Barack Obama says, “Trust me.”

Well, at least he’s listening. Barack Obama has responded to the biggest group on my.barackobama.com, the one asking him to vote NO on FISA. I guarantee you won’t like it:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I’m persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe — particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I’m happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

…

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

To his credit, Obama responded to strong pressure from his supporters. To his detriment, he refuses to change his mind in face of their real concerns.

Obama’s support of the FISA “compromise” is impossible to justify with any reality-based rhetoric. Case in point, in the comments Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy advisor and senior speechwriter, goes a little overboard:

If this bill were defeated, the enhanced guidelines from last summer would be lost, and we would revert back to the ambiguity that enabled the abuse of executive power. Imperfect as it is, this bill does ensure judicial oversight and provides accountability through the Inspectors General report, while enabling a critical counter-terrorism tool. Barack believes that this bill will allow us to continue a program that is important to our security, while protecting our civil liberties.

The fact is, George Bush and telecom companies broke the law when he warrantlessly wiretapped Americans. It wasn’t that the law was too weak, or that there were loopholes in it; Bush just broke it, plain and simple. Now, Barack Obama is in favor of not holding the lawbreakers accountable, at least right now.

You see, Obama is telling me and you to trust him. Once he’s in office, he will commission all sorts of reports and hearings on the issue and presumably, those will lead to accountability.

This is heartening. Investigations are nice, and once in a while they actually do lead to accountability. There are problems with this approach, of course. Kagro X points out that Congress’s response to previous IG reports has been lackluster, and they can’t even enforce their own subpoenas. And Marcy Wheeler points out that once administration officials have left office, IG reports can’t hold them accountable anyway. But still, investigations are something.

My problem is, Obama’s stance is delayed action, and it brings me back to why I broke with Obama and endorsed Chris Dodd for president in the first place. Obama seems unwilling to stand up, expend political capital, and fight for a cause right now. He prefers to delay action until the future, when he’s president. Well, I want action now, and politicians who are using their platforms to affect change in the present, not at some unspecified time in the future, are ones who earn my respect and support.

Here’s what I wrote when I endorsed Chris Dodd, from a post entitled “I Want A Candidate Who Fights:”

With the exception of John Edwards and Bill Richardson, every candidate running for President has a national platform from which to get things done in the present. While real change may have to wait until 2009, the strategy of capitulating to the Republican minority until then is making the Democratic party weaker. Like it or not, the 2006 elections made the Democrats the governing party in the minds of the American people. When people go to the polls a year from now, with the war dragging on, CIA agents torturing detainees in secret prisons abroad, and their telephones tapped without warrants, they won’t be able to point to anything positive that governing party accomplished. That’s a problem.

The front runners in this race (Clinton and Obama), seem content to stick with Pelosi and Reid’s strategy of inaction until 2009, at which point a brand new Democratic majority will finally be able to do all the things it’s been saying it would do for 20 years. While this kind of Democratic majority is far from assured, I don’t trust the people who compromise everything when the going gets tough to actually stand up to a vocal Republican minority in 2009. If they can’t fight now, why will they fight then?

I stand by that sentiment. I want change, but I want it now.

——————–

In retrospect, perhaps we should have seen this capitulation coming, especially on this issue. While I agree with kos that this isn’t a “move to the center” on Obama’s part, the FISA legislation currently up for discussion was branded a “compromise” between Democrats and Republicans. Endorsing the “compromise” allows Obama to play the bi-partisanship card that’s been central to his campaign.

Unfortunately, when Obama says he represents “change,” he means getting away from partisan politics. Honestly, when most Americans think about what change would mean to them, I bet a great many of them think about a return to the rule of law and the Constitution. Today, those Americans - myself among them - are feeling the squeeze of our two party system. Working against Obama is clearly detrimental, and we’ve got no other option. It’s an awful position to be in.

And so, I reiterate my sentiment that come November, I most likely will no longer be Obama’s friend. Until then, well, I won’t lie. Obama’s inaction on this issue has left me dispirited. As Matt Stoller points out, people like me might not be swing voters, but we’re swing activists. There is no question this episode is going to dampen enthusiasm for Obama among people I know. It’s not a deal-breaker, at least not for me, but hopefully Obama will do something to regain our energy.

Right now, I remain disappointed.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: