to celebrate, i suggest we all share some

/hey, i made it, i might as well use it a few more times

Freakin' good. We need to get Chris Dodd in on it again.

Hopefully he understands that this would require him to be in the Senate to vote.

Why not impeach the ringleader instead?

I would suggest everyone, including the Submitter, RTFA. Because it doesn't seem to say what the headline says.

DeltaXi65: Hopefully he understands that this would require him to be in the Senate to vote.

He's there more often than McCain is. Though truthfully, McCain probably just forgets he has to vote.

1. Telcom is ordered by Federal Government to turn over information.
2. Telcom tells Feds, "this is improper."
3. Feds tell telcom, "we'll tell you what's improper," then place gun to telcom's head
4. Telcom complies.
5. Telcom gets sued.

Bullshiat.

Cyberluddite: I would suggest everyone, including the Submitter, RTFA. Because it doesn't seem to say what the headline says.

yeah i know, i just wanted to use my picture.

to be perfectly fair, he did say he would oppose the immunity in the senate. he didn't say filibuster though. that was a quote from when he supported chris dodd's filibuster.

personally, i'm still not satisfied with his response.

dkendr: 3. Feds tell telcom, "we'll tell you what's improper," then place gun to telcom's head

Except that the latter didn't happen.

And if it did, let it come out in a court of law, where people are under oath and evidence is presented.

DeltaXi65: Hopefully he understands that this would require him to be in the Senate to vote.

Straws. You seem to be grasping.

burndtdan: to be perfectly fair, he did say he would oppose the immunity in the senate.

If by "oppose," you mean "will vote for when it comes up for a vote," then I guess you're right:

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.

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. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.

In other words, he claims he doesn't like it, but he's too big of a pussy to vote against it.

Cyberluddite: burndtdan: to be perfectly fair, he did say he would oppose the immunity in the senate.

If by "oppose," you mean "will vote for when it comes up for a vote," then I guess you're right:

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.

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. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.

In other words, he claims he doesn't like it, but he's too big of a pussy to vote against it.

no, the compromise he's talking about is the FISA compromise. the immunity is not part of the FISA compromise, and you can tell that's what he meant because he explicitly said it (and you explicitly quoted it).

also, the quote that subby was referring to in TFA was when he supported chris dodd's filibuster last time.

so basically, precedent plus the words you quoted both say he will oppose immunity.

and remember, i too am not satisfied with his statement about it this time. i don't think he is coming out strongly enough against it.

but your interpretation was blatantly wrong.

burndtdan: but your interpretation was blatantly wrong.

The way I read it, he says he will "work" to remove the immunity provision (such "work," whatever it may be, apparently will not arise to the level of fillibustering against it), but if that fails (as we all know it will) and it comes up for a vote with the immunity included, he will still vote for the bill.

Tell me what's "blatantly wrong" about that interpretation of his comments--I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. What's wrong, I think, is your statement that "the immunity is not part of the FISA compromise," because of course the telecom immunity is in fact part of this legislation.

Here's Obama's entire statement, rather than just the excerpt quoted in TFA:

"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.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"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. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Cyberluddite: The way I read it, he says he will "work" to remove the immunity provision (such "work," whatever it may be, apparently will not arise to the level of fillibustering against it), but if that fails (as we all know it will) and it comes up for a vote with the immunity included, he will still vote for the bill.

That's the way it looks to me.

Cyberluddite: The way I read it, he says he will "work" to remove the immunity provision (such "work," whatever it may be, apparently will not arise to the level of fillibustering against it), but if that fails (as we all know it will) and it comes up for a vote with the immunity included, he will still vote for the bill.

Tell me what's "blatantly wrong" about that interpretation of his comments--I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am. What's wrong, I think, is your statement that "the immunity is not part of the FISA compromise," because of course the telecom immunity is in fact part of this legislation.

That's what I got too. It's disappointing.

burndtdan: personally, i'm still not satisfied with his response.

I'm farking pissed.

I mean, yeah, I can understand the need to appear 'moderate' to get enough votes for the presidency, and I fully feel he needs to be the next president, but come on:

So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.

Letting one man decide this shiat is EXACTLY what is wrong with what GWB has been trying to do.

fark this.

skleenar: and I fully feel he needswe need him to be the next president

ftfm

Cyberluddite: The way I read it, he says he will "work" to remove the immunity provision (such "work," whatever it may be, apparently will not arise to the level of fillibustering against it), but if that fails (as we all know it will) and it comes up for a vote with the immunity included, he will still vote for the bill.

because this isn't the first time this bill has come in front of the senate with him in it, and last time he participated in a filibuster, and has literally no incentive to suddenly change his mind?

i dunno, i guess my memory is more than a week long and i can use those memories to help interpret current events involving the same people on the same topic?

i could be wrong, of course. but the thing that was blatantly wrong about your interpretation was not the possibility, but the certainty.

Disappointing day for the democrats and Obama. I won't be voting for these jokers this time around, and not for their dumbshiat friends the Republicans.

Donate to eff.org instead of either of these slimebag parties.

dkendr: 1. Telcom is ordered by Federal Government to turn over information.
2. Telcom tells Feds, "this is improper."
3. Feds tell telcom, "we'll tell you what's improper," then place gun to telcom's head
4. Telcom complies.
5. Telcom gets sued.

Bullshiat.

I believe that Qwest did not comply because their corporate attorney remembered reading the Constitution once in law school.

I am an Obama supporter. I will vote for him in November.

This is pathetic.

That is all.

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. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.

I see two problems with that:
1 - what if the Congress doesn't want to work with you to take additional steps?
2 - you won't be president forever. (You might not even BE president...) What makes you think your successors will be as wise and enlightened as you are?

Jon Snow: I am an Obama supporter. I will vote for him in November.

This is pathetic.

That is all.

"

This is definitely something Obama should take the lead on. He has a great opportunity to do something that shows he is the right man for the job.

I will vote for him in November but if he is just along for the ride on this one that doesn't make him look like a leader.

I just wrote this in to his campaign.

I am absolutely outraged that Obama is not speaking out strongly against the telco immunity bill, and, indeed, seems to be indicating that he will vote for it if it comes to a vote.

Telco immunity is unacceptable. If Obama votes for it, he is not the candidate I thought he was.

He should support a filibuster against it.

I say this as probably one of the more conservative of Obama supporters; if he's worried it'll make him look soft on terror, don't. He needs to show how strongly he can fight against invasions of our privacy.

I'm very disappointed. I don't like to think it, but wouldn't this fit the John Kerry school of reasoning: "I voted for it, before I was against it".

I fought back and forth about the FISA thing in the earlier thread, and so I'm just going to sum up and go to bed, more or less. Much like Obama, this bill isn't the bee's knees, but I'd still vote for it.

The immunity is a conditional one. The telecoms have to give good evidence that the Attorney General told them in an official manner that this particular wiretapping was legal. The AG is a government official, and short of an actual ruling by a court for each particular situation, the expert on whether or not something is legal. Iff the AG told the telecoms it was okay, they shouldn't be held accountable. The AG himself should. Thus:

poot_rootbeer: In fact, quoting United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1994): the defense argument of entrapment "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official." If that doesn't cover the situation with the telecoms, you'll eat my hat.

Let's put all this in perspective. What have the Democrats actually lost by giving this conditional immunity? How likely is it that a telecom could be successfully civilly sued, if they didn't have it? I'd imagine pretty poor. Who would bring the suit? Is there anyone who was spied upon and knows it, but hasn't been charged with a crime? If they exist, can they afford a lawyer? Do they even live here in the US? What are the damages? Even if it actually made it to trial, if the AG told them it was legal, would it succeed, or just waste lots of money? And it looks like a class action suit is pretty difficult:

keypusher: Any proper effort to explain the federal rules governing whether litigants can be certified as a class requires about 50 pages. But the key problem is whether the various members of the putative class have enough in common. Generally, courts are very reluctant to conclude that they do. Off the top of my head, you would have (i) people who say they are afraid that they MIGHT be listened to (ii) people who think they are being listened to (iii) people here making calls overseas (iv) people overseas making calls here (v) people overseas making calls overseas that are routed through the United States.
No court would ever find sufficient commonality to certify a class. No one can ever be sure of anything in class action law, except that the courts are very reluctant to certify classes. This one isn't even close.

Wiretapping is a detestable and dangerous practice. But this particular fight is not the good fight- it's a skirmish tangential to more important issues- the most important being that the warrantless wiretapping loophole is closed by this bill.

Something sh*tty happened. Let's see if we can take down the people responsible, instead of corporations who were their pawns.

hillbillypharmacist: he telecoms have to give good evidence that the Attorney General told them in an official manner that this particular wiretapping was legal. The AG is a government official, and short of an actual ruling by a court for each particular situation, the expert on whether or not something is legal.

Hillbilly, I like you, I have nothing but respect for you. But I can't agree with you on this one. Treating the Attorney General like a court is an enormous, huge, terrible violation of the separation of powers. I cannot abide it. To me, the separation of powers, not the potential success of any lawsuit, is the issue here.

dkendr: 1. Telcom is ordered by Federal Government to turn over information.
2. Telcom tells Feds, "this is improper."
3. Feds tell telcom, "we'll tell you what's improper," then place gun to telcom's head
4. Telcom complies.
5. Telcom gets sued.
Bullshiat.

Warrents provide accountability and oversight.

What if someone accused you of being a pedeophile. Do you think a police officer should be allowed to listen to your phone conversations with out a warrent?

How about the FBI? How many children could we save if you allowed us to listen in on your phone calls without any accountabilty?

All it would take is some random person accusing you of any misdead and your whole life would be transparent to anyone willing to percieve you as a threat. any threat.

Additionally, let's say that this information were to be grossly missused, sold, etc... which is the ONLY reason that the Federal Government would want to obtain this information witout ANY judicial oversight.

What are your options for compensation?

How difficult is it to sue the Federal Government vs. those that are complicant in their illicit acts?

What else is the deterant from the government (lobbyists) just data mining the fark out everyone, without any accountabiliy?

/Omnipressence = power.
// I see you.

What the fark B-rock, you're farking up.

dkendr: 1. Telcom is ordered by Federal Government to turn over information.
2. Telcom tells Feds, "this is improper."
3. Feds tell telcom, "we'll tell you what's improper," then place gun to telcom's head
4. Telcom complies.
5. Telcom gets sued.

Bullshiat.

Umm more like:
1. Telcom is ordered by Federal Government to turn over information.
2. Telcom tells Feds, "this is improper."
3. Feds tell telcom, "give it to us or we will go to a judge!"
4. Goverment has to get a warrant.
5. Telecom complies

Warrants really are not that difficult to get you just need probable cause/evidence /gasp!

I posted this in the other thread, but it's nearly dead (the thread). So here's a nice part of the law that you all of you, but particularly conservatives will enjoy:

SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

`(a) In General- No State shall have authority to--

`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

So much for states' rights.

i'll tell you one thing; i'll vote for obama over any republithug, but my checks are going to my house rep. who voted against the fisa bill.

Obdicut: Treating the Attorney General like a court is an enormous, huge, terrible violation of the separation of powers. I cannot abide it. To me, the separation of powers, not the potential success of any lawsuit, is the issue here.

Oh, I understand your concern. And there should be a day in court- but for Gonzales and others in the administration, not for the telecoms. I don't think it's the duty of corporations to maintain the separation of powers. Certainly, the telecoms aren't the best actors ever, but they're corporations, expecting them to do anything more than what is profitable is kind of pointless.

It's as if the police ask you to be part of a sting, and they tell you to wear this wire and buy drugs from this guy. And then you do it, and they arrest you for possession.

I hope reasonable people can disagree, as an awful lot of people have disagreed with me today.

go back and RTA he will support the filibuster if they leave the telecomm immunity in it. but still there's a lot of folks pissed at obama. there's also a bunch of people taking about no more donations. his move to the center over these last 2 weeks isn't sitting well with some of his grassroot supporters.

I tried to read the whole act. I didn't understand most of it, but it seems like the overview aspect of it was mostly intact.

The parts that stood out were the ones where states didn't have a right to investigate and the immunity that was granted.

The AG can force a company to comply, but must do so through a court and find a judge that will agree with the order. The company can still appeal the order to a higher court. That seems fair to me.

I would just say that Obama needs to add the right of states to investigate to the immunity issue as the things that need to be removed before the bill is passed.

hillbillypharmacist: Oh, I understand your concern. And there should be a day in court- but for Gonzales and others in the administration, not for the telecoms. I don't think it's the duty of corporations to maintain the separation of powers. Certainly, the telecoms aren't the best actors ever, but they're corporations, expecting them to do anything more than what is profitable is kind of pointless.

It's as if the police ask you to be part of a sting, and they tell you to wear this wire and buy drugs from this guy. And then you do it, and they arrest you for possession.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. If the government asked a weapons manufacturer to make illegal weapons, if the government asked a private prison to abuse its inmates or deny them right to counsel, if the government asked a media station to slant its coverage of something, I still feel the private entities ought to remain culpable.

This also gives the telecoms a shield; they can cite this lack of immunity when refusing.

I do not understand your rationale for the bill. I understand why you think it is not important to be strongly against it, but I do not see why you think anything in the bill needs any support whatsoever.

I'd like to clarify that I don't have perfect understanding of this bill, and I don't have a perfect understanding of Obama's position. I'm not burning any bridges, but I am disturbed.

Obdicut: Hillbilly, I like you, I have nothing but respect for you. But I can't agree with you on this one. Treating the Attorney General like a court is an enormous, huge, terrible violation of the separation of powers. I cannot abide it. To me, the separation of powers, not the potential success of any lawsuit, is the issue here.

Well, I'm against the bill, but he has a point.

If it were another situation, it could even look like entrapment; where the nation's chief law enforcement officer and head of the entire Justice Department tells you it's okay beforehand, but then you get prosecuted for it afterwards.

Granted, that would only apply if the government were to file criminal charges against them (which obviously isn't going to happen here), but it's kinda shifty regardless.

Honestly, if we could get some sort of consequences enforced upon those in the Justice Department who okayed this crap in the first place and their bosses in the White House for setting the agenda that civil liberties protections in the US are just obstacles to be breached rather than necessary safeguards, none of this would be necessary.

Even though I oppose this bill on the grounds that the telecom companies shouldn't become de facto extensions of domestic surveillance departments in the federal government at all, I place the majority of the blame where it belongs: with those who set this policy at the top.

If the government comes to a telco with a warrant for surveilling specific, identified targets, that's fine, and they should cooperate. When the government sets up equipment at every single telco that allows them to see and to log all communications in the United States, that's crossing a line, in my mind, that should never be crossed without massive and even oppressive mechanisms to prevent abuse, which are almost entirely absent as far as we know in this case.

5_second_rule: his move to the center over these last 2 weeks isn't sitting well with some of his grassroot supporters

This hardly counts as such a move, and he hasn't exactly changed mucht he last two weeks.

Damnit, Obama.
This bill is shiat.

The problem here is the government-aided ignorance of the general public.

I don't know what is actually in this bill, except for the little news bites that come out about it. I also have no idea what 'legitmate threats' we face, because the government refuses to elucidate any details about who exactly they need to wiretap and why this bill will help them do it.

Basically, I feel that I don't support the bill, but I'm not sure. Obama does for some reason I don't know about. It's a pathetic position to be in, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Prospero424: If it were another situation, it could even look like entrapment; where the nation's chief law enforcement officer and head of the entire Justice Department tells you it's okay beforehand, but then you get prosecuted for it afterwards

If you were the head of a Telecom and you thought the Bush White House wasn't breaking the law, you didn't know shiat about your business.

I want the higher ups to pay; I don't give a shiat about suing the telecom companies. I give a shiat about a precedent that says that the Executive branch is the judicial branch. We have too many of those already. They haven't slowed, they haven't reversed over time, they've sped up. Now is not the time to gently apply the brakes, now is the time to head in the opposite farking direction.

And how can I believe Obama is the opposite direction if he is not opposing this bill?

Party Boy: Damnit, Obama.
This bill is shiat.

he's going to support a filibuster to have the telco immunity stripped from the bill, yes? plus even the house bill gets rid of warrantless wiretapping, which is the main thing. i'm not sure what everybody's so pissed about.

Obdicut: but I do not see why you think anything in the bill needs any support whatsoever.

Strengthening of wiretapping rules. No more warrantless wiretapping, or retroactive warrants, except in "exigent circumstances". I hope that definition is well fleshed out.

I think the most important thing is to keep it from happening in the future.

FlashHarry: Party Boy: Damnit, Obama.
This bill is shiat.

he's going to support a filibuster to have the telco immunity stripped from the bill, yes? plus even the house bill gets rid of warrantless wiretapping, which is the main thing. i'm not sure what everybody's so pissed about.

see " UPDATED 1:" on TFA

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. . . .

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. . . 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.

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. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people.

He says he will work to remove amnesty from the bill, but once that fails, will vote for the "compromise." Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states. The full Obama statement is here.

YES! This is why Obama is the epitome of Hope and Change! He will clean the murky waters of politics, he will heal those who are sick, and he will bring money back to laborers!

McCain is a sinking ship of a dying armada. We must give one last shot to send her to her water depths once and for all.

On-word, to our glorious movement!

/GObama!

One small positive aspect of the bill, which may have contributed to Obama's support of it:

At least it makes it clear that in order to surveil anyone within the United States, a warrant from the FISA court is required.

Of course, the original 1978 FISA law should have made that clear form the beginning...