Barack Obama issued a flimsy statement today as to why he is supporting the FISA bill.
Obama saying he will work to strip the Telecom Immunity from the bill is not enough. Everyone knows that Telecom Immunity will not be stripped from this bill.
Senator Obama, simply saying you will support an amendment to strip telecom immunity from the FISA bill is just a an empty gesture effort that will go nowhere. It is an attempt to appease the large number of supporters who believe that the new FISA changes and the Telecom Immunity are wrong.
Senator Obama, you are a Constitutional scholar. You know what is at stake here. You say that this is a "better" bill. Your colleagues in the Senate, Chris Dodd, and Russ Feingold, disagree.
Here is Chris Dodd’s statement regarding the move to consider the FISA legislation:
"I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has voted to move forward with the consideration of this misguided FISA legislation. If passed, this legislation will ratify a domestic spying regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power in the president’s hands and will place the telecommunications companies above the law."
"I stand ready to offer an amendment that strips the retroactive immunity provision out of the bill. I implore my colleagues to support of the rule of law and join me in voting against retroactive immunity."
This is worth repeating: The President of the United States has only one oath, and that is to protect and defend the Constitution. Everything else is secondary. Everything.
Senator Obama, you know you will not get the Telecom Immunity stripped from the FISA bill. Your statements in the past say that passing a bill like the current FISA legislation would be wrong.
Senator Obama, will you vote for a bill you yourself said was wrong?
By the way, we are way too knowledgeable to be hoodwinked by generalizations like "this is an improvement over the Protect America Act". That does not make it okay to gut the Fourth Amendment. FISA has worked and will continue to work, without these proposed changes. You said so yourself.
Here are your words from January 28, 2008 (emphasis mine):
"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."
Talking Points Memo has the complete rundown on Obama’s changing positions on FISA. It is well worth reading.
People ask, what is the big deal about FISA?
Without every part of the Constitution intact, we do not have a representative government. We have at best a benevolent dictator, who can change his attitude towards his subjects on a whim.
Why are we reacting to the prospect of Barack Obama voting for FISA?
In Barack Obama’s own words:
"I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I’m asking you to believe in yours."
So Senator Obama has made us believe we have the ability to bring real change in Washington. That includes trying to influence Barack Obama when he is in the wrong.
Senator Obama, I will vote for you, but I will not be silent when you are not protecting and defending the Constitution.
In the comments section of the post today by Barack Obama to his supporters, one person, Bill from Charlestown, IN, said this:
Please reverse this position and recognize the error in your thinking. Our country would go to war to defend our constitution- we would sacrifice our own lives to defend it. I would not give up rights granted in it to feel safer, or even to save lives.
If we lose lives, if I and 1000's of others are killed, because the president cannot wiretap a phone and gain intelligence on an attack, but our constitution remains intact, my death, and the death of others would not be in vain.
There are some rules that are sacred to a free and just society and there can be no compromise.
Well said...