Mabus
06-24-2008, 04:53 PM
Seems the anointed one will support the FISA Domestic Spying Compromise, after firmly stating he would work to filibuster any bill with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
Before:
"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster." -Official campaign announcement, Dec. 2007
"It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal—with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity—is not the place to start," -Speech
Now:
"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."
He does say (to his credit), "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 it looks like he will support the bill as passed by the US House of Rep.
Some say he does not want to look "weak on terrorism" in comparison to McCain, but it seems to be pissing off MoveOn.org, and several left and civil rights groups (MoveOn Political Action on Telecom Immunity (http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html)).
I am of the personal opinion that these telecom companies do not deserve immunity. If they broke the law they should face consequences. There is likely no other way to find out what went on without this going to court, as both parties have not given the issue proper oversight (IMO).
Strangely, this allies me with the other party in this fight. Well, many of its members, other then its presumptive nominee.
Before:
"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster." -Official campaign announcement, Dec. 2007
"It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal—with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity—is not the place to start," -Speech
Now:
"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."
He does say (to his credit), "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 it looks like he will support the bill as passed by the US House of Rep.
Some say he does not want to look "weak on terrorism" in comparison to McCain, but it seems to be pissing off MoveOn.org, and several left and civil rights groups (MoveOn Political Action on Telecom Immunity (http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html)).
I am of the personal opinion that these telecom companies do not deserve immunity. If they broke the law they should face consequences. There is likely no other way to find out what went on without this going to court, as both parties have not given the issue proper oversight (IMO).
Strangely, this allies me with the other party in this fight. Well, many of its members, other then its presumptive nominee.