Presidential candidate Barak Obama has made a statement of
support for the FISA Domestic Spying Compromise Bill, angering
liberals who would still like to prosecute telecom companies that
cooperated in warrantless spying. The bill passed with a 2:1
majority in the House, with 105 Democrats, including Nancy
Pelosi, voting for it.
Senator Obama said, in a written statement (reproduced
below), that he'd work in the senate to remove telecom
immunity before they pass the bill.
I'm sure the powerful will sleep well tonight, knowing that
if they commit a crime, showing contempt for the
constitution of this nation, they can convince a House of
Representatives dominated by their opposing party to vote them
immunity after the fact. And even the opposition presidential
candidate will support it.
Here is Obama's statement:
"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 today 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 will work in the Senate to remove this provision
so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. 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."
Does this mean all the Obama love is gone from technocrat?
I was listening to the liberal media earlier and they were making
the claim that not only was this an issue that the Dems wanted to
go away (because they were fully aware it was going on and did
nothing) but also needed to look 'tough' on the
terrorists so as to not concede that point to McBush.
The telcoms spent a few million in lobby dollars and saved
themselves a few billion in lawsuit payments.
And this is why i vote independant. they may be kooky, or just
plain nuts, but at least thats a shakeup from Major Corruption
and Minor Corruption. maybe the voters will get a clue this time.
It's not just "liberals" who believe in the rule of
law.
Bruce Fein was Reagan's deputy Attorney General. In the
next-to-last paragraph of Bruce Fein's
statement about FISA to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he
says "It would be a terrible blow to the rule of law to
shield from redress conduct known to the perpetrator to have been
lawless."
I agree. I believe that it is irresponsible to use the
terms "right" and "left" as they have been
here, not least because of the effect on the excluded.
In this case, someone who cares somewhat about civil liberties
and the rule of law, but who deems themselves to be on the right,
is being dared to defend things that s/he would rather not
defend. This has to have the result, over time, of creating
unnecessary foes as rationalisation does its work.
The modern "Left" and modern "Right" are
opposite sides of the same wooden nickel. They *both* believe in
big government, they just want different aspects of it big: tit
vs. ass men, if you will forgive the crude analogy —
neither want government to be slim and trim.
And for all the rhetoric about this being a Christian Nation,
none seem to be for the concept of subsidarity- that goods and
services, including government, should be provided by the
smallest possible unit of society.
No, it's reasonable given the context. Obama, the great
liberal hope, has come out in favour of a relatively draconian
law that legitimizes some of Bush's excesses over the last
eight years.
So we're pissed.
Whether the right is pissed too is neither here nor there. Obama
is not a candidate of the right. And, frankly, he hasn't
angered the right any more than McCain angers the left when he
makes a policy pronouncement those of us who are on the left
disagree with. We don't expect McCain to be our candidate, we
expect Obama to be it.
So let's not turn this into a "Wah! Wah! Someone said
something that implies the left are in favour of civil liberties
and the rule of law when some people on the right are too"
bitchfest. That's not what this article is implying or is
about. It's about the fact that our candidate has,
apparently, betrayed us. Let us hope that this is false, and
Obama really will do something effective to undermine this bill.
"I'm sure the powerful will sleep well tonight, knowing
that if they commit a crime, showing contempt for the
constitution of this nation, they can convince a House of
Representatives dominated by their opposing party to vote them
immunity after the fact. And even the opposition presidential
candidate will support it."
See, I think that is where you make your mistake...
The democrats are just as much for the rich and powerful
as the republicans. Sometimes a different "group" of
the rich and powerful, sometimes not, but still the rich and
powerful.
The eagerness to capitulate by the Democrats has been apparent
since Reid was forcing Dodd to filibuster the first go
round. I honestly believe that if the truth were to come
out, that top Dems themselves fear retribution for their
complicity in Bush's illegal spying activities.
This whole thing smacks of CYA bit by both parties so they
don't end up seeing the inside of jail cell.
He said it's an improvement (while far from perfect). He did
indicate overall support, but he also indicated that he wants the
retroactive immunity for telcos removed (as a Senator, he had no
part in the House dabates). He did not say how he would feel
about it if the retroactive immunity is not removed. I would like
a direct answer to that.
He did indicate support for the conmtinuation of FISA which I
have more than a few reservations over.
I would be a lot happier to have him take a hard line stance
against immunity and to insist on dismantling the secret nature
of FISA (perhaps a manditory delayed disclosure of the
proceedings with checks to make sure it happens). However,
I'd like to see how it plays out and/or hear more before
judging him TOO harshly here. Perhaps he's afraid it's
the best we can do with so many lifetime members the rubber spine
club in congress.
Obama Supports FISA Domestic Spying Compromise Bill, Angering Left
Presidential candidate Barak Obama has made a statement of support for the FISA Domestic Spying Compromise Bill, angering liberals who would still like to prosecute telecom companies that cooperated in warrantless spying. The bill passed with a 2:1 majority in the House, with 105 Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, voting for it.
Senator Obama said, in a written statement (reproduced below), that he'd work in the senate to remove telecom immunity before they pass the bill.
I'm sure the powerful will sleep well tonight, knowing that if they commit a crime, showing contempt for the constitution of this nation, they can convince a House of Representatives dominated by their opposing party to vote them immunity after the fact. And even the opposition presidential candidate will support it.
Here is Obama's statement:
"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 today 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 will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. 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."