Pangloss Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Obama is apparently planning to vote for the wiretapping law as it is following the House's passage last week. The Senate is currently debating the bill, which is expected to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. Some interesting commentary from the Obama web site: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary This might get under the skin of some of his base, but I think he deserve a lot of credit for a thoughtful and measured position here, as well as a very forthright responsiveness on the subject. No duck-and-cover act here. He lays out exactly what's right and what's wrong about it, what parts of it he's got problems with, and what he plans to do about that after it passes. This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate. Is it just me or does supporting Obama feel like graduate-level citizenship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 As long as he opposes retroactive immunity I'm happy, although I'd prefer he not support the act whatsoever. I still feel it's unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Sounds like typical political bullshit. Even takes the opportunity to snipe John McCain at the end. But like bascule says, the retroactive immunity is the worst part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Obama is apparently planning to vote for the wiretapping law as it is following the House's passage last week. The Senate is currently debating the bill, which is expected to pass the Senate and be signed by the President. "That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate." This sounds like he isn't planning on voting for the wiretapping law "as it is" — that he wants to get that provision removed from the senate version. Then, one presumes, it gets dropped in conference committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 I understand your point, but that's pretty common lingo. He's definitely in the "yes" column on the current bill, he's just saying he'll get it changed if he can, and there's no way this one gets dropped in a committee. Here's the appropriate entry at GovTrack, btw, if anyone wants to follow this: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6304 I'm toying with the idea of including GovTrack links to bills we discuss here in Politics. Any thoughts or feedback on that idea would be welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Since when is one vote all that matters? Aren't there like 99 other senators whose opinion on tihs also matters? Btw... the govtrack thing IMO would be good. It adds some real evidence to the issues being discussed. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 wait.. the senate is allowed to strike specific titles of a bill passed completely by the House? That doesn't sound right to me, sort of like a line-item veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 wait.. the senate is allowed to strike specific titles of a bill passed completely by the House? Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression if they modified the bill it was sent back to the House for another vote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Maybe I'm confused, but I was under the impression if they modified the bill it was sent back to the House for another vote... oh ok, that's what I thought, but the original story didn't make it sound like that (ex - working in the senate to strike the title). But, as long as they have to send it back to the house... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 oh ok, that's what I thought, but the original story didn't make it sound like that (ex - working in the senate to strike the title). But, as long as they have to send it back to the house... The what the conference committee does — it works on a compromise if the house and senate versions don't agree. Sometimes an item is dropped, sometimes it's retained. Though AFAICT the House could just vote to agree to drop the provision (assuming this is what happens) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Conference_committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBruce Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Since when is one vote all that matters? Aren't there like 99 other senators whose opinion on tihs also matters? Btw... the govtrack thing IMO would be good. It adds some real evidence to the issues being discussed. YMMV. One senators opinion matters not becuase he is representing millions of people plus that senator is a current presidental canidate who claims to want to change the political process. It looks like he is doing the exact oppisite of what he says he will do if he is elected presedent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 And, appearances can be deceiving, so I want more information before I decide one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Is it just me or does supporting Obama feel like graduate-level citizenship? I hope it's just you, but i suspect that rather a lot of people have fallen for his particular brand of portentous obfustication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 If the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and the telcoms violated the (then current) law by cooperating with them, isn't Title II just an attempt to keep the telcoms from throwing Bush et al under the bus (if I may continue to use that particular phrase)? Would the telcoms' panoply of lawyers have allowed them to risk so much without a guarantee of consideration or immunity? How did the House defend protecting the telcoms by allowing Title II to remain in the resolution? I think Obama is risking quite a bit on being able to "work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate." If he gains other concessions but Title II stays in for the Senate vote, I will have lost a great deal of confidence in Obama's credibility. I'm frankly sick of the secrecy. The thread I was following about wiretapping got closed, so I'm sorry if this ground has been gone over already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 If it doesn't include retroactive immunity, Bush will just pardon them all before he leaves office. Can you pardon someone not convicted? It worked for Nixon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBruce Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yes you can pardon someone who was not convicted. Jimmy Carter gave amnesty (a mass pardon) to all the draft dodgers who might have committed a crime by dodging the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate. Ok, so will he still support the bill even if this provision is not removed? I suspect he will. And I think that's incredibly important. Does he have principles that he will not cross? Or will he reason himself around those sticky concepts? I still don't agree with punishing telecoms for cooperating in good faith with the executive in a time of war. If I thought the telecoms were using good faith as a "front" for malicious behavior, then I'd be all for roasting them up nice. But I don't think it sets a good precedence, in fact I think it perilous actually, to punish retroactively for unprecedented threats and events. Seems to me to be more in the national interest to give reasonable benefit of the doubt to those who cooperate with their government during unforeseen crises. A mistake in judgement is not the same as an exploited opportunity. We may yet find ourselves again, someday, dealing with a crisis our constitution didn't prepare us for, something we should have foreseen, but didn't, and will need folks to step up. They will be far less likely to take initiative in the unprecedented when we have established the history of retroactive punishment. Of course, the best solution is to try them all, in order to find out if there was any malicious behavior - that's imperative to our liberty. The problem, of course, being that there's way too much partisanship and too many agendas and rhetoric to give anyone a fair shake in this. I'm not sure there's a good solution, and I blame it ALL on party politics at our nation's expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I still don't agree with punishing telecoms for cooperating in good faith with the executive in a time of war. If the president asked me to break the law, and more to the point, the Constitution, I would say no. "Wartime" be damned. I'm tired of war being used as an excuse to undermine the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 If the president asked me to break the law, and more to the point, the Constitution, I would say no. "Wartime" be damned. I'm tired of war being used as an excuse to undermine the Constitution. Amen to that. Even soldiers are responsible for refusing illegal orders, and they sometimes have to risk their lives to do so (military does not approve of orders being disobeyed). That's the ultimate wartime -- the soldiers themselves. Also, terrorists have nothing whatsoever to do with war. I declare a war on calling stupid things wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 done deal, with immunity http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5341118&page=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) If the president asked me to break the law, and more to the point, the Constitution, I would say no. "Wartime" be damned. I'm tired of war being used as an excuse to undermine the Constitution.Totally, totally agree. Why set up a system of checks and balances and then ignore them? Cooperating with the government at any time should not break the laws made by that government. This is a true shame: Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican who opposes the way the bill gives the phone companies immunity from lawsuits told his colleagues before the vote they were preparing to commit an "historical embarrassment." "Everybody knows we don't know what we're voting on," Specter said, pointing out that many lawmakers still have not been fully briefed on the president's program, for which the phone company immunity is being granted. "That's what the members of the Senate are being asked to do today, grant retroactive immunity on a program the senators don't know what it is," Specter said, although he opposed the attempt to strip the immunity provision in favor of changing it. Specter's amendment also failed. Edited July 9, 2008 by Phi for All Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) If the president asked me to break the law, and more to the point, the Constitution, I would say no. "Wartime" be damned. I'm tired of war being used as an excuse to undermine the Constitution. Absolutely. I would be the last person to rationalize around that principle. But it wasn't that straight forward at all. The big telecom companies have no shortage of snappy lawyers, yet they weren't sure they were breaking the law. The executive branch explicitly made the requests and was assured of its legality, so it had the good faith appearance of legal support and the exigency and yeoman nobility to drive it. I'm not advocating to ignore the law. The executive is not a monarchy and their "word" does not carry any legal authority. But the law wasn't exactly clear on the matter and still isn't. Remember, to some of us libertarians, it's not an invasion of privacy at all. That's a private network and privacy gaurantees should come from the telecoms to their customers as a service, not a law. Moreover, I just don't agree with witch hunts. Never have and never will. Witch hunts are usually headed by those that lack the balls to have done anything in an emergency, yet find nobility in the advantage of hindsight. I think it's chicken shit. You can package this with whatever rhetoric you like, but I'm never going to agree to punish people who took the initiative in good faith to the cause of protecting lives during an unprecedented crisis when the laws and consequences were not clear. That's not right. Do you also agree with punishing people who attempt to give CPR but end up killing the person? I think this is definitely that kind of morally twisted question. They knew they were pushing the limits, and they also thought they were doing the right thing and protecting the country from the unthinkable. Now that it's several years later and we're all calmed down - NOW it's time break out the whips and chains. Whatever... For the record, immunity is not the right message. No one should get that. Witch hunt is not the right message either. Currently I'm so averted to the witch hunt mentallity that I'm probably not giving the constitutional jeopardy a fair shake. Edited July 9, 2008 by ParanoiA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Well, if they did nothing wrong, that is for the courts to decide, not politicians. Granting a retroactive immunity breaks the system of checks and balances, and sends completely the wrong message. What good is a law when the people it applies to are allowed to break it? On that note, shouldn't the supreme court simply remove such a law as unconstitutional? It would effectively allow the government to bypass the fourth amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 Well, if they did nothing wrong, that is for the courts to decide, not politicians. Granting a retroactive immunity breaks the system of checks and balances, and sends completely the wrong message. What good is a law when the people it applies to are allowed to break it? On that note, shouldn't the supreme court simply remove such a law as unconstitutional? It would effectively allow the government to bypass the fourth amendment. Yes, as I understand it, the complaint could (will?) be made in court and it could very well go to the Supremes. One of the interesting side stories in this case has been that the case for damage hasn't really been made yet, at least on a legal level -- it's kinda taken a back seat to the larger issue of retroactive immunity (as a legal concept, which most legal writers seem to find very dubious). In other words, both theoretical plaintiffs and theoretical defenders seem to find it the best strategy to stay mum about victims for the time being, but now that the law has passed we may see one side or the other trot out Jane Doe, single working mother of three, house in foreclosure, who was illegally tapped by AT&T after she accidentally dialed Osama bin Laden instead of Ohmomma the Babyissick. I'm being humorous, of course, but you will want to keep an eye out for that story to magically appear one day, as if a reporter suddenly tracked down po' ol' Jane after several years of tough investigative reporting (meaning he ripped a press release from the ACLU off his fax machine that morning). (Yes, supposedly even the telecom defenders could trot out the victims, because of an obscure point of legal precedent regarding the compensation of victims that I don't really understand myself, but which seems to say that it's okay to grant retroactive immunity so long as you agree to compensate the victims. I'm afraid I don't remember where I read that one offhand, but I can look it up if anyone's interested.) --------- Conservative friend of mine sent me this. Just goes to show how far they're going to push that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now