the gookins dot net

Since I ragged on John McCain a few weeks ago for his support of warrantless wiretapping, I guess it’s only fair that do the same for Obama.

All through the primary season, Obama made it clear that he did not support amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to grant the telecoms immunity for participating in Bush’s clearly illegal and unconstitutional program to spy on Americans under the guise of protecting us from terrorists.

Now however, he is waffling. On Friday he announced that he supports the FISA bill that just passed the House, which includes immunity for the telecoms. Obama says he will try to get the immunity provision removed in the Senate version, but this already reeks of an empty promise. Here’s what he had to say in February:

“…refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.”

His current statement lacks the same conviction:

“It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. 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.”

Then there’s the matter of warrantless wiretapping. Obama says:

“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.”

But others disagree with this. The ACLU says the bill would:

“allow for the mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States.”

Maybe Obama is implying that warrantless wiretapping will continue, but it just won’t be illegal anymore. Obama even seems to imply that it will be OK because he’ll be president, and we can trust him:

“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.”

There are a couple problems with that. First of all, it assumes he will win the election in November. If he keeps pulling this kind of crap, that is going to be less and less likely. Second, and most importantly, wiretapping US citizens without a warrant is still unconstitutional regardless of what the idiots in Congress pass, and regardless of who is president.

I can understand that Obama is trying to win an election and now that it’s down to him and McCain, there will be a battle for the centrist swing-voters, and so he’s very purposefully shifting further to the right. This completely goes against the reason so many people support him. If we wanted a candidate who shifts positions based on nothing more than what will win the election, we would have nominated Hillary Clinton. We want a candidate who isn’t afraid to make a principled stand.

I also understand that political leaders sometimes have to compromise to get things done. Fine. But compromise on the budget, or healthcare, or monkeys on spaceflights, but don’t compromise on my constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.