23 Responses for "FISA Bill Question"

1. joeldavis July 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm 1

   The President and his administration were not granted immunity/amnesty by this bill, but it has that effect.

   Since the *illegal* wiretapping program came to light (not through disclosure, but through investigations and whistle blowing) the Bush Administration has blocked every attempt to look into this matter and has said “trust us”.

   Congress has rolled over and taken it.

   So several individuals sued the telcos for their involvement in the program. This was the only chance that the public had left that the silence would be broken and the whole truth would come out.

   Congress passing the bill today had two major implications: 1) The fourth amendment is over. The illegal warrant-less wiretapping program, is now the legal warrant-less wiretapping program. Congress has given the president “because I said so” power to listen in to anyone’s communications without even jumping through the easiest of hoops. 2) The wedge that we had through the telco lawsuits to someday find out the truth has been taken away.

   So now you ask, could the next president re-open the investigations and could Bush be prosecuted later? Perhaps, but political momentum is against it and this bill ratified his program so he would say “if what I did was wrong, why did Congress pass a law allowing it soon after I started doing it”. And any leverage the prosecution would have to elicit testimony or evidence from the telcos is gone.

   And one final note: The telcos did not follow the law like they were supposed to. The telcos know the laws about wire tapping very well. They were asked by the Administration to break the law and they complied. The existing FISA law explicitly says that if they do so, they will be held liable financially. And before you think that post-911 hysteria justified following orders, remember that some of the telcos did follow the law, and refused the President.

   I commend to you this article, or at least the accompanying video:
   http://rawstory.com/news/2008/As_FISA_heads_toward_vote_Feingold_0708.html

   Or this one:
   http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/8/1691/06821

2. Zandra July 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm 2

   Thanks Joel. I was super confused with everything going on about it. That makes more sense.

3. edgeplot July 9th, 2008 at 7:54 pm 3

   This administration will never be held accountable because our Democratic Congress is spineless. How many subpoenas and congressional summons has the administration already ignored? Countless. And the Congress has not once used its enforcement powers to compel testimony, bring forth reluctant witnesses or force the production of requested documentation. The administration has gotten away with murder again and again with the full complicity of Congress. This FISA fiasco is just the latest example.

   Obama won’t do anything to change FISA once he’s in office, assuming there were even any legislative incentive to do so. Really, what executive of any political affiliation is going to give up power once it has been ceded to him or her? The Bush administration shrewdly made several power grabs for the executive branch, Congress allowed it, and now it’s enshrined in precedent.

4. Kables July 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm 4

   Ugh.

   Though I think Obama is still a better choice than Hillary, like many on the left, I’m deeply saddened by this support for this, and it casts a dark pall over his entire campaign. I’ll still vote for him in November. And I can see why he voted for it. But will I be wearing my Obama shirt around town and throwing him extra cash when I have it? I dunno.

5. joeldavis July 9th, 2008 at 10:04 pm 5

   I agree. Obama is still better than Clinton, still way better than McCain, but my respect for him has slid a bit over this. I don’t buy the “he’s moving to the center” B.S. that the McCain camp is selling and the media is lapping up. But he definitely reversed himself on this issue and I don’t think he should have. My next donation will go to the Electronic Frontier Foundation instead of the Obama campaign. (The EFF is representing the plaintiffs in one of the class action lawsuits against the telcos, and they have vowed to fight on, even perhaps challenging the Constitutionality of this legislation.)

6. Woeful July 10th, 2008 at 3:54 am 6

   I will still vote for Obama but passing this Act without a fight should be a HUGE issue for anyone who cares about the Constitution. This Act essentially says that it’s OK to violate the Fourth Amendment when it’s convenient and you won’t even be punished for it. This is a dark time for the Republic.

   Bush has already granted himself and his administration retroactive immunity by pardoning himself for war crimes should he be charged with them:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc

   The only good news that came from yesterday was this:
   http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/09/alharamain_lawsuit/index.html

   A Federal judge ruled that George W. Bush is a felon!

