Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer
Here's what's so dispiriting about it. One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country.
Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk "tough." His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.
Obama has done this already in this general election -- repeatedly. And no doubt he will do it again and again and again in the months ahead. Not this time.
To be clear, I'm not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn't have carried political peril. It really doesn't matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.
And this time, he abandoned that premise.
Late Update: Glenn Greenwald, a leading critic of Obama on this, sends me his skeptical take on why he thinks Obama's promise to work on the bill in the Senate doesn't change anything:
"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"
Comments (565)
You saw he wants to get rid of immunity, right?
June 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but does that change it? that's a real question.
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it does. Immunity is the part that really stings. We cannot afford to bicker in characteristic fashion while Republicans slaughter us and laugh afterwards. In an election where there is palpable GOP discontent towards McCain, we cannot outdo our opponents in fratricide.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
Bickering in characteristic fashion is a strong suit of Democrats.
Meanwhile, Republicans keep getting elected.
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, we get off on losing elections by being dumbasses like this.
People need to quit acting like a bunch of spiteful children and get to work pressuring Senators to kill immunity. And if that doesn't work, it isn't because of Obama, it is because we have a less than ideal Congress full of Republicans and conservative Democrats, and we need to keep our eyes on the prize and work our asses off to get Obama in the White House, Republicans out on their asses, and to upgrade corporate Democrats to progressive ones.
Obama isn't the bad guy here and this mess isn't his fault, and he is essentially doing the only thing he can in this situation to do whats right, which is to target the immunity provision and take it down in the Senate. Let's act like we are party here and do whatever we can to win.
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama:
This is the part for me that is weak. To show leadership, he could've said more. Indeed, if he really wanted to strip immunity from the Senate version, he would've expanded on the issue and been more forceful. Saying he'll work on it isn't saying much. No promises, and not exactly a tough stance for someone trained as a civil rights lawyer. I expect more from Obama.
If you did too, call his office and let him know:
1-866-675-2008
June 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for listing the number, but it leads to nowhere. No operators available and you can't leave a message either...
June 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try again. You dialed wrong, or it is after-hours at the office. Choose extension '6' when the automatic routing system recording comes on, and you'll get a live person.
June 20, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Obama is working for his position and in the end is going to lose, but that's democracy. We can have another crack at this statute. I'm not a fan of retroactive immunity, but if it becomes part of the bill, it would also strip the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination - no resulting prosecutions, but we do have a shot at finding out who has been giving us the Big Ear. The doctrine of unintended consequences swinging our way?
Meanwhile, the statute will be less offensive than it was, and Congress is reaserting constitutional powers that the Repubs had allowed to be usurped by the President, all at about the time the millenial King George is about to be swept from the throne.
Two steps forward, one step back, kinda funky, and kinda twisted... but compromise on an important subject and better than what we had.
June 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too intelligent for some of the knee-jerks lurking around.
Well-stated.
June 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a fan of retroactive immunity, but if it becomes part of the bill, it would also strip the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination - no resulting prosecutions, but we do have a shot at finding out who has been giving us the Big Ear.
No. That is incorrect. There will be absolutely mechanism to find out anything when this bill passes which now it apparently will. How would we? In what context would we have any standing or any forum to examine these programs and what they entailed? The answer is none. The civil suits were our only opportunity to do so. Any attempts to address the Administration in a legal setting will end as they always do, with a claim of executive privilege. End of story.
June 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, according to John Dean, the language re immunity (which is apparently somewhat ambiguous in the FISA cave-in) may simply be in regard to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. And Obama, in the past, has talked about looking into criminal prosecutions against the telecoms if he's elected.
Lotta ifs in that sentence, but possibly he has something like that in mind.
June 20, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kowrecked! People all over this board are throwing under the bus. I heard Dean say that, too, and John Dean is no dumbass. It just may be that Obama is a little bit smarter than we think he is. I think we need to let this play out before we get all whacked out about it.
Thanks for this, Lynn Dee.
June 20, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
^^^ "... throwing Obama under the bus ..."
June 20, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've also heard the immunity is restricted to civil. Also agree it's two steps forward, one back, it could be better, bu it could be worse.
Glad to see some informed and reasonable people here. There are way too many knee jerkers.
June 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I just posted the same thing, but as I said in that post, it needs to be said again and again.
June 20, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one is tough for me, working in the telecom industry. The initial surveillance right after 9/11 strikes me as both a prudent use of government resources in a very panicky situation, and for awhile some leeway in the President doing what is necessary for our safety. What I really object to is 1) the attempts at surveillance prior to 9/11 (which this bill does NOT grant immunity for) and 2) the continued use of this technique instead of approaching Congress (until it was exposed in the press) about passing legislation in a bipartisan manner to address the issues. This was clearly done in order to keep it a political issue for the GOP "permanent majority." So, I'm personally stuck, for a year or so immunity would be alright, but really once it is happening, for the telecoms to turn it off would have been really asking a lot. These are companies who, frankly, responded to what they thought was a lawful order, as explained by Ws lawyers (who we now know we can't trust, but did we know that in 2002?) Also, since the legislation clarifies that there is no other wiretap or surveillance authority than this legislation and existing criminal statutes, an important Congressional power is made manifest.
We have to really ask ourselves if something else dramatic happens, and the President approaches a company on an urgent basis with what it claims is a lawful but secret order, would we want them to say no? Ideally, we would give leeway without statutory authority but only for a limited time; so for instance this immunity would not apply to any current or future wiretapping activity not explicitly covered by the statute, even if it was a continuation of an activity that was indemnified. Dont know enough legally, but again asking companies to oversize legal restraint when the very real threat at the time was that another strike could happen is unfair. Imagine the opposite: a company refuses (like Quest) *resulting* in deaths. The outrage would be even worse than now, and the lawsuits for wrongful death would be immediate.
June 20, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that companies would turn down such requests for help in protecting the country is a non-issue. Bush confused a lot of people with that one. Corporations and individuals are legally bound to assist, its not a choice.
June 20, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 21, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
nazettar,
It is true that corporations can be compelled to fulfill lawful national security requests made by the government. In this case all prior precedent was clear that the request was unlawful and the telecoms without question knew this. The question of secrecy is a red herring. Secret requests are commonplace. So I will rephrase the question: if immunity is not granted should we fear that corporations will think twice before fulfilling unlawful national security requests to snoop on the American people? I sure as hell hope so.
Such fear-mongering arguments only serve to obfuscate the reality that our constitutional liberties are at risk, and Americans are being bamboozled into gratefully giving up our rights out of fear and ignorance. There is absolutely no reason the Bush Administration couldn't have gone to the FISA court after 9/11 and obtained permission to tap the phones of suspected terrorists etc. In fact, the law as is stood and stands allows them to begin spying and then get permission retroactively. Of course they knew they wouldn't be granted unlimited spying powers, so they did it in secret, relying on the complicity of the telecoms to keep their secret.
Power is corrupting and must be curtailed -- this is the defining premise of the separation of powers, and underlies the 4th amendment and all precedents derived therefrom. Before you run in fear of terrorists into the arms of government, get some damned education, would you?
June 21, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
YankeeFree;
Every corporation in the world have attorneys whose responsibilities include Constitutional Law. It is basic Con Law that the Court, NOT the President determine what is lawful. No where in the Constitution is the Executive Branch granted any interpretive power with respect to the law. The Attorneys of the Telecom Companies had a legal duty to so inform their CEO's and if necessary take it to Court to determine their legal responsibility.
If you will recall one of the companies did refuse to cooperate and although they were "punished" with respect to future government projects, there was no legal action brought against them for their refusal.
The companies that did go along with Bush's coercion now must pay the legal price. THAT is what is cut and dried under the law.
Unless of course the FISA Bill grants them retroactive immunity.
BTW-did everyone see that a CA Court did not accept the Executive's argument that the information was secret and could not be made available. Basically, the Court ordered discovery to go forth.
July 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No firend, it is not democracy: it is theatrics!
They are staging this classic Washington style three card monty so they can go ahead and blow the telecom execs and get their 20 pieces of silver out if it while saying to the public Obama and others opposed it but could not stop it from passing. It's nothing but theatrics and lies! Democracy it ain't! Quite the contrary.
June 20, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant "friend"
June 20, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually this bill is more offensive then before, and reasserts nothing. FISA included language making it the "exclusive" avenue for the executive from the beginning, and as Sen. Kit Bond has stated, "the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."
June 21, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Great comment.
June 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, what part of "I'll vote for it whether or not it has immunity in it" did you not understand?
Telecom immunity is a done deal. Voting for it means he supports it. How is it possible, exactly, to say "I don't support this bill" and then vote for it?
Second, "I'll do whatever it takes to win" is, in point of fact, Politics As Usual (TM) in Washington. Now, tell me again, exactly how is that "Change you can believe in"? I missed that part.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voting for it does not mean he's for amnesty. It means what he said, that he's voting for the bill as the best deal they can cut.
It's tradition that many will vote with a bipartisan majority, to show solidarity with a fraction of their party, in this case Bluedogs. It's reciprocated later, in a reverse situation. When for example Pelosi may pass Progressive legislation with moderate Republicans, and Bluedogs will vote with the majority out of solidarity, and some Republicans will vote with their moderates out of solidarity.
It's important to understand no outcomes are changed, it's done for symbolic reasons of party unity.
Whether or not it makes sense, is questionable but that's a longstanding parliamentary tradition, in both parties, and around the world.
June 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my two cents worth: Many of the low information voters in OH
July 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid will see to it that Obamas back is covered in the Senate. We do not need any more terrorist crap being sold in the General Election. Lets face it. It is a done deal. I am as infuriated as anyone else and have sent many e mails to Pelosi,Reid and Hoyer. We are going to have to eat this fisa bill for a while in order to get Obama in a position to do something about it. Feingold or Dodd will try to filibuster to no avail.
June 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention Bluedogs, who are siding with Republicans on FISA.
There's going to be a lot of bellyaching and trolling to claim that because Obama can't magically solve everything, before he's even in office, he's a letdown.
It's just the usual sour grapes, tantrums, and fifth columns. Not to mention freepers.
:rolleyes:
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once he gets into office it'll be too late for him to do anything. The lawsuits will have been tossed. The time is now.
June 20, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. The time is definitely not now. If he presses this issue now, it will only weaken his chances to win the election. Voters on the left can't hand him a win. There aren't enough of us. He's got to expand his support. And taking a left-leaning position on this will do nothing but harm his chances in the general. He's playing this one exactly as he needs to.
June 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
so are there any issues or principles that obama shouldn't run to the right on just so he can "win"??
June 22, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's only a letdown to the people who believed that "change you can believe in" was ever anything other than a snappy bumpersticker slogan. Any promise that he would be an exceptional President fades as the bloom comes off his candidacy and it becomes clear that he's just another politician who'll say what it takes to get elected.
This is not news to those who supported other candidates.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well maybe. But you're kinda full of crap, aren't you? The way Obama campaigns has nothing to do with the way he will govern.
June 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not about DEMs inbred tendency towards throwing tizzies and run about accusing one another of shit.
This is about the anointed leader of the Democratic Party doing his farging job and acting as a leader.
June 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Thank you.
June 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not anointed yet, Daddy-o. Let's get him into the Oval Office first, before we start asking him to do his job. Right now, his job is to win the election.
June 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silence is not an option. I'll hold Obama's feet to the fire just as I'll hold any of my representative's feet to the fire - especially in an election cycle. I want him to know exactly where I stand. I want him to know I care about this issue, so that, even if he can't do anything about it now, maybe in 2009 he'll remember the huge number of people who were outraged by the situation and do something to prevent future abuses. This isn't a small issue - we're talking about a constitutional violation of the 4th amendment and our representatives - the people who are supposed to protect our interests - are turning their backs and walking away from their OATH to protect the constitution.
June 22, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
. Right now, his job is to win the election.
Right now, as a sitting United States Senator, his job is to UPHOLD HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
You know, the one that says: ""I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
That just happens to include the part of the Constitution that reads: "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."
June 23, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does it matter if Republican keep getting elected, since Democrats keep bowing down and voting with and for their version of legislation anyway. What do you all propose to do now that we know even Obama will just be a continuation of taking us to the same old place that doesn't work? We have a wayward Democracy that is now heading wildly in the direction of dictatorship, and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. Our only choice seems to be a benevolent or a malevolent dictator. Personally, if I could leave this country, I would.
June 21, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do it. Nobody likes a whiner.
June 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Democrats vote like Republicans, why not just have the real thing. At least you know what you're dealing with. DINOs represent deceit.
June 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Let's keep our eyes on the ball, people.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that my eyes are open, I will keep my eyes on the ball.
To think I had the audacity to hope that Obama was different. To hell with them all. I'm checking out.
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead clutch those pearls a little tighter why don't you.
You've never checked in, and everyone here knows that. Go ahead and concern troll if you want, but don't try to play us for fools and act like we don't remember who you are and what you've said.
June 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
beautifull... how f---ing many times have i been chastised by SENSIBLE, obsequious dems to shutup and cheer the leader? You guys behave EXACTLY the way the dem leadership behaves when they lecture their uppity congresspersons to shutup and stay in line. This is the same dem leadership you are criticizing out of the other friggin side of your mouth. Bush tells the dem leadership they're either with him or they're with the terrorists. Then the dem leadership tells uppity dem congresspersons that they're are either with pelosi or they're with the repubs. then congress tells the people they're either with them or they're with the repubs. and the Sensible dems tell the uppity dems to shut up.
no. no man. no more. sorry. i'll be happy to physically fight you m-----f------ if that will help, but i won't shut up any more. there isn't one time in the last eight years that i haven't had to bite my lip til it bled while i watched the dems cave in on one crucial issue after another. not one single time that i've been proud of the dems. no. i won't be voting for obama. what you b------- won't admit is that, while the repub condidates continually suck up to the most extreme elements of their party, the dems piss off, flip off and then walk over even their moderate base in their rush to pander to the same extreme wing of the repubs! it's the freaking lack of symmetry there that is so intolerably infuriating. obama was the worst at this. he chinches the freaking nomination promising change on one evening, and within TWELVE FREAKING HOURS he's freaking swearing allegiance to AIPAC and promising to nuke the shi- out of iran. no.. no mas. i won't be voting for obama. he's a cardboard cutout. an empty suit. keep him and your freaking dems.
June 20, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it impossible to disagree with anything you've written. You are absolutely correct, but many here and elsewhere simply do not want to face reality and admit this is the case. They are focused on "winning" but they fail to ask what "winning" gets us if it is this sort of disgraceful capitulation? I'm with ya!
June 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb and my other brothers in spirit:
I'm with you on this and I recall we knew Obama would wind up a disappointment merely from his thin record in the Senate (state and fed).
But here is the thing. WE HAVE to vote for Obama because the only other option is to let McCain win.
We will not forget this
However we need to be Machiavellian enough to realize that we put our money on this guy and now we have to see it to the end. Once in power the guy will be fretting about getting a second term. Then we have something substantial on him.
I NEVER had the illusion about the Democratic party being other than progressive in rhetoric only.
It is a task we have to perform: to change the Democratic party from within. It will be long and tedious. But I believe it can be done. Pelosi, Reed and Hoyer what a bunch of rubes!!!
June 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woe, if Mr. Sargent a Clinton "supporter" were in the position of BO, having to deal with the inept Clintons STILL. If BO does nothing more than win the ge, will that be enough? Then if BO is able to put forth a viable energy policy, which was never forthcoming from the Clintons then and now, will that justify the election of BO? FISA at this stage is an argument that BO cannot win on an any front, thanks in part to the Clintons. BO has to pick his shots. He has an unpalatable plate winning this elcetion going forward and managing the inept Clintons will be a distraction and is an enormous burden.
June 21, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it does. The compromise was necessary in a political sense. The immunity is not.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We just need to quit bitching and get to work to pressuring everyone, including Obama, to STOP immunity in the Senate. If they can do that Bush will likely kill the bill with his veto pen, Bush will be choosing his corporate friends over safety, the tables will be turned, the Dems can go on the offensive and attack Bush on it, and it likely wouldn't come up for a vote again until the new Congress is up and running next year.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to find someone to run against Howard Berman during the next cycle . . . or do so myself.
June 20, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are missing the point here. The dems don't really care about the FISA changes in the bill. Many of their campaigns are funded by the telecoms -- for them its all about the immunity, so don't hold your breath on that one. Obama may be funded by "the people", but the rest of 'em are just politics as usual and he needs them on his side, so immunity here we come!
I am disgusted by this, and by Obama for not being more of a leader. Can I charge back my campaign contribution?
June 20, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. I agree with you it's a downer, but I disagree that he's bought into the Republican frame that it's a question of "toughness." Perhaps he actually thinks it's a reasonable compromise. I'd say he's wrong. Fair enough.
But I think we have enough evidence to suggest he's not changing his entire frame of reference for what it takes to be "tough on terrorism." I think that's a big leap.
A downer, yes. But the hyper-ventilating around the blogosphere (and I don't mean you), seems like overkill.
June 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
For everyone who now says "That's it! Not gonna vote for him" I have only one question: you actually believe that McCain is a reasonable alternative?
June 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't quite say that he's "bought into" a republican frame, just that he didn't challenge one. and his whole campaign has been about challenging those frames, to his enormous credit.
June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when do we care about giving him credit? Your last three posts have been one giant hatefest against Obama without any attempt to give context to all of this.
I'm so glad Daily Kos exists because at least a majority of the people on there are politically savvy enough to not be trashing on Obama, instead they are trying to figure out strategy and how we can win, and they acknowledge that even if we can't win this one, it isn't Obama's fault, it is Congress's fault, and this doesn't change their support for Obama.
I thought people on here were sensible, but it is either troll day today or people have lost their goddamn minds all of the sudden, because I can probably count the people who are sensible here on one hand.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I recommend you stay over at Kos, which has been the tool of the Obama campaign from the beginning.
People here are actually capable of holding in their minds a thought other than "Obama is The Anointed One. All hail Obama."
You obviously don't get the ironical intent of the title of this site. But at Kos, you'll always feel on the cutting edge, because you'll be among the first to get the daily talking points from the Obama camp.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes . . . But framed with Obama stating that his voice was worthless during the Mukasey nomination so he did not bother even showing up . . .
Obama is and never will be my choice for the Ofiice for President . . . He is simply the least offensive asshole running for the job . . . So I will vote to eliminate the worst choice just like I did during the Primary.
At least Obama pays lips service to avoiding being a fear-mongering thug.
June 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the problem with this process was best stated by a libertarian candidate: "If you keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils,' why are you surprised when you end up with evil?"
So, we are in the position of electing a man who will not provide the leadership we need to get the 'ship of state' upright and steering properly again; but of whom the best that can be said is that he most likely will not drive the ship onto the rocks.
In the long run, how much will it matter that the ship sank slowly, over a long period of time, with plenty of warning and no action; rather than abruptly, with little warning and futile action?
By electing Barack Obama as President we simply prolong the inevitable outcome of our broken electoral process.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely. FISA in the abstract is not an awful thing. What is unacceptable about this (so-called) "compromise" renewal of FISA is that, by immunizing the malfeasant telecoms retroactively, it strips the system of one of the checks that exist against its abuse. If this retroactive immunity provision were not in the bill, it would be acceptable (at least to me). If Obama succeeds (in cooperation with his colleagues in the senate) in getting it scrubbed from the Senate version of the bill, he will have earned our gratitude.
June 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objection is that it provides for automatic forward immunity. If the president asks the telecoms to wiretap someone, and if the president tells them he has determined that it is legal, the courts cannot touch it. If I'm not mistaken, this applies even if the case is not about terrorism. Thus the president is given the preeminent power to determine the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The courts have been cut out of it.
I don't know about you, but I find that pretty damned objectionable. It's a re-statement of Nixon's formulation that if the president does it, it is not illegal.
June 20, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damned right slb. My one hope is that the Court will determine such a law to be unconstitutional. Given its past decisions on such matters, its not such a stretch.
June 20, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, have you read the bill? What does the bill provide sans retro-immunity that is unsettling? What provisions, other than telecom immunity do you take issue with?
If, in fact, this bill is a solid updating of the 1970's FISA law, and Obama and other Senate Dems (and maybe some Republicans like Snowe, who voted against it originally) are able to strip immunity, would this bill then be a cave-in? (I haven't read the bill, in all fairness)
Please expound on these other legislative details before pontificating. Obama gave a nuanced answer. So please give yours so we are certain you know what you are talking about.
June 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
June 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't about really having a reason to bitch, it is about him wanting an excuse to post a third post in a row trashing on Obama, even though Obama is still as committed as ever to sinking immunity.
June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LuxVeritas
hello-world was referring to the good post by tennisball.
As for Greg being "concerned" about Obama's reputation and posting his inflammatory "take" on Obama's stand without taking time to study it honestly, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty from a blogger.
June 20, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, have you read the bill? ... (I haven't read the bill, in all fairness)
Just too rich for words.
What does the bill provide sans retro-immunity that is unsettling? What provisions, other than telecom immunity do you take issue with?
Please expound on these other legislative details before pontificating. Obama gave a nuanced answer. So please give yours so we are certain you know what you are talking about.
These should get you started.
Next time maybe you should do a little research before pontificating.
June 23, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
its called bipartisanship you cant have it all
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, third trash on Obama for FISA post in a row, great job TPM!
You do realize that if he succeeds in stripping this thing of immunity then it is as good as dead right? Only it will die by Bush's hands, not by Obama's, so Obama and the Democrats can say "we were willing to compromise, but Bush was inflexible and killed it"
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on. It's not likely that immunity is going to be stripped, and Obama knows it.
June 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
if immunity is stripped, Bush vows to veto it, so it would change things.
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it may really change it. Immunity is the only provision of the bill that's really odious. It remains to be seen how serious Obama is about blocking the immunity provision from passing.
I'm absolutely furious at the Democratic House leadership right now, but I'm going to hold off until after the Senate vote (or votes) are resolved before directing my ire at Obama (or anyone else in the Senate for that matter).
June 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure it also has to do with reelection politics. And blue dogs. If you look at the rollcall, besides house leadership, you have people like Udall (CO) running for senate in a red state, and Patrick Murphy (who is a blubbering idiot) in his first term. I haven't had time to go through the rest of the votes, but I'm sure it had something to do with how their constituents will view them back home...
the House doesn't have the 6-year luxury of the Senate...
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you look at the rollcall, besides house leadership, you have people like Udall (CO) running for senate in a red state"
Oh, give me a damn break. Yeah, what a red state Colorado is, what with our Dem-controlled House, Senate, and Governorship. And with Obama cruising in the polls here.
I get so tired of those ancient characterizations of the state I live in, presumably by people who have no clue what's going on here.
June 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read the bill, Greg? Despite all this hyperventilating from normally reasonable corners of the internet, it's actually very sensible. Joe Klein is a disgusting piece of shit, but his take on the FISA bill is worth reading.
June 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I asked the same thing above and still waiting on an answer.
I think what we all would like Obama to have said is "I will only vote for this bill if immunity is stripped from the legislation." But he didn't, and that is why people are upset.
June 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
because he WILL vote for the bill whether or not immunity is stripped. plain english.
June 22, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pinky,
You're too good.
I thought you were a flamer, but have been informed that you are not, just a clever snark.
Sorry about flaming you on the other thread.
Just trying to combat stupidity, just like you.
June 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was completely fooled by pinkystab on the other thread. Excellent snarkiness, pinky!
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might want to change that avatar to a silhouette of Obama wiping his ass with the Constitution.
June 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you stop staining this board with your troll jizz.
June 20, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Profound response as usual.
June 22, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you have to lace up those jackboots to make sure you stamp out stupidity, huh? Smart. And when you hear the word "culture" do you reach for your revolver?
June 21, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink