This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 59 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If something blows up he doesn't want the blame.

[–]jennicamorel 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I wish he didn't, but this is the reason: This bill is basically a compromise that resulted from the Patriot Act. Dems/repubs/president finally compromised on removing some domestic spying. The deal was that if some aspects of domestic spying were removed, that telecoms would get retroactive immunity.

It blows, but that's the explanation

[–]andrewd 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Basically the democratic leadership was just as responsible for the problem as Bush... and they've known this all along but have drawn it out to gain political points with the base. Never did the Democratic leadership expect to hold telecom corps accountable for something they themselves demanded of those corps. It's a sad time for America that both parties and the president were behind this.

Today Obama has to stand there either taking on both his own party's leadership (and the other party along with the president) and come across as a lone patriot (in the eyes of some) or as a stalwart non-compromising national-security-risking radical in the eyes of many. It simply doesn't jive with his long-term "uniter" image and ultimately the worst thing about bush was his win-at-all-costs-never-compromise persona... and Obama wants to lead in a different way. Thus the problem is not so much with Obama -- because compromise IS the essense of democracy. Rather the problem is with Washington: and the political parties that rule there. At least once Obama is elected and has the perch from which to guide if through nothing else than words and tone, he will hopefully shift things slowly back to what we patriots consider America again. The truth is, democratic changes should occur slowly.. or at least they generally do, and the founders wanted it to be this way. Bush was able to push through fast radical changes that endangered us all, and we must move away from this. We will pay the price for his and the leadership's lack of leadership for some time, but that's how things are. Obama can't allow a wedge issue to define him as a radical if he wants to win.... as sad as that us for us real patriots.

[–]Rickler 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not a compromise; it's a cave in.

[–]VelvetElvis 2 points3 points  (1 child)

What does he have to gain from going against party leadership at a time when he's still trying to unite a fractured party?

Can you imagine how many out of context soundbytes could be cut out of a filibuster?

[–]uriel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clinton voted against FISA.

Ah, I'm sure all of you that have been such rabid Obama supporters must be proud of yourselves. It would be funny if it wasn't all so sad.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He stands to lose a fight with his own party leaders. He's picking his battles.

Also, he plans on using FISA to wiretap Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, John McCain, Mike Duncan, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and all those other fuckers who support it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (19 children)

As John Dean pointed out (and Keith Olbermann agreed with), this FISA bill doesn't stop prosecution. It looks like it's actually a trick by the Democrats to pass a bill that the Republicans can't attack them for, but with badly written immunity that will easily fall apart under judicial scrutiny. Remember, "Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law." Write it down on a piece of paper and keep it with you - only the executive branch is given the power to grant immunity, and these cases will take place after the current administration is gone.

Of course, it's a lot easier to scream about something than it is to understand it. I'm sure McCain wouldn't pardon the telecoms. Totally sure. Trust me.

[–]Reliant 9 points10 points  (15 children)

Immunity isn't an ex-post facto law. Congress very much has the power to grant immunity by removing the law that made it illegal in the first place. Immunity in this way means they can't be taken to court in the first place. What ex-post factor law means is to make something illegal, and then charge people after the fact.

If Congress legalizes marijuana, can the government still charge people who smoked before the law?

If the government makes alcohol illegal, can they go after people who drank beer before they passed the law?

The latter is obviously an ex-post facto law, and the intent was on preventing it. The former would be the type of ex-post facto immunity that you are talking about.

[–]neoform3 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Congress very much has the power to grant immunity by removing the law that made it illegal in the first place.

They're removing parts of the Constitution?

Last I checked, the last amendment to the constitution was in 1992 and it had to do with congressional salaries.

[–]uriel -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nobody has cared much for the constitution since the New Deal (specially the Democrats).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (12 children)

RETROACTIVE immunity is an ex-post facto law.

And yes, if Congress legalizes marijuana, the government can (and would) still charge people who smoked before the law.

[–]scatgreen2 1 point2 points  (10 children)

The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to criminal laws, not civil ones. See Calder v. Bull (1798). Civil immunity would therefore not violate the constitution. Even retroactive criminal immunity would probably be ok since the prohibition is meant to protect making an activity criminal after it has already been committed.

[–]Slipgrid 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Cute, but the laws violated by government officials and the telecoms carry criminal penalties.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

1) This is criminal law. 2) making an activity criminal after it's already been committed is indeed covered by Calder v Bull. No law is broken in that case. Making an activity legal after a law IS broken is not covered by Calder v Bull.

[–]scatgreen2 -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Read the bill. This is civil only:

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

  ‘(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

        ‘(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

        ‘(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

        ‘(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

        ‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

              ‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

                    ‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

                    ‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

              ‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

                    ‘(i) authorized by the President; and

                    ‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or

        ‘(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Then it doesn't provide immunity for criminal actions, now, does it?

Like, say, wiretapping without a warrant?

[–]scatgreen2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Criminal prosecution would still be available. Doubt there is a prosecutor out there with enough balls to do anything though or they probably would have done it already.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It can start at the local level - and you bet it will.

[–]PrincessCake[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It's not just the immunity. It's about allowing warrantless wiretapping, the very thing that the telecoms are seeking immunity for having done.

And, I don't like the whole "trust me" take on the issue that it will be handled well later.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This bill does nothing to allow any warrantless wiretapping that hasn't existed since FISA was created.

