The FISA capitulation ... er ... compromise legislation is wrong on so many levels, it just leaves me frustrated in the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party.
If the right to be free from the fear that the government might be snooping us is not basic to a free society, I don't know what is. Is there any example from history where a government's license to spy on its own citizens has had a good result?
Tom Perriello, commendably, will have none of it. His full statement is after the fold.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Barack Obama. More on his statement after the fold as well.
Here is Tom Perriello's clear and unequivocal statement on FISA:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Jessica Barba, 434-882-4163
Perriello Blasts Congress for Allowing Spying on Americans
June 20, 2008 - Ivy, VA - Tom Perriello, the Democratic nominee for Virginia's Fifth District, today denounced Congress for capitulating to President Bush and allowing warrant-less spying on innocent Americans. Congress struck a deal on Thursday on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (HR 3773), changing the rules on the government's wiretapping powers and providing legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in President Bush's program of eavesdropping on American citizens.
"This "compromise" will not make Americans safer," said Perriello, a national security consultant with experience in Afghanistan, Darfur and West Africa. "If Congress and the President were serious about national security they would have spent their time and energy giving our brave intelligence officers the resources they need, not the American freedoms that our armed forces defend. Our constitutional principles are never up for negotiation."
Rep. Virgil Goode (R) voted for telecom immunity.
In stark contrast, Obama, unfortunately, tries to flim-flam the issue. He notes the importance of being able to conduct lawful surveillance to national security -- duh, everyone agrees with that, but then gets to the crux of the matter -- telecom immunity. He says this:
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.-á 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."
Give me a friggin' break. Sen. Obama, if you pass this legislation and grant the telecoms immunity for their past violations of our civil liberties, there is no going back to correct that.
Furthermore, granting immunity under these circumstances basically sends a message to telecoms, and other potential violaters of our civil liberties, that if the President tells them it is ok, then they will not incur any consequences even for actions they know to be illegal.
And Sen. Obama, while it is comforting to know that you will not be as abusive as President Bush in exercising this power, it is cold comfort, indeed.
Overall I agree with your, and Perriello's, position on this issue. As do a good number of other Americans. Not sure why the Democrats are capitulating on this one - it's not like if they vote for it their Republican adversaries will give them a free pass with respect to national security. The Republicans will attack the Dems on security no matter what and voting for this bill will lose as many voters (probably more, actually) than they'd gain. Sheesh.
As for why the Democrats capitulated, the fact is that Reid, Pelosi, et al., never wanted to fight on this issue. Dodd, with the support of the blogs, prevented it from passing.
Now that most primaries are done and Democrats don't have to worry about their left flanks, the all-clear signal has sounded and the leadership is getting what it wanted all along.
Disgusting.
Think about this: Under the Republican Congress led by Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist -- this legislation could not be passed (although we still got the unconstitutional MCA and DTA). But under the Congress of Steny, Harry, and Nancy, the Congress gave up the ghost.
I have sympathy for Barack Obama as being part of a caucus of cowards -- but I will not send him another dime if he doesn't take part in a filibuster of this bill if it contains retroactive immunity or if he votes for this 'compromise'. These cowards are lying when they say this improves on the Senate bill -- it is much arguably worse.
Instead, my cash and time will go to patriots and leaders like Tom Perriello and Andrea Miller and Judy Feder who have been bellowing loudly of how damning this legislation is.
As I understand it, the telecom companies (who are shameless in the amount of dinero they donate to chosen politicians, as bad as Big Pharma) made threatening noises about never, ever, never cooperating with the government in the future in anything related to national security, unless they were granted this immunity. Real patriots, they are. I for one doubt we will ever get our freedoms back without another revolution, this one against our own political elite.
I think it's reasonable to expect that the best case for the Dems this year was simply to punt the issue into 2009. But instead of punting the issue, they've actually signed on semi-enthusiastically. This is the third or fourth time in a year that the DEMS have tried to get this measure through congress.
And I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention that Sen. Webb has voted in favor of telecom immunity previously.
I'm not sure the endgame is quite here yet. Dodd and Feingold can still delay this thing.
If there is any good to come from this, perhaps this will be the final nail in the coffin for Harry Reid as majority leader.
I want to emphasize that no one issue defines Obama or any candidate for me. I am disappointed in Obama's stance on this issue, but as the nominee of the Democratic party and as someone with whom I agree 90% of the time, I still enthusiastically support him.
Apparently, a compromise pisses everybody off.
FISA exclusivity? FISA was already the exclusive wiretapping law of the land -- the President just decided to break it. Are we doing 'double-swears' now?
Basket warrants -- which clearly conflict with the 4th Amendment -- are still included.
On immunity, this is arguably worse -- if a judge dismisses the suit based upon the kangaroo-court-evidence that is now legislated to allow such dismissals, the reasons for the dismissal are kept in secret. It is a Kafka-esque, Orwellian nightmare of horrible legislation.
Bush got everything he wants. Hell, Roy Blunt even bragged to the New York Times that this is so.
But to be brutally honest, most Americans don't even care about this bill. I regret it, but there it is.
Did Constitutional scholar Obama suss this out by reading a sloppily written bill or is it an intentional loophole put in by the Democratic Leadership?
I think everybody should calm down a bit and see what happens...
And, yes, bills can be re-written later and MANY things DO change and get modified and taken out when a bill goes into "conference."
Kaine just came out for Big Coal; Webb just signed on to a bill for off-shore oil drilling. Let's not over-react to this vote our Presumptive President is about to make. Let's see how it all turns out...
But, most of all, let's "keep our eyes on the prize!"
Jeez, the first time he doesn't "toe the line," some of the most far left liberals are ready to break ranks, threatening all kinds of divisive actions. Yes, I can see we are going to get a lot done the next 8 years. NOT!
Grow up. Obama doesn't work for "you." He is his own man and will, one day, work for the entire country.
Obama is not "bought and paid for" by you or by anyone else. That is why we support him. We want his leadership.
I repeat -- if you want to "own" somebody -- become a Republican.
Second, no one is suggesting that Obama toe the line as defined by "far left liberals." Obama is not a far left liberal, but a left-of-center moderate.
All I am saying is that his position on this compromise is wrong, IMHO, because I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically in this case the 4th Amendment regarding searches.
So please, lump me in a group with all of those other "far left liberals" from American history, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy, to name a few.