Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA

[99th_Monkey]

Source: CBS News

Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA
Posted by David S Morgan| Comments65


(CBS/AP) - Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.

The House approved a compromise bill Friday that would set new electronic surveillance rules that would also shield telecoms from lawsuits arising from their participation in the government's warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and computer lines in the United States.

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without permission from the FISA Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the original 1978 law.

Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who say the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml

---

**********************************************

This sounds like the Obama I know. :-)

[seemslikeadream]

1. Do I smell filibuster?

[99th_Monkey]

7. That would be sweet: Obama, Dobbs, Feingold, et. al.

[JanusAscending]

47. Uh.......

did you mean to say Dodd? 'cause I don't know what Lou DOBBS has to do with this???????

[99th_Monkey]

50. Yes. Thank you. edited accordingly ~nt~

[99th_Monkey]

51. Well, drat. I tried to edit, but when I tried ...

it said - "You can't edit this message because the editing period has expired."

[dglow]

24. Filibuster or hopebuster

Obama must either lead a filibuster of the FISA Bill/Immunity for lawless telecoms or risk deflating his campaign. After all, he's written a book called "The Audacity of Hope." If he wimps out and tries to negotiate a pull out of the clause on immunity, it's sure to fail,and he will look weak and ineffective. That would damage his campaign for the presidency. But if he leads a filbuster he can signlehandedly stop the bill's passage. I hope he takes the bull by the horn.

[LVjinx]

49. Fortunately, it will be easy to gauge exactly how hard he fights for this removal

Whether he fights really hard, or not at all, certainly all eyes will be on him.

[polichick]

2. Obama is very pragmatic - but I think his true goals are pretty lofty!

[tabatha]

3. Best synopsis.

[gateley]

5. Well put. nt

[gateley]

4. Don't lay it all on Obama - EVERY Dem in the Senate needs to do this! nt

[Frustratedlady]

9. Absolutely!

Their only concern is to eavesdrop on their opposition (or, their perceived enemies in-house) not the terrorists. They couldn't care less about them until prior to an election.

I'm so disgusted with the House, I can't see straight. I heard a rumor that the senators were going to knock it down. I hope that is correct.

[gateley]

11. Although I understand the "political" argument Pelosi made for

supporting this, what we are aching for is a change from politics as usual. This isn't it.

And I am SO with you on being furious at the House.

I wrote my congressman an e-mail asking how he can explain his vote. He's really good about responding, and although they're probably form letters for each subject, at least he has had to make a statement regarding the issue. I'm looking forward to hearing from him on this one.

[Frustratedlady]

14. Mine answers, too. However, it might be 2 months down the road.

By then, I've forgotten what I said.

[chknltl]

10. Yep! Just wrote my Sen. Patty Murray...

...letting her know how much she is loved here, recognizing her years of brilliant service AND BEGGING HER TO FIGHT THIS FISA Re-Authorization!

[gateley]

12. I have faith in Murray and Cantwell.

And McDermott did the right thing, as he always does. (He was my rep when I lived in Seattle.)

[chknltl]

17. I wrote my thank you letter to Congressmen Jim McDermott and Norm Dicks

Cong. Dicks is my rep because I am just south of Seattle in Tacoma. I have written Cong. McDermott often anyway because he consistently does things to warrant our gratitude. It would be terrific if you could write him to add your gratitude for his service even if you no longer live here. His vote against re-authorising FISA would be a great place to start with those "Thank Yous":
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/contact.shtml

[gateley]

18. I actually do write him often --

because I really trust and appreciate him and give him my long distance support.

I've also tried to spread the word on DU a few times to help contribute to his legal fund.

http://www.mcdermottlegaltrust.com/

:hi:

[chknltl]

19. RIGHT ON!!!!

:patriot: His position on depleted uranium-(DU)-munitions and the hazards of DU-Oxide are what we have chatted about over the years. Congressman McDermott came onto my radar AS A HERO when he went to Iraq during the runnup to the war fiasco. He made a speech when he got back that was aired on C-SPAN. I made my kids watch it. The words from that speech regarding the effects of DU-Oxide poisoning and his belief that bush was going to go into Iraq not because of WMD but because of Iraqi oil were dead on back then. Sadly instead of the hero's welcome he deserved he got nicknamed Baghdad Jim for his efforts!!!

(Big sigh before gong on...) I traditionally donate at the ends of the month, don't have much but my country is worth far more than I can spare. Sent Kucinich $100 two months ago so he could hold his seat, sent Obama $100 last month so he could win the nomination and at the end of this month I intend to spend something on myself by donating to the big DU and gettin' my star back...(besides Adbot is driving me nuts!) Congressman McDermott, (because of your link), will split my $100 donation with DU at the end of this month.
Thank You for the link
c

[gateley]

28. Thank you for all that you do! nt

[chknltl]

30. Duuuude! Ya didn't have to go and do that. Thanks

I don't know what to say...I wasn't in dire need or anything but I DO budget fairly tight. It looks like Congressman Jim McDermott won't be sharin' any of my end of the month donation afterall! He'll be getting the full $100 from me. Thanks again. :grouphug:

[Norrin Radd]

38. Proud to have McDermott as our rep. You are right --

he consistently does the right thing. Now, Cantwell, can't be counted on...

[TexasEditor]

27. Every Dem in the Senate isn't running for President.

[TarryFaster]

48. Here is a list of traitors!

Last night, in a fit of anger and frustration, I dug up the names and contact information on the 105 "Democratic" traitors who voted to approve the latest version of the "Compromise FISA bill" -- which destroys our Fourth Amendment. I put the list on a website and will now go about "promoting" it. Ideally, with your help, we could bring this site to the attention of enough people to develop a viral network that could then gain enough critical mass among voters to remove these traitors.

Here is the site:

http://www.cloudbyte.com/traitors.html

[tazkcmo]

6. Not good enough

Vote NO on this LOUSY bill as it stands.

[tabatha]

22. So you want Obama to lose the election because

the right/media would portray him as weak on national security.

[Changenow]

29. You think his vote on this will

impact that portrayal in any way?

[Jakes Progress]

35. So you want Obama to sell his soul because

the right/media would portray him as weak on national security?

[tabatha]

37. No, he has not sold his soul. He says the bill is not perfect.

But he HAS to win the WH.

[Jakes Progress]

39. What will he have to give up to win?

The only good argument that people had against Hillary in the Obama/Clinton wars was that she would do anything to win, that she voted with an eye on winning more than doing the right thing. Why was it wrong for her, but good for him? Don't you see the hypocrisy?

And more than that, this bill is not just not perfect. It is wrong. It is wrong for so many reasons. This is not a little nothing vote. This is something that calls for leadership. I don't know how people can just let the fourth amendment be taken away.

[muryan]

40. What issues do you have with the bill

outside of immunity?

[Jakes Progress]

46. Immunity for the telecoms

is the least of it. Read the bill. Quick summary: One - it eviscerates the fourth amendment by removing all meaningful oversight from the president's power to spy on American citizens. All he has to do is say it's for national security and he and his men can get your medical records, tap you phone. He can tap the phone of the Democratic party. He can make DU identify anyone who posts here. Two - it essentially lets bush of the hook for ordering illegal spying because it makes the orders he gave legal retroactively. These are not things we will get back.

For details I refer you to: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/

This bill is wrong. Just wrong. As wrong as the rush to war itself.

[JDPriestly]

52. Retroactive telecom immunity provision has nothing to do with national security.

This is about what happened in the past, not anything that might or could happen in the future.

Arguably some other provisions in the FISA amendment might have to do with national security, but retroactive telecom immunity does not.

[mikehiggins]

57. The MSM is going to label him naive and weak no matter what

he does. That is just a given, not a possibility.

Standing up for a principle is not all that hard to do, even in a fight you know you're likely to lose because you're surrounded by whores and sellouts.

Yes, winning in November is absolutely JOB ONE but playing the Beltway Game isn't going to help him one move one iota closer towards that goal.

[PassingFair]

26. I believe he will vote no.

I hope he doesn't miss his chance to
take a swipe at the CRIMINALS that want
this passed.

[PSPS]

32. Merely voting "nay" when you know it will pass is meaningless and insulting

They do this all the time -- voting against something merely as window dressing because they know it will pass and their meaningless no vote is just political cover.

If it looks like the bill will pass, Obama must filibuster the bill. Anything less is inexcusable and will reveal him as a charlatan.

[PassingFair]

34. I will be happy with an impassioned floor speech.

One that SPELLS OUT the criminal activity of the
administration and the telco's.

He must be seen FIGHTING.

[JDPriestly]

53. Voting yes would be total cowardice.

Just the fact that Obama has stated that he opposes the retroactive immunity is very important. Other senators either support Obama on changing D.C. culture or they look really bad. Either Democratic senators support Obama's opposition to the retroactive immunity or they look like sore loser supporters of Hillary. Remember, FISA can be amended to protect national security if need be without retroactive telecom immunity. The immunity provision is part of the D.C. corruption of I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Any Democrat who votes for the telecom immunity at this point is disloyal to the party and pro-corruption. The line is now drawn on this bill. Good for Obama. He is putting his vote where his mouth has been.

End the corruption. Change the D.C. culture. It's either a vote for the corruption or a vote with Obama on this.

[Lasher]

8. Now that's my candidate talking!

No need for retroactive immunity unless they did something wrong. And if you're concerned about cooperation on a going forward basis, pass a law that requires it.

[MasonJar]

13. Obama would be practical to do so. He has elected to forgo the

public financing and so he needs his progressive base. An attempt to defeat of the immunity portion of the bill would solidify that base. If he does not actively oppose it, he will suffer the loss of funds he needs amd the active on the ground support of many. Is he a man of change or not? We would all be wise to contact him and remind him of these matters, for his own good.

[Pastiche423]

42. My thoughts exactly

We will see next week (or whenever the bill hits the senate floor) if Change and Hope are merely a political slogan or if he truly will fight for what is right.

I'm not holding my breath.

[saracat]

15. But he doesn't oppose FISA in its entirity. he thinks this bill is "better"

[ThePowerofWill]

16. Makes me feel a bit more optimistic.

However, we all know how most politicians are, say one thing do another.

I will take this as a good sign.

[PassingFair]

20. Go. GO. GO.

I've got my checkbook out.

He has NOT disappointed me so far.

Please contact the campaign and let them know
that this is IMPORTANT to us.

He cannot LOSE if he FIGHTS.

[badgervan]

21. New Leaders Please Apply

Pelosi and Reid are afraid of their own shadows, and Hoyer is a repub in all but name. Maybe this will be the straw that broke the coward's backs.
Man, I would love to see Russ Feingold running the Senate.

[no limit]

23. Good. He is now our party leader, if this is his position others will follow.

[PassingFair]

25. NOW you're talking!

I agree 100%.

And the PEOPLE will reward him
accordingly.

(Myself included!)

[bean fidhleir]

31. Is this calculated?

This is such an obviously terrible bill for the Dems to cave on, especially after holding out last time.

So could we be seeing a setup here? The house caves this time by arrangement, precisely so that Obama can "save the day" in the Senate and get everyone's gratitude and vote in November?

Are the Dems disciplined enough to do that? Or is this the usual kind of theater, where he'll make a big show but fail "nobly"?

Yes, I'm cynical.

[mikehiggins]

58. NO, the dems are NOT that disciplined. They are going along

because they have no spines.

[tomg]

59. Been thinking something similar, and

it gives Dem Reps in tight districts cover for the fall on security. Actually, I am not cynical - or less so. It gives Obama a chance to lead this. Still we will see next week when it comes up.

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. Somewhat different than this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3491737

[Jakes Progress]

36. We're getting sidetracked.

Being able to sue the telecoms sounds like good progressive fun, but that's not the nasty part of this bill.

It will give unfettered power to the president to spy on innocent Americans, no question asked. Your phone company, your library, your employer would be required to give any information the president's men asked for, no limits, no apologies. DU would be required to give up all the information they have on you. Ever called the president a jerk? With this bill, bush and his friends could make Skinner tell them who you are. Then they can go to work on all of your tax records and medical records. This bill makes a shambles of the fourth amendment.

Stripping the immunity provision won't stop that.

And if the "effort" isn't successful, then bush and cheney and rove all walk free for their illegal activities.

Any patriot would go to war and die to protect our country from having our constitution removed. This bill is criminal. It doesn't need to be fiddled with. It needs to be defeated. You can't say "Oh, I'll just give up one freedom so that we can win the election." What next? Freedom of religion? Freedom to assemble? How about illegal search and seizure? Obama is a Constitutional Law specialist. He knows better. I want him in the well of the Senate doing his best Jimmy Stewart imitation. That man I can vote for.

[nolabels]

41. and what is with the big rush to pass the crap anyway?

It's not like they will catch that so called mastermind Bin Ladden with it tomorrow. The whole thing just seems like more ways for the government to screw around in other peoples lives where they don't belong. The right side of the political spectrum must be just totally brain dead. It's seems they where once the the party that stood for individual liberties and keeping government small. How bankrupt can this whole country really be, the whole mess seems terrible :shrug:


Btw, if this is the same whoevers that passed off the 9/11 thing on the whole of us then it would seem that this FISA bill is probably just like child's splay for them anyway.
They are toying with all of us like a cat that plays with the mouse it just mauled over x(

[JDPriestly]

54. Bush doesn't obey the law anyway, so what difference does it make

whether this or any other law is passed. Better not to pass it.

[Jakes Progress]

60. It is is not passed,

we might (he said in a fit of blind optimism) be able to hold bush and his gang accountable. If we pass it, we just make the illegal legal.

[jeff30997]

43. 1984 n/t

[disndat]

44. If true, this is great news

Earlier, Obama only said he would vote for the new bill but would be able to overturn the immunity provision if elect POTUS. What happened to change his previous stand? Possibly, every liberal Democratic senators and even Al Gore are going to stand behind him. WOW, wait while I get more popcorn! If true the Obama revolution is happening.

[Mister Ed]

45. Then he'll be making very some powerful enemies. We The People better have his back. n/t

[disndat]

55. If true, this is UNF**KINGBELIVABLE!

Just about 24 hours ago he said he would vote for the compromise and take care of the immunity provision when he gets into the WH. Something must have happened in that time. All the top leaders in the Democratic party must be behind him to stand-up to Bush's bullying. Do I hear, "Heigh-Ho the Witch is Dead" from Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs? Let me dream.

[BearSquirrel2]

56. GOBAMA ...

Fillibuster that MOFO!!! How can Democratic Senators oppose their nominee so visually on the Senate floor!?!?!?!?!?!

[tom_paine]

61. Huzzah!

[snappyturtle]

62. Sounds wonderful!

:kick:

[tpsbmam]

63. Telecom immunity isn't the only issue here!!!

OMG, yes, telecom immunity is an important issue but it isn't the only one. This is a BAD BILL! You all better damn well hope Obama is elected because if this bill goes into the hands of a McCain or his ilk....including his ability to load the Supreme Court, we're fucked. I'm an Obama supporter but he's WRONG on this bill!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.