in Politics, Rant

Obama’s form-letter response about FISA

I wrote the Barack Obama campaign expressing my displeasure with his flip-flop on the Senate FISA bill. I got the following canned reply in response. Figured I’d post it to save y’all the trouble.

Form letter or not, it doesn’t cut it. Obama says “trust me.” That doesn’t cut it, folks. Not for me. I’ve had enough with having to trust kings.

As a former cryptographer I’m intimately familiar with the safeguards put in place on this activity. They’ve worked well for decades. “Grave threats” are not enough reason to chuck the Bill of Rights, our biggest safeguard of all.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.

We appreciate hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Obama for America,


Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.

  1. This was disappointing. I have come to accept that candidates won’t be perfectly in line with my views; but, I have to say that this was very disappointing. My understanding is that the new law essentially restores the rule of law by removing any real check on what they can do or accountability for what was done in the past. Go rule of law!

    It isn’t as if there was another choice for a champion. Better than the it’s all good, what me worry guy, McBush.

  2. Yeah, when the law’s inconvenient … change the law!

    I’m still voting for Obama. I’m just not actively promoting him anymore.

  3. The more troubling thing is that his statement “It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance” is completely and utterly wrong. FISA already had that power and this bill doesn’t give it back to FISA but rather takes some of it away and gives it to Inspector Generals in various places.

    If what he said were actually true, I could stomach it more, but the lying really bothers me. 🙁

Comments are closed.