Will Obama Continue Bush’s Secret Spying Agenda?
Is it conceivable that Obama will continue the secret surveillance tactics of the Bush Administration? Despite claims from my colleagues on the blog that Obama’s views on all things from puppies to Iran are perfectly clear and thoroughly outlined in his position papers, it appears that Obama’s views on NSA operations are unknown.
An article in today’s New York Times recounts Obama’s contradictory and confusing history with NSA operation legislation:
As a presidential candidate, he condemned the N.S.A. operation as illegal, and threatened to filibuster a bill that would grant the government expanded surveillance powers and provide immunity to phone companies that helped in the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants. But Mr. Obama switched positions and ultimately supported the measure in the Senate, angering liberal supporters who accused him of bowing to pressure from the right.
If Obama accepts Bush’s expansion of domestic surveillance powers, it will contradict the staunch beliefs of key allies like the ACLU and MoveOn.org.
But other legal and political analysts suggest that Mr. Obama, as president, may be more willing to accept the broadened presidential powers that he once condemned as a candidate, particularly since Congress has approved expanded surveillance powers for the government.
It will be interesting to see whether any shift occurs in both Republicans and Democrats regarding their views of NSA operations. If Obama accepts the broad presidential powers, Republicans may contradict their support for it and Democrats may contradict their disdain for it. If this happens, it will indicate that people did not have a principled opposition to invasion of privacy, rather Democrats had a problem with Bush having so much power and Republicans will have a problem with Obama having so much power. Either way, these are unprincipled positions. Laws are intended to be wielded by unnamed and anonymous actors, they should not be supported or written for one president or another. Why not? Because laws are intended to endure the course of many terms and many people holding the same office. I’m guessing that members of this blog will simply say that they place a greater trust in Obama when he is operating behind the curtain than they do in Bush. I support the domestic surveillance powers being used by both Presidents Bush and Obama.
Here’s a discussion from Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin on the pragmatic reasons why Obama supported the FISA Bill. His discussion includes a link to two of his relevant papers that are available for SSRN download.
Comment by Joshua on 18 November 2008 at 6:21 pm:
Billy, Rather that attacking the lack of nuance of this post, and going into the complexity of the issues at play, for now I only have time to post a message from Sen. Obama explaining his vote. I may write more on this thread later on, but I don’t have time this evening.
* * * * * * *
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I’m persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe — particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I’m happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States — a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples’ business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 18 November 2008 at 7:09 pm:
Yes, I’m aware of this memo and it is rather dull. I think that the greatest assault I made on Obama in my post was this quote:
“As a presidential candidate, he condemned the N.S.A. operation as illegal, and threatened to filibuster a bill that would grant the government expanded surveillance powers and provide immunity to phone companies that helped in the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants. But Mr. Obama switched positions and ultimately supported the measure in the Senate, angering liberal supporters who accused him of bowing to pressure from the right.”
Ironically, that’s a quote from the New York Times article. I’m personally comfortable with a politician changing his position, especially when a compromise bill has been hammered out. I have no problem with Obama switching positions, as the NY Times article claimed he did.
Comment by Buck B. on 19 November 2008 at 9:20 am:
At the very least, his likely choice for Attorney General seems to have the right idea.
Comment by F&M on 28 March 2011 at 1:42 am:
Although some of websites may contain with many spam information,as to yours,it is time worthy for you to frequently look throught of your blog which with connotation