iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms

Telecom

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 06/28/08 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 01:35 PM ET

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released a statement Friday afternoon saying that while Obama opposes amnesty for telecom firms that spied on Americans, he will support the House compromise legislation.

The statement in full:

"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."

Also today, in an interview with Bloomberg's Al Hunt, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would attempt to remove the amnesty provision in the bill:

Reid said the Senate may try to remove a provision from the bill that shields telephone companies from privacy lawsuits. Holding a separate vote on that issue next week may provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Even though the attempt may fail, Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to "express their views."


"I'm going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity," Reid said in an interview to be aired this weekend on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt."

"Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try."

McJoan at Daily Kos writes, "That effort should be helped by Obama's opposition to the provision. His support of the remainder of the bill is disappointing, but that would be in large part offset if he can help kill immunity."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released a statement Friday afternoon saying that while Obama opposes amnesty for telecom firms that spied on Americans, he will support the House compromise legislation. ...
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released a statement Friday afternoon saying that while Obama opposes amnesty for telecom firms that spied on Americans, he will support the House compromise legislation. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,104
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (61 total)
03:28 PM on 06/24/2008
Who woulda thought the Dems would disenfranchise me yet again? So much for the argument that Obama's millions of small contributers mean he's not so susceptible to corporate special interests.
Ralph Nader, here I come.
07:15 AM on 06/24/2008
Change we can believe in?

LOL!
04:14 PM on 06/23/2008
Some of you folks amaze me.
FIgure it out, THIS BILL IS NOT IMMUNITY!....it is in terms of liability. But THEY can still be prosecuted...and Obama justice department can still send these guys to jail. And that is what is important; the integrity of our constitution. The point isn't to destroy US telecommunications. It is to imprison the criminals that violated our rights! This is the smartest move Obama could make. He avoids looking weak on National Security...and if we DEMS can atleast try to keep it together, we can still restore the rule of law in this country. DON'T SCREW THIS UP DEMS! He is doing the right thing. GET OFF HIS BACK, and FOCUS ON WHATS IMPORTANT!
04:48 PM on 06/23/2008
But we still need to allow the people to challenge this one! Granted, IF Obama gets elected later this year we can reasonably expect his justice department to do its job, but we also need OUR input!!
10:18 PM on 06/23/2008
This is absolutely not true. The Attorney General can, by writing a letter, cause each suit or charge to be instantly dismissed.

Mukasey's going to be AG for the next 6 months after the bill becomes law. He will have every telecom case dropped before Obama comes in, and then they can't be prosecuted again, ever.

Everyone knows this.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftLeaner
Independent Populist
03:52 PM on 06/23/2008
That's disgraceful.

He also supports NAFTA - wait and see

He's another corporatist candidate who will do NOTHING for the "little" people who put him in office.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:57 PM on 06/23/2008
LeftLeaner - snif, your Comment lacks substance save one.
07:17 AM on 06/24/2008
You're the one that's delusional. There is no way an individual can rise to this level of national politics, in this day and age, without heavy corporate backing.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
02:24 PM on 06/23/2008
Amnesty is only part of the problem with this bill.

FISA, which is unConstitutional enough, is already in place and doing what B.u.s.h claims is necessary to fight his "war on terror". This bill extends the power of the Executive branch, and institutionalizes (legalizes) "no oversight" by other branches.

We, the People can't just vote for someone, particularly someone as vague and general as O.b.a.m.a, and then get back to our lives thinking he'll watch out for our interests. Others with counter interests have planted themselves next to him and work him 24/7.

Defeating this bill is just one step. Getting DLCers out of power (and enough with the talk of Sam N.u.n.n. as VP) is what we really need to be doing.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:53 PM on 06/23/2008
Enough with the p.a.r.a.n.o.i.a

heh
02:10 PM on 06/24/2008
I nominated Jay Inslee for VP after I saw his speech before the FISA vote in the house:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/22/165649/128/706/540332

I said THAT'S what Obama needs on his ticket. That's what's missing. Someone with a spine and a compass who will show up and speak out for the Constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
02:11 PM on 06/23/2008
When are democrats going to get a real Democrat fighting for us?

This election has always been a fight on two fronts: Against the Republicans and against the DLC within the Democratic Party. Both Ob'ama and H'illary are DLC: They ain't a friend to We, the People. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

The only difference between H'illary and Ob'ama is that you can't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Ob'ama's more like B'ush - He keeps it all vague and general, leaving you plenty of room to take it to mean whatever you like.

In the last two months of the primaries, as H'illary moved left by pandering to the "hard-working white people" ("a summer vacation from gas taxes") and Ob'ama didn't move an inch, We, the People were screwed. Majorly. No matter which one of them got the nomination, this was the closest to the left they were ever going to get. Come the general election campaign, the nominee would be tacking to the right to get the Republican&Independent votes.

Ob'ama's interest is in making deals, not looking out for the interests of We, the People. We, the People have a tendency to want to get back to our lives so we put people in office who we think will do our bidding. But unless we remain alert, breathing down their necks, they won't.

We have much more work to do, to get the DLC out of the Democratic Party.
12:28 PM on 06/24/2008
I'm floored by this comment. How much trust am I supposed to put in someone who, having won the Dem nomination on a platform of being a "new kind of politician", promptly disses Palestinian hopes (Jerusalem should remain "undivided"), rejects public campaign financing (something he supposedly strongly supports), and then votes for the FISA bill (breaking the hearts of thousands of "progressives" on HuffPost). Hillary is a liar? Hillary panders?

I never drank the kool-aid on the "new kind of politician" stuff. Indeed, I was actually quite horrified at the naive, unquestioning hero worship by the media and Obamamaniacs posting here. I'm gonna vote for Obama, because the difference between him and McCain is stark in my mind. But the man's got a lot of work to do to unify the party and win in November.
photo
pdsimdars
Steel spine and golden aura.
02:02 PM on 06/23/2008
I had been a total Obama supporter. This give him 'suspect' marks in my mind. This issue is about the constitution. This is the only oath they take. This is what they swear to protect and defend. If they are not clear about that, or think that other issues trump that. I'm sorry. Their minds are clouded. This is wrong.
photo
pdsimdars
Steel spine and golden aura.
01:59 PM on 06/23/2008
I have heard a bunch of excuse makers for the telecoms. QWest refused to go along with this, saying it was against the law and that if they wanted them to do it, they needed a letter, in writing, stating that it was OK. They were punished by the administration for this.
And you want to say all that is OK? Oh, what else could the poor telecoms do? Well, they could have followed the example of QWest and done the right thing instead of breaking the law for money. Is that the example you want carried down in history, if the government gives you big contracts, breaking the law and thwarting the constitution is OK?
If this is your stance, other countries that don't honor our constitution, go there. And I think if there are people in the government who don't want to stand up for that constitution, they should step down. Pelosi and Ried can step aside now.
03:45 PM on 06/24/2008
pdsimdars, Thank you for information on QWest and thank them for their stand. Pilosi and Reid should never have had their positions in the first place. I am looking for a different party. A Kucinich/Feingold party would suit me. Good luck to us!
01:55 PM on 06/23/2008
I'm planning to vote for Sen. Obama in November. I did not vote for him on Super Tuesday.

That said- I'm not surprised that he's rolling over. That's what people who want power enough to run for president do- anything that will get them elected.

NAFTA, FISA, equal rights- expect to see them all fall to the wayside in January. Oh yeah- and the whole "anti-war" schtick? Remember that Obama is only against the Iraq war, not war with Pakistan or Iran....

I am still hoping beyond hope that he gets elected in November. McNasty will make W look like Mr. Rodgers.
04:39 PM on 06/23/2008
Yes, I reluctantly and brokenheartedly agree with you.
07:19 AM on 06/24/2008
Hopefully, if lucky, he is the lessor of two evils. Still evil though.
01:45 PM on 06/23/2008
So, which one of you will put in writting that spying on an enemy, outside of the U.S., during a war violates any part of the 4th Amendment? Probably the same ilk who thinks unlawful combatants deserve more rights than lawful soldiers, like our own.

Are you a lawful soldier who showed honor on the battlefield? OK, here's your POW cell.

Are you an unlawful combatant who uses children as human shields? OK, here's your American, court-appointed attorney.

Insanity.
07:19 AM on 06/24/2008
Puhleez... Soldiers are nothing but gangster for capitalism. Stop glorifying them. They are simply hired thugs.
08:58 AM on 06/26/2008
Wow... just... wow.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:36 PM on 06/23/2008
Hey, wait to see what comes out of the Senate on this bill. Now if this goes thru as a mousetrap. and Edwards got posted to AG... this could be a good thing for us. What we really want is discovery, right? No more hiding - what were these bastards actually doing.One criminal prosecution would would open the whole can of worms. .

June 20, 2008
MSNBC Keith Olbermann

" Olbermann and Dean then discuss the idea of letting the private lawsuits against the telecoms fade away and have someone like Obama or someone else go after the telecoms later on.

Keith Olbermann: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there to actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

John Dean: Exactly. Exactly. It looks to me as I read this bill and I talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, and some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, 'You know, we just didn't think about this issue.' So as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama's got a shot to take a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass they think they're getting."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hZaSbSRqwHE
http://openthread.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/23/0035/51973/576/540462
photo
Donnat
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned
01:03 PM on 06/23/2008
When Obama's in office, the GOP who voted for this along party lines will claim it's an abuse of power.
10:08 AM on 06/23/2008
If anyone is learning about what is really wrong with this bill, I suggest reading this article. It really lays it out clearly in terms of all the abuses of this bill and future problems it could cause.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/politics/animal/main4200909.shtml
09:50 AM on 06/23/2008
Since when comparing Obama and HRC, we see that

1. There is no difference on issues between Obama and HRC
2. Obama's been unveiled as the same type of pandering politicians that doesn't stand up for us
3. Obama clearly votes on compromises just like the vote for force in Iraq.

So there is no difference between the two besides one is black and one is a woman. (Like I didn't know that all along).
09:46 AM on 06/23/2008
It's not just about immunity. This bill allows the goverment to conduct mass surveillence of ANY type of communication between countries without individual warrants.

Don't buy into the triangulation Obama is using by distracting you that it's only about immunity--it's not. It's really about pissing on the 4th Amendment.