A Repub Senator issues a statement opposing FISA

[ProSense]

Specter Reaction to FISA Agreement

Washington, D.C.
Friday, June 20, 2008 -

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today released the following statement regarding the agreement between House and Senate leaders on legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

“I am opposed to the proposed legislation because it does not require a judicial determination that what the telephone companies have done in the past is constitutional. It is totally insufficient to grant immunity for the telephone companies’ prior conduct based merely on the written assurance from the administration that the spying was legal.

“The provision that the bill will be the exclusive means for the government to wiretap is meaningless because that specific limitation is now in the 1978 Act and it didn’t stop the government from the warrantless terrorist surveillance program and what the telephone companies have done. That statutory limitation leaves the president with his position that his Article II powers as commander in chief cannot be limited by statute, which is a sound constitutional doctrine unless the courts decide otherwise. Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it.”

Specter is usually all talk, but the statement is on the record.

[ananda]

1. All I can think of is that Specter can do this..

.. because nothing's at stake.

[BlooInBloo]

2. That's to be expected of snarlin Arlen. And then he'll vote for it....

But it definitely sucks that Obama can't manage to even so much as *sound* more reasonable than snarlin Arlen.

[ProSense]

3. Obama's statement

did in a way. After reading all the statements posted here, the one thing they have in common is opposing the bill because of its retroactive immunity provision.

Obama's is more in line with Leahy's statement, which addresses other parts of the bill.

Obama's statement does the same, and also mentions his opposition to immunity:

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.

Given how Obama voted on the previous bill and the statement above, I suspect he will vote no if the bill reaches the floor with that provision intact.

He obviously opposes the measure because it will prohibit "full accountability for past offenses."

[MrCoffee]

4. Specter gives me fits

He opposed Bork but hammered Anita Hill. He is occasionaly pro-choice and LBGT friendly (as compared to his repuke compadres). He opposed the Clinton impeachment. He's very opposed to wiretapping and generally very very strong on Constitutional principles.


Bastard. Why can't he be pure evil like the rest? He's the margarine of repukes.

[Youphemism]

5. LOL! Margarine... Every so often he takes a stand that makes you say...

"I Can't Believe It's Not Buttheaded!"

[MrCoffee]

7. It's infuriating

I *want* to loathe him and everything he stands for, but he occasionally stands for some good stuff.

Maybe I'm growing as a person. :rofl: Sorry, I shouldn't lie like that.

[MissWaverly]

6. Specter is write, it must be crystal clear this is not an option

we have to insure that the presidency does not become a monarchy which Bush and Cheney are busily building it into
that.