Obama on the FISA 'Compromise' ...

[kpete]

:cry:

Obama on the FISA 'Compromise' ...

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. 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 and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. 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. 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."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php

[EFerrari]

1. Oh, for Christsake.

[Donnachaidh]

5. my thoughts exactly n/t

[The Magistrate]

11. Not Good, Ma'am

The telecom immunity element is for me an absolute deal-breaker.

That provision smacks of bill of attainder and ex post facto law.

If they want the rest, they simply have to give that up. The surveillance practiced was a felony, committed jointly by the administration and the companies. That cannot be swept under the rug.

"They say that Treason doth never prosper, what's the Reason? Why, when it prospers, Sir, none dare call it Treason!"

[EFerrari]

15. I can be crankish and quixotic and own to all of that.

But, this will not come to good. He has an opportunity here, everything going for him. He doesn't need to concede this, Sir.

I better go walk this dog.

[The Magistrate]

23. He Had Better Work Damned Hard In The Senate To Remove That Provision, Ma'am

Have a nice walk, my friend....

[gkhouston]

38. He may not succeed, but if he doesn't stand and fight with all the power that is in him

he's going to alienate a goodly chunk of the base and look like he's afraid to go up against Bush on a fundamental issue: the Constitution. Obama has said the Constitution matters to him. Guess we're about to find out how much.

[The Magistrate]

48. Indeed, Ma'am

"Come back with your shield or on it," as the Spartan mothers said. Success cannot be demanded, but a good fight certainly can be. Sen. Obama is the leader of the Party now, and needs to demonstrate leadership in a good cause here.

[Missy Vixen]

70. Absolutely, Sir

>"Come back with your shield or on it," as the Spartan mothers said.<

What part of "we don't support this, it's unConstitutional and violates the privacy of the average American," did Barack Obama and those who voted in favor of this hot mess today not understand?

Why is he now defending the vote as well?

I thought he was DIFFERENT!
Julie

[The Magistrate]

84. I Did Not Think Him Different, Ma'am

My custom is to expect little, in order to be pleasantly surprised on occasion, rather than bitterly disappointed routinely.

It is, and remains, my view that Sen. Obama is superior to any Republican, and will be better as President by far than McCain. Indeed, it quite clear from history that, whatever the failings of the Democratic Party, the ordinary people of our country do better when Democrats are in charge, and that is sufficient for me to take my stand with it.

[mdmc]

41. well said

[unblock]

42. retroactive immunity is neither a bill of attainder nor ex post facto

it's morally repugnant, to the point of corruption, but there's nothing structurally or constitutionally improper about retroactively decriminalizing something. think about someone getting arrested for a really stupid law passed years ago but is still on the books, e.g., a puritanical ban on kissing in public or something. it's not unreasonable for congress to retroactively decriminalize something, should the situation warrant it (not that the telecom situation warrants it in the slightest).

retroactively CRIMINALIZING something, now that's a constitutional problem.


one really must think that they used the wiretapping to get the goods on enough key democrats to get them to capitulate. the current power situation is such that, otherwise, the democrats wouldn't give the republicans the time of day.

[The Magistrate]

45. In The Actual Context, Sir, That Is Far From Clear To Me

The provision directs that a certain defense must prevail in civil suit already underway for damages owing to wrongful acts by the companies. That certainly smacks of bill of attainder, which is barred as a Legislative usurpation of Judicial function, which directing a particular defense must prevail in an on-going case certainly is. While it does not put defendants at greater risk, it does deprive plaintiffs of due process by denying them damages for wrongful acts: thus it retroactively harms some citizens, and it singles out a group of citizens for harm. The first is what barring ex post facto laws intends, the second is what bills of attainder do.

[unblock]

53. ah, i'll have to check with the lawyers in my family

i see your point as it relates to a civil, rather than criminal case.

perhaps one can take solace in that if this provision IS unconstitutional, then it can be discarded by the courts. of course, then we just have to hope for a better mix on the supreme court by the time the case gets there....

