Obama’s FISA Reversal and Imminent Vote
July 8, 2008 by Mike Rushmore
Well, Obama has finally made a proper statement about his disgraceful flip-flop on the FISA Ammendments Act. Mr. Charisma now supports the bill (though with only about with as much enthusiasm as I support him) after saying for the last few months that he would filibuster it as long as it had immunity for the telecom industry (which it does). More over at The Swamp.
As it stands, the bill is the results of apathetically lackluster “compromising” and “negotiations” between Democrats and Republicans in Congress which gave the Republicans more than they could have ever hoped for if there had been a competent negotiator on the Democrats’ side. The bill grants retroactive immunity to the telecom industry for helping the NSA with their warrentless wiretapping, meaning that we may never know for sure the extent of the spying (unless you listen to this man). And, all of this is happening before the results of a report by the Inspector General on the warrentless wiretap program.
To learn more about the FISA bill, check out this video at Four Hour Work Week. It is well worth watching, and makes includes a great argument that even though you may not be doing anything wrong, you still do not want the government spying on just anybody without a warrent. Daniel Ellsberg says that warrentless wiretapping means that government officials and activists can be spied on by the ruling party in an effort to stop plans that may be against what the ruling party wishes (Watergate anyone?).
Obama’s defense of his flip-flop is laughable. For one thing, he says that he will fight to remove immunity from the bill, but then admits that even if immunity is not removed, he is still voting yes on the bill. What kind of commitment is that? He continues on by saying all the reasons that the bill is “imperfect” (see: dangerously unconstitutional), but then brushes it all aside in favor of the “well counter-terrorism is important” defense. Clearly just playing towards the center during an election instead of sticking to his convictions. Obama claims that once he is in office he will have the Attorney General review survelence programs like this one, but not only is he making the assumption that he will win in November, but anybody who believes him is forgetting that power corrupts, and once in office he will have no reason to have that review. McCain is going to vote for the bill, so all Obama is doing by voting for it as well is playing politics for the election, and it is not right. The American people deserve better from a possible commander-in-chief. At least McCain seems to believe in his vote (however wrong it may be).
And please, call your senators. The vote is tomorrow. The EFF has a great script to read to them.
Thank you, very much, for this article. It brings up important points.
I have come to the conclusion, without seeing who Obama’s running mate will be, to support Ralph Nader for President. My personal convictions impel me to this conclusion. Obama is okay—I recognize that many people see him as the best alternative to John McInsane—but Nader is the one who suits me best, the one who most agrees with my principles and cares more about the issues that I do (civil liberties in particular). Obama is “playing politics”, moving further away from progressiveness. This election, some believe, was supposed to be the “election of change”, whatever the hell that means. Really, it is always a different can and the same drink in all of these elections. People are just now finding that out about this one, since McCain and Obama are now so obviously reverting to calculating politics as usual. Obama’s in Congress playing politics—his principles are dropping like flies—that will actually hurt him rather than help, showing clearly to people that he is nothing more than politics as usual. The entire thing to me is just supremely disgusting, especially considering that so many people were convinced that Obama was the “real thing” and will now be disappointed.
My grandfather, a lifelong Democrat (though not unalterably loyal, certainly), has voiced the conviction that he doesn’t think that Obama and McCain aren’t all that different on the issue of Iraq. You might wonder, how can that be? John McInsane wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years! Let me explain. McCain has said that United States troops need to stay in Iraq until victory is achieved, and that it is not the occupation that matters, but the casualties. Obama has on his website that he will have most American troops pulled out within 16 months. However, at a debate, he could not promise that all troops would be out by the end of his first term, because he would leave residual forces, of an undetermined number, in Iraq or the surrounding areas, to fight terrorists and perform operations like that. With Obama, though he does not say it, he too believes that it is not the occupation that counts but the casualties. You have to face it that, whether Obama or McCain is elected president, there will be U.S. troops in Iraq for years and years to come—it will be like another Germany, or Korea, or Vietnam, with American soldiers residing there decades after the conflict, cementing America’s role as imperialist policeman of the world, wasting money to keep U.S. soldiers where they are not needed when that money could have gone to education.
Mr. Rushmore, I know that you are an Obama supporter, that you think him the best alternative to John McCain, that you have written articles supporting Obama and advocating Democratic Party unity. But I really think that you should consider again the third party candidates.
I love the drink kool-aid. It’s my favorite. But there are different flavors. I like Fruit Punch and Berry Blue. But what happens if you don’t like either kind of kool-aid? When I tire of kool-aid, I drink water—cold, clear, satisfying. Actually quenches your thirst, you see. Not at all like kool-aid. The entire country should try drinking water this year.
Let’s have some raucus debate on this site. Personally, I’m for the Romans. Not everyone is conforming and hopping on the Obama wagon—why can’t more people, aside from you, Mr. Rushmore, look critically at these presidential candidates? Look at each issue critically—call everything into question, all established parties, organizations, ideas, and so on. Good job on the article. I am really pleased with it. It indicates a questioning mind.
[Reply]