Cowardly Democratic Candidates Punt on FISA

The ancient Romans famously covered up the governmental shortcomings of their empire by the distribution of free bread and the holding of spectacles, including gladiatorial combat and the races in the circus. It's a cynical strategy that works, as we can see in our own country today. Recently we've had bread—in the form of the hastily-passed economic stimulus bill—and we've sure had a circus—the pathetic and hilarious hearings about Roger Clemens' butt. And amidst that clamor, as quietly as it could manage, the Senate passed the extension to FISA, including the provision that grants immunity to the telecommunications companies that complied with the totalitarian demands of the Bush administration. McCain voted in favor of telecom immunity. That was the wrong decision, but at least it was a decision. And what did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do? Those agents of change, those defenders of our liberties, those brave voices against theose who would turn our country into a dicatorship of the paranoid, didn't cast a vote at all. Clinton didn't even bother to show up.

No narrative of the telecom surveillance makes unqualified immunity a good idea. On the one hand, if these companies eagerly agreed to hand over the records of their customers without threat, then they clearly deserve to be held civilly (if not criminally) liable for the loss of privacy. If the companies were blackmailed or threatened into taking this step by overzealous agents of the government, then it seems a little less fair to expose them to liability. However, it is every citizen's duty to resist unlawful action of the state. The companies had an obligation to blow the whistle when confronted with this unlawful demand, not cave in to it like some spineless Democratic Senator. If they failed in this duty, then they deserve to get punished. Moreover, granting this blanket immunity greases the wheels for further abuses.

If the companies can prove that they believed themselves to be acting in good faith in compliance with a legitimate court order, then they should of course not be held liable. This, however, is a matter for the courts to decide, not the legislature. Including provisions of immunity for future cases where the FISA court orders the handover of such information is legitimate (the involvement of the court should not be optional), but granting immunity for past cases where the handover of data was not proper is not. At any rate, the propriety of the order ought be proven in court, not assumed by the Congress.

Even if you disagree with me on the issue, the fact remains that Obama and Clinton have been very loud about the abuses of the Bush presidency, and how they will change the way that Washington works. This vote belies those claims. It was a pure and simple act of political calculation. Obama and Clinton must have known that voting against FISA wouldn't help them politically—it would only get them points with people who already hate the current administration and its policies, a group of people unlikely to vote Republican in November. A "Nay" would almost certainly come up in the main election, framed by McCain as a vote against national security. Voting for the bill, on the other hand, could seriously dampen the enthusiasm of liberals, and would provide an opening if, say, Clinton voted for it and Obama either did not vote or took the chance of opposing. As a cynically calculated political strategy, only refusing to vote made any sense. But haven't both these candidates claimed to be different?

Clinton is the worse offender. Obama at least went in and consistently voted in favor of amendments to limit the more egregious provisions of the bill. At least he registered some kind of disapproval, even if ultimately he didn't speak up when the vote counted most. But when the issues came up, Clinton, who loudly attacked Obama for his number of "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, apparently didn't have a damn thing to say. Where was her leadership? Where was her devotion? What was she doing on February 12th that was more important than your civil liberties? Well, she was giving a speech in Texas, saying:

I believe that we need a president, starting on day one, who's going to roll up his or her sleeves and get to work.

Well, I guess it depends on what your definition of "work" is. Apparently, Clinton's doesn't include defending our liberties or performing her elected duties.

Liberals, lovers of the Constitution, haters of the Imperial Presidency, this vote is the sign that you are being taken for granted. This is the sign that this man and this woman are not who they say they are. They are the same spineless fools that ceded authority to Bush time and time again, and they are still afraid, still cowering in fear that they will be called weak on national security. Understand that these people would rather be known as enablers of tyrants than defenders of liberty. Understand that they are so afraid of the preception of weakness that they have lost their moral courage. Understand that all their pretty talk about change is just that—talk. They are the past. They are politics as usual. They are the problem they claim they'll solve.