I recently posted this statement as a comment in the diary regarding Sen. Feingold's announcement of a planned filibuster.
It was intended to help explain why I, and many of my fellow Obama supporters, could be so angry at his recent announcement of support for the FISA bill. It is a fine line that we walk, and I am sure that some view us as never truly being supportive of his candidacy.
Beyond any other expectation I may have for Sen. Obama, the foundation of my support is based on his honesty. I do not mind being told something I do not want to hear, as long as it is the truth. A simple comparison of his recent statement.. and the truth.. should help explain my emotional response. If it doesn't, nothing else will.
Given the grave threats that we face (1), our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike (2), while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people (3).... After months of negotiation (4), the House today passed a compromise (5) that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act (6).
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face (1), providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards (7) is too important to delay (8). So I support the compromise (9)
- The threats we face are the same threats we always face, which is why we have rules regarding the gathering of intelligence. The 9/11 attack had plenty of intelligence gathered in advance, there was simply no one in the Bush Administration concerned about it to act. Adding in the threat of losing the liberties we are supposedly guarding is no answer.
- They have always had the capability to gather intelligence on foreign communication without a warrant. Communication involving a U.S. citizen requires a warrant to be issued within 72-hour period AFTER the intelligence was picked up. Nothing can possibly be faster than retroactive.
- Allowing an illegal act directly infringing on civil liberties to go uninvestigated, must less punished, is a hideous way to respect the rule of law, OR defend civil liberties.
- The House bill was rushed through without discussion, as Pelosi has recently admitted.
- It was not a compromise, as those defending civil liberties received nothing that was not already included in existing FISA law, and gave away any hope of actually enforcing the limits, now or in the future, of that same law.
- A marked improvement on a hideous monstrousity can still fall within the scope of a disastrous travesty, as this one does.
- That they already have in place in existing law.
- The existing FISA law does not expire. It can be extended indefinitely. There is no increased risk of working under the existing law.
- In direct contradiction to your statement during the primary.