Digby feels that Obama must have a "Strategy" on FISA with Pelosi/Reid as head of Party, now.

[KoKo]

Friday, June 20, 2008


Sistah Soljah'd ?

by digby

There's lots of blogospheric angst today, and for good reason, around this FISA legislation. Senator Obama's commitment to support the "compromise,"(while promising to "work" to remove the offensive telcom immunity) is a big disappointment to many.

I am tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment, wherein Barack makes it clear to the Villagers that he is not one of the DFH's, despite all their ardent support. Nothing is more associated with us than this issue. It may even make sense on some sort of abstract level. He's obviously decided that he has to run to the right pretty hard to counteract that "most liberal Senator" label.


But, I actually have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats, who seem stuck in some 2004 time warp, fighting the battle of Fallujah with Don Rumsfeld. He may genuinely think the legislation is good or just be afraid that the Republicans will use it against him. (I don't think that's going to help frankly --- he voted against it last time and that's all they need for the scare ads.) He does say that if he wins, he promises not to abuse the power it gives him, so I guess we should feel good about that.

I do know this: they would not have made this "compromise" and then brought this to the floor without his ok, and probably without his direction. He is the leader of the Democratic Party now, in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign. If he didn't come to them and say to get this thing done before the fall, then they came to him and asked his permission. That's just a fact. They aren't going to do anything he doesn't want them to do.

So, it's not really a capitulation. It's a strategy.


Update: Jack Balkin says Obama just wants the power as president. He may be right. That would also be a good reason to keep him from having it.

[ProSense]

1. "they would not have made this "compromise" and then brought this to the floor without his ok"

Are people smoking crack?

Obama is not directing bill traffic in the House.

[ananda]

2. sinister

The spin around this so-called "compromise" is
just incredible and incessant.

This is a bad business, a huge betrayal by
Obama, and a sign of things to come if people
don't take action and mean it.

[MarjorieG]

3. If not to Obama, you say give the power to McCain?

[napi21]

4. Check the replay of KO's Friday show. John Dean was on and he said

this bill removes the threat of "CIVIL SUITS" against the telecoms, but NOT the criminal ones that could be filed later! Criminal penalties can carry fines & jail time!!!! I thought at the time I heard this that Barack has this in mind but is not pushing it pubickly because he doesn't want to alienate any indi or even Pub voters. Those guys are NOT off the hook!

[AZ Criminal JD]

6. Criminal suits can only be filed by the government.

Don't look for that to happen. Also they required a showing of intentional wrongdoing by the companies which is an almost impossible standard to meet in these cases.

[napi21]

10. I don't dispute that, but this was John Dean's statement not mine.

His opinion is that the telecoms can't claim they didn't KNOW they were doing any wrong because they have hordes of attorneys on staff. The other thing that demonstrates that they did or should have known is that one of their own refused to go along. I don't doubt it's difficult to prove intent, but not impossible by any stretch. We've seen a lot of charges stick when you have the right lawyers involved and the strong intent of an administration to make it happen!

[KoKo]

14. It's hard to know the difference between Dean and Turley's Opinions....

I checked out some sites...and some on "Empty Wheel" felt that Dean wasn't as "current on this particular law" as Turley. Do a "Google" and you might find some good info on the difference in their views on this. Both Dean and Turley seem excellent lawyers...but their interpretations do seem to vary with Dean's more benign view opposed to Turley's.

[Garbo 2004]

20. But criminal charges would involve the US gov't charging telecoms with illegal acts in collaboration

and at the instigation of...the US gov't. In short, the instigator of the crime would have to file charges against its partners in crime. The likelihood of that is much, much slimmer (especially with the legislatively applied fig leafs) than civil suits which are the greater likely threat to the telecoms. Which is why the bill specifically provides relief from civil suits.

I can imagine if criminal charges were ever filed (and I don't consider it likely that any will be), the telecoms would/could argue selective prosecution since those in gov't that authorized and requested/encouraged the criminal activity haven't been (and realistically won't be) charged. They could also cite the administration's various internal legal opinions (however corrupt) and argue that they can't be held liable when the government itself said it was OK. Who is, they would ask, the authoritative arbiter of what is legal under Federal law, their in-house attorneys or the US Federal gov't?

Dean was looking for a bit of daylight in this awful bill. But I don't see criminal prosecution ever happening.

[Danger Mouse]

5. Oh, sure, so let's give the power to MCCain instead. fantastic idea!

:puke:

[KoKo]

7. Neither should have that power....and neither should Bush have had it...

That's what the problem is.

[Danger Mouse]

8. Of course...no president should have that much power...and it is my sincere hope

that Obama dismantles the power that Bush gave the presidency, rather than keeping and using it.

