Obama Explains His Support For FISA Capitulation

By talkleft

Link:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate. [MORE . . . ]

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

By Big Tent Democrat

This is why the democrats shouldn't be allowed to run the countr

I have expended more than a few words criticizing Keith Olbermann for his kid-glove (fawning? sycophant?) treatment of Barack Obama, particularly his coverage of Obama's flip-flop on opposition to the very bad FISA compromise. Last night Olbermann reversed himself (sort of) and expressed some mild criticism of Obama's position on FISA (sort of) in a "Special Comment", so I thought it fair to include it here.

But first, let us recap - A brief outline of the story so far:

* Barack Obama expresses strong opposition to the Bush FISA executive eavesdropping power expansion with the Telco Immunity provision.
* Keith Olbermann broadcasts a "Special Comment" calling the FISA bill with Telco Immunity fascist.
* Obama flip-flops announcing support for virtually identical FISA "compromise" with Telco Immunity.
* Olbermann and Jonathon Alter praise Obama for "not cowering to the left" on the FISA compromise.
* Glenn Greenwald calls out Olbermann on his hypocritical coverage of Obama.
* Keith Olbermann says he did not read Greenwald, but responds anyway.
* Greenwald does read Olbermann's post and dismantles his response.
* Olberman says, "Lets change the subject."
* Olbermann broadcasts this "Special Comment" on Monday saying "Senator Obama wants his cake and eat it too":

Frankly, I found this Olbermann "Special Comment" to be somewhat incoherent, as he apparently feels compelled to wrap superfluous caveats and insert two shots at Republicans for every mild criticism of the Obama flip-flop. That said, he explicitly urges Obama to take a "second chance to make a first impression", do the right thing and either - join the opposition planning to filibuster the bill -or- explicitly state that an Obama administration will pursue a criminal prosecution of the Bush administration and Telco companies for violations of the original FISA law.

Olbermann makes much of the fact that the bill - (both the version that Obama opposes and the version that Obama supports) only provides immunity from civil lawsuits. Greenwald maintains that the possibility of criminal prosecution under this bill to be a fantasy, and remains focused on the bigger issue of stopping the expansion of executive power. In any case, I expect Obama to embrace neither of Olbermann's suggestions. Having already flip-flopped once on the issue, it just would not be politic for him to flop-flip back.

More important, Olbermann's commentary and the Olbermann/Greenwald debate has helped keep a spotlight on this important issue and the impending vote. This has all been made possible because a few Senators like Feingold and Dodd (and unlike Obama) were willing to show real leadership on this issue and keep principle ahead of politics. They succeeded in delaying the FISA vote until after the Independence Day holiday, allowing time for opposition to build. Stopping or modifying the bill still seems unlikely, but this is politics, and... who knows? Our elected representatives might even decide to defend and protect the Constitution. It could happen.

Divided We Stand
United We Fall

"It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided." Ben Franklin
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." James Madison
"Divided we ever have been, and ever must be." John Adams
"Divided we stand, united we fall." Thomas Jefferson

Divided & Balanced ™, now that is fair.
http://westanddivided.blogspot.com