Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
It looks like the "compromise" (of our rights) passed the House of Representatives.

President Bush praises passing of compromise FISA bill

Here's the official Roll Call vote tally

Interesting....Only 1 Republican decide to vote no on it and while 128 Dems opposed it and voted no as well.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

Does it even matter?

What the hell does he lose by voting for it?

 

[Craig234]

Who was the one Republican? Seeing these party-line votes by Republicans is one more reminder why the democrats are better. While too many voted yes, a majority of them voted no.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

Does it even matter?

What the hell does he lose by voting for it?

Your right. He'd lose more for voting against it because he'd be painted as RINO who sided with the terrorist loving liberals according to tools like Rush and the gang.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Man...i've been one of Obama's biggest supporters but if he votes for this...I really am going to 100% reconsider my vote in all honesty...

I agree with Arlen on this one

"Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling that exclusivity provision "meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act." Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program."

and thats what the dems are touting as being the reason for supporting this...what horse shit!!! Just remove telecom immunity!!!

If Bush wants to veto it based on that...then it is on him...

This is a major test issue for me...

Looks like the same old story how come when an individual does something wrong they are a crook and deserve to be locked up...but when a corporation does something wrong it's....oh they were just acting in good faith.....

On second thought though I guess i should keep an open mind for a bit and see how this plays out it's not said and done yet

 

[lupi]

Shocking.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?

Although it is a little late, the chairman of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee has come out publically against the bill. His press release on the subject sheds a good deal of light on why this compromise is a bad deal for the American people.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Here's a copy of a letter that I just sent the Obama campaign via their website and I am going to send it through his Senatorial page as well:

Sen. Obama,

I am a staunch supporter and have donated to your campaign. I have a great deal of respect for you and hope that you are our next President.

However, your voting (or statement that you will vote for) in favor of the spying compromise bill with the teleco immunity provision included is very disheartening.

The telecos have a multimillion dollar law staff and have the ability and responsibility to research the legality of any issue or request prior to undertaking it. With this in mind, they had the responsibility to deny the White House their request for open access to all lines of communication just as QWest did if there were any questions to its legitimacy.

With this in mind, the last thing that the Congress should be doing is overstepping their Constitutional boundaries and determining the legality of an issue or retroactively granting those that would break them immunity. That is the responsibility of the Judicial branch in our trilateral government and it should be respected.

You have spoken repeatedly on the need for a change of course and mindset in Washington. It is now time for you to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk. I urge to you reconsider your position on this bill and to vote no and to allow our government to function in the manner that it was designed. And that is with Congress passing the laws and the Judicial enforcing them.

Thank you,

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Here's a copy of a letter that I just sent the Obama campaign via their website and I am going to send it through his Senatorial page as well:

Sen. Obama,

I am a staunch supporter and have donated to your campaign. I have a great deal of respect for you and hope that you are our next President.

However, your voting (or statement that you will vote for) in favor of the spying compromise bill with the teleco immunity provision included is very disheartening.

The telecos have a multimillion dollar law staff and have the ability and responsibility to research the legality of any issue or request prior to undertaking it. With this in mind, they had the responsibility to deny the White House their request for open access to all lines of communication just as QWest did if there were any questions to its legitimacy.

With this in mind, the last thing that the Congress should be doing is overstepping their Constitutional boundaries and determining the legality of an issue or retroactively granting those that would break them immunity. That is the responsibility of the Judicial branch in our trilateral government and it should be respected.

You have spoken repeatedly on the need for a change of course and mindset in Washington. It is now time for you to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk. I urge to you reconsider your position on this bill and to vote no and to allow our government to function in the manner that it was designed. And that is with Congress passing the laws and the Judicial enforcing them.

Thank you,

The problem is, it looks like, as Glenn Greenwald explains, they have a political plan for Obama on this: the vote to remove immunity for him to vote yes, then 'oh well he tried'.

Greenwald further suspects that this is a plan laid out in advance before the bill was introduced, and they expect people like you and me to say 'well, he tried'.

If he'd wanted to say he'd oppose the bill unless amnesty is taken out, he could have, but instead he justified voting for the bill either way.

Unfortunately, in a presidential campaign, candidates tend to try to appeal to the 'other side' assuming their base is secure, and so he needs votes to the right more than to the left.

As I wrote above, a vote against this bill could hurt him politically in the election, giving the right an attack ad, but I think we'd like to see him stand up for the right principles.

This doesn't begin to raise a question whether he's better than McCain, but we don't just want better than McCain. That's not saying much.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?

Because this is election season, and the vast majority of commentary on one candidate or the other is aimed at making sure the candidate preferred by the commentator wins. It would be nice if people just discussed issues and actions, but we all know that's naive bullshit. You can't judge a candidate as if they were the only person in the race, you need to think about the alternative.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?

Because this is election season, and the vast majority of commentary on one candidate or the other is aimed at making sure the candidate preferred by the commentator wins. It would be nice if people just discussed issues and actions, but we all know that's naive bullshit. You can't judge a candidate as if they were the only person in the race, you need to think about the alternative.

I am voting for Obama this election however stuff like this might be a good enough excuse for me to stay home and drink.

Seriously, what the hell does Obama gain by voting for this? Why the fuck did he do this?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

And what does that have to do with Obama voting for it?

Because this is election season, and the vast majority of commentary on one candidate or the other is aimed at making sure the candidate preferred by the commentator wins. It would be nice if people just discussed issues and actions, but we all know that's naive bullshit. You can't judge a candidate as if they were the only person in the race, you need to think about the alternative.

I am voting for Obama this election however stuff like this might be a good enough excuse for me to stay home and drink.

Which is nearly the same thing as voting for McCain...and more importantly, EXACTLY why Republicans are using the approach they are to attacking Obama. They know McCain is a terrible candidate who isn't going to energize the right or draw voters from the left, so the only strategy left is to depress liberal turnout and hope enough Republicans still go the polls. And the way they do this is by trying to sell Obama as more of the same and virtually identical to McCain. Which, despite Obama not being perfect, is hardly the truth.

At the end of the day, reality has to set in. Barring something really strange, either Obama or McCain is going to be our next president. There are no isolated issues, EVERYTHING should come back to which one you would rather see in the White House.

Seriously, what the hell does Obama gain by voting for this? Why the fuck did he do this?

That is an excellent question, and one which I don't have a good answer for. The only one I can think of is that Obama was afraid that voting against the immunity would allow the one-trick-pony Republicans to hang "soft on terrorism" around his neck. I sure as hell think they would try, but I'm not sure it would work as well this year as it did in 2004.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm very disappointed in Obama over this. While I'm sure he opposes it, he's only offering token resistance. As some people might have guessed this is one of the most important issues to me, and so... urgh.

1: He complains about people buying elections and swears he will only use the 85 million public dollars for his campaign.

No, he didn't. That was conditional, and the conditions did not happen.

This is a dead horse and not one rational person thinks Obama didn't just do what he had to do to get hundreds of millions instead of $85M. He made the pledge when he thought he had no shot at the nom and said what needed to be said to get out of it. The condidtions that weren't met consisted of him not working diligently with the rep nominee to agree on public financing. You're the only person defending this decision based on his fallacious explanation rather than the obvious benefits such a decision affords him. He'd have been a fool to take $85M instead of the $200M+ that he's likely to raise and I don't think anyone wants a president dumb enough to forfeit such a huge advantage in such an important contest, but we don't need to swallow and regurgitate his bs spin to justify the decision.

As to the telco immunity, he still has time to change his mind, the senate vote hasn't taken place yet. I don't think he will though.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
What is McCain's stance on telco retroactive immunity?

Why does it matter?

This is pathetic. I thought Obama was a real liberal. :roll:

Party over Principal. Here we go again. Here come the apologists. Corporate interest over actual people. Yay!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: NeoV
what does going after the 'retro' abusers really accomplish anyway?

I'd like to see it just to find out how deep this particular rabbit hole goes, but politically it's probably impossible. Because the real issue IMO is that it's not the corporate abusers who need going after, but the govt. officials in the Bush admin who forced them to do it.

Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

 

[bamacre]

oops edited.

 

[trenchfoot]

Methinks we do not give the Telcoms enough respect in regards to how much influence they wield up on the Hill.

It's quite easy to take a slap at the Telcoms from where we sit. However, it would be a formidable challenge for our elected leaders to do same considering how much leverage these Telcoms can exert given the close ties that exists between them and the MSM.

It's only logical that the next administration and/or any successive admininstration will want the same level of cooperation that the Telcoms have given the Bush admin.

Our politicians fully realize that a price must be paid and that compromise is the most practical way to pay it. That is the real life fact of the matter.

Sure, the Bush admin. broke the law and the Telcoms were complicit in the acts. That does not mean that Obama is exhonerating Bush and Cheney by agreeing to a compromise, nor does it mean that Obama agrees with the way Bush handled this particular situation.

IMHO, Obama agreeing to the compromise is him smartly dealing with the politial realities of the situation, part of which is his penchance for looking ahead to a time where he may find himself facing the same circumstances Bush and Cheney faced in regards to the best way of keeping our nation safe against terrorist threats.

I'm certain Obama wouldn't do what Bush and Cheney did, but I can safely assume that he has carefully weighed all sides of this issue, most of which we, as outside onlookers cannot even begin to imagine what they are.

What I can surmize from Obama's actions is that he has laid a solid path of cooperation and communication with the Telcom's by agreeing to this compromise. A compromise from which at the sacrifice of his personal principles and the potential fallout from it, will yield a big payoff for the nation in the future when has to go to the Telcoms hat in hand just as Bush did, but obviously with different principles and resultant outcomes.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

Pressured them to do it is a better phrase. There's evidence of government contracts being used for leverage among other things, as I recall.

And it was wrong for the government to put them in the position of having to tell the government 'no' to an illegal request.

How would you like a police officer to tell you he can't break into your neighbor's house to search for evidence, so would you do it? And if you don't the police will be unhappy with you.

 

[bamacre]

Ron Paul's statement on H.R. 3773: FISA Amendments Act of 2008

Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens? communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant.

As such, the bill clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

?The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.?

The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.

Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of ?national security letters.? Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.

This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.

I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

Pressured them to do it is a better phrase. There's evidence of government contracts being used for leverage among other things, as I recall.

And it was wrong for the government to put them in the position of having to tell the government 'no' to an illegal request.

How would you like a police officer to tell you he can't break into your neighbor's house to search for evidence, so would you do it? And if you don't the police will be unhappy with you.

Just more apologizing from Craig. His Democrats can do no wrong. Rights for Americans? Pffft, we don't need no stinkin' rights!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm very disappointed in Obama over this. While I'm sure he opposes it, he's only offering token resistance. As some people might have guessed this is one of the most important issues to me, and so... urgh.

1: He complains about people buying elections and swears he will only use the 85 million public dollars for his campaign.

No, he didn't. That was conditional, and the conditions did not happen.

This is a dead horse and not one rational person thinks Obama didn't just do what he had to do to get hundreds of millions instead of $85M. He made the pledge when he thought he had no shot at the nom and said what needed to be said to get out of it. The condidtions that weren't met consisted of him not working diligently with the rep nominee to agree on public financing. You're the only person defending this decision based on his fallacious explanation rather than the obvious benefits such a decision affords him. He'd have been a fool to take $85M instead of the $200M+ that he's likely to raise and I don't think anyone wants a president dumb enough to forfeit such a huge advantage in such an important contest, but we don't need to swallow and regurgitate his bs spin to justify the decision.

As to the telco immunity, he still has time to change his mind, the senate vote hasn't taken place yet. I don't think he will though.

Nothing you said addressed the issue of whether he made a pledge to use public financing. As I said, he didn't, he made only a conditional agreement and the conditions weren't met.

If everything you said is true about what he did and why he did it, it doesn't contradict what I said.

In other words, of course he's motivated by the funds, but being motivated by the funds doesn't suddenly create a promise by him to use public funding unconditionally.

The statement was made he "swears he will only use the 85 million public dollars for his campaign." No, he didn't, as I said. You can say all day he wants the money. So what?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

Pressured them to do it is a better phrase. There's evidence of government contracts being used for leverage among other things, as I recall.

And it was wrong for the government to put them in the position of having to tell the government 'no' to an illegal request.

How would you like a police officer to tell you he can't break into your neighbor's house to search for evidence, so would you do it? And if you don't the police will be unhappy with you.

Just more apologizing from Craig. His Democrats can do no wrong. Rights for Americans? Pffft, we don't need no stinkin' rights!

Bamacre, don't be an idiot, please. I'm against this bill, and I've posted that I disagree with Obama and that I called my congressman to ask him to push for outing Pelosi as speaker.

You then say that that equals that it's just 'apologizing', and that I'm saying Democrats can do no wrong?

I described how the government improperly, I said it was "wrong", pressured telecoms and you say that I was *against* rights for Americans? DId you get a head injury?

 

[bamacre]

Sponsor:
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]

Cosponsors:
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX]
Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA]

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Forced them to do it? What were they going to do, take them to court?

Pressured them to do it is a better phrase. There's evidence of government contracts being used for leverage among other things, as I recall.

And it was wrong for the government to put them in the position of having to tell the government 'no' to an illegal request.

How would you like a police officer to tell you he can't break into your neighbor's house to search for evidence, so would you do it? And if you don't the police will be unhappy with you.

Just more apologizing from Craig. His Democrats can do no wrong. Rights for Americans? Pffft, we don't need no stinkin' rights!

Bamacre, don't be an idiot, please. I'm against this bill, and I've posted that I disagree with Obama and that I called my congressman to ask him to push for outing Pelosi as speaker.

You then say that that equals that it's just 'apologizing', and that I'm saying Democrats can do no wrong?

I described how the government improperly, I said it was "wrong", pressured telecoms and you say that I was *against* rights for Americans? DId you get a head injury?

Uh uh, but I bet when you go to the booth in November, you're gonna vote for someone who holds corporate interests as a higher priority than the Bill Of Rights.