An Open Letter to Senator Obama
Senator Obama -
I appreciate and have been moved by your calls for change, and I have supported your campaign both with my vote and with my money. I know it is important to change the direction our country has been on, especially the last seven years.
As a constitutional scholar, I'm sure you understand the erosion of civil liberties and the disregard for law shown by the current administration, and by promising to review its executive orders to repeal those that are not constitutional, you have shown that you intend to undo its excesses. For this I, and true lovers of our limited government Republic, applaud you.
But I have another particular request: please publicly denounce the FISA compromise bill announced yesterday. You had previously supported Senator Dodd when he filibustered an earlier bill. Yesterday's "compromise" bill may in fact be worse than the one Senator Dodd killed with your help.
This bill would dismiss any lawsuits against telecommunications companies that can produce a letter indicating that the President authorized them to engage in the wiretapping program. While it may not result in quite as broad immunity as the earlier bill (perhaps some companies cannot produce such a letter), this "justification" for granting immunity would set a terrible precedent: it would codify, in a law passed by our legislative branch, that the executive can authorize lawbreaking. De facto it means that the President is above the law, that breaking the law is fine when the President asks you to do so. We should not pass a bill that affirms that terrible precedent.
Opposing this bill is not without risk; certainly the Republicans will claim we must pass this bill to ensure our security, and such claims may resonate with many in the general public.
Yet this is a case where you should put principle before politics, and speak out strongly against this "compromise". It is not a compromise about the mundane details of intelligence gathering; it is a compromise of our fundamental value that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
I urge you to oppose it, by filibuster if necessary.
Respectfully,
A Committed Supporter
I appreciate and have been moved by your calls for change, and I have supported your campaign both with my vote and with my money. I know it is important to change the direction our country has been on, especially the last seven years.
As a constitutional scholar, I'm sure you understand the erosion of civil liberties and the disregard for law shown by the current administration, and by promising to review its executive orders to repeal those that are not constitutional, you have shown that you intend to undo its excesses. For this I, and true lovers of our limited government Republic, applaud you.
But I have another particular request: please publicly denounce the FISA compromise bill announced yesterday. You had previously supported Senator Dodd when he filibustered an earlier bill. Yesterday's "compromise" bill may in fact be worse than the one Senator Dodd killed with your help.
This bill would dismiss any lawsuits against telecommunications companies that can produce a letter indicating that the President authorized them to engage in the wiretapping program. While it may not result in quite as broad immunity as the earlier bill (perhaps some companies cannot produce such a letter), this "justification" for granting immunity would set a terrible precedent: it would codify, in a law passed by our legislative branch, that the executive can authorize lawbreaking. De facto it means that the President is above the law, that breaking the law is fine when the President asks you to do so. We should not pass a bill that affirms that terrible precedent.
Opposing this bill is not without risk; certainly the Republicans will claim we must pass this bill to ensure our security, and such claims may resonate with many in the general public.
Yet this is a case where you should put principle before politics, and speak out strongly against this "compromise". It is not a compromise about the mundane details of intelligence gathering; it is a compromise of our fundamental value that no one, not even the President, is above the law.
I urge you to oppose it, by filibuster if necessary.
Respectfully,
A Committed Supporter
Advertisement
I completely agree. This is, for me, an opportunity to see the type of leadership Barack would bring to the presidency. As the party's nominee, he would hopefully have the power to stop this. I'm hoping that my audacity of hope is not misplaced.
June 20, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What power does he really have as a legislator to control the national security apparatus? Isn't that why he is running for president? He should be spending his time preparing to be president not acting as super legislator.
As President he can simply shut the whole thing down, or alter it to fit within our longstanding constitutional framework. Surveillance is conducted at the direction of the executive, not by Congress. Then he can ask Congress to change the law.
Unfortunatley, I think the obsession with the legal liability of various companies risks missing the forest for the trees. Personally I do not care for that pound of flesh. If Obama is president the policy changes. It's that simple.
June 20, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me the worst part of the bill isn't the immunity per se, it's the justification for granting it. I'd rather pass something that just gives blanket immunity on an ad hoc basis than something that grants it because the President said it was fine.
If I had confidence that the present administration would be held to account for its disregard of the law, the Geneva Conventions, and human decency, then the FISA issue wouldn't bother me nearly so much. The underlying problem is the lack of respect of the current executive branch for the rule of law. Sometimes the means are as, or more, important than the ends.
This is one such time.
June 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to what I just read at Hiffington Post, Obama caved. I am truly disappointed.
June 20, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's about the rule of law and it's also about checks and balances. The rule of law survives as long as there is power to counter the power of the king. By surrendering to the executive the Congress undermines both the rule of law and the check on absolute power.
June 20, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's not just about economic recovery in a lawsuit. The lawsuit is the only way to get information on who was spied on and who broke the law (via discovery), and that is viewed as the only way to uncover criminal acts. Bush doesn't care about tort damages, he cares about keeping this shit secret.
But I agree with your other observations. We are in a liberal echo chamber here, but Obama has to win votes from independents and, specifically, the obnoxious "terror moms" who handed Bush re-election in 2004. A "no" vote would cream him with this group, but would/will cost him little with his supporters. What are we gonna do, go vote McCain as revenge for the FISA cave? Won't happen, and he knows it, so he had to make a call here. And you're right, no president has to invoke FISA. He can work to undo this as President, and, indeed, is endowed with the power not to avail himself of FISA powers. But NOTHING can happen unless he gets elected!! I agree we need to get through this goddamn election and then start working on rebuilding this country.
Plus, I hasten to point out that other than the disgusting Telecom immunity provision, this bill is the same as the FISA law that has existed since the 70s. This concept, of spying on suspected terrorists after approval from a secret court, is not new. The operative term being "after approval."
June 20, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agree. My hopes for BHO go up in direct proportion to my disappointment with Pelosi/Reid/Waxman/Conyers and the rest of those appeasing, letter-writing, spineless party wonks. I don't care if you don't have the votes to win ... at least show a willingness to fight this 1984 crap. I want to see our candidate (and Hillary, and Edwards, and Gore) step up as the conscience of the new leadership and demand that we Do the Right Thing.
June 20, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outstanding. I am going to call again right now and ask him to fillibuster.
June 20, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with that. Looks like your Saint Obama has taken your money and is calling you all suckers. It must really hurt when you find out your virgin politician is a South Side of Chicago player who has just played you in his biggest score yet.
June 20, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect Obama (or any other politician) to be a saint.
And since Chris Dodd dropped out, and Rush Holt isn't running, it's not clear whom you should support if this were your only defining issue. Both Clinton and Obama tacitly supported Dodd's earlier filibuster, but neither have (yet) been vocal on this issue.
But it's nice to know you're able to parrot David Brooks's talking points.
June 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I truly hope that Obama speaks out today against this so-called FISA compromise. As a matter of principle, we need him to be on record upholding the Constitution he so obviously believes in. And, as a matter of campaign strategy, for him to remain silent on this -- even though he is in the Senate and this is a House vote -- voluntarily offers McShame two-for-one mocking points against him (given Obama's change in position on public campaign funding that is under scrutiny at the same time).
We know Obama has good reasons for the timing, as well as the substance of what he does and does not say. Nonetheless, this is worrisome.
June 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The audacity of hoping Saint Obama was a better politician was your downfall. He will do little except take the lobbyist money and run back to his campaign. Oh strike that, maybe he will take his usual bold and courageous move and vote "present" when the time comes. Hah, what a joke! Keep sending your hard earned cash and prayers to him and he will make more pretty speeches. If after that you still have too much money lying around send the rest to any televangilist to do the same. It will have the same impact, nothing.
ALL PRAISE BUSH AND CHENEY FOR THEY ARE THE VICTORS ONCE AGAIN!!!
ZEIG HEIL BABY!
June 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I,too, am appalled by the FISA compromise and deeply concerned. It's in some ways tragic that the Democratic majority is caving into this lame-duck, impeachable impostor to the presidency, but here they go, doing it.
As for Obama, I also hope he will step into this and oppose it, but what I don't know is how that would affect his relations with the Democratic elite, and whether discretion could be, in this case, the better part of valor. To lose the battle, but win the war,so to speak. Or end the war, to be more literal.
At any rate, I don't know what Obama does or why he does it, but if he chooses not to enter into this fray, I still hope he will correct the error when he becomes president. It's only a few more months, and then everything comes under review. They should not cave in now, but hopefully, in January 2009, we'll have an opportunity to create real change without BushCo.
June 20, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems clear as daylight that many highly-placed Democrats want this issue swept under the rug just as badly as Bush and the GOP. Makes you wonder, what did they know and when did they know it.
June 20, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider,
Be honest with yourself, worrying over whether he will damage his relations with the elite? That's simply a means of excusing the inexcusable.
And as far as the Democratic "elite" are concerned: fuck em! What have they done for the past 30 years other than screw the Democratic voters and other common citizens of this nation? They can kiss my ass! Obama should be worried about pissing off the millions of little people who put him where he is today based on his vague promises of hope and change. Based upon his silence I have to assume he's not too concerned about what the little people think.
Obama has claimed all along to be for changing the way Washington works and for stopping the bowing and scraping to corporate power, etc... Now it seems that it won't be long before we find out just how honest or dishonest Obama has been with the public about all this. If he doesn't use his substantial power as the nominee to block this atrocity of a piece of legislation then we will all know beyond any doubt that the whole "hope" and "change" business has been nothing but a marketing slogan with no real intentions of any substantive change backing it up at all.
I genuinely and from the bottom of my heart hope I am wrong, but Obama's continuing silence on the matter speaks volumes and it ain't a good sign at all.
June 20, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dems, sadly, have been pretty spineless since their 2006 triumph. Most people believe, and I think it's true, that the strategy is to let the clock run out on the GOP without handing them any major talking points. After being marginalized by the president calling them soft on terrorism, they went full bore for the Bushco GWOT. So what should Obama do? Honestly, I think he should talk someone other than him into fillibustering the bill. Hillary?
Of course, I wish they had stuck to their principles and continually passed temporary extensions instead, without the telecomm immunity. That allows THEM to have the talking point. "We extended FISA repeatedly, and Bush vetoed it every time because it didn't excuse lawbreaking by Bush's corporate supporters.
June 20, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You speak for the many, Fosberry. I already contacted Senator Obama with the same sentiments you express here. I think we all should. We should all encourage him to denounce and vote against such a measure.
June 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Obama announced that he supports warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty bill (http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/06/statement-of-barack-obama-supporting.html.)
Sen. Obama has also said "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," but he opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney beacause they have done nothing to merit it (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm?csp=34.)
Sen. Obama said he is against the Iraq war, but on each of the last 3 occassions he has voted to fund the war.
The US CONSTITUTION and all the privileges it embodies should be first and foremost in the minds of all elected officials.
Courage, leadership, honor means standing up for what is right regardless of how the wind blows.
June 20, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has published via media and written statements that he voted yes on those funding bills because otherwise the soldiers wouldn't be paid, supplies and equipment needed by them would not be delivered, etc.
He has also stated that he wants a full investigation regarding war crimes of Bush and cohorts after he takes office. He is not in favor of Impeachment because he does not believe the politicos to be the best choice for judge and jury. Better in open court with American citizens (taxpayers and voters) who aren't worried about party loyalty or the next election.
Have you communicated to Obama and your state's members of Congress about what your beliefs are about the disposition of the FISA bill and their stances? It's our responsibility to be informed, communicate with them and hold them accountable.
Courage, leadership, honor are traits needed in the electorate too. We have to do our job so our public officials are given clear directions on what path they are to travel.
June 21, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to the open letter above, I did send a message to the Obama campaign of largely similar content. And this morning I sent a similar note to by state's two senators. I didn't bother writing my Congressman - he's a Republican who isn't running for reelection and would undoubtedly have supported the bill in any event.
June 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need to write to your Republican representative above anyone else. He represents your district; he represents you! Doesn't matter if he's a Republican; if he doesn't hear from you, he can't know what all of his constituents think. Why do you allow the Dems to compromise but expect the Republicans won't? There's a serious flaw in that logic.
June 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink