You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #20: Yes and no, that is why I also posted the Balkin piece, another [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Yes and no, that is why I also posted the Balkin piece, another
snip below. They are focusing on one aspect and while that may be important we should not lose sight of the balance of the bill as mentioned in the article below. Obama says he will monitor the program to ensure it does not violate our rights???

And as I've said over the past few days, and to a lesser degree back in February, if our party really wanted to defeat this bill, or strip the immunity clause, they could have rallied support from the American people in their travels across the country and interviews in the media.

To come in at the 11th hour and say 'I'll try' knowing full well 67 senators voted against removing the immunity clause in February is a little late IMO.

:shrug:


http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

"Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade.

Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill.
That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it. True, it might be nice to have retroactive immunity for the players who he will be working with in the future. But remember, he expects to be President, and he figures that his OLC and Justice Department can offer sufficient assurances of legality going forward based on the changes in the first part of the bill.

So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC