|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Obama on FISA: Security Trumps Suing Phone Companies
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Obama on FISA: Security Trumps Suing Phone Companies
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| salafibrigades |
In a press conference on Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama explained his support for a compromise on FISA legislation, saying that concerns over American security trumped, at this point in time, objections over immunity for telecommunications that participated in the previously illegal program.
"The bill has changed but I don't think the security threats have changed. I think the security threats are similar," said the Illinois Democrat. "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people. I do want accountability, and making sure, as I've said before, someone is watching the watchers, that you don't have an administration that feels that it can make its own determinations about when warrantless wiretaps are applicable without going through a FISA court and that's what we had."
Obama's support for the compromise legislation, which includes a sweeping overhaul of the nation's electronic surveillance laws and grants conditional immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the previous program, has effectively cast him against prominent members of his own political party. The House of Representatives passed the legislation this week with the majority of Democrats voting nay. The Senate, late Wednesday, voted to end debate on the measure, which could pass that body as early as Thursday. Only 15 Senators voted against cloture.
For Obama, however, the trickier aspect of this debate is explaining why, during the Democratic primary, he promised to defeat any FISA compromise that included telecom immunity and now, in the general, he is seemingly hedging on that pledge. The Senator, in a previous statement, said he would work to remove such a provision from the bill and offered to support an amendment doing just that. On Wednesday, he elaborated on that statement.
"It is a close call for me, but I think that the current legislation with the exclusivity provision that says that a president, whether it's George Bush or myself or John McCain, can't make up rationales for getting around the FISA court, can't suggest that somehow there's some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps. The fact that that provision is in there I think is very important and provides us protection going forward. The fact that that provision is in there I think is very important and provides us protection going forward."
His remarks may not be enough to placate Democrats invested in the fight. For this faction, the issue of immunity remains one of constitutional limitations -- as in, citizens, organizations and others should have the right to sue the government over illegal electronic surveillance. Obama, however, is framing immunity as a sticking point to a much more important legislative objective: putting in place a legal security apparatus. And thus, for critics, his support for the new FISA compromise seems more about demonstrating national security toughness than righting past wrongs.
This guy is such a sellout. All of you idiots were duped by this guy? Ha ha ha!!!!! :p |
|
|
| Stonewall |
In a press conference on Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama explained his support for a compromise on FISA legislation, saying that concerns over American security trumped, at this point in time, objections over immunity for telecommunications that participated in the previously illegal program.
The program was not illegal. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
In a press conference on Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama explained his support for a compromise on FISA legislation, saying that concerns over American security trumped, at this point in time, objections over immunity for telecommunications that participated in the previously illegal program.
The program was not illegal. |
Sure it was. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
Sure it was. |
No it was not. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
No it was not. |
Yeah, the phone companies need retroactive immunity because they didn't do anything illegal. Makes perfect sense. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
Yeah, the phone companies need retroactive immunity because they didn't do anything illegal. Makes perfect sense. |
Against a civil complaint. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
| Have you read the FISA law?? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
Have you read the FISA law?? |
Yep. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Against a civil complaint. |
This makes a difference how? They didn't do anything illegal so why would they need immunity? As far as FISA goes, I must be missing something. Can you point out the portion that protects phone companies from turning over caller data to the NSA so they can amass a database of calls made by tens of millions of Americans not suspected of any kind of wrongdoing and it's not illegal? These are calls that begin and terminate within the U.S mind you. What about Section 222 of the Communications Act that prohibits phone companies from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits? I would genuinely appreciate your input. The laws are changed and expanded so often I cannot always keep up so please elaborate. Thanks. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
This makes a difference how? They didn't do anything illegal so why would they need immunity? As far as FISA goes, I must be missing something. Can you point out the portion that protects phone companies from turning over caller data to the NSA so they can amass a database of calls made by tens of millions of Americans not suspected of any kind of wrongdoing and it's not illegal? These are calls that begin and terminate within the U.S mind you. What about Section 222 of the Communications Act that prohibits phone companies from giving out information regarding their customers' calling habits? I would genuinely appreciate your input. The laws are changed and expanded so often I cannot always keep up so please elaborate. Thanks. |
As far as I know the only immunity that this concerns has to do with the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
It would not be millions of Americans. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
As far as I know the only immunity that this concerns has to do with the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
It would not be millions of Americans. |
Hold on a sec. I read a piece in Newsweek or USA today. I will find it for you. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
As far as I know the only immunity that this concerns has to do with the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
It would not be millions of Americans. |
Exactly.
And they don't randomly tap people - listening in on banal cell phone conversations. The idea that the TSP and retroactive immunity is unconstitutional is nothing more than the lunatic rantings of far-left morons like Russ Feingold and Chris "Sweetheart Mortage Deal" Dodd. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
That would not be covered under the New FISA Law.
I have never heard or seen that it would.
There have been things like this leaked in the past. The last I heard on things like this is that they were OK as long as no identifying information is collected. |
|
|
|
|
|
