Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'm disappointed.
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 or not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.
Just under a third of the Senate, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have stripped immunity from the bill. It was defeated on a 32-66 vote. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain did not vote.
I'm disappointed because it was wrong to give them immunity. And I don't understand why Obama voted the way he did other than he's pandering to the right.
If they're supposed to help the gov't to catch terrorists, they should be immune from being held financially responsible by the people they listen to.
It makes sense to me.
If they're supposed to help the gov't to catch terrorists, they should be immune from being held financially responsible by the people they listen to.
Or the gov't could just do the right thing and get a warrant and none of this would even be an issue ...
Because you can't ask them to violate the law by listening in....and then allow them to be prosecuted for that exact thing.
Is it so confusing?
Or the gov't could just do the right thing and get a warrant and none of this would even be an issue ...
Exactly. Which makes Obama's vote even more mysterious.
Or the gov't could just do the right thing and get a warrant and none of this would even be an issue ...
Warrants don't work for this sort of thing. It takes time to get them....our security people need to be able to scan huge amounts of data without hindrance. They're looking for specific things, red flags. If you require a warrant, you seriously impede their ability to do that. And time means lives.
