Why is Barack Obama supporting retroactive telecom immunity?

Question

Do any liberals agree with Obama's current position on the FISA bill? Is he not completely alienating his base with this vote?

Regardless of how he votes on the FISA bill, Obama is still behind McCain on national security. So why cant he take a stand here, in support of individual rights, privacy, and accountability.

I must say, Barack has REALLY disappointed me here. Can anybody rationalize this?

Answer 1

Because he's a corporate Democrat who only uses left wing rhetoric to get elected and to defeat Hillary he did a little more this primary. All the left wing rhetoric and promises were little more than political opportunism, power politics. Doing whatever it takes to win.

"In a statement last January, as he was posturing in Democratic presidential primaries as the most consistent opponent of the Bush administration, Obama declared, “No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people—not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.”

Obama issued a statement Friday to explain why, after opposing the warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity for telecoms for nearly a year, he has now reversed himself. He begins by accepting the “war on terror” framework laid down by the Bush administration, which has used terrorism as the all-purpose pretext for massive incursions against civil liberties. “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,” Obama declares.

He then concedes the essential criminality of the White House policy: “There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.”

Despite this admission, Obama claims that the latest bill is a “compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.”

The linguistic contortions cannot conceal the reality: the illegal spying by the Bush administration is only “over” because it has been legalized by the Democratic Congress. Obama & Co. are embracing legislation that declares the wiretapping legal going forward, and retroactively immunizes those who violated the law since 2001.

The statement concludes on a note that seems calculated to placate those with illusions in Obama, but which upon serious consideration is quite ominous. Obama declares, “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.”

In other words, he urges his audience to trust that a future Obama administration will exercise this arbitrary police-state power more judiciously than the Bush White House. But his pledge that he will “take any additional steps I deem necessary” amounts to demanding a blank check, and could easily justify even more sweeping inroads against democratic rights.

In embracing the war on terror and the claim that there must be a trade-off between security and democratic rights, Obama is echoing the reactionary arguments of the Bush White House. No section of the Democratic Party is prepared to tell the American people the truth: that the greatest threat to democratic rights comes not from a handful of Al Qaeda terrorists, but from the American state machine itself.

Osama bin Laden cannot overthrow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and establish a police state in the United States. Only an American president or an American general can do that, at the head of a military-intelligence apparatus that already absorbs more than $700 billion a year, more than the combined armies of every other country in the world."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun200...

Answer 2

NO I refuse to rationalize the absurd.

Obviously few people in Washington DC have any concept of actually having the governmnet obey the law.

This is not a "flip-flop"  that is something I wear on my feet.

This is total capitulation to Wall Street.

What pisses me of is they do this after the primary.

Alienate those who are farther to the left??  Where are we gonna go?  McCain.

Answer 3

I don't agree with this either as I would like him to straight up say no to this. I heard a pundit saying that the actual bill being passed CAN eventually hold the telecoms responsible later on. I think that the reason he's supporting this is because of the actual bill and what it comes with. Bills are usually more complicated than a Yes or No.

Answer 4

No, I don't agree with him.  However, I think what he is trying to do is reach out to the other side, the side that thinks it will help with national security.  It's too bad really.  Obama is trying to spruce up his image on national security.  It's too bad that our country has become so divided that Obama would even think he needs to do this.

I'm still voting for him over McCain though, because McCain's records on nearly everything are horrible.