Prominent civil liberties activist sides with Obama on FISA

[geek tragedy]

Not sure I agree, but it's certainly evidence that someone can disagree with the party's base on this FISA bill without being a closet fascist or Vichy Dem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08halperin.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

TWO years ago, I stated my belief that the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program and disregard for domestic and international law poses a direct challenge to our constitutional order, and “constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon.”

That was not a casual comparison. When I was on the staff of the National Security Council, my home phone was tapped by the Nixon administration — without a warrant — beginning in 1969. The wiretap stayed on for 21 months. The reason? My boss, Henry Kissinger, and the director of the F.B.I., J. Edgar Hoover, believed that I might have leaked information to this newspaper. Even after I left government, and went to work on Edmund Muskie’s presidential campaign, the F.B.I. continued to listen in and made periodic reports to the president.

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate had already passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

What’s more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.) Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn’t perfect. But I also believe — and here I am speaking only for myself — that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason, it has my personal support.

[geek tragedy]

1. Any comments?

Anyone care to accuse this guy of being a Bush-loving flunky?

[atreides1]

5. But

It still provides immunity to telcos that broke the law at the request of the White House? This can happen again under any president, Democrat or Republican.

What lessons will the telcos learn if they know that all they need is for the president to indicate that spying was done at his/her request and then apply the State Secrets Act to any and all information about the wiretapping.

While Mr. Halperin may have been a victim of the paranoia of the Nixon administration, I place more faith in the ACLU then I do to one individual.

I'm sure he thinks that it's the right thing, but I respectfully disagree with him and Senator Obama.

[geek tragedy]

7. Telco immunity is a bad thing, but not the end

of the Republic. The problems began and ended with the DOJ.

[John Q. Citizen]

39. No, the Republic has been gone for awhile. This is just another step toward empire.

[blogslut]

2. Exactly

The recent FISA compromise (passed by the house) is better than the Protect America Act version. It is not perfect but it is better.

FISA can be amended and amended and amended. This is how our laws work. This version will change with a new administration and the 111th Congress. If we elect overwhelming Democratic majorities, as well as a president Obama, FISA will be amended for the better.

But don't take it from me. Take from Mr. Halperin - #8 on Nixon's enemies list.

[yardwork]

3. Very interesting. Thank you.

That fact is that the corporations have this country in a stranglehold and it's not possible right now to take them on and hope to be elected president. Our best hope is to elect Obama and more Democrats in Congress and eventually do an end-run around the corporations by passing some legislation with teeth.

I don't like it but that's where we are. Obama can hurl himself against the corporations and end up where Edwards and Kucinich are, or he can use a strategic approach, which is what he's doing.

[MarjorieG]

4. Realizing there's honest FISA disagreement, there is more unwilling to see.

The blogmeisters are more concerned with their own voices and status as so-called progressive voices. Often more trouble-maker than of conscience.

[madfloridian]

6. That is what Steny Hoyer said....it is to keep the Blue Dog Dems from voting Republican

Hoyer: FISA bill passed to keep the Blue Dogs from demanding a stronger bill. Absurdity.

What an effing pathetic excuse. They are giving the government more powers so the Republicans and Blue Dogs who claim to be Democrats won't do it first??????

It is a cowardly act that sells out privacy rights.

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

So call me a purist or what the hell ever....there are too many groups and too many constitutional lawyers who oppose this.

[geek tragedy]

9. Steny sucks, but it's very possible that he's telling the truth.

The Blue Dogs wouldn't think twice about voting for that discharge petition.

[madfloridian]

11. Then we cave in. Just like Iraq. Just like all the other stuff.

And then we rationalize the hell out of it.

We had to do it because something worse might happen.

Bull Hockey.

[cliffordu]

8. Thanks for posting this. The panic stricken among us really should take the time

to read this.

[1Hippiechick]

23. The sky-is-falling martyrs are the very ones who WON'T grasp the significance of this. n/t

[madfloridian]

25. What IS the significance.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

29. 27 groups are wrong...and Halperin is right. So be it.

That is insulting to me.

[madfloridian]

10. We are rationalizing this cave in away....just like we did Iraq.

I feel like I have been kicked in the stomach again. Every cave in, every sellout...rationalize it away.

[geek tragedy]

12. Is Mort Halperin a sellout capitulator?

Or is it possible that there's more nuance than what one reads on blogs?

[madfloridian]

13. Oh hell, yes...nuance. There's the key.

We are going to "nuance" ourselves in to Iran as well.

And someone will post at DU that we really really had to do it.

[vaberella]

14. There are DUers who have done the same. MERH for instance...

has supplied pratical and knowledge arguments in support of FISA amongst a lot of dergatory name calling and mistreatment on this thread. Plus, unlike so many of the counter posts, he uses the language of the FISA bill in order to clarify and give evidence to his stance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3570855

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6464503&mesg_id=6464707


http://fisa.wikispot.org/Front_Page

[madfloridian]

15. Then you need to question all of these groups...27 groups oppose the bill strongly

Bob Barr Rips FISA and its Supporters June 22, 2008

Video

Here are the groups who have worked together to try and stop this bill.

And when one man comes out in favor...it does NOT negate the views of these groups.

The proposed bill would grant unnecessary and unconstitutional powers to the Executive Branch. We urge you oppose it, and to vote against any legislation that contains the defects described above.

Thank you for considering our views.

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Arab-America Anti-Discrimination Committee

Association of Research Libraries

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Center for Democracy & Technology

Center for National Security Studies

Congressman Bob Barr, Liberty Strategies

Defending Dissent Foundation

Doug Bandow, Vice President for Policy, Citizen Outreach Project

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fairfax County Privacy Council

Friends Committee on National Legislation

League of Women Voters of the United States

Liberty Coalition

MAS Freedom

OMB Watch

Open Society Policy Center

OpenTheGovernment.org

People For the American Way

Privacy Lives

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Multiracial Activist

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

Democratic Underground is rationalizing this bill now.

[geek tragedy]

16. My point is that maybe, just maybe, there is

a rational point to be made for a bill that a majority of Democrats are supporting.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. A majority of Dems voted against this bill. Go check Tomas about the House vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Exactly. The group that Halperin works for is against the legislation. So is Haliprin, but

he is coming from a place of fear.

He's afraid that the current Democratic Controlled house and Senate could and would pass something worse. So the fear that they may pass something worse is the driving force behind his argument.

Read the whole piece.

Halprerin states he is only speaking for himself, as an individual. That's because the group he is with has come out against the bill.

[madfloridian]

18. Like we went to Iraq out of fear. When do we quit giving in to fear.

.

[shagsak]

22. if all of these groups oppose it,

how is it that this bill has been around for years and is STILL here? Shouldn't someone have done SOMETHING by now besides talk?

Obama is doing both. He is voicing his disapproval, and he is trying to do something about it.

[grantcart]

19. It is clear that the bill is a much more involved piece of legislation than what has been previously

reported.

And while the emotionally driven critics will attempt to spam reasonable discussion by simply citing long lists of authorities, it should be noted that in fact doesn't actually help disucssion of what is actually in the bill.

It has been previously reported but completely ignored that the bill establishes Congressional oversight, for the first time, thereby moving the authority from the exclusive territory of the executive branch to one with more accountability.

In all the threads on the subject this is the first time that I have heard that for the first time the government will now have to seek warrants to conduct surveillance of Americans overseas. That in fact is significant.

The simple fact that the bill is so confusing (as a number of critics have pointed out) is reason enough to call it a bad bill. There are other obvious problems with it and telecom immunity is not even in the top two. Halperin makes interesting points but there is another that is even more obvious: Failure to pass an operational PAA bill would have given the Republicans their biggest propoganda victory that the Democratic Congress and Senator Obama could use the power they have to participate responsibly on finding away to establish a legal mechanism for national security survelliance.

There are constitutional issues, legal issues, governmental issues, national security issues and finally political calculus that have to be taken into effect. In anticipation of those that wish to see it as a simplistic, easy to call issue simply because the ACLU says its so, the ACLU is in a position to take the most theoretical advocacy possible because they are unconcerned with both the actual functioning of the programs or winning the election. Should Senator Obama win the election his 86% ACLU will not only be the highest of any elected President but probably double or triple of the Reagan/Bush/Bush. In any case, when it comes to balancing these different realities I trust Senator Obama more than any other authority, if for no other reason that he has already articulated so many other actions he intends to take to restore Constitutional balance, including reviewing every single signing statement issued by President Bush.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Wow, whenever I've defended the Obama on FISA here, I've been attacked

and labeled such things as a Nazi, closet fascist or Vichy Dem.

[1Hippiechick]

24. Sorry I didn't see your posts, because I would have been in your corner all the way....

You just have to realize that there are some "mad" self-righteous people in here who would rather :rant: about how they have been wronged rather than stopping and listening to reason. It's almost as bad as listening to the self-righteous right.

[woolldog]

40. Call them out on the fact they haven't read the bill.

It is much more complicated than the knee-jerk reactions of some would indicate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6458874&mesg_id=6460571

[madfloridian]

26. I bet if you tried, you could think of more creative names

for us.

:shrug:

[redqueen]

30. What are you talking about?

[mloutre]

27. Yep. I posted this Morton Halperin op-ed over in GD earlier this morning, but it sank

So thanks for bringing it back up over here, GT.

My OP in GD about quoted from a detailed reply to FISA bill concerns by Senator Feinstein too, so feel free to check it out and, (Goddess forbid) drop a rec or a comment on that thread over there if you want people who don't read this forum to see it in General Discussion anyway:

Feinstein, Halperin: why the compromise FISA bill sucks less

[1Hippiechick]

31. The problem with so many topics - can't get to all of them.Thanks for listing here - I went, posted

[slipslidingaway]

32. Most people in Congress do even know the extent of this

wiretapping program, which makes it extremely difficult to put in place safeguards for this program, much less grant immunity.

:shrug:


In the end, it comes down to who do you trust more on this issue.

For me that is Senator Feingold who called the bill a capitulation and not a compromise.

The Bush administration loves this bill, Senator Bond said they got more than they had ever hoped, I think I'll run in the other direction.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Compromising the Constitution - Editorial

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.html?hp

"Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage — if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

The Senate should reject a bill this week that would needlessly expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans and ensure that the country never learns the full extent of President Bush’s unlawful wiretapping...


...Proponents of the FISA deal say companies should not be “punished” for cooperating with the government. That’s Washington-speak for a cover-up. The purpose of withholding immunity is not to punish but to preserve the only chance of unearthing the details of Mr. Bush’s outlaw eavesdropping. Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Restoring some of the protections taken away by an earlier law while creating new loopholes in the Constitution is not a compromise. It is a failure of leadership."

[madfloridian]

34. Thank you.

.

[slipslidingaway]

36. YW n/t

[Eric J in MN]

35. I never heard of "Morton H. Halperin"...

...or "the Open Society Policy Center" before.

I've been a supporter of civil liberties for decades.

I'm skeptical about how "prominent" he is.

[John Q. Citizen]

38. The Open Society Policy Center opposes this FISA bill. Halperin is speaking for himself, not his Org

[slipslidingaway]

37. And they side with Bush, somehow that is not comforting...

:shrug: