Okay, I'm very disappointed about this FISA business. Today's post from Senator Obama doesn't change that. I am very impressed with his willingness to allow these expressions of dissent on his own website. This acceptance of disagreement and the importance of listening to disagreement and engaging it represents the leadership style I want to see in the White House.
This brings up a question of priorities. What's more important: leadership style or the protection of the constitution? I suppose I wouldn't care what style he embodied if I felt that our constitutional rights were being soundly protected. So, if there were no other considerations, I might opt to withdraw my support based on this.
Before I continue to examine my position on support of Obama's candidacy, I will make it clear why I disagree with his position on the upcoming FISA bill. Existing FISA laws already allow the government to surveil a person for 3 days without a warrant. As far as I'm concerned, this is already unconstitutional. One of the primary motivations for the colonists to take up arms againt the British was the practice of unreasonable searches and seizures. The exercise of over-reaching, non-specific warrants was experienced as a supremely unjust and socially destabilizing force. Our founders were so concerned about this that they specified the need for proof of probable cause before a search can be executed. They were clear that there had to be oaths and that the particulars of who, what and where were to be detailed. Here is the text:
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.
It doesn't leave any room for exceptions. The phrases "shall not be violated" and "no Warrants"are definitive. The founders must be rolling in their graves at the realization that today, we allow our government 3 full days in which they can do whatever they want without warrant. I mean, what is a retroactive warrant for? It allows you to provide the probable cause after you have searched and or seized. It completely violates the 4th Amendment.
So, with the 4th Amendment shredding already in action, I don't see the need for further warrantless surveillance powers being given to the executive branch. Obama, like other fear-mongers, raises the spectre of terrorism as the justification for these expansion of powers. This suspension of the 4th Amendment. Yet, I haven't heard one single scenario offered where the existing 3-day period, along with the rapid action FISA court arrangement wouldn't suffice. That might give me some reason to at least see how someone can convince themself he is justified in this stance. Even with that, though, I am loathe to continue the erosion of our civil rights. In short, not only do I see the 4th Amendment violated by existing surveillance laws, I think Obama's statement today fails to provide any concrete reason to further violate it.
Here I sit with this fundamental disagreement and disappointment. It was certainly an improvement that Obama even addressed those of us who disagree with him. A little odd that he leaves a note with a surrogate to post to us, but better than most politicians do. Still, the note didn't say anything new. It repeated his position and stated that he was willing to lose our support over this issue. Given that the dismantling of our constitutional rights has been the most disturbing aspect of the Bush administration (beginning with the Supreme Court's willingness to undermine the counting our votes), questions about how the next President will treat those rights is paramount in this election. Not a subject to be taken lightly. For him to say he is willing to lose our support over this is to undermine one of the main reasons we supported him in the first place and to dissemble the powerful energy of optimism that he generated by telling us how strongly he would fight to restore the powers of the Constitution. This is no small thing.
Do i withdraw my support? Sadly, i am left with the choice of the lesser of two evils. For me, this may be the last straw in my willingness to participate in politics. I have been a disaffected voter for all of my adulthood. (My first vote was cast in the 1980 Presidential Election. My naive self could not understand how my fellow citizens could vote for an actor. How could you ever believe that an actor was being genuine?) Let's just say it's been downhill from there. If it wasn't arms for hostages, it was presidential elections where a candidate and his wife are on national television discussing his extra-marital relations. When Clinton was voted I saw it as the lesser of two evils. I cast my vote, but I was otherwise politically passive. Obama was the first presidential candidate to come along who actually got me believing that it could be meaningful to participate. For the first time, I canvassed neighborhoods and phone-banked. Key to my perception of him was his repeated statements about how the current administration seemed to be violating the constitution and how he was dedicated to restoring our civil rights. His early stance against the war caught my attention. His legislative work in Illinois convinced me that he had the ability to work towards meaningful resolution on difficult issues. His grassroots organizing approach to his campaign seemed to substantiate his interest in empowering the citizenry.
I am whole-heartedly disappointed and my expectations of having our civil rights renewed and our executive branch put back in check have been duly lowered. I will pull the lever for Obama in November because he is the lesser of two evils. That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that I can even post these words on his web site. After I pull that lever I will go back to being a disaffected citizen. It would have been one thing to make compromises on health care because you can't politically achieve your ideals. Political realities might affect stances on taxes or trade or education. Constitutional rights are on another plane of the political playing field, however. I suppose Obama can rejoice that he attracted me to politics long enough to take part in putting him into office. He will have achieved that. However, in the name of political expediency hope has been replaced with resignation.
Comments are closed for this post.
