Unacceptable: Call Obama on FISA and Telecom Immunity

That didn't take long. Our presumptive nominee is already apparently reneging on a promise he made to the electorate. Back in October 2007, Bill Burton of Obama's campaign TPM Election Central that Obama would filibuster any FISA bill with retroactive immunity for telecoms. The exact words:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

Fast-forward to last Friday and Obama's statement about the so-called "compromise" FISA bill passed by the House. He's says he's still against immunity:

[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

BUT, he also says he'll back the bill if retroactive immunity is still included:

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. 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.

Call the Obama Campaign
Don't like what he's saying? If this is the kind of double talk we're going to get from a President Obama, heaven help us. Let him know what you think by calling the Obama campaign and communicating in no uncertain terms why his position on this bill is unacceptable. MoveOn .

Demand That Obama Live Up to His Promises
Many other parts of the "compromise" FISA bill are bad enough, but the inclusion of retroactive immunity is incredibly craven and unprincipled. It's just one more example of the willingness of too many Dems to cave to corporate pressure and cower in fear that Repubs might call them "soft on terror." I guess they don't care if we call them unwilling to uphold their oaths of office that require them to preserve and protect the U.S. Constitution -- including the Fourth Amendment.

It's hard enough to stomach the DINOs who consistently vote with Repubs on issues like this. Now we're expected to work passionately for a presidential nominee who's already backsliding into Repub-lite territory and falling into line with the same old same old -- give up your civil liberties because it's too dangerous to preserve our constitution while there are terrorists out there. Hint: There've always been terrorists out there and there always will be.

You really should read Glenn Greenwald's careful and persuasive analysis of the "compromise" bill and why Obama should be strongly taken to task for his wobbly, too cute by half statement on it. His links lead you to must-reads too. Excerpt:

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

... This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

I'm a big Obama fan and I think he has unique and much-needed talents that are head and shoulders above most of our recent presidential candidates. But I know we can't let him get away with this spineless position on dangerous, unconstitutional and unnecessary provisions we've all been fighting to stop since at least last summer. I think we have to stand strong now and let him know we won't stand for more hypocritical business as usual -- especially from a candidate who's running on turning the page on fearmongering and fakery.

Tom Udall, our Senate candidate, voted against the House "compromise" FISA bill. Should Obama be allowed to get away with refusing to do what's right? He's our presidential nominee -- he should be leading the fight against the FISA sellout, not capitulating to it.

Technorati Tags: