Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support 1489
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."
Bills (Score:4, Informative)
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 [sfgate.com]
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.
Re:Bills (Score:5, Informative)
So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror,
Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.
No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
If you don't like what he did (Score:5, Informative)
Tell him so. [barackobama.com]
Re:Bills (Score:2, Informative)
I will mention that I am using all means available to me to oppose this war.
Yes, my government isn't a prize pig either, but I'm trying to change that. What are you doing?
Good luck with that. Your tireless blogging and /. posting will change the world!
Re:Bills (Score:3, Informative)
or in Ron Paul's case just not vote on this Bill:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml [house.gov]
I would not consider that a no vote.
Do you even know what's in the bill? (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92383786%5Bnpr.org%5D [npr.org]
Re:please explain... (Score:5, Informative)
It is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [wikipedia.org]
It is the laws that govern how the government may snoop on communications made by people who are not citizens of the United States.
Before Everyone Goes Off the Hook on this One (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it [barackobama.com]:
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,
That phrase predates the racist use of 'spade' (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently you do not understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:At this point it would not matter. (Score:3, Informative)
Obama didn't vote for the war. He wasn't even in the senate at the time. Are you talking about Kerry?
Re:Rational Alternatives (Score:2, Informative)
Ron Paul is rational?
The idiot spews tired commie crap from the Vietnam War.
Ron Paul is a moron as are his supporters.
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike McCain... who was not...
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:5, Informative)
To whom? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You admire a politician? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [imdb.com], "Dawson: We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves."
Re:Bills (Score:5, Informative)
As I've commented elsewhere, the original FISA bill was written 30 years ago in the days before large global networks. As such, there has been a growing ambiguity as to whether the law dictates the manner of collection on systems inside the U.S. or just the parties targeted. The intelligence community has spent nearly 20 years trying to get clarification on this issue. Now they have it, along with additional oversight measures to prevent abuses.
Judicial review hasn't been removed, so the USSID 18 targeting criteria remain as strong as ever. Further, a warrant is still required to collect on any U.S. citizen or person located inside the U.S. While the emergency period has been extended past the PATRIOT Act's 72 hours to a full 7 days, a warrant still must be applied for and approved within that window regardless of the duration of collection.
On balance, it's a reasonable bill with reasonable protections. The telecom provision is bunk, but not a deal-breaker because oversight is expanded and criminal liability still exists. Of course, the effectiveness of the oversight will need to be assessed over time. But I don't understand why anyone who's read the different FISA bills and is familiar with title authority would be freaking out over this.
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:3, Informative)
I did read some of the bill...
Like the part where warrants are no longer given out for targets, but for programs. An entirely new class of warrant unprecedented in American history...that's a good compromise alright.
Immunizing people who broke a law that was written specifically for them to follow after the intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s. Excellent compromise.
Like the exclusivity provision, that was already present in the previous FISA. Recall that Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has said FISA is and always has been the exclusive means of conducting foreign intelligence surveillance.
Like the Inspector General report, which is an example of the Executive branch investigating the Executive branch. Besides for that, they lack subpoena power.
Like the Bingaman amendment that would have actually been a real compromise, except that it stood no chance of being attached.
Like Sen. Bond said, "I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get". Meanwhile, over 20,000 people assemble in about a week on Obama's own social networking site to protest his support, and my senator's voice mail box was full repeatedly (likely with complaints).
Oh, yes, this is the definition of compromise...one side gives up everything to the other side.
Re:Voting for Obama, But Not Enthusiastic (Score:3, Informative)
Here are just a few highlights from Barack Obama's career [dailykos.com] as a US Senator: specific pieces of legislation, what they meant and how they were passed.
The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act
Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.
While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew heavily upon the wording of this bill.
The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.
First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.
Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.
Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.
The act created this Web site [usaspending.gov], which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs.
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
This law [loc.gov] helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.
The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya [wikipedia.org].
Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law [washingtonpost.com], which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.
The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.
The bill [govtrack.us] has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."
Re:If you cannot even lead your party ... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not an Obama guy - His lack of experience scares me
You're right. 20 years of experience [politifact.com] in public service and law isn't nearly enough.
Re:The answer is right there (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Who supports FISA? (Score:4, Informative)
People who deliberately wage war against civilian populations typically aren't afforded protections in civilized societies.
Bullshit. Any civilized society will give such people the same protections as any other criminal. Look at the lone 9/11 hijacker who was captured. He wasn't tortured, or torn limb-from-limb, or thrown in jail without a trial. No, he was put on trial and convicted in a court of law just like any other criminal.
Criminals lose several rights as well (felons can't vote in the US).
The Constitution never says that the right to vote is to be universal. It lists many conditions which cannot be used to determine eligibility to vote, such as race, sex, age if at least 18 years old, failure to pay poll tax, etc. Nowhere does it say that criminals must be allowed to vote, and so this is allowed.
Conversely, nowhere in the bill of rights does it say that any of those rights are to be removed from criminals, so they still apply.
Re:The answer is right there (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The Honeymoon Is Over (Score:3, Informative)
Yes the new FISA is an abomination, but he could have done nothing to prevent its passage and, had he tried, would have been promptly sandbagged by the fear-mongers on the right.
Keep November in mind, please!
We are keeping november in mind. And obviously, so is Obama. Rather than standing by principles, he showed his true colors to be just as much of a political whore as any of the others. That's sort of the crux of the whole issue.
Dennis Kucinich on FISA (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly enough while semi-randomly browsing YouTube I found this video [youtube.com] of Dennis Kucinich talking about how the congress is trying to push that FISA thing and how they went as far as having a secret congress meeting (the 6th in history) dedicated to the topic.
Seems like unlike what I first thought that stakes are much higher than what I suspected would be an issue only the Slashdot crowd would care about. I hope this video sheds some light on the context of this news article, even though the video isn't news.
Re:If you cannot even lead your party ... (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not an Obama guy - His lack of experience scares me
You're right. 20 years of experience [politifact.com] in public service and law isn't nearly enough.
Damn straight. As of next January, he'll have completed 4 years of service at the national level (with basically no experience internationally). 8 years at the state level (and as a state senator - good experience, but not not that impressive on the national stage). And from your own link which seems to debunk his 20 year claim: [politifact.com]
To get to 20 years of experience, we still need eight years from Obama's career prior to holding public office. Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He worked for a year as a financial analyst; in his memoir he said he spent his days behind a computer terminal, "checking the Reuters machine that blinked bright emerald messages across the globe" and feeling like "a spy behind enemy lines." He gave up that job to go into community organizing, work he felt was more important politically. He worked three years as a community organizer in Chicago before going to Harvard Law School. We won't count the junior-level business experience as working "on behalf of families who are having a hard time," but the community organizing work does seem to fit the bill. That brings his work experience to 15 years.
Did you read that article before you linked to it?
Re:The answer is right there (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:The answer is right there (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The answer is right there (Score:5, Informative)
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.
(Sad) Reality Check (Score:4, Informative)
Obama's just another stinking politician. There was never any reason to expect otherwise. He's not just some guy from out of left field who came along with a happy message and got lucky. To become the DNC's anointed one, he had to make deals and secret promises and had to receive the blessings of the moneyed interests that have been in control for many decades. He's as much an insider as any other politrickster at this point.