Senator Obama's statement on FISA

[MrCoffee]

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. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php

Let's think about this for a minute. How will he "work in the Senate to remove this provision"? He can offer an amendment to the bill which deletes the retroactive immunity provision.

Now how many of you think such an amendment will pass? Will a voice vote work, or should we go straight to the roll call?

Way to disappoint, Senator.

[Horse with no Name]

1. My guess?

Voice vote.
Who would want THIS little nugget be entered against them on the Congressional Record. Yecchh!

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Only if every single Senator wants a voice vote

Just one Senator can gum up the works and require a roll call vote.

[Horse with no Name]

4. If Kucinich was in the Senate

it would happen.
None of the other ratfuckers will do it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. There was a Senate election in Ohio two years ago

I guess that Kucinich thinks that he can accomplish more by staying in the House and running for President every four years.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Kucinich would have stood up for the people

He SHOULD run every four years because then everyone can see what a REAL Democrat is at least once every four years.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Your definition of 'REAL Democrat' seems to differ greatly form that of Democratic primary voters

[Horse with no Name]

13. That is "assuming" everyone who voted Democratic was a real Democrat

But I'll leave you to argue your point alone.
I see where you are going with this and your plan to smear one of the VERY few GOOD Democrats we have...and I don't want any part of it allowing you to vent your spleen.

[still_one]

2. I don't know, but if the Senate doesn't pass it, it doesn't become law

It is NOT a sure thing that it will pass in the Senate either

If nothing is done, it would mean that the original law takes effect which means they need to go through the FISA court

It also means that no immunity would be granted

[MrCoffee]

6. It's almost guaranteed that it will pass the Senate

An amendment removing the immunity provision is certain to fail. Either Obama knows this and is trying to placate the left or he doesn't know this and is remarkably stupid.

[Leopolds Ghost]

17. Obama says it is an essential piece of legislation. He is the party's leader.

[ben_meyers]

7. But given the legitimate threats we face!!!

WTF is he talking about? It's a police and court matter if somebody carries out a threat, that's how Clinton/Reno handled things. Put the perps in prison if convicted, like the 1st WTC attack.

[Marie26]

8. That's called "triangulation"

Throw a bone to the left, the meat to the right.

[MrCoffee]

10. Hear Hear!

The worst part is that it's a pretend bone he's throwing.

[Marie26]

11. Yes, it is.

It's like that mean game some owners play on their dogs: "Here, boy, fetch!" as they pretend to throw a bone. The dog goes racing after it w/glee, only to freeze bewildered & puzzled as he realizes there's no bone at all, & the owner laughs. That bewildered, puzzled dog is the left right now.

[Horse with no Name]

14. Not the ENTIRE left

I, for one, am not bewildered at all.:shrug:

[Marie26]

15. Me either.

But then not all of us went chasing after it. I guess sometimes being profoundly cynical is a good thing? :shrug:

[comradebillyboy]

18. then you are rarely disappointed

extreme cynicism and suspicion of all, and I do mean all, pols is well warranted.

[slipslidingaway]

16. Prior immunity amendment vote - YEAs 31 - NAYs 67

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

As an indication of how successful an amendment might be.


Totally agree with the statement below...

"...I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25283004/

OLBERMANN: Have the Democrats blinked or Mr. Feingold and Mr. Leahy are going to kill this in the Senate?

TURLEY: Well, this is more like a one-man staring contest. I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller‘s support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back.

I think they‘re simply waiting to see if the public‘s interest will wane and we‘ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing—that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.

It‘s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful...


OLBERMANN: And, also hidden in here behind this headline - if you immunize the telecoms, are you not also immunizing the president, the Bush administration and, to some degree, the Congress that went along with all of these crimes in the last seven years?

TURLEY: Well, there‘s no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members.

And, I‘m afraid this is Washington politics at the worst..."