This isn't really Deconstruction, in the critical sense of the word. It's more reading between the lines of Obama's statement on FISA. I've been an apologist for Obama on this site over the last few days. Sure, I've wanted a forceful statement out of him since last night, and the statement he's made doesn't satisfy me, anymore than it satisfies many of you. But let's give a close reading of this statement, reading between the lines to see what is there. Let's do it using as an analogous task the responsibility of writing letters of recommendation for people that we like, but who we're not thoroughly convinced is actually right for a job. Or the task of writing a letter of termination for someone when we genuinely like them and don't wish to crush their hopes of ever working in a particular field again.
"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."
This is an important paragraph in which to set context. He argues for the importance of FISA, and let's face it: FISA IS important. It's been working since 1976. The last sentence, though, is absolutely crushing. There is "little doubt" that the administration has subverted the constitution and "abused that authority" which resides with the executive branch. What I would argue here, and I hope I'm not just being a starry-eyed apologist, is that Obama will vote against telecom immunity, but will do so knowing that his position is hopeless. He is a presidential candidate, but he is also the junior senator from his state, and he doesn't have the clout to directly take on a majority leader in good standing, or a senior senator with the ability to call in favors across both sides of the aisle. So what Obama IS saying is that, when he is president, he will have his attorney general investigate the Bush administration for its abuse of authority and constitutional subversion here. The irony is that by granting the telecoms immunity, they can be compelled in discovery to reveal all manner of things that they would fight tooth and claw to avoid admitting if they were in the middle of a lawsuit. And immunity can always be granted with the understanding that any false statement by the immunized party--ANY false statement--removes the immunity grant. So Obama may be doing the best he can with what he has: he can't stop Democrats in bed with the big telecom firms from granting immunity, but he CAN send the message that when he is president, he fully intends to go after the administration officials who are ultimately responsible for the offense anyway.
"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 today 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 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. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."
Obama flatly calls the president's past conduct "illegal." If that isn't a red flag signalling that his administration will have a process server on permanent retainer down at the Crawford ranch, I can't imagine what would be. As many on this site have pointed out, Obama is the presidential nominee for our party. Feingold can bluster all he wants about the bill, but he is, and will continue to be, a legislator. Obama will be the chief executive. He is the enforcement wing. He will have the responsibility of indicating to his attorney general what areas the president believes the attorney general's department should concentrate on. Hmmmm....any doubts about how Obama feels about this administration's conduct in regards to FISA? Nope. Note to J.E.: download the Word 2007 subpoena template from the Microsoft site, and buy two extra boxes of paper when you're down at the Wal-Mart.
"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."
It's not all he would want because he personally doesn't want it, but he can't do a damned thing about it. He can't bitch about it publicly because he needs the powerbrokers in his party to not think he's a complete asshole (see Carter, Jimmy: really nice guy who pissed everyone off in Washington before he'd been there six months) before he even gets to the White House. He isn't going to say that as president, he's immediately going to work to reverse this, because then he looks like a complete doofus for winding up voting for it. But if you read the paragraph closely, it has the careful language of the supervisor who is about to drop the employee down the elevator shaft, but who wants to assure the employee that there is a spring mattress down at the bottom. He will "work with Congress" to "take any additional steps" to protect "the liberty" of the American people. Those additional steps will almost assuredly include making sure that any egregious abuses are taken out, and that the previous administration gets its day in court.