« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
48 Hours Left to Get FISA Right
Posted at Get FISA Right:
Dear Senator Obama,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to us with your post "My Position On FISA" dated July 3rd, 2008. In your response, you pledged to "listen to [our] concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn [our] ongoing support," and in that spirit, we would like to continue this conversation. We ask that you help transfer our passion and political activism into getting the FISA bill right -- now.
Senator, as a legal scholar who has done extensive study of our country's constitution you know that the FISA re-authorization bill currently before the Senate (HR 6304) threatens the rights guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment.
One of the most troubling parts of this bill is its provision to provide retroactive immunity from civil lawsuits for telecommunications companies that may have assisted the Bush administration in violating the civil rights of Americans. You wrote in your statement that you "support striking Title II," which provides this immunity, "from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate."
We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a 'More Perfect Union.' The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who "may have violated the law" and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens as we did to relearn of segregation and Jim Crow. The arm of government oppression reaches far and wide, Senator, and we must beat it back on whatever front we find it.
We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, "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." In your statement you also wrote, "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." We agree. Our nation just spent the holiday weekend in celebration of our independence from unlimited government authority. America in 1776 wished to be strong and free. Much has changed in 232 years but Americans will never consciously abandon freedom.
Senator, while you wrote that not passing this bill would result in the government "losing important surveillance tools," these important surveillance tools are in fact blanket surveillance programs already underway solely due to the passage of the Protect America Act, which you rightly opposed and voted against. This is only one example of how, even without the provisions for retroactive immunity, this bill is still dangerous to the civil liberties of American citizens.
As we understand it Senator, your oath to uphold the Constitution requires you and others in the Congress to vote against HR 6304.
We appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion. We represent a large and vocal part of the movement you have nurtured and that has nurtured you during this campaign season, and include many of your most active and ardent supporters. As you have said time and again Senator, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and we are here, working to bring about real change in Washington. We have grown to over 20,000 strong in the space of just a few days. We are lobbying our representatives, and working to get our friends, relatives and neighbors to do the same. We are organizing support for removing the immunity provisions for telecommunications companies and building opposition to this dangerous bill in its entirety.
Working together, we have a better chance to assist Senators Dodd and Bingaman, and can achieve what your commitment to us, your supporters, has been before your recent change in position. Together, we can protect our civil rights and continue to keep America safe. Please join us and let's work together to Get FISA Right.
If you would like to join us, please call your Senator, join the group on myBO and Facebook, and help get the word out!
Comments (18)
I wonder where McCain stands on the FISA bill. Keep piling on Obama to fight a battle that can't be won and that doing so will hurt his chances come November and you'll end up with McCain and thus the President you deserve.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
July 6, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're totally mis-reading this letter.
I agree, and so do 20,000 other people, that Senator Obama is doing the right thing. What we are saying now is that we don't want to give up.
Why does this matter? See this story from 2007:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501857_pf.html
Verizon Communications, the nation's second-largest telecom company, told congressional investigators that it has provided customers' telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005.
The company said it does not determine the requests' legality or necessity because to do so would slow efforts to save lives in criminal investigations.
July 6, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know where ALL the Green Party candidates stand, as opposed to both McCain AND Obama.
July 7, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The netroots is a virtual lobby itself. It gives money and expects influence in return. And when it doesn't get the influence it expected it acts like Haim Saban and the like who threatened to pull money from the DNC if they didn't do as they were told.
Maybe Obama can use this issue to show the centrists that he can and will stand up to the netroots. Now these 20,000 people might not like it, but they liked the idea that Obama wouldn't be beholden to unsavory slimy lobbyists and would stand up to what he thought was the right decision. Well he's doing that now - he's doing what needs to be done to hopefully get elected. If he bends to the will of the vocal netroots then that will be used against him from Tuesday to November 4th both in that Obama voted to make America unsafe and that he's bought and paid for by the party activists.
A worse bill had enough votes to pass, this will have enough votes to pass. Nothing Obama can do would stop it from passing. He would only show that he doesn't have any control or sway over the party he is hoping to lead. So why the 20,000 strong cheer from in front of their computer screens Obama will be diminished in the eyes of tens of millions. It seems that some would rather see Obama fight the good fight and lose, than surrender this battle he cannot win but win the war come November.
July 6, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am actually beginning to think that the more the netroots 20,000 piles on him here and around the Internet, the more republican and independent votes he picks up. They don't see a flip-flop, they see a stand on principle that won't even be swayed by his most passionate left-wing(supporters/lobbyists) on-line.
July 7, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There'd be no point in standing on PRINCIPLE, would there?
July 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has turned his back on the group that propelled him past Hillary, internet activists who know the issues of information security.
This is going to be interesting, people from Amy Goodman, Huffington, and the NYT editorial all have slammed Obama on this flip flop not of a hypothetical situation such as the war, but adnadoning the legislation he cosponsored with Dodd on Fisa.
It will cost him the educated votes that were accrued to moderates and independents, the type who don't like being labeled let alone eavesdropping.
This will hurt Obama in the credibility department.
All McCain now needs to ask is, does credibility matter?
I remember George Bush's humble foreign policy BS in 2000. Reminds me of Obama on Fisa.
July 6, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That NYT editorial was a load of shit hit-piece attacking Obama for flip-flopping and changing positions on issues for which he never flip-flopped nor changed positions on. If you're truly using that as a source, you're the one who has no credibility.
July 7, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is such a skewed version of what happened. Let me slow it down for you: He didn't change positions on this or any other issue.
This bill is not the same bill he commented previously. This bill is one he believes offers the best compromise between over-sight and protecting America from the hornets nest of foreign policy has spun up over the last 40 years.
The "left" is clearly out of their mind on this one. I am so glad I am an independent who can actually think for myself and hold two or three or even four contradictory ideas in my head at the same time.
July 7, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This bill is a worse piece of shit THAN THE ORIGINAL. Kitt Bond is wetting his pants with excitement that this bill gave away so much more than the original in the Senate, weren't you paying attention?
July 7, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one can accuse me of being an Obama critic.
I have exhausted the resources of my pen in trying to give people here reasons to get over their disappointment on his FISA stance and still enthusiastically support his candidacy.
But, he IS on the wrong side of this issue from the standpoint of the incredible, mind-boggling erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11.
I flew to an out-of-state professional conference in late June and as usual, was asked to show my boarding pass and ID to the initial TSA screener at the gates screening area. And as usual, I complied. But quasi-informed as I am, I knew that something had changed that probably very few around me were aware of. Since June 20th the TSA had instituted a policy of mandatory presentment of ID as a condition of passing into the secured area. Before it had always been the passenger's option to refuse to present ID. We, as Americans, have that right to decline "Your papers, please?" type requests in most circumstances. What TSA had quietly done was to take that right and throw it away, unremarked in the newspapers, unnoticed by the public. If I had, that week, refused to "co-operate", I would have been given enhanced screening, and in all likelihood not flown that day. This is patently a violation of something in law called "viewpoint discrimination" under the First (I am not making a 4th amendment claim here): I would have been treated differentially depending on whether or not I expressed my right to decline to cooperate.
A few days ago the ACLU filed a complaint against the DOJ on the latter's possible use, without warrant, of tracking data from citizen's cellphones. They with the EFF had previously filed a FOIA request which had met with the usual obstructive and dilatory tactics. You may not be aware, but your cellphone while on operates a little like a reverse rfd chip, your movements can be tracked and the government apparently has requested such data from telcoms without warrant.
The FBI is planning to infiltrate the protest groups at the Republican National Convention. Why? What national security interest is at stake?
Protesters will be behind chainlink fences I hear.
Firefighters have been approached by DHS to report "suspicious" things they see when in buildings. Why firefighters? Because unlike police they do not require warrants to enter buildings.
America has been changing. Jack Balkin writes of a developing National Surveillance State and he is not an irresponsible scholar and his concerns should be taken seriously.
Barack, I hope, will take a decisive stand against the FISA re-authorization. It is bad legislation from many perspectives and offers no substantive improvements not outweighed by substantive defects not present in the original bill as amended. We MUST stop this slide away from our constitutional values for the chimerical good of "safety and security."
July 6, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must disagree. The "erosion of liberties" has been constant and unwavering for decades. In fact, when taking an historical view of the Constitution and our ability to set it aside when we decide to, there isn't a single president since Washington who hasn't bent or out-right broken the Constitution in the performance of their duty.
I made a list once here that I don't feel like recreating, but suffice to say that from the Alien and Sedition Act under John Adams all the way to the Patriot Act under Baby Bush, this country has an unbroken string of Constitutional violations to make us feel warm and safe at night.
Obama should NOT take a chance the American people are ready to abandon that because a few thousand bloggers and the ultra-left intellectuals in this country think Obama has caved or flip-flopped.
This stance of his is consistent with his writings, his legislative priorities and his previous statements.
July 7, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then what was the original FISA legislation, just more "erosion of liberties"? You're wrong, and obviously wrong.
July 7, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong. And obviously wrong, because Jason is a sincere guy, and if it were obvious to him that he was wrong, he wouldn't have made that comment.
Although you're right when you say he is wrong.
July 7, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not at all sure who's wrong, much less obviously wrong, but I don't share Jason's unconcern or his history of civil liberties.
Since Bush II was installed, there has been a concerted push to maximize Executive powers under the general rubric of a Schmittean-style Unitary Executive.
Some of the power was gathered in at the expense of the Article I congress, some at the expense of the Article III judiciary; and some at the expense of the Constitution and civil liberties.
The only effective check on Bush has been the judiciary which have at the district, circuit and Supreme Court levels blocked much of the attempted harm. They are the heroes of the last 8 years; the Congress has played a very ignominious role which will be duly noted in future histories of this lamentable era.
So I concede Jason's characterization of civil liberties losses under other (primarily the wartime administrations of Lincoln Wilson and FDR) but I think he underestimates the concerted efforts of the present administration.
July 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could make a long list of laws that have been broken in the history of this country (even by government officials), so why worry about enforcing laws? Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it, Jason? And the idea that it is just some fringe far left bloggers that oppose this is equally wrong.
Twenty thousand of Obama’s own supporters challenging him is a very big deal.
This meme that the fringe left opposes the direction of the country (it’s at over 80& right now) has been plied by the MSM and RW for years to justify programs, especially with the Iraq war, while polls always show the opposite is true. There is almost unanimous (as it gets) support for rolling back these civil liberties infringements just as there has been majority support for ending the Iraq war ASAP for three or four years.
There is no group of "American people" demanding more illegal spying and immunity for lawbreakers. That the media and politicians have lied about what this bill does (and many progressives are only too happy to spread those lies, knowingly or not) means the fierce opposition to it is even more impressive. People have had enough. This bill just sets back the time it’s going to take to reverse the damage done.
July 7, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
just to quiet those who don't see this as a change in Obama's position, here's his statement:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
**
Can I really believe that Obama will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
July 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep hearing the argument that this amendment is better than the previous bills, but that's like saying a bullet to the head is quicker than stabbing or choking. The result is still the same.
I've faxed my Washington senators (not the team) four times now, and so far they've held firm in their votes. But I'm worried that this "better" argument is prompting the political expediency that's explaining (defending?) Obama's willingness to vote yes on this FISA amendment.
The longtime representative in my district, Norm Dicks, has been a staunch advocate for progressive positions that, in my estimation, are what are actually the more humanistic and humane positions. Yet I was shocked to find his name among the 105 Democrats that voted yes in the FISA House vote last month.
I have written to ask him what prompted this vote, and I fear that the reason will political expediency.
I have to agree with those who are troubled by Obama's position and feel that it is a change (I'm going to avoid those "caving" and "flip-flopping" characterizations, because I don't think they're accurate) from what he's stated support for before. The differences between previous FISA bills and this amendment are not significant enough to make up for telecom immunity and eroded 4th amendment protections this one includes.
It's just bad, because it's much harder to give rights back than it is to take them away. You've got to keep them intact or you may never get them back.
July 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment