« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
About FISA
There's a lot of conversation right now about FISA, and I'm glad we're having it.
I believe Obama (and Hillary, and all worthwhile Senators) should oppose the FISA revisions. A simple "nay" vote is all that has to be done, but more than that would be great. A "yay" vote or not voting is unacceptable.
Just to be clear, I'm not threatening to vote for McCain, or stay home (at this time). What I am saying is that we should all be getting in contact with our Senators and letting them know what we think, and that goes double for Obama.
The FISA bill is awful, is a travesty, and the fact that more people aren't outraged about it saddens me.
Now let me tell you why.
There are things that make America great. Those things are the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all of the amendments. A little guy, wronged by a big guy, can have his day in court and have the outcome decided by other little guys.
These rights are, however, not gauranteed. God does not make sure that they are enforced. Men do. Our rights require the constant vigilance from us to ensure that we, and future generations have them. Something as simple as the right to take someone to court, something we so often take for granted in America, is so precious that we cannot allow anything, be it political expediency or fear or Presidential bargaining, take it from us.
Some have argued that allowing FISA through will make getting universal health care or Social Security reform easier. And they're probably right, but the best health care in the world, or the most fair and giving Social Security system do nothing for us if we fail to protect our rights. The right to privacy, on which legal abortion hinges, would you give that up for a shot at universal health care? The right to free speech, something that allows us to sit here and pen blogs, would you give that up for Social Security? Is it okay to give up the right to take someone to court, just for the chance at either of these things?
It is not okay. This is not a small issue. Bargaining away liberties does not amount to "incremental change."
We can have it both ways. We can stop FISA and get through universal health care. Universal health care and Social Security will require some bargaining, and there will be much back and forth when its time comes, but our rights are too big of a chip to throw down on the table, especially when the health care and Social Security issues are not explicitly on the table.
Others have suggested that President Obama will only enforce the parts of the FISA bill that are "good." This is not much different than hoping that the next king will be a benevolent one. Obama will one day leave office, and if he leaves FISA intact, we will all wish he had stopped it back in 2008, when the chance was there.
We need freedoms, and we need rights. America will not be America without them. So please, contact your Senator and Obama and let him know that you want to keep America the great country that it is.
Thank you for reading.
Comments (25)
Thanks for this post.
Something I don't quite understand:
Yesterday and today some posters at TPM have implied that voting yes to FISA is a small/big price to pay in order to get to the White House.
How come???
Who thinks that if Obama opposes FISA he will lose votes? And why?
Please explain, somebody! I can't stretch my mind around that.
I think this FISA passing is all about covering the Senators' and Congressmen's behinds...
June 21, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because most of this country isn't as well informed about FISA as the netroots.
This is sold as being used to "Get the terrorists" and that is exactly what the majority of Americans think of it. This isn't as nuanced of an issue for Joe and Jane Six Pack.
Obama has to campaign as a centrist then govern as a progressive. I'd rather have that than someone who runs as a progressive and governs as a moderate republican like Bill Clinton.
June 22, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama can quell fears about his race, he can explain to Sixpacks everywhere why this bill is a bad idea.
He is a very gifted speaker, and the media absolutely loved his race speech. What makes you think that an Obama speech on the necessity of protecting liberties would turn out differently?
June 22, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because of all the talking heads and the media propaganda machine and the inability of the average American to not take a big healthy shit in their pants when the word Terrorist is uttered by someone in charge.
Race was a different subject, without as much nuance. I think it is a mistake to assume that because we are well-informed and politically-aware that everyone else is too.
They aren't.
June 23, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two things that come to mind about the current Administration and FISA. They wanted to grant telecoms immunity and they wanted to place Executive action above the law. Both of these are not good.
In the compromise, the Dems, surrendered the former and the Repubs the latter.
You're right in that the two issues I enumerated are big, and perhaps the Dems could have pushed harder. Unfortunately the nature of compromise is that neither side gets everything they want.
June 21, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a "compromise" in the basic sense of the word, but it still doesn't do the issue justice.
If the GOP wanted to arbitrarily dismiss 100 court cases, and the Democrats wanted to arbitrary dismiss 0 court cases, and they come to a compromise to arbitrarily dismiss 50 cases, is that a worthy compromise?
I'm glad the Democrats got more oversight for FISA. I really am. But that's only half of the issue.
June 22, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FISA Bill is simply an indication to us Obama backers how well Barrack will lead. He has shown us that over last year how NAFTA, the SURGE and FISA are all bad for the future of our nation. It has been very difficult for him to stand up against those with greater experience and now that the race is truly on Obama has demonstrated how important compromising is. He is our leader for tomorrow unless he decides something else would be better. Obama08!
June 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, beautifully-stated, Customer. Loved it.
June 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for writing this. You have the issues and details down cold.
What's awful is... we've had FISA since the 1970s and though there might be some technical updates to be made, people on our side should know that it can wait until we have the White House and better majorities in the Senate and House. Why update a law for no reason, on terms dictated by the lame duck party?
I fear that Democratic capitulation here is symptomatic of our own "Viet Nam Syndrome." We're used to being losers.
Times have changed. The country is with us. Let's give them something to get behind. You can't do that without taking a stand.
There's no way Obama would lose the election by standing up for the 4th Amendment. It's more likely that such a stance, if he had the courage to take it, would confirm that he is the true reformer that we want him to be.
June 21, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very true. He stands to lose nothing by opposing the bill. We all stand to lose a lot if it passes in its current form.
June 22, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice explanation, Customer. I don't know any adult, from any political persuasion: Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, anarchist, feninist or drunkard who could not read and understand this and would not agree wholeheartedly with it. I know that civics has not been our strong suit for some time, but most Americans know what is important about the idea and ideal of America.
June 22, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious, have you read the bill?
June 22, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my question is, apart from the immunity, what part of the bill do you object to?
June 22, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objections revolve entirely around the immunity. The ability to take someone to court is one of the liberties that makes America American.
The FISA bill now, as it stands, will prevent people from taking phone and internet companies to court.
Also, this, because I didn't want to write it twice.
June 22, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you explain to me the elements of the bill, besides the telecom immunity issue, that make things worse than the old FISA? Or even just what exactly changes from the old FISA?
I've looked at the actual bill, but it's 114 pages full of references to other legislation, and with no background on this, it would take me days to understand it. Someone posted a link to a site they said spelled out the differences, but I didn't have time to follow it then, and I can't find it now. Most of the news reports are focused on the immunity issue and don't address other changes.
So, this isn't commentary or criticism. It's a sincere question. What, specifically, does this bill do to make things worse for those of us who really are quite fond of our 4th Amendment rights?
June 22, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest reading this TIME article. It spells out some stuff pretty lucidly.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html
Maybe it'll help you understand the current situation a little better.
June 22, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. That helped some in that pointed to a couple of compromises that the Democrats gained - DOJ inspector general review and some additional Congressional oversight and slight - hairsbreadth slight and I hesitate to even mention it - improvement in the immunity deal.
It doesn't really spell out what the administration gained. How does this expand the administration's powers beyond the old FISA?
June 22, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe, I don't see that this compromise expands the Executive's powers beyond the version of FISA that is was written into law in August 2007. However, if I'm understanding correctly, those expanded powers were not permanently written into the law - they were part of an amendment that were set to expire in February. That version was extended in February, to give Congress time to come up with a compromise - something that all Parties could live with, that would allow the Intelligence Community the tools that it needs to continue to gather "foreign intelligence," while ensuring that there were mechanisms in place to keep them accountable in regards to 4th Amendment rights. It looks like they've added some Congressional and Judicial oversight that wasn't there before. And it also appears that they've extended the sunset period to 4 years. And then you have the immunity stuff. But yeah, the real substance of this bill, to me, is the conditions under which the President and AG can authorize electronic surveillance without a warrant and what kind of oversight there will be of this activity.
June 22, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good recent history of the current FISA debate.
The crux (for me) of the issue is that the FISA bill prevents someone from taking one of the phone companies to court.
Everyone should be able to have his day in court.
What are the phone companies afraid of anyway? If they get taken to court, and if twelve jurists hear a case about how evesdropping on such-and-such prevented a terrorist attack, there's no way that those twelve jurists are going to convict the company of anything.
So what are the phone companies afraid of? They're afraid of having to defend themselves, pure and simple, because they know that their position is untenable.
June 22, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Time article is a sham, replete with out and out lies. The media has been worse on this than on the Iraq war “intelligence” reporting. Greenwald
has a point by point take down of it today.
Telecom immunity is not the only thing wrong with this “compromise” (notice how everyone who knows what’s in it puts quoted around compromise?). Spying on Americans is not stopped by this bill but facilitated. ACLU has a good summary of objectionable points. In fact, TIA type dragnet ting of emails and phone records are only reviewed by FISA as to general methodology, nothing else.
This bill gives away more of our Fourth Amendment protections but is disguised with perfunctory rubber-stamp court review. Here is just another blogger on the demerits of this “compromise.”
June 22, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't expand the administrations powers. It checks them. Then gives double checks thorough investigation by inspectors and congress. NOW and in the future the executive office is under the enforcement of stop gap measures in protection of 4th amendment rights that new technologies and loophole interpretation opened the door to this wider meaning of surveillance.
June 22, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue at hand is immunity.
For me, the FISA bill can pass, if and only if the immunity is removed.
A "yay" vote from Obama or not voting at all will be a black mark on the beginning of what should be a bright Presidency.
June 22, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feeling is that Obama has the political capitol right now to call the shots. Hell, as nominee he's taken over the DNC. He could have stopped this but would have had to do it before the "compromise" was announced or leaked. Even his statement on Friday was perfunctory, as this was a done deal. He can vote no on both the immunity and the whole bill right now (though I doubt he will) and it makes no difference. The bill was good as gold as soon as Pelosi, Hoyer (as fall guy), Reid, Obama and the Republican leaders agreed on it behind closed doors. All else is political theater.
June 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my question: there is such a solid outcry from the netroots on this, I am wondering what Obama's purpose was in making an announcement in favor of the compromise while slipping in his comment about 'working in the Senate to remove the immunity provision', and it brings me to this question: was Obama polling his constituency ahead of his vote?
IF he gets a huge outcry from barackobama.com will that give him a grassroots mandate for a filbuster that he would not have had, if he had not released this intention beforehand?
June 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly. All the better to let him know, now, what we think of the FISA "compromise."
June 22, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment