Sunday Sketch - FISA Pigs

Coming in under (or just over) the wire. It's sad that only on my 2nd Sunday Sketch, I almost blow it. But not without good cause!

This idea is what I think about the "bi-partisan" effort on the FISA bill.

Digby says it well

Unlike Digby, I was taken in by Obama's personality, as much as by his message. But I had read his books and studied his legislative record, so while I knew him to be somewhat centrist, I was okay with it. As a socially liberal/fiscally conservative progressive, I have a couple of center-right tendencies on certain issues, and I actually liked those contradictions in Obama. But why I am now turned off and have stopped supporting (donating to/volunteering for) his campaign is that I feel completely betrayed.

Up until the end of the primaries, I was convinced that he was indeed principled and not triangulating, and that he wasn't afraid of standing up for any of his principles. Sure, he may not be much of a fighter in the sense that he didn't go looking for fights, be he did seem proud and strong enough to stand his ground. I don't know where that guy went, but this General Election Obama is not the Primary Obama that I worked so hard for in the primaries.

And I did work hard. I manned the phones, I donated money I could barely afford to give up, and I flew across the country to volunteer in Texas. I did that because Obama seemed proud that he had the support of the netroots, and activists on the left. He certainly wasn't dismissive of us like Clinton was. So it did indeed come as a shock when he reversed his position on FISA, and it really hurt when he attacked MoveOn.org. I genuinely feel like he got what he wanted from us, and has now hung us out to dry.

I still believe that Obama must win, because a McCain presidency would be absolutely horrible for this country. But Obama is going to have to win without my help, as he certainly seems to be okay with. But if he wants my support, he's going to have to earn it.

Time to FIGHT!

About that money that I was going to donate to Obama's GE fund. That's going to the ACLU to help fight the FISA Fuck Over.

Join the FIGHT!

The fight will continue

Obama may have joined the Republicans in taking their morning constitution on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, but there are still a handful of people with spines who aren't going to bend over for Bush.

The ACLU plans to challenge the law as soon as Bush signs it into law. No telling whether or not that will do any good, but at least they're not afraid to fight.

Losing Hope

After a thorough re-reading (and re-reading) of Obama's statement on his FISA cave-in, I've come to this conclusion. What this sounds like to me is that Barack Obama's attitude is "Aw, aren't they cute? Look how the angry supporters self-organized to tell me how much they don't like that I flip-flopped on the FISA bill. That's just darling. Okay little cuties, run along now. Go back to your little blogs, and rant and rave all you like, and leave this Presidenting stuff to us grown-ups."

Obama just lost nearly all of my respect. Seeing Obama being weak on this issue and playing into the right's frames of national security, seeing Obama willfully participate in the denigration of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and see Obama act so patronizingly towards his supporters who firmly believe that we are first a nation of laws, not a nation of men, I am so very saddened.

While I could easily believe that Obama would not abuse the power of the Executive branch the way that George W. Bush has, I cannot accept that as a reasonable defense of his new position. It is not enough to say "trust me" on such a critical issue. It does not matter how trustworthy he may appear to be. But on that note, if we cannot trust Obama to stand by his own words and principles on such a critical issue, how can we trust anything else he says? Why won't we just expect him to do the politically expedient thing of the moment? Isn't that what the Clintons are famous for? Isn't that what triangulation is?

Here is why I find him to be so patronizing with this statement:

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.

Potentially weakens? No, it absolutely weakens the deterrent effect of the law. It is not as though we demand accountability for the sake of vengeance. Accountability for past abuses would have the effect of increasing the deterrent effect of the law, ensuring that those who might liberally interpret those laws in the future could be held accountable retroactively. As for supporting the removal of Title II, that just talk, and talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Supporting this bill even while verbally objecting to Title II is like talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Clintonism at its finest.

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

The exclusivity provision is needless rhetoric. The current FISA law was just liberally interpreted by Bush, as could this new exclusivity provision be imaginatively interpreted by a future President. As for this "compromise law" assuring that the FISA court has the responsibility of "watching the watchers", the current FISA bill already does that just fine.

But leaving that aside, I am completely appalled at this new tone Obama is taking with his supporters. Firstly, he is talking to us like children, much like Bush did. And using fear - like Bush - to defend his position. "In a dangerous world..." WTF? Seriously, Obama. WTF? Who have you become?

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 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.

Really? And how is that going, Mr. Obama? How is the uncovering of these illegal issues going? When a rogue Executive has the backing of a rogue Judiciary and the support of roadblocking Legislators, and when lawmakers can't enforce suppoenas against Executive staff members, ow are we to believe that this "new and improved" compromise bill will do anything to keep the government from violating our Constitutional rights again? The answer: It can't!

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.

BOO! Are you scared yet? (I'll address in more detail the issue of these expiring electronic surveillance orders, but the short of it is that these orders need to expire, and their expiration will do nothing to make us less safe.) But to the point of Obama's intentions once he's sworn in, this goes back to the matter of trust. In the very statement he makes to defend his flip-flopping, he asks us to trust him when he's President. That sounds eerily familiar. I will repeat, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. That's where Bush got it wrong, and now it is looking like it is where Obama is getting it wrong.

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.

Awwww. Aren't we sweet? Look how we got Obama's attention just long enough to tell us all to collectively go fuck ourselves.

Firstly, Obama supporters in the FISA group had nothing to do with this current compromise bill. While some in the group may have been vocal about the issue, this particular group was formed to tell Obama that we were not happy with this particular new bill, nor with his reversal on the issue, and his decision to go against his own words. Look how that has worked for us. We get a pat on the bottom and told to run along, while Obama goes off a plays nice with the telecoms. How much has he gotten from them anyway?

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.

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.

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.

I don't see a whole lot of "accountability" here at all, not with Obama being so dismissive of and patronizing to so many of his supporters. As for this being a deal breaker, I mentioned earlier that it is indeed a deal breaker for me. I hope Obama wins against McCain. I really do. I really believe that McCain would be horrible for this country, and despite this "new but not improved Obama," I think he'd be a great President. But he is going to have to do it without my help.

Obama's campaign was the first campaign I ever volunteered for. I have donated more of my money to his campaign than to any other, by far. I got on board back when he formed his exploratory committee, and have been supporting him on the phones calling almost every state, walking the streets of San Francisco, and the streets of San Antonio. I did this because he convinced me that he was not like other politicians. He convinced me that he was a true leader, not someone who was led by consultants. He seemed guided by principles, not blown by political winds. He talked to us all like we were adults, and treated us with respect.

I don't know who this new Barack Obama is, but I don't particularly like him, at least not as much as the old Obama.

Thanks, Glenn

First of all, thanks Glenn Greenwald for the link to a little post on this tiny little backwater blog in your very astute post on Obama's FISA cave. I really appreciate the traffic, and the lively discussion it has generated.

More importantly, thank you for your dogged determination to get the story out about just how dangerous this new FISA bill is, and how damaging it is to our country.

Cheers!

Off Obama's bus

Here is an excerpt from Obama's statement on his FISA cave in, interspersed with my knee-jerk commentary (I will have full analysis when I have a proper keyboard again):

...

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.

Me: It is a deal breaker, and I guess Obama is happy to lose my support.

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.

Me: If by differences Obama means the way we value the Constitution, then he is astoundingly out of touch with the way I - and many like me - feel. I am sorry, but pissing on the Constitution is absolutely unequivocal to any other issue in this - or any - campaign. Accepting the past transgressions against the Constitution, and those transgressors, is unacceptable.

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.

Me: Sorry mate, but turning your back on your principles and on the Constitution is an act of cowardice. It is a weak political move, and it goes against the primary reasons I supported you since prior to your official announcement to run. The Barack Obama who penned this letter is not the same person I flew to Texas to volunteer for.

The vacillating, flip-flopping politician that you appear to have become is little different from McCain, and I can no longer trust you any more than I could McCain.

This does not sound like a new course at all, but rather a failed course, and one I want no part of. Not only have you lost my support, you may have even lost my vote. Consider me officially off the Obama bus.

/Shift

Earlier today in a response to a question by Mike Saul from the NY Daily News on Obama's statement today on withdrawing from Iraq I wrote:

My first thought is that Obama's recent actions and statements won't help him avoid being painted a flip-flopper by the right, but they were going to find a way to do that anyhow. It also won't help Obama much with the "low information" voters for the same reason. I, however, expected this. Obama has always said that how he wants to proceed with Iraq will be determined by the information he has available, and he never ruled out that his thinking might shift. I remember this from either a debate moderated by Tim Russert, or perhaps it was on his MTP appearance. However, the context of those statements seemed to apply more to post-inauguration than while still campaigning. But we can't deny - at least from recent press reports - that things do appear to be changing in Iraq, at least from the point of the Iraqi government trying to at least appear to be acting more independent.

I'm less concerned about what he has to say about Iraq, because lets face it, there's no easy way out of this for anyone. What I am very concerned about is what he says about Iran. Any "tough talk" is going to have a negative affect on me.

On their own, many of the apparent "flip-flops" from Obama lately are anything but. If you've read his books, you'd know that he was for the death penalty for those who would rape and murder a child. He was also fairly pro gun, though he was also for gun control, especially in Chicago, and those positions are not incompatible.

His recent remarks about withdrawing the troops from Iraq are consistent with what he has said all along, but when you put all of these recent positions together and view them out of their original context, you see what appears to be a pattern of Obama shifting away from his progressive values and pandering more to the "center" - wherever the hell that is.

I guess I could be in the center, considering that my positions swing far right in some cases, but far left on most others. What I liked about Obama is that he seemed to embody a similar dynamic, that he could be liberal and libertarian and conservative, without those positions being in conflict. What I liked most about him, however, was that he seemed guided more by principles than by politics, and wasn't afraid to be controversial. I still believe that for the most part, but I cannot compromise on the FISA issue.

Make no mistake. I am holding Obama accountable to his words, not mine. When I say he has lost my support, I mean that I am no longer willing to give him my money, nor give him my time. It's not too late for him to change my mind on that, just as it's not too late to lose my vote as well. I'll be watching Obama with the same critical eye that I have always watched with, even when I walked up and down the San Francisco hills on that cold and rainy February day, even those days in Texas when I walked three precincts, and even when I talked to potential voters on the countless numbers of calls I made.

Not that it really matters all that much, what with me being one person. But then maybe it matters a little more when you factor in all those folks I encountered while volunteering for the campaign, and especially when you factor in all the fence sitters I talked over to Obama's side.

I'm anxious to see what Obama does next.

Keith Olbermann, Glenn Greenwald Feud Over FISA

About Keith Olbermann
I think Keith and Glenn are both right in different ways. Per KO's comment, I'll follow John Dean on this one, and wholeheartedly agree that he is worth 25 GGs and 26 KOs. I am as fuming mad at BO for this triangulation, to the point of considering not donating or volunteering as I have in the past, but if there is any truth to the notion that the "soft on terror" attacks are trumped by this move, and that the possibility for criminal prosecution is still on the table, then BO's change in position makes sense. I don't know enough about Constitutional law to have a solid understanding of this, and I believe GG comes up short on this as well. But John Dean certainly knows more about Constitutional law than just about anyone alive, so I'd defer to his judgment on this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Correction:
In this original post, I asserted that Glenn Greenwald comes up short on the Constitutional law front. I am completely incorrect on that, and would like for the record to say that Glenn does indeed know quite a lot about Constitutional law. I had meant to also include Keith Olbermann in that regard, and I will stand by the assertion that he does not know much about Constitutional law. I also want to be clear that the point I was trying to make was that John Dean does indeed know more about Constitutional law than both of them combined, and I was attempting to laud Mr. Dean and not necessarily denegrate either Misters Greenwald or Olbermann.

How Obama lost my support

Dear Mr. Burton,

I am very saddened by this recent turn of position by Barack Obama on the matter of amnesty for the telecommunications violation of the law in their complicity with the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping orders.

These are your words, Mr. Burton:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

These are Senator Obama's words from last January:

"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 (emphasis mine)."

And again in February:

"We know it's time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd's candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish. The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I've been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests 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. Because in America – no one is above the law."(emphasis mine)

It is clear after his statement yesterday that he was either lying then, or he is lying now:

"My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

I am not so naive as to think that Senator Obama would not shift his positions on important issues, all politicians do that. But on a matter of such grave importance as defending the Constitution, and holding accountable those who would harm it, there is no room for compromise.

As someone who volunteered to the campaign many, many hours and money I could ill afford to give up, all because I trusted that Barack Obama was the one true candidate who was different from all the rest, it is heartbreaking to see that he is indeed just like all the rest. The only change I see coming from Barack Obama now is a change in his attitude towards those of us who worked so hard to help him win the Democratic nomination. It is painfully clear to me that we were used up and are now being hung out to dry.

I can no longer volunteer my support, nor donate any more of my time or money to Obama's campaign. I cannot in good conscience support any candidate who could be so cravenly dishonest on such an important matter.

Take note of this, Mr. Burton: When someone who has been so committed to supporting Barack Obama withdraws that support over this FISA compromise issue, imagine what might happen with all of the undecided voters who are concerned about this issue.

Sincerely,
James "Jake" Barlow
MyBo: seejake

House Dems Sold Us Out!

Siding with the Republiscums and caving in to AT&T, Verizon, et al., House Democrats told all of us who elected them that our rights to privacy are less important than their right to spy on us. In other words, our representatives on Friday are going to tell us that we can take that Constitution of ours and shove it up our collective ass.

In doing so, they also violated their oaths of office. Each one of them swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In my view, they have become enemies of the Republic, and it is time something be done about it.

Of course, there have obviously not been enough people pressuring them to not capitulate, so there will likely not be enough people interested in ousting these political cowards from office.

Nice work, people.