Did Obama promise to filibuster any FISA bill containing immunity?

[wtmusic]

Several emails making the rounds suggest Obama promised to filibuster any FISA bill containing retroactive immunity.

Here is the statement released by Obama spokesman Bill Burton on 10/23/07:

"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

Far from it. Not only has the bill seen many changes since last October, but Obama's statement claims he would "support" a filibuster, implying it would have to be initiated by another senator.

Why Obama SHOULD filibuster H.R. 6304:

H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

[crickets]

1. Thank you. -nt

[Political Heretic]

2. That's good clarification, thank you.

The ACLU forces me to retract previous attempts at defense of Obama's statement about the good in the bill, and my post about previous promises to support a filibuster being cause to tell the critics to shut up.

Still though, from the perspective of political strategy, I know both what a tough spot the whole reintroduction of this bill right now puts the campaign in with us (the left) and I get the reasons why he's going to ultimately vote for it rather than be hung with voting against a "safe america" in a general election. :/

[Art_from_Ark]

3. If he were a real leader,

he would do the right thing and vote against it, and explain, being the Constitutional scholar he supposedly is, how this bill tramples on citizens' rights that are defined in the 4th Amendment

[Political Heretic]

4. I don't agree that would make him a "real leader"

You seem to define real leader as standing on principle regardless of outcome. The bill's going to pass with our without his vote. A "real leader" would get elected to the White House and not allow that to be sidetracked by bills that are going to pass anyway where a NO vote would mean GOP crucifixion for the next four months as weak on defense, weak on terror, naive on foreign policy, inexperienced and lacking the judgment to keep america safe.

I still send an email to the Obama campaign urging him to work to remove telecom immunity, and I even asked him to oppose a bill with telcom immuntiy in it - because its what my heart wants. But I head - the part that uses rationality rather than emotion, is going to be slightly relieved when he doesn't vote no.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. I disagree strongly

What is this shit about keeping powder dry for the election? Mr. Constitutional Scholar should know better than anyone how unconstitutional this FISA shit is, and as defacto leader of the Democratic Party (argh) he should make an effort to educate both his party and the public about this disastrous bill and take a real stand against it rather than offering up yet another lukewarm, namby-pamby approach to a real problem.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. In other words, Inquiring Mids: If Obama does not support or ask Dodd to filibuster, what then?

It means he lied about both the warrantless wiretap and immunity provision
being unacceptable to him.

He has already gone back and saying he's OK with warrantless wiretapping now
and doing so himself as President.

[dailykoff]

7. What a terrible terrible bill

Why doesn't he just come out and denounce the whole thing for the wretched scam it is??