted against the earlier versions of the bill - this vote (the correct vote) would seem less political and more principled.
Having said that, I'm sorely disappointed in Obama for this stance. I think he's wrong - both on the merits and the politics. However, since Mr. McCain is wrong about EVERYTHING, I'll be supporting Mr. Obama come November.
I agree with fnygy regarding the McCain alternative. And though I wish Obama would have voted no, I'm not mad or hurt or betrayed or even all that concerned. BushCo has done far worse for which they should have been impeached and probably imprisoned. This issue is among the slightest of his offenses. Besides, not being able to attack a telecom in a civil suit is not really the biggest deal that ever was. Honestly, I don't know what would be gained by destroying some of the largest companies in the country. Their behavior may be deplorable, but the economy is bad enough at the moment. And honestly, look how awful Enron was and look how few people actually paid for that. Did that return any of the life-destroying-money-losses to the people? Nope.
People are losing their homes because they can't afford heating fuel. They're losing jobs b/c they can't afford gas. They're not eating b/c they can't afford to. They're losing jobs because jobs are not available. People are dying in a war that should never have happened. Again, is FISA worth destroying our candidate?
LOL
Congratulations, this is the most ridiculous post I've read today.
Thanks for admitting you don't read your own postings.
I hope they are wiretapping all the Obama supporters now! ROFLMAO! Bring Back the Draft! - Draft the Nation of Obama! McCain '08
Is FISA the catastrophic event that Hillary Clinton supporters have been looking for to deny Obama the nomination and instead nominate Hillary? All over the progressive sites Obama is being attacked mercilessly. I wish Obama had voted against the FISA bill. But, honestly is this such a monumental issue? Even if Obama voted nay the bill would have still passed. Obama voted against the the immunity provisions. Is the FISA vote really comparable to the Iraq war vote? Personally I think that voting to go to war, or voting to confirm the likes of John Roberts and samuel Alito have more lasting impact than votinf for a FISA bill than can be changed by the next congress. The over 4000 soldiers who have died in Iraq cannot be brought back, nor can that the thousands of those maimed and injured be made whole again. Confirming a Supreme Court justice, who serves for life is equally devastating. Yet some of the people I have the greatest respect like Feingold voted to confirm Roberts. Of course Clinton, Dood, Edwards and others voted for the war. Personally I would take the FISA vote over the Iraq war, or the Supreme Court confirmation, because it is reversible. Any coup to deny Obama the nomination over FISA would nothing but destroy the Democratic party.
What can you say. Many Dems were naive, because they still want to believe their party has not yet been hijacked. Trouble is, Nader was right, and he will continue to be hung out to dry for it.
Two parties, one corporate master. (And a strong pro-Israel lobby to keep them in line if "the companies" fail to do so.) Enjoy your new America folks!
Throw the Fed in there also :)
Why did he vote for this travesty??? Explain please.
Because even though there are 23,000 people on his site who wanted him to vote no, there are 100 million average Americans who would rather feel safe and would rather not face more economic destruction by civil lawsuits brought on by millions of people trying to use this opportunity to make a few free dollars and claim they give a shit that someone listened to them talk to their mistresses.
Travesty is a bit dramatic I think. A travesty is a person choosing to forgo medical care they can't afford and choosing to die so they don't leave their family homeless because of the bills. A travesty is the thousands of soldiers maimed in Iraq and not receiving proper support from the government that lied to them and put them in that position.
Obama was not in the senate at the time of the vote for war. It's easy for him to say that he didn't agree and wouldn't have voted for the war back then. If he easily changed his position on the FISA bill, then I'm positive he would have voted for the Iraq war if present and along with his coleagues. And even if he didn't, his position on withdrawing troops and ending the war will be "redefined" when he returns from Iraq this summer.
As for the democratic party being destroyed by disenchanted voters, the DNC has only themselves to blame and is the sole culprit for destroying themselves!
She votes for the disastrous war in Iraq, and suddenly gets a conscience with the FISA Bill.
Yeah, r-i-i-i-g-h-t!
It seems Obama supporters are incapable of getting facts straight.
No, we get the fact straight. We just can't puncture the fantasy world Clinton supporter live in.
Loading comments…
I'm pleased to announce the launch today of two new HuffPost...
Long before $150,000-gate, Sarah Palin seemed to...
The Obamas dropped by the Vatican on Friday, with daughters...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
I was sorry to watch, live on CNN, Edward R. Murrow and Emmy Award-winning broadcaster and...
I never actually heard the words made famous by a certain man on a certain TV show. Instead I got a lot...
Jim Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for...
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's...
Hermione herself, Emma Watson, charmed David Letterman and...
Think Progress flags David Brooks telling...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
The Daily Show's John Oliver is unhappy with mainstream journalism, and even drearier...
It's summer, the time for weddings! A few of my friends are getting married this summer and fall, so lately...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
In an interview this week with Good Morning America Warren Buffett, the legendary...
"What's for dinner?" A lot of us ask that question right...
Posted July 9, 2008 | 04:57 PM (EST)