« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
FISA, Retroactive Immunity, and Obama disappointment
I'm going to make this simple: Obama is on the verge of making a decision that could bring widespread disappointment to many of his supporters. His statements concerning FISA are so vague that I'm not completely sure what he means.
Is he going to fight to get the retroactive immunity out of the Senate version of the bill? Even if it's not out, will he vote for it anyway?
Barack Obama cannot vote for a bill that would grant such immunity to telecom corporations. It is inexcusible.
I contacted Barack Obama with the following message:
Dear Senator Obama,Here's to hoping Obama will do what's right...
You recently made a statement concerning the FISA bill, and concerning the retroactive immunity that such a bill grants to telecoms. It is my understanding that, though you'll fight to remove this immunity, you would vote for the legislation anyway. If I am wrong in my understanding, I urge you to clarify this point. If I am right in my understanding, I urge you to rethink such a thing.
I understand the idea of compromise. But I also understand the idea of integrity. Voting for a bill that grants amnesty to corporations that broke the law is inexcusable. You cannot, and should not stand for such a thing, and I can only hope that you will stand strong and vote against a measure that allows such a provision.
Senator Obama, I have been a strong supporter of yours for years, and this is the first time that I have seriously questioned your reasoning. I understand that no vote has taken place, but this is my letter to you in urging you and hoping to vote against such a bill, if that bill should come to the Senate in its current form.
sincerely,
your supporter,
Nathan Donarum
Advertisement
Comments (9)
Have you contacted your senator?
Obama has only one vote.
June 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in the process right now.
I understand Obama only has 1 vote. My concern with Obama is not about him overturning the legislation, but with his integrity as a Presidential Candidate, and as our Candidate. I don't think he should sacrifice that, and I think it would be a mistake for him to make such a vote.
June 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good.
But if you speak to your senators to join him it makes the alliance that much stronger.
June 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
June 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, stay on him. If we let him "compromise" on this, how many other times will he sell us out before November? And if he gets the White House that way... he'll feel free to knock us around for 8 years. And, this guy's a 2 termer, for sure.
June 20, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No offense, destor, but I've seen you in other posts, and you take things a little far. I don't agree with withholding donations or with punishing America over this.
June 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a very strong Obama supporter and as for this vote, I hold him 200% to account. 100% because it is the wrong vote and another 100% because he is a Constitutional Lawyer and should understand the betrayal of the Constitution more than some of his not so well versed collegues. This is a vote against his entire message of transparency, accountability, and government for the people from the ground up. I believe it will not cost him a lot of votes because the alternative is so awful, but it will cost him a great deal in donations, volunteerism and boots on the ground. It will turn enthusiastic supporters and community workers into non-participant voters. This vote will damage the authenticity of his message and render him another hollow candidate.
June 21, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill is 100% unacceptable in every part- I wish people would stop focusing solely on telecom immunity. There was nothing wrong with the old FISA law, indeed even that is overbroad because the FISA court turned out to be a rubber stamp. Eliminating even that weak level of accountability is infamous. Obama, as much as any other President, simply should not have so much power.
June 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This FISA immunity from civil suits is a very minor issue.
1. Bush will certainly grant immunity to telecom executives from criminal charges. Bush and the telecoms will certainly claim a national security exemption from telling the whole truth in civil trials.
2. If the telecoms lose the civil suits, they will have to pay cash penalties that they will then pass on to their customers.
3. The main benefit coming from no immunity is the opportunity to find out what really happened. We can do that with hearings and Justice Department probes in 2009, assuming we don't throw out baby Obama with dirty Bush water.
4. There are far, far more important issues damaging our constitution: habeas corpus, the politicization of the Justice Department, torture, White House crimes regarding Iraq (like leaking and lying), and the politicization of the intelligence agencies. Whether or not telecoms get punished is irrelevant. They spied already. We don't want them spying any more. Tying the hands of future presidents is more productive.
Anyone who bases their entire political thinking on this one FISA issue is immature at best, really stupid at worst.
June 21, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment