Admittedly, I haven't followed this that closely, but reading some analysis, it would appear that the compromise adds protections to existing law that weren't there before. Owen Kerr concurs:
As I see it, the new law takes the basic approach of the Protect America Act of 2007 and adds privacy protections and bolsters the scope of judicial review. On the whole, the new law strikes me as pretty good legislation: It nicely responds to the widely expressed fears last year about how the Protect America Act could be implemented. and it ensures that the FISA Court will play a major role in reviewing surveillance of individuals located outside the U.S. Indeed, it seems to me that the new rules create pretty much the regime that critics of the Protect America Act wanted back in 2007.
So is the hue and cry on the bloggy left simply over the fact that this is seen as a victory for Bush and Obama aided and abetted? Because on substance this seems like a tempest in a teapot. If you think the government shouldn't be wiretapping individuals at all, you won't be happy with this compromise, but it would seem it moved current law a little back towards the privacy end of the spectrum, which is better than nothing. Given a repeal of the Protect America Act is not going to pass it would seem supporting this compromise is a pragmatic position.
I've been arguing with my friends on the right that Obama comes at things from the left but that he is in the end a pragmatic politician. I don't think you can read Audacity of Hope and come to any other conclusion. His support of the compromise confirms this analysis.
Again, I don't understand the outrage. What am I missing?
