creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
16 Feb 2012
President Obama Punts on US Deficit

In February 2009 — having signed into law his $787 billion stimulus package — President Barack … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
Obama Imposes Will in Contraception Compromise

From San Francisco, where I live, the controversy over the White House decision to require church-affiliated … Read More.

12 Feb 2012
To Make Women Safe, We Treat Them Like Children

The domestic-violence case against San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi did not start with a call from wife … Read More.

Wiretapping and Toe Tapping

Share Comment

Hey, it's politics. In the primary, when Barack Obama wanted to connect with his party's disaffected left, he said that he would support a filibuster to stop a reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act if it granted retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had cooperated with the federal government after the 9/11 attacks.

Now Obama has those voters in the bag. So he is reaching out to the majority of Americans who want aggressive international surveillance to prevent another terrorist attack.

And the average voter certainly isn't going to lose sleep if the price of that security is that the ACLU does not have carte blanche to sue AT&T for cooperating with the government.

Wednesday, Obama was one of 69 senators who voted for the FISA bill that provided retroactive immunity to the telecoms.

Obama called it "compromise." For his part, Obama also voted — wrongly, I think — in support of failed amendments to limit retroactive immunity. But at least he showed up to vote — which is more than you can say for John McCain, who was too busy campaigning. (It's true; McCain knew that if he skipped the vote, the FISA bill would pass overwhelmingly. Still, the Arizona senator passed up an opportunity to show the public his support for tighter national security.)

The passage of the bill brings to the fore the constant dynamic in Democratic politics during the Dubya years. Leading Democrats have used the wiretapping issue to discredit George W. Bush in a successful bid to lather up the lefties and win control of Congress. Now in power, they give Bush what he wants — on war funding and now the wiretap bill.

An open letter from 23,000 Obama supporters who had urged him to vote against the FISA bill asked the "change" candidate to at least make good on his pledge of a comprehensive review of the wiretap program, to revisit the bill if elected, and to "promise to use the full power of the presidency to expose the truth. A full investigation of Bush's illegal 'terrorist surveillance program' needs to be conducted by your administration."

Translation: If Obama promises to beat up on Bush from the Oval Office, Obamaphiles can overlook a vote that, to them, sold out their civil liberties.

Which they really, really care about.

The ACLU contends that the FISA Amendments Act is unconstitutional. Although the measure "prohibits the government from intentionally 'targeting' people inside the U.S.," read an ACLU statement, "it places virtually no restrictions on the government's targeting of people outside the U.S., even if those targets are communicating with U.S. citizens and residents."

Don't we want U.S. intelligence agencies to spy overseas? Isn't that what they're for? I asked ACLU attorney Melissa Goodman. She replied, "We think that the courts should be involved."

Bill language of course prohibits targeted surveillance of Americans without a warrant. Not good enough, Goodman argued, because "targeted" is not defined. The ACLU wants the courts on top of the safeguards of inspectors general and congressional oversight.

The ACLU warned that journalists could be targets, too. Goodman noted that in 2002, the FBI knocked on the door of author Lawrence Wright, as he was researching his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on al-Qaida, "The Looming Tower," and asked why his daughter had been talking to a Brit who was in contact with al-Qaida. She hadn't. He had been talking to a British lawyer who represented family members of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama's top lieutenant.

That's the downside of intelligence. Sometimes it's downright stupid. But tying the hands of intelligence isn't smart either. Bush has been right to fight suits against telecom companies that cooperated with federal officials.

ACLU attorney Harvey Grossman argued that phone companies broke a "social compact" with their customers when they handed information to the feds. And, he noted, they knew better. Grossman contended that lawsuits against Big Phone would have provided "accountability."

That's a word Democrats who voted against the bill used, too. And it's bunk. They don't want accountability. Bush was held accountable by voters, who in 2004 decided Bush would be better on national security, so they re-elected him.

Now Obama wants to be accountable, too — in the Bush way, that is.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am; Just tween you an me, Mr. Obama is playing for a lot of voters he will never, ever get. He will lose a boat load of democratic voters by trying to increase the power of the presidency into a virtual tyrant thinking it will be his power to enjoy. He deludes himself. You should point out how facile he is, and how pragmatic. The problem is that we are so polarized as a country that people can only get elected with their core strength; and yet to govern, and stand a chance of being re-elected he will have to govern to the middle. But, that is starting out badly, you know, giving up our rights to empower government. For that he needs to be canned before he is hired. That is the sort of thing I hate from the democrats, saying: We are the voice of the people. Sure. Strangle the cry for freedom and effective government in the throats of your loyal followers, and then say you are their voice. You know, and if you are honest, you will admit that the democrats are not one lick better than the republicans, and absolutly as perverted. The sooner we get rid of these corroded old parties the sooner we will have responsive democracy in our government. What do you think..., Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:04 PM
Ms. Saunders, nice dodge ball you are playing. I notice you have managed to get through a whole column of saleable innuendo without displaying what you really think, and I use the term "think" loosely. How about if we hold the house of journalism accountable? Do you really want these dysfunctional voyeurs snooping into your private affairs?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:20 PM
Re: Masako
Hey Mr. M. The attack on this country was a piddling little affair that would have hurt us very little if we had just shrugged it off and changed our ways slightly. I say this because we had every reason to believe the attack was afoot, and had enough controls in place, if taken seriously, to have stopped the attack. The problem is not the soldiers of Islam; but with our own entrenched bureaucracies, police, and otherwise. Why should this piddling meaningless defeat of 911 have led to our great defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why should it justify the defeat of the whole American people by our own blind and power hungry government. We have invited tyranny into this land out of fear, just as we invited the enemies of this country in out of greed for our own exported capital. The whole thing is nonsense; and Mr. Obams is proving bit by bit that he is as stupid and greedy for power as any other politician. He has a long way to go to get my vote now when he had it locked up a few months back. What a jerk.
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:08 PM
Re: James A, Sweeney Yes, he's tacking to the right, as Maureen Dowd put it yesterday. I understand your concern. There is a disturbance in the force, Luke. But I think it's a little too early to write Mr. Obama off. You can't pull a hard reverse on a big ship in rough seas. You have to work with forces bigger than yourself and ease the wheel around. He has yet to prove whether that promise of bringing us to a spirit of teamwork in this country is real, but he hasn't had the opportunity, and he never will if he can't get himself elected. Your alternative is McCain or Nader, or perhaps the famous Nobody.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:41 PM
Re: Masako; That man must be hiring some high priced help if he feels confident enough to start the sort of crap he is without a point. It is too bad his wife never taught him to shut up. He had it won, and to try to make points with people who will never vote for him he is antagonizing the blacks who put him over the top. All he has to do is say: I'm not a republican; but Every time his mouth opens his negatives rise. Who the hell is he to patronize black folks. Do you think they want to suffer so many failed relationships? Does he understand the sort of economic pressures they are under, or what is the standard behavior of all in their community? Or why it is so? To act like it is a simple matter of choice is as patronizing as saying pull yourself up by your boot straps. If he does not understand how badly he is ruining his chances with no chance of gain from the right or center then he is a damned fool. I can't stand Hilary; but she is starting to look like a real candidate again. If I were any black super delagate to that convention I would pull my support from the man and tell him to go to hell. He reminds me of a poem I once read of a man who spent all his life trying to prove he was not black and when he died they called him a credit to his race. That is what some whites are going to say about Mr. Obama; but they will never say he was president. I think when democrats go to bed with democrats that they must breed idiots. Or something. What do you think
Comment: #5
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:01 PM
Re: Masako;
Dysfunctional Voyeurs? Is that another French word for damned tyrannical criminals? Are we going to allow our government to saddle us with a gestapo while we sit back and watch? When did our rights begin to count for absolutely nothing? I don't see it. If we are giving up one single right in order to kill or capture them we have already lost the war, and they have succeeded in injuring us far worse than the flights on 911. Best. Sweeney
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Re: James A, Sweeney I think you're too hard on him. I understand your feelings but he's the best we've got right now, and that's a hell of a lot better than the alternative. He's not stupid and he's not greedy, but he is getting disturbingly cocky. The best message we can give him is to remember his humility.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Masako
Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:37 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

16 Oct 2007 The Dean Wing of the Republican Party

5 Aug 2010 The Judge Has Spoken -- Whether You Like It or Not

14 Oct 2010 Big-Bucks Whitman Versus Bike-Lane Brown