Obama voted for telecom wiretap immunity, Hillary voted against.

[joshcryer]

The vote happened after Obama was already declared the nominee.

...

Senators voted 69 to 28 for the bill, which would rewrite federal wiretap laws by granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies as long as the government claims the request was "lawful" and authorized by the president.

Wednesday's vote followed a last-minute effort by liberal and libertarian activists to convince enough Democrats to kill or modify the bill. DailyKos called the bill "a pardon to Bush"; some activists created a Wiki to hone their message; a Salon columnist dubbed the bill a "coverup of surveillance crimes."

Many of those efforts were aimed at Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, who told us half a year ago that he would definitely not support retroactive immunity. That was then. Now he does--and he voted for the final bill on Wednesday.

Sen. Hillary Clinton voted against it. Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, wasn't present for the vote but has repeatedly stressed his support for the measure (including in our voters' guide published earlier this year).

...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9986716-38.html

Let we forget, he shored up his position on wiretapping before he was even elected President.

Will Hillary now point to her vote against the immunity as proof that she's more progressive on NSA spying activities? We'll see if she runs.

[JI7]

1. did they give any reason for why they voted the way they did ?

[joshcryer]

2. He wanted to appear tough on terrorism, since McCain supported it.

She didn't change her position from when she and Obama were both against it. Half probably because she didn't have to to appear strong on anything as she wasn't running for the Presidency other half probably because it made little sense to support immunity.

That's my take anyhow.

Obama's comments: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/06/obama-supports-fisa-legislatio.html

Hillary's statement: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/9/17456/93329/legislation/Hillary-s-Statement-on-FISA

[Egnever]

6. From the article you linked....

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," Obama said today.

It was a choice of defeating the amendment and putting restrictions back on the presidency while letting the telecoms off the hook or letting fisa stand as it was with the president claiming the ability to wiretap anyone he wanted with no court approval.

I was not happy with it at the time but I dont see how prosecuting the telcos for obeying the president after 9-11 was going to be very productive. Bush abused his powers this at least put an end to that abuse.

[joshcryer]

7. The immunity wasn't just retroactive.

It went forward through it and other legislation, setting a precedent for future wiretapping and data collection.

You simply cannot sue the telecoms for, say, what Snowden revealed Verizon did.

Go ahead, try it, go sue AT&T for cooperating with the NSA. Good luck with that.

The retroactivty of the passage of the law means that it goes away. It's a footnote. Everyone forgets what Bush did. It really was a smack in the face of anti-spying.

edit: and to be perfectly clear here, Bush's abuses became legalized, which Obama champions now with his use of the NSA. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the retroactive immunity means that what Bush did was irrelevant, and there is simply no discussion being allowed about the constitutionality of Obama's current administration actions.

Obama effectively gave Bush a free ticket and is using Bush's tactics himself. It's shameful.

[Egnever]

8. Your right it isnt just retroactive.

RELEASE FROM LIABILITY- No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).


Verizon did nothing wrong. They complied with court orders, they shouldnt held liable for anything.


Seems to be a lot of discussion on Obama's current administrations actions. Including from the administration itself.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/750223/obama-administrations-legal-rationale-for.pdf

[joshcryer]

9. This sets a dangerous precedent.

Verizon should be held responsible if it violates the constitution by acting in concert with the government. We should be able to sue, in a public venue, and not in secret FISC courts, to determine the constitutionality of what these corporations are doing with our data. Obama voted against our ability to do that. We can't sue anyone who provides this data to the NSA and recently private email servers have had to shut down because they refused to provide this data. We're shit out of luck if we want to actually effect change here, it has to come from legislation now, the courts are barred from doing squat. The administration and Obama's vote effectively removed one of the three branches of government from doing anything.

[Egnever]

10. Sorry but I dissagree

I dont think you should be able to sue a company for complying with a court order from the government.

Suing the government for the order I am fine with and encourage. The courts are not bared from doing squat. Where do you get that Idea? I am quite sure you can go in and file tomorrow challenging the legal authority of the government to collect the data we are talking about in fact I am quite sure there are several cases being filed doing just that.

I am quite interested to see what conclusions the courts come to.

[joshcryer]

11. Said companies should look at the court order and decide themselves.

If they decide that the court order is unconstitutional, which all wiretapping metadata gathering orders are, unquestionably, they should appeal the order. Instead because they have immunity they have no desire to do so.

So it's up to individuals like Snowden to make the unconstitutional aspect of these programs clear. Snowden has something to lose. The corporations, with immunity, have nothing to lose. They can go on and allow the spying to continue without civilian recrimination. Get it?

[chimpymustgo]

3. Kabuki theatre. They vote to maintain the status quo. Then they trade for "cover" among themselves.

Once the PTB get their votes, their "extra" tools get to vote to "take a stand" to "prove" to the "little people" they're on their side!

It's all kabuki theatre.

[joshcryer]

5. That's a perfect definition for American politics.

Look at ACA and how so many DINOs required pork to vote on a fucking bill presented by a Democratic President. Lord knows how difficult that bill would've been to pass if it was remotely egalitarian...

[joshcryer]

13. Kick!

For some reason I post my threads late at night and they sink. Hopefully more will see this.