What is Obama’s position on the newly passed FISA bill in the HOUSE? So far we’re only getting silence. I contacted the campaign and I’m waiting for a quote. I believe that Nancy Pelosi is taking a hit for him. She’s not telling anyone to support it, but explained why she voted for it. If she really believed in it—she would have urged her colleagues to vote for it, she did not. Here’s the roll call.
If Obama is remaining quiet because he doesn’t want to have to run against the Republican/FISA ads that would come out…well….that’s wrong. He can’t allow them to frame the debate and run the agenda in the general election. Americans are solidly against immunity for the Telecoms. It’s his party now and he can easily lead on this issue against McCain by being the first one out of the gate against Telecom immunity, but stand strong for our national security. In the past Obama supported Chris Dodd’s filibuster.
It’s official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
That was huge at the time. McJoan writes:
Senator Obama, spoil Bush’s FISA Christmas celebration. Remind your colleagues that he is a lame duck with a sub 30 approval rating. Remind your colleagues that they are far more popular with Republicans than with their own party.
Remind your colleagues that, in your own words, “The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.” Reject this bill and lead your Senate colleagues in upholding the Constitution.
Marcy Wheeler writes a letter to Obama:
Senator Obama, you are asking voters to choose you to become the President of the United States. You had to as Senator–and will as President–swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
You cannot remain silent on this issue and at the same time fulfill your promise, the one you have made, and the one you will make, to defend the Constitution. Remaining silent rejects the separation of powers. Remaining silent presumes that the “political branches” can simply legislate the Courts into submission. And remaining silent communicates that you–the next President of the United States–believes checks on executive power like habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment are mere niceties and not foundational principles of this great nation.
As the presumptive leader of the Democratic Party, you can lead your fellow Senators in rejecting this unconstitutional law. But without your leadership, the Constitution will suffer a dangerous blow.
UPDATED 1: Obama has come out with a statement via Glenn Greenwald:
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. . . It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
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.
He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. The full Obama statement is here.
UPDATED 2: Digby says:
Roy Blunt and Steny Hoyer are practically tongue kissing on the floor right now and congratulating each other on their mutual fabulousness in negotiating the rape of the constitution this morning. It’s quite a love fest.
–
Capitulating to the most unpopular lame duck president in history because they are afraid of him. Makes you proud to be a Democrat doesn’t it…read on
UPDATE 3: Atrios names Obama: “Wanker of the Day “
No Trackbacks To “Where is Obama on the FISA fight? Obama responds! UPDATED 1,2, &3“
Bravo Obama! This is what it is going to take. We must stand up to the crooks and liars. On the subject of crooks and liars, watch Cindy McCain tell Jay Leno “our marriage was started on a tissue of lies.” Watch the whole thing, it is really stunning! Pretty funny when she’s been dumping on Michelle Obama, but this really shows the difference between these two women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7LUT1ezm0
Obama will lose my volunteering efforts in the Fall and maybe even my vote if he does not come out STRONGLY against this NOW.
This is his chance to really demonstrate “change”.
Should he fail, he will lose so much momentum and possibly give the presidency to McCrazyCain.
Democracy is the grandest illusion of all.
Ofcourse he is remaining silent, this is an actual issue of substance.
A real leader would have at least made a statement by now. Very disappointing.
Where is Obama on the FISA fight?
Holding the coats.
The way this diary reads is that Obama has taken a stand to filibuster this time. Is that true? I think the diary is indicating Obama stood for the filibuster in the past, but it is not known where he stands now.
Probably wishes he could vote “present” like he did in the Illinois Senate on controversial issues.
A leader would of been out in front of this prior to the house vote.
He has not voted on a FISA bill yet. Should be interesting.
Yes, hold his feet to the fire. This ain’t the time for bullshit.
All of a sudden I feel justified for not supporting Obama.He still has a chance to do the right thing, and if he blows, I’m going full blown campaigning for MCcain.
His silence on this very very important issue will make it or break it for his candidacy.
Further proff Obama’s not the great agent of change he likes to claim. Nader does a good job of calling it on Democracy Now.How do you spell C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-E.
Don’t stay silent, Obama. Show the courage to lead on this important issue. We know you can do it.
I think Obama is in a bit of a political quandry. If he makes a public statement, the debate over FISA becomes about him - he’ll definitely be taking a hit on it. In addition, what if he fights against it in the Senate, but it passes anyway? Then he looks weak. This isn’t to say he shouldn’t oppose this execrable law anyway - I think he should - only that doing so comes with great political risks.
So much for Hope:
“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
“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.”
Nyguy: So, um, how do you think McCain is going to vote on this in the Senate. I’ll bet you thirty trillion dollars he votes for it. So what do you do then?
Ruling Class Rou @ 10:
Exactly right.
My Fax from yesterday
To:
Barack Obama,
US Senator and candidate for President
Fax # 202-228-4260
From:
Alice X,
US citizen and contributor to the Obama campaign
Fax # 734-nnn-nnnn
Dear Sir
It is my understanding that the US House of Representatives will be considering revised FISA legislation within the very near future.
I write to express my strongest opposition to past and future warrantless surveillance and retroactive legal immunity for parties that may have engaged in such surveillance.
I urge you to speak out against such provisions and actions.
Thank you.
Most sincerely
Alice X
No to Congress FISA giveaway.
Obama is no longer silent. He supports the bill saying, in part:
“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.”
I think I’ll stay home on Nov. 8.
Keep the 4th admendment strong. Fight for the constitution Obama!
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”
I truely hope this is the case.
Terrorists will never be able to take away our freedoms. We can only take them away from ourselves. (Not original, but appropriate)
arbitrista @ 12:
The bill is going to pass in the Senate, there is not doubt there is not enough democrats that will vote against it.
He had to make a stand prior to the House vote. It is too late.
nyguy @ 9:
That was a bit hasty, don’t you think? Why are you in such a hurry to support McSame?
Don’t you think he deserves a chance to be heard first. I know I’ll listen to him. And I will pay close attention to what goes on for the next several months. And then some.
Booman posted Obama’s statement on FISA. It’s mixed, and not great. He opposes FISA immunity and says he’ll work with Congress to remove that portion of the bill. But he speaks more favorably of the compromise in other respects than he ought to….
Wow, I raised a question about Obama’s financing a few threads bellow and was labeled a troll.
I guess, all of you now qualify to be called trolls. After all, you ARE criticizing Obama. How dare you not be Obama sheeple?
arbitrista @ 12:
He is in the senate, his opinions have to be made public if he is to really play himself as a candidate of change. And what happended to filibusters?The cons do it all the time. I’m really going independent, and I mean, never, ever again voting for a democratic candidate for the rest of my life.
How is McCain going to vote on this? Will McCain throw out our constitutional rights? McCain supports the KGB elements in the US Government?
Anybody that makes this the reason that they will vote for McCain is still a douche. If Obama caves on this, just imagine what McCain will do, and on top of it, if McCain is president he will exploit all of these new found unconstitutional powers just as his predecessor would. Don’t be an idiot.
TPM has Obama’s statement in its entirety:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php
The gist if it is: Obama feels that, while retroactive immunity is a bad thing, he has no problems with the present wording regarding Expanded Executive Surveillance.
I translate this as: I think the phone companies should be held accountable, but screw the 4th Amendment–I want your phone records!!
arbitrista @ 14:
At least MCcain will vote for his convictions. He is a war mongering fool, and I expect it from him.
nyguy @ 28:
Oh, I see. You’re gonna vote for “integrity”.
Where does McCain stand on the constitution? Will McCain preserve the 4th admendment?
DocG @ 13:
The audacity of hype
sharkcellar @ 26:
I agree completey. A McCain Presidency will be a further descent into fascism and lunacy and I would never vote for him. Ever. Unfortunately, I just cannot support a nominee who doesn’t support basic, constitutional issues. Rather than be an idiot and vote for McCain, I’ll just not vote.
Will McCain sell the constitution out?
Talking Points Memo has this quote from Obama:
“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
“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.”
sharkcellar @ 29:
Nope, I’m simply campaigning against anyone who betrays the freedoms we have. This has been a very important issue before, and even more since Bush took over the White House. I’m not giving him a pass on it. You can be a sheep if you want to.
catch-22
DC @ 33:
With prince georgie’s s**t marks?
sharkcellar @ 29:
At least McCain made time in his schedule to actually do his duty and vote. Obama is Mr No Vote.
I personally can not vote for someone that does not vote themselves.
“Barack will support a filibuster”
but he will not lead a filibuster? another follower, not a leader.
No balls Barack.
theWalrus @ 32:
If Obama caves on this, I can understand not voting. Kucinich was my guy and I’m keeping my eyes on Obama, but I think not voting is a very unAmerican thing to do, nevermind the voting history of Americans in the last few decades. There have been far worse candidates than Obama.
ysbaddaden @ 37:
This is really bad.
Obama, you need to step up. You said we’ll change this country together. You need to get up in their face! I couldn’t tell from reading this piece if you had made a decision or not. Oh, and Hillary you need to say something too.
They wanted unity and got it.
karl @ 36:
There is no catch 22. You are either a leader who knows right from wrong or you are not.