It's deeply disappointing because he didn't address the real issues that FISA-bill opponents have raised. He glided over them, stated his positions without addressing the reasons many of us feel betrayed (details after the jump).
That's what politicians do. They figure out their positions and repeat their talking points. They don't engage in honest dialogue. They avoid the difficult points.
We all hoped that Barack was something unusual: the politician who stood on principle to the maximum extent possible, who was as honest with us as a winning politician can be. Who was committed to a genuine dialogue with his supporters, to building a real movement for change from the ground up in which we could really trust him as a leader. But if he doesn't address the real problems people on the ground raise, if he ducks those issues, then he's not that guy.
I'll vote for him. I'll probably even give him money and work for him. I'll still hope for him to do something great. We desperately need a Democratic president. But if he won't take us on honestly, he's not that guy. And that's why his statement is so goddamn disappointing.
What are the issues that he failed to address in his statement?
(1) He has repeatedly promised to fillibuster any bill that had telecom immunity in it. (Documentation: TPM and Glenn Greenwald.) Now he's changed that position on us. But he doesn't address this fact, doesn't give us an honest rationale for this change. Instead, he pretends like there hasn't been a change.
Recall some of the reasons he promised to fillibuster (TPM link):
"Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect."
"We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient."
What exactly has changed about this?
Obama's statement addresses this only by saying immunity
"potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses"
(note that he no longer mentions the constitution or the idea that it's being undermined, or the principle that no one can ignore the law). He then says that's why he opposes immunity, and goes on
"But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year ... 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."
So now the principles, the undermining of the constitution, are less important than these surveillance tools. If he really believes that, I think we need an honest and much deeper explanation of why this is true now and it wasn't true before.
(2) The reasons the Democrats, and Obama, give for supporting this bill don't seem to hold water. Obama's statements give these reasons:
"The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."
But, as opponents have repeated over and over, the FISA law has said that since 1978. The problem is that the President asserted a constitutional right to ignore this law, and no one has stopped him. So amending the law to say "we really mean it this time" does not change or fix the problem. This has been pointed out over and over. Barack does not address it. Pretends like he's not aware of it.
"The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted."
OK, I don't discount it, it might give us a nice long written report on all the ways the law was broken. But that doesn't address that little problem about "undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect." Real accountability if it comes at all is going to come from lawsuits and/or criminal prosecutions. Criminal prosecutions are very unlikely (as Obama seems to make clear by telling us the Inspectors General report will be the accountability mechanism). This law ensures there will be no lawsuits. The message is clear: if presidents break the law, they will suffer from a written report explaining what they did, and those who cooperate with them will not suffer at all (but those who refuse to cooperate will suffer: remember what happened to Qwest). Those of us opposed to this bill don't see this as the kind of accountability that will prevent the same abuses from happening again. Obama talks about accountability but doesn't address how it will prevent this from happening again or protect the Constitution.
His third reason I've already mentioned, but here's the full quote:
"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."
Now, this is the only one that even has a chance of holding any water. Maybe those expiring orders are REALLY IMPORTANT, so important that we need to forget about little things like real accountability and pass a law that says Bush and those who cooperated with him all get off scot- and lawsuit-free so these precious orders don't expire. Well, if that's really what it's all about, don't we deserve a little attempt of an explanation of why this surveillance can't be done within the existing FISA law and why this surveillance is so important that it trumps all of his previous concerns about the constitution and his promises to fillibuster? Don't we deserve to be taken seriously enough to address this?
And let me add Glenn Greenwald's argument on this point:
"Craig paused for awhile and then said that he meant that the "warrants under FISA would expire in August," and Obama supported the FISA "compromise" to prevent that from happening. When I asked Craig if he was referring to the surveillance orders authorized by the Protect America Act that allow the Government to spy with no individual warrants (which have a one-year duration and do expire in August), Craig said that this is what he meant, and that Obama wanted to avoid having those surveillance orders expire.
While that last version at least generally comports with reality, it makes no sense whatsoever as an explanation for Obama's FISA position. Back in August, when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, Obama voted against the Protect America Act. Therefore, had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place? ... In the past, Obama has opposed the type of warrantless eavesdropping which those PAA orders authorize. He's repeatedly said that the FISA court works and there's no need to authorize eavesdropping without individual warrants. None of that can be reconciled with his current claim that he supports this FISA "compromise" because National Security requires that those PAA orders not expire and that there be massive changes to FISA."
And that's it. That's everything Obama says about FISA. The rest of his statement is about the importance of our passion and organizing and of holding leaders like him accountable and how we're going to have to work together with strong differences and how important it is to elect him rather than McCain. All the yadadada that would really mean something if he had really taken us seriously, really contended honestly with the points people are raising. Instead he glided by. It's still important to elect him rather than McCain. But until and unless he decides to relate to us with enough respect to honestly address our concerns, it's hard to feel nearly so passionate about it. And that's deeply disappointing.