What Obama Should Be Saying About FISA

[FourScore]

What Obama Should Be Saying About FISA
posted by John Nichols on 07/08/2008 @ 3:17pm

Just imagine if Illinois Senator Barack Obama had kept his primary-season pledge to take the lead in opposing efforts by the Bush administration to rewrite the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect the president and telecommunications corporations that cooperated with his illegal warrantless wiretapping schemes.

Obama could have stood on the floor of the US Senate Tuesday, claiming all the attention that is accorded the likely nominee of the Democratic party for president to leap over the spin doctors and speak directly to the American people about the need to defend our constitutionally-defined right to privacy.

Had Obama kept his commitment to join Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd in a filibuster to prevent an abusive "FISA Amendments Act" from being enacted, he could have appealed to the Democrats, Republicans and independents, the liberals and conservatives, who understand that this legislation is at odds not just with the Bill of Rights but every standard of corporate responsibility.

Obama might even have spoken as well and wisely as did Feingold, when he urged the Senate on Tuesday to embrace the Feingold-Dodd amendment to strip Title II of the FISA Amendments Act, which provides immunity to telecom companies that allegedly participated in the president's illegal wiretapping program.

Here is what Feingold said:

READ THE SPEECH HERE:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/335373

[Breeze54]

1. Great article....

Read it earlier. ;)

K&R

[JDPriestly]

2. What I do not understand is what Obama is getting for

voting for telecom immunity. What does he have to gain? He has so much to lose. It really does make him look like just another run-of-the-mill politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth. Yes, Skinner I will vote for Obama in November, but I just wish someone would tell me why Obama can't vote with Feingold and Leahy on this bill. Interestingly Feingold is one of the few senators who actually has both a conscience and the knowledge of just what it was that Bush did. Obama, like many other senators, is voting to excuse the telecom companies from their crimes without even bothering to find out just what they did. Aside from everything else, that is downright sloppy. Whose telephone calls does Obama think Bush is listening to? Mine? Hardly. I am a 65 year old woman who mostly talks to her children, her mother, her sisters and her girlfriends. Not very interesting stuff.

Again, rest assured, I will vote for Obama. But, I really don't understand. Please explain to me why is Obama voting against his own interest? Why doesn't he want to know what has happened, whether his calls, his staff have been under surveillance.

He says he wants to pass the new bill because it will make it clear that eavesdropping is possible only pursuant to FISA. But if Bush ignored FISA before, why would he obey a new law. And besides, as I read the new bill, it really doesn't require much of a review before certificates or warrants are issued. What is the real story here? I just do not understand.

The only explanation I have thought of is that the whole Congress is being blackmailed by the telecoms. And if that is so, why the charade? Why not just let the courts decide what they want to do? That would be the best for everyone involved.

Oh, and I must once again reassure the admins that I swear my fealty to Obama no matter what he does. Just for the record. Just in case Agent Steve is reading my post.

[dmosh42]

3. Well said, I also wonder where his head is, and where's the leadership? n/t