Slashdot Mirror
Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support
Corrupt writes "I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep."
When you vote for a bill you don't get to pick and choose what sections you are voting for. It's all or nothing.
Obama voted for an amendment which would remove the telecom immunity provision of the bill, but it didn't pass. So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror, he voted for the bill as a whole.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/07/10/MN3H11ME7C.DTL
As his campaign manager said:
Sen. Obama has said before that the compromise bill is not perfect. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, Sen. Obama chose to support the FISA compromise."
Opponents, including Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., argued that a legal exemption is at best premature, because details of the wiretapping program are not yet fully known. But a Dodd amendment that would have stripped out the immunity title received just 32 votes, all of them from Democrats, including Obama, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt.
Tell him so.
It is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
It is the laws that govern how the government may snoop on communications made by people who are not citizens of the United States.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it:
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 (PDF)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 Iâ(TM)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,
Apparently you do not understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
This roe over domestic spying is a smear no more fair or accurate that the swift boat campaign against Kerry. It simply is not a true characterization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The whole idea behind TSP is that NSA intercepts communications over US based fiber infrastructure originating at foreign sources. Any intercepts of US persons are accidents and discarded. Further, no evidence accidentally collected on a US person may be used in court, nor may it be communicated to any officer of government investigating any crime but terrorism.
Calling this domestic spying does severe semantic damage to our language, and THAT is a danger to our freedom. Newspeak people.
FISA's role in this endeavor is whether TSP requires court orders preceding each and every intercept. The FISA courts cannot authorized "domestic spying". There is not a domestic spying component to these programs.
Your missing one: He can vote "Present".
So basically he voted for this to undo things from the bill from last year. If this bill failed a worse one was in the works that the Bush gang would have liked to see get passed. So I'm guessing if Dems started to vote ageist it GOP members (who wanted the worse one) would have voted ageist this one. The dems might have been able to dead lock things but that might have meant that the NSA could continue to do wire taps with out restriction. Personally I'm not at all happy about this but I think he did the best he could and I still think that he will do more to undo the abuse once in office.
What COULD he do? As a Senator, he could only do 3 things;
Vote for amendments eliminating the immunity provision (He did)
Good.
Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)
"precious tools"? The ability to spy on Americans, in violation of their rights guaranteed by Amendment IV to the United States Constitution? It's not like the requirements to get a FISA warrant (someone with a pulse to stand in front of a secret court and say "gimme" at some point not necessarily before you started spying) were exactly onerous.
Vote FOR the bill and bide his time (He did)
He could have voted AGAINST the bill, knowing full well that it'll pass, but sticking to what he said he'd do, and differentiating himself from his unpopular predecessor and his main competition.
He could have SPOKE against the bill, supporting the filibuster and calling out those members of his Party that were letting people off the hook for committing felonies and letting the Government off the hook for violating the Constitution. He really does speak well, and he chose not to speak here.
The man would not have lost political capital by opposing the least popular President ever (?) and he wouldn't have lost a lot of financial capital because he doesn't need AT&T's money. He could have gained both (for keeping his word) and he failed. This was a losing move for Senator Obama.
Make no mistake, Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity;
And Bush clearly stated that he was a uniter, not a divider, and that's what counts, right? What a politician SAYS means exactly zero. What he DOES is what counts, and this is what he did. This kind of behavior is what you take to the bank, not a statement.
there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets. rather than their constituent's values, defeating perfectly logical amendments.
Sure there is. You can lead. You can say, "No, I won't gut the Constitution. You all can, but I won't." The man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans and can't successfully convince 51 Senators to uphold an oath they all took to defend the Constitution.
Obama, today, lost my vote (which will be a write-in, probably Kucinich, because he sticks to what he believes in, he shares beliefs with me, and his wife's got that wood-elf hot thing going), and a hundred bucks that I'll send to the EFF instead. Call it a futile gesture, but I'm doing what I can do.
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
As I went through the thread, thinking high level thoughts about the nature of politics and my reaction to Obama's vote, I got completely thrown off by your comment... She IS friggin' hott! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/kucinich%20and%20wife.jpg
Or he could...
... Start making a stink about that fact that these companies violated the law, violated our rights, and now after the fact are looking to get a deal for it.
This morning I heard on the news that one senator (sorry didn't get his name) was holding up that the companies did the "Patriotic" thing by doing what bush had asked for. My response to this: If they were to do the patriotic thing, they would have gone public with the illegal request in the first place.
Perhpas a bunch of them should watch A Few Good Men, "Dawson: We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves."
Why not vote against it?
You need to weigh more than just telecom immunity when considering this vote. I'm not saying he made the right vote
Perhaps the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Good things about the bill
1) It closed many loopholes that allowed the warrentless wiretaps in the first place.
2) Requires further wiretaps to follow at least some process (process isn't perfect but its better than the lack of process before).
Bad things about the bill.
1) Provides retroactive immunity to telecoms, it doesn't provide forward immunity though.
2) Expands wiretapping provisions over the old laws, but as I said earlier previously the old laws were ignored completely... Shrugs.
Don't be ridiculous.
1) Bill is submitted with Rider Amendment #7.
2) Bill fails.
3) When asked, people who voted against the bill say they would have voted for it if not for Rider Amendment #7.
4) Bill is submitted with a revised amendment or absent the amendment.
If you vote for the damn thing anyway, why would politicians ever fear adding on seriously controversial rider amendments???
Obama... Grow a spine!
Tough call? did you even READ the bill? Voting No on that pile of crap was an easy thing to do.
Deny Law enforcement needed tools? HUH? how the hell do they need those tools? They have all the tools they need right now.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
he's a constitutional scholar - retroactive immunity is Ex Post Facto and unconstitutional under Article I Section 9 US Constitution.
so in effect that language in the bill is powerless and Obama knows it
Um... No, because in Constitutional cases the Ex Post Facto clause has always been interpreted to mean that you can't make a previously legal action retroactively illegal, then charge someone with a crime for taking the action during the time in which it was legal.
Making things that used to be illegal retro-actively legal is considered acceptable, and often it's a good thing such as preventing people who helped slaves escape from being prosecuted for that criminal act after slavery was abolished.
However all this law really does is make the telecoms immune from civil lawsuits. It doesn't change whether or not their actions were legal, it simply prevents anyone from taking them to court over it, unless they're a government prosecutor bringing a criminal case. I don't think the case for unconstitutionality is very strong.
The enemies of Democracy are