Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an old post of mine with information on why Obama voted as he did. I bolded key stuff and re-linked one of the links, then got bored with it - but if you want to know about it, here it is.
"taking away the administration's ability to investigate the telcom involvement doesn't strike me as the right way to limit it's power over them" - from the link above: "The bill would require that the secret FISA court approve procedures for intercepting foreign nationals’ e-mails and telephone calls. Spying on U.S. citizens, including those overseas, would require individual warrants from the same court....It also would establish the FISA law, and the secret court it created, as the final legal authority on government spying." IOW the buck stops somewhere and this vote trusts a comparatively disinterested group rather than one person (such as the president).
I know "the FISA Reversal" caused a lot of misery among the faithful, and Obama didnt make a production out of explaining why he voted as he did. He did give a quick statement to newspapers and he issued this official statement.
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.
"There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.[*]
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.[**] But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
Talking Points Memo | Obama on FISA
The gist of his statement to the papers: Obama Defends His FISA Position | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
Standing up against retroactive immunity for the telecoms [is] not dead as a result of the FISA vote by any means. What Obama wanted to make sure of was that the power to control illegal eavesdropping from the executive branch (actually just one man, the President) was removed, and in this version it is. He stood up for the Constitution in the vote and is letting Dodd, Feingold et al. continue the battle to prosecute the telecom suits or rewrite the immunity language another day, which they're already working on.
Should he have voted Nay to stand in solidarity about language that would never have passed, and let the President remain in control? He voted Yea to win the bigger constitutional battle. They have to compromise to get anything substantive accomplished, especially on sensitive bills like this one that everyone piled on, that's just how it works.
** Here is Russ Feingold's summary of Dodd-Feingold:
S. 2248 would require the courts to throw out lawsuits alleging that telephone companies broke the law by participating in warrantless surveillance. If the immunity provision became law, even if it could be proven that telephone companies clearly and knowingly broke the law, they would not be held accountable, and Americans’ privacy rights would be nullified.
The Dodd-Feingold amendment would strike this automatic, retroactive immunity provision and leave it to the courts to determine whether the telephone companies acted properly and therefore deserve immunity.
This is an old post of mine with information on the FISA thing. I re-linked one of the links, then got bored with it - but if you want to know about it, here it is.
"taking away the administration's ability to investigate the telcom involvement doesn't strike me as the right way to limit it's power over them" - from the link above: "The bill would require that the secret FISA court approve procedures for intercepting foreign nationals’ e-mails and telephone calls. Spying on U.S. citizens, including those overseas, would require individual warrants from the same court....It also would establish the FISA law, and the secret court it created, as the final legal authority on government spying." IOW the buck stops somewhere and this vote trusts a comparatively disinterested group rather than one person (such as the president).
I know "the FISA Reversal" caused a lot of misery among the faithful, and Obama didnt make a production out of explaining why he voted as he did. He did give a quick statement to newspapers and he issued this official statement.
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.
"There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.[*]
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.[**] But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
Talking Points Memo | Obama on FISA
The gist of his statement to the papers: Obama Defends His FISA Position | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
"[S]tanding up against retroactive immunity for the telecoms [is] not dead as a result of the FISA vote by any means. What Obama wanted to make sure of was that the power to control illegal eavesdropping from the executive branch (actually just one man, the President) was removed, and in this version it is. He stood up for the Constitution in the vote and is letting Dodd, Feingold et al. continue the battle to prosecute the telecom suits or rewrite the immunity language another day, which they're already working on.
"Should he have voted Nay to stand in solidarity about language that would never have passed, and let the President remain in control? He voted Yea to win the bigger constitutional battle. They have to compromise to get anything substantive accomplished, especially on sensitive bills like this one that everyone piled on, that's just how it works."
** Here is Russ Feingold's summary of Dodd-Feingold:
S. 2248 would require the courts to throw out lawsuits alleging that telephone companies broke the law by participating in warrantless surveillance. If the immunity provision became law, even if it could be proven that telephone companies clearly and knowingly broke the law, they would not be held accountable, and Americans’ privacy rights would be nullified.
The Dodd-Feingold amendment would strike this automatic, retroactive immunity provision and leave it to the courts to determine whether the telephone companies acted properly and therefore deserve immunity.
* Bush proposal: Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
I personally have no problem with wire tapping whether is was Bush or is Obama. What people don't realize is when the President makes these decisions it is not a personal preference but a decision based of his advisers recommendations. Obviously Obama was smart enough to know that in today's world this is absolutely necessary. I happen to agree with him.
I personally have no problem with wire tapping whether is was Bush or is Obama. What people don't realize is when the President makes these decisions it is not a personal preference but a decision based of his advisers recommendations. Obviously Obama was smart enough to know that in today's world this is absolutely necessary. I happen to agree with him.
No...no...he does say that surveillance is necessary, but he voted for it because its language was such that it took power to control eavesdropping out of the hands of one person, the person at the head of the exec branch (that's himself now, it'll be someone else in 8 years). It now is in the hands of a judicial committee. As for retroactive immunity, see Dodd-Feingold.
So I take it that you support Obama's wire tapping?
If so I guess you get a point for honest hypocrisy.
If not then I agree and Obama should be held responsible for such illegal activities.
So I take it you have no answer, canNOT address:
"""""Reminds me of how the repubs defended illegal wire tapping and spying on American citizens:
"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about """""
But instead offer a red herring that's off topic.
You can "take it" that I support Obama's wire tapping as you seem to take a lot of things with no posts, proof or facts to back it up....doesn't make it true.
No...no...he does say that surveillance is necessary, but he voted for it because its language was such that it took power to control eavesdropping out of the hands of one person, the person at the head of the exec branch (that's himself now, it'll be someone else in 8 years). It now is in the hands of a judicial committee. As for retroactive immunity, see Dodd-Feingold.
And I agree with him that it is necessary regardless of what the ACLU might think along with the left. In the world today, this is a necessary tool for any President to use in order to keep us safe. Kudos to Obama for continuing with these wire taps.
And I agree with him that it is necessary regardless of what the ACLU might think along with the left. In the world today, this is a necessary tool for any President to use in order to keep us safe. Kudos to Obama for continuing with these wire taps.
You're also thrilled that he voted against wiretap power being in the hands of one person, too, right? And you're just too shy to say so?
Be careful what you wish for. you just might get it!
And payback in 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or 2024 will be a big female dog. And the political turn after that will be another one....
Uh uh, no, I don't think so. There is no way in hell we should let these people get away with anything just because of some pathetic payback threat that makes it sound like you have the ethics of a mafia boss.
Be careful what you wish for. you just might get it!
And payback in 2012 or 2016 or 2020 or 2024 will be a big female dog. And the political turn after that will be another one....
Uh uh, no, I don't think so. There is no way in hell we should let these people get away with anything just because of some pathetic payback threat that makes it sound like you have the ethics of a mafia boss.
We're supposed to be afraid the Republicans might come back in power and go after the Democrats. Well that's going to happen anyway. That's the way the Republicans work. They proved it by going after Clinton. Leaving Rove alone won't change that
The Congress should assert it's full power and authority with no mercy whatsoever. Including using the Congressional jail. At this point I would say that if Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity and that ilk aren't screaming bloody murder about "abuse of power" and how Rove is "being persecuted" then they haven't gone far enough
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
