Obama responds to FISA critics

Barak Obama has issued a response to those criticizing his position on the new FISA bill, which can be read here.

A few points:

Obama claims that the exclusivity provision included in the new bill will prevent future abuses. But the FISA already had such a provision, as indicated in yesterday's ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker (a ruling that rejected the administration's claims that the President has the authority to violate FISA. Glenn Greenwald has more on this ruling). The key point is that FISA was already the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance, and Bush violated it. So this "new" provision is worth exactly dick. Obama is either clueless in this matter, or he is distorting the truth.


Obama writes: "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." But the FISA court, under the new bill, would not have the authority to evaluate individual cases. All the FISA court has the authority to do is to evaluate the overall program, and they are required to certify the program if they believe that it doesn't, for the most part, target the communications of American citizens. So to say that this bill empowers monitors to "prevent abuses and protect the civil liberties of the American people" is overselling it substantially. Assuming that Obama has read the thing, he must realize this.

He writes: "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." These are, as Greenwald noted yesterday, orders that originated under the PAA, which Obama did not vote for, and thus, it stands to reason, didn't think were vital to national security. But Obama now claims that these surveillance orders are so vital that he will support "imperfect" legislation if that is required to keep them active.

Obama ends the letter with the following: "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." Certainly the economy, foreign policy, and the Supreme Court are important issues. But do they outweigh issues such as the rule of law, respect for the Constitution, and the civil liberties of the American people? Should Obama supporters be willing to trade the latter for a President who (according to him) agrees with them on the former?

I am sure that most of Obama's supporters will not be influenced by his FISA decision. They will vote for him because they perceive McCain as a worse choice (which he may be). But this is not merely some pet issue with which he disagrees with a segment of his base. This is a question of holding lawbreakers responsible for their crimes, of discovering the extent of Bush's lawbreaking, of setting a precedent which causes future Presidents to think twice before violating the law, and of securing the rights that are supposed to distinguish the citizens of the United States from the rest of the world.

Update: Obama's fans are furiously masturbating to this letter over on The Huffington Post. The responses include "Not to worry, Sen. Obama, we are still with you and knew you had a plan", "Well, I really would have loved this explanation sooner, but better late than never... my friends and I will unleash the cash again", "Obama 's focus is protecting the people of this country first and foremost", "That said, Obamas [SIC] FISA vote doesn't do much to change my vote. Obama is still 100,000,000,000,000 times better than the competition." Pathetic swine. -JRH

Lilypad Floating Habitats

Administration condoned Kurdish oil-deal despite official policy

Hunt Oil struck a deal with the Kurdish Regional Government despite the Administration's official stance. The State Department discouraged such dealings in an attempt to foster an Iraqi National Oil agreement which would hopefully help unite the regions of Iraq. Nevertheless, members of the Bush administration privately supported this move, going so for as to offer assistance if there was any trouble.

Ray L. Hunt, CEO Hunt Oil, is a major contributor to George W. Bush, and is a member of the latter's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

The President said that he knew nothing of the deal.