[KoKo]

11. But, if Bush rams through all his immunity before Obama even gets in, then

how can we be sure Obama will give that power back? And, who knows if some he picks for his Administration will not convince him to keep it? They could have waited to vote on this until after the election..or even until January...letting the "old FISA" stand until a new administration and Congress could deal with it. But, instead they ram it through with many Dems now switching positions in favor when before they were against it.

:shrug: Obama and Libertarians and many Republicans out there in the US (not Congress) would have understood how bad this is if Obama had used his incredible speaking ability to speak to the people about why standing up for the Constitution and Civil Liberties is so very important. He is a "Constitutional Lawyer" which gives him huge credibility... And, he's an incredible orator.

[Catherina]

9. Coming from Madfloridian's thread about this makes it a double whammy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6395467&mesg_id=6395467

I don't agree that they needed Obama's ok to do this but the timing is peculiar and I'm sure Pelosi etc consulted with him beforehand knowing how it could affect the race. I'm even more disturbed now.

Thanks Koko. There are serious questions we need to start demanding answers to.

[KoKo]

12. MF's thread is an incredible read...

and it's hard to know what the "urgency" over this is...and those powers...and why Dems changed votes.

It is disturbing. I've always found Digby very balanced with great insight, too. So, her comments made me worry. I hope that Obama will get feedback that helps him understand that this is very important to all of us and many of us felt that as a "Constitutional Scholar" and activist in Chicago he understood why so many of us wanted someone who would understand how Bush has shredded our Constitution and thrown away Civil Liberties, plus allowing and possible being a part of authorizing Torture, plus all the other stuff he and Cheney have done in this Iraq Invasion/Occupation and all the rest that we know about which goes beyond anything we could ever have imagined in it's harm to our country.

[Catherina]

13. I'm not familiar with Digby but I appreciated reading this and the larger picture is very disturbing

Do you realize what kind of message Congress just sent the few telecoms like Qwest Communications who refused their offer to spy for cash and the blackmail of losing lucrative outsourcing contracts?

It's disturbing indeed. Is Pelosi trying to torpedo an Obama win? And why is he going along? He's the only one who stands to lose from this.

[KoKo]

16. I wonder if like all our Dems...he's always forced to run Rightward when he wins....

and having been through every one of them since Kennedy...I think it's just what is "done." That old expression "Run to the Left in Primary" then "Go to the Right for General Election" to get the Indies and Swings seems to still be the "Meme" by the Democratic Strategists.

Yet...in all these years I've been here...it seems we Dems CAVE IN all the time while Repugs SET THE AGENDA...time after time after time. We "Dems" who get in by "pandering" to the Right and Indies as they moved farther and farther RIGHTWARD have been complicit in the demise of our Constitution for so long now...it seems incremental...but it's really Overwhelming in the total sum of what the Repugs have managed to do...to dismantle the Constitution compared to our Dems. But, our DEMS enabled them by always Tacking to the Right Wind Wing .....

:-( I'm sorry to see this from Obama. So many had so many high hopes and even some of us who had seen this caving to the Right for decades..sort of thought Obama might be THE ONE who would turn it all around. And, it took a lot of convincing...but just when we though his "Hope for Change" was finally the "REAL DEAL"...this happens.

I'm hoping that he will come trough and "block that Senate vote" on FISA. If he doesn't then the Right will RUN HIM...and there will be very little REFORM...and much attacks by RW who know that if he caved before ELECTION...then THEY will be the ones who "run Obama" and not us Democrats who are "true Democrats" and not Pelosi and Reid and the other sychophants to Corporate Lobbyists.

I truly hope Obama will listen...and not let the "Powers that Be/Shadow Government" run him on his FISA stand and vote in the Senate...... I truly hope he will STAND UP MIGHTILY against THEM!

[DFLforever]

15. I have a high opinion of Digby

She's extremely intelligent but I doubt she knows anything more about this matter than anyone else.

I tend to think the telcoms have a lot more clout in the House than Sen Obama.

But the fact that Reid is willing to consider an amendment stripping immunity from the bill does show the influence of Sen Obama. They are attempting to provide some cover for him, methinks.

[KoKo]

17. I understand what you say, but

our experience is that Reid always "says one thing" and then "does another" ...and it's always "cave, cave, cave." Obama should know this by now.

But, that the "Telecom's/Big Media" are pouring tons of money into Dem Elections (figuring Obama is a "done deal") ...still shouldn't be discounted as a HUGE INFLUENCE amonst our Dems. They have to get re-elected and all the money that BIG DONORS put in ...means the less time they have to go around with the "tin cup begging." The Lobbyists make it VERY EASY for all our Congresscritters who "HATE" passing that tin cup. Some of the more weak...the Lobbyists can buy outright like Tom Delay and others who made an EMPIRE out of the corrupt Lobbying. But, other weaker Dems..manage to do quite well without creating a Lobbying Empire.

Most of DC is about MONEY and THE GAME.... Scott McClellan's testimony pointed that out very well on Friday. :-( It's really bad out there with both Dems & Repugs involved. :-(

[hokies4ever]

18. Even Hillary and Obama voted for the 1-year moratorium on earmarks bill

It was obvious to everybody that it was a strategic vote to help their candidacy for President. All votes by McCain and Obama from now until the election must be viewed under that lens. Political posturing.

[KoKo]

19. I wonder if the question is...

when does "political posturing" finally end for us Democrats. Bush's rating is in the low 20's...Congress is even lower.

Does it take TOTAL COLLAPSE of AMERICA...and all of us residing here...to FINALLY get a Dem Candidate who isn't afraid of his own shadow?

WHEN DOES IT END? :shrug:

[hokies4ever]

21. Political posturing will always exist

as long as the other side has even a chance at winning the next election. Dumbya's administration has been absolutely horrible, yet many Americans are honestly thinking about voting Republican this fall. As long as people are still willing to vote Republican (or are telling pollsters that they are), candidates will always try to stake a claim at the center of the electorate.

[Tatiana]

22. Of course it's a strategy. And to take so much heat from the left, they must believe there is some

HUGE payoff.

Obama has been clearly, CONSISTENTLY AGAINST telecom retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping. If the right-wing wanted to attack him on this issue from a national security standpoint, they have PLENTY of material to work with.

So the only thing that makes sense, if Obama votes for the compromise (and that is a BIG "IF") is that this is an organized strategy.

Two points:

1) The Republicans forgot to add immunity against criminal lawsuits. If John Edwards is AG, I can totally see him pursuing action against the corporations that did not obtain the proper certification. This could be a reason for supporting the measure if the plan is to have the DOJ go after the telecoms.

2) This looks like a done deal. If Obama and the other Senators who are clearly against the telecom immunity manage to get the bill killed in the Senate, Obama will become a hero to the progressive base, he will earn a great deal of political capital/power, AND he will earn the respect of many independents/libertarians for defending the Fourth Amendment in the wake of enormous opposition and odds.

This is strategy; I'm just not sure what the exact plan is.

[kentuck]

23. " So, it's not really a capitulation. It's a strategy."

I'm sure it is. Just as the TIME article on down the page would suggest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3497321&mesg_id=3497321

[KoKo]

24. Thanks for posting this...it's an interesting read...seems it came from Pelosi, herself

to "Time" mag. Amazing she explains it to them...but not anyone else.

I think she's not being honest about FISA not being updated since the late 1970's, though. I imagine some of our bloggers will catch her out on that not being quite truthful and repeating a Repug lie. But, it's her rationale...

A snip...(but whole article is worth the read.) Thanks Kentuck for passing this along from another thread. :hi:

---------------

Letting the PAA expire was a risk — the Administration pilloried Democrats for being soft on terrorism. But Pelosi successfully parlayed it into specific improvements. For example, under Administration proposals, the telecoms would have received full retroactive immunity from lawsuits brought by civil libertarians alleging they violated the fourth amendment by complying with Administration requests to conduct wiretaps following 9/11. In negotiations with Pelosi's office, the telecoms offered a compromise: Let a judge decide if the letters they received from the Administration asking for their help show that the government was really after terrorist suspects and not innocent Americans.

Pelosi's negotiators felt that was a significant concession. The California district judge who will make the decision in such cases has been sympathetic to some of the civil libertarians' claims. And an adverse decision can be appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The telecoms are casting it as a victory, and Pelosi's aides acknowledge the telecoms are likely to win immunity in court. But they're getting less than they would have in A Senate version of the bill, and they will hardly have a free ride once litigation and lobbying fees have been added up.

Pelosi also got other improvements, including a review of and report on Bush's domestic surveillance program by the Justice Department inspector general and a provision making clear that Congress does not give the President a free pass on complying with domestic surveillance laws during wartime. "This bill strengthens Congressional oversight," Pelosi argues.

Pelosi had another reason for backing the compromise: unlike some on the left, she actually believes domestic surveillance laws needs updating in light of the new terror threats. "We can't go without a bill," she said on the House floor Friday, "That's simply just not an option." Existing U.S. surveillance law, passed in 1978, needs to be improved, she believes, not just to protect Americans at home but to protect U.S. troops in the field. "Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence," she said.

Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."