Obama supports spying on U.S civilians with FISA - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 06-22-2008, 10:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Laine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 349
Well, the Democrats and Obama caved into the latest Cheney led survelliance bill that has been debated over the past several months by congress . This bill essentially legalizes the warantless spying that took place during the Bush administration. Senator Feingold blasted the passing of this bill by the House. The Senate is expected to vote very soon on this.



Quote:
"fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power."



Thanks to Senator Feingold for opposing this but Obama must be exposed for the cave in, faux liberal that he is.



Quote:
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. . . .



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. . . 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.



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.



http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/



So much for change we can believe in. I hope those that support him will critically look at his actions rather than being entranced by his empy rhetoric.





A Washington Times article is below.



Quote:
The House, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, yesterday approved a sweeping new surveillance law that extends the government's eavesdropping capability and effectively would shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.



Ending a year-long battle with President Bush, the House passed, by a 293 to 129 vote, an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill provides a legal avenue for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other telecommunications firms to ward off about 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy by helping the government conduct a warrantless spying program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.



Before the vote, Bush said the plan, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, would help thwart new terrorist attacks. "It's vital that our intelligence community has the ability to learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they are planning," he said.



Only one Republican opposed the bill, but Democrats were sharply divided. And the legislation presented a fresh foreign policy dilemma for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The party's presumptive presidential nominee announced his support of the FISA bill despite active opposition to it from the liberal activist base that has financially fueled his campaign.





"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," Obama said in a statement.



Obama had previously opposed a different Senate version, which passed on Feb. 12, because it gave "blanket immunity" to the telecommunications companies, according to a statement issued at the time.



Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, supports the FISA legislation.



Democrats have resisted passing a new FISA law since last summer and implemented a temporary act that expired in August. They demanded more information about the warrantless wiretapping program that the administration pursued for years after the terrorist attacks. But after four months of negotiations, the bill gives intelligence agencies most of what they had been seeking.



The agreement gives telecom companies the ability to have privacy lawsuits thrown out if they demonstrate to a federal judge that they received written assurance from the Bush administration that the spying was legal. House GOP leaders and opponents of the legislation consider the new court review a formality that will lead to dismissal of the suits.



The bill requires approval by the secret FISA court of procedures for intercepting foreigners' e-mails and telephone calls. Spying on U.S. citizens, including those overseas, would require individual warrants from the same court.



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she supported the bill primarily because it rejects Bush's argument that a wartime chief executive has the "inherent authority" to conduct some surveillance activity he considers necessary to fight terrorism. It restores the legal notion that the FISA law is the exclusive rule on government spying.



"This is a democracy. It is not a monarchy," Pelosi said.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062000986.html
Laine is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 06-22-2008, 11:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
It's amazing. We can only hope the Senate doesn't allow it to go through. An amazing number of people signed it, so it really makes me wonder how much coercing goes on behind the scenes to force people to sign a bill like this. Once again, I'm not surprised about Obama.
rainforests1 is offline  
#3 Old 06-22-2008, 11:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
This is just one of the reasons why I will vote for Ben Matlock.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 06-22-2008, 12:19 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
Wasn't his response to criticisms that this is actually less power than they have with PATROIT? And it is a compromise in the bill? Or something?
troub is offline  
#5 Old 06-22-2008, 12:39 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Laine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 349
The revision of FISA does not by any means replace the Patriot Act as they cover different areas of intelligence. This "compromise" is a vast difference from the resounding "No" that Obama stated when this revision first went up for debate at the beginning of this year.



Let's face it. Obama doesn't want to be perceived as being being weak on terrorism and he is willing to sell out our freedoms, privacy and his own ideals in order to appear strong on terror. The Democrats attempted to defeat the Republicans in their own game in 2004 rather than attempting to redefine national security,they simply play the war hawk game. Liberals should be up in arms over this issue but I imagine somehow they will let the Democrats slide on this issue.
Laine is offline  
#6 Old 06-23-2008, 04:06 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
Huh? In the US, if someone forces oral sex upon you, the crime they have comitted is sexual assault, not rape. Rape requires penetration of a vagina by a penis. Even if a man forces a woman to accept his penis into her anus - my understanding is that this does not meet the legal definition of rape. According to the legal definition, men cannot be raped. But they can be the victim of a sexual assault, and the penalties for a sexual assault should be just about as severe as the penalties for rape. The penalty should depend upon the degree of force and the amount of harm, not the particular orifice or orifices that were involved, if any.
soilman is offline  
#7 Old 06-23-2008, 06:01 AM
Vegan Police Officer
 
Diana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,211
I hope this does not come as a surprise to anyone.



If so, you need to remove the veil of naivety from your eyes.



Obama is not a saviour.



My advice: DON'T VOTE!!!!
Diana is offline  
#8 Old 06-23-2008, 08:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Huh? In the US, if someone forces oral sex upon you, the crime they have comitted is sexual assault, not rape. Rape requires penetration of a vagina by a penis. Even if a man forces a woman to accept his penis into her anus - my understanding is that this does not meet the legal definition of rape. According to the legal definition, men cannot be raped. But they can be the victim of a sexual assault, and the penalties for a sexual assault should be just about as severe as the penalties for rape. The penalty should depend upon the degree of force and the amount of harm, not the particular orifice or orifices that were involved, if any.

That's my first thought about Obama's policies too.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#9 Old 06-23-2008, 09:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
frenchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Huh? In the US, if someone forces oral sex upon you, the crime they have comitted is sexual assault, not rape. Rape requires penetration of a vagina by a penis. Even if a man forces a woman to accept his penis into her anus - my understanding is that this does not meet the legal definition of rape. According to the legal definition, men cannot be raped. But they can be the victim of a sexual assault, and the penalties for a sexual assault should be just about as severe as the penalties for rape. The penalty should depend upon the degree of force and the amount of harm, not the particular orifice or orifices that were involved, if any.

OK. I believe this belongs in the "woman raped man in stockholm" thread.
frenchie is offline  
#10 Old 06-23-2008, 09:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
frenchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana View Post




My advice: DON'T VOTE!!!!



What purpose with that serve?
frenchie is offline  
#11 Old 06-23-2008, 11:00 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 10,763
I don't know how I managed to post my reply in the wrong thread, but I've removed it now. Sorry.
soilman is offline  
#12 Old 06-23-2008, 11:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rainforests1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana View Post

I hope this does not come as a surprise to anyone.



If so, you need to remove the veil of naivety from your eyes.



Obama is not a saviour.



My advice: DON'T VOTE!!!!

I don't see what purpose that serves either. There are many people that are running outside of the two parties.
rainforests1 is offline  
#13 Old 06-23-2008, 01:06 PM
Vegan Police Officer
 
Diana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,211
Well, if people still have confidence in politicians, whoever they are, then I think they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Diana is offline  
#14 Old 06-23-2008, 01:11 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Laine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 349
I believe there are genuine people running for office but the problem is those people will never hold office.
Laine is offline  
#15 Old 06-23-2008, 03:28 PM
American Made, Rebel Born
 
Kenickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: House of Gaunt
Posts: 6,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laine View Post

I believe there are genuine people running for office but the problem is those people will never hold office.



i definitly don't believe that, with my own representative diana degette as an example.

cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.
Kenickie is offline  
#16 Old 06-23-2008, 07:57 PM
Veggie Regular
 
frenchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana View Post

Well, if people still have confidence in politicians, whoever they are, then I think they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Whether or not I vote, there will still be a new president elected. Though I don't have 100% confidence in any of our choices, one stands out to me. I feel it's important for me to cast my vote.
frenchie is offline  
#17 Old 06-23-2008, 08:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Fenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 452
He filibustered the original FISA bill, and in 10/2007 he vowed to filibuster any bill that contained retroactive immunity for telcos. I'm still a supporter, but there's no way this is anything but a complete disappointment. I also take issue with this quote of his, supporting the new compromise:



Quote:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...egislatio.html



"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,"



Quote:
as president, I will carefully monitor the program



Last time I checked, the election was still a long way away. By supporting this, you could also be handing unchecked surveillance powers to a President McCain.



On the upside, he also made this statement:



Quote:
"[The bill] 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."



We'll find out what that's going to translate into soon. As the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, this is going to be a good test to see how effective he can be.
Fenguin is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off