Obama: I'll Fight To Strip Telecom Immunity From FISA
(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 [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.
"[The bill] 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."
The House approved the legislation 293-129.
The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.
Critics say granting immunity to telecoms would scrap the pending lawsuits and prevent any public airing of details about the government's surveillance activities.
Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted in favor of keeping immunity for the telecoms.
Speaking in an interview to be aired on Bloomberg television this weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that he may schedule a separate vote on stripping immunity from the bill, although he expressed pessimism about its success.
"Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try," Reid told "Political Capital with Al Hunt."
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 [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.
"[The bill] 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."
The House approved the legislation 293-129.
The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.
Critics say granting immunity to telecoms would scrap the pending lawsuits and prevent any public airing of details about the government's surveillance activities.
Last February, when an earlier version of the FISA bill came to a vote, Obama voted for an amendment to strip the telecom immunity provision from the bill. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted in favor of keeping immunity for the telecoms.
Speaking in an interview to be aired on Bloomberg television this weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that he may schedule a separate vote on stripping immunity from the bill, although he expressed pessimism about its success.
"Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try," Reid told "Political Capital with Al Hunt."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 6
- next
See all 265 CommentsThey should refuse to do it if they have a chance of being sued.
Seems like the Democrats want their cake and be able to eat it too.
Creating a catch 22 for telecommunication companies.
Unless the Democrats plan on taking them over also and nationalizing them.
They should refuse to do it if they have a chance of being sued.
Seems like the Democrats want their cake and be able to eat it too.
Creating a catch 22 for telecommunication companies.
Unless the Democrats plan on taking them over also and nationalizing them.
Posted by seah5 at 12:48 PM : Jun 21, 2008
+ rep
I don''t get it!! Where do you Fascist propose to stop? We didn''t elect a KING or Dictator MORON! It''s not like we put up a Law that couldn''t be met or understood. Now IF the Little Nazi broke the law AND Corporations did NOT report that violation of the law, THEY are guilty. This is NOTHING new... It''s not rocket science either. The RULE of law we are discussing has survived for over 200 years...until the Fascist took over and suddenly it''s to much of a problem... this from a Pathetic Piece of Human Trash some still call a President who LIED us into a War!! SIEG HEIL BUSH!!
Are we supposed to believe what Obama says this time?
Why?
It was never the telecoms jobs to verify the government was following the law. Especially in the murky areas of FISA law.
This immunity provision reeks of corruption, cover-up and pandering to special interests. And yes, I''m talking about Democrats. We all knew the GOP is a reeking corpse, and now we see the DNC is too.
Barack said the DNC is his party, well it''s time for him to put up or shut up. In other words, he better call James Clyburn, the Majority Whip, and tell old Jimmy to get off his lazy, entrenched, good-for-nothing asss.
Unless Barack wants me and many others to begin calling him out on a full time basis for being the biggest charade of all time, then he better get this immunity removed!!!
I''ve been quiet about several other dealings, statements and interactions barack''s had over the past couple months, but I will not be quiet about immunity. I will not!!
Frankly I cannot imagine any core conservative would approve of the US Government spying on American Citizens without oversight - especially when there has been no court cases or trials proving conspiracy of terrorism.
If those large telecom companies illegally monitored competitors wouldn''t that be a crime?
The fact that popularly elected officials don''t seem interested in uncovering possibly unconstitutional actions by both public and private parties isn''t news; that Obama speaks out against it but McCain votes for it speaks volumes.
These cases should go to the Judiciary, the traditional third check on the powers of the Congress and Executive Branch, how does voting to hide the dirty laundry serve our country better?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sd8IiK6KkW4
Is this the type of person we want managing our precious country? I don''t think so!
Vote Obama!!
Defense requires disclosure of cause, instructions and actions taken in reliance on the President. If these are reasonable under the circumstances, liability is transferred to the source authority (President).
Immunity eliminates the need for a defense to define responsibility. Therefore it is in the best interests of the public to hear the case and deny immunity.
However, it is very likely that the Democratic Congressional Leadership was at least informed and therefore culpable in the Presidential abuse of authority.
It is germane whether any complicity was before the fact or after the fact.
Therefore, Congressmen who had any prior knowledge MUST abstain. In essence if the voter is tainted, voting business immunity is both self-preserving and obstruction of justice.
Since Obama is "clean" on this it is logical for him to vote for business liability. McCain is in favor of immunity.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4x7b5M2_8bY
I''m a libertarian now.
Frankly I cannot imagine any core conservative would approve of the US Government spying on American Citizens without oversight - especially when there has been no court cases or trials proving conspiracy of terrorism.
If those large telecom companies illegally monitored competitors wouldn''t that be a crime?
The fact that popularly elected officials don''t seem interested in uncovering possibly unconstitutional actions by both public and private parties isn''t news; that Obama speaks out against it but McCain votes for it speaks volumes.
These cases should go to the Judiciary, the traditional third check on the powers of the Congress and Executive Branch, how does voting to hide the dirty laundry serve our country better?
The statement of Rev Wright, Obama pastor and mentor for 20 plus years.
And You thought he was different...
The Bush Administration is engaged in criminal activity. The Republican Party are accomplices and the Democrats that support this are accomplices after-the-fact.
If Obama, or any Senator filibusters this bill, they will go down in history as a hero.
Someone needs to defend our Constitution.
The statement of Rev Wright, Obama pastor and mentor for 20 plus years.
And You thought he was different...
Posted by Barocalto at 03:01 PM
Get over yourself--are you dumb enough to think McLame will do better???
Bush is showing him the ropes and will have a backhanded influence in his reign of terror if he gets in!!
Jerk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4x7
b5M2_8bY
Posted by casidi
And he said that many times in 99
Thank God for Russ Feingold, who, unlike these clowns, supports the Consitution.
Posted by emperorlotku at 04:14 PM : Jun 21, 2008
----
The only ones acting like "nazi thugs" is the Bush administration. Their complete contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law is disgusting.
That morons like this would support dictatorial powers for a president s not surprising. There are many cowards who are so afraid of our liberty that they would willingly give away the 4th Amendment and the rest so they can cower in their corner and feel "safe."
These people deserve nothing but our contempt. They are traitors and scoundrels. They cannot understand that we can be both free and safe. They buy into the rhetoric of the puppet masters who pull their strings- the wacko right radio and the disingenuous "fair and Balanced" Fake News.
The FISA court process worked. That Bush and his traitors bypassed the court is the problem. But it is too complex for morons like these posters to understand. How pathetic they are. How un-American. How stipid. How "nazi".
Welcome to China, Communist (and current) Russia, Burma, Iran, Syria, and the United States of America.
Way to look strong Obama. BTW-Thanks for back stabbing those of us who care about our rights and Bush''s criminal spying.
Ethical leadership - how unusual and refreshing for a change!
I couldn''t care if all the telecoms are sued out of business for their illegal acts. This excludes Quest of course, who didn''t collapse into a pile of goo at the Administration''s illegal request to spy on Americans.
Instead of wasting resources conducting covert and illegal wiretaps on Americans, the administration should be hunting for Osama Bin Laden and helping the troops (The VA in particular, which is overwhelmed with the wounded).
Hats off to Senator Obama!
Posted by emperorlotku at 04:14 PM : Jun 21, 2008
--------------------------------
Bush was to dumb to listen to his national security briefing before taking the oath of office about a terrorist threat of hijacking planes. The thing about the wiretaps -they are illegal. If duma*s Bush would have not broken a constitutional law -everything would be fine. The constitution is there for a reason -dumba*s. So a president, like Bush, cannot abuse his powers (check and balance). If he actually tried to have a ''warrantless'' bill passed back then -it probabaly would have passed -no problem. Bush is plain stupid. And you are a gullible, goofy, far-righty, that believes everything Bush and McSame tells you.
Obama has lost my faith and my trust. I appeal to all serious liberal thinkers to STOP sending him money. It is the only way we have to get the message through to his campaign
Posted by Spokanite61 at 04:51 PM : Jun 21, 2008
-------
ROFLMAO - Are you serious? Make a point? The only "point" you are making is to elect John McBush President.
You are either a liberal moron or a Republican neocon trying to be clever. Either way- f''ing stupid.
siri
I hate this, but he has to be smart about getting elected. He is a brilliant man, and he will weather this, get in office, and do us proud by bring back the justice and freedom we so badly need.
Please support mr. Obama as he goes forward and remember that he is only a man, and there are sometimes politics (aka compromise) involved. He is only compromising because he believes that as president he will fix this.
siri
siri
siri
There are very few on this post that have a clue on what they are talking about.
What hand out are you trying to get?
Whose pocket do you want to stick your hand in?
As it is, you''ll just have to angry at the ineptitude of the rest of them.
Hey Harry, You sure enthused about stripping the bill????
You really suck!!
Don''t tell me McCain is worse.. the point is... who can support Obama with any enthusiasm if he sells out the Constitution when he doesn''t have to.
To "try" to remove it means to offer an ammendment to have it removed, which requires 51 votes to get it passed. With Democratic complicity and nervousness, there are not 51 votes.
If a filibuster is started, it takes 60 votes to cut off discussion. This would require 10 Democrats to oppose the principled stand of the soon-to-be nominee of the party 2 months before the convention. I think he can pull that off. Especially with the help of Dodd and Feingold, the filibusters of January.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 6
- next
See all 265 Comments