Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Obama Votes "Yes" As Senate Approves Telecom Immunity and New Eavesdropping Rules
Share:
by PEP | July 9, 2008 at 11:25 am
999 views | 51 Recommendations | 40 comments
Photos
UPDATE: The Washington Post has what I think is one of the best summaries of this incident, along with the issue of the anger Jackson's son, Jesse Jackson, Jr, openly spoke out about.
"Speaking near a Fox News microphone that he thought was turned off, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson on Sunday disparaged Sen. Barack Obama's embrace of faith-based social services, using crude language to suggest that he wanted to castrate the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. "
UPDATE: As it turns out, Sen. Hillary Clinton voted against it.
UPDATE:
Barack Obama voted Wednesday afternoon for a surveillance bill that includes a provision he once opposed, giving Republicans ammunition in their argument that he is shifting positions to appeal to political moderates.
Segue to Charles Durning from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas: "Ooooh, I love to do the shuffle!"
Original post follows.
Breaking news. Let the discussions begin!
The Senate has approved a bill overhauling the rules on secret government eavesdropping and granting immunity to telecom companies that helped listen in on Americans after Sept. 11.
Another take:
.... implement the biggest overhaul of U.S. spy laws in three decades.
A background story:
The long fight on Capitol Hill has centered on one question: whether to shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The lawsuits allege that the White House and the companies violated U.S. law by going around the FISA court to start the wiretaps. The court was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.
"This president broke the law," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
PEP
Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
Helle V
Canadag_emde
CanadaMDC Jr.
Wichita Falls, Texas, United StatesStreet Portraits
Woodstock, Illinois, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (40)
at 11:27 on July 9th, 2008
This breaking news, although brief, also notes that the bill "will effectively dismiss some 40 lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping and privacy laws."
at 11:47 on July 9th, 2008
Bin Laden be high-fivin' tonight!
Yeehah!
at 12:17 on July 9th, 2008
you don't make sense, dunk
at 13:38 on July 9th, 2008
Score another one for the terrorists, by doggees!
We sure do love that second amendment, but the rest you need not concern yourselves about.
Just sit back and enjoy . . . ahem . . . the ride.
Yeehah!
at 14:23 on July 9th, 2008
Ya know, if you ever get clearance to cross the border into the great state of Oklahoma, you'll have to meet the kid up the street. He's all of hmm, 14 now, I think, and he considers himself the king of sarcasm. I'll supply the cookies and cold drinks for the shootout. Warning: he's pretty good at it.
Sometimes reading you gives me flashbacks to old AOL chat room days, really.
So, if you'd like to contribute to the dialogue, I'd like to hear your views on why Obama voted "yes". If not, I'll understand.
at 13:29 on July 9th, 2008
Hello Rene,
After blowing up the Twin Towers Bin Laden made some comments about how he would destroy America (or a threat amounting to this) in a bunch of different ways. What dunkelberg is saying then is that by undermining a level of privacy that we have enjoyed for so long Bin Laden's promise is coming true.
at 14:43 on July 9th, 2008
Please allow me to disagree, Mikasi. We haven't had any more terrorist bombings. We're still here, still free. bin Laden's evil put us at war, we reacted properly s though we were at war.
I'm still free. I can still travel as I like. I can still write and speak as I like.
Check out your history--during WWII we had special security needs too. Perhaps had bin Laden's terrorists attacked Pearl Harbor, some who don't care about 9-11 might have gotten the idea that this was war.
But I will agree with you on the attempts to destroy our culture and freedom in "different ways." One of them is Muslims moving in and demanding laws and normal behavior be changed to accommodate them. Obama will faciliate that, I truly believe.
at 14:51 on July 9th, 2008
Obama isn't Muslim, so I'm not sure why you have to "truly believe" that.
at 14:57 on July 9th, 2008
Obama has ties to terrorists, and to Louis Farrakhan, and other America-haters, like Jeremiah Wright.
at 15:13 on July 9th, 2008
[chuckle]
at 14:57 on July 9th, 2008
No terrorist bombings, but how about those deaths by anthrax?
Oops.
Again, we abandoned a righteous search for Usama "Dead or Alive" bin Laden to go on an unnecessary and ill-conceived war in Iraq. The effort to capture and punish those who actually attacked us was abandoned.
We lost a significant military advantage and now we are paying for it in Afghanistan.
It's the people in charge of this government who "don't care about 9-11" they only used it as a crutch to further their own desires. They've made a sloppy mess of it too.
Obama disappointed me by caving, just as McCain disappointed me when he caved on torture. I thought he said it didn't work, but maybe by his experience with it he knows better. I don't know.
Still it is comical that he doesn't bother to vote, criticizes Obama for his position and then criticizes him for caving and supporting the sorry bill.
9-11 was just the first attack on the U.S. mainland since WWII. Everything since has been the biggest sellout of honor and value since the Teapot Dome scandal.
But I digress. This is a "discussion" of the FISA bill and I am talking of ethics.
[chuckle]
at 15:05 on July 9th, 2008
Five people died during the anthrax mailings. Please compare that to the number of people who died in 9-11. Please compare that to other bombings around the world by terrorists, where dozens, sometimes hundreds, of people die and are injured.
The crime remains unsolved--that means they don't know who did it or why. We don't know if it was an external terrorist or an internal terrorist, or an internal nutjob.
McCain already voted on this in Feb. His vote wasn't needed today, and he was upfront about saying that he continued to support it. (Please don't make me type in that he voted for it in Feb. again. What, this is three times already I've typed it in?)
McCain can criticize his opponent if he likes. We all can -- it's called America. Obama said one thing, did another.
And yes, someone who's touting himself as the new rock star of "change" might be questioned if he says he doesn't support something, then votes for it.
Or are the rules changed for Obama? Oh, he flip flops, but it's Obama, and it's OK. Not OK for anyone else, though.
Many people attacked the U.S. for its efforts to find bin Laden. In some circles, it doesn't matter what the U.S. does, the U.S. is wrong--especially if it defends itself and its people.
at 15:12 on July 9th, 2008
I find it interesting that when Obama changed his mind that McCain did not welcome him to the fold and applaud his good sense in an old-fashioned, gracious conservative manner.
Certainly you are not trying to trivialize the anthrax attacks. They put many more people in danger and caused a much longer-lasting stir. Besides, I would think a real war on terrorism would include all terrorists, domestic and foreign. After all, the largest death toll by terrorists until 9-11 was due to U.S. citizens professing to be Christians.
at 19:46 on July 9th, 2008
Just a quick note here. Many of the enemy combatants we have at various places caught in Iraq and Afghanastan were finger printed, come to find out many have warrants in the USA and have been arrested several times. So we are safer because these folks are not in America because of Bush Administration policies. The Anthrax incidents were close to 9/11. Since then we have averted may attempts at terrorists. So it is true that we are safer.
at 10:22 on July 10th, 2008
Haven't you heard, dunk? Osama is in Pakistan, and undoubtedly has been for quite a while.
at 14:42 on July 9th, 2008
Hi rene, I guess we all have different styles. On the whole, NP tends to be about dialogue and commentary, but in the cyber-world, the "chat room" model is still popular with some.
I'm sure, though, that there will be continuing dialogue on this issue everywhere.
at 12:22 on July 9th, 2008
I was going to post this on its own, but it makes more sense in context with the ruling discussed above:
Source: blog.wired.com
at 12:28 on July 9th, 2008
Good on 'em, but the rush to sellout seems to be going full steam. Toot toot!
at 14:25 on July 9th, 2008
This is kind of funny to watch. The liberals are all over "ethics" as one of their battle cries, but when their guys vote differently than the "as advertised" positions they've espoused, they've got to scramble. Play Charles Durning video.
at 14:46 on July 9th, 2008
Why?
No scramble here. No need.
It as wrong.
He was wrong.
Unlike many, I do not march in lockstep with a leader.
How did McCain vote?
I am certain the Texas duo joined in the sellout, but that's expected of them.
[chuckle]
at 14:55 on July 9th, 2008
In using "he" are you referring to Obama? Are you saying that Obama was wrong?
If you are, why do you believe that to be true? Does this reflect on Obama's integrity in any way?
In earlier comments, perhaps you didn't see them, it was noted that McCain originally voted for the measure in Feb. and was in the Senate, where the bill had a huge majority, today.
To whom do you refer in your "Texas duo" comment?
at 15:38 on July 9th, 2008
In using "he" are you referring to Obama? Are you saying that Obama was wrong?
Yes and yes.
If you are, why do you believe that to be true? Does this reflect on Obama's integrity in any way?
I believe he was wrong. He (Obama) believes he was right. I am sure his explanation for caving on FISA is just as believable as McCain's explanation for caving on torture.
In earlier comments, perhaps you didn't see them, it was noted that McCain originally voted for the measure in Feb. and was in the Senate, where the bill had a huge majority, today.
So, he had done his part and it was time to let the others carry the water. Not the way I would have handled it, but then I guess that's just me. Seems if the battle is worth winning, it's important to show up, if for no other reason than scoring the soundbites. A senate speech or cloakroom interview would have looked a lot more impressive than a campaign gaggle.
To whom do you refer in your "Texas duo" comment?
Kay "Butch" Hutchison and "Big John" Cornyn. Last I heard, they were the only U.S. senators from Texas and the only ones eligible to join in the FISA sellout.
Cheers, luv!
at 14:41 on July 9th, 2008
Jordan, thanks so much for adding this. It's a goodie.
at 14:24 on July 9th, 2008
Interesting that Barack Obama will be taking heat for voting for the compromise, while all John McCain had to say was he supported. That he did not bother to show up for this critical vote is not an issue.
Boy, you couldn't write better comedy than that.
[chuckle]
at 14:36 on July 9th, 2008
McCain previously voted "yes" on this bill in February. No doubt the floor whips had told him that the votes were covered this time.
As for Obama, "Since September 2007, Obama has missed 80 percent of Senate votes."
So, how successful has Obama been at sponsoring legislation and getting it supported and passed? Not very. Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers)
In the Illinois senate, he tended to vote "Present" (but no vote) most of the time. Obama can't seem to find his records on his performance in the Illinois senate: " Obama said that he didn't know where his papers from his eight years in the Illinois State House were at a press conference in Johnston, Iowa, this morning after he taped an appearance on Iowa Press.
Check out his use of the "present" vote. The guy got elected as a U.S. senator and promptly ditched his job to push himself for president. Yep, that's what I always loved: a new employee who got the job, but then was too busy hustling for the next job to show up.
at 14:47 on July 9th, 2008
He didn't show up, because his bosses said he didn't have to.
Fair enough.
[chuckle]
at 14:52 on July 9th, 2008
ROFLMAOPIMP. Jeez, I remembered that old stuff!
at 14:24 on July 9th, 2008
PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 14:26 on July 9th, 2008
Hi Cao, thanks for the read and the flag. There's gonna be a hot time, in the old town toooniiiight! (Sing along if you like.)
at 16:02 on July 9th, 2008
PEP, Immunity is "NOT PRE - 9.11.2001" and only those that are "POST - 9.11.2001" are Immune - Qwest: Then recall that former Qwest CEO Joseph P. Nacchio (convicted of insider trading) "said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ... [suggesting] that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon." Qwest, by the way, declined to play, unlike other telecoms. via: uspolitics.about.com
If Qwest was approached prior to 9.11.2001, then so where any and all other telecommunications companies also. Qwest was the only company that was willing to say no and was willing to be open of this, once asked (New york times 2005).
No other company would willfully & openly admit any such approach by the government, because they received contracts and other bonuses by the U.S. government since allowing these companies to spy on Americans under the pretense of what would "later" be called terrorism. What's unknown is what they termed it pre - 9.11.2001 in order to enact spying upon American's.
~~~
Once more Americans continue to lose their rights.
PEP you say that you are still free and yes you are. But in no way are we or any other american better off then we where when Hoover was head of the FBI. Anyone (who are Americans) that mentions "special words, actions, phrases and such via the internet, on the telephone by landline's or cellular are now and have been marked, watched and noted. I do not not call this freedom, when I most be thoughtful & concerned when my words can be taken out of contexts because of those listening (aka government agencies) via any and all means possible.
If I'm a threat, it is only because I am an American - who believes Freedom, Justices and Equal rights as our fore fathers placed in 1776 as my birth right because I was born an america on american soil.