Pretty disappointing. I haven't had time to read a lot on this, but in what substantive sense is this a compromise? Does anybody know of an analysis of what Obama's thinking is on supporting this travesty? Or is it just the normal fear of being seen too left on the issue when he's trying to move to the center? It's not a matter of left or right; it's a matter of right and wrong, and there are only bad reasons for supporting this bill that I can see. I mean even the Cato Institute is against this thing.
So this is a big deal; it's not just a pick your battles kind of choice when other battles are more important. This one is very, very important. And I would say the equivalent of voting yea or nay on the war. He wasn't in the Senate when he opposed the war and so was not didn't feel the pressure he's feeling today–makes you wonder if he would have voted against the war if he had been in the senate at that time. We need somebody with a high profile to stand up against the cronyism that is driving this legislation. This is all about the continuing agenda of the right to lay the infrastructure for the future, and the Dems are collaborating for no more lofty reason that to cover their butts. It's nauseating.
Look I know Obama has got tough choices in often no-win situations, and I know that he is going to disappoint us time and time again. And I know that he says he wants to work to remove the immunity part of the bill. But he has not said he will not vote for it if immunity is in the final bill, and the immunity part isn't the only disturbing aspect of the bill–the warrantless wiretaps part of it is, and if there is a compromise here, it's in the details not in the substance from everything I've read about it.
I, of course, continue to think that his candidacy offers so much more potential than any one else's out there, but this is still a big, big disappointment. I see it as a missed opporttunity. We need him to get out in front of this issue and give a speech about what's at stake rather than hiding in the crowd as he's doing now. He's a constitutional lawyer fergawdsakes–he knows what's at stake, and he's hiding.
Don't have time to say anymore on this, but what is there to say. Interested to hear from anybody if there's an angle I'm missing.
UPDATE: From Obama's statement:
"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.
Greenwald says to the contrary:
This whole controversy began because George Bush, in December of 2005, got caught breaking our spying laws for years. He did so because he embraced a radical and un-American theory that asserted he has the power to break all of our laws provided such lawbreaking is, in his view, related to "defense of the nation." That lawbreaking theory is at the heart of virtually every major controversy of the last seven years, and it remains entirely in tact and preserved:
At the meeting [with the DOJ], Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, "is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president's Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence. [NYT August 19, 2007]
This scandal began by revelations that the President broke the law — committed felonies — when spying on our calls and emails without warrants, because he believes he has the power to break the law. The scandal all but concluded yesterday, with the Democratic Congress (a) protecting the President, (b) permanently blocking the lawsuits which would have revealed what he did and would have ruled that he broke the law, and (c) legalizing the very illegal spying regime that he secretly ordered in 2001. Only in the twisted world of Washington can that be described as a "compromise."
Here's the precedent that's being set: Whenever the president orders someone to do something, it's legal no matter how illegal in fact it is. Think for a moment the kinds of abuses that will flow from this.
Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller really want this for their own reasons, so Obama's doesn't want to rock the boat. End of story.
UPDATE 2: Here's Hurley on Olbermann's show last night:
UPDATE 3: Balkin's pretty cynical take:
Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office.
Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway. Read more.
I doubt there is any evidence to support this. I assume it's Balkin's basic take on lhuman nature that any executive when offered more power and less hassles to maneuver in any way he can will not turn down that power. Obama, for instance, isn't turning down all that extra money he'll be getting by opting out of public financing. So if Balkin is right, it's pretty disturbing: "Just give me the power. I'll use it well. . . honest." Even if BO does, what about the next guy? It's all about laying the infrastructure.
I'll be interested to see how hard he works next week to remove the immunity sections of this bill.
Leave a Reply