Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms
The Huffington Post | June 20, 2008 04:25 PM
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"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."
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
please clarify
I do not want to assume - please clarify what you mean...
The proper response was to
The proper response was to affirm FISA, which was all that is needed. But you only get to vote on what makes it through the Congressional sausage factory. Said factory will continue to operate for quite a while...see Colbert King's latest on insiders for an idea of the repercussions thereof.
You know the story of the Gordian Knot?
George Orwell's Response to Obama's Statement
'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."
"Politics and the English Language" April 1946
Would you say the value of
Would you say the value of the psychodrama is equal to the value of the pyscho drama created by the civil rights movement?
Different sort of thiing
Different sort of thiing altogether. Here, the drama is caused by things changing changing faster than people's cover stories. They didn't use cover stories back in the day.
P6 Could you further
P6
Could you further explain? I am not quite sure what you are driving at.
I mean I don't see enough
I mean I don't see enough similarity between this presidential campaign and the 50s-60s civil rights movement to make a valid comparison. There's no intent to change the system here, only the way the system is used.