Prez Candidates and Telecom Immunity

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Motley, Feb 13, 2008.

  1. Motley macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    #1
    So the senate voted on an amendment to a bill to remove immunity for telecoms that broke the law following government requests for warrantless wiretap.
    Here's how the vote went.

    Let's look at how the Presidential Candidates Voted:
    Mccain: Against removing immunity
    Obama: For Removing immunity
    Clinton: Did not vote

    I used to like Mccain, but he's compromised too much with this administration, Hillary was too busy campaigning to vote, and Obama did take a break from campaigning to vote.
     
  2. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #2
    gives obama a point in my book.
    makes hilary look like she can't be bothered to do what she's supposed to as a senator.
     
  3. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    At least she didn't vote "present" :rolleyes:

    Of course, she'll come out and SAY that giving the telecom companies immunity is a bad idea, but she won't actually come back and vote for it, because she's too busy pandering for votes somewhere. I guess that's what happens when you've lost 7 straight primaries by a 2-1 margin....
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    I already liked Obama, but before this I probably would have voted for McCain over Clinton, but this just lost him my vote no matter who is running against him.
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    Sadly, I'm not surprised by the outcome of this. If it was really that important for our security (it isn't, what we have in play already is sufficient to the end of the current administration) why bother tacking on the immunity and risk failure unless you're just trying to scare up support? Or did I just answer my own questions?

    As for the vote, I'm glad Obama voted the way he did, even though I'm sure he's going to be painted as against security. I'm not surprised about Hillary or McCain. Nor, as I said, the rest of the spineless "opposition".
     
  6. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #6
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

    Those 67 senators who voted No should be tried for treason. Voting No allows the telecom people to basically continue their warrant-less wiretapping without any repercussions, which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
     
  7. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    (emphasis mine -- because a lot of people seem to miss this part)

    I agree with what you said, except for the treason part. Impeachment, maybe, but not treason.

    I just hope the House continues to have the balls to say no to this. Harry Reid just caved in on this one. Probably because telecom companies are a huge lobby.
     
  8. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #8
  9. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    The complete fisa court is unconstitutional in my opinion.


    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

    Benjamin Franklin
     
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    There may be nothing illegal if you include laws that violate the constitution but what they are doing is definitally unconstitutional. The constitution protects us from searches without warrants they do not have warrents so they are violating the constitution.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    No. You're the only one. ;)

    If this is true, then why the immunity requirement? Maybe because it's not as clear as you think.
     
  12. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #12
    I'm going to ask a question first asked by Keith Olbermann, because it's somewhat pertinent, although my wording is not exact.

    "If this FISA revision is so important for the safety of American citizens, why threaten to veto any bill that does not contain an immunity clause?"

    You can look at it two ways. Either the bill is not necessary, or the lives of Americans comes after the protection of the participating phone companies. Which would you prefer?
     
  13. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #13

    The bill is not necessary.

    While we're at it. Most federal laws are not necessary.
     
  14. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #14
    If the communications companies fear cooperation will result in litigation, they will not cooperate, thus hobbling investigations. Sometimes a weak bill is as bad as no bill.


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08-31-3051059827_x.htm



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/17/AR2008021701734_pf.html
     
  15. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #15
    If the purpose of the revision is to save American lives and everything that was asked for is provided other than the retro-active immunity then the only logical conclusion is that the interests of the telcos is more important than saving American lives.

    Until immunity is passed the telcos are unlikely to cooperate anyway. If the act passes, they can participate from now forward (as I understand it) and be protected, the only thing lacking is their previous participation in the program.

    If they are so concerned now that they won't participate because of possible prosecution then the phone companies should have refused to participate in the beginning.

    If the act is really required for the protection of American lives it only shows that the administration is putting the protection of the phone companies for legally questionable acts in the past ahead of protecting the lives of American citizens in the future.
     
  16. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #16
    Did you even read the articles I provided, or see the vote in the Senate in favor of including immunity, and why some in the House were against it?
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    They shouldn't be cooperating unless there is a warrant.
     
  18. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #18
    Yes I read them, and it does irk me that the money points to more nefarious reasons for not including telcom immunity, but my comments are mostly based on the comments from the WH that any bill without tecom immunity will be vetoed.

    link

    Since immunity seems to be the only sticking point, and it's deemed "veto worthy" it makes me question whether or not the law is required, or if the interests of the telcos avoiding lawsuits is the true purpose.
     
  19. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #19
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ry_by_dick_morris/hillary_clinton_goofs_again
    ~ CB
     
  20. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #20
    Of course the law is required.M. McConnell has said it is vital.
    It is all politics. There are threats of vetoes all the time by politicians- even on essential programs- such as the budget. The bill will pass the House when they come back from break.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Not true.

    And, as DNI McConnell has stated " The entire issue here is liability protection for the carriers."

    Protecting the telecos is more important to Bush and his GOP helper-helpingtons than protecting Americans. It can't be stated any more clearly than what the DNI said.

    And if there is a legitimate warrant, there are already laws requiring them to cooperate on the books. The telecoms would be in violation of the law by refusing to cooperate.

    There is no issue with getting telecoms to cooperate with a lawfully conducted surveillance request. The issue here is that the White House will not think twice about requesting illegal surveillance if there is no consequence for them if they do so.
     
  22. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #22
    Apparently some seem to think this is a 'Bush bill', or a Republican amendment. Am I the only one believes this amendment was a bipartisan measure? After all, the amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to 29, with Graham out, and Obama and Clinton busy campaigning.
    As I posted earlier, the bill stalled in the House because those who are beholden to trial lawyers had to please their 'constituents'.

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...fm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020#position
     

    Attached Files:

  23. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Please. The bill stalled in the HoR because the GOP is beholden to the telecoms and the military-industrial complex, and had to please their 'constituents'.

    (Seriously, two can play at this stupid and pointless partisan game of who's 'constituents' are more vile, but can we move beyond the petty sniping please? The bill stalled because of legitimate disagreements over the accountability of government in snooping through the communications of American citizens, not because of some 'constituency'. If you'd like to address those issues, please have at it, but saying it's all the "trial lawyers" fault is nothing more than repeating the latest Limbaugh / White House spin.)
     
  24. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #24
    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/...isa_trial_lawyer_cash?page=full&comments=true
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    Now, please do the same detailed analysis of Republicans who got money from the telecoms.

    Oh wait, Townhall did your thinking for you, so unless they publish such a list we should just assume that Democrats vote the way their masters tell them, while Republicans vote based upon their deeply-held convictions?

    Funny thing that people like Townhall post these articles at the same time Limbaugh starts making the accusation and shortly after the WH makes the same claim... Hell of a coincidence, wouldn't you say?
     

Share This Page