Progressive World Review

It’s official, the deal has been struck and the hapless Democrats have caved in, for no discernible reason, on an update to FISA that gives Bush virtually everything he wanted, particularly immunity for the telecoms that broke the law when cooperating with the administration.  House Democrats are insisting the bill is a “compromise” but it is nothing of the sort.  This is what Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) had to say about the “compromise”,

The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.

It’s really quite simple, if the telecoms didn’t break the law then they have nothing to worry about, and if they did, they need to be held accountable for their actions just as is expected of every other American.  The “compromise” merely states that if the president asserts that his requests for cooperation were within the law then the telecoms are off the hook.  But this goes against everything this country stands for.  Immunity from the law based just on the president’s say so is virtually the same as the president writing his own laws, completely bypassing the checks and balances that are the hallmark of our government.

Why the Democrats have folded so easily is something of a mystery.  Obviously they’re afraid of the Republicans accusing them of being soft on terrorism but they’re going to do that anyway.  Voters have made it very clear that they’ve had enough of the Republican’s lawless style of government, both in the 2006 midterm elections as well as in three recent special elections where Republicans lost their seats, so exactly what the Democrats are so afraid of isn’t clear.

Making matters worse Barack Obama has thrown his support for the “compromise” after having previously pledged to support Chris Dodd’s threatened Senate filibuster over this exact issue.  Here is Obama’s statement, (h/t Glenn Greenwald) (emphasis original)

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.

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.

The fact is, with some minor adjustments, the FISA we have been operating under has been perfectly fine, allowing the government to install wiretaps even before court authorization as long as they obtain the required warrants within 72 hours.

Obama is trying to win the White House on a platform of change but this statement is nothing more than the political gamesmanship that plagues Washington politics.  Much has been said of Obama’s recent flip-flop over taking public money for his campaign, but this is the flip-flop people should be focusing on.  I happen to agree with this statement from Glenn Greenwald,

There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens — either he’s the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he’s nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.

But it’s critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.

A John McCain presidency would be a disaster and Obama is the clear choice between the two candidates but it’s useless to expect any real change with Obama as president.

Elections are often characterized as “picking the lesser of two evils” but that’s an oversimplification that doesn’t apply here, Obama isn’t “evil” but he is far too dependent on the existing power structure to be an agent of change.

–Paul Wilden

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.