On February 26, 2008, Senator Barack Obama said:

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.

(Emphasis supplied.) That was then. What about now Senator Obama? Please also note that in October 2007, Obama's spokesman said:

To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.

Via MYDD:

"Anybody who claims this [FISA Capitulation bill] is an okay bill, I really question if they've even read it." "Democrats enabled [this]," Feingold went on. "Some of the rank and file Democrats in the Senate who were elected on this reform platform unfortunately voted with Kit Bond who's just giggling he's so happy with what he got. We caved in."

Glenn Greenwald has video:

Of all the strange defenses to the FISA capitulation, I find the one Kevin Drum uses here one of the strangest:

Like everyone else in the liberal blogosphere, I think retroactive immunity is a bad idea that sets a bad precedent, but as I've mentioned before, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die defending.

Where did the idea that fighting against granting amnesty to AT&T was political suicide come from? Hell, there is no hill to defend here politically. Indeed, the Democrats, and Obama especially, have caused themselves unnecessary political grief with this craven act. Of course, I happen to think it is a principle worth fighting for anyway, but where in Gawd's name is Kevin Drum getting the idea that stopping amnesty for Big Telco is a political loser? Kevin is making that up. It may not be a political plus, I think it is, but it surely is not a political minus, much less political suicide.

Speaking for me only.

Let's hold him to this October 2007 promise:

Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

(Emphasis supplied.) If Obama does not filibuster telecom immunity, it proves his commitments can not be trusted. That he will say and do anything to win, even if he does not mean it. A test for Obama's credibility is at hand.

Speaking for me only

As I posted below, Barack Obama said:

I will work in the Senate to remove this [telecom immunity] provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses...

"Work" MUST include leading a filibuster of the Steny Surrender bill. I am saying that a vow to remove this provision includes a vow to filibuster the Steny Surrender bill. He made that very vow in April. I am holding him to it.

If he breaks that vow, it will be more evidence that Obama is not a man of his word. Most pols are not. But I will certainly rip him if he backs down on protecting the Constitution. Let's see what he does.

Speaking for me only

..."Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses....

Entire statement below the fold.

Via TPMCafe:

[A] reporter asked specifically about Obama's position. "I better check on that. . . ," [Robert] Gibbs said. "I honestly -- that's what I need to work on, as well." It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party, but he has yet to say anything on such a crucial public issue. Obama has in the past opposed lawsuit immunity for the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping, but neither he nor his campaign have commented on his position for the latest bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) I smell a "present" vote coming.

Speaking for me only

Caroline Frederickson of the ACLU:

It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution. [MORE]

Via Greenwald:

Not even the media establishment and the GOP can refrain from mocking this pretense they're trying to peddle. What's amazing is that they're actually as devoid of dignity as they are integrity.

. . . [T]he GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get. To The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a "formality" which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: "I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."

(Emphasis supplied.) Everyone, Dem or Republican, is contemptuous of you Surrender Steny and Clueless Pelosi. You look like the weak dupes you have become.

Speakng for me only.

The FISA debate (better known as Steny's Surrender) begins now. The rule is for a 1 hour debate and one motion to recommit. This is an outrageous rule.

The debate begins now on C-Span. Mike Arcuri (D-NY) will manage the surrender. I will live blog it below.

The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.

-Barack Obama

That would be a great line to use in a denunciation of the Steny Surrender on FISA.

What Obama has actually said about Steny's Surrender on FISA? This - _______________. We still hear the crickets. Not surprisingly, President Bush (pdf) strongly supports Steny's Surrender. Bush on TV now praising the just passed no strings Iraq War funding bill and the Steny Surrender bill. Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski label this a "humiliating defeat" for the Democrats. They are right.

The House will be debating the Steny Surrender today. C-Span will cover it.

Speaking for me only

Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace:

Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. . . . [It] is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. . . . So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support. I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way.

(Emphasis supplied.) What a dishonest statement. The bill "empowers" the District Court to rubber stamp the fact that the President asked the telecoms to break the law. And Pelosi is proud of this. What a disgrace.

Speaking for me only