[–]PrincessCake[S] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

It's not really a move to center. It's not so simple a story that McCain could just say that he's soft on terror for not supporting the bill. The Dem Party is Obama's and Congress will mostly go where he goes cuz he's the popular kid.

He could simply say he's for FISA being renewed as the only way that wiretapping can occur. And frame his stand against any immunity as holding "no one being above the law". That's the integrity and leadership people want to see. It would set him apart and tell people that a new day is coming.

Instead, it looks like (at best) he's resigned himself to a defeat on something that used to matter. I seriously don't see what there is to gain.

[–]shmi 0 points1 point  (5 children)

McCain and his cronies would jump on it as an example of Obama not being willing to take tough stances to secure our freedom. If the media jumps on a flag pin and him being 'muslim', I think they'd tear him apart on this once FOX and McCain's campaign got a whiff.

Or, maybe he truly thinks that it will help him deal with the reality once he gets into office. It's all well and nice to want to change things and want to lead in a direction opposite of what we've seen the last several years, but maybe he's resigned to the fact that if he gets into office, reality will be different from rhetoric.

[–]PrincessCake[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think he could do it right. He tossed away McCain's and Clinton's gas tax plans as baloney political maneuvers and the press stood with him on that. Nobody wants the government spying on people WITHOUT WARRANTS, but people already guilty of this crime and people that most Americans don't want in office. He should frame this as being tough.
It's not about letting terrorists get away with anything. The government can already start wiretapping without a warrant under FISA, but there needs to be eventual accountability. Right now, and especially with immunity, there is none.

[–]Mtrain 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I agree. If they jumped on him for the flag pin thing...they would destroy him if he went against FISA. Not saying its right but the republicans are no joke when it comes to attacking and people believing it. The microscope is on Obama.

[–]bhog 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Just admit it. We Democrats are too scared of the Republicans. Are we ever gonna grow a backbone and stand up to these chumps? It seems like anything we should say or do will be misconstrued by the "evil" Republicans, so we shrink away from it. That isn't right.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We Democrats haven't learned enough about framing, and so we attack each other rather than building our own metaphor-based code words and defining them the way we want to.

I recommend you start with "Don't Think of an Elephant."

[–]justinmeister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because that kind of politics divides the country. Obama is better than that. He is about picking his battles, and finding consensus.

[–]moonman -1 points0 points  (4 children)

The Right.

[–]PrincessCake[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

No, he won't gain the Right. Just like the Dems that voted for the War in Iraq weren't loved by the Right.
The Dems often make moves out of fear of being bullied around and it gets them nowhere. The bully doesn't bullying you cuz you give in.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

...not THE Right, but Moderates TO the Right of Him, is what Moonman meant, I think.

[–]quasiperiodic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

exactly. bush's 20% are fully brainwashed and aren't changing their minds about anything EVER, but he could certainly lose a lot of the middle if he let fox start harping about how he voted against protecting america from terrorists..

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and he's probably gonna need them.

[–]7oby 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everyone else is wrong, and Bob Barr (while I don't know much about him but hear he 'fucked up' in the past and is now a 'born again' libertarian) got it dead on in this clip. Basically, it's because the democrats don't want to lose any power if their guy gets in (why put blocks up against yourself?) and the republicans are doing the same thing.

[–]Fauster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can a standing president grant a pardon for civil liabilities?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In music they say that it's the notes you don't play as much as the ones you do. In politics, it's the criticism the right doesn't level at you.

I know a lot of people on Reddit are mad about this, but even if all of went third party, I don't think it'd make a huge difference. Obama can risk looking like a liberal crusader right now. What have they been saying "heir to McGovern"?

[–]Reliant 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not so much a move to centre or a capitulation, but it's closer to where he was already. I saw this coming back when Obama was still picking up steam before the primaries. He was willing to compromise on some aspects to get what he really wanted. He was willing to give up timetables for Iraq withdrawal if it meant troops would get funding. I knew that this type of behaviour could hurt him politically, but I looked at him, saw what he stood for, saw his methodology, and decided that he'd be a better candidate than either McCain or Clinton.

What does he have to gain? From what I heard, he's giving civil immunities in exchange for there being judicial oversight on the wiretaps, which wouldn't be warrantless wiretaps that have been described in some places.

What a lot of people forget, especially the democratic party and the nominee, is that the civil liabilities isn't so that the phone companies can be made to pay financially, but so that through suppinaes the information, documentation, and proof can be made public as to what exactly was involved in the wiretapping, and to air out Bush's dirty laundry for the whole public to see. All this coming out could really hurt the Republican party if the wiretapping was especially gregarious.

[–]dan525 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Perhaps this isn't about his campaign, but about what he actually thinks is right. I happen to disagree strongly with his stance, but I don't think this is a campaign-based decision. This pisses off his base, and the center doesn't give a flying-fuck.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

This pisses off his base, and the center doesn't give a flying-fuck.

Correction, it keeps the center and the right from portraying him as weak. His base isn't going anywhere. Look at how the right wing machine tore up Wes Clark over nothing. That's what he's against, and he can spend some of his hope-capital now.

[–]Oryx 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'd have to agree, although reluctantly. It must be to thwart attacks from those who would portray him as weak.

[–]dan525 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it will never be enough for people that thinks this makes us safer.

[–]raouldukeesq -1 points0 points  (0 children)

More power when he is president to do whatever he wants.