He has recently expressed support for this new bill, which will give amnesty to the telecom companies which may have been involved in wiretapping, and, apparently, expand presidential surveillance powers. The liberal bloggers are up in arms about it:
What the Wired site says (contains an Obama quote justifying his vote) is at odds with what the other two links say. Wired’s quote has him saying “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.”
But the Daily Kos and Salon both indicate that, on that second point, it will do exactly the opposite:
“…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.”
Odd that there doesn’t seem to be any discussion of this here (a search of “telecom bill” for the past week came up empty. I’ve generally steered clear of these discussions, lurking mainly, but felt this needed to be brought up. Apparently the Democrats/Obama are deathly afraid of being painted as “soft on terrorism”, hence the unprincipled flip-flop (if that is what it is). This worries this independent voter greatly.
I saw that as well on HuffPost and accepted Obama’s explanation. I hope this isn’t a sign that we’re cutting back room deals with big business.
I’m not sure it would be productive in our present economy to encourage class action lawsuits against the telcom companies but I do think warrant less wire taping of American citizens should be stopped.
I’d need more information to know if the bill actually does the opposite of what Obama says it does. If so that would be dam disappointing.
Well, politics is the art of compromise. Just seems the Democrats do all the compromising. Except here they are compromising our basic rights away along with handing those who broke the law a get out of jail free card.
I need to research this further to see what the implications of the new bill are. Frankly I am unsure why the old FISA was inadequate. Obama does state he will work to hold the telecoms accountable when it comes to the senate but frankly, on paper at least, that sounded weak and I do not see him really fighting anything on that count except perhaps to go on the record as not liking it.
Honestly this is the first thing I have seen from Obama that has hugely disappointed me. Sure there have been other little things but this is really not good in my eyes.
Maybe he is counting on becoming President, and thinks wire-tapping might come in handy.
It’s sort of the opposite approach to the public financing thing. He was running against Hilary, so the system was a great thing (as long as he could derive some benefit from it). Then he got the nom, realized that he could get more money from his cult than from the government, so suddenly the system was broken (i.e., he could no longer derive any benefit from it). Same thing here. “Wiretapping is dreadful, horrible, evil, bad - oh wait, I might need it. Aye!”
Bit more than weak, perhaps -
IOW, the same government who orders the wire tap is in charge of finding out if the telecoms they ordered to participate is breaking the law by doing so. Uh huh.
Ah well. All this will be excused, denied, and ignored by the Obamaniacs.
My god, Shodan- does your threadshitting ever stop? What the hell is it with you and your blind hatred of anyone who disagrees with you? Look at the first three posts- you know, every post right above yours- not a single person is excusing Obama’s actions. Hell, I’m disappointed in Obama’s vote, too.
Would you care to defend how McCain and Clinton voted on that bill? You know- where they didn’t even vote? How would you term people who defend them?
McCain “coming around” on drilling is lauded by the right, so surely Obama “coming around” on FISA will be… well… ok.
I too disagree with him. Here’s the part where I excuse, deny, and ignore:
Remember, folks- there has been no vote cast yet by Obama. He has simply “expressed support”. Which looks to me like his support for the folks who voted for Roberts, that Obama “reaching across the aisle” which typically amounts to expressing empathy for a particular view. Apparently the Democratic House and its leadership is determined to look like badasses on this issue and he’s determined that he doesn’t want to rock the boat just yet.
The fact that he has publically staked out a position on this where it was clearly not required politically (yet, at least) means that he is in the middle of doing the same thing here. Just my humble excuse, denial, and ignorance.
Not only that, but there is a caul over the moon, the whipoorwills are calling in daytime, and a cow has been born with two noses. Evil betides the land!!
I think it’s kind of usual for Presidential candidates to tack somewhat towards the center after they’ve fed enough red meat to their energized and more extreme party faithful (of the left or right) to get the nomination.
Ah, the hazards of running for president as a legislator, while the legislature is in session. I’m having a hard time figuring out whether this bill extends the president’s wiretapping powers, or if it reaffirms that the FISA court must approve them as the current law was supposed to do. With both sides declaring victory and the bloggers screaming, it’s hard to tell what happened. I’m not troubled by the immunity provision. Should these companies be liable for damages for obeying a lawful government order or request, whatever we may think of the law?
This is a correct position for Senator Obama to take. I’m pleased to see it, because, frankly, while I have expressed admiration the man and his integrity, there haven’t been any actual positions of his I’ve found myself agreeing with.
But this is good. The immunity is a no-brainer; holding the companies laible for complying with a act the government requested is a terrible thing to do. And extending the wiretapping powers by this legislation removes any ambiguity about what the President’s inherent powers are.
I don’t know. This is persuasive, but at the same time, isn’t it incumbent upon a corporation to determine their legal exposure when they undertake an act like this? If the acts would require immunity, that would indicate that the legal advisors of the corporations were (or should have been) aware of the exposure and took a calculated risk. Perhaps they were assured by the government that prosecutions would not take place, but any self-respecting lawyer knows not to rely on the assurances of the government, especially, if I may, this particular executive branch.
I am willing to be convinced on this point, but I don’t know if I buy the “it sets a bad precedent” argument- clearly there are conceivable situations in which the government or an agency thereof instructs a private company to do something illegal and it is the responsibility of that company to decline to comply.
I don’t understand why there is a controversy. Obama opposed the original Senate bill, supports the House compromise, and will try to strip the immunity provision. Shouldn’t we wait until we see what unfolds in the Senate in the next couple of weeks before burning down the mission? If he does all he can short of breaking fingers and busting heads, then what more do you want from him? Granted, the whole domestic spying thing sucks, but Obama is not Dictator of the Congress.
It’s just an expression, but if what the liberal bloggers are saying is true, he could be accused of selling out his ideals.
Liberal does raise a good point (I had thought that the bill’s ultimate form had been finalized and it had already been voted on). My main purpose here was to spark discussion on this issue; my fervent hope is indeed that it is much ado about nothing but I worry that it is much more than that.
I think Democrats just aren’t used to having a candidate who doesn’t walk on egg shells all the time, fearful of alienating the party’s famous gaggle of special interests. They’re not used to hearing their leader talk about things like “values” and “faith” or watching their leader march forward with a resolute sense of purpose. Neither, incidentally, are Republicans used to this new kind of Democrat — hence, their feeble and impotent challenges to him. They expected another Kerry, but they got a young Reagan with Kennedy’s charisma and Lincoln’s brain.