7. D M July 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am 7

   I’ve been having a long, long discussion with people about this, and it really hasn’t changed my mind: I can’t vote for Obama. I know it was a lose-lose situation for him, and I feel for that. But in a losing situation, don’t principles matter even more?

   Even with Olbermann’s thoughts on the subject–and I like them quite a bit– there is no way that Bush or any member of his administration will ever be investigated or prosecuted. Since there is no will to do right…what is the point?
   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463360/

   So sure, IF Obama said that he voted for it because to do so would’ve ensured his loss, and IF he promised to have his AG investigate everyone come Jan 21, and then IF he followed through with that, then I’d reconsider.

   But why should he follow through with any of that? He voted for a bill he knew was wrong, and he’s not being punished for it.

   If not having a Republican in office is the only way to save America, but voting in someone who can’t hold to his or her principles is the way to prevent that, has America really been saved?

   I hate to make this thing the only issue that matters. There are so many that do. But when I’m dealing with someone with such a short political career, every action they take speaks a lot more (perhaps than it ought to) about what kind of person they are. Yes he tried to keep the anti-immunity clause in, but when that failed, we were left with the exact same bill.

   Obama said this bill was wrong. He voted for it anyway.

   What’s to keep him from doing that the next time?

8. Kables July 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pm 8

   Go ahead. Don’t vote. Or vote for McCain. You’re in Oregon, and we know how that state will swing….

9. Kables July 10th, 2008 at 1:53 pm 9

   Lessig’s perspective:

   “Finally, and 2bc: please, fellow liberals, or leftists, or progressives, get off your high horse(s). More on this with the next post but: it is not “compromising” to recognize that we are part of a democracy. We on the left may be right. We may be the position to which the country eventually gets. But we have not yet earned the status of a majority. And to start this chant of “principled rejection” of Obama because he is not as pure as we is, in a word, idiotic (read: Naderesque). “

10. Aaron July 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm 10

    “Get off your high horse”???

    The man just voted to repeal the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That he’s doing it entirely for “pragmatic” reasons makes it no less hard to take. In fact it makes it worse, because he knows better.

    This vote might just end up costing him the election, because the only people it pisses off are his supporters. And it’s not going to win over anybody to his side, because the type of benighted dipshits who think it’s just dandy for the Preznit to warrantlessly spy on anybody he wants, anytime he wants, for any reason he wants, all in the name of “protecting us from terror,” were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

    So yeah, if getting angry at the man for voting to allow the President to wipe his ass on the Bill of Rights makes me a “Naderesque purist” in Lessig’s eye, then so be it, I guess that’s what I am. How dare he tell me to pretend to like the taste of the shit we’re all being forced to eat.

    Fuck Lessig if that’s how he really feels.

11. Aaron July 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm 11

    And another thing: before anybody jumps in to accuse me of being this angry because I was in that starry-eyed “Obama is different” camp, I never was. I’m not naive. Politicians are what they are, and of course they always tack to the center after the primaries. Obama wants to be President, and there are compromises anyone in that position has to make. It’s par for the course.

    But there are some issues – a very few – that you simply cannot compromise on. Torture is one. And yeah, illegal police-state spying is another. He had no electoral need to flip on this issue, and no possible moral justification to do so either. And he did anyway.

    Maybe I’ll vote for him, maybe I won’t. I really don’t know at this point.

12. Woeful July 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pm 12

    This is the best comment I’ve seen anywhere regarding anything. It was posted at Reddit:

    “dotrob 21 points 6 hours ago* [-]

    While listening to the NPR report of the FISA capitulation this morning, I had a kind of daydream that Obama was elected and, on his first full day in office, took on the full mantle of “unitary executive” powers that Bush has developed in the last eight years and used those powers to declare Bush and all his cronies enemy combatants, had them arrested, and sent them to someplace dark, cold, and very, very scary overseas for many years of exploring, and crossing, their psychological and physical limits — for the sake of “national security.” I imagined that Obama would merely shrug at the many immediate and vocal critics he would face — saying that if we were willing to accept Bush’s machinations for eight years, we were clearly going to accept his.

    I shivered with a dreadful joy. I would almost vote for him if I knew we could enjoy four (or more) years of stories of the former regime’s defense lawyers whining in court about their clients’ extraordinary rendition.”

    Of course the scary thing is that any administration henceforth can actually do shit like this. Maybe that’s why Congress is acting like a bunch of wussies. They’re afraid Bush will just have the whole lot renditioned and that’s that. And they made it legal!

    … Where did Congress go? Nobody knows…

13. The Goat July 10th, 2008 at 4:43 pm 13

    In 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. I don’t regret it, because

    A) I honestly, given the information available to me at the time, didn’t see enough differences between Gore and Bush. I felt that on key economic/labor issues, Gore simply wasn’t far enough left of Bush.

    B) I was in Ohio, and even if Gore got all of Nader’s votes, he still would have lost the state.

    This FISA bill is an abomination, and Obama never should have voted for it. However, it strains credulity to argue that he wouldn’t be better overall for civil liberties than John McCain.

    On issue after issue, from Iraq to basic economic policies to the environoment to abortion to gay rights, Obama is STARKLY the better choice than McCain.

    I’ll never attack anyone for casting a vote of conscience against the two party duopoly. If you truly feel that the Democrats are hopelessly corrupted, vote for a third party candidate. More importantly, take action for electoral reforms like Proportional Representation that would give minor parties a fighting chance.

    However, the question really is: How can we hold Obama’s feet to the fire, and when should it be done?

    Given the stakes of this election, I don’t see how we can afford to dick around with the possibility of a McCain Presidency.

    I will still enthusiastically vote for Obama, and I will still be contributing to his campaign.

14. Aaron July 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm 14

    Dude, I’m not arguing that Obama isn’t demonstrably better than McCain on civil liberties, or anything else for that matter. There’s no question about it: Four years of McCain equals four more years of Bush, and four more years of Bush equals a blackened cinder circling the Sun where the Earth used to be. John McCain really and truly is Dr. Strangelove.

    I’m quite comfortable with the concept of “Lesser of Two Evils” voting. Hell, we all are: we’ve been doing it our entire adult lives. Have any of you ever voted for a Democrat in a Presidential election, rather than against a Republican? Nope, neither have I. And if it hadn’t been for Obama’s FISA vote, I would have happily done so again, and with an entirely clear conscience.

    What the hell do I do???? Honestly, I don’t know. Obama needs to be punished in some way for his vote to turn us into a police state. But McCain simply cannot be allowed to win under any circumstances.

    FUCK.

15. Woeful July 10th, 2008 at 6:25 pm 15

    Like I wrote before, Obama is clearly the better choice and I will still be voting for him because McCain is just flat out unacceptable. This Country is in serious trouble guys and I don’t know how to put Humpty back together again… I was counting on Barack to do that.

16. Woeful July 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm 16

    Out of curiosity, has anyone else seen this?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2277298/President-George-Bush-%27Goodbye-from-the-world%27s-biggest-polluter%27.html?funny=not

    This is why we need at least “some” kind of change. I was always proud to be an American… Until that wretched creature took office.

17. Chris July 11th, 2008 at 6:41 am 17

    Ok, call me a one issue voter, but shouldn’t we be supporting for the candidate with the better global warming record/plan? If the climate goes (more) haywire, the developing world descends (further) into chaos and misery, and the economy goes (further) into the toilet, will you still be proud of the fact that you sat out this election and gave half a vote to McCain? Will drowning and starving folks in Bangladesh die happy because some over-privileged, carbon-addicted American progressives took a stand for (their own) privacy? And in case you were swayed by the hype, McCain is a fraud on the environment — good PR, but his votes and ideas suck.

18. Chris July 11th, 2008 at 6:49 am 18

    On a less vitriolic note, I still have a few questions about this bill, and I’m wondering if anyone has info/opinions:

    1. I’ve seen several times that this bill guts FISA, but Lessig and others say it strengthens it. Which is true? By “gutting” are you referring to the immunity or to some other provision?

    2. Morton Halperin says that this bill replaces a far worse bill that had enough support in both chambers to pass if this one had fallen through. Is that accurate?

19. Chris July 11th, 2008 at 6:59 am 19

    The Halperin op-ed that I’m referring to above is at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

20. Zandra July 11th, 2008 at 8:19 am 20

    I didn’t know this was going to blow up like this. You all some very good and interesting points…which leaves me a bit torn on the subject.

    I think that the law should have never been passed. That being said I still not ready to end my support for Obama. Do I think this was a bad idea on his part? Yes, yes it was and I do expect better from him. At the same time I still fully believe he is the better choice (that is just my opinion, I’m not saying anyone should or shouldn’t vote for him). I however, feel like we as Americans have a lot of things going wrong here. I’m not ready to give up because of this. I’m still willing to fight to make sure Obama is in the White House because I still believe he has good things ahead of him. There is no way that he was going to be the savior of politics. We didn’t get into this mess because of one person we are in this mess because of a lot of people who have ruined us over many, many years. It will not happen overnight but that still doesn’t mean I won’t fight to see it happen.

21. D M July 11th, 2008 at 8:42 am 21

    I didn’t say I wasn’t going to vote, and I sure as fuck ain’t gonna vote for ‘torture is OK so long as our armed forces aren’t doing it’ McCain.

    But The Goat nails it for me:

    “However, the question really is: How can we hold Obama’s feet to the fire, and when should it be done? ”

    If we decide that principles are OK to compromise when it’s ‘our guy’ then which principles do we give in on? Which ones do we stand fast on? And how do we enforce that?

    Is Obama the better choice out of the two major ones: yes. I wish him luck. I even await his explanation for his vote; I’m a reasonable person.

    But his actions at this point are such that I cannot vote for the man in good conscience and have to vote for someone else. If that means I have to write my own name on the ballot, I will.

22. Zandra July 11th, 2008 at 11:03 am 22

    I read this on CNN earlier today:

    When pressed to explain his change in position by an angry questioner Thursday, Obama defended his vote, saying he opposed the immunity for the companies but ultimately voted for the bill because he felt that the revisions to the intelligence law were necessary to protect the nation’s security.

    “The surveillance program is actually one that I believe is necessary for our national security,” Obama told the questioner. “So I had to balance or weigh voting against a program that I think that we need — and that had been created so that your privacies were protected — or create a situation in which we didn’t have the program in place.”

    New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former Democratic presidential candidate and an Obama supporter, said Friday that the improvements to the bill allowed Obama to change his position.

    “What changed is that the bill got better and more acceptable to Sen. Obama — The judicial oversight, the fact that the president can’t unilaterally say he’s going to eavesdrop on citizens,” Richardson said. “There are a lot of safeguards in the bill that weren’t there before.

    “Now, again, the telecoms — I personally think they shouldn’t have immunity. But, you know, Sen. Obama had to make that decision,” Richardson said. “We do have to protect ourselves against terrorists, but I understand there’s some in the base that are concerned.”

23. D M July 11th, 2008 at 1:20 pm 23

    I reply with Sen. Feingold’s comments about this bill:

    “I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.”

    Taken from here:
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/10/aclu/

    But I’m not trying to demonize the man; I just…still don’t see how we can ensure that he’ll do what needs doing, and I don’t buy for an instant that ‘national security’ thing. Still; I get that he has to play to the country, not to me personally.