Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Taking a great deal of flak from people like me, Barack Obama is attempting to defend his flip-flop on the FISA reauthorization bill (last year he voted against it, now he's voting for it and claiming it's a "compromise" bill). Unfortunately, his arguments to that end are utter nonsense.
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.
Which might be a reasonable argument if, in fact, the government was going to lose "important surveillance tools." But that's is absolutely false. If this bill doesn't pass, nothing changes; the law simply reverts back to the original FISA standards, which were no impediment at all to the surveillance of terrorism suspects either abroad or in the US. Not a single phone call or message is going to be missed if this bill doesn't pass.
The government can still listen in on every single phone call and intercept every message they want, they just have to go to the secret FISA court and show cause to get a warrant - and they don't even have to do that up front, they can do it any time within 72 hours of initiating the surveillance. And this is a court that has virtually never refused a warrant request. Even that minimal safeguard is too much for the Bush administration and now Obama is parroting their lies in defending a very bad decision.
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.
Look, let's be honest about what's really going on here. Obama is making a calculated political choice, believing that he's better off angering his base on this issue than he is handing McCain a stick to beat him over the head with. The quote above is the proverbial "wink, wink, I don't really mean this" message to the rest of us. And maybe he really will put an end to this nonsense if and when he takes office; I certainly hope so. But his argument here is still ridiculous and I suspect he knows it.
Politics
Comments
The thing that disgusts me the most about American politics is this concept of "flip flopping". In what sane and rational society is it acceptable to never change ones mind? Granted, consistency is a positive trait and we can't have out elected officials changing their stance every time the wind blows but still. This entire "I'm not going to change my views or stance regardless of new information, facts, and/or change of heart" is absolute nonsense and the pressure from the electorate to be that way is appalling.
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 8, 2008 9:24 AM
Your mistake is trying to juxtapose "sane and rational" with "American politics".
Posted by: James | July 8, 2008 9:34 AM
@ James
True enough. The average rabid, uneducated voter doesn't want a thinking man in office. However, the state of affairs is still enough to induce vomiting or emigration.
Posted by: stevogvsu | July 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Obama is gonna be the flip flop candidate. Here are several areas where Obama has changed direction 180 degrees: NAFTA, unconditional talks with Iran, the Washington DC gun ban, and of course, public financing of his campaign. And of course, he is preparing o change his mind on Iraq.
Contrary to Steveogvsu's argument, these changes have not come about because of different facts or information. The only thing that has changed is that Obama is now the nominee. The change was precipitated by his burning desire to be President, not any analysis of the facts of the matter.
Call me cynical, but Obama is just like all the rest of the politicians except that he is a great orator.
Posted by: David C. Brayton | July 8, 2008 9:57 AM
David -
If Obama wants to be the flip-flop candidate, he's going to have to compete with McCain, who is also flippin' and floppin' so fast that if we could hook him up to a turbine we might just be able to use him to power the entire US and solve our whole "energy independence" crisis in one go.
The thing that disgusts me the most about Obama's justification is the way he says "don't worry, I'll only use these powers for good". Bah. That's not how it works. There's supposed to be oversight. Our government structure is not built to work on "trust" - it's structured so that competing interests keep an eye on each other. If we get down to "trust me, I know what I'm doing" the basic assumptions that the system is built on break down completely and the system stops working. That's what's been happening for at least the last 30 years of my life - with the one little blip during the Clinton years where the Republican Congress occasionally put up a fight with Clinton in competing self-interest. But that was rare, and often over stupid petty stuff and not over the actual important erosions of Congressional power. Idiots.
Posted by: NonyNony | July 8, 2008 10:07 AM
What a load. How about they just leave FISA alone; it never needed to be changed in the first place, it worked perfectly, no one can point to a single case of any attack or espionage that would have been detected if NSA wasn't required to get warrants, and the only thing being extended is Congress's cop out on holding those companies and administration officials who knowingly acted illegally to account for the laws they've broken.
I don't know what Obama's political team is thinking advising him to vote for this "compromise" to protect AT&T from punitive fines, but it's going to cost him more votes than looking "tough" on foreign policy will gain him. Why is it that supposed political professionals are so myopic that they never seem to realize that the folks who will buy into the "Obama is soft" arguments his opponent will fling at him are never going to vote for him anyway.
Perhaps the real reason he's doing this is to ensure a stead stream of campaign funds from the telecoms, but that isn't something he needs to do either. There are only two options for president, and as corporations, the telecoms cannot afford to make enemies of either of them; this is especially true of Obama given the head of steam he has, and the incredibly low Republican voter turnout in the primaries. Corps don't donate money to pols on the basis of issues, they do it strategically, which is to say, they give to everyone that could possibly impact laws respecting them to both curry favor and cover their bases. The telecoms might issue threats on this issue, but they're empty ones; what are they really going to do; alienate the next president of the United States and the party that will dominate Congress for the next four years by NOT giving? They aren't that stupid. Unfortunately our politicians are.
Posted by: Julian | July 8, 2008 10:08 AM
Oops a few errors I missed in editing. The last sentence of the first paragraph should end with a '?', and the first line of the last paragraph should read "...to ensure a steady stream...". Also, it'd be better grammar and style if the second to last sentence in the last paragraph were broken into two with a period after "empty ones".
