Obama Weighs in Again on Telecom Amnesty…

And what he says isn’t going to cheer you up if you oppose it.

It had crossed my mind that perhaps Dodd’s and Feingold’s repudiation of the bill was at least partly motivated by a wish to mitigate the disappointment many Democrats feel in Obama’s stance on FISA. I don’t really know how these things work. But after all, Obama did suggest, didn’t he, that he wasn’t happy with this part of the bill and would fight to see it removed? Yep, that’s what he said, in the midst of explaining all the things about it he did like.

It does….grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Dodd was pretty specific in the statement he made on the Senate floor concerning his reasons for opposing FISA (discussed here). He and the many Dems who opposed the ‘compromise’ bill, so-called, don’t really seem to see a crucial connection between legalizing the past actions of the telecoms and national security.

So, anyway, now that some Senators have publlicly opposed this provision, what’s Obama got to say?

Via Greg Sargent at TPM:

“The bill has changed. So I don’t think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people.”

Greg Sargent provides a translation.

‘Obama weighed in again on the FISA cave, and suffice it to say that what he said won’t make opponents any less unhappy about Obama’s position than they were already.’

Obama’s line on national security here seems to be affirmation of something that…. he will support the bill even if telecom immunity isn’t stripped from it, despite his promise to try to get immunity out of the legislation. If the issue of telecom immunity doesn’t override national security, he’ll of course vote for the bill with or without it.(TPM)

You can see and hear the video here here at TPM.

Of course, national security isn’t really the main reason why Democrats who support the bill have supported it. I’ve heard arguments from Claire McCaskill and from other Dems that the telecoms, having been subjected to ‘the heavy hand of government,’ shouldn’t be punished for this. McCaskill may believe it, but I don’t buy it.

I don’t really see any reason that’s really a reason why we should retroactively legitimize ‘I was only following orders’ as a defense for corporations that cooperated with the government in illegal searches. If they truly acted in good faith, why can’t those who wish to challenge their actions have their day in court? If the circumstances show that they don’t even deserve a slap on the wrist, can’t the courts sort it out? Why should they be exempt from even having to test their defenses in court?

I mean, if the real concern were security, wouldn’t it be sufficient just to give them immunity in the future? [Edited to add: I’m not arguing in favor of prospective immunity; I am just pointing out that making the protection retroactive doesn’t give us any added protection in the future. If the government makes a demand for assistance with electronic surveillance backed by a warrant or otherwise authorized by law, the telecoms must of course comply.

That, at least, is my considered opinion based on the information I have. So I’m wondering more generally about the reason for the FISA ‘compromise’ (what ‘compromise’)? I am reluctant to believe that it’s only about money. There’s something happening here. And what it is ain’t exactly clear. (If you’re from the seventies like me, or even if you’re not, check out Buffalo Springfield on The Smothers Brothers here There’s really not a lot of good protest music when you need it nowadays, is there?).

But I want to be fair to Obama. It may well be true that he and his advisers have weighed up what he’ll lose by supporting this bill (even with the amnesty) as against what he’ll lose by failing to do so. (Dems can’t seem to find a way out of the ‘soft on terrorism’ vulnerability, though I’ve never understood why they don’t focus on alternative ways to protect security. It seems to me that there are some gaping holes in the Bush administration’s approach; why have we let Republicans own the whole national security issue?)

But anyway, I guess I sort of expected him to track McCain fairly closely on some of these so-called ‘national security’ issues so that the ‘fear voters’ won’t reflexively reject him. His recent remarks on the Guantanamo case caused quite the firestorm. If he doesn’t position himself too far from McCain on other matters affecting security, perhaps they’ll be more likely to give him a hearing on other matters….? He’s relying pretty heavily on Democratic supporters to trust him or rather to trust him enough, but really we don’t have any option when you get down to it.

Or am I being too cynical? I never know. I can’t really think like a political strategist.

Anyway, I want him to win. At least — and it’s really not much, though it’s something — Obama recognizes the breadth of FISA and has promised to monitor its use. I definitely believe he’s more likely than McCain to be concerned about ensuring that it’s not abused. And I realize that what I just said is heavily qualified and that I said I think he’s more likely to be concerned about abuse. I am still trying to convince myself that he’ll be diligent in ensuring that no abuse occurs.

In the meantime, I am all agog to see what Hillary will do. As Sargent says, her colleague Chuck Schumer has now said he’ll oppose the bill. At Spin Cycle, John Riley writes:

Chuck Schumer’s spokesman tells us that he’s going to oppose the current version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation, which immunizes telcom companies for past implementation of Bush’s requests and expands the government’s capacity to surveil without court approval.

If Schumer backs an effort to remove the immunity provisions, that could be a big deal. Obama has come out against those provisions, but Schumer is a strategic signal caller in the Senate. The key question: Will Schumer support a filibuster on removing immunity from the bill?

If Hillary follows suit, she might well put herself back in the good graces of those progressives who still believe she somehow mistreated Obama during the primary, but who are disappointed or furious with him over his stand on FISA. And, as I’d point out, it would also be a good way for her to demonstrate that perhaps, just possibly, they were wrong about him.

On the other hand, she is due to start campaigning for him. Wouldn’t opposition to him on this hot button issue put a crimp in their show of unity?

In the meantime, several bloggers who feel strongly about FISA and especially retroactive telecom immunity have commented on Obama’s statement.

At Salon, Glenn Greenwald reminisces himself to a bleak conclusion.

Obama gave a rousing speech during the South Carolina primary in which he inveighed against “wiretaps without warrants.” On August 1 of last year, he delivered a speech entitled “The War We Need To Win” and said this:

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. . . . That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland. (Salon; emphasis in original)

It’s difficult for even the most devoted Obama supporter to reconcile those statements, made when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, with his current support for a bill containing new warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom amnesty. That’s just a fact.

At The Sideshow, Avedon Carol reminds Democrats what this does — and does not — mean about our candidate:

Obama doesn’t understand that the 4th Amendment is national security, and he’s prepared to throw it out for some illusory Republican-defined “toughness” because he hasn’t got the guts to actually be tough in defense of our country….(Yes, you still should vote for the Democratic nominee, but you should put all of your other efforts into doing things like getting people into Congress who will try to keep him in line – and doing things to make them want to keep him from these continuous forays into right-wing territory….).

Memeorandum has lots more blogger buzz here.