I wanna move to Ibiza . .
From Green Greenwald via TalkLeft on the Dem's final FISA capitulation--
. . . [T]he GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get.
From both TalkLeft and Shakesville, the full statement at Shakespeare's Sister here: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-am-unhappy-camper.html, Obama on the bill:
"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."
In comments on solarbird's lj, I emphasized his support for the not-a-compromise and thought the rest was just laugh-worthy bullshit. But reading comments at Shakes, I have to agree with the person who said this part was really troubling and could have come straight from Bush or any of the wingnuttier Republicans -- "take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
I'm not sure whether I found this, but probably at one of the places mentioned above, and a great analysis of both the bill and Obama's support-while-as-usual-trying-to-please-everyone with meaningless platitudes addressed to all sides excrement --
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html
the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade.
Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill. That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it. True, it might be nice to have retroactive immunity for the players who he will be working with in the future. But remember, he expects to be President, and he figures that his OLC and Justice Department can offer sufficient assurances of legality going forward based on the changes in the first part of the bill.
So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.
It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.
The only part I disagree with is that I think the author underestimates, or is simply less outraged by the unfairness of, the immunity provisions. A bunch of big companies helped the Bush administation violate the consitution by monitoring private communications of US, and were rewarded for it, and now have no reason not to do the same again whenever, as they've seen they can get away with it. ONE COMPANY didn't help spy on us, insisted on warrants, and were punished for doing the right thing by loss contracts and ultimately big financial losses. This also stands. This is an important precedent to NOT SET.
Seriously, anyone want to pay for us to move to Ibiza? I'll go. Right now.
Also, the senate/house dems -- totally useless. For a long time, on a lot of issues. Actually, they're flat out counterproductive, as they provide a modicum of cover/legitimacy for the Republicans,and take votes away from candidates/parties that might actually *do* something *worthwhile*. If I have to stay here, and not move to Ibiza, I want to ditch the lot of them. I may rejoin the democrats just to vote against them all in primaries, and drain them of money by not donating anything while causing them to send me surveys and mailings asking for money, which will cost them money.
but really, ideally? I know I annoy some of y'all with these posts. I swear I'll stop making them if you all pay for my move to Ibiza.
Addendum-- The other *big* problem w/telecomm immunity I shoulda mentioned is that it stops all the lawsuits that are the only way we'll ever know exactly how extensive the spying was, and who (possibly including Dems, esp on the intelligence committee) knew about it and said nothing.
. . . [T]he GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get.
From both TalkLeft and Shakesville, the full statement at Shakespeare's Sister here: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-am-unhappy-camper.html, Obama on the bill:
"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."
In comments on solarbird's lj, I emphasized his support for the not-a-compromise and thought the rest was just laugh-worthy bullshit. But reading comments at Shakes, I have to agree with the person who said this part was really troubling and could have come straight from Bush or any of the wingnuttier Republicans -- "take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
I'm not sure whether I found this, but probably at one of the places mentioned above, and a great analysis of both the bill and Obama's support-while-as-usual-trying-to-please-everyone with meaningless platitudes addressed to all sides excrement --
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html
the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade.
Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill. That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it. True, it might be nice to have retroactive immunity for the players who he will be working with in the future. But remember, he expects to be President, and he figures that his OLC and Justice Department can offer sufficient assurances of legality going forward based on the changes in the first part of the bill.
So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.
It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions.
The only part I disagree with is that I think the author underestimates, or is simply less outraged by the unfairness of, the immunity provisions. A bunch of big companies helped the Bush administation violate the consitution by monitoring private communications of US, and were rewarded for it, and now have no reason not to do the same again whenever, as they've seen they can get away with it. ONE COMPANY didn't help spy on us, insisted on warrants, and were punished for doing the right thing by loss contracts and ultimately big financial losses. This also stands. This is an important precedent to NOT SET.
Seriously, anyone want to pay for us to move to Ibiza? I'll go. Right now.
Also, the senate/house dems -- totally useless. For a long time, on a lot of issues. Actually, they're flat out counterproductive, as they provide a modicum of cover/legitimacy for the Republicans,and take votes away from candidates/parties that might actually *do* something *worthwhile*. If I have to stay here, and not move to Ibiza, I want to ditch the lot of them. I may rejoin the democrats just to vote against them all in primaries, and drain them of money by not donating anything while causing them to send me surveys and mailings asking for money, which will cost them money.
but really, ideally? I know I annoy some of y'all with these posts. I swear I'll stop making them if you all pay for my move to Ibiza.
Addendum-- The other *big* problem w/telecomm immunity I shoulda mentioned is that it stops all the lawsuits that are the only way we'll ever know exactly how extensive the spying was, and who (possibly including Dems, esp on the intelligence committee) knew about it and said nothing.