Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 12:58 PM
Original message
Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008


July 9, 2008

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today’s vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.

The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration’s surveillance activities. Some of the legislation’s provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration’s surveillance activities.

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government’s targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=300338&&
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Heh-loooo! Hillary!!
Pardon me, make that "Senator Clinton"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I like Hillary and all. A lot actually
But if she were the nominee she would have voted for it too.

Just like I think Obama would have voted for the IWR if he had been in the US Senate at that time.

But it don't make any difference. Any one Dem is better than an entire room full of stinking Repigs.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Right! This means that it's not only about WHO they are, but also about HOW things work.
With emphasis upon the phenomenal (as in of or related to all phenomena) quality of being DYNAMIC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I doubt it.
That's not her reputation or her history, despite some misinterpretations about her past votes.

Still, it hardly matters. I already liked Clinton more than Obama, I still do. I planned to vote for Obama, anyway, still do. No change. And Obama wouldn't have stopped this bill by speaking against it. The real reason he voted for it, I think, wasn't to triangulate, but was to avoid losing a public fight. If he had opposed the bill, he'd have been cast as the leader of the opposition, so when he lost, the media would run up its light bill debating how much this "loss" demonstrated his inability to lead even his own party. That's just a guess, really, but it's my guess, so I'm sticking with it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I won't say you are wrong
I actually never considered all that.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Would have been nice if he HAD led his own party and stopped the immunity!
He didn't even try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well
Yeah. :cry:

But my point was about why he did it, not what he should have done. I'm a Clinton supporter who doesn't like the nominee, anyway. But he's what we got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Edwards supporter here. Agreed. He is what we've got, and definitely better
than the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. k & r-- thank you for posting this.
it is fascinating to me to watch the reaction to obama's vote on this and Sen. Clinton's, especially as expressed on these boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC