Reply
Fri 4 Jul, 2008 08:38 am
Barack Obama re FISA
7/3/08
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 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.
BBB, Thanks for sharing Obama's explanation of why he voted for the revised FISA legislation. It eased my mind a bit knowing that he didn't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize anything.
How so? Maybe you have a better handle on how to outlaw FISA altogether.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize anything.
He made a compromise. I guess you feel that there's no room for that sort of thing in politics. I guess we shouldn't expect anything different from a supporter of King Bush.
Never underestimate the ability of people to rationalize.
It's up to you to decide whether or not you are rationalizing.
Whether you are or not is not dependent upon what I think.
Finn, Why even bother posting your nothings?
Obama's FISA Shift
July 09, 2008 10:14 AM
"To be clear," Sen. Barack Obama. D-Illinois, spox Bill Burton told Talking Points Memo last October about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, "Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
Reaffirmed Obama's Senate office in December: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same...Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."
In February Obama voted in favor of the an amendment from Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., to repeal retroactive immunity for telecoms, saying, "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law. We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties."
**
Free from the political pressures of the Democratic primaries, Obama now says he will vote for the FISA bill even if it doesn't include retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
And moreover, he will no longer support a filibuster of the bill if it doesn't include telecom immunity.
"My view on FISA has always been that the issue with phone companies per se is not one that overrides security interests of the American people," Obama told reporters on June 25. "It is a close call for me but I think the current legislation with exclusivity provision that says that a president -- whether George Bush, myself or John McCain -- can't make up rationales for getting around FISA court, can't suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."
Obama also said the FISA compromise was an improvement since it would put an "inspector general in place to investigate what happened previously gives us insight what has happened retrospectively. So, you know, that in my mind met my basic concerns and given that all the information I received is the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them. I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise."
This has disappointed and upset Obama's liberal supporters -- here's a sample, with Kos hashing it all out on Olbermann.
Or check out the largest social network on Obama's own website -- the 23,000-plus-member strong "SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA."
Here are the votes today:
* The Dodd-Feingold amendment to strike the FISA bill's legal immunity for telecoms;
* An amendment from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pen., to limit retroactive immunity for providing assistance to the United States to instances in which a Federal court determines the assistance was provided in connection with an intelligence activity that was constitutional;
* An amendment from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, to stay pending cases against certain telecommunications companies and provide that such companies may not seek retroactive immunity until 90 days after the date the final report of the Inspectors General on the President's Surveillance Program is submitted to Congress
That will be followed by a motion to invoke cloture on the full bill (H.R. 6304) as amended -- if amended. This is the "filibuster" vote -- to vote for cloture is to vote against a filibuster.
Feingold, for example, will vote against cloture, which requires 60 votes.
If cloture is invoked there will then be a roll-call vote on final passage of the bill.
How will Sen. Obama vote on all these measures?
He will support the Dodd-Feingold, Specter, and Bingaman amendments.
Then regardless of how those amendments fare he will vote to invoke cloture -- voting against a filibuster -- and for final passage of the bill.
Meanwhile
out on the campaign trail, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, will miss all of today's votes.
I am impressed with Obama's ability to talk, without resorting to succinct statements. If he gets elected, I personally would like a Sunday morning news show with him as host: Meet the President, or some such catchy title.
This is what I received today by email from the Obama campaign:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.
We appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Obama for America,
---
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
----------------------
Paid for by Obama for America
cicerone imposter wrote:This is what I received today by email from the Obama campaign:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.
We appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Obama for America,
---
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
----------------------
Paid for by Obama for America
Would it not have been nicer to receive it by snail mail? Something for future generations to read as part of the historical record of this election, I would think. Regardless, the whole idea of explaining one's decisions may be good subject matter for many e-mails. I think I can send many e-mails regarding why I bought one brand of bread over another brand. There are so many unanswered questions regarding one's choices when shopping for groceries.
Foofie, Do you understand the very common idea about throwing the baby out with the bath water? In politics, it's impossible to get 100% of what we want, because the democrats and republicans are poles apart on most issues.
Do you also understand the philosophy of a democracy? It's called compromise; without it, nothing happens.
with bush or mccain or even hillary it would be selling out...... with obama it's smart compromise..
wee...wee...wee....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:with bush or mccain or even hillary it would be selling out...... with obama it's smart compromise..
wee...wee...wee....
So you don't like Obama, or his supporters? I'm really not sure where you stand, Bear--but 1,000 more posts of this nature might help me get a better idea.
But staying on topic, I do indeed wonder how Obama would have voted on the issue had he not been running for President. That's not to say I would prefer him to live up to Obama-detractors' caricatures of what he "should" be, some unrealistic ideal, instead of a skillful politician. He has to get elected after all, and thus must work on millions of morons who are influenced by soundbites and total idiots like the Swiftboat Asstards for Douche. Does his position on the issue make me uncomfortable? Yes, slightly.
Gargamel wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:with bush or mccain or even hillary it would be selling out...... with obama it's smart compromise..
wee...wee...wee....
So you don't like Obama, or his supporters? I'm really not sure where you stand, Bear--but 1,000 more posts of this nature might help me get a better idea.
But staying on topic, I do indeed wonder how Obama would have voted on the issue had he not been running for President. That's not to say I would prefer him to live up to Obama-detractors' caricatures of what he "should" be, some unrealistic ideal, instead of a skillful politician. He has to get elected after all, and thus must work on millions of morons who are influenced by soundbites and total idiots like the Swiftboat Asstards for Douche. Does his position on the issue make me uncomfortable? Yes, slightly.
I'll see what I can do for you gargamel... how can I resist responding to such cutting edge sarcasm? :wink:
I have many many reasonable friends who support obama.... I like all of them.
Every day Obama shows himself to be a regular politician who will do what ALL regular politicians do... which is say whatever is necessary to get elected, because he wants school to be closed on his birthday. Nothing wrong with that.
But garg old buddy, as long as the obama zealots continue to treat him the same way the bush zealots treated georgie, the longer I'll keep pointing it out to you..... to my delight.
And who better to do so than one of such objectivity?
When we count up the goofs and gaffs of the past week for Obama and McCain, it looks like McCain leads the polls with Gramm's "whiney" and McCain's declaration of economic ignorance and forgetfulness which is becoming more frequent. And people want McCain as our president?
Obama looks better and better as we get closer to November.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace