Who is Obama kidding? My take on his FISA statement (telecom immunity).

[Gozu]

In this thread, I translate [Obama’s new statement on FISA](the followinghttp://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF).

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

**Translation: ** My forums are in turmoil and I have to defuse this a bit now that it has made news.

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.

**Translation: ** The FISA bill sucks major balls for the american people and legitimizes bad things. I’m going to try to make it slightly less bad by removing a minor section that is not Title VIII which grants immunity to telcos. But nobody knows what title II is so maybe the people will get confused. In any case, I promise nothing.

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.

**Translation: ** This bill is slightly less horrible than the previous one I voted against and it definitely shakes its finger at the president and tells him “to be nice”. I definitely believe in cookies and sunshine and bubbles and the constitution.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) 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.

**Translation: ** Let me repeat, this bill is not completely horrible.

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.

**Translation: ** I’m just thinking of the children here and we can’t throw the baby with the bathwater. There is no time, if we let this expire, terrorists we are watching now will become invisible. Are you believing this? I hope you are because it’s not really true.

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.

**Translation: ** Now some of you are probably not convinced by this weak explanation so let me tell you that you are all awesome and I love you very much and , hey! Look over there! It’s Bush and the white house! Oh, how we both hate them eh? Focus hatred on them please, kthx.

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.

**Translation: ** We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Yay democracy and free speech. This is good, this is healthy. Now let’s all hug and change things in Washington!

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.

**Translation: ** If you are still not convinced, that’s ok. Whatcha gonna do? Vote for McCain? Don’t make me laugh. No, no, don’t worry be happy and everything will be alright! Yay us!

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.

**Translation: ** I still like you and we should remain friends at least until I’m re-elected in 2012. Now go donate and make calls and leave the politics to me.

I still support Obama because of ideological similarities but I find his descent towards “Bill Clinton”-ism sad and I am disillusioned by this. Telcos should NOT get immunity. They knew what they were doing. Qwest was the only one that did the right thing and now, they don’t have that incentive anymore.

BAD OBAMA! BAD!

ps: I’m not making calls or donating money to him. I hope he appreciates that feedback…

[Fish]

This is an interesting debate.

Translation: This is interesting, but I’m not seeing what the debate topic is.

[Oy]

1. We’ve got no where else to go.

2. Anything that gets surveillance back under the control of FISA rather than running wild as it is now is better than nothing.

3. Obama has always been slightly to the right of most liberals, which is why I found it so laughable that the right-wing was labelling him as the most liberal Senator in the US. He is also an enthusiastic deal-maker and compromiser. Horse-trading is his life.

4. We have nowhere else to go. And my enthusiasm *against * McCain is just as strong as ever.

[Knorf]

I’m actually largely in agreement with Obama here, and in my opinion he has explained himself quite well.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

What a fine old tradition we see revived yet again: The Democratic circular firing squad. Purists unite – you have nothing to lose but the election!

[DSeid]

Points well made. Obama has not sold himself as “the fighter” - like Edwards and Sen Clinton tried to do. He will not fight to a bitter end of defeat and has never sold that as his narrative. He will instead actually work to get the best of what is actually possible to achieve by compromise and deal making. Principled but doomed stands may make for noble looking theater, but the Obama drama has a different plot line.

[Gozu]

@Fish

This is an interesting debate.

Translation: This is interesting, but I’m not seeing what the debate topic is.

Maybe that mean that you agree with my interpretation of his statements.

@Knorf

I’m actually largely in agreement with Obama here, and in my opinion he has explained himself quite well.

Care to substantiate your remarks? I could say the same thing about any statement Bush or McCain made.

Dseid and Eddy: You’re supposed to tear my interpretations apart and show me why I’m wrong. Just saying that standing against Telco Immunity will lose the election is horsepoop.

[Oy]

Gozu, what are we supposed to rebut? Your interpretation? It’s based on emotion, not fact. Our alternative interpretation would be also be guessing based on emotion. Do I personally think Obama’s thinking was as cynical as yours? No, I don’t. I personally suspect he was thinking ‘this is the best we can get done fairly quickly, so let’s do it and get FISA back in the loop.’

The pundits certainly all seem to think this move will help Obama pick up independent voters and “Reagan Democrats.” It would hardly be a stretch to think that the Obama campaign believed the same. And make no mistake, they are in it to win it. (Sorry for the inadvertent rhymes) Will it make the difference between winning and losing? We’ll only know that for sure if he doesn’t win.

I guess what I’m saying here is that very few of us is thrilled about this, but Obama is the only one who knows his precise thinking behind it. You are the one imposing an interpretation on his speech, not us.

[elucidator]

Why should I think the issue of telecomm immunity rises to any serioius level to begin with? What good is clanging the dinner bell for a feeding frenzy for lawyers? What I want is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which I will only get from a Dem administration with solid Congressional backing. I want to know who said what, and who did what. I want to know what congresscritters might best spend more time with thier families.

And I want to demonstrate to the world the crowning glory of democracy: we can change our minds, and thereby change our country.

Obama.

[Lightnin]

So how did the other guy vote on FISA?

Oh, that’s right. McCain didn’t even show up to vote on it. That’s how important it is to him.

At least Obama’s trying to do something.

[John_Mace]

While there is certainly some cheezy political rhetoric in that announcement*, I think he explained himself pretty well. With the Democrats controlling the Senate by the slimmest of margins, no bill is going to get thru there that the Republicans can’t live with. Giving the telcos immunity for past actions seems reasonable to me, since they were acting at the behest of the feds.

*I just can’t get all that worked up about cheezy political rhetoric. I’ve yet to meet a politician who didn’t use it during campaigning, and I doubt I ever will.

[Fish]

@Gozu

Maybe that mean that you agree with my interpretation of his statements.

Maybe it means I think you should’ve put this rant in the Pit where it belongs, rather than vent your spleen and call it a “debate.”

Do you have a point to make?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Gozu

Dseid and Eddy: You’re supposed to tear my interpretations apart and show me why I’m wrong. Just saying that standing against Telco Immunity will lose the election is horsepoop.

No, what’s horsepoop is jumping up and down screaming for ideological purity, refusing any further donations of money or time, hurling furious charges of “Flip-flopper! Panderer! Sellout!” and so forth, all of which will be gleefully picked up and run with by the opposition – in short, undercutting and sabotaging the campaign of a man who’s already in a tough fight, just because he doesn’t march in lockstep with the left wing on every issue.

If you think this is hyperbole, you haven’t been reading the mindbogglingly hysterical crap currently churning through sites like DailyKos. It’s enough to gag a pragmatic maggot.

[John_Mace]

If this had come from Ron Paul, I think the OP would be justified. But Obama isn’t running for idealogue-in-chief, as Paul was, so I don’t see why we shouldn’t take him at his word on this. The bill got plenty of Democratic votes in the Senate, so it seems that this issue is something reasonable people can disagree on.

[DSeid]

@Gozu

Dseid and Eddy: You’re supposed to tear my interpretations apart and show me why I’m wrong. Just saying that standing against Telco Immunity will lose the election is horsepoop.

While Eddy does show a way with words, I’d like to mention that my point was not about winning the election (albeit that would also be a reasonable point to make) but about the method you will likely see after an Obama victory as well. No “my way or nothing” noble stands that accomplish naught but deadlock or worse, but actual getting the best outcome of those that are really possible. You thought that someone who was saying that he would reach across the aisle would take the tactic of holding out for impossible victories? Why?

[elucidator]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

What a fine old tradition we see revived yet again: The Democratic circular firing squad. Purists unite – you have nothing to lose but the election!

Hey! This time we didn’t forget the bullets!

[DSeid]

An argument that the FISA compromise was indeed good enough.

But sure, hold your breath until you turn blue.

[Knorf]

@Gozu

Care to substantiate your remarks? I could say the same thing about any statement Bush or McCain made.

Some kind of law was necessary. To pass said law, compromise of some sort was necessary. Compromise was acceptable to enough people to pass.

Candidate voted for compromise. Some supporters upset. Candidate explains why compromise necessary. This supporter satisfied with explanation.

[Kevbo]

@John Mace

Giving the telcos immunity for past actions seems reasonable to me, since they were acting at the behest of the feds.

It was never about punishing the telcos. It was about using discovery to find out just what the hell it was that the administration was pulling.

What might have been done was to give the telcos immunity for actions which they would have 30 days after the bill’s passage to document to congress in writing. That would protect the telcos that acted in good faith, but wouldn’t provide cover for Bushco, and is therefor unacceptable to the GOPhers in the senate.

[Lama_Pacos]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

No, what’s horsepoop is jumping up and down screaming for ideological purity, refusing any further donations of money or time, hurling furious charges of “Flip-flopper! Panderer! Sellout!” and so forth, all of which will be gleefully picked up and run with by the opposition – in short, undercutting and sabotaging the campaign of a man who’s already in a tough fight, just because he doesn’t march in lockstep with the left wing on every issue.

The voters Obama chances losing are not Democratic shills, but independent voters (such as myself) who don’t give two whits about the strength of the Democratic party, but who thought they could maybe vote for this Democrat-- and are increasingly thinking otherwise.

To such voters, quaint factors like the policies a candidate supports are not of little import.