After the Obama campaign put out a statement from a spokesman on Senator Obama's position on a potential filibuster of bad FISA legislation and Senator Clinton herself was asked about it in a press availability, it's become clear that the consensus among the progressive bloggers who have been fighting long and hard on this issue is that the two just have not provided a clear answer on what they will do.
As the two statements were first being digested, Matt Stoller of Open Left wrote:
[A]t certain moments in history, principled clarity is what's required in a political leader. America is in a bad situation, and it's problematic that our leaders have and continue to betray us at all levels. I suppose clarity isn't required all the time, but it is surprising that neither Clinton nor Obama could offer clarity on such an obvious matter.
Big business shouldn't be allowed to break the law. It's not a tough call, and it doesn't require caveats.
This morning, Glenn Greenwald delivers a long, searing indictment of Obama and Clinton for failing to lead against retroactive immunity, let alone be clear about where they stand, in contrast to Chris Dodd's decisive leadership.
These statements are just manipulative and woefully insufficient. Leadership is about standing and galvanizing support for fundamental principles. And there just is no more fundamental issue than the rule of law principles and basic constitutional guaranteees that will be eviscerated -- still further -- if telecoms are granted retroactive amnesty and relieved of all obligations from having broken the law for years.
Amnesty will single-handedly ensure that the most transparent act of Bush law-breaking -- warrantless eavesdropping and illegal spying on millions of Americans -- will not only go unpunished, but will also remain un-investigated forever. Telecom amnesty will provide Bush and Cheney with full and virtually insurmountable protection from any consequences for their illegal spying. Sitting around hiding on this issue, playing fun semantic games, and clearly signalling a fear of being involved at all is actually grotesque, especially for candidates who claim that they are running in opposition to the excesses and abuses of the last six years.
The issue here for Clinton and Obama is clear and simple and permits no equivocation: Will you support a filibuster of any bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecoms for enabling the Bush administration to spy illegally on Americans? There is absolutely no reason why they should be unable to answer that question in a clear, straightforward and unconditional manner. What they ought to be doing is leading on this issue -- taking a principled stand for the rule of law and our constitutional liberties and leading the Senate in a filibuster to stop this travesty. But since they are leaving that to Dodd, they ought to at least issue a clear statement as to their positions here. [Emphasis in the original]
Greenwald goes further and reminds his readers that once Dodd took leadership on this issue by promising to place a hold, then a filibuster on a bad bill, Senator Biden unequivocally committed his support. That is, the question being asked, "Will you support a filibuster of any bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecoms for enabling the Bush administration to spy illegally on Americans?" is neither complex nor difficult to answer.
Scarecrow at FireDogLake continues the blogospheric push back by drawing distinctions between Chris Dodd's leadership and those that are grudgingly following along. He also notes that Senators Feingold and Biden were quick to stand with Dodd and goes on to write:
There’s a huge difference between people who are actual leaders and who happen to want to be President, and people who want to be President so they can be the leader. We’re seeing that difference right now in the debate over whether the FISA bill will award retroactive immunity to the telecoms for their complicity in the Bush Administration’s illegal spying programs.
...
These are the Democratic Party’s true leaders. They understand that defending the Constitution is their first duty as citizens and elected officials. They did not wait to see which way the wind was blowing or see what their colleagues (or other candidates) might say or check to see if they might be supported. They knew what needed to be said and done and that’s what they did.
I think all of these posts get at the outrage towards Senators Obama and Clinton for failing to state clearly where they stand on what is really an issue so fundamental that it still boggles the mind that we're even talking about it. Amnesty for telecommunications companies, as Greenwald noted above, will prevent us from ever finding out the full extent of what information these companies surrendered to the Bush administration and how far the government went in violating the privacy and civil liberties of the American citizenry in direct contravention to the law.
The fight to stop retroactive immunity is far from over. We know where Chris Dodd stands. We know many leading bloggers stand with him on this. If these posts are any indication, the netroots is not going to abandon this fight, either.
Comments
"would support a filibuster"
Is not the same as "will participate in a filibuster" or even just "will filibuster." Why is it so hard for politicians to use the simple future tense?
The conditional is a weasel tense. It's already clear to every minimally intelligent person that, since the future is unknowable, a commitment to do something in the future might have to be changed. So, why hedge the matter with additional possibilities and eventualities to begin with, if not to set a predicate for backing out.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the legality of wiretapping is the issue. The central issue is whether or not people (all people, not just American citizens and residents) have a right to privacy, to be free from government intrusion unless they've violated the law. There are already provisions in the Constitution and the law which cover even the reasonable suspicion that the latter is the case--i.e. that an intrusion is warranted. In which case, if an independent agent (judge) agrees, permission is granted and the intrusion proceeds.
That's the legal, constitutionally approved process. Another process, omitting the independent review, might be made legal, but would be unconstitutional. Indeed, that's what the most recent amendment to FISA is looking for--the elimination of the independent check.