Reluctantly taking a less-than-perfect compromise is hardly a flip-flop, and it's an issue Obama can quickly correct if he becomes President.

Atillathepun: it's an issue Obama can quickly correct if he becomes President.

Oh you're one of those cute Obama supporters I've heard so much about.

I'm for Obama, but he's a politician, plain and simple. I don't think there has been one President to give back a power that was given to him. If he's President, he'll use the FISA courts just like Bush should have done.

The reason he and Pelosi both supported this bill was that it explicitly states the FISA courts are the final word on this. So, Bush's warrantless wiretapping with this passing, is explicitly illegal. Not much is changing with this new bill.

But yeah, it's the not ideal that a real Constitutionalist would want, but it's a good compromise for the time being.

Etchy333: Atillathepun: it's an issue Obama can quickly correct if he becomes President.

Oh you're one of those cute Obama supporters I've heard so much about.

I'm for Obama, but he's a politician, plain and simple. I don't think there has been one President to give back a power that was given to him. If he's President, he'll use the FISA courts just like Bush should have done.

The reason he and Pelosi both supported this bill was that it explicitly states the FISA courts are the final word on this. So, Bush's warrantless wiretapping with this passing, is explicitly illegal. Not much is changing with this new bill.

But yeah, it's the not ideal that a real Constitutionalist would want, but it's a good compromise for the time being.

Oh, you're one of those cute people who thinks anyone who makes a reasoned point is a cult member. And what's especially funny is that your post agrees with mine to a large extent. So you're either a cute Obama supporter too or you're just a major-league douche.

/Or both.

Everyone involved in the whole thing should get off with no punishment whatsoever, and with any luck that sort of surveillance on Americans should expand considerably.

Let that be another legacy that the slimebag Bush supporters have to show for themselves forever.

Live with yourselves, you filth.

olbermann = giant douche.

Just curious, but what is it with changing your mind or backing down on an issue that makes people think it is a character flaw?

You may think being a stubborn jackass who ignores any change in the issue makes you some kind of hero, but it is really damaging the country as well as proving how stupid and selfish you can be.

Atillathepun: Etchy333: Atillathepun: it's an issue Obama can quickly correct if he becomes President.

Oh you're one of those cute Obama supporters I've heard so much about.

I'm for Obama, but he's a politician, plain and simple. I don't think there has been one President to give back a power that was given to him. If he's President, he'll use the FISA courts just like Bush should have done.

The reason he and Pelosi both supported this bill was that it explicitly states the FISA courts are the final word on this. So, Bush's warrantless wiretapping with this passing, is explicitly illegal. Not much is changing with this new bill.

But yeah, it's the not ideal that a real Constitutionalist would want, but it's a good compromise for the time being.

Oh, you're one of those cute people who thinks anyone who makes a reasoned point is a cult member. And what's especially funny is that your post agrees with mine to a large extent. So you're either a cute Obama supporter too or you're just a major-league douche.

/Or both.

You didn't make a reasonable point. You speculated based on no facts except for your rainbow view of the world with Obama as president.

I just don't understand why there HAS to be Telco immunity. How is that "National Security"

/forgive my ignorance

Atillathepun:
Oh, you're one of those cute people who thinks anyone who makes a reasoned point is a cult member. And what's especially funny is that your post agrees with mine to a large extent. So you're either a cute Obama supporter too or you're just a major-league douche

No, I believe he was referring to your "Don't worry, Obama will easily fix this" reply, without having a real point or any reasoning on why, how, or even why he compromised. It seems cultish because it's devoid of thought and more like blind faith.

jpbreon: Just curious, but what is it with changing your mind or backing down on an issue that makes people think it is a character flaw?

Well, when John McCain was anti-torture and then rolled over when Bush cracked the whip it made me think less of him because above all it was a moral issue.

This IS a moral issue, but the compromise reached is a pretty reasonable one and, like it's been said, Obama will have the authority to follow up on this as President ESPECIALLY as a means of correcting such action and preventing it from happening in the future.

Olbermann has never been a serious journalist, so why care when the diarrea leaks out of his mouth. As far as Barak, yea he flip-flopped pretty good on this one, but is getting a pass from the media as usual. It won't hurt him.

PruneTracy: This IS a moral issue, but the compromise reached is a pretty reasonable one and, like it's been said, Obama will have the authority to follow up on this as President ESPECIALLY as a means of correcting such action and preventing it from happening in the future.

Compromise? In MY two party system? I'll have none of that! Deadlocked senate debates and fillibusters for the next 1,000 years!

I have no idea what the farking hubbub is about because the FISA compromise:

A) Makes clear that Bush's program was illegal and restores the appropriate FISA court process.

B) Contains a limited form of telcom immunity BUT Obama has said that he opposes that position and will work in the Senate to have it removed.

So... WTF?

Say what you want about about Obama cultists, but this issue caused me to cut off my donations.

Yes, he's a politician, and yes, he needs to compromise. But not on this, not on this most sacred Constitutional right.

//Keith is getting under my skin, too
//Bob Barr?
//jk

I subscribed to the Countdown podcast since I am a big lefty and I have never actually watched the show before, but I heard a lot of good things about Olbermann. Turns out, the show sucks! It is like a left version of Fox News.

I think that it the reason that progressive media doesn't do so well. People like me are interested in detail and fact. I don't want to hear a lot of spin. I like to hear all sides of an issue, but with enough analysis to determine which sides have the most merit. The problem, then, is that the perfect balance for me is already provided by NPR.

Firemarshalbill: Atillathepun:
Oh, you're one of those cute people who thinks anyone who makes a reasoned point is a cult member. And what's especially funny is that your post agrees with mine to a large extent. So you're either a cute Obama supporter too or you're just a major-league douche

No, I believe he was referring to your "Don't worry, Obama will easily fix this" reply, without having a real point or any reasoning on why, how, or even why he compromised. It seems cultish because it's devoid of thought and more like blind faith.

Obama doesn't want to compromise the Constitution by letting the telecoms off the hook for their past disgressions. But he also doesn't want to compromise national security. So, in the end, he compromised.

Atillathepun: Reluctantly taking a less-than-perfect compromise is hardly a flip-flop, and it's an issue Obama can quickly correct if he becomes President.

There was no compromise. The Dems caved like usual.


PottyMcNugg: I just don't understand why there HAS to be Telco immunity. How is that "National Security"

/forgive my ignorance

It has nothing to do with national security. Here are the reasons why the dems capitulated in no particular order:

1. Telcos donated huge sums of money to their campaign coffers.

2. They don't want to be called 'weak' on national security by those meanie republicans (even though they'll call them weak anyway, ask Max Cleland).

3. They're morally corrupt.

4. They're afraid of a lame-duck president and don't want to divide the country.


/Done with Obama
//Bob Barr FTW

We have always been at war with EastAsia.

/more of the same

Edsel: So... WTF?

It's cause Obama didn't stand in front of every senate member with a gun and the constitution and yell at them to impeach Bush for being an evil liar and he's being a namby-pamby appeaser with no morals that is just playing the political game and going with the flow.

In fact, Obama is actually the only person that can be blamed for this. In a thread about the house vote last week...Obama is blamed.

A huge majority of republicans vote for this...Obama is blamed.

The administration let this happen for...what? 5 years?...Obama is blamed.

Obama can be blamed for anything.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Olbermann has never been a serious journalist, so why care when the diarrea leaks out of his mouth. As far as Barak, yea he flip-flopped pretty good on this one, but is getting a pass from the media as usual. It won't hurt him.

the news companies and papers aren't pushing an agenda that involves investigating and making life miserable for some of their biggest advertisers? shocking!

Yeah, well fark him too.

I understand Obama needs to play to the middle now. This wasn't the issue to do it.

bulldg4life: In a thread about the house vote last week...Obama is blamed.

Yeah, exactly -- farking Obama, he should have FORCED the House of Representatives to vote down telcom immunity. WTF is this guy's problem???

PottyMcNugg: "I just don't understand why there HAS to be Telco immunity. How is that 'National Security'?"

Put yourself in the telcos place.

Say some go-getter in the FBI has a hunch about some dude named Farouk living in Philly. So, he leans on the phone company for Farouk's call records. Based on a pattern revealed in the call records, the FBI go-getter has Farouk snagged out of line at the airport and renditioned to Djibouti for a few months worth of waterboarding and arm-twisting.

In the interim, Farouk's falafel restaurant goes under, his house is repo-ed, his wife divorces him, and the IRS hammers him for back taxes. Then, the FBI go-getter realizes that Farouk wasn't involved in such-and-such a terror cell after all, and has Farouk dumped off at a taxi stand in Brindisi.

