Not a pretty picture

The podcast of "Obama's Rightward Tack?" from earlier today with Glenn Greenwald, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Fred Chamberlain that I posted about below is now up here.

Barack Obama

mcjoan: "The Dems and Truthiness in the FISA Debate"

mcjoan on Kos:

The Democratic establishment is out in full force now, providing justification for the crappy FISA Amendments Act that's about to become law. While they haven't learned how to fight like Republicans (who have redefined "compromise" to mean "capitulation") they've learned how to lie like them.

Case in point, Nancy Soderburg, who was Clinton's deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the UN. She pens a truly deplorable op-ed in today's LA Times, in which she tries to rewrite not only the history of the Bush administration's lawlessness, but also this law.

I can't write a better take down of this nonsense than Glenn, so be sure to read his whole piece. But here's this part that's particularly salient:

It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. This is what Soderberg says is what happened:

The Senate is dragging its feet because the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. That is the wrong target.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks. In its review of the effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance "had been authorized by the president" and that the "activities had been determined to be lawful."

We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.

That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law. I have no doubt that people like Nancy Soderberg are spending the July 4 weekend paying shallow homage to the Founding, all the while being completely ignorant of or indifferent to the principles they pretend to celebrate.

This line of thinking is not only patently false, it's absolutely dangerous. Political expediency has been put ahead of principle, which happens all the time in politics. Politicians are always going to be politicians and they are always going to be basing their actions on the next election.

In this case, it wasn't even smart strategy. There are basically three groups who care about this legislation--us, The Villagers, and the Bush/Cheney cabal. Voters aren't clamoring for the Democrats to cave--Bill Foster's win proves that. So in a valiant effort to appease The Villagers, they piss off the activist base. As usual.

But this time is different. This time it's the Constitution we're talking about, the core principles of our founding--separation of powers, rule of law, all those "quaint" phrases that have kept this country going for 218 years.

Now the phrase we get is "it's good enough." Literally, Nancy Soderburg says this bill is "good enough." Sorry, but some of us have slightly higher standards. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is about to be thrown out by the American people is because we're sick of being lied to. Dems should take that as a cautionary tale, and realize that we're just not that stupid.

That goes for our soon to be President, as well. We have a much better chance of continuing this battle, repealing this legislation, and having the information related to this program declassified with a President Obama than we do a President McCain, and I relish the opportunity to do just that.

That's why I'm supporting Obama fully in this election. He's got my vote. But truthy talking points are not going to fool us--we will not sit by while Dem leaders lie to us about what this bill does and and watch them confer the king-like powers on the office we hope he takes.

Barack Obama

"The Clickocracy: Obama Responds to Online FISA Critics"

The Trail (WaPo political blog):

In recent days, Sen. Barack Obama has been targeted by supporters on his own social networking site, MyBarackObama.com, because of his stance on the FISA compromise.

One backer formed a group on MyBO, as users call Obama's site, named "Senator Obama­ Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity -­ Get FISA Right."

Today, that group has grown to more than 16,000 members, making it the single largest group on Obama's site.

In response to the group and a growing online controversy over his FISA stance, Obama took to his blog this afternoon to address concerns about his support for the intelligence surveillance bill.

"This was not an easy call for me," he wrote. "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... 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 addition to elaborating on his reasons for supporting the bill, Obama sought to reassure his online activists that he heard them.

"Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this site 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," he wrote."...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....

"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."

Since announcing his presidential candidacy nearly a year and a half ago, Obama has been, by and large, the most popular Democrat online, judging by enthusiasm on social networking sites and the overall buzz in the blogosphere. After some initial suspicion, the online political class -- if not all of the most prominent liberal bloggers -- embraced him.

But since capturing the nomination a few weeks ago, Obama has repeatedly draw criticism from such supporters. Some have decried his stance on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun laws, others his decision to expand President Bush's faith based programs and yet others his support for a FISA compromise. Warned Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com, "If he keeps attacking the core values of some of his most ardent supporters, that energy won't go to McCain, but it may go down ticket or de-active some activists into mere voters."

Following on the heels of the "Vote NO" MyBO group, another supporter created the wiki "Senator, please get FISA right," which includes an open letter to Obama.

"I'm very disappointed about the FISA situation," Jon Pincus, the wiki's creator, told The Trail. Pincus, 46, says he's "repeatedly" given money to Obama online. "What Obama's supporters like me are looking for is to be a part of the conversation about FISA."

It's a conversation, it seems, that has just began.

Howie P.S.: Jon Pincus, quoted above, lives in Seattle and works at that Gates' Place.

Barack Obama

"Obama Issues Statement on FISA"

From Daily Kos:

Issued here, where there is an ongoing discussion with policy advisors taking place:

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.

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 (PDF)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.

Howie P.S.: Markos opines here and Kagro X has more commentary here. I'm confident Mr. Greenwald et. al. will be chiming in shortly, when they return to duty.
Barack Obama

FISA Fallout: Keith and Glenn Tiff

The bill is languishing until July 8th, but Olbermann and Greenwald are having a wordy, public conversation about each other's coverage and analysis. If you've the time and a cold drink, enjoy!

"Five Myths About the New Wiretapping Law"

Patrick Radden Keefe (SLATE):

Sometime today (maybe not-Howie), the Senate is likely to approve the most comprehensive overhaul of American surveillance law since the Watergate era. Unless you're a government lawyer, a legal scholar, a masochist, or an insomniac, chances are you haven't read the 114-page bill.

. Don't beat yourself up: Neither have most of the 293 House members who voted for it last week. Ditto the mainstream press, who seem to have relied chiefly on summaries provided by the same lawmakers who hadn't read it.

To be fair, wiretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.")

Out of the echo chamber of ignorance and self-serving political cant, a number of myths have begun to emerge. We may never know for sure everything that this new legislation entails. But here are a few things that it most certainly doesn't.

Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

The House bill "is the result of a compromise," one of its architects, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., maintained the other day. But in truth, Hoyer and his colleagues gave the White House most of what it asked for, dramatically expanding the government's surveillance capabilities without demanding any serious concessions in exchange. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., calls the deal "a capitulation," and he's right. Why else would the White House express its approval so quickly, after a full year in which President Bush petulantly vowed not to sign any legislation that obliged him to concede too much? Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., offered an honest appraisal: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped."

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

One frequent refrain in favor of the new legislation is that without it, America's intelligence capabilities will dry up, leaving the country vulnerable to attack. The National Security Agency wants to intercept communications that pass through routers in the United States, even when both parties to the communication are abroad. The administration has argued that the NSA should not have to obtain a court order to intercept those communications. Seems reasonable, right?

Of course it's reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that House Democrats proposed to fix the problem a year ago. They were rebuffed. Why? Because their plan contained too much judicial oversight. (They ended up folding, just as they have this time around.) So when people say that this legislation is all about exempting foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to pass through the United States from the warrant requirement, don't buy it.

You see, the new law goes a lot further, basically doing away with warrants altogether in the domestic-to-international context. Under the proposal, the NSA can engage in what David Kris calls "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of phone calls and e-mails entering and leaving the United States through our nation's telecom switches. Provided that the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be abroad, the NSA can intercept a massive volume of communications, which might, however incidentally, include yours. When authorities want to target purely domestic communications, they still have to apply for a warrant from the FISA court (albeit only after a weeklong grace period of warrantless surveillance). But where communications between the United States and another country are concerned, the secret court is relegated to a vestigial role, consulted on the soundness of the "targeting procedures," but not on the legitimacy of the targets themselves.

This is a huge departure from FISA. As Glenn Greenwald argues in Salon, the underlying suggestion of the new proposal is "not that the FISA law is obsolete, but rather, that the key instrument imposed by the Founders to preserve basic liberty—warrants—is something that we must now abolish."

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.

This is another bit of face-saving window dressing, and its essence is best captured in a breathtaking remark from Sen. Bond: "I'm not here to say that the government is always right. But when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree … that is something you need to do." That more or less sums it up—one part Nuremberg defense, the other part Nixon.

Myth No. 4: The Democrats must fold because of the November election.

It's no secret that congressional Democrats wanted to resolve the FISA debate before the August convention in order to avoid the perennial charge that they're softies. After the House vote last week, Barack Obama issued a statement backing off his earlier tough stance on telecom immunity. The calculus seemed clear: McCain had just reversed his own position on illegal wiretapping and was spoiling for a fight, arguing that "House Democrats, the ACLU, and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation's terrorist surveillance laws." You can't stand with the trial lawyers and the ACLU if you want to win a general election.

But does it really make sense to stand with AT&T and George W. Bush instead? As the Anonymous Liberal blogger pointed out, you could hardly ask for a more disreputable opposing team than a president with historic-low popularity and a bunch of corporate fat cats. And by reneging on his earlier position, Obama put himself in a box: If he lets the bill sail through the Senate, he will alienate his base. But if he attempts a filibuster or an amendment now, he will appear to be pandering to the objections of Moveon.org and other groups. It would have made more sense for the party leadership and the nominee to stick to their guns.

Myth No. 5: The law will be the "exclusive means" for surveillance.

The Democrats' most pathetic bit of self-deluded posturing involves the inclusion of a clause suggesting that the new law represents the "exclusive means" by which "electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted." According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., this means "the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president." But, then, FISA always said that it was the "exclusive means." And in 2001, pretty much on a whim, the president set it aside. So for those of you keeping score back home, the Democratic leadership is patting itself on the back for including in the new law a provision that was already in the old law—and which the Bush White House chose to ignore.

Here, then, is the bitter joke of the new legislation: From 2001 to 2007, the NSA engaged in a secret program that was a straightforward violation of America's wiretapping laws. Since the program was revealed, the administration has succeeded in preventing the judiciary from making a definitive declaration that the wiretapping was a crime. Suits against the government get dismissed on state-secrets grounds, because while the program may have been illegal, it was also so highly classified that its legality can never be litigated in open court. And now suits against the telecoms will by dismissed en masse as well. Meanwhile, the new law moves the goal posts, taking illegal things the administration was doing and making them legal.

Whatever Hoyer and Pelosi—and even Obama—say, this amounts to a retroactive blessing of the illegal program, and historically it means that the country will probably be deprived of any rigorous assessment of what precisely the administration did between 2001 and 2007. No judge will have an opportunity to call the president's willful violation of a federal statute a crime, and no landmark ruling by the courts can serve as a warning for future generations about government excesses in dangerous times. What's more, because the proposal so completely plays into the Bush conception of executive power, it renders meaningless any of its own provisions.

After all, if the main lesson of the wiretapping scandal is that we need more surveillance power for the government, what is to stop President Bush—or President Obama or President McCain—from one day choosing to set this new law aside, too? "How will we be judged?" Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., asked in a stirring speech deploring the legislation yesterday. "The technical argument obscures the defining question: the rule of law, or the rule of men?"

"US Senator Says FISA Vote Likely Will Slip To July"

Dow Jones Newspapers:

U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin said Thursday that the Senate likely will not vote this week on authorizing electronic surveillance powers for the president.

Durbin, D-Ill., told reporters Thursday that Democratic leaders plan to wait until July take up the bill, which rewrites the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. Durbin said that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a leading opponent of the bill, has asked that the Senate delay consideration of the bill.

"Sen. Feingold wants additional time, and he would like to postpone it until after the Fourth of July," Durbin said.

The FISA bill is the result of a compromise between Democrats and Republicans on immunity for telecommunications companies. Lawmakers had differed on whether phone companies that are believed to have cooperated with government requests to access customer phone calls and e-mails should be granted immunity from civil lawsuits.

An agreement reached last week would ensure that a district court review the written authorizations handed to the phone companies from the administration stating the program had been approved by the president and the attorney general.

Feingold has said that he plans to offer an amendment to the bill to remove the immunity protections, which posed a major obstacle to attempts to quickly the pass the bill before the end of the week.

Durbin also reiterated statements made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Wednesday that the Senate likely would not vote a comprehensive housing package before a 1-week recess set to begin at the end of the week.

Reid Thursday said the Senate will stay in session until they vote on two remaining items: a supplemental spending package and a bill to set reimbursement rates for physicians under Medicare.

Reid aides have held out the possibility that the Senate could remain in session until Sunday to hold a procedural vote on the Medicare reimbursement bill - a move that appears intended to force Senate Republicans to agree to a final vote on the bill.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Thursday objected to a motion by Reid to pass the bill, saying Republicans would prefer a 30-day extension of current Medicare law.

"Keith Olbermann: Then and now"

Glenn Greenwald (excerpt):

(1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;

(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain.

Greenwald also links to CubbyChaser's post on the Comedy Central blog, "Indecision 2008":

Isn't it just like a liberal to want to conserve our inalienable rights and keep the federal government from amassing too much power? Fucking predictable.

Ian Welsh sums up the FISA-vote story on Firedoglake:

The FISA Cloture vote just passed. This limits debate to 30 hours, then the bill will be voted on. That means a real filibuster is now impossible. Various motions will be put forward to strip immunity, odds are they will fail. Then a number of the 80 who voted to restrict debate will vote against FISA so they can say they were against the bill. However this was the real vote, and the rest is almost certainly nothing but Kabuki for the rubes. Clinton, McCain and Obama all did not show for the vote.

Barack Obama

"Netroots feel jilted by Obama's FISA stand"

Carrie Budoff Brown (Politico):

When former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, the progressive Netroots took their affections to Barack Obama, defending him against attack from Hillary Rodham Clinton and others.

But with his support of a government surveillance bill that offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies — a bill that he vowed last year to filibuster — the honeymoon has ended.

Disappointed over his position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.

Obama’s post-partisan persona hasn’t always meshed so well with the noisy and contentious Netroots, and his rise to prominence has come without their full-throated support. He told reporters in February that he doesn’t read blogs and has long been viewed as cool to the Netroots — a notion that the candidate’s new media director, Joe Rospars, disputed this week at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York, saying Obama was a favorite of the readers of the major bloggers.

Either way, the Netroots eventually took Obama’s side against Clinton, and some came to view him as a champion of progressive causes.

His stance on the FISA bill, however, has brought Obama back down to earth, in part because the liberal blogosphere cares more about civil liberties than many of the other traditional issues that have long dominated the Democratic agenda. While the mainstream media fixated on Obama’s decision to opt out of the public financing system — and newspaper editorial boards eviscerated him — the Netroots commended Obama for showing political savvy. After all, the readers of liberal blogs are many of the small donors who gave Obama reason to reject public financing.

FISA, however, was different. Many of the most popular progressive blogs built their following by mining anger toward President Bush, the Iraq war and what bloggers view as his disregard of the Constitution and the civil liberties guaranteed by it. By granting immunity to telecom companies, civil courts will likely dismiss lawsuits that might unearth details about the administration’s activities, eliminating an opportunity to hold Bush accountable.

“It angers the blogosphere to its core,” said Jane Hamsher, founder of the popular blog Firedoglake.com. “We want to be able to know: What did you do? If we can get that information, we can make sure they don’t do that again. We can get the public engaged.”

Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

At stake for Obama in the FISA vote is the intensity of support for Obama, Moulitsas said.

“I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” he said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

Already, Blue America PAC, a liberal online fundraising group, says it has raised more than $320,000 to fund activities “holding our elected representatives responsible for rubber-stamping the most grievous aspects of the Bush Regime’s agenda.”

MoveOn.org has called upon its members to pressure Obama to “keep his word” and block the bill. Obama gave no indication that he would support a filibuster, and a press aide did not respond to requests for clarification on this point.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected the filibuster attempt Wednesday, voting 80-15 to end debate and move to final passage Thursday. Obama, who was not present for Wednesday's test vote, is expected to vote for an amendment stripping out the immunity provision. But even if the effort fails, as it has in the past, Obama would likely back the underlying bill.

By taking this position, Obama is threading the needle between Republican charges that he is weak on security and the desires of the Democratic base. To allay critics’ claims that he is giving a pass to the Bush administration, Obama aides pointed to a provision in the bill that requires an inspector general’s review of the surveillance program.

“It is not all that I would want,” Obama said of the legislation, which was negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties. “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.”

Obama’s statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

But Obama told reporters Wednesday that the bill has changed from when that pledge was made, saying the latest version satisfied several of his concerns.

Dan Gerstein, a New York political consultant and former longtime aide to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Obama now needs to stand by his support of the bill, given Republican efforts to brand Obama as a “reflexive, partisan liberal.” “This is really an important initial test for Obama,” he said.

“People will be looking at this to see whether he has the strength and independence to stand up to his friends and a significant support base and say, ‘I think this is right, and I am going to hold firm in my position.’”

The Netroots will be watching Thursday as the Senate considers the bill — and whether Obama simply casts his vote or whether he takes a strong stand in a floor speech.

“The fear out there is that Obama is going to fail to live up to expectations on key issues, and that reinforces the notion that ‘uh-oh, we picked the wrong candidate,’ when the focus should really be on the fact that the Bush administration broke the law with the help of private companies,” said Warren Street, a blogger at the Blue Girl, Red State blog.

Howie P.S. C-SPAN2 continues its live coverage today.

Barack Obama

"Dodd Fillibusters FISA" (video)

NCDem, video (05:32):

Senator Dodd (D-CT) filibusters FISA, the bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecom corporations that illegally spy on Americans.

Howie P.S.: Glenn Greenwald reports (Update V)

The first vote on the FISA bill -- a vote for cloture to proceed to debate on the bill -- just passed 80-15. A NO vote was a vote to block the bill. The 15 Senators voting to block the bill: Biden (D-DE) - Boxer (D-CA) - Brown (D-OH) - Cantwell (D-WA) - Dodd (D-CT) - Durbin (D-IL) - Feingold (D-WI) - Harkin (D-IA) - Kerry (D-MA) - Lautenberg (D-NJ) - Leahy (D-VT) - Menendez (D-NJ) - Sanders (I-VT) - Schumer (D-NY) - Wyden (D-OR). Clinton, Obama, Kennedy, Byrd and McCain were all missing. It's likely that a few who voted YES will nonetheless vote against ultimate passage of the bill, but only a few (Reid and Specter, for instance, both intend to vote NO on final passage). And it's still possible that they won't get things done before the July 4 recess, but more likely that they will.

Obama: "Telecom Immunity Doesn't Override National Security" (video)

tpmtv, video (02:07):

Barack Obama, June 25, 2008

Barack Obama

mcjoan: "if we don't stand up for progressive values, who will?"

You can view my latest guest post on the Pacific Northwest Progressive Institute Official Blog here.
Barack Obama

John Dean on FISA on Olbermann (video)

MSNBC video #4(06:08).

Jay Inslee on the FISA bill (video)

glenrose2008, video (01:12):

*The Constitution was Pre-9/11*
The bill was a sellout by both Dems and Reps but Jay Inslee is a hero.

H/t to Darryl.

mcjoan: "Amnesty, Obama, and the Good Fight"

mcjoan on Kos (front-page):

Following up on Hunter's excellent post on why we care about FISA, I want to home in on one part of the whole debacle, and why keeping Barack Obama to his vow to try to strip immunity from the bill is important.

Here's Glenn in an important post on the larger issues behind this bill, and Obama's support of it.

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.

This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

Glenn is absolutely right. This is a disaster of a bill designed to expand the warrantless eavesdropping powers of the president, to codify the lawbreaking of Bush/Cheney. He's also right that this doesn't need to happen, there's "no reason to destroy the FISA framework." It seems we have a Congress intent upon doing that, nonetheless. But there's a distinction between those bad provisions and retroactive immunity--immunity can't be undone. A President Obama and a Congress with a larger Democratic majority--if it had the political will to do so--could repeal the changes contained in the bill, except for amnesty. Of course, given Obama's willingness to support those bad provisions, too, that possibility is waning.

However, there's no repeal of retroactive immunity--once it's granted, that's that. The terrible precedent of letting these corporations off the hook for knowingly breaking the law can't be undone.

That's why, in addition to the fact that pitting the Constitution against AT&T did seem the most potent way to fight this politically, we have focused so largely on telco amnesty. That, and for strategic reasons, is why we should continue to press Obama, Reid, Dodd, Feingold and others who have said in response to this bill, or in response to Dodd's stand last winter, that they oppose amnesty, period.

Strategically, if immunity is removed, the bill is once again veto bait. Another stalling tactic, maybe, but one that might work to finally kill this damned thing once and for all this session. Delaying it past the Independence Day recess is the goal for now. Pushing it into the short remaining work period for the session in August would land in the middle of a packed schedule of "must pass" bills. There's the slimmest chance that time would once again work in our favor. Granted, that outcome is not likely. Our Congress, including our nominee, seems intent, as Hunter says, "to quite so cravenly negate their own oversight duties."

It's our job to try to stop them, and to convince our leaders that it's the right thing to do and they'll have our support in doing so. Here's how, again courtesy Glenn:

As the extremely pro-Obama MoveOn.org notes today, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." MoveOn believes Obama should be held to his word and is thus conducting a campaign urging Obama to do what he promised -- support a filibuster to stop the enactment of telecom amnesty. You can email Burton here to demand that Obama comply with his commitment not just to vote against, but to filibuster, telecom amnesty:

bburton@barackobama.com

Incidentally, Chris Dodd made an identical promise when he was running for President, prompting the support of hundreds of thousands of new contributors, and he ought to be held to his promise as well.

In addition to Obama, contact Harry Reid (Phone: (202) 224-3542, Fax: (202) 224-7327), Russ Feingold (Phone: (202) 224-5323, Fax: (202) 224-2725) and Chris Dodd (Phone: (202) 224-2823, Fax: (202) 224-1083). Ask them to do what they can to derail this train.

Chances are this train is too far from the station to put a stop to. But our job as the left flank of this party, the activist wing, is not to throw up our hands in despair and accept this as a done deal with our bitter acquiescence.

Our job also isn't go off sulking in a fit of pique because our leaders let us down. Blustering, whining, refusing to play anymore is the least helpful and productive of avenues. I keep coming back to Howard Dean and his admonition to us at Yearly Kos in Chicago that we are working on a long term project here to take our party back. Making this party ours again is going to take a lot of work and a long time. We do that by staying engaged. We do that by telling our representatives, including our presidential candidate (who is STILL head and shoulders better than the alternative) what we expect of them and by making their decisions matter.

As long as there is a fight to be had, we're the ones to fight it and to help our allies in Congress fight it. It's our job. If we don't do it, if we don't stand up for progressive values, who will?

Barack Obama

"Obama backs FISA compromise"

Ben Smith:

Breaking with the Democratic left and many civil libertarians, while forestalling security-focused attacks from the right, Obama says he supports the compromise in the House on wiretapping legislation.

Here's his statement on the compromise, which offers retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who helped the government listen in on American citizens -- which Obama says he'll fight to remove from the legislation -- and expands legal wiretapping powers. Obama praises it for restoring a legal framework and judicial oversight to the process.

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.

Howie P.S.: I'm disappointed, but I have always anticipated there would be moments like this.
Barack Obama