"Better Than McCain" Isn't Good Enough: The FISA Sham

So that you don't accuse me of being racist, I’m going to change my opening sentence from: “Let’s call a spade a spade,” to “Let’s call a wanker a wanker.”

Disappointed over [Barack Obama’s] position on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the online activists feel jilted and betrayed and have taken to questioning his progressive credentials. One prominent blogger, Atrios, has even given him the moniker “Wanker of the Day.”

“He broke faith,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and blogger at OpenLeft.com. “Obama pledged to filibuster, and he is part of that old politics, in this case, that he said he wasn’t. It will spur us to challenge him.”

[...]

“I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution. I want to see him do it,” [Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos] said. “If he does, it will increase the intensity and level of support he gets from base Democrats. If he doesn’t, we may worry he is just another one of these spineless Democrats who are more afraid of controversy in doing the right thing than they are in actually doing the right thing.”

[...]

Obama’s statement was viewed as a reversal from a pledge last year to oppose any bill with retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

  CBS

Seen that way because that’s pretty much what it is.

Over the weekend, Barack Obama announced that -- although not in favor of the idea of retroactive immunity for the shady corporatations that helped our own government spy on us -- he supports the FISA legislation that the Senate is about to pass that will magically make all the illegal wire-tapping that the White House did legal after all.

But it's all alright, because he super double-dog swears that, as president, he won't take advantage of the power to watch over all of America like Big Brother...

  Indecision 2008

Glenn Greenwald goes after Keith Olbermann (and others) for giving Obama a pass on the issue:

Those who spent the last five years mauling Bush for "shredding the Constitution" and approving of lawbreaking -- only to then praise Obama for supporting a bill that endorses and protects all of that -- are displaying exactly the type of blind reverence that is more dangerous than any one political leader could ever be.

Amen.

Julian [Sanchez] goes through the changes to the bill one by one, and demonstrates what an absurd, and even insulting, farce it's been for the Democrats to call this some kind of victory. They opposed the original FISA bill because it allowed for warrantless surveillance of Americans and legal immunity for telecom companies who turn over information to the government. The revised FISA bill, as Julian explains, allows for warrantless surveillance of Americans and legal immunity for telecom companies who turn over information to the government. So there are two options here: Either the Democrats were lying about why they opposed the bill in the first place, or they're lying about having extracted meaningful concessions on the bill now. Whichever you choose, it's been a shameful, saddening performance.

  Ezra Klein

At least we still have Russ Feingold.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he opposed language in the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that likely would give retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telephone companies that complied with warrantless surveillance requests from the government, The Hill reported Thursday.

Because Feingold wants more time to delay consideration until after the Independence Day recess, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, "(it) doesn't look like" the Senate will consider the FISA bill this week.

  UPI

[W]iretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.")

  Slate

Feel better?

Read that Slate article. It explains “five myths” about the bill.

Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Myth No. 4: The Democrats must fold because of the November election.

Myth No. 5: The law will be the "exclusive means" for surveillance.

I'm sorry, but not particularly surprised, that Keith Olbermann is lock-stepping the Democratic candidate. Josh Marshall seems to be taking the tack to just not talk about it. The subject is conspicuously missing from today's posts.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.