This is probably the speech of his career. Best lines: "The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security. And that ought to be the epitaph of this Administration: “sacrificing liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.” Worse than selling our soul—giving it away for free!"
It's long so here are some highlights:
This bill does not say, “Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions.” Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear:
“Trust me.”
And that message comes straight from the mouth of this President. “Trust me.”
What is the basis for that trust? Classified documents, we are told, that prove the case for retroactive immunity beyond a shadow of a doubt.
But we’re not allowed to see them! I’ve served in this body for 27 years, and I’m not allowed to see them! Neither are a majority of my colleagues. We are all left in the dark.
I cannot speak for my colleagues—but I would never take “trust me” for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a President on Mount Rushmore.
I can’t put it better than this:
“Trust me” government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.
Those words were not spoken by someone who took our nation’s security lightly, Mr. President. They were spoken by Ronald Reagan -- in 1980. They are every bit as true today, even if times of threat and fear blur our concept of transcendent values. Even if those who would exploit those times urge us to save our skins at any cost.
Then he addresses the motives behind the bill:
So I will ask the Senate candidly, and candidly it already knows the answer:
Is this about security—or is it about power?
Why are some fighting so hard for retroactive immunity? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy, and secrecy means power.
It’s no coincidence that the man who proclaimed “if the president does it, it’s not illegal”—Richard Nixon—was the same man who raised executive secrecy to an art form.
The senators of the Church Committee expressed succinctly the deep flaw in the Nixonian executive: “Abuse thrives on secrecy.” And, in the exhaustive catalogue of their report, they proved it.
In this push for immunity, secrecy is at the center. We find proof in immunity’s original version: a proposal to protect not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program.
In their original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.
Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt: their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted.
They knew better than anyone else what they had done—they must have had good reason to be afraid.
Thankfully, immunity for the executive is not part of the bill before us. But the original proposal tells us something very important: This is, and always has been, a self-preservation bill. . . .
As Justice Robert Jackson said in his opening statement at Nuremberg: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”
Mr. President, what is the tribute that Power owes to Reason?
That America stands for a transcendent idea.
The idea that laws should rule, not men.
The idea that the Constitution does not get suspended for vengeance.
The idea that this nation should never tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment, because if we did, we would be walking in the footsteps of the enemies we despised.
The tribute that Power owes to Reason is due today. I know that we can find the strength to pay it. And if we can’t? We will all have to answer for it.
This is the kind of speech I was hoping for from Obama. If he gave it, people would have heard it. I doubt many will have heard this one. I hope at the very least he will be persuaded by it and by the arguments of others to support the filibuster and if that fails to vote against. But I fear he has painted himself into a corner. The political logic of his supporting the bill in the first place--that he distance himself from the left extremists in the party--requires that he not do anything that looks like he is caving it their pressure. His staff will tell him can't afford to be a flip flopper, even though his support for the bill now is a flip flop from hie earlier opposition to it. (And how ironic if the triangulator Clinton winds up voting against and he for it.)
This is a huge blunder on Obama's part--an unforced error that seriously tarnishes his credibility no matter how politically smart some think it is. At the very least all he had to do was lay low and just vote no as he has done in the past when it came to a vote. Arguments about how "smart" this tack to the center strategy is for Obama are unpersuasive for reasons I've explained elsewhere--the right is on its heels, and it should be kept on them. Voting for this law accepts that the right's framing of the issue still has potency when in fact it only has a much as the Dems are willing to give it. It's politically stupid to allow the discredited right to continue to define what is left, right, or center.
And I do not accept that the center is behind laws like this. People in the center just don't understand its implications and need to be educated by reasonable, clear statements like the one Dodd made. This was not politically shrewed. If anything it was a missed opportunity for Obama to stand up and show he has the spine Americans in the center want to see from a leader.
Second, this isn't an issue like healthcare on which reasonable people can disagree. This issue cuts to the very heart of what America means. You don't play politics with it. The fourth amendment is not up for negotiation any more than suspending free speech (or habeas corpus). You just don't permit legislation like this to pass. It's unconscionable. Anybody who votes for it deserves to share in the condemnation that history will heap by the bucket load on this administration and its collaboraters in congress .