Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won't Come Out and Say It)

[slipslidingaway]

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

"...What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill?

The answer is simple:

Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office. Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive...


So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.

It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.

If you really care about civil liberties in the National Surveillance State, you have to recognize that both parties will be constructing its institutions. The next President will be a major player in its construction, as important if not more important than George W. Bush ever was. That President will want more authority to engage in surveillance, and he'll be delighted for Congress to give it to him officially."


...

[wtmusic]

1. All politicians are the same? Feh.

Don't buy the idea that Obama wants a police state.

[slipslidingaway]

9. I did not read it that way, but buying into the idea that warrantless

eavesdropping is now OK and that Obama will monitor the program to protect our liberties is placing too much confidence in one person IMO.

So while the outcome might be unintentional on the part of Obama, we could be left with a result that is unwanted.

:shrug:


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35726prs20080619.html?s_src=RSS

"...This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

[slipslidingaway]

17. He stated this much better than I did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3496079

"We must all understand something. With warrantless spying we are on a razor's edge. There is only the finest of lines separating us from being targeted, harassed, punished, or retaliated against for thought or speech. And that line is easily crossed because our protection depends only on the will of those in office. There are no remaining checks and balances.

So our only security is the luck of choosing a "nice" person to be in charge. If we are lucky, that person won't abuse the power. And it comes down to pure luck, because seldom is a person what he or she represents themselves to be in a political campaign. And people can and do change. Nice people can become not-so-nice people.

And here is something very important that everyone should be aware of:

The very existence of warrantless spying is itself intimidation.

How many people will give second thoughts to expressing honest opinions, or resistance to encroachments on their liberties (or their wallets) if in the backs of their minds they know anything they say or type is archived permanently can be traced back to them? The numbers of voices that will speak out on any subject, whether it's abuse, human rights violations, torture, exploitation, denial of rights and civil liberties, or any other subject will diminish rapidly.

This is a bad, bad road we're on. It's not something to minimize or compromise on."

[NNN0LHI]

2. Let me tell you why the person who wrote this is on drugs

First off the Republicans will never allow a Democratic president to wield these kinds of powers. Even if there is only one Republican left in each house they will shut everything down if this is not rescinded immediately once a Dem were to become president. They will shut the entire country down if need be.

Obama knows this too.

Don

[Annces]

3. You have to be careful to not look only one way

when crossing a street. Another car can be coming from the other direction. So it is wise to not want to give Obama too much power either.

[slipslidingaway]

10. My thoughts as well. n/t

[CANDO]

4. He may need this

To fend off the Repigs concocting a terror attack to make the Dems look bad. Yes, I do think they could/would do such a thing. These people have proven themselves to be extremists of the most dangerous sort.

[AZ Criminal JD]

7. You will make a fine recruit for the police state.

To think that people with that type of thinking are in our party.

[tabatha]

8. No, it prevents the repubs from concoting a terror attack

and blaming it on the dems, so that McCain can win or Bush stay in power.

We have a megalomaniacin the WH and no tools to deal with him.

[Bluerthanblue]

12. "our party" is made up of human beings-

who have the same potential as "them" for doing wrong. Believing that 'we' are above them, is the kind of thinking that is rampant in those who favor "police states".

IMO and experience.


peace~

[CANDO]

20. Relax, bamalib

I don't like or support any of these powers that erode our constitutional rights. All I'm saying is that don't think for one minute these bastards on the right aren't at least secretly hoping we have another 9/11 under the watch of a Democratic administration. And in case you haven't been paying attention, a whole bunch of people believe certain officials of the Bush/Cheney Adm. at the very least "allowed" 9/11 to occur for the express purpose of scaring us into accepting this potential intrusion into our lives. Wouldn't it be prudent to use these wiretaps on certain people who may wish us harm for political purposes? Perhaps some of the same individuals who may have "looked the other way" for 9/11? I simply throw this out for conversation's sake. Back off and relax on the "police state" horse shit. I am not an advocate of a police state.

[Bandit]

5. And if Black Box voting gives us McCain??

I find your assessment scary..It means our great HERO is no better than the other scum inhabiting Congress.

[slipslidingaway]

13. Would people be OK with this law if McCain, by some chance,

were elected? That is a question we need to ask ourselves.

[tuckessee]

6. Already justifying Barak's kowtowing to tryanny.

Man, that was fast but we knew it was coming.

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Yes we knew it was coming. And it's sickening!

:puke:

[slipslidingaway]

15. Placing to much faith in an individual is scary. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

14. Obama didn't "score points with his base" by praising

...a bill which most liberals find disgusting.

A bill which makes the Fourth Amendment unenforceable.

If Obama votes for a final bill with retroactive immunity, then fewer people will donate and volunteer for Obama.

[slipslidingaway]

16. He scored points with some people when he said that he would

try and remove the retroactive immunity clause, at least that is what I've read in some of the posts on DU.

:shrug:

67 senators voted against removing the immunity clause back in February, do we really expect it to be that different this time???

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015


NAYs ---67

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

[Eric J in MN]

18. Maybe the writer meant that some liberals believe that retroactive immunity will be removed

...with Obama's help.

However, overall, I'd say that Obama's support among liberals was much less after he sent out that statement than before he sent out that statement.

As you point out, retroactive-immunity won't be removed.

[slipslidingaway]

19. I think that sums it up nicely and thanks for highlighting

the state issue in your other post.