Obama: No Immunity For Telecoms

CBS News:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., issued a statement in support of the House's update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but said he would try to strip a provision granting immunity to telecommunication companies when the bill comes to a vote in the Senate next week.

The House approved a compromise bill Friday that would set new electronic surveillance rules that would also shield telecoms from lawsuits arising from their participation in the government's warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and computer lines in the United States.

Read the whole story: CBS News

Comments

[MrXfromplanetX]

Get a clue people. Obama supported the Reauth of the Patriot Act,
Senate votes http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-29
Congress votes http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-627

This is a pattern of supporting really bad crap and soft pedaling it. Do you think the corporate media would have promoted him so much if he hadn't sold out to corporate interests? Obama will probably support S. 1959 at this rate.

Glen Greenwald from Salon on Obamas support for FISA http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html

http://digg.com/politics/Obama_Supports_FISA_Legislation_Angering_Left

Kucinich on FISA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM2HLbcUafA

Democrats would be better off to vote for Nader, and Republicans are better off to vote for Barr. The two mainstream candidates are the ones presented to us by the corporate media.

[MrXfromplanetX]

Why do Democrats have to compromise when they have the majority? Why not just all vote no? It's better to have no bill pass at all, than to get a bad bill.

Obama came up with this same kind of compromise crap when it came to the Reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Why the hell do people trust this guy? You know who didn't? Dennis Kucinich.

The only problem is he would kick some corporate ass, so the corporate media stonewalled the guy. It makes me very said to see Democrats went for the guy promoted by the corporate media. They could have gone for the guy who has a proven track record of always voting No when it counts.

Kucinich voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the Reauth of the Patriot Act.
Kucinich supports John Conyers extend Medicare bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-676 rather than requiring everyone buy a corporate health insurance plan. What the hell?

If Dems want socialized medicine, why didn't they vote for someone who actually supports it, rather than vote for people who want to keep the corporate blood sucking insurance companies in the picture--and give them tax dollars.

It really ticks me off people voted for a public relations image, rather than voting based on real substance.

[aurora57]

Let the Constitution do its job and we avoid this debate. If law enforcement (Executive branch) wants to do some search and seizure project... get a court order! If a corporation is going to do some snooping... protect your shareholders by waiting for a court order!

No one at the telecommunications companies should go to jail. They just need to be punished in civil court and lost shareholder equity.

This clause in this amendment is just more evidence that we are becoming a country of corporations and not laws.

[Okieborn]

I heard Sen. Reid say there was great doubt that the No Immunity would ever be passed or enforsed
I see that this is a scam on the American citizenry and we are supposed to stay quiet and let even the Democrats slip this one through ???? The Congress has passed a bi-partisan bill that frees up the wire tapping and NO charges will be filed against the tele-communications companies.
SO BUSH GETS HIS WAY AGAIN !!
The Senate comes up for the same vote, I want to see who goes with Bush and who will finally stand up against the CROOK !!!
I pray that Sen. Obama won't be swayed to back Bush on this very important issue !!!

[HumeSkeptic]

No one at the telecommunications companies should go to jail.
----------
Who appointed you judge? And based on what trial did you arrive at that judgement?

Do we still have rule of law in this country, or has it been replaced by you as the sole judge and the jury?

[aurora57]

It the companies acted out of a response to a request from the administration, I don't see criminal intent. Should criminal intent come out in civil actions then criminal penalties should apply.

[miles120]

I'm glad to see Senator Obama change his tune on this one. Frankly, I think this FISA rewrite is very troubling; it makes me believe that the Democratic leadership is trying to hide its complicity in the scandal.

Laws were broken here. Now there are a lot of people who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, supporting a bill that will gut the Fourth Amendment. Representatives Pelosi and Hoyer need to be held responsible for condoning the Bush Administration's criminal behavior, and Harry Reid should be replaced for his incompetence to manage the agenda of the Democrat-controlled Senate.

[FiveFortyOne]

Can anyone tell me if support for the FISA bill was part of a bipartisan deal to get veto-proof support for other bills, like the GI bill and the home foreclosure bill? This seems plausible to me. (And I'd like to remind everyone who's threatening to boycott the Democrats, that it's the Democratic Party who pushes bills like these.)

[diamondgirl9]

Angry,betrayed,disappointed? They vote on FISA next week-I hope you plan on holding your own Senators feet to the fire.

[Saturdayboy]

Harry Reid is a little man.

[Catharsis]

He thinks he's a pretty tough dude, by his writings and interviews. I laugh when I read some of his stuff.

[KeysDan]

Yes, Senator Harry Reid is a fierce, barking chihuahua.

[speakingtruth2power]

We must have the opportunity of full discovery that has been denied US by a corrupted Atty Gen

and a complicit Congress. The courts are our last resort to find out among other things, WHEN

BushCo started illegally spying on Americans, talking to each other, within our own country!!!!!!!!!

[ShakeYourComplacency]

I agree with full discovery, and I think this immunity deal will make that much more difficult. It's all going to be pushed under the rug. These lawsuits are heroic in my book, they are taking these corporations to court and will drag out all the back deal conversations that shredded our civil liberties. The only compromise I'd be willing to agree to is a pardon. A pardon AFTER they are convicted and all the truth comes out. But in this bill, it will go to a judge, who everyone acknowledges is going to outright dismiss the lawsuits. End of story.

[speakingtruth2power]

As to the WHEN and why I want to know;

Bush's first Treasury Secretary said that the need for domestic spying

and getting rid of Saddam, were discussed in Cabinet and in Security

Council meetings SIX MOTNTHS BEFORE 9-11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HumeSkeptic]

But in this bill, it will go to a judge, who everyone acknowledges is going to outright dismiss the lawsuits
-------
That "everyone" must not include telecoms. They have spent millions to get retroactive immunity. Why?

[thepathforward]

Speaker Pelosi clarified in a recent statement that this new FISA bill restores balance to FISA regarding conformance to the rule of law and privacy/civil rights of citizens (Constitutional safeguards) while maintaining the necessary and critical continual monitoring of any threats against the USA.
Quoting Sen. Obama’s statement, “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.” Now, in this context, what is wrong with that-America’s protection while following the rule of law?
Regarding blanket immunity to the telecoms Sen Obama 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”. Sounds pretty clear.
Favoring a bill that will restore FISA to Constitutional balance (as asserted by Dem leadership) and maintain America’s protection, while challenging blanket immunity to the telecoms and focusing on accountability-I’m trying to understand what more some expect from Sen. Obama. It seems some may need to read more carefully his written position..
IMO the Dems should push for separation of the revised FISA bill and telecom immunity. Vote for FISA and further discuss, debate, and then vote separately on immunity.

[RTIII]

You need to do two things:

1) Read O's full comment, start to finish (or find the video). If you do, you'll see how weak his statement was regarding immunity.

2) Read the bill or a full summary thereof. It's AWFUL. Worse than awful. While you're at it, find out about the old FISA. You'll find the old FISA was just fine. All they needed was a bill that said something like, "We hereby reauthorize the existing FISA legislation until _____ date."

[HumeSkeptic]

I"m trying to understand what more some expect from Sen. Obama
----------
What we want is that if a provision for retroactive immunity of any kind remains in the bill, Setarr O should vote "no".

That's all.

[exPatPatti]

Can someone please explain to me why the Dems voted for this bill in the House, if it goes against core Dem principles? Please? Could they have stopped it?

[ebanks84]

Yes they could have stopped it but their leadership didn't recommend to stop it. Pelosi might as well be a neocon the way she appeases bush. I am too disappointed with the dems in congress for this and we all need to find out what our individual congress people voted and make them accountable for their vote.

[ShakeYourComplacency]

Of course they could have stopped it, it's the house. But as Ariana says, they "lost their gonads" once again and created a compromise bill in order to get this issue off the table around election time. They didn't want national security to be a weakness for them. It extends all the way to Obama, as the TIME article explains:

"Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."

Behind the compromise on spying:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html

[exPatPatti]

Thank you for the link. I understand much better now... yikes.

[RTIII]

Damned right they could have.

[HumeSkeptic]

Those who voted for it are crooks. That's why.

[OgreDaddy]

The only grave threat to this great nation is the collective reckless abandon of congress to carry out their sworn duty.

In my view congress is guilty of treasonous dereliction of duty.

I hope you all will take the time to write your representatives as I have and make your voices heard.

I hope you will remind them to reflect on how history will record their failure to protect and serve.

[speakingtruth2power]

Please be careful to not perpetuate GOP talking points about how today's Congress

is responsible for most of our problems. While there is much to criticise, it's BushCo

that has done most of the harm to our Constitution, economy, and ethical standing!!!

[underdog]

While the democrats sit by writing blank checks and helping the neocons place people like Mukasey in critical perp-walk positions.

[Jason357]

Do Pelosi and her pals think any offense is worthy of impeachment? After reading these comments, it's so frustrating what they have allowed Bush to do. He has authorized TORTURE of prisoners in US custody. He has violated unreasonable search and seizure and due process, and has taken the US to war for over 5 years under false pretenses that even his former press secretary confirms. Not to mention billions of $$$$ unaccounted for in an 8-12 billion a month war in Iraq. I'm so sick of Pelosi and democrats rationalizing the easy way out. Bush implicates us all by what are likely criminal acts. The world is wondering WTF is going on with the US. Te obvious question is whether someone is getting bribed?

[ebanks84]

And it's Pelosi and her crew who have kept IMPEACHMENT off the table altogether. She should NOT be voted back into that position for sure.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies."

SAME OLD ... SAME OLD!

OBAMA '08!
HOPE & CHANGE!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[Pepper14]

Obama knows he isn't going to strip this out of the bill because it has already been agreed to by the house and senate. Harry Reid already said he was going to accept both house bills that were passed because they want to get these out of the way and they don't want to spend much time on them. One of these days voters are going to realize that the dems are full of BS and what they say and do are two different things. This is just like Hillary and her BS on working for the people and the gas tax she was going to force a vote on in the senate. Well after she lost , did she go back to the senate and start working for the people,no she took a month off to wallow in self pity at the tax payers expensive. Wouldn't we all like to take a month off with pay when want to?

[diamondgirl9]

Well I'm glad he is not going to hand the Repubs a stick to hammer him with-weak on terrorism 24/7. If you are so digusted with the Dems-you can always vote for the old geezer that will continue and enchance Bush III-that's what you want anyway.

[ShakeYourComplacency]

Well diamondgirl9, we shouldn't have only a choice between a fearful, compromising democrat or an old geezer who reports to the Right. We should have better choices than that. And personally, I think that in all the useless "debates" the media sets up, they should be asking direct questions and getting direct answers to things like this. A good question for Obama would have been, "do you agree with the lawsuits against the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, and will you do anything in the Senate to protect the telecoms and prevent those lawsuits from going forward?"

I think questions like those in debates are much more useful than the vague crap they usually talk about. If we have a vetting process for president like we SHOULD, then we'll be able to hold them accountable for their actions. Right now, that's impossible, because Obama has won the nomination, he didn't make any specific promise about this, and you've got all the koolaid drinkers who will support him no matter what. I like Obama, and I support him myself, but frankly I'm just holding on to this train for dear life and waiting to see how far Obama runs to the so-called center.

[HumeSkeptic]

Ah! By that logic, O should also start calling for war on Iran. That would make him look like a real tough guy, just like the Repubs. In fact, he should right out promise to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

[ShakeYourComplacency]

That's exactly right, Pepper14. He knows he's not going to strip this bill. Everyone's already agreed on it. So why in the world would is he saying that? It's almost an outright lie. Any journalist worth his salt would be asking Obama how he plans on doing that when his whole party has just agreed to the bill and the immunity compromise is a key part of that bill. You strip that out and there IS no bill. The bill wouldn't exist.

[Troubledwawa]

As much as I don't want to see the immunity take place, it appears it's going to and there not much anyone person can do to stop it, other than W, by themselves.

This does lead to two deeper problems. One, there seems to be more than a few people with dirty hands in Congress, and two, we don't have enough telecoms.

Maybe a little Teddy Roosevelt is in order, down the road?

[kingcityguru]

This Obama is like a Twilight Zone episode.
If he becomes President I expect an enormous terrorist attack on the US within 3 years because Obama will spend the first 2 years taking away all the protections that the US has to stop it.

[ThunderclapNewman]

Why would you want to advertise your total lack of understanding of O's policy positions?

[exPatPatti]

That is precisely the argument the rest of you neocons would use against O if he were to NO vote. Note to the libs here who think he should put a patch over his eye and filibust. In doing so, stand alone against the house and senate on principle. Because everyone will abandon him. The chicken sh*^s.

Want 4 more years of loser rethugs? That's the way to guarantee it.

He's damned either way. And everyone is falling into line as predicted. Left saying "Vote no or I will be disappointed and disillusioned with you and you won't be the change candidate anymore so I won't donate." Right saying "Vote yes and we'll use it against you. Vote no and we'll destroy you in the MSM." A truly cunning stunt.

[LuvDaH8ters]

That is the saddest part, he is between a rock and a hard place. When you run for president you HAVE to run somewhat to the middle. I fully expect him to try to fight it, but if he votes no, he will be railed for it. I just hope that once they attack him on it, people will be smart enough to understand its about the immunity, not soft on terror, like it will be made out to be by the repubs..... Also i dont see the msm railing Mcsame for voting against the G.I. Bill..

[Kalima]

Ignorance is bliss for far too many of you, I fear. I can't seem to cut your hate with a
sharp knife and you wonder why the world is laughing at you.

[LorettaSingbiel]

"If he becomes President I expect an enormous terrorist attack on the US within 3 years because Obama will spend the first 2 years taking away all the protections that the US has to stop it."


Well you, kingcityguru, certainly wouldn't want Obama to take away all the protections that the US has to stop an enormous terrorist attack on BIG OIL COMPANIES in Iraq

Tell you what ... Why don't you protect your "stock in an offshore oil company" with YOUR loved ones...instead of someone else's?!

OBAMA '08!
HOPE & CHANGE!

Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta

[HumeSkeptic]

I think you should consider permanent residence in a bunker somewhere in Montana. That would be good for two reasons: you'll be safe from "terrists", and we wouldn't have to hear from you.