Obama speaks to FISA reversal

"...The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court..."

The messiah is only half right here- while no law can supersede the FISA court- the FISA court cannot supersede the constitutional right of the executive branch to conduct this type of surveillance...

Laws and statutes do not "trump" the constitution..

heartburn-

Please enlighten us where the Constitution specifically gives the Executive branch the "right" to do ANY searches.

"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." Sounds like a lot of bureaucracy. A lot of watchers watching the watchers. Instead of preventing abuses it sounds like the set up for NYT best sellers on the blame game. Katrina Style. The bill in question is better than the P.Act, and McCain will be way worse. Man just take a stand on the bill.. If it's not IT, then don't support IT.

We have a president, not a king. The constitution provides checks and balances to prevent a ruthless person from taking over the governement. The president is accountable to courts and to congress. It is spelled out in the constitution, even if the would be "king George" chooses to ignore it.

I was against it
Then I was for it
Now I'm against part of it
But then I will be for it again, because the people made it what it is
But once I'm sworn in, I will be against it again

Maybe Obama is reversing roles becuase he might realize that if he becomes commander-in-chief (God forbid), he might want the ability to listen in on two overseas terrorist talking to each other.

From "I will work to defeat it"--and even to "filibuster" it, to "I will support it."

Does ANY pledge of his have a shelf life of more than 30 minutes?

Wait another day, and Obama will reverse his position on this again.

"pepid", tell me your not THAT dumb when you question whether the Executive Branch has the right to conduct searches.

The Executive Branch and its agents, often but not exclusively federal marshalls and US attorneys, have been conducting searches since 1789. You should have heard about it by now. You can find the authorization for this in Article II of the Constitution.

I thought in February BO said he would filibuster any retroactive immunity bill. What changed between then and now? Maybe that he knows he has the far left in his hip pocket, they will follow him no matter what because they are too stupid to do otherwise, and now he can kick them back to the fringe where they belong and go after the centrist vote. I finally gained some respect for Obama. With this, his slap down of the Betrayus ad, his gun support, waffling on abortion and his death penalty support, he has played the far left for the fools that they are. Well done.

I'd like to hear from the Swamp lefties who freak out everytime there is a story about the retroactive immunity - the sky is falling, they're shredding the constitution, rule of law, fascists, etc, etc. Do those terms now apply to the Dolly 'Bama? Or is it time to swallow your pride, shelve the FISA rhetoric and fall in line?

Bruce-

Please quote the exact language that gives the Execurtive branch the "right" to conduct searches.

There is NO mention of searches or surveillence in Article II of the Constitution what so ever, let alone placing such a "right" above congressional or judicial oversite as heartburn claims.

Posted by: Herbie H. | July 7, 2008 3:58 PM

No, Herbie, I for one will admit that Obama is dead wrong on this issue. I am not a partisan drone.

Care to admit any faults from your side of the aisle?

Harking back to the old tv show about the dolphin, the Obama campaign song should be:

“They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there-under, under the sea!
Everyone loves the king of the sea,
Ever so kind and gentle is he,
Tricks he will do when children appear,
And how they laugh when he’s near!
They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
Flying there-under, under the sea!”"

On October 24, 2007, the Obama campaign issued the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

To the people who voted for him based upon this principled position, he now says "Nevermind." This is the change you can believe in?

heartburn-

Please enlighten us where the Constitution specifically gives the Executive branch the "right" to do ANY searches.

Posted by: Pepsid | July 7, 2008 3:17 PM

Article II provides executive commander in chief status the authority to conduct war and to protect the country and citizens... this includes the authority to detain, kill enemies and/or to listen to their telephone conversations ( this is implied- if you can kill your enemy, it is hard to make a case that you can't listen to their cell phone call)

This is NOT limited by the fourth amendment because that amendment is for US citizens only-

It sure beats President Bush and Senator McCain's mantra, concerning our occupation of Iraq: STAY THE COURSE !!
What about our brave men and women who can't stay the course, because of death or being maimed. God bless them for their precious sacrifice !! We will always be eternally grateful, in spite of the wrong-headedness of the Republican leaders that led America down this slippery slope !! If only, they were not so locked into their ill-conceived assault on Iraq's oil fields, because they didn't have the ability, nor the sense, to change their minds!! Thank God, Senator Obama is a thinking candidate and has the ability to change his mind. I hope Senator McCain will gain that ability some time soon, and I don't mean, flip-flopping, as he is so well known, to do !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Bruce is correct! The right for the Executive to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures is outlined in the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment....wait.

Please quote the exact language that gives the Execurtive branch the "right" to conduct searches.

There is NO mention of searches or surveillence in Article II of the Constitution what so ever, let alone placing such a "right" above congressional or judicial oversite as heartburn claims.

Posted by: Pepsid | July 7, 2008 4:06 PM

Not above- equal- meaning that no branch of the government has authority over the other- in this case, the executive branch has complete authority over conducting war (killling, capturing, spying on and listening to the enemy).

Not likely you will find electronic eavesdropping in 230 year old document- but the fact that every president since the creation of article II has spied on enemies, and intercepted communications ( in whatever form) is enough of a precedent that is understood to be the right of the commander in chief.

The FISA court was actually created by a statute that if the executive chose to- could legally ignore, citing that it infringes on the executives constitutional authority.

Yes indeed, Senator Obama couldn't be more wrong on the FISA bill. It's possible that this will be part of his undoing that will pave the way for a President McCain.

That would be too bad for America and the world, but when we only vote for those who TELL us what we want to hear, we get what we deserve. ACTIONS (like voting for this legislation) are making for a clearer picture. Solution?

You can vote for him--as I did in the primaries, but if he votes for this, the honeymoon is over. My suggestion is to look to third parties as a wedge, not merely a "protest vote." It worked during the Great Depression, or we wouldn't have gotten much of a New Deal with all the good things that government can provide to the public.

But it takes us: the public, that missing ingredient. We have to take a long, hard look at our values and what we really cherish. We need to understand that a society is about "us" and not "just us."

If not, all is lost, because being in a society began as a means towards survival. This is something we have all forgotten in America. Keep pressuring Obama, at least the Democrats listen if you beat-up on them long and hard enough.

The right for the Executive to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures is outlined in the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment....wait.

Posted by: jackson | July 7, 2008 4:26 PM

Jackson- you should read both the 4th Amendment and Article II-( which you obviously have yet to do) the 4th amendment refers to US citizens protection from illegal search/seizure, the other,
( Article II) defines the powers of the executive.

Article II allows for ( in fact, obligates) the executive to listen to our enemies conversations to protect you, me and our country in his role as the commander in chief.

The 4th Amendment defines the right of citizens to not be subject to illegal search seizure- this is not a right provided to our enemies so does not apply to the electronic surveillance.

"...Thank God, Senator Obama is a thinking candidate and has the ability to change his mind...."

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | July 7, 2008 4:20 PM

Ok- the messiah changes in mind more than his clothes and you are ok with this?

So which of the messiahs policies are you voting for in November- this week's spin or next week's?

What if he changes his mind after you vote?

Change!! - apparently this only applies to Obama's committment to his own policies.

The FISA court was created as a response to Richard Nixon's illegal domestic spying on US anti-war groups in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The president did not and does not have Constitutional authority to spy on US persons without a warrant. That is what the FISA law is about.

There is no justification for granting retro-active immunity for AT&T or any other party involved in this. If no laws were broken as the Bushies claim, then obviously there is no need for immunity. If they did break the law, they should be held responsible like any other criminal.

Obama's campaign has made a political blunder on this, in my opinion. I think they would win a lot more votes than they would lose by strongly defending the Fourth Amendment. Voters are not looking for another candidate like McCain who seems to change his position to pease whoever he's talking to at the time.

Obama's decisions have been correct in the past and I am not going to doubt him on this one.......I do disagree with him on some issues but not this one.....

But heres a thought too, Obama could make this decision without us and not tell us why......he is a different kind of politics.....he has always told us what he thinks and for someone in power, they dont have to.......the best governments are the ones when they address their people up front and one-on-one, Obama wants this and has proven he would........he even wants to have live streaming video with the people when he is elected president.......

Senator Obama waffled again. He will never stand up as he has no clear conviction. Yes today, no tomorrow, yes day after tomorrow, no a day after that- whatever is convenient and he always will have an excuse and justification. What a spineless, gutless guy!

How deep does this rabbit trail go? Barack understands that a vote against the FISA compromise would be viciously attacked by the right wing media and used as a political bludgeon against him in the fall by the McCain campaign. I can here the cries now - "he's in favor of letting the terrorists operate in hiding"! Even though he was opposed the bill and is still voicing his opposition (if you read between the lines), he knows he must accept this compromise to avoid the misleading attacks that were sure to come from the Fox Propaganda Channel and more. Everyone should watch Chris Dodd's speech (posted on his web site: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476) that totally blows the lid off the FISA smoke screen.

heartburn Yes, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in time of war. However we are discussing searches by civilian agencies, not the Armed Forces. Secondly, even if we were discussing the Armed Forces, Article I gives Congress the power to "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;". Therefore, even in time of War the President is bound by the laws past by the legislature and signed into law that set rules for what the military may or may not do. This is quite clear in the Constitution.

Secondly, The Fourth amendment is not for US citizens only. It covers all people within the boundries of the United States, even Non-citizens. Read USA vs. Atienzo.

The President is bound to execute the laws of the United States. He is not separate from them, in times of war, or at any other time. There are no statutes that the President is Constitutionally empowered to ignore at a whim.

Your Constitutional knowledge is severely lacking.

Bruce & Heartburn -- Not only is there no mention of electronic eavesdropping, as heartburn admits, but none of searches, spying, or monitoring - on foreign soil or domestic, in Article II that Bruce cited. What you're left arguing, is that this phrase allows domestic warrant-less wiretaps: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

Except that the Army is not even performing any of the aforementioned spying domestically.

Also, when Heartburn claims that "Article II provides executive commander in chief status the authority to conduct war and to protect the country and citizens", he's again interpreting, rather than citing. Though I don't argue that "Commander in Chief" grants them the head of the table of the armed forces, the ability to declare War is Congress, as is the creation of rules governing the armed forces which would include where and when they can and cannot be employed. (Art I Sec 8). (As a side note, though a bit argumentative, Article II has the President swear to protect the constitution itself, and not the citizens directly. My interpretation is the the citizens are adequately protected by the government as long as the government adheres to the laws outlined therein. But now *I'm* interpretting!)

So, though you can certainly argue precedent, you could argue that noncitizens are not protected by these documents, and you might even successfully argue "spirit of the law" applies, your claim that these broad powers are listed in Article II is in blatant opposition to fact. You would also do well (when trying to interpret the intent of the founding fathers) to remember that it was precisely the purpose of the founding fathers to create an executive with curbed authority, so that we didn't become what we were breaking away from.

watch him as he continues to sell out

heartburn-

You read an awful lot into "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;."

Ther is no compulsion there to spy or any other specific act. It merely gives him the power it says it does: To command the Armed forces of the United States. It doesn't make him king, It doesn't make him exempt from the laws of the United States. It does not make the US a military dictatorship. It makes him a military commander, nothing more. He is still bound to by all laws of the United States. Article I in fact gives the Congress the specific power to pass laws regulating the military.

Heartburn is kind of a moron isn't he? Eh, well, it takes all kinds I guess.

Please, don't try and inject your neocon nonsense into our constitution. If you want the president to have this kind of power, submit an amendment and see if it passes.

What happens if Mr. Obama becomes president, and declares a war on conservativism? Why not right, I mean after all apparently the only qualification for a war is not liking an opposing faction. Hell, conservatives are far more akin to an army than any terrorist organization. Of course this is beyond far-fetched, but the fact is that the executive is MASSIVELY overpowered at the moment. While it would be poetic justice to see conservatives put these powers in place, then watch a liberal use them to destroy their ideology and political movement, I want them to have freedom just as much as I want anyone else to have freedom. As it stands, a single man now has the power to call something a war when there is no clear opposing army, declare someone an enemy without proof, detain said enemy indefinitely without charges, torture them, and, if conservatives had their way, even condemn them to death via military tribunal. Plus they can listen in on all your conversations whenever, wherever. That doesn't in the least bit scare you?

Posted by: Pepsid | July 7, 2008 5:24 PM

The president, or any branch, are only ultimately bound by laws/statutes that are constitutional-

The argument is that the FISA court was created by a statute ( not written in the constitution), where congress
( unconstitutionally) created a limit on presidential authority. .

So - it is correct to say that the executive branch cannot listen to domestic conversations w/o court order - per the 4th amendment. the executive has complete authority to listen to foreign conversations w/o any requirement to gain court approval.

The unanswered question is whether or not anyone's 4th amendment rights were violated-which would be a criminal, or impeachable offens and which the admin is denying.

Using the civil court system as a fishing expedition both to get to the telecoms financially and to hope to drag this admin into another concocted crisis is the DEMS goal here -

bruce and flipper - why do so many of you see things so one-sided. remember when mccain was so critical of the bush administration and then nearly overnight after a visit with bush he became a good little republican towing the party line? malleable - capable of being altered or controlled by outside forces or influences. not a trait i would think that you would want in a president.

Bush, McCain, Pelosi, and
most of the 500 plus legislatures support this bill.

But only Obama is being criticized.

Why are the others getting a pass.

That doesn't in the least bit scare you?

Posted by: laughing | July 7, 2008 6:10 PM

No - nothing in your fact challenged, rant scares me.

What scares me is your inability to grasp concepts and facts without the use of ideological arguments - "massively overpowered executive"??

"...Hell, conservatives are far more akin to an army than any terrorist organization..."

Do your own research into the history and motivation behind the creation of the FISA court-and then tell me there is not basis for challenging its existence based on the legislative and judicial branches overstepping its power into the executive.

heartburn-

If FISA is unconstitutional, which you claim, then the proper action would be for the Bush Administration to challenge it in the courts, not just ignore it. It is the courts that are the ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality, not the Executive. However your basis for that claim is false. The Constitution clearly allows Congress to pass laws which restrict Presidential power, even in the Executive's role as Commander in Chief.

However,it does appear that your erroneous Constitutional arguement was just a smoke screen for your real concern: Protecting the large Telecommunications companies from scrutiny of the legality of their actions in open court. Those corporations have the same obligations to follow the law as any individual. They can defend their actions in court the same as any individual.

the Obama statement is correct about one thing
it IS a deal breaker

Barack Obama promised to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity. A few short weeks after locking up the nomination, he has gone back on his promise and will now support a bill to give that immunity, as well as severely undermining the 4th amendment.

A group has been started on Mr. Obama's own campaign site, with the aim of holding Mr. Obama accountable and protecting the constitution and the 4th amendment. It is fast becoming one of the largest groups on his own campaign site!

Ironically his own social networking tools are being used to hold him accountable. Now THAT's change we can believe in.

You can find the group here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

Obama lost my vote soley due to his change on this issue. Of course, McCaine can't have my vote either. What to do now. Ron Paul back in the running yet?

We the citizens are the Customer, the Government works for US.

I believe in the KISS Formula, Keep It Simple Stupid. Barak's comments above are a lot of boilerplate, what is the clear and simple solution?

Is there not a man in America who can Direct and Control a simple and clear solution?

The law is either fair, equitable & demands accountability for violations or it just degenerates into a licensing of corruption.

This is just a licensing of corruption,
by telecoms,
by the Whitehouse,
by the NSA
and now the congress has enjoined this outlaw conspiracy to evade the constitution & the law.

I thought i was going to vote for Obama,
but now i simply can not.

I will look at Paul but probably vote for Nader.

Won't be fooled again.

Unless you have worked in systems development for 25 years as I have, then you have no idea what they can do if they can find ANY bogus pretense to install software in the Internet data stream -- Lets look at one single example -- manipulation of global energy prices :

With nothing to show for my trouble except being left alone to enjoy dead silence, I have told my Republican representative, the Department of Justice, and anyone in this corrupt government that would listen to me since 2002 that Internet based commodity auction (energy trading) markets are entirely corruptible and given the money involved almost certainly so. The issue is that the Internet was never built to run auctions -- so they have an unintended Achilles heal. The problem is that computers used by bidders to these online auction markets set their time by making unencrypted port 13 calls to time servers in order to set their time, and since these calls use frames of unencrypted plain text these frames can be nefariously intercepted and manipulated in transit between the bidding computer and the time server. The net effect is that it is possible to manipulate the clock settings on either the computer running the auction or on the computers of the bidders. A nefarious 100 mille second time shift (one tenth of a second) on a 4 meg connection is enough to push a thousand bids by one market participant in or out of an auction time window, but insufficient to not be attributed to excess traffic on the Internet slowing things down and resulting in a slightly off clock setting. Consider the genius of this scam -- without ever touching the communication between a bidder and the auction system (which might be monitored) you can affect the outcome of the bidding process by affecting an entirely different communication which isn't monitored between the bidder and a time server. You pick your winners and losers and thus affect prices over time by altering their time windows to make them individually either bigger winners or bigger losers. This is a crime which cannot be detected or punished, but it will leave consumers punished at the pump -- so at least someone gets punished . Bravo !

In Barack's defense, I think they would have assassinated him if he took away the punch bowl. Oddly he did the right thing.

Oh, goodness! Hillary voted against? Wow. In the short month Obama's been the nominee, I've been sufficiently disappointed.

He moves left, he moves right, now right down the center and then left again! O, brother.

Can we get Hillary back? Pretty please?

Do we really want to elect a president on one issue? I am also disappointed by the vote for fisa it is a continuation of the erosion of our freedom that has occurred in the last 8 years. Obama is a breath of fresh air. He is not always going to please all the people all the time. But please he is a much better choice than the old man the republicans have nominated. Let's keep level heads and look at the person as a whole, we are all complex and most of us do many things that are contradictory. Let's get Obama elected and get our country going again. Obama is not one dimensional he is a complex human just like all of us. I for one am ashamed of our goverment and the Bush administration and most of the things the repubicans have done to us in the past 8 years.