Farouk, angry and ruined, returns to Philly and hires a lawyer and sues the phone company for eighty brazilian dollars because they gave Mister FBI go-getter his call records, upon which the entire misadventure was based.

That's why the telcos want immunity, because they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If they tell these FBI go-getters to f*ck off when they request call records, they'll probably end up being investigated and find regulatory rulings going against them and licenses to operate mysteriously being revoked and applications for this or that disappearing down the rabbit hole in federal bureaucracies.

If they accomodate the FBI go-getters, they can get their asses sued off every time the gummint f*cks up and oppresses an innocent person using the info they provided.

On the one hand, they really can't tell Uncle Sam "no," but if they don't have immunity, they potentially pay the price for Uncle Sam's excesses and mistakes. They're just trying to cover their asses.

Edsel: I have no idea what the farking hubbub is about because the FISA compromise:

A) Makes clear that Bush's program was illegal and restores the appropriate FISA court process.

B) Contains a limited form of telcom immunity BUT Obama has said that he opposes that position and will work in the Senate to have it removed.

So... WTF?

A) Some detail on the program would be nice. A lawsuit would get to the bottom of that. Why should law-breaking be immunized after the fact? The house dems actually went to the telcos and asked them how to write the law that immunizes them.

B) The proposed amendment to strip immunity is DOA and he knows it. There aren't 40 spines in congress, let alone the Senate. Once the amendment fails, he will vote for the final bill; I can't fathom his position on this.

Atillathepun


Etchy333 has a clue. You don't. End of story.

Duke_Phillips: Okay, say the immunity wasn't granted. Then what happens?

class action lawsuit, if anything. and most importantly, the ability to go through discovery, using the power of the court to bring some administration secrets out into the open.

at least, as i understand, that's what people are really interested in.

canyoneer: If they tell these FBI go-getters to f*ck off when they request call records, they'll probably end up being investigated and find regulatory rulings going against them and licenses to operate mysteriously being revoked and applications for this or that disappearing down the rabbit hole in federal bureaucracies.

B-b-but the government would never act in a vindictive manner for refusal to break the law for them! *cough*qwest*cough*

I just want to know why we are getting mad at telecoms that did something under the orders of the administration....and we are getting mad at giving the telecoms immunity.

I mean, if some Joey Bagofdonuts mobster murdered the DA or key witness of an upcoming trial on the orders of the big cheese Don Corleone Godfather, some people might consider giving Joey some immunity so we can focus on going after the big guy.

However, in this case, we are focused on whether to give the hitman immunity or not...and nobody (us or congress) is talking about whether to go after Bush or not.

It's like some alternate reality where the real terrible issue is being ignored while we fight over some retarded non-issue that won't matter 3 years from now.

canyoneer:
If they accomodate the FBI go-getters, they can get their asses sued off every time the gummint f*cks up and oppresses an innocent person using the info they provided.

On the one hand, they really can't tell Uncle Sam "no," but if they don't have immunity, they potentially pay the price for Uncle Sam's excesses and mistakes. They're just trying to cover their asses.

You do realize you posted a concise, real world version of this issue. It encapsulates the core problems of this issue and why it's being handled as so. It's a shame nobody is going to read it because it's not inflammatory.

Next time slip in anti-McCain and anti-Obama keywords.

I am amazed at how many Farkers are more interested in making the telcoms pay for cooperating with a federal investigation in the past rather than making sure the government doesn't pull this shiat in the future.

The telcoms are not the problem.

jpbreon: Just curious, but what is it with changing your mind or backing down on an issue that makes people think it is a character flaw?

Sadly, this isn't just a matter of changing your mind as one might do on policy issues like offshore drilling or accepting public campaign financing. This is a matter of choosing whether or not to allow people to get away with breaking the law.

By caving on Telecom Immunity, the people who supported this bill are passing a law after the fact to forgive people who broke the law (and likely knew they were breaking the law). That's not a simple change of mind or a compromise, it's a pure sell-out of a founding principle of this country.

The founders wanted this to be a country run by laws - not men - and no man, no matter how rich or powerful, should be above the law. With the passage of this law, we've put some men (both real and corporate) above the law.

That's not a simple flip-flop, it's a betrayal.

/I do agree that joe-typical-flip-flops are BS issues
//Still voting for Obama, but I shan't be contributing to his campaign anymore
///Sending my money to the Dems who voted against this instead

PottyMcNugg
I just don't understand why there HAS to be Telco immunity. How is that "National Security"

Because without it you don't have enough votes to get your legislation at all.

Getting half of what you wanted is better than getting nothing. Especially if you get the most important half.

Let me see if I understand FISA properly...

It's been a law since the Carter Administration. Under it, the government can spy on certain (foreign) communications, and ask for a warrant later.

The telecoms don't know whether a conversation falls under that provision or not. They also don't know whether the spy agency will actually get around to filing the warrant with the FISA court or not. They don't have to do that for a year.

The immunity question is whether an individual can sue the telecom because they either shouldn't have been spied on under FISA, or a warrant was not filed after the fact.

Weird law, all around. I guess the telecom should get a "we promise we'll get a warrant eventually" form signed? Would that be enough to protect them?

/ "and this is my receipt for your receipt"

This wasn't a question of the Dems caving. I wish people would look at the policy implications of what they are advocating. Obama did the right thing.

The telecom groups acted in good faith, providing the government with information it said it needed and was critical to protecting the national security of the country.

It makes no sense for a private company to be the one to decide whether or not what they are being asked to do violates the Constitution. They never swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution - the government representatives who asked for the information did.

Holding them accountable would set a bad precedent, and whatever tort payouts they were required to make would eventually be passed onto us, the consumers.

Obama is a politician, of course. But because he's such a front runner, he's beginning to realize that he has to start thinking like someone who isn't running for office, but who is actively governing. And, from a policy perspective, compromising on telecom immunity is the right thing to do.

schiefaw: "I am amazed at how many Farkers are more interested in making the telcoms pay for cooperating with a federal investigation in the past rather than making sure the government doesn't pull this shiat in the future."

That's because there are many people in this country who have, like Pavlov's Dogs, been conditioned to reflexively assume evil intent on the part of any large business, be it "Ma Bell" or Teh Evil Oil Companies or any other large industry or corporation. That's usually as far as their thinking goes.

I still think that Obama (and Dodd and Feingold) are trying to run out the clock on this. If they can push the vote up against the August recess, they might be able to kill it for the year. I'm going to hold off on the Inquisition until Obama is actually forced to vote on FISA.

bulldg4life: I just want to know why we are getting mad at telecoms that did something under the orders of the administration....and we are getting mad at giving the telecoms immunity.

Actually, there were a number of forms of immunity for the telecoms that were under consideration that would have been acceptable. For example, one amendment called for the total liability for all claims of FISA violation per telecom would be $10K, which those companies could easily absorb.

What makes that OK and this entirely unacceptable, because the system of discovery through the judicial branch would have moved forward under such a case and those responsible would have to admit to the illegitimate and likely illegal pressure they put on the telecoms.

The problem is not giving the telecoms some protections so they are not unduly punished for failing to demand a subpoena. The problem is doing so in a manner that completed closes off one of the only roads available for the people to learn the full truth of what their government has done and to hold them responsible for it.

/Another way to learn, impeachment, but the dems took that off the table, too
//The Democrats are perfectly willing to let this administration get away with violating bedrock principles in order to win the next election

Shaggy_C: B-b-but the government would never act in a vindictive manner for refusal to break the law for them! *cough*qwest*cough*

That makes this "compromise" WORSE. Because the Qwest guy still got hassled, and the people who broke the law are rewarded. I agree that Bush probably intended to hassle and pressure any telecoms that refused to play. But I don't think that's an argument for doing this. In fact, it's an argument for NO immunity. If the government can apply political pressure to get people to break the law, well, then there needs to be serious consequences associated with going along with them in order to deter it. Because otherwise corporations will just ignore the law whenever the government tries to get them to do so.

As far as I'm concerned, we should scrap the whole FISA bill. It's not a compromise, because we don't need any of it. So I don't buy the whole argument that this was a "compromise" between retroactive immunity and national security. In fact, we need to roll back warrant-less surveillance even more than currently allowed under the law, not expand it.

canyoneer: On the one hand, they really can't tell Uncle Sam "no,"

Qwest did.

Mentat: I'm going to hold off on the Inquisition until Obama is actually forced to vote on FISA.

The chances he doesn't vote are?

I mean, hell...the way it is going now, I figure two things can happen:

1) He votes for the bill. He is caving and flip-flopping and is playing the political game and he's a little biatch that has no morals and votes with the wind blah blah blah

2) He votes against the bill because of the immunity clause. HE HATES NATIONAL SECURITY! or some crap. Maybe "HEY, HE WANTS TO SPY ON US TOO WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE FISA COURTS!"

Those are his two options, I guess.

Mnemia: Because otherwise corporations will just ignore the law whenever the government tries to get them to do so.

Sadly, that's not very different from corporations just ignoring the law until the government changes it.

See: Citigroup and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

DeltaXi65: This wasn't a question of the Dems caving. I wish people would look at the policy implications of what they are advocating. Obama did the right thing.

Wrong.

The telecom groups acted in good faith, providing the government with information it said it needed and was critical to protecting the national security of the country.

I don't believe for a second that they acted in good faith. They have teams of lawyers on staff that certainly told them it was illegal. No, they cooperated because they feared political payback or desired political rewards that were offered to them by the Bush Administration.

It makes no sense for a private company to be the one to decide whether or not what they are being asked to do violates the Constitution. They never swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution - the government representatives who asked for the information did.

No one is asking that they be the ones to decide whether Bush's program was constitutional. The telecoms are responsible for following the law and their own contracts with their customers. They broke both, and they did so knowingly (see above). They had a duty to say "no" to any warrantless domestic surveillance.

Obama is a politician, of course. But because he's such a front runner, he's beginning to realize that he has to start thinking like someone who isn't running for office, but who is actively governing. And, from a policy perspective, compromising on telecom immunity is the right thing to do.

No, it's not. The right thing to do is to let the courts sort it out.

pmccall: bulldg4life: I just want to know why we are getting mad at telecoms that did something under the orders of the administration....and we are getting mad at giving the telecoms immunity.

Actually, there were a number of forms of immunity for the telecoms that were under consideration that would have been acceptable. For example, one amendment called for the total liability for all claims of FISA violation per telecom would be $10K, which those companies could easily absorb.

What makes that OK and this entirely unacceptable, because the system of discovery through the judicial branch would have moved forward under such a case and those responsible would have to admit to the illegitimate and likely illegal pressure they put on the telecoms.

The problem is not giving the telecoms some protections so they are not unduly punished for failing to demand a subpoena. The problem is doing so in a manner that completed closes off one of the only roads available for the people to learn the full truth of what their government has done and to hold them responsible for it.

/Another way to learn, impeachment, but the dems took that off the table, too
//The Democrats are perfectly willing to let this administration get away with violating bedrock principles in order to win the next election

Hey! Someone actually has a valid point about why the immunity clause sucks! However, it may not matter so much if the Dems hold both houses and the White house. They can have hearings anyway. There is no way that they would impeach at this point.

Mordant: Everyone involved in the whole thing should get off with no punishment whatsoever, and with any luck that sort of surveillance on Americans should expand considerably.

Let that be another legacy that the slimebag Bush supporters have to show for themselves forever.

Live with yourselves, you filth.

Stay classy, Mordant.

schiefaw: Hey! Someone actually has a valid point about why the immunity clause sucks! However, it may not matter so much if the Dems hold both houses and the White house. They can have hearings anyway. There is no way that they would impeach at this point.

Yep. I personally believe the entire point of this exercise is to protect Bush from any consequences or investigation of this program. It isn't even about the telecoms, directly. It's about shutting down the courts' ability to conduct discovery and find out the truth. Basically, they are tacitly making the argument that allowing the courts to review these programs threaten national security.

Cog: olbermann = giant douche.

I really try to avoid most memes, but

this.

bulldg4life: Those are his two options, I guess.

That's just it though. He's trying to play both sides. His current position gives him street cred with right-of-center independents at the cost of a hit to his support among the left (who will still vote for him in November). If the bill fails, he ends up with the best of both worlds. The risk is that he is forced to actually vote at some point.

meh telecom immunity is nothing really. they only provide access.
it's like trying to hold your isp responsible for your downloads.
the culprits in this would be the govt who misused their authority.

as long as FISA is used going forward and an investigation into the past warrants and nsls is done justly then I have no problem with the bill.

as long as Obama uses his justice dept to investigate the "possible" criminal wrongdoings of Bushco when he takes over then all will be forgiven. If he doesn't then I have a major beef with him.