What is Obama’s position on the newly passed FISA bill in the HOUSE? So far we’re only getting silence. I contacted the campaign and I’m waiting for a quote. I believe that Nancy Pelosi is taking a hit for him. She’s not telling anyone to support it, but explained why she voted for it. If she really believed in it—she would have urged her colleagues to vote for it, she did not. Here’s the roll call.

If Obama is remaining quiet because he doesn’t want to have to run against the Republican/FISA ads that would come out…well….that’s wrong. He can’t allow them to frame the debate and run the agenda in the general election. Americans are solidly against immunity for the Telecoms. It’s his party now and he can easily lead on this issue against McCain by being the first one out of the gate against Telecom immunity, but stand strong for our national security. In the past Obama supported Chris Dodd’s filibuster.

It’s official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

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

That was huge at the time. McJoan writes:

Quote:

Senator Obama, spoil Bush’s FISA Christmas celebration. Remind your colleagues that he is a lame duck with a sub 30 approval rating. Remind your colleagues that they are far more popular with Republicans than with their own party.

Remind your colleagues that, in your own words, “The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.” Reject this bill and lead your Senate colleagues in upholding the Constitution.

Marcy Wheeler writes a letter to Obama:

Senator Obama, you are asking voters to choose you to become the President of the United States. You had to as Senator–and will as President–swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

You cannot remain silent on this issue and at the same time fulfill your promise, the one you have made, and the one you will make, to defend the Constitution. Remaining silent rejects the separation of powers. Remaining silent presumes that the “political branches” can simply legislate the Courts into submission. And remaining silent communicates that you–the next President of the United States–believes checks on executive power like habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment are mere niceties and not foundational principles of this great nation.

As the presumptive leader of the Democratic Party, you can lead your fellow Senators in rejecting this unconstitutional law. But without your leadership, the Constitution will suffer a dangerous blow.

UPDATED 1: Obama has come out with a statement via Glenn Greenwald:

Quote:

Quote:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. . . It 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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the “compromise.” Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. The full Obama statement is here.

UPDATED 2: Digby says:

Quote:

Roy Blunt and Steny Hoyer are practically tongue kissing on the floor right now and congratulating each other on their mutual fabulousness in negotiating the rape of the constitution this morning. It’s quite a love fest.

–

Quote:

Capitulating to the most unpopular lame duck president in history because they are afraid of him. Makes you proud to be a Democrat doesn’t it…read on

UPDATE 3: Atrios names Obama: “Wanker of the Day “

Wanker of the day indeed. Total betrayal of what is suppose to happen.

So, I'm not completely aware of everything that happened in regards to the topic of this thread, but from my understanding...

The phone companies, under "orders" from the President, helped him tap phone calls of American Citizens without proper warrants.

I guess my question is, if what the phone companies did is illegal and they should be punished for it, why the hell isn't the President being punished? He's the one that ordered the illegal taps? Yeah, its all great to take down the phone companies, but what about the top dog, the one who orchastrated it all?

I guess my question is, if what the phone companies did is illegal and they should be punished for it, why the hell isn't the President being punished? He's the one that ordered the illegal taps? Yeah, its all great to take down the phone companies, but what about the top dog, the one who orchastrated it all?

I contacted my senator first time this bill was going around. I told him the constitution was VERY clear about this issue and that considering the president can pardon any single criminal that he sees fit, I could find no reason to provide blanket immunity to a group of people who may have committed a crime.

In the reply letter, I was essentially told that my senator trusted the president on this issue.

Run, don’t walk…

Christy at FDL has all the pertinent numbers.

Quote:

There has always been a tension between individual liberty and governmental power. National security issues are a natural fault line, given the difficulty of protecting the nation while simultaneously upholding the values of freedom and liberty. And politicians, bless their hearts, always try to find ways to consolidate their power while pretending to do so in the public interest — and not their own and that of their cronies who benefit in some way from their decisions.

They miscalculated this time regarding how many people in America are paying attention to civil liberties concerns these days. And it is our job to make certain that they learn just how badly they have misjudged this.

It is one of the many reasons we are working so hard to build incentive through our Blue America FISA actions. (You can donate here.)

UPDATE: Sen. Russ Feingold has a factsheet on FISA and why it’s a bad deal for Americans. 

Thank you for contacting me about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

On February 12, 2008, the Senate passed an updated version of FISA (S. 2248) by a vote of 68-29. The bill contains protections for Americans’ civil liberties beyond those in the Protect America Act (which amended the FISA law last summer) while also enabling the U.S. to get the information it needs to stop terrorist plots.

During the FISA debates, I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have modified one part of the bill on telephone company immunity. Specifically, it would have allowed lawsuits to go forward unless the FISA courts grant immunity to the telecommunications companies after a three-step judicial review. This amendment failed by a 57-41 vote, as a majority of 60 votes was required for passage. I also supported an amendment that would have allowed lawsuits against these companies to proceed with the Federal government substituted as the defendant. Unfortunately, this amendment also failed on the Senate floor.

I appreciate your taking the time to inform me of your views, and don’t hesitate to contact me again in the future.

An analysis by LightMAP.org reveals that the 94 Democrats who changed their position on FISA since March are being flooded with donations from the companies who they now want to give a free pass. Shouldn’t this be illegal or something?

Politico:

Quote:

Dems who flipped on FISA immunity see more telecom cash

House Democrats who flipped their votes to support retroactive immunity for telecom companies in last week’s FISA bill took thousands of dollars more from phone companies than Democrats who consistently voted against legislation with an immunity provision, according to an analysis by MAPLight.org.

The 94 Democrats who changed their positions received on average $8,359 in contributions from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint from January, 2005, to March, 2008, according to the analysis by MAPLight, a nonpartisan organization that tracks the connection between campaign contributions and legislative outcomes. 

edit:

Quote:

EFF and others have long suspected that one reason the White House and its allies have fought for telecom immunity so fervently has been their fear that a judicial ruling on the legality of telecoms' participation would lead to a ruling rejecting the legality of the Administration's warrantless wiretapping program itself.

Today, the Director of National Intelligence McConnell and Attorney General Mukasey confirmed as much in a letter opposing amendments to the FISA bill. The DNI and AG wrote that allowing a court to rule on the constitutionality of the Administration's arguments for warrantless wiretapping "is unacceptable." They argue that "the aim of the amendment appears to be an adjudication of the Government's prior actions," and that "by requiring a merits adjudication of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims" the proposed amendment "would significantly negate a major purpose of the retroactive liability protections" (emphasis added).

So there you have it — the Administration admits that the reason for telecom immunity is to avoid judicial scrutiny of their extremist view of Executive power under the constitution.

Why might they be so concerned? Because the Administration would lose. As we've noted, numerous third party legal experts, including former government officials and respected law professors, have concluded that the Bush Administration's constitutional argument (which the DNI and AG are now trying to avoid litigating) "fails to offer a plausible legal defense of the NSA domestic spying program."

Faced with the prospect of having a judge actually evaluate whether the John Yoo and David Addington theories of unlimited presidential power hold water, the DNI and AG now beg the Senate to sweep it under the rug.

Call your Senator today, and you can help put a stop to this cover-up.