I don't think it's any surprise that Progressive Demcrats are angry about Senator Obama's vote on the FISA bill; and with good reason. The FISA bill that passed through Congress last week is an egregious violation of our Constitution, and, more importantly, the basic principles for which it stands, namely our essential liberties.
Now that Senator Obama has, mistakenly, cast his vote in favor of this terrible legislation, there has been a tremendous response from his supporters denouncing his decision. The largest group (currently) on MyBarackObama is a group doing just that: denouncing this vote.
What troubles me the most, though, is not the anger or frustration from his supporters, not the potential harm this will do for his campaign, and not even the idea that Senator Obama, seemingly, disagrees with us on this issue. No, what bothers me most is that there has been absolutely no response to his frustrated constituents and supporters. What bothers me most is acting as if ignoring us will make this go away. What bothers me most is that the only insight we have to Obama's decision comes from a canned memorandum sent out to the bloggers on July 3, before the vote was even taken.
Senator Obama's canned response concerning the FISA vote makes no attempt to explain away how or why he would even consider voting YEA on a bill that rips our essential liberties from us, and puts the interests of corporations above those of ordinary citizens. Let me repeat that last point for clarity: this bill puts the interests of corporations above the interests of ordinary American citizens. Other than Republican money mongers, and a select few Democratic corporatists, who, in their right mind, thinks that it is okay to put the interests of corporations above those of American citizens? The only explanation we get from this canned response is that he does not support some of the key provisions (i.e., retroactive immunity to telecoms, spying on US citizens, etc.), yet he voted for it anyway.
I, for one, am sick and tired of our government not representing my interests as an individual. I am sick and tired of corporate interests and their "gimmies" from our government. Make no mistake about it, this bill does not protect us from any harm. Indeed, it does more to harm the American way of life than any threat of terrorism ever will.
Senator Obama, your explanation of your support for this bill is far from complete. On one hand, you state that you want to protect American's rights and liberties, and on the other you vote to strip them away from us. How can you, in all honesty, not expect us to see through this game of politics as usual? You are supposed to be our candidate of change. You are a Constitutional scholar that should understand that there is NO legislation worth voting for, no matter what its intent, if it undercuts the fundamental values that our country was founded on.
I don't want to keep re-reading the nebulous response Obama sent on July 3. I want to hear something new. I want Obama to diretly address this issue with us. He needs to regain our trust when it comes to protecting our liberties, something we've heard him express support for, and something his actions directly denied us. I want a detailed account, from a Constitutional scholar, about the constitutionality of this bill, how he expects to make this right if we elect him President, and a promise that he will not let our government get away with the continued erosion of our Consitution. I don't want a fluffy campaign speech. I want to be talked to like an intelligent adult, capable of understanding our Constitution, our laws, and what liberty means. I want specifics. I want to specifically know why (and how) Obama was capable of casting that vote, and walking away with a good conscience. Or, if he didn't walk away with a good conscience, why he voted YEA instead of NAY.
This issue is important enough to so many Democrats that it deserves more attention, and we deserve more respect.
Let this much be clear: it is NEVER okay to remove ANY of our essential liberties, no matter what the potential reward may be.
The end does not justify the means. Don't ever forget that.
I continue to be baffled by the furor of liberals who feel that Barack has betrayed them by voting for the FISA bill.
I have often said, and Barack has often said, and he is one of the few politicians I've heard say it (though I imagine several have said so, I just haven't heard it from very many) that "politics is a dirty business." And there's no way not to be a politician if you want to serve in elective office, so Barack has taken a position unpopular with folks who are aghast at the telecom immunity just voted on.
Here is another quote:
"Politics is the art of the possible." Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867German Prussian politician (1815 - 1898)
While we are many of us -- including you and me -- disappointed in the fact that a bill was voted into law that grants telecoms civil immunity from acts of warrantless wiretapping, I am not as disappointed in Obama as I am in the fact that the bill was going to pass no matter what he did. So he did what was POSSIBLE to do -- he voted for a bill that improved the situation, if only slightly, and not nearly as much as he has clearly said he wished could have been the case.
Obama has explained his position adequately -- that the bill before Congress was an improvement over what existed prior to passage. At least now there are strong provisions for judicial and Attorney General review and criminal prosecution IS still possible. Even with those improvements, Obama tried to amend the bill so as to remove the immunity provision. He failed. But he did try.
In fact, I'll say this: had not Obama voiced his position last year in terms that you and I agree with, we would NOT have been able to vote a bill into law that contained ANY provisions for judicial or Attorney General review. So while he's being unfairly accused of flip-flopping here, it is a fact that his previously stated position is one of the big reasons that the just-passed law is slightly better than the old law.
And, yes, it's true, Obama is "moving to the center" on issues that are dear to us on the left, and his actions are calculated to get votes.
What's undeniable is that he can't do us any good if he doesn't get elected. Politics is a dirty business. It is going to become significantly less dirty once Obama takes the oath of office. That is my sincere belief.
Passage of the FISA Bill has taken a lot of the wind out of my sails. I just am so disappointed in Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. This was a chance for him to show some real leadership on a very important issue and he clearly ducked it. Democrats would have rallied behind him if he had taken a stand, but he did not.
There is no way I will vote for John McCain in the fall. Barack Obama will still have my vote. However, I thought for the first time I would actually be voting for someone I believed in and not just the lesser of two evils. I guess I was wrong.
Senator Obama, how could you? I gave you my heart and you handed it back to me in pieces.
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed in two things today. The first, obviously, is Obama's choice to support the FISA bill as presented in the Senate.
The second, and, more importantly, is his lack of explanation to his millions of supporters about WHY he supported this act (and "it's a good compromise" isn't a good explanation).
I believe in my ability to help bring real change to Washington DC. I hope that Barack takes the time to elaborate WHY he supported this bill that so many of his supporters dislike, and I hope the reasons are good.
Otherwise... he's going to continue to get an earful from his supporters until he does.
Well, the big day came and went. Barack Obama made a point of showing up in the Senate to vote (unlike John McCain who apparently doesn't care one way or the other). Some of his votes were good (for the Dodd-Feingold, Spector and Bingamen amendments). But the big ones were bad, very bad indeed.
So what's the big deal? Why can't I accept this compromise? What more could Senator Obama have done? What does this mean for my support for Barack Obama?
I'm extremely disappointed in todays Senate Vote regarding Telecom Immunity. While I'm pleased that Sen. Obama did support the amendments stripping Immunity, he did not stand opposed to it passing ... despite our voices, despite his original pledge and stance regarding FISA/Telecom immunity, and despite that it is evident that the Bush administration did indeed do something illegal.
I'm directing my focus, energy, and money towards candidates and agencies that are willing to stand up for civil liberties. The ACLU will challenge this bill when it is signed gleefully by Bush. Sadly, we now have to rely out outside agencies to protect and uphold the Constitution where our Congress fails. (My disappointment is also with Sen. Tim Johnson and Sen. John Thune -- who also voted for this bill ... and with Rep. Herseth-Sandlin that voted for this in the house. I'll make sure that if asked to volunteer or for campain contributions that money is needed elsewhere to protect the civil liberties destroyed from their vote.)
Now, one can look back in time to another illegal wiretapping President named Richard Nixon. He was forced to resign from office on Aug. 8th for his abuses. Back then, even his fellow Republicans had to agree and begin the impeachment process. Now, less than 35 years later the ethical integrity of both Republicans and Democratic officials has declined to the point that we are granting immunity and giving illegal lawbreaking a pass. There is irony that Nixon only was involved with illegal wiretapping and surveillance of the Democratic Party, meanwhile Bush has expanded that to the whole US with blessings from our Congress. It seems quite symbolic that a number of people from right to left most interested in preserving and protecting our Constitution are joining forces and becoming Strangebedfellows. Aug. 8th will be a symbolic moneybomb movement where pledges and money donated will be done on the same day Aug. 8th -- and creating a powerful message to Democrat and Republicans alike. It's time to elect leaders that stand up for the Constitution, not compromise or gut it.
http://www.accountabilitynowpac.com/
How many of our senators voted to invade Iraq because they didn't read the NIE or didn't read enough of it or didn't understand enough of it? Five plus years later we're more deeply entrenched in that quagmire than ever before with no end in sight and all our "I wish I hads" don't mean a thing.
How many of our senators are going to vote for the upcoming FISA bill because they haven't read it or won't read it or won't understand enough of it? This is what scares us about your stance on this corrupt piece of legislation, Senator Obama. So many of us believe that if you or your experts really read it, there is no way you'd be voting for it. Absolutely, NO WAY!
We know that you know that the president has no power to "order" any US citizen to do anything, let alone to break the law, yet there is a wall of justification for this bill which has been built with the last 8 years of Bush's corrupt monarchy that has led Americans to believe the president does have that right! You and I both know, HE DOES NOT! Never has had that right. Yet, you stand behind this bill's passage.
We don't understand why your experts and consultants haven't told you this, Senator. We don't understand how your background in Constitutional law could permit you to allow this bill to pass. How can you stand by and watch it pass knowing it's wrong?
Yes, it's true that your one vote won't turn this bad piece of legislation around, but that's not the issue. The issue is your unwillingness to stand up for what you believe in, for what you know is right and say so. The flip-flop accusers need to be damned. They're going to say it regardless. The Republicans have nothing to crow about, nothing to point at and proudly say "yes, we were responsible for that wonderful thing." All they have is the ability to try and focus Americans on the perceived shortcomings of the Democrats. That's the only ammunition they have. They have diversion, we have Barack Obama as our nominee!
Today, CNN accused you of flip-flopping on our withdrawal from IRAQ, yet the video showed the exact opposite - your very consistent stand on that issue. They're going to say whatever their corporate shills want them to say. However, what we want them to say is that despite the insurmountable odds of defeat in the Senate you stood strong and proud and voted against this badly framed, corrupt piece of legislation. That you voted to uphold our 4th Amendment rights because you believe we can maintain national security without compromising even one word of our Constitutional rights!
To put it a different way, Glenn Greenwald wrote today:
The bill thus ensures that what [Nancy] Soderberg [LA Times] admits is lawbreaking by both the Government and telecoms will never be addressed or resolved by a court of law. It shields the lawbreakers from accountability in court. That's its whole purpose. She has to know that, and yet here she is, telling people that this bill is a just and good policy because it "allows the courts to determine the legality of these actions." Can anyone coherently deny that it's outright lying to claim that this bill "allows the courts to determine the legality of these actions" when it does the exact opposite?
Help stop their lying, Senator Obama. Don't let Bush & Co. steamroll yet another falsehood on the American people. We're counting on you.
One of our fellow Obama supporters asked whether this FISA/immunity issue matters at all. "Is anybody going to die?" "What does this have to do with my bills, gas, healthcare?"
As a rough and quick response, I offer two preliminary answers – one short (and more short term) and one a bit more distant/long-term:
The short/short-term answer: I've visited a number of dictatorships, both before and after the fall of the Berlin wall. Ubiquitous spying can cause lots of people and entire societies serious, depressing, meaningful psychological harm; it tends to result in arbitrary, conflict-producing, brittle governments resorting to unfair practices including political repression, stifled dissent, and discrimination against vulnerable groups or dissenters/creative types/artists/intellectuals. Societies that take that approach (e.g. East Germany, where a significant portion of the populace were employed by or informants for the Stasi secret police) tend not to do very well in terms of achieving the economic prosperity that allows them to pay bills, buy gas, get health care, etc. Beyond that, the individuals affected often have no way to challenge the justness of the actions taken against them -- just ask those trying to get off the terrorist watch or no-fly lists -- and some often even suffer physical harm (including arbitrary imprisonment). Again, this isn't speculation: US citizens and many others have already been imprisoned for years without due process or rights to contest the (secret) evidence against them. In the USA (!) as well as at Gitmo and other prisons, secret and overt, abroad.
Illusory measures like this FISA Amendments Bill, which like the “shoes off” routine at the airport give you the false comfort of feeling secure (while being easily evaded by genuine terrorists), and that avoid the truly effective fact-based, hard, detailed intelligence gathering that's proved empirically successful against terrorists, will also mean that you, yours, and the nation are more (not less) vulnerable to risk of a terror attack, because of the inevitable mission creep and diversion of resources involved and the false feeling that we've taken effective action when we've actually taken only the easy, false-comfort, self-defeating route that actually alienates the populations most able to provide actionable intelligence.
Such spying is also is of a piece with the same theory of untrammeled executive power that underlies other arbitrary and unfair, counterproductive actions we've seen in recent years from the Bush administration: it renews a precedent for, and encourages the slippery slope of e.g. torture, indefinite detention, secret and lawless prisons, kidnapping, and extraordinary rendition. These actions have indisputably left us less powerful and less safe in the world -- despite the fatuous, illogical, and self-serving Bush/McCain rhetoric that "well, at least there's been no attack since 9/11!" [It's another subject, but in addition to confusing correlation with causation, that argument reveals ignorance of al Qaeda and its modus operandi (multi-years between attacks, striving for the spectacular, etc), of memos from al Qaeda that have been captured and say that the strategy is not to attack the US right now, and of the adversary’s morphing (according to Rand Corporation and other sources) into a stronger, more decentralized, global franchise.]
An answer more for the long-term: if these FISA amendments pass, with or without the telecom immunity envisaged, the amended law enshrining the hi-tech Bush surveillance and datamining approach will change America in subtle but profound and enduring ways, to the point that we simply won't be the same country we've been or share many of the vital, core principles that we've shared essentially since the founding (although it's those principles more than anything else that bind us together). Recall that on that other July 4th, in 1776, a major reason for the revolution was King George's assertions of arbitrary, unchecked power, including the "general" (unspecified) warrants that resulted in searches of the colonists' homes without any sort of notice, specific fact-based warrant or probable cause/individualized suspicion.
That arbitrary, unfair, and tyrannical practice without checks and balances tore the social fabric then, and today’s updated techno-version will just as surely tear the social fabric in insidious ways now and in the future. This effect won't be immediately apparent or visible, but it will matter tremendously for your long-term future and that of any children, grandchildren, or those of relatives you may have. At least that's my grave concern.
Re-read Orwell.