[The Magistrate]

76. My Contention, Sir, Is Only That It May Violate That Clause, Not That It Certainly Does

It is certainly not self-evident that it passes muster Constitutionally. Courts have understandably taken an expansive view of what 'no bills of attainder' means, being a good deal more zealous to preserve their independence as a separate branch than Congress lately has been versus the Executive. There has never been anything quite like this, so there is no clear precedent to fall back on.

[unblock]

102. one other possibility is that it might not apply to civil suits already filed

i don't know, but it is possible that changing the rules for a civil trial might not apply to any action already begun. as i said, i need to check with the lawyers in my family.

[grantcart]

72. well it really is worse than that isn't it because there is a provision of immunity

for the telecom companies if they had simply requested the White House certify that it was a question of national security, once they have that certificate they are immune. Several companies asked for it, it was not provided and they declined to accede to the White House request.

The only reason the telecom companies need immunity is because they failed to follow the established procedure.

[The Magistrate]

88. In Other Words, Sir, They 'Need' This Immunity Because They Committed A Felony

It is cast in the present form because it is obvious the Justice Department will not prosecute them, since it could not do so without acknowledging the administration, including Justice officials, committed the same felony. Thus the only recourse left to the wronged citizenry is the 'private prosecution' if a civil suit for damages from the wrongful act of engaging in a felony in company with the government.

[grantcart]

92. No I believe that all is at stake is the immunity of civil suit on a massive scale

I am not aware of any felony charges that the telecom companies faced for responding to a request from a legal government office - even if that office is asking it improperly.

There may be a criminal charge against members of the administration on this however, since they refused to certify it as a national security matter they probably avoided criminal charges on this one narrow thing as well.

In other words if an FBI agent comes to your business and requests information about your customers (with whom you have a legally confidential relationship) you can comply or refuse to comply with that request. Complying with that request with out asking for a search warrant may open you up to a civil suit but there are no circumstances that I am aware of that would result in a criminal charge for agreeing to cooperate with the government -even though you were not required to.

More over the government agent would not be held for any criminal action by asking for the information unless he did something fraudulent like lied to get a search warrant. I think this is the reason that the White House never certified it as a true national security issue.

[The Magistrate]

95. The Warrant-less Wire-Tapping, Sir, Is A Felony Violation Of The Federal Code

Co-operating with a policeman in a crime is no different than co-operating in a crime with anyone else.

[unblock]

101. i agree that it's a horrible law.

i'm just saying that i don't think it's unconstitutional, at least not in the granting of retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution. retroactively changing the rules in an existing civil suit (as the magistrate pointed out) is another matter.

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. Isn't flat out stating a civil suit must be thrown out if a permission letter is produced

a reverse bill of attainder that violates judicial discretion,
and thus unconstitutional?

Had they simply declared amnesty for telecoms that might be allowable
(if politically poisonous).

[The Magistrate]

87. For Our Answer, Sir, If This Bill Passes The Senate With That Provision Intact

We will have to await the rulings of several judges and Federal courts. It seems to me an excellent case can be made that this does amount to a bill of attainder, and even an ex post facto law, as it relates to plaintiffs already at the bar.

[Marie26]

2. Boooo. nt

[spanone]

3. and what does any of that have to do with granting immunity to criminals

[Bluebear]

4. Eccch.

[niyad]

6. he seriously expects us to buy that bs?

[williesgirl]

If he votes for this without stripping immunity for telecoms, that's it, i"m out of the USA. If he

won't stand up for the Consitution, who in the fuck will? I just gave him another $100 of my disability check before I heard this. I'm a fool. rec'd

[Junkdrawer]

32. So much for Skinner's $40K project. n/t

[williesgirl]

36. Too late for me - already gave another $100 last week!

[Horse with no Name]

40. You are NOT a fool

the electorate was played like a Stradivarius. They are ALL the same no matter what cute little catchphrase you package them under.

[MrCoffee]

7. Yes We Can Spy On Americans!

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. I want that bumper sticker.

[enough]

8. He must be held to this: "I will work in the senate to remove this provision."

From the statement:

"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."

We who support him must be the most vigilant to see that he does what he says.

[Raksha]

20. Absolutely he must be held to that statement!

He has to know that his supporters will be watching him, and that it's VERY MUCH a litmus test! He had better use every tool the Senate provides, including the filibuster, if hopes to maintain his support.

[MrCoffee]

25. Oh, he'll offer an amendment, and there will be a vote on it to raise our hopes

and it will be voted down, and we'll all be sad, and he'll get to say that he did everything he could, which is of course complete bullshit, and we'll be left looking like idiots once again.

[Horse with no Name]

29. You do realize that he only has about 5 months left in the Senate

give or take for recesses, etc...and the MAJORITY of that time will be spent campaigning?
Not to mention the other members of Congress who will take time to be out campaigning for him?
Realize that this is a done deal. It is over.
You'll learn to sleep better at night knowing that the the hero whisking the girl away from the train at the last minute only happens in fairy tales.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. this statement is the most important- We should all contact our

Senators and tell them we want this section removed before passage.

ACCOUNTABILITY- how can any government agency claim to be working to keep America protected, yet not be willing to be held accountable when doing illegal things themselves??? Isn't that like having the fox guard the hen house, and saying that there will be no punishment of the fox if he decides he's hungry and eats half the flock?

- I doubt this will succeed, but I'm glad he's gonna try.

peace~

[hfojvt]

37. that seems to me a key that everyone else is ignoring

and I still wonder about the retroactive immunity. Is that immunity for the telecoms and not the Bush administration or is it immunity for both? It seemed to me that the telecoms only got immunity when they provided evidence against the administration. As in 1) hfojvt sues ATT for violating his privacy; 2) ATT shows written request from Bush administration; 3) ATT avoids prosecution - however, they have now provided evidence from the Bush administration where unless the Bushies show a warrant from the FISA court within 90 days of their request from ATT that they will have violated the law.

[niyad]

46. according to jonathan turley on KO the other night, it works for both, and that

is probably the real reason for the immunity bit. I wonder what else these crooks are going to be "taking to the grave"

[Marie26]

55. But it seems to me

that he's saying he'll vote for it EVEN IF the retroactive immunity remains. Of course, it's not what he'd like, :eyes: which is just what Jane Harman said. But he'll still vote for it, regretfully.

[Randypiper]

89. That's the same same thing Sen. Casey wrote me

after the last go around.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. "It seems a shame," the Walrus said, "To play them such a trick..."

After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"

The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."

With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

[tbyg52]

97. Exactly. nt

[gkhouston]

9. Wrong answer. n/t

[DrDan]

10. well - things are off to great start . . .

[xxqqqzme]

12. we're fucked.

Looks like the dlc got to him; he's running hard to the middle.

[Horse with no Name]

17. psst...he has always been there

Anything else has been an illusion created by the MSM to appease the people left of center. I wish we could blame it on the DLC.

[Bluebear]

22. - - -

[EFerrari]

54. That's right. We can only run right of center candidates any more

without being smeared as "leftists". Because Dog knows, then we'd melt. :crazy:

[Horse with no Name]

57. Well...not sure what you are saying

but the center is the squishy middle. The powers-that-be eliminated anyone from the left at the start of the game.
I prefer my candidate come from the left. At least they would be defined instead of being malleable to ALL and answerable to no one.

[EFerrari]

58. All I'm saying is that the center of American politicals is to the right

of any objective middle. :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

60. Spot on.

We've been pulled so far right that the middle is STILL right.
Gotcha.:)

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. of Nixon, you mean.

Actually, of Hoover.

[Marie26]

56. Exactly. nt

[xxqqqzme]

96. I'm only saying because the dlc had Obama

on their website at one time and he rather forcefully told them to take his name off the site.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. WE, yes WE are the enemy

why even bother any longer? Oh yes, there is this little declaration of independence, time to dust it off

[Bluebear]

14. "Breaking with the Democratic left and many civil libertarians" - is this what's in store?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

[gateley]

16. Is he saying that

we've agreed to immunity, BUT -- the government won't be able to request that the telecoms participate without a warrant in the future?

I'm trying to understand what he means by "marked improvement".

[smoogatz]

18. Not good, Obama.

I know it's an election and everything, but this blows.

[fasttense]

19. WTF? Did he read the same legislation as I and the ACLU did?

Maybe he wants that power to control American citizens by spying on what they are doing, just like the bushes.

[Individualist]

21. That's a "centrist" for you.

:mad:

[Marie26]

51. Or a

*cough* neoliberal. Sorry, but this evaporates the last hints of hope I still had for Obama.

[G_j]

24. that is BS

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

26. *shakes head and walks slowly away*....

:(

[williesgirl]

27. Just sent an email on Obama's site telling him he's lost my vote and support if he votes for this

travesty without stripping the bill of immunity for telecoms first so we have truth come out in OPEN COURT. I've supported him on 3 occasions from my meager disability income and voted for him in the VA primary.

If he doesn't change his position on telecom immunity, he's lost me.

[MNDemNY]

69. Is just his "NO" vote enough, he is our party's leader.

His statement for support of this "compromise" is very disturbing.

[liberalskeptic]

73. Me too.

Me too. No money and no vote for Barrack if he votes for this.

[Maureen1322]

28. self delete

[Lone_Star_Dem]

30. I'm assuming this then means we should expect the Senate to rally behind this vile concession

The deal is done and we've been sold out. I'm still interested in seeing the final vote roll call. I want to see how many change their stance on this and support this "compromise."

[Horse with no Name]

35. If they stand true to form

They all will.
Drinks anyone? We're going to need them.:(

[Lone_Star_Dem]

44. I don't think I can afford enough alcohol to blunt this blow

I'm extremely disgusted.

[pleah]

98. I'm getting one right now.

:-(










"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

[Zachstar]

83. Pretty Much.

It is Christmas in the white house today. Bush will not be going to Jail.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. The "threat" is to my nose holding capabilities.

The "lesser of two evils" regarding this bill is still evil.

[leftofthedial]

33. why is there only ever "accountability going forward"

when a Democrat is about to take office?

Sounds a bit like Clinton trying to have it both ways on the IWR, don't you think?

[EFerrari]

61. "Accountability going forward" translates to: expect none right now

or any later "right now" because accountability is always only in the future. :grr:

[leftofthedial]

77. yup

goddamned criminals are going to get away with it.

there is no justice in America. None.

[bain_sidhe]

39. :-(

I expected it, but I'm still disappointed.

I see two thin rays of hope, though. One, the re-declaration that FISA is the sole authority on wiretapping of communications involving American citizens actually is important, at least for the future. Bush, of course, will simply declare it an "unconstitutional" infringement on his right to do whatever the hell he wants, but future Presidents may be more likely to feel bound by it. And it does set up another avenue for challenge in the courts.

Secondly, yes, it grants immunity for the telecoms as long as they get a letter saying "the president authorized the surveillance and he thinks it's legal" - but as far as I can tell, it says nothing that means the the president was right. This MIGHT be another avenue to put the blame where it (IMHO) *truly* belongs... on the person that GAVE the illegal order.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

43. Can't somebody file a lawsuit against this or something?

Surely this can't be constitutional? I mean more specifically, the telecom amnesty provisions? If this gets through will the ACLU or another organization be challenging it in courts? I hope and pray that this doesn't make it through the Senate although my hopes are pretty dim right now.........

[dana_b]

47. extremely disappointing

I don't know what else to say. They don't get it.

[TheWatcher]

49. And Behold, here is your "Agent Of Change"

Freedom Is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

Compromise Is Resistance

Complicity Is Revolution

Meet The New Emperor.

Naked As The Old Emperor.

[earth mom]

67. Finally some truth on DU....

:thumbsup:

[TheWatcher]

71. I wish it were not so GoldenRule.

I desperately wish it were not so.

But we must face that most difficult Truth.

WE ARE ON OUR OWN.

All that is left for us to decide is what we shall do from here.

It can be boiled down to one simple, beautiful word.

RESIST.

[LWolf]

99. Exactly. n/t

[FourPieRun]

50. i'm shocked; shocked, i tell you. not.

[Frank Lemadeer]

52. The surreal insanity continues

I remember the pre-2000 days when right wingers and freepers went apoplectic over Gore's "living, breathing document" remarks, and how they wrung their hands over Clinton's judicial appointments, all because they felt the precious Constitution would be jeopardized.

In eight years the former reality is on its head. A few progressives (in strange alliance with some principled and still-thinking conservatives) are the only ones left standing for the Constitution, and right wingers are banning anyone from their forums who doesn't agree with gutting it because they're "for the terrists."

And now this triangulated statement.

[hatrack]

59. Just what is the point anymore?

Just what is the fucking POINT?!?!?

[Horse with no Name]

62. The point is

that 200 and some odd years ago...there were these guys. They wrote out some documents that we were to live by.
In those documents, they gave the power to the people.
However...they can only instruct. It is up to the people to use the powers that were inherently granted to them to fix the wrongs when the people elected didn't do their jobs.:)

[kentuck]

63. Bummer...

I guess he knows already that it's going to pass the Senate also. I wonder how many Senators will vote with him?? I guess the 4th Amendment is negotiable after all? Well, he warned us. He said there would be things where we would disagree with him. This is a doozy.

[Horse with no Name]

64. Well I suppose for those that are entrenched in his campaign and election

this is a GOOD thing.
This probably just purchased a great deal of republican votes.:shrug:

[MaryEllen71]

65. I'm still voting for him

I don't agree with him on this AT ALL and if you want to stay home or vote for McCain that's your choice but Obama is still better than McCain by a long shot.

[earth mom]

66. I have to say it-I told DU so. Nothing will change in '09 and beyond.

:argh:

[Leopolds Ghost]

68. He does not have the right to honor that promise. He is promising to break the Constitution

Before he is even elected. Just like Wilson and Adams.

[Supersedeas]

74. "does however grant retroactive immunity and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision

Good luck

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. he's promising to do nothing... nothing of the sort will be done... where's Dodd filibuster?

[BlueStater]

75. But, but, but....he's the candidate of hope and change!

:sarcasm: :mad:

[Carni]

85. No shit...

I am so surprised by this! (not)

[Blue_In_AK]

78. Never, ever, EVER put too much faith in a politician. n/t

[Carni]

86. I have to agree with you here

I am coming to the conclusion that they are all crooks.

[Zachstar]

81. And with that I withdraw my support of the Obama Campaign

It's over Obama, You and the democrats had their chance and you screwed us YOU FUCKED US OVER after we POURED our money and our support into this.

That's it. You and the democrats are traitors to freedom and the rule of law.


The Republicans have won folks.

[grantcart]

93. right better we hand it over to people anxious to bomb Tehran

[dana_b]

94. write and/or call him

and leave a message on what you think. Who knows? He may change his mind if enough people do it.

[pleah]

100. Well, well, has the veil been lifted from a few eyes today?

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot

[Fire Walk With Me]

103. There is no link to his having made this statement, especially in a government record/site.

:shrug:

[CrispyQ]

104. I can't say I'm surprised.

Disappointed, yes, but surprised, no.

I don't even recognize the center anymore, it's so far right.

I'll vote for him in November cuz he's better than McCain, but he'll get none of my money or any of my volunteer time.