Obama Supports FISA Compromise

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on 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."



Display:


Tips & Recs for Fridays... (2.00 / 1)

...Who doesn't love Fridays?


by andrewalker08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 03:53:45 PM EST

Bloody hell (2.00 / 1)

He's going to work to get the immunity removed.  That's all that matters at this point.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:00:38 PM EST

Re: Bloody hell (2.00 / 5)

Well, lets be realistic.  His position sucks, and the odds are that he'll make a "valiant" effort to strip immunity that is more or less preordained to fail.  

I've supported Obama all along, I still like him, but this is a BS move.  


by HSTruman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hate blaming the victims (2.00 / 1)

How screwed up is it that we just assume that the Bush guys are going to do the most evil thing they can think of, and we're rating the people trying to fix things over whether they can mitigate said evil or not.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloody hell (none / 0)

Well I thought it sucked when I read the title but then I read his words and it is better than I was expecting from the title...

"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"  He also called out the Bush administation for its criminal activity and wants to restore liberty back inthis country.

I do not see what else he can say, he said, in other words, that this sucks and he will try to fix it.  Being a Senator I don't really see what else he can do, he cannot veto it.  Just because any attempt by him may go by the waist side doesn't mean his position sucks.

So I am curious as to what you wanted him to say? I am not calling you out or anything, I am just asking for more explanation on your point of view, if you don't mind.

.


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloody hell (2.00 / 1)

I agree here - it would be nice to see Obama take the lead on this and kill this crap bill, but really... as President, he's going to have to work with the Congress critters and can't start torching bridges before he crosses them.

One of Carter's biggest problems was his inability to work with the Congress because of a real or perceived aloofness.  I'm sure Carter has counselled him on this.  So it may be possible that Obama's gut reaction would be harsher than this, but I think he's trying to build caucus concensus so when he's in office, the agenda he lays forth won't have as many hurdles.

It still sucks though.  The attempt at killing immunity is just window dressing and won't go anywhere.

I still can't believe that we're being force fed all the crap the Bush terms has fed us without the option to flush it like it should be... and him along with it.


by rockdart on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloody hell (none / 0)

I am glad you see the value in a pragmatic approach and aren't out to torch him on his apparent "acceptance" of ths bill like everyone else [really, people think he accepted it, really???].  

I think we will have to see what he does before we criticize him on our biased predicitons (on all sides).


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you expect something different? (2.00 / 1)

Just because any attempt will go by the way side does not mean that he shouldn't give a whole hearted attempt to stip the provision or even fillibuster it.

At the very minimum he could vote NO and then stand on that vote, and make the case to the American people.  He could win the election right here, right now.

Yet, however again, it seems he's triangulating the issue and will again make a half hearted effort (as most of the other Senators will also) and we will lose a little bit more of our freedoms and allow those who break our laws and defile our Constitution to walk away unscathed.

If Obama wanted an issue to coalese around and build Party unity, here is the chance, months ahead of the November GE.  And he's gonna let pass on by.  A shame.  Since it's Friday enjoy the songs....


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you expect something different? (none / 0)

I agree with you on what he Should do, I am just going to hold my judgement until that time actually comes and not actaully critique him based on your future predictions, which are pretty negative in my view, not much faith in the guy (yeah Iknow, he is a politicans)

Also, I think you witnessed traingulation by House on this compromise, so Obama's rejection of the most crucial and important part of this bill shouldn't be considered triangulation, so that's a mislabel if you will


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you expect something different? (none / 0)

jeebus, could I get anymore typos in there?


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloody hell (none / 0)

Yeah, he's not getting any more donations from me.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 3)

He's rejecting immunity. Good man.


Know Your Rights!
by BobzCat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM EST

Moving to the Right (2.00 / 1)

This is what candidates do- run Liberal in Primary and move Right in the General.  Anyone who thought Obama was going to change that was dreaming.  Expect more of this in the next few months.....


by easyE on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:03:23 PM EST

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

OK everybody, let's all whine, kick and stomp because our guy didn't do everything 1,000% the way we wanted it.


by spirowasright on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:21:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (2.00 / 2)

1000%? Wow, that's A LOT!  I actually was making the case that this isn't a big deal (to me anyway).  I get the BIG PICTURE- which is that sometimes politicians play it safe.  I don't like it- but I GET IT.  Now, some Obama supporters seem to think he is above it all.  This is  proof that he is PART OF IT ALL.  Let's just hope he winds up being better-n-most.


by easyE on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (2.00 / 2)

Some of us actually think this is an important issue.  I am a passionate Obama supporter, but this is bad policy that I wish he wasn't signing onto.  Do you disagree, or just not care?  


by HSTruman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

It IS important, but legislation like this is the reason that most senators don't get elected to president.

The Senate is about compromise, it's about doing the BEST you can and dealing with the results. It's about occasionally letting through something that sucks so that something BETTER can also go through.

If there isn't a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and you are unwilling to compromise, then you get NOWHERE.

FISA NEEDS to be expanded and enforced to make damned sure BushCo plays by the rules during the end of his presidency (the man can still do a LOT of damage). If Obama and the dems can't get the telcom immunity out of the bill, then we have to live with it. It sucks, Obama says it sucks, but the good outweighs the bad. I see no inconsistency here with Obama's positions, just the reality of being one Senator among 100.


by EvilAsh on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are some gems in there (none / 0)

Basically, if you've supported Obama all along, you'll find that his statement is consistent in tone and language with past declarations he's made on FISA and related matters.

He's always been a pragmatist. He'll support a better bill that isn't perfect because it's an improvement over what's currently in place. He identifies its strengths and weaknesses in a straightforward manner, and declares his open objection to specific provisions.

Basically, this is what I call a pre-Presidential statement. He's a candidate on the verge of his nomination and only months away from what may well be his inauguration. He's keeping his flanks covered and his head down on this one, and wisely, IMO. Throwing down the gauntlet in front of a body he'll have to work with in six months might not be the best move. it would also draw attention away from his campaign themes at a crucial time when he's still introducing himself to the country at large.

I don't need him to pull a Mr. Smith and filibuster, or stomp his feet, or tackle Republicans on the Senate floor, or say what a bunch of internet junkies want him to say.

But he does give us a few gems to ponder:

"There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has ABUSED that authority and UNDERMINED the Constitution..."

"the President's ILLEGAL program of warrantless surveillance..."

"...the President CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THE LAW and disregard the civil liberties of the American people..."

"...we can seek FULL accountability for past offenses..."

Those are some pretty strong statements, flat-out declaring Bush to have engaged in criminal activity. Good stuff.


Know Your Rights!
by BobzCat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

If whining and kicking will make him lean left, I will do it :)


by devil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Mean, Really - (2.00 / 2)

Who needs a whole Constitution
when half will do just fine?
by johnnygunn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Mean, Really - (2.00 / 1)

Haven't you heard?  The only difference between being reasonable and out right anarchaist is only seperated by which side of the "gunn" you're on.

LOL.

1/2 a Constitution, well okay I guess.  I just hope that the half I have when I need it has the bill of rights on it.  Otherwise I might be screwed.

I hope he's just sandbagging and comes out swinging hard when the bill is opened up for debate on the floor.  We can start Change right here, right now.  


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (2.00 / 1)

ORLY?


by GenaMeana on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

I don't think he has the clout to reject the compromise - and if he did, and it was still passed, it would hurt his leadership power. I'm glad he's against the immunity, though. That provision is ridiculous - people need to be held accountable. If Bush wanted to spy that much, he should have passed a law allowing it.


by Falsehood on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (2.00 / 1)

I don't think he has the clout to reject the compromise - and if he did, and it was still passed, it would hurt his leadership power.

It's tricky. I'm sure their "internal polling" suggests this is the safe way to go. Personally, I think people would've appreciated a fight on principle more than a cave-in. People have been growing tired of four-word, bumper-sticker sloganeering. I think he could've made the case.

This is a big disappointment to me. Chris Dodd should've backed him up against the wall, offered to spill some dirt on Lieberman, something.


by BlueinColorado on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:24:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (2.00 / 1)

Can you point out where he caved in ?  I am having trouble distinguishing his rejection of immunity with well, rejection of immunity?


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (2.00 / 1)

Fighting immunity once the telecoms are granted immunity will be like reclaiming your virginity, or unshitting the bed.


by BlueinColorado on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

Uhh, it's still a bill and not a law, so the process is not yet complete.  Can you answer my question as to where he caved-in?


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

wow, nevermind what Isaid up there, ignore ignore ignore


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

No double ignore, I quickly read Todd's post and it said Congress passed FISA today, but Congress didn't only the House, as I thought.

So again, where did Obama cave-in?  He has yet to vote


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

He "caved" in regard to the greater bill, which has other parts the left doesn't like.


by Falsehood on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:05:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course not... (none / 0)

He's only trying to be President of the United Satates, he still works for the Corporations of the United States.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course not... (none / 0)

You know, the reason I don't favor immunity is so that we can learn the truth about this program.

The government of the United States gave its word that they would not be prosecuted, and although I wish every company had followed Quest's steps, I can't say I don't have any sympathy for the corporate leaders involved.

Especially when leaders from both parties signed off on the program.

Let's hold the government accountable. The bill allows for criminal investigations - we'll still get the facts.

You are FREE to disagree, and legitimately so.


by Falsehood on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 02:09:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But where will he govern from? (2.00 / 1)

It will be from the left.

There is a lot of salesmanship that goes into the GE. It sucks, but it's reality. We all know what type of a person Obama is, and where his heart is.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But where will he govern from? (2.00 / 1)

right now, I don't care where his heart is, I want to know where his vote is on my Consititutional rights.

This fight, will tell what kind of person Obama is.  Stand on principles and values even if he loses this fight?  Or compromise and give us governership from the left and 1/2 of what the Republicans want for the next 4 years.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should rest assured then (none / 0)

The bill he supports returns all those constitutional checks and balances on wire tapping.

The only thing the compromise bill doesn't do is lift immunity from the telecoms. I wish the telecoms didn't have immunity, but we don't live in a perfect world :(


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should rest assured then (2.00 / 1)

They don't yet


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should rest assured then (none / 0)

The compromise bill doesn't do anything, other than give the Bushies everything they wanted.  We hve some checks and balances, but we already had those in the original FISA bill that Bush violated!

The telecoms don't have immunity, and even with the FISA letters should have known that they were still violating the law, regardless of implied indemnity.

We don't live in a perfect world, because we keep allowing our politicians who champion "change" and a "new America" to keep compromising and falling back on "well it's not perfect, but better than what we had..."


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Moving to the Right (none / 0)

I really hope not.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

interesting (the immunity language):

   [A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

       (A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

       (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

So does that mean that (assuming the statute of limitations will cover new lawsuits filed in late January, 2009) if Obama becomes president, someone could again file suit, and then it would be up to Obama's Attorney General whether to grant immunity in that case (i.e. Obama's AG could decide to let the lawsuits go forward) ?


by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:03:52 PM EST

Re: I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

I don't think the AG would have much discretion. Maybe, just maybe, some discretion in determining if the activity was designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack. It would require an objective analysis of the intention of the activity, in a subjective analysis I doubt the companies would have much difficulty producing pieces of paper showing that preventing terrorism was Bush's claimed goal. The legislative intent is obviously to immunize.  And I find it hard to believe they'd leave a loophole that big in the legislation.


by Mobar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But that's not what the language says. (none / 0)

The language requires the U.S. Attorney General to certify it, doesn't it?


by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In fact, I don't see how it could possibly not (none / 0)

require the Attorney General to be involved, since it requires the AG certify to the district court


by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In fact, I don't see how it could possibly not (none / 0)

It says "if" the AG certifies to the district court, not "shall."  So, there is a little bit of daylight if you want to get into semantics, but I think most people would conclude that the AG has no discretion.  I assume, though, that the AG would only be involved upon request of the defendant or the court.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But can the court legally deprive the (none / 0)

plaintiff of the right of civil action without the Attorney General getting involved (under this law?)


by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But can the court legally deprive the (none / 0)

What would probably happen is that a plaintiff would bring suit, the defendant would petition the AG's office for certification under the immunity provision, it would be provided, and the suit would be dismissed.  The court would have to wait for the AG's certification.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

I agree with this as well.  That said, if an AG were to fail to certify immunity, the only recourse for a defendant would be to sue under the APA that the action was "arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion," essentially arguing that the statute provides no room for discretion whatsoever.  

It would be an interesting administrative law case - almost certainly would reach the Supreme Court.


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

It's unclear whether and to what extent the AG has discretion under the statutory provision you cited.  I think it would be an odd interpretation of that provision if (A) and (B) were satisfied, but the AG still refused to "certify" that to the district court.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't whether A and B are satisfied in a legal (none / 0)

sense, though, based on whether or not the Attorney General has certified that either A or B is satisfied (even if the, you know, truth says otherwise)?

Wasn't that why we were pissed about the president being required to certify "progress" in Iraq to keep the troops there under some of the proposed withdrawal bills in 2007? Because he'd do it whatever the facts on the ground were?


by bobdoleisevil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't whether A and B are satisfied in a legal (2.00 / 1)

Well, it's my impression that the White House provided the telcos with letters stating that the surveillance programs were legal and were to be used for purposes of deterring terrorist attacks, so I assume that there is documentation sufficient to establish (A) and (B).  The AG would probably just have to authenticate the documents and affirm that they were drafted for that purpose.


by rfahey22 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

I'm a lawyer (well, kind of) and I think that rfahey is right - there's not much discretion there for the AG to certify IF (4)(A) and (B) are satisfied.

BUT...

Look at (4)(A)(ii).  There's plenty of room for an Obama AG to determine whether or not the activity was "designed to prevent or detect."  At the very least, it could be argued that certain activities (if they were overbroad or had poor safeguards) were defectively designed and therefore do not qualify for immunity.

Put another way, (4)(A)(i), (4)(B)(i), and (4)(B)(ii) are all factual inquiries, but (4)(A)(ii) is a mixed question of law and fact.


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

The AG has no say on whether any one can or cannot file a suit in Federal Court.  
The AG has no say on whether a case is or isn't dimissed, that is up to the Court.  The AG only provides the certification that the administration did indeed contact the Defendant and request them to spy on plaintiff in connection with investigating potential terrorist activities.

It is an interesting question though as to how an Obama AG would interpret a request made from the Bush Admin/AG.  I would agree that there may be some sort of discretion, unless the Administration had set up a template letter sent to all the telecomms in bascially the same format laying out the request, the resaons for the request, how to excahnge the information, etc. and any arrangement for a fee.

However, if the communications between the companies and the administration were inconsistent as to the scope of the spying, what different formats, different fees, different levels of intrusiveness, etc. then discretion would almost have to be used by an Obama AG.  

Very interesting indeed and something that should be further explored/considered.


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish I was a lawyer. That language is (none / 0)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/19/new- house-wiretapping-bill-dubbed-repugnant- and-a-capitulation/

"All it takes to get off scott free, in this bill, is for the President to have said the program was legal, regardless of whether it was or...whether the telecoms should have questioned whether the directives were legal."

Essentially the bill says all the government has to do is certify that the proper written requests (FISA letters) was given to the Telecom's before thier cooperation and the court (FISA court) would have to dismiss the suit or suits pending.


He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin
by TxDem08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 1)

Isn't the immunity the Big Thing being compromised about?

If he rejects immunity, this is tantamount to rejecting the compromise - but he claims to be embracing the compromise.

So - he's misleading someone. Either he's misleading the Broders of the world with the headline, hoping to earn more "centrist" love - or he's misleading us in the last paragraph, putting up some nice words about rejecting amnesty when he knows full well that it would wreck the compromise.

I hope he's serious about killing retro immunity - but we'll see.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:16:39 PM EST

Not necessarally (2.00 / 2)

He said he'll "work" to remove the immunity.  That doesn't seem to be a dealbreaker, though.

The compromise is that it lets the courts decide on each case whether or not to allow indictment over domestic spying.  With the immunity in place, essentially this is a carte blanche guarantee of the telecoms getting off the hook.  Without the immunity, it's merely incredibly likely, given that it's the Bush Justice Department we're talking about here.

It is somewhat less malicious if you look at it from the perspective of future presidents' administrations.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not necessarally (none / 0)

I don't know if that is the case, if so why were we fighting for immunity to begin with?  I think without immunity, there is no trap door with the AG certification, how could a plaintiff lose?  It was blatantly against he law and everyone knows that, it is an assumed fact.  Without the imunity the telecomms are screwed and more importantly so is Bush.


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not necessarally (none / 0)

Ok, ignore my last question, I think I missed your first line, oddly enough.


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 1)

Don't hold your breath.  He hasn't shown any tendency to buck the system.  I say he plays it safe and goes with the status quo and/or the money.


by easyE on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which is why police interrogations in IL (2.00 / 1)

Aren't taped.

Oh, wait. They are.

Because of Obama.


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 1)

Wait a minute. Did he just say that he was supporting the legislation, then proceeded to vow to defeat the bad part of it? Well, that's a big difference, because that's pretty much all I care about. Will he still support it if that is left in there?

This was either greatly disappointing or just stone-cold brilliant. It depends on two things: whether he actually DOES fight to get that bit out of there and whether he votes for the legislation if he can't get it out. If he mounts a half-hearted effort to remove it during debate and then votes for it anyway, I will be very, very annoyed.

If, on the other hand, he supports the idea of the bill and treats the immunity as a minor issue that needs to be resolved before they continue, this was a brilliant way to approach it. Far, far better than just saying, "This plan is outrageous, I oppose it and pledge to defeat it in the Senate".


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:26:05 PM EST

A little from column A... (2.00 / 1)

...and a little from column B.

Part of the bad part is that it lets a Bush-appointed judge decide whether or not the BigTel should be held accountable, and he doesn't seem to be against that.  Looking at it from the perspective of beyond the Bush White House, that's not actually all that bad.  Given that these trials can take months and months, if not years, it might be that Bush is out of office by the time these things get appealed.  For all we know, Obama might have replaced the judges by then.

From that perspective, we are in pretty good shape.

From the other perspective, you know these jackholes will do anything to get off the hook.

Finally, and on a down note, the immunity is the sole reason this entire song and dance is going on in this fashion.  Lieberman isn't going to be with us on this; the Republicans have enough votes in the Senate even if no Democrats cross over unless some of the GOP break ranks.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

No, I know, it's all part of Bush's disgusting and childish view of the legal process. He truly believes that it's unfair to allow an investigation into whether someone has committed a crime when you already know they're guilty. Successfully committing a crime in secret means that you've "won", and it's unfair to catch someone by following the paper trail.

I just would prefer it if Obama worked extra hard against it. As I have said before, a big reason I support Obama is the promise of transparency, and this would be a big failure for me.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:50:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

Perhaps Obama will elaborate on this position and explain himself.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:53:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

I really just want to make sure he plans to investigate the administration. The telecoms have the very easy argument to make of entrapment. If the government said directly that it was legal to do something and they did it, they can't be prosecuted or held culpable. Only the person who told them it was legal can be.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

Actually, why WOULDN'T this be considered entrapment? Can someone explain this to me or tell me where to look?


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

Mistake of law a defense to liability, certainly, if made in reasonable reliance on an official statement.

The question will then be whether the telco company's reliance on Bush administration assurances was reasonable under the circumstances.

Reasonableness is not to be inferred per se when the assurance comes from official sources.


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

Figured I'd repost this comment where you might be more likely to see it. Why WOULDN'T this be considered entrapment? Wouldn't that be an open and shut case of it if the executive branch told a company that their actions were legal? The person who lied about the law would be held accountable, but the company might not be.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good question (none / 0)

There's some suggestion that huge corporations should probably know what's illegal and what isn't (you can stop laughing now).

Qwest, for example, told the government to take a flying leap.  Obviously there was info out there that this wasn't kosher.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (none / 0)

But still, it's a valid defense. Maybe they SHOULDN'T have done it morally, but that wouldn't make them more culpable. If they were told specifically that the program would be legal by the President, that would make it a fair assumption that it was okay, and the person who would have broken the law would be the person who would be in trouble.

The only way Obama can come out of this with my respect right now is if this is what he's thinking. I do hope there's more coming. The statement he made is pretty devoid of interpretation.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If a former con law professor (none / 0)

thought like that, I'd consider it grounds for revocation of tenure (John Yoo, I'm looking at you!).

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying. It's kind of a staple among those who care about the rule of law to reject the Nixonian frame of "if the president does it, it's legal."


by Mobar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If a former con law professor (none / 0)

But wouldn't the administration then be culpable for it?


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If a former con law professor (none / 0)

That gets into sovereign immunity questions that I will not permit to intrude on my happy hour. :)

The government is obviously the rotting head of this nefarious scheme. But they're not a necessary party to establishing liability over the telecoms.


by Mobar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If a former con law professor (none / 0)

Thanks for the insight! You've answered plenty for me.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (none / 0)

I think his statement sends a clear meassage that retroactive immunity is bad and he is going to work to get it removed from the bill.

As a Senator, he cannot really do anything else, so I am unclear what you were looking for... though I get it, I agree, it would've been nice if he took the House bill lit it on fire and then whipped out a stratocaster [made in USA] and played the Star Spangled banner with his teeth for 16 minutes.  But c'mon he would lose credibility if he did that, quit dreaming! (Sorry, I couldn't help myself, it's Friday and I am feeling good about his position, I was worried about it all week)


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (none / 0)

He could have spoke up louder. He could have made some remarks. He could have put out a statement before the vote. He could have used his position as the leader of the party to lobby members and try to work against the bill. He did none of those things.

I'm a supporter, a donor, and a volunteer for the campaign. Obama has disappointed me mightily today.


by authority song on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (none / 0)

 I guess I was only digesting his statement and where he stands on immunity, but you make excellent points.  Since that is his position and he didn't say anything before, I would assume it was a pragmatic move (obviously).  It comes at a tough time being in the GE and not alienating fellow members whose support you are going to need in the future, at the same time this is a significant issue which demands critical attention and efforts.  I would like to think he  will prove it up when this comes to the Senate.


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "info out there" (none / 0)

consisted of every legal authority. These aren't secret FISA court opinions or classified intelligence. You could find it on the internet. On the one hand, you had statutes making warrantless wiretapping illegal. On the other hand, you had the Bush admin writing letters saying - be a peach, help us with this and no one will ever know. There's already a "good faith reliance" defense built in for these companies. And the companies know their argument is shit, otherwise they wouldn't be pushing so hard for legislation that basically redefines the defense as - the government sent me a letter saying it was ok and I was under no obligation to verify that and it doesn't matter if I disagreed.

Sorry. This line of thinking is disturbing to me. The whole basis of retroactive immunity is all parties know that if judged by the law existing at the time of their actions, these companies would be found liable. It's that simple.


by Mobar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The "info out there" (none / 0)

Yup, plus these companies know FISA inside and out, it is like an Airline complaining about not knowing FAA law.  They have in-house lawyers and they hire law firms to evaluate every single law that is relevant to their industry.  1978, its been out there for a long time.

That is why I am very happy about Obama's position on retoactive immunity


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:10:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A little from column A... (none / 0)

Here's a nice summary:

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_fede ralism/2004/11/entrapment_by_e.html


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because it's not a criminal charge (none / 0)

Entrapment isn't a defense to a civil claim. And the civil claim is brought forth by private citizens, not the government, so any legal doctrine accomplishing similar things to entrapment couldn't be asserted against private citizens like it could be against the government (i.e. the entrapping entity).

The immunity legislation turns it into a case of the company getting off as long as the gov said it was legal.


by Mobar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Because it's not a criminal charge (none / 0)

Is there no civil analog for intentional torts?


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:00:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

are you studying for the bar? (none / 0)

Because that's the only way I'm going to take the time to answer that question. :)

I think it'd raise estoppel issues, but those couldn't be asserted against parties other than the gov. You could try a third-party petition and/or claim for indemnity from the gov. In terms of a civil analog for entrapment in intentional torts... eh, not really. In some cases, having the government ask you to do the tortious act might defeat some element of the prima facie case (can't think of one off the top of my head, but I'll allow for the possibility). But I don't see how entrapment could operate as an affirmative defense to a civil claim.


by Mobar on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (none / 0)

Brilliant, if true.  But he's boxed himself in by his statement, I think.  He can't vote against something he said outright said he "supports."  So it really comes down to whether he does anything to excise the immunity provisions from the bill.  This is absolutely something he controls as the nominee - he has the biggest bully pulpit of any Democrat in the country.  If he wants to make an issue of it, all he has to do is say so.  So we'll see.


Polawtics. Where awareness of the internet happens.
by ASDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (none / 0)

He's not going to make an issue of it.

You can be absolutely certain of that.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (none / 0)

anyone ever tell you you're a downer?

Or do you have the inside connection on what Obama is going to do next, is that why you are so certain of his disappointing performance on this issue?


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MF is one of those assertion types (none / 0)

who continuously states what folks are going to do or not do.  Particularly Sen. Obama.

Love to have that sort of crystal ball.  Rest of us have to actually think about the complexities of the real world and try to make guesses.


Motley Moose, Troll Free Blogging
by chrisblask on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 2)

The whole bill is crap, there is no need for a drastic FISA fix in the first place.  It's a Bush power grab and if Obama had any balls he would come out and say so.  And "working" to eliminate immunity does not mean he will win, and even if he does there is nothing to say that it won't get added back into the bill in conference.  What is more the immunity issue is a red herring, the fact is the law lets the administration spy on whomever they damn well please.  It's crap and Obama should say so.


by nyarch on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 04:45:48 PM EST

I TOTALLY AGREE! (none / 0)

100%!


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (1.50 / 2)

Is anybody surprised?

Anyone who thought that Obama is a liberal progressive has not been watching him triangulate his way along since getting elected to the Senate. All of the rhetoric about how he was against the war in 2002. Well, he voted for the war funding every time. He's never voted against the war.

What will Obama do with all these wonderful spying powers if elected president? Think he plans to give them back. Think again...

Democrats, we've been snookered again...

He's a damn site better than McCain, but he's not what you think he is, and he will prove it time and time again in the coming months.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:09:43 PM EST

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (none / 0)

Sean penn said this about Obama

I don't have a candidate I'm supporting and I'm certainly interested and excited by the hope that Barack Obama is inspiring. I hope that he will understand, if he is the nominee, the degree of disillusionment that will happen if he doesn't become a greater man than he will ever be


by devil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (none / 0)

Reminds me of a quote from The Wire, "They always disappoint. Closer you get, the more you look. All of them."

That came from the campaign manager of the losing campaign to the campaign manager of the winning campaign after that candidate just compromised himself and his city in an attempt to look better politically.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Liberal Blogosphere = 0.0001% of US Population (2.00 / 1)

He is a liberal. He is a progressive. He will govern with liberal progressive views. Is it liberal-progressive enough for the Kucinich crowd? No. But they are a fringe minority.

the country must be moved to the left not with great leaps but with small steps. Obama is the person to do that.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liberal Blogosphere = 0.0001% of US Population (none / 0)

Wiretapping is against the law.

It is a right protected by the bill of rights.

This is not a lefty liberal issue.


by MediaFreeze on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Liberal Blogosphere = 0.0001% of US Population (none / 0)

During this election it sure is, the GOP has held the narrative on National Security and terrorism  since 9/11 and Dems are walking around all scared to get called out harboring terrorists by repealing immunity.  Look what they have been saying about Habeus Corpus, that is in the Constitution, before the the bill of rights


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe I'm being too optimistic (none / 0)

But this is heading to the Senate next week and Obama  and Clinton will be campaigning together next week?

Perhaps there are plans to work together to defeat immunity?


Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?
by BrighidG on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST

Re: Maybe I'm being too optimistic (2.00 / 2)

They have enough clout between them to defeat immunity. Atleast among the democrats, and atleast a few republicans would also join if both of them oppose it as it will get wider attention in the MSM if both or atleast one of them is involved.

Like the signature :)


by devil on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:25:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe I'm being too optimistic (2.00 / 1)

Now that would be awesome.


by KLRinLA on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 2)

I'm surprised anyone at all would fall for the "I'm surrendering now but I promise to fight hard once I get elected" line.  But I guess politics wouldn't work but for the fact that people believe what they want to believe.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:12:30 PM EST

Re: Obama Supports FISA Compromise (2.00 / 1)

I sadly agree.  We lost on this one, and Obama is on the wrong side of it.  As are Pelosi and Reid.  That's really the long and the short of it.  


by HSTruman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm disappointed (2.00 / 1)

But it was a much better statement than Pelosi's. At least he acknowledges immunity sucks. And the promise to remove it will hopefully have a chilling effect on the Telco's visions of permanent and ongoing immunity.


by Neef on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:18:39 PM EST

Re: I'm disappointed (2.00 / 1)

His "better statement" isn't going to change anything about this  horrible bill.


by HSTruman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Untrue (2.00 / 1)

it dials down my frustration with pols who pretend not to understand why what they do sucks.

I'm just saying it works for me, YMMV.


by Neef on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Untrue (2.00 / 1)

To each their own.  In some ways, the fact that he knows precisely why this sucks makes it harder for me to accept.  But I'm realistic and have always known that Obama will disappoint from time to time.  It's inevitable, and not all his fault.


by HSTruman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Something tells me that ..... (2.00 / 2)

if a Clinton ever did such a thing, there would be a large cry about 'triangulation'.

So tell me again, where's the 'change'?

Look, I support Obama, but I haven't fallen off a cliff.  I'm glad he made his statement, just as it is if he had to support this POS legislation.

However, lets all be realistic about how we would have reacted had a Clinton done the same.

Ans isn't it sad that the discourse over the past few months have dictated that this is now the measure for unpalatable things?


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST

Realistically (2.00 / 1)

Clinton supporters would have reacted to Clinton doing it much as Obama supporters react to Obama doing it. I doubt you'd be burning her in effigy.

You could make the point about how Obama supporters would react to Clinton doing it, but again the reverse reaction (Clintonite reaction to Obama) would be consistent.

The two camps are, and have always been, mirror images.


by Neef on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something tells me that ..... (none / 0)

Hoyer was triangulating. His compromise and all the people that helped put that bill in place are directly responsible. Obama's guilt is in just not standing up even though he knows he'll probably lose.


"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."
by vcalzone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:27:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something tells me that ..... (none / 0)

What is Clinton's position on the bill?


by MediaFreeze on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something tells me that ..... (none / 0)

I have no idea, there seems to be a media vaccum as far as anything Clinton as of late, unless it is a critique.

However, CLinton's stance on the bill is not of any merit, since Obama will be the one to be in the position to either derail it in the future or use it as he wishes.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 06:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something tells me that ..... (none / 0)

Every Democrat's stance on this bill is relevant, including Hillary's. There's absolutely nothing in her voting record to suggest she'd be against this bill, either.

We need more and better, and we need to hold feet to the fire when we have to settle for less.


by authority song on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]