Obama flip-flops on telecom immunity

Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from liberal supporters for changing his position on granting phone companies involved in President Bush's domestic spying program retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws.

According to a New York Times article published Wednesday, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on Obama's own campaign Web site to protest his recent move to support legislation that will grant legal immunity to phone companies involved in the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program after the September 11 attacks.

Sen. Barack Obama

(Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET News.com)

Previously, Obama opposed any immunity for the telecom companies. In February, Obama voted on a Senate bill against retroactive immunity. And when asked for CNET News.com's 2008 Technology Voters' Guide whether he supported "giving (phone companies) retroactive immunity for any illicit cooperation with intelligence agencies or law enforcement, " he answered "No."

During the primary, Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the Times story said. But now he has switched his position to support a compromise bill that was worked out between the White House and Democratic Congressional leaders.

The bill is expected to be voted on by the Senate on Tuesday after the Fourth of July holiday, the article said.

Disappointed Obama supporters told the Times that they see the shift in the telecom immunity issue as a test of Obama's principles in opposing Bush's surveillance program. The article quotes Markos Moulitsas, a blogger and founder of DailyKos.com, as saying that he has decided to cut back the amount of money he gives to the Obama campaign.

While supporters may be frustrated and angry by Obama's apparent flip-flop on this issue, they won't find any more consistency in Sen. John McCain, Obama's presidential opponent on the Republican side.

My colleague Declan McCullagh pointed out in his blog last month that when news about the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program became public years ago, McCain was critical of it. Initially, he said that the courts should decide whether or not AT&T and others accused of violating laws should be held accountable for their participation in the domestic spying program. He also said publicly that it should be made clear to the phone companies that any immunity granted should explicitly state that this was not a "blessing" of their practices and that there should be oversight hearings on the issue.

But over the course of the campaign, McCain's position has changed. In February, he voted for retroactive immunity--even though there were no explicit statements telling AT&T and other telecommunications companies that this is not a "blessing." And there was no deal providing for "oversight hearings," nor were there "provisions" to ensure this won't happen again.

[Pete Bardo]

While I admire Obama's willingness to change his mind and his ability to compromise, this is probably the wrong issue for this demonstration. But, from my point of view, someone needs to be held accountable for this intrusion. If we let the telco's off the hook, we should put the DOJ and Bush in the hot seat for a while.

[fafafooey]

Of course with the Obamassiah, you aways get the "well they all do it" defense when he gets caught. And the Husseiniacs in the Democrat-Media Complex (like DNC|Net.com) have no problem with letting him get away with it - he's their guy.

[robvme]

Expect more of this from the so called candidate of change. Obama is going to find out real fast that he is going ot have to change his position on many of the things he thinks he can affect. This is just one more piece of proof that he is too naive and inexperienced to really know what he is talking about when he makes all of these promises for change.

Its a pity that in this great nation that our two choices for president don't represent the best we have to offer. I wish we could have the enthusiasm of Obama with the experience and realism of John McCain. Its pathetic that we don't have a single great mind that wants to serve or would be allowed to serve. That is the real change we need.

[zizzybaloobah]

I'm glad I'm Libertarian. =^)

[nachurboy]

Has there ever been a candidate that hasn't changed positions or not fulfilled their promise? The old saying "You can't please all the people all the time" rules in politics. And I don't think it's naivete or inexperience for someone to change their positions (I'm not suggesting this particular position is right or wrong). Leaders have to be given the latitude to compromise as well as reassess their situation. Otherwise you get in situations like we're in today: inflexibility and no progress through no compromise. I'd prefer a candidate that can make good long-term decisions with minimal short term consequences. I don't care if they change positions as long as there's a good reason.

[wireless_worker1]

According to some in the News Media who have looked into this issue in a little more detail. The "compromise" only give Immunity for civil lawsuits.

AKA Criminal charges are not out of the question and are completely viable.

" 'During the January 24th, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, "The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases."

In fact, Senator, just last week, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter, for the record, to House Speaker Pelosi emphasizing that the liability protection, quote, "does not immunize any criminal conduct.' "

Source - http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/30/1176870.aspx
Special Comment by Keith Olbermann - Monday June 30th, 2008

Read the full comment and you'll see that there's more to this story then meets the eye.
Thanks CNET for reporting half the story!

[SharpFocus]

I just knew this blog would turn into a political rag when they sold it out last month.
I used to use it as my home page ? informing me of the latest scientific breakthroughs in energy, computers, robotics, engineering, research, transportation, health information, new product data and unbiased reviews without the political crap. Keep this up and I?ll go elsewhere for my techie news!!!! And so will everyone else who isn?t part of your socioeconomic, religious, racial, political mind set! Don?t screw up a good thing. I don?t care who you vote for or how you live your life ? Just Evaluate and Report Technology News - Period!!!!

[The_Decider]

As long as Obama states that he is going to go after the Bush administration and the telcos on criminal charges then it is not a bad move. For those who do not know, there is no criminal immunity in this bill.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Sen. Barack Obama is taking heat from liberal supporters for changing his position on granting phone companies involved in President Bush's domestic spying program retroactive immunity for breaking federal laws...." One very simple question: Is "Sen. Barack Obama" a "Good Shepherd" who would stay up all night to protect the lives of "his" sheep? Lest We Forget 9/11!

[rcrusoe]

Big surprise, he's a politician. Of course, he's going to flip flop on the issues. IMO, any person willing to do what is necessary to be elected President of the United States is not the kind of person you want in the Oval Office.

[sciontcya]

He's "re-calibrating" folks.
Don't you get it?
You can only flip-flop if you're a Republican.

LOL - change my azz.

[mikemis1]

Are we being had? There may be no immunity from criminal charges, but the level of proof required in criminal cases is much higher than in civil cases. This is relevant, since the government holds the cards, and can (and likely will) declare the information needed to actually obtain a conviction sensitive and therefore not available to the public. This tactic has certainly worked to perfection so far in related cases....

[M C]

Retroactive immunity = moot.

Unconstitutional.

And I would expect the kind of lawyers (i.e., very good) hired by a huge telco to press that issue fully.

[Tergon]

A'ight I agree with Pete Bardo's Comment " admire Obama's willingness to change his mind and his ability to compromise"

Here's the Thing I Also do not think they should be immune from criminal prosecution; as prosecution is the first step toward "flipping a witness," but Civil lawsuits (even those brought by people actually wronged/spied upon) would become so extreme in amount that they would (or rather could) cause a destabilization in the telecom industry; or at least a backlash of taking it out on customers through higher bills or employees through firings (see Airline and Housing Industries). Also seeing as both candidates "changed their minds" after Senate debriefings maybe they learned something confidential that The American Public cannot at this time be privy to. While I do believe in Government Transparency I also know that a clear as glass Government is a Ideal vision that does not take into account "enemies of the State"

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Retroactive immunity = moot. Unconstitutional. And I would expect the kind of lawyers (i.e., very good) hired by a huge telco to press that issue fully..." So, if those "lawyers (i.e., very good)" are "protected" by "Super-Sonic" Fighter Squadrons that can take-off in, let us say - 1' 30"....... seconds (and counting) and headed for their targets.... just where will the friends and families of those "lawyers (i.e., very good)" be if the "naval... intelligence" could not have been obtained "in time". You make the story of the "Little Shepherd Boy and His Sheep" comes to mind. (Substituting those "lawyers (i.e., very good)" for the older Shepherds who viewed the remnants of the Little Shepherd Boy's flock after it was devoured by the "wolves"!

[WJeansonne]

A leopard never changes his or her spots. Just like a true politician, they will say or do anything to get elected, and B. Hussein Obama is no exception. I'm certain this fella is going to be fleshed out in time for the election and do away with all this mumbo jumbo being spouted by Obama. And for those who aren't familiar with the term "mumbo jumbo", here's an explanation.

Mumbo Jumbo, or mumbojumbo is an English phrase or expression that denotes a confusing or meaningless subject. It was coined during the time when Great Britain was colonizing areas of the globe inhabited by native tribes that practiced what seemed to the foreigners mysterious and puzzling rituals which were then called "Mumbo Jumbo", after a supposed idol. --Wikipedia

[hughbristic]

Well, now that he has wrapped up the Democratic nomination, he is taking a page from the Clinton handbook and "triangulating". We see it with this and his recently-announced support of faith-based initiatives. I'm glad I'm so jaded that I didn't get my hopes up based on his vaguely-worded promises of "Change we can believe in". Still, I was impressed that he had voted against telecom immunity bill originally. I should have known it was just a jog left to appeal to the base before the general election. Funny that others in this forum should accuse him of naivete. Oh well, I guess it is another year of holding my nose as I pull the Democratic lever at the polls.

[summershoe]

This is disappointing. McCain appears to have been replaced with a Republican puppet body double (I had been a McCain fan for years) and now Obama drops the ball on what I consider to be one of the most important issues going through congress this year, after being the only candidate to take the right (correct) side on this issue. A year ago I would have been comfortable voting for any of the 3 candidates. Why does the campaign season do this to people? If he thinks this is going to get him votes I don't know who he thinks he's winning over, and it doesn't seem like he's doing it to butter someone up for campaign money since that doesn't seem to be a problem for him. Why Obama?

[markdoiron]

The telecom's do not deserve immunity and I cannot believe that Obama is turning tail on this. The existing laws already provided the government the necessary tools to combat terrorism--it just took a warrant, and after-the-act warrants were already permitted. Giving away our constitutional freedoms is not exactly moving to the center, as some would have you believe. Obama should have the guts to call it for what it is. I can't adequately express how disappointed I am in him.

--mark d., CMSgt, USAF, Retired

[WeaselBuddha]

Disappointed!

This issue I think typifies the crap George W. administration:

The Executive is above the law,
Individual rights, constitutional rights are inconsquential
Unbridled kowtowing to moneyed interests.

To see Obama change his position on this has caused me to pause and wonder if he is anywhere near the candidate I thought he was, or have I just been a sucker?

I didn't know that this is what Obama meant by "Change"

Bummer.