Posted by: Julian | July 8, 2008 10:17 AM
dang; it is the last line of the second paragraph that should end with a ? . Not my day for editing, apparently :(
Posted by: Julian | July 8, 2008 10:25 AM
One must also consider the possibility that Obama thinks he will be the next president, and doesn't want to restrict the powers he hopes to exercise.
Posted by: Dunc | July 8, 2008 10:35 AM
I think Dunc has hit it on the head. Why would democrats be interested in curbing the seemingly limitless powers of the executive during this time of "war" just when they are preparing to exercise that power themselves? When w first started his crusade against open government, th rule of law, and the balance of powers I used to ask my republican friends how they were going to feel when democrats inherited w's legacy. I couldn't get a straight answer then but i hope they are all mightily pleased with themselves when this chicken comes home to roost.
Posted by: Tim | July 8, 2008 10:52 AM
Obama missed the boat on this one. If he were the leader that the progressives want him to be, he would be out in front loudly opposing this bill. Instead he's going to vote for it. This guy doesn't have a progressive bone in his body and I'm continually frustrated by the left's willingness to project their values on him (with his tacit approval)
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 8, 2008 10:57 AM
It must be truly disheartening to all those Obamaniacs out there to be in the process of discovering that their water-walking candidate is just a politician after all. Buyer's remorse? I'll graciously refrain from saying I told you so.
Just remember, you still need to vote Democratic in November, if only for the sake of the Supreme Court.
Posted by: gary l. day | July 8, 2008 1:46 PM
The traditional view is and remains, according to polling, that Democrats cede the defense to the Republicans. Obama is, as Ed points out, nudge nudging and wink winking here. He'd rather take the flip-flop hit, which McCain also has to endure than the "soft on defense" attack which McCain wins. Sure it's politics and stupid, but did you seriously think Obama wasn't going to play?
Posted by: B8ovin | July 8, 2008 2:39 PM
So what I'm wondering is this: If the telecoms get immunity in this bill, as it seems they will, can that immunity be revoked next year? I wouldn't think it would be an ex post facto law, since their actions were unlawful when they did them.
Also, do we really want the precedent that the government can ask someone to break the law, and promise them immunity if they get caught?
Posted by: BaldApe | July 8, 2008 3:36 PM
BaldApe: This admin and congress has opened that genie's bottle more than once, and the truth is that if you do this sort of retroactive legislating enough, it gets to the point where it can be done for any reason, not just covering the rears of themselves and their rich friends. Will it? That's the real question.
Posted by: Julian | July 8, 2008 4:12 PM
As a footnote, Obama's FISA strategy is one that has never worked for the democrats. Despite this fact, the DNC has always been enamored of abandoning its base in order to avoid slights from people who would grasp at any straw in order to hurt it. This habit is perhaps the RNC's greatest weapon.
Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2008 4:27 PM
"Taking a great deal of flak from people like me,"
Really? All you've done is talk. I haven't seen you do or be part of any of the fund-raising or movement-building that's been all over Facebook, myBO and the blogosphere lately in resistance to the pending legislation (just see today's column by Glenn Greenwald, for example).
Posted by: dissent | July 8, 2008 4:58 PM
"All you've done is talk."
Since when is talk not flak? In my personal experience whenever someone says they have gotten or given "flak" it has always reffered to talk.
Posted by: jba | July 8, 2008 5:33 PM
To jba:
Point taken. And I'd go further and say that I've agreed with pretty much everything Ed has to say on this issue. That said, the considerable pressure that has been put to bear on Obama and other members of Congress regarding the FISA bill has come from those who have organized and funded a unified response, whether it's the Obama supporters that organized a group on his website, or the Strange Bedfellows coalition. Ed's first sentence above implies that he feels he's due credit he doesn't really deserve.
Posted by: dissent | July 8, 2008 5:50 PM
"Ed's first sentence above implies that he feels he's due credit he doesn't really deserve."
I didn't get that impression, and I'm struggling to understand why you did. It certainly seemed to me as though Ed was only stating that he is part of an extensive chorus of criticism Obama has taken on this issue.
RE: the topic: I have little doubt that Obama has made this decision not out of fear of seeming "weak on defense" but, much more simply, out of a desire not to restrict the powers of the office he seems very likely at this point to take. Those who are expecting the future executive to revert to the role of chief magistrate and sternly disown the extensive powers he will assume upon inauguration is, as I've said before, just making unrealistic assumptions. The only real line of defense we have in restricting executive power at this point lies with the courts.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 8, 2008 6:15 PM
One criticism--it's likely that what the government has been doing is likely not just intercepting phone calls, but data mining call data records for *all* international calls in an automated manner, and doing automated interception and searches for key words in suspicious ones.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 8, 2008 10:11 PM
I half-agree with "gay l. day", there may be many rational Obama supporters, but the True Believers are in for bitter disappointment.
I'm not really surprised by this. First and foremost Obama is a politician. I have no doubt that his motivational animus is that "I must use the powers of the President to make America a better place". A person who believes that is unlikely to want to restrict government power, but rather to co-opt that power so they can use it to realise their vision.
When people say power corrupts, I don't think most of them understand what that really means. Its not that power leads to evil, but that rather that great power plus a firm belief in one's own virtue leads to very dark places.
Posted by: James K | July 9, 2008 1:21 AM