Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

The Huffington Post
First Posted: 06-20-08 04:25 PM   |   Updated: 06-28-08 05:12 AM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Telecom

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."

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. ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
4113
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (61 pages total)
- Ping I'm a Fan of Ping 63 fans permalink


This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved

The drive for telecom immunity is being led by The California Democratic delegation in Congress and the Senate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 AM on 06/23/2008
- elbzee I'm a Fan of elbzee 20 fans permalink
photo

Are these the same gutless wonders who took impeachment off the table?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 06/23/2008

This is a false statement as 2 of 3 Representatives from San Diego voted against HR6304; however Senator Feinstein DID put forth an amendment to the Senate FISA bill to have the FISA court determine the 'legality' of Bush's illegal wire-tapping. AND she is the Chairman of the Senate Rules Cmte.
People really need to be looking at Pelosi, Hoyer, Emmanuel,R­eyes,Harma­n and their ilk ; Hoyer indicated on the House floor in March there was not an issue with FISA as did Reyes; and Reyes comments that they 'needed to get this off their plate' gives a good idea of what is occurring(meaning they need to get out there and raise money so they can be re-elected and again ignore their oath of office.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 06/23/2008

Uhhm'.... has anyone really thought what may happen if all these charges are brought against these major Telecom companies? Let me tell you what will happen, we the American people will be paying for years and years of Lawsuits, while our telephone bills triple, so are you kidding me or what. The only folks you should be mad at is BushMcCain and the first Repulblican Congress before the Dem's took over, they past this foolishness and all the Telecom companies could do is follow their orders, now you want to villify the Companies, please wake up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 AM on 06/23/2008
- tommybones I'm a Fan of tommybones 18 fans permalink
photo

um.... use a different telephone company. You know? One that didn't violate your 4th amendment rights? Ever think of that idea? Also, you want to prevent 4th amendment violations in the future? Then you must make the telecoms pay. Also, you want to get to the truth in regards to the governments role, and thus help prevent these violations in the future as well? Allow the civil suits to go to court and see what gets revealed. YOU need to wake up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:11 AM on 06/23/2008
photo

To some, money is more important than freedom and human right. How do you think we got in this mess to begin with?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 AM on 06/24/2008
- tommybones I'm a Fan of tommybones 18 fans permalink
photo

Additionally, your invocation of the Nazi's Nuremberg defense "they were only following orders" was priceless. Tell me, friend, how come Qwest (along with a few others) were able to tell the government to stick those "orders" where the sun don't shine? I'll give you a hint... it has to do with the legality of those alleged "orders"...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:36 AM on 06/23/2008

What really pisses me off about this whole debate is that the soldiers that are getting blown to bits in Iraq and Afganistan raised their right hand to defend this country and our constitution and their commandeer in cheif who's never been in battle and all the other spineless congress critters, democrats and republicans are safe at home wiping their ass with the constitution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 AM on 06/23/2008

This is a very tricky matter. There are millions of not very well read americans, who just watch Fox' News, and are really scared of terrorists. ( Some might actually believe that obama might blow up any time ) . Any bill that does not provide retroactive immunity will be vetoed by bush. So are all of the dissillusioned ready to accept defeat in the election ? over this issue ?. most people do not have kids in iraq, but hey do have kids in schools, colleges, malls. They will never vote if they get the impression that their security is being compromised.

A law can be changed, if there is a majority in congress, a filibuster proof majority in senate, and an intelligent friendly president in office. So hang inthere guys, this is not the end of the world, yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:22 AM on 06/23/2008

Sorry, President's do NOT give up powers they are given; your argument is specious. And the 'millions' you speak of are not stupid (lazy perhaps); they can be shown that the fear mongering is just that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 06/23/2008
- JiminNC I'm a Fan of JiminNC 267 fans permalink
photo

"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."

When you chicken littles and McTrolls get finished gnashing your teeth, note the quoted line above and consider that (although the headline erroeously states that Obama supports immunity) that immunity in this bill is not a foregone conclusion.

For those that really care about the issue and not here to stir the crap, please write your thoughts to the Obama campaign. The link can be found at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/ under "Present Your Ideas"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 AM on 06/23/2008
- pupbayer I'm a Fan of pupbayer 23 fans permalink

If the bill as is passes, everything in it can be changed except the immunity. The immunity will stick.

Actually, the headline is accurate. He backs the bill which includes immunity. He says he doesn't support the immunity clause and will do what he can to get it out of the bill but the headline is correct as written.

Now, he may flipflop on this come Monday. We'll just have to wait to see.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 AM on 06/23/2008

And if you get your head out of your sand (or whereever), you ostriches might want to consider this statement by Glenn Greenwald (at this link http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/fisa/):

"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"

But thanks for the feedback link. I'm going to suggest he choose a VP with a spine and a compass to help him where he's lacking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 AM on 06/23/2008
- Wingit I'm a Fan of Wingit 8 fans permalink

This bill came back from the congressional graveyard and it makes me very suspicious. Here is a theory of what is going on here. If you believe that Bush and Cheney are crazed madmen it will make sense to you.
Bush is pushing the republicans to get this bill in front of congress to get a win-win situation for himself. If congress goes along with this, he gets his personal immunity along with the telecoms, bragging rights that he is still an effective president, and he can say that the dems are going along with his programs. But, let’s say the dems did bring this legislation down on an almost party line vote. Bush and McCain could start pounding the public that the dems have left the country insecure. Then we come to the October surprise. Through some “unforeseen” lapse the country suffers an incident that is classified as “a terrorist attack”. Bush and McCain will once again pound the American public that this is all the fault of the dems and if only we had this surveillance act in place the event would have never taken place. McCain would jump out in the lead and would probably win the election as the candidate that will keep the country safe. He would also continue the Bush crusade to complete the heads he wins, tails he wins situation for Bush. The dems probably figured this out and are keeping the public safe while accepting the lesser of the two evils.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 PM on 06/22/2008

Peace in our time? How'd that work, Czechoslovakia?

A double impeachment would work better.

You know what this makes me think of? Tim Robbins. He gave a speech or wrote an essay at the beginning of this war: "A Bully Can Be Stopped." You know how you stop a bully? You stand up to him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm

"A bully can be stopped, and so can a mob. It takes one person with the courage and a resolute voice." Hello? Barack?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 AM on 06/23/2008

9/11 WAS NOT a failure of intelligence ; that is just the propaganda the Bush Admin has spun for it's unconstitutional act. It is the failure of the Dem's to speak out regarding that issue( the intelligence was there,just not co-ordinated or acted on) that the fear mongering has been allowed to occupy citizen thoughts(along with a mainstream media -read corporate controlled- who have failed to be informing the public with critical reasoning).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 06/23/2008
- tommybones I'm a Fan of tommybones 18 fans permalink
photo

To All Obamapologists:
Obama can't control the House? This argument ignores the fact that the negotiations for this bill haven't been a secret and Obama, being the leader of the party, could have spoken up loud and clear as to his feelings in regards to immunity as this bill was about to reach the House floor for a vote.

Obama should get credit for "trying" to remove immunity? Either he gets immunity removed or he doesn't. Going publicly on the record as being against a part of a bill that he ends up voting for is nothing more than political posturing. Additionally, he could MAKE SURE the immunity is removed with a filibuster. The Democratic controlled Senate would not override a filibuster by Barak Obama. The power to remove immunity is completely up to him. He merely needs the will to do it.

Obama should be commended for approving the FISA improvements? The original FISA bill made it perfectly clear that the President needed a warrant to spy. It was ignored. What does this bill do that guarantees enforcement? Nothing. Enforcement only happens when LAWBREAKERS ARE PUNISHED. You want someone to follow the law? Enforce the law.

Obama can only do so much? This ignores the fact that Obama, as the leader and face of the party, can force this bill into the trash can if he so desires. Do you really believe a filibuster by the Democratic Party Presidential nominee will get thwarted by a Democratically controlled Senate?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:13 PM on 06/22/2008
- aurora57 I'm a Fan of aurora57 5 fans permalink
photo

Nice post.

Arlen Spector's press release on Friday in response to the FISA bill shows where he stands.

http://specter.senate.gov/public/

Obama needs to be as clear. I agree that a public statement opposing the content of a bill then voting for it is nothing but posturing. We'll see what his leadership is really about when push comes to shove later this week.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 PM on 06/22/2008
- aurora57 I'm a Fan of aurora57 5 fans permalink
photo

... scary. BO with no fundamental view on telecom immunity. And, the democratic congress played by a lame duck administration (and accepting congratulations from President Bush on passing the capitulation). Makes me wonder how far telecommunications lobbying reached.

Congress would better spend its time seeking bids for naming rights to the Capitol and White House. What do you think that might be worth? ... could be a nice alternative to the income tax.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 PM on 06/22/2008
- adl I'm a Fan of adl 6 fans permalink

Many of you all are disappointed in Obama because you raised him up on an unrealistic pedestal, and now that he's potentially going to do something you don't like 100%, you're ready to abandon your support for him. Many are very amused about this as if their candidate, whether it was Clinton or McCain, Barr or whomever, is the one who's actually deserving of this pedestal. What you still don't get is that none of them are and that's not a criticism of them but of those who would put fallible human beings on pedestals in the first place. I'm an Obama supporter, but, contrary to what many people assume, never considered him perfect or the Messiah. He's a human being. I don't agree with him on everything but I believe he's an intelligent, fast learner with more integrity than any of our other choices, but he is a politician. Many say he's a politician like this is a condemnation, but I'm not sure who we would rather vote for for president...the postman? Maybe the plumber? Hell, they're all politicians. You don't get to be president without being a politician. We say we want honesty from our elected officials, but that's just talk. Anyone who presents themselves in a completely honest way would never make it to the office. We make sure of that. So we get what we deserve. All of you need to get over yourselves and look in the mirror for the problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 06/22/2008
- fredamae I'm a Fan of fredamae 35 fans permalink

Very truthfully and eloquently stated. I have to agree with you 100%

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 PM on 06/22/2008
- JiminNC I'm a Fan of JiminNC 267 fans permalink
photo

Supporting Obama does not imply that I accept every move he makes. I seriously disagree with granting any immunity for telecoms and bushies prior to a complete determination of exactly what they did. I have no problem with potential exoneration after the facts are known if it is determined that the Bush admin coerced their support in illegal activities. Immunity takes away their incentive to provide testimony against the Bush administration and that is not acceptable to me at this moment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:14 AM on 06/23/2008
- edwcorey I'm a Fan of edwcorey 18 fans permalink

Not the plumber--and certainly not the exterminator, like DeLay.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:31 PM on 06/23/2008

Meanwhile, a reverse flipflop from the Democratic candidate on immunity. Is there any way to know for sure how he would govern, assuming? Jefferson said, " In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." He seems to have never considered principle over political expediency. It is hard to believe he didn't have a well thought our principled position on the FISA bill, he called it unconstitutional. And even more unbelievable he would do this double flip flop, first saying he was against, then saying he'd support and now saying he won't support the house bill. If you were trying to come across as a politician willing to put politics before principles you could hardly have done more than the he did over the past week. FISA, Nafta, Public campaign financing and unconditional funding of the Iraq war, all in the same week.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 06/22/2008

I am just starting to feel a little 'prickley' and uncomforatable about Obama------whom I have had real excitement for since 2004. I pushed for him at the start,,,since Nov. 2007 and told all my Friends and Family to back him,,,,, and sometimes suffered ridcule, in the beginning when no one took me seriously that he would be our next President. I am a 66 year old white female -----and everyone around me just could not understand WHY I was not for HRC.( and some still can not understand)
I just could not bear to have HRC and all her baggage in the White House, period.
This new vote that he promised NOT to back is more than disturbing, because if he backs it--it will mean he cannot be believed to stand behind his platforms. and ideals.--or what he tells the American People. It is time that he shows the backbone that we are all looking for as 'Change.'
Also,,,,as an after-thought, We cannot have The closed sessions on the media (although in view of the Mahyill Fowler type of media journalism, can be slightly warranted) are still the hint of the Bush closed tactics type of press. --- this is also worth looking at with a watchful eye. I have backed his Idealism and Hope fom the very beginning and I still want to---but lately with this new legislation ---I see a crack starting to form --

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 PM on 06/22/2008
- heal57 I'm a Fan of heal57 25 fans permalink

teddy, I am a 63 year old white woman and have been pushing for Obama and still am. I have faith that he is indeed a leader and will do what he can within the scope of where he is at this time. The media has been lambasting Obama from the beginning, and McCain and even Hillary got a pass. The corporate media does not want Obama elected; that should tell you something. Hang in there, I am.

Independent for Obama '08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:47 AM on 06/23/2008

Sad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 06/22/2008
- Amerigucci I'm a Fan of Amerigucci 11 fans permalink

This bill stinks, and the immunity for telecoms is the least of it.

This bill isn't only about "eavesdropping on terrorists" - This bill enables the government to listen in on, intercept and collect all electronic information on anyone and everyone, without warrants, for 67 days, for ANY REASON.

We have seen "mission creep" in previous legislation, such as the Patriot Act. Legislation which, had Americans not seen planes crashing into skyscrapers over and over and over and over again (hourly/da­ily/weekly­/monthly) would never have gotten passed. Or legislators who voted for such laws would never have been returned to Congress. Laws intended for one type of crime (terrorism) being used by policing agencies for other crimes (drugs). Like the RICO laws being applied to all kinds of other behaviors which are later deemed "unlawful".

This has got to stop. Before he was assured the nomination, O.ba.ma had implied that he intended to do just that, and now we see he's a player just like the rest of them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 06/22/2008

See Jay Inslee, D-WA. HE stepped up to the plate, HE'S got the compass and backbone and sense that Obama doesn't. He was perfect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QccOV5sc-jA

"Have we forgotten what our ancestors have done in the cause of liberty? Don't we realize there are some lines we can never cross? Don't we realize we should never legitimize illegal violations of America's privacy rights, which this bill does? This bill says if the telecommunication companies violated America's privacy, willfully, knowingly, knowing it was illegal, we are giving them immunity. Where is the excuse for that? Where is the excuse for turning a nation of laws into a nation that will be led by a president who knows how to manipulate our fears? We have got to know the law is our ultimate guardian of liberty. And those on this side who have accused us of having a pre-9/11 mentality, let me remind them that July 4, 1776, was pre-9/11. And heaven help us the day that those values are shucked aside at the service of fear. Reject this bill."

Dream, Obama, DREAM.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 06/22/2008
photo

But First. Obama, GET ELECTED.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:49 AM on 06/23/2008
- Daisy1111 I'm a Fan of Daisy1111 8 fans permalink


If you had vetted him instead of falling for the hope & change rhetoric you could have predicted he would always come out on the side of BIG mega-corps. As evidenced by:

- his recent comments about how great NAFTA has been for America. (He dais the opposite during the primary)

- his reversal on capiagn finance reform (he said the oppsite until you started pumping him with $$$)

- his total reversal on FISA retro immunity. (He said the opposite to get your porgressive votes in the primary)

- his corporate bundlers & STATE lobbyists (which he hid during the primary)

He has played you all. And if you had any honor you would not vote for him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 06/22/2008

Like, Hillary was better? She wasn't. McCain isn't better. Gravel and Kucinich and Dodd were better, more invested in the Constitution and often had better ideas, but were marginalized by the media. Check the talk clocks. They never had a chance. Kucinich and Gravel were excluded from participating in televised debates, Gravel before any vote of the people had been cast, how's that for election fraud? Ron Paul, I'm still wishing he would hijack the Republicans back. Bob Barr? Hmmm. What does he say about not only telecom immunity but FISA itself? I'm listening.

The best thing I can hope for here is that Obama will be open to change from the bottom up, which means these keystrokes might have some effect, somehow, someday. I will not be hopeless.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 06/22/2008

I love the shapeshifting picture. Nice change Barack! Nice choice HuffPo. Too bad America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 PM on 06/22/2008
- JJeff88 I'm a Fan of JJeff88 22 fans permalink

At first - accepting following campaign quote ("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.") as authentic - I expressed unhappiness with Obama's decision.

Then I read this separate report in a different HuffPo article:

"Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "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."

Which is it?

If Sen. Obama (working with Speaker Reid) is attempting to remove the immunity provision, I'm fine with it. If not, I'm not.

But it sure would be helpful for HuffPo and other media sources to "get it right." about Sen. Obama's actual position on FICA.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 06/22/2008

"Which is it? If Sen. Obama (working with Speaker Reid) is attempting to remove the immunity provision, I'm fine with it. If not, I'm not."

1. Obama will work with Speaker Reid in an attempt to remove the immunity provision.

2. This effort will fail.

3. Obama will say or imply that he is reserving the right to criminally prosecute the telecoms.

4. Obama will vote for the Bill.

5. Bush will sign it.

6. Bush will make a brief statement about "national security," and the importance of the telecoms to national security.

7. Bush will pardon the telecoms.

8. Obama will say that there is nothing that he can do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 PM on 06/22/2008

He needs to take a stitch in time to save 9.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 AM on 06/23/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next › Last » (61 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect