Obama Changes Position on FISA: Damages Credibility

In an abrupt about face, presidential candidate Barack Obama has decided to throw his support behind the FISA compromise bill worked out between the white house and the democrat controlled congress after threatening to filibuster similar legislation earlier this year.

The original bill gathered controversy because it contained language modifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowing for wiretaps to be ordered without warrants or judicial oversight. The bill also provided immunity to telecommunications companies who, in the past, have given phone records to the government without proper warrants or subpoenas. The revised legislation would not only make it legal for telecoms to do so in the future, but would also provide retroactive immunity against lawsuits filed against these companies for violating their customers privacy rights.

The first version of this bill was stonewalled in congress because of its controversial nature. This was when Obama stood strongly opposed to this legislation. Recently, a new version was proposed, created out of a compromise between republican and democrat leaders. This new version contains the same warrantless wiretapping provisions, but some change to the telecom immunity language. Under this version, the telecoms are only immune to lawsuits if they can prove that they were informed by the government that it was legal to turn over such records. Of course, the telecoms were told this, and the passing of this legislation would basically give the telecoms the immunity they were looking for, just in a round about way. The only thing the democrats really gained from this compromise was a chance to save face, a chance that Obama jumped for. However, civil liberties groups and some left leaning pundits aren’t buying it.

For the first time, Obama has angered a great deal of his far left supporters. Obama says that he is supporting the compromise and recognizes the need to pass this legislation in a timely manor. I call it a cop out and a flip flop. A bill is not a compromise when one side gets everything they asked for and the other side gives up everything they were standing up to fight against.

I understand why the Obama campaign has reversed its position; they are trying to move toward the center in order to get votes in key swing states. However, they have made a grave miscalculation. Trying to appeal to the center by running away from leftist positions is a failing strategy for Obama for several reasons.

One reason would be because he is up against McCain. If Obama wants to try to compare his record against McCain on reaching over the isle, he is going to lose the fight. McCain has many years of experience and a proven bipartisan voting record on issues like campaign finance and immigration. Obama just does not have the senate experience to back up his bipartisan claims. That is not to say the Obama would not work toward a “Purple America,” but when Obama’s record is put next to John McCain, Obama falls short and independent voters can see this. Running to the center will not help Obama catch independent voters.

Another problem with this strategy is funding. By running away from the left, Obama risks damaging his reputation with left wing supporters. McCain has the same problem with his far right supporters as well. The difference in the two candidates is how they plan on financing their campaigns. McCain is taking public financing money, while Obama will rely on individual donations. Obama has been setting record fundraising levels because of his grass-roots campaign style and small individual donations. If he starts alienating his base, those donations will dry up fast. One example is Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos website who has already said he plans of cutting back donations to Obama’s campaign now that Obama supports the new FISA legislation.

Finally, the Obama campaign has made the mistake of underestimating the values of independent voters. Independents and moderates tend to cast their ballots for a candidate, not a party. Integrity and trust are important issues, more important than some of the political posturing seen so commonly throughout the election season. By changing his position on the FISA legislation, Obama has compromised his leadership qualities. Facing off against McCain, who can be very firm in his beliefs, Obama’s ill-advised position swapping may be a very serious mistake that will hurt him with independents and moderates that he will need to win key swing states.

Whatever Obama’s reasons for changing his position and supporting the new FISA provisions for telecom immunity and warrantless wiretapping, here is what the public will see: a candidate who has completely changed his position on a fundamental issue, a candidate who cannot be trusted, a candidate who cannot keep his campaign promises, and a candidate giving into political pressure instead of following his core beliefs. If Obama truly believes that turning his back on his strongest supporters is the way to win this election, we will be welcoming president McCain come November.

FISA vs. 4th Amdendment. Round 2

Congress is locked in a battle with the white house. At stake, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. Citizens. Unfortunately, there is a trade off between safety and freedom, and a price must be paid either way.

A little background: FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ace) was originally passed in 1978 to provide oversight for legal wiretapping. There were additions made to the bill through the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Protect America Act of 2007. Specifically, the Protect America Act authorized the president to issue wiretaps on foreigners without a warrant or judicial oversight, so long as the Attorney General (also a member of the executive branch) approved. So why is this issue back in the hot seat? The Protect America Act expired February 2008.

Still, the same congress passed the law last year, why the hold up? Because there is a new provision in this bill, giving retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telecommunication companies who cooperated with the government. See, the government wanted to look at phone records, but they did not have probable cause to get a warrant. So they just asked nicely. And some companies, for example AT&T, turned over that information. So if you have a phone through AT&T, the government knows what calls you’ve made, what time you made them, and who you made them to.

Understandably, some people were a little upset, so they filed a lawsuit, claiming these companies violated their privacy rights. Now, if the FISA provisions Bush would like are passed into law, these companies would get immunity. It’s turned into a very controversial issue. Some people applaud the telecoms for cooperating with our government to catch terrorists; others are appalled that their information was so callously given away, when there was no legal reason nor just cause to do so.

Why didn’t AT&T demand a subpoena for this private information? That’s why we have a court system and judicial oversight, requiring law enforcement to provide just cause before demanding personal/privileged documents. In fact, that would be the responsible action for a business concerned with its customer’s wellbeing (thank you Google); happy to cooperate as long as you have some kind of reasonable suspicion. But now, after acting irresponsibly, the government is trying to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. If consumers can’t hold companies accountable, we lose our voice in the market.

So the question is, did the U.S. Government violate the 4th amendment rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? I hear the argument over and over, ‘what does it matter if I have nothing to hide?’ That’s always an easy argument to make if you are not being accused of a crime. But we have these rights for a reason. The framers of the constitution came from a time when a corrupt government could storm through your house on a whim, searching everything, leaving you with absolutely no privacy whether you had committed a crime or not.

Our freedoms that we sometimes take for granted erode away just a little at a time. If we have no protections from our government when it comes to the phone calls we make, what websites we view online, or even what we are searching through search engines like AOL (all of which the U.S. government has requested to see information on), then how long is it until we have no protections in our own homes. Our rights erode away a little at a time, so you may not have something to hide, but you do have something to lose.