Immunity Granted

[Article 15]

Breaking: Senate approves immunity for telecoms.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Terrorist-Surveillance.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Article 15]

In case anyone was wondering ... Obama voted for it.

McCain, once again, wasn't there to vote ....

 

[Ravi]

I'm disappointed.

 

[Article 15]

I'm disappointed.

In the result of the vote or in this ... ?

“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.”

Statement from Senator Obama?s Office on the FISA Bill | U.S. Senator Barack Obama

 

[Manuel]

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.

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[busara]

**busara walks off angrily**

 

[Article 15]

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.

Hmmm ... I'm a bit confused now ...

It seemed to me that even though he voted for the amendments to strike the immunity he still ended up voting for the bill that granted immunity ...

 

[Article 15]

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.

I can understand that.

I'm not thrilled that the telecoms are getting a pass here either ...

I just wish Obama would be more principled with his votes.

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[Article 15]

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.

Or the gov't could just do the right thing and get a warrant and none of this would even be an issue ...

 

[Ravi]

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.

Why?

 

[Ravi]

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.

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

 

[Ravi]

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?

They could have said no. Or a warrant could have been gotten. Is following the law so confusing?

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

 

[Article 15]

Exactly. Which makes Obama's vote even more mysterious.

I did a face palm when I read about it ...

 

[busara]

Or the gov't could just do the right thing and get a warrant and none of this would even be an issue ...

absolutely agree. i dont understand how warrantless wiretaping is even legal

 

[AllieBaba]

Because it's a matter of national security.

 

[Article 15]

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.

The warrant can be issued after the fact ...

I, and millions of other Americans do not approve of the telecoms being open books to the gov't because of a "boogeyman" ... and neither should you ...