Well, today has been a sad day for anyone who respects the Rule of Law and our country's Constitution. My anger at the Democrats who've brought this bill to the House will hopefully help in their being defeated by more and better Democrats next primary season. I have already given to the ActBlue page twice, and plan to do so again soon. Frankly, I am angry and sad at all Democrats today, including Barack Obama.
My letter to him is after the jump. After a day like this I need to be happy and with friends, so I apologize but I will not be around to respond to comments until late this evening.
Senator Obama,
Your statement regarding your support for the FISA "compromise" is deeply troubling. I have given time and money to your campaign for many months, and I'm reconsidering what I can comfortably do to support you during the remainder of the general election. Rest assured, I will vote for you in November, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your attempt to remove amnesty. Personally, I do not hold out much hope that such a claim was made with the honest intention to carry out the removal of immunity, based on the climate and lack of support to do so in the Senate. Based on Reid's statement today, I view your wish to “work in the Senate to remove this provision” as simple political theater to allow you to straddle both sides of the debate. I would love to be proven wrong, to see you work tirelessly and passionately with people like Sen. Dodd, and to see you take lead on this issue and be able to remove the immunity, but it would require much more strength and leadership than we have seen from you today.
That being said, there are numerous things wrong with this bill and retroactive immunity is only one such thing. I won't belabor the point that giving large companies a "get out of jail free card," in the form of an Attorney General's secret statement to a judge, is sickening when so many ordinary Americans have to serve monetary penalties or prison time for much more minor infractions than illegally spying on countless Americans for years and years. But what about your other assertions?
You state: "Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people." That may be true, and perhaps FISA does need some tweaks in the face of our more modern world versus that of 1978. But how does that need explain that the NSA, as per unsealed court documents, asked Qwest to begin warrantless wiretapping and was clearly starting this program more than 6 months before 9/11? How does that explain that FISA has worked for years, under Republican and Democratic presidents alike, without such dire need to giving up civil liberties, even in the face of serious threats such as nuclear annihilation and terrorist attacks both foreign and domestic?
You state: "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. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people." Why is this so? The FISA law already established that it was the exclusive means to conduct surveillance, and Bush ignored it. Select Congressmen in the Intelligence Committees were given classified briefing on the illegal program, and they remained silent. It was only when the New York Times revealed some aspects of this program, which we the people still have not heard the full story about, that this became an issue to deal with. The Executive and the Legislative were perfectly happy to work together hide this abuse of power from the Judicial branch.
You state: " But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward." Title III reviews how the Inspector Generals will give a full report. They've already kept this illegal program secret for years. You now expect them to reveal everything because this law asks nicely? After all the stonewalling, signing statements, torture memos, theories of the Unitary Executive, violations of the Hatch Act, violations of the Presidential Records Act, refusal to enforce Congressional subpoenas, and other wrongdoing too numerous to list, you now, at the end of their time in office, expect to be told the truth simply because you asked? Surely you must know that independent trials carried out through the Judicial branch would yield much more in the way of information than simply asking nicely.
You state: "By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act." Oversight and accountability? Are you talking about Orwellian provisions under Title VIII - Protection of Persons Assisting the Government? Take, for example, Section 802(a)(4), which states that such a "person" need only have written guarantee from the President. Or perhaps look at Section 803 - Preemption, which denies States the right to investigate, regulate, sanction, or initiate any civil actions of their own. Maybe you were referring to Section 804 - Reporting? That's the section that is nearly identical to FISA §1808(a), requiring the Attorney General to report to Congress, which seems likely to work well based on his respect for Congressional subpoenas.
You state: "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay." If it is not at all what you want, put a HOLD on it. We have faced these same threats for years with FISA, then with an illegal program, and then with the hideous "Protect America Act" until February of this year. Our country has survived this long without overturning the rule of law and shredding the 4th Amendment to keep us safe from such dangerous threats. I would assert that it can last another five months, and then a President Obama can resolve the issue appropriately. You do not have to give into and partake in fear-mongering to win this election, Senator.
Finally, you state: "So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people." You pledge to monitor a program, which you know has violated American law for years and has only been made legal in 2007? You pledge to monitor a program which has been kept secret from Americans for years? You pledge to monitor a program which, with the passage of this bill in full, will never fully be investigated by anyone other than those conducting and authorizing the program? I suggest, Senator, that instead you pledge to stand up for the civil rights of ordinary Americans. I suggest, Senator, that you honor your oath of office to protect the Constitution and allow those, within the government and outside of it, to be held fully accountable for their actions. I suggest, Senator, that you pledge to use this issue to stand in firm opposition to John McCain and show that only one candidate this election is willing to protect us from legitimate threats without continuing Bush’s legacy of destroying all that makes this country great.
Respectfully, and with the hope that you are truly looking to bring a new kind of politics to Washington and the audacity to challenge you to do better when you’ve let us down,