A Time-line Of Obama's Statements On FISA
We've assembled a time-line of most of Barack Obama's public statements about FISA and telecom immunity.
The Senate could be voting on the FISA bill containing immunity as early as next week, and on June 20th, Obama announced his support for the bill. Obama's position continues to disappoint even some of his supporters, who have formed a surprisingly large group on Obama's Web site to urge him to oppose the bill, and their disappointment has become something of a national story.
In that context, we thought the record of Obama's evolution on the issue should be assembled in one place. Viewing his statements, it's striking how forcefully he argued in the past that the choice between civil liberties and safety is a false one.
If we've left out any of Obama's FISA statements, please let us know and we'll add them. Check out our time-line after the jump
Obama comes out against a proposed FISA bill granting retroactive immunity, October 18, 2007:
Obama: "It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start."
Bill Burton issues a statement, October 24, 2007, reaffirming Obama's position and pledging to support Chris Dodd's filibuster:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
Campaign statement, December 17, 2007, further elaborating on this point in regards to a particular upcoming Senate vote on Dodd's filibuster:
"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. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."
Obama issues another statement on the FISA bill, January 28, 2008, saying that the dichotomy between civil liberties and security is a false choice:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
Obama issues a statement endorsing the bill, saying that security needs are more important this objections, June 20, 2008:
"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."
Obama speaks at a press conference after announcing his support of a FISA bill containing retroactive immunity, June 25, 2008 -- and says that phone company issue doesn't override the need for security, in blatant contradiction of his January 28 statement:
Well, the bill has changed. So, I don't think the security threats have changed. I think the security threats are similar.My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.
TWO, count 'em TWO FISA [posts BEFORE noon EDT!
Do you wonder why no one else is obssessed by this like you guys are?
July 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wah, wah, quit looking at Saint Obambi's actual statements. Now is not the time to look too closely at this candidate we know nothing about, just vote for him. If you actually think for yourself then you're a trolling McCain supporter!
July 3, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this election does come down to Obama vs. McCain (sorry Ralph Nader and Bob Barr!).
By choosing to make a big deal about this one issue and collecting Obama's statements (which will undoubtedly get picked up and amplified by the MSM, just like the FISA group on mybarackobama.com did), you certainly aren't HELPING Obama get elected, which is presumably what we all want. (If you don't, why are you here?)
If you just want to discuss the issue, you can start by answering this fellow TPMCafe denizen's question.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/serious-question-really-why-is.php
July 3, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM is going to run up all sorts of silly business, blogs or no. They don't really give a poo about blogs. Blogs are dismissed by the REAL 4th estate, y'know? (please note different access rules for bloggers at conventions and so on.)
This happens here because WE CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION and NOT continuing warrantless crap with the extension of PAA included in this jumble.
Aside from the people getting steamed up by the hundreds; maybe even thousands - ooooh...- here and there every day, most people just don't really care.
July 3, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA was ruled constitutional, and there is little doubt that this bill would also be constitutional.
Constitutional is not just what you say it is.
Even Sen. Feingold praises parts of the bill:
The bill contains strong language making clear that FISA and the criminal wiretap laws are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted.
The bill contains an Inspector General review of the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program."
The bill no longer redefines the key FISA term of "electronic surveillance."
July 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional for it to allow violations of the Constitution. A presidential pardon or amnesty can be for any reason at all, for example.
July 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a preposterous example. Any crime the president pardons is going to be "unconstitutional" in the sense that almost all felonies violate a victim's rights. The courts have had their go at FISA. And this whole post is utterly misleading, since the real and hypothetical bills Obama talked about last year are not the same as the compromise bill in the senate now. There IS NO blanket immunity for the telecom companies. Not that it matters, since those lawsuits would be thrown out by the first judge who looked at them.
July 3, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that not mean that there is blanket immunity?
July 3, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There IS NO blanket immunity for the telecom companies.
Except, for all practical purposes, there is:
In ,
[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --
(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and
(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.
So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.
July 4, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I don't support the bill or telecommunications immunity, I don't really see how this is important compared to a host of other issues that if McCain wins, the country loses. I believe the telecommunications companies did wrong. However, wrongdoers and criminals get away with stuff all the time. I'm not condoning it, but it's not the worst thing that ever happened to the country. Four more years of Republican rule might well be the worst thing that ever happened to the country.
July 4, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The primary objection that the ACLU has to the bill as it currently stands is that there is no provision for meaningful review of the interception of private e-mail and telephone calls by either Congress or the courts. Decisions about collection, mining, and use of the information is all left up to the discretion of the Executive branch. The government is supposed to run on checks and balances, but in this case, checks and balances have been thrown out of the window. The Executive branch is left to investigate itself, and if the last seven years have taught us anything, it should be how completely ineffective that is.
From a model letter the ACLU is urging its membership to send to their Congressional representatives:
July 3, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
By choosing to make a big deal about this one issue and collecting Obama's statements (which will undoubtedly get picked up and amplified by the MSM, just like the FISA group on mybarackobama.com did), you certainly aren't HELPING Obama get elected, which is presumably what we all want. (If you don't, why are you here?)
I'd like Barack Obama to win, but I'd like him to know there's a price to selling out the Constitution. I'll still vote for him today. If he pulls something like this again, no way. Emphasizing the centrist parts of his persona like welfare reform or faith-based initiatives is one thing, but baldly flipping on an issue where he could have made a difference (if he had made clear to Pelosi and Reid that he wasn't going to let this issue go away quietly, they wouldn't have scheduled votes as they did) is unacceptable.
Look, you folks need to understand how the game works now. Obama is now positioning himself as the arbitrator, the grand conciliator between right and left. If the left declares that they will stand by him no matter what, he will always go right. I will support him for now, conditionally. Anyone not wanting to get screwed more than necessary better be similarly conditional about this.
If you just want to discuss the issue, you can start by answering this fellow TPMCafe denizen's question.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/serious-question-really-why-is.php
The comments to the question do a pretty good job of answering it, actually.
July 3, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
By choosing to make a big deal about this one issue and collecting Obama's statements ... you certainly aren't HELPING Obama get elected, which is presumably what we all want. (If you don't, why are you here?)
Ah, I see. Whenever your Leader does something really asinine, look the other way and hope nobody will notice. Distract! Dissemble! Minimize! And at all costs, never hold your candidate to account! Winning is all that matters!
Ignorance is Strength.
July 4, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's because his FISA vote will his "Hillary war vote". You see, it matters when you ACTUALLY ARE a Senator, as was Hillary with her war vote. Now that Obama IS A SENATOR, and the NOMINEE, suddenly he gets all wishy-washy, flippity-floppy.
To think I had the audacity to hope that Obma would be different ... Say "hello" to the new boss, same as the old boss.
July 3, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people died in Iraq?
How many people died because of being unable to sue ATT?
July 3, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
)))))))))))))))-crickets-((((((((((((((((
July 3, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, two whole minutes after the question was asked, nobody had posted an answer, which must of course mean that nobody ever would.
How about giving people time to even see the question, huh?
July 3, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop.
Here is the explanation of telecom immunity straight from Feingold's website. In other words, this is the absolute best case for it.
Let me explain it in plain English: The telecom companies are getting immunity NO MATTER WHAT! The second a court rules on it, they win. They have a slam dunk case for immunity. The Senate has seen the documents, and they know it. Feingold knows it and admits as much here. So let me just repeat: THE TELECOMS ARE GETTING IMMUNITY WHETHER THIS BILL PASSES OR NOT!
Unjustified Grant of Retroactive Immunity
Under the new FISA bill, H.R. 6304, the immunity outcome is predetermined. A federal district court could review in secret the letters to companies to determine whether ‘substantial evidence’ indicates that they received written requests stating the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. But information declassified by the Senate Intelligence Committee already indicates that the companies got such written requests – meaning immunity is virtually guaranteed. The plaintiffs could participate in briefing to the court, but only to the extent it does not necessitate the disclosure of classified information, which will seriously impair their ability to participate in a meaningful way.
July 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine. But I sure as hell won't vote for that. And I'll never donate to the Democratic Party again.
It's time for *citizens* (note, not liberals, CITIZENS) to organize a thirty year campaign to yank both major political parties out of governance. They have proved their incompetence and corruption. Neither party leadership deserves the helm of the United States' government. If the conservatives can mount a 30+ year campaign to take control of government, so can organized average citizens.
I'd rather donate to that project instead.
July 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up, Maynard. What the conservatives spent 30 years doing, if you didn't notice, was taking over the Republican party.
July 3, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop what?
July 3, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is your point? As I read that, Feingold's objection to the "Protect America Act" is precisely that the telecoms get immunity no matter what. That's why he's opposed to it.
And just to show that I can quote just as well as you can:
July 3, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now THAT's principled leadership!
July 3, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: It's not the "Protect America Act," it is the "FISA Amendment Act of 2008".
July 3, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is precisely Feingold's objection to the bill we're talking about - the one he fillibustered and is going to vote against - because it would grant immunity. He is making the point that the bill gives immunity without calling it immunity - it says that all the telecoms have to do to get off the hook is prove that the president asked them to do what they did, which of course the president did, so this bill lets the telecoms off the hook without 'officially' granting immunity.
Get it?
July 3, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of our children and grandchildren will wind up in a gulag because you didn't think the defense of liberty was important?
You've made it clear: "Live free or die" is not one of your principles.
Nothing to see here. Just another surrender monkey hooting for a banana. Obama will be feeding him soon. Move along, folks.
Thanks.
mp
July 3, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, it sounds like you and I are on the same side of this FISA fight, but I have to ask you the same question I asked someone else below:
What is your point here? Do you wish to engage with your fellow citizens in the hopes of persuading them by means of reason? Or do you just get off on flaunting your own self-righteous moral/intellectual superiority?
If the former, may I helpfully submit that your tactics do not advance your aims? If the latter, consider your superiority duly noted (for whatever little that is worth).
July 3, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, talk about self-righteousness...
July 3, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pretty please, can we have our Bill of Rights back?"
How's that work, Missouri? Sweet enough?
July 3, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd gladly beat your ass to a syrupy pulp to keep my kids from going to the gulag. Just for example.
Sorry, though, to those of us who know people who spent time in actual gulags, your hyperbole just mocks your position. It's kinda of a catchy retort, slippery slopes and all that. Ignore the death and destruction there is a slippery slope over here!. Look!
July 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you call Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the various secret CIA internment camps throughout East Europe? Those aren't Gulag enough for you?
President Bush has already asserted that it is his right to indefinitely detain and even torture US citizens without judicial review. I don't consider the term 'gulag' to be hyperbole whatsoever.
July 3, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, because "suing telecom companies for civil damages" is exactly what Patrick Henry had in mind. Save your fucking sanctimony. For you to insinuate that people who support Obama despite the FISA compromise are "surrender monkeys"...have you lost you mind?
Besides, Freedom Fighter, the companies are still liable criminally.
July 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without the threat of a lawsuit, what is to keep the telecoms from going over the line again? The legislation Obama is supporting says they're off the hook as long as the president tells them it's OK to do what he asks. Doesn't matter if what he asks is actually illegal.
How are you going to hold any of these guys accountable if you don't make them pay a price for crossing the line?
July 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about civil damages? You suggest that the threat of civil damages is more of a deterrent than prison for executives. I disagree. Any civil damages will be minor, and then reduced even further by post-verdict, pre-appeal negotiations. And then the insurance company pays the damages to the plaintiffs, who will have signed a gag order, and the telecoms go on doing it over and over.
July 4, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a misrepresentation. The civil portion is the one with the teeth and leads to stopping things like George W from ever happening again. Using the criminality argument is a political trick. No?
July 3, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, because "suing telecom companies for civil damages" is exactly what Patrick Henry had in mind. Save your fucking sanctimony.
Jesus fecking Christ, what ignorance. Just spend a little time at eff.org, will you please? The lawsuits are very likely the only avenue left open to find out what happened, because of the mandatory discovery process in those lawsuits. No matter how many times this is posted, no matter how many different places, this basic concept just doesn't get through to people.
Besides, Freedom Fighter, the companies are still liable criminally.
Ignorant fool. Can you say "pardon"?
Didn't think so.
On his way out the door, Bush pardons the telecoms. Game over.
Fool.
July 4, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, because "suing telecom companies for civil damages" is exactly what Patrick Henry had in mind.
Have you stopped to consider for three and a half seconds why Bush and Cheney have been pushing so relentlessly for telecom amnesty? Have you stopped to consider why Bush will veto any bill he claims is Vital for National Security if that Vital Bill doesn't contain a telecom amnesty provision?
No, you haven't. And the reason is that amnesty is Bush and Cheney's get-out-of-jail-free card. No lawsuits = no discovery = we never get to find out who Bush and Cheney spied on, or why, or what's happened to that data, or just how many felonies these people committed.
Which, seemingly, is fine with you, as long as it doesn't hurt The One's election chances.
You might want to learn a little history some time. I recommend starting with the Church Committee. You know, the one that actually had the guts to investigate the last rounds of illegal spying. The results of which were the original FISA law, which Bush wiped his ass with, and which Congress is now flushing down the toilet, just to help Bush keep his turds from public scrutiny.
Which, seemingly, is fine with you, as long as it doesn't hurt The One's election chances.
July 4, 2008 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a false choice -- you're framing the issue like Bush and Cheney and Rove.
To quote Obama himself, back in the day when he was anxious for the support of the party activists:
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
What the hell is the point of sending soldiers to Iraq if we're going to allow this Administration to chisel away our liberties here on the home front?
July 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least you got the part right that your avatar reflects most of your opinions.
July 3, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? There was plenty of obsessing going on when the bill passed congress, and the pressure went away a bit after the senate vote got pushed back, but with the vote coming up after there July 4th recess, it's likely we'll see the pressure amped back up.
July 3, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! Two stories on the hottest topic of the day! How awful!
Your whine sounds just like the sort of don't-look-behind-the-curtain 'cause no one is interested nonsense we heard back when the US attorney firing story started.
If no one cares about this story, why is it getting covered all over the blogosphere, even on sites that don't specialize in politics? Why does it seem to be uniting everyone from Obama's base to Hillary die-hards and even Ron Paul supporters? Why is it the only people who seem to want the issue to die appear to be:
1) The "dems must win even if they have to turn into Republicans to do it" crowd,
2) Telecom astroturfers, and
3) Bush admin apologists and neocon sock puppets.
What exactly are they afraid of us finding out if these lawsuits are allowed to continue? Inquiring voters want to know, and we are non to happy with Mr. Hope turning on us.
-- MarkusQ
July 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The hottest topic of the day"?????
Please.
July 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The telcos have a lot of employees that are paid by government contracts. I would wager these employees post frequently in support of the FISA fold in order to preserve their master's power like the good little cowardly bitch slaves that they are.
July 3, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, like Obama, are clueless as to how important this issue is to a large number of voters of all parties.
I would wager you also do not comprehend the ease at which the government, with the able and immune (now and later if the FISA fold passes), in real time can obtain the e-mail and cell phone voice traffoce of ALL americans with impuniuty, immunity and absolute secrecy. If I am mistaken and you do understnd these matter and yet continue not to view this as an exceptionally important issue then let an opporessive and illegal government have you and do with you what is wishses.
In my mind and in the minf of many others, this is the most important issue Americans currently face, more important than health care, the war, the economy, etc. Retroactive immunity is just a piece to the puzzle.
July 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree with you. Start down this road, as we have seen, and it just gets worse. Bank records, email, cells, snail mail, computers, and next, mark my words, they will bribe congress to eliminate net neutrality, and then that is it. Game over. The problem with all of us, myself included, is that there are bigger issues at times, and we let these things slide. We become numb to what is happening.
This is a huge deal. It is criminal, it is the tip of the iceberg, and if we allow this, then our civil liberties have been compromised to a point of no going back. Our government is already telling us how we must die, how we are to handle pregnancy, how we can live in relationships that are not mainstream, and god help you if you are not a religious person. Obama choked on this, and I for one am going to hold him accountable.
July 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what exactly are you obsessed with, Buckeye Billie? Besides Obama's penis?
July 3, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if you stopped engaging in mental masturbation, and actually looked at or could converse intelligently about constitutional jurisprudence, you wouldn't come off as such a turd-throwing, knee-jerk ass.
July 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coming from the guy that's been insulting people with obscenities throughout this forum for expressing their views in opposition to yours, I find your comment to the parent poster to be of the greatest hypocrisy. Time for you to grow up. Take a lesson from your own words.
July 3, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what intellectual giants like Buckeye Terrorist and hrebendorf do when they are out of arguments.
Which is most of the time.