Obama - FISA in January, 2008 vs FISA June, 2008

[paparush]

Here's what my candidate said back in January:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.

The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.

That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.

http://thehill.com/markos-moulitsas/scare-tactics-2008-01-23.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4267654

Then, he ends up NOT CASTING A VOTE in February, 2008 (He, Clinton, and Graham (R-SC) were the only three non-voting members. I know, I know, he and Hillary were busy campaigning)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

With regard to the current Bill, my candidate had this to say:
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,".

He did not say "revise" the program. He did not say "roll back" the program.

Where is my candidate's courage? Where is my candidate's fire? Why can't he stare McCain in the eye and say boldy, "This is UCONSTITUTIONAL"?

I'm losing hope.

Help me DU.

[dailykoff]

1. If he thinks we're going to trust him on this or any other legal matter

ever again he's dead wrong. All the more reason to fight against giving him or any other president unchallengeable, illegal and unconstitutional power.

[Radical Activist]

2. He never changed his position.

He supported an amendment to remove immunity then and he does now.
Being one out of 100 Senators means things aren't always exactly what you'd like.

[AZBlue]

15. Shhhh...they don't want to hear that. They can't tear him down if you present facts.

Silly you!

[dailykoff]

20. Then why didn't he vote no on cloture?

His opposition even to parts of this bill seems very feeble.

[Radical Activist]

26. Would it have made a difference?

Maybe if MoveOn and others had asked people to call their OWN Senator instead of Obama it could have moved enough people to the right side.

[Rocky2007]

21. I agree !!

He stated his claim on this issue and I see no reason to assume he has changed his mind. Y'all need to get a grip and trust Obama!
Shame on you!!!! This election is all about trust AND change.

Get a backbone, PLEASE!

[hokies4ever]

3. Civil vs. criminal prosecution

It really is that simple. Obama will still have the option of prosecuting if he becomes President.

[GarbagemanLB]

4. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit. He is voting for this purely because it is a CYA move.

It pisses me off, but I see the logic to it. If, god forbid, a terrorist attack occurs between now and November, the Republicans would point to his 'no' vote on this as weakening our defenses.

[Patchuli]

5. That's exactly why this was brought up yet AGAIN now

Good call!

[John Q. Citizen]

9. He's too weak to fight terrorists if he's so scared of the Repos. Weak. Unsure. I gave him

money and a couple of hundred hours of canvassing, phone banking, driving, etc.

No, he's not supporting this because he's afraid of the Republicans.

He's supporting this so he has the power to spy on whoever he wants without a warrant once he's president.


It's wrong, but that's the only sensible answer.

[hokies4ever]

11. His job is to win the election

and then help us take back our country. From May to November, one should expect the nominee to pander as much as possible to keep the other party from winning.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Oh, I get it. You think young people will repond to pandering and turn out in droves.

I don't.

[Rocky2007]

22. DUDE!!!! YOU HAVE NO CLUE~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Peacetrain]

24. No.. you have it bass ackwards

He is tryng to get it away from the presidency..

[dailykoff]

6. Dodd on the FISA bill: "This is, and always has been, a self-preservation bill."

Why is Obama so concerned to help out Bush and Cheney? I don't get it. He's not doing himself any favors no matter what terra spin the perception managers are feeding us.

[Eric J in MN]

7. In October 2007, Obama was also against a FISA bill.

Barack Obama FISA Statement of October 18, 2007

I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_comes_out_against_telecom_immunity_deal.php

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Our candidate needs to remember that people in favor of the current FISA bill will vote McCain.

I think he forgot that.

I intend to remind him, over and over before it's too late.

Obama has said that he's not perfect.

He needs our help toward greater perfection.


Here's a link to a site where you can help both Obama and yourself!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

[BzaDem]

10. I wasn't aware that McCain had a better position on this than Obama.

Because that's the choice. McCain v. Obama. Not McCain v. Obama v. the Obama I want. Obama > McCain on this issue (in terms of enforcement, or lack thereof), and every issue.

Obama is making his base livid, and he loves it. His base is going to vote for him anyway, and this will get him independent support. By ignoring people like you (who insist that he hurt himself politically when he is 1 of 100 and can't do anything about it anyway), he might actually win.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Brownback Attacks Obama On FISA Bill Vote

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x152110

direct link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0xsDKi94OE

[slipslidingaway]

13. John Dean clarifies what he said about the FISA

Posted here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3531128&mesg_id=3532596


Direct link...

http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/27/glenzilla-vs-olbermann-john-dean-weighs-in/

By: Jane Hamsher Friday June 27, 2008 12:01 pm

"...But I contacted John Dean, and I don't think he's saying what Olbermann thinks he's saying:


I said that when I read the bill, and talked to the folks at the ACLU who had been following it, that it was not clear. I raised it when appearing on Countdown with the hope that someone might figure it out. But that is the nature of this badly drafted bill that it is not clear what it does and does not do, and the drafters are not saying.

But even if the bill is unclear there is no question the Bush Administration is not going to do anything to the telecoms, so the question is whether a future DOJ could -- and here there is case law protecting the telecoms. But there may be language buried in the bill that protects them as well but it can only be found by reading the bill with a half dozen other laws which I have not yet done.

I made no declarative statements rather I only raised questions that jumped at me when reading the 114 page monster.

[zulchzulu]

14. It' simple actually. There will be two bills...one for FISA and one for telecom immunity

Even Russ Feingold believes there should be a FISA court. So does Obama. That will be Bill #1. Obama can vote for that, thus keeping the Repigs from painting him "soft" on terror.

What Obama disagrees with is telecom immunity. That will be Bill #2, which he can vote against.

[madfloridian]

17. Actually the bill weakens the courts and gives Bush more powers.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2276

"It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.

"No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

"More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House."

For more information, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa

[slipslidingaway]

18. Feingold called the compromise bill a capitulation and is not in

in favor of the bill, Obama says he will vote for the bill so they do not agree.

Obama should be playing ofense, not defense.


John Dean said

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25332028

"DEAN: Well, I think, you‘ve got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it‘s very troubling and it‘s not a good day for civil liberties, particularly."


Jonathan Turley said

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25283004

"TURLEY: Yes. This is a very frightening bill. What people have to understand is that FISA itself is controversial. This court issued tens of thousands of warrants granted applications for surveillance without turning down any. Only recently did they turn down two.

So, the standard is already so low that they have virtually never refused a request. That standard, however, was too high for the Bush administration.

And, so, people need to be very, very much aware of this bill. What you‘re seeing in this bill is an evisceration of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. It is something that allows the president and the government to go in to law-abiding homes on their word alone, their suspicion alone, and to engage in warrantless surveillance. That‘s what the framers that drafted the Fourth Amendment wanted to prevent."

[AZBlue]

16. Nice editing of the more recent quote.

Makes it sound as if Obama's changed his tune - which you and I both know he hasn't.

[slipslidingaway]

19. This is from August 01, 2007

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

"...This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom..."


"DEAN: Well, I think, you‘ve got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it‘s very troubling and it‘s not a good day for civil liberties, particularly."

[Peacetrain]

23. I got this out of one of the online papers

and it shows to me, where Obama is heading with this.. to keep the power out of a one person control.. the presidency.. which is the office he is going to take.. so I have a much better feeling about this than "some" seem to ..

"Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.

"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," Obama said today."

He is trying to move it so a president cannot become a dictator.. something we have been dealing with for the last 7 years