Join senators Dodd, Fiengold, Majority Leader Reid, and Democratic nominee OBAMA and sign on as a citizen co-sponsor to remove telecom immunity from the FISA bill

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 2:40 PM GMT
    I received an email from "Friends of Chris Dodd" at (focd@reply.bm23.com) or the sign on page at (advomatic.bm23.com) I don't know why the media hasn't put out a story about Obama supporting the Dodd/Fiengold ammendment to the FISA bill to remove telecom immunity from it, but apparently he has. The ammendment needs 51 senators to support it in order to pass, so call your senators. How about it !!! should the telecoms get immunity or not???? I wish there was a way to put the accountability on the bush administration totally instead of the law suits being only against the telecoms. Anyways if the suits are stopped and the FISA bill left as it is, we will never know what took place, opening this up by this amendment being passed, will help the congress make better rules for FISA activities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 5:57 PM GMT
    I think the telecoms that cooperated should be rewarded for their patriotism, not punished.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 6:38 PM GMT
    Emailed! There are some telecomms that told the gov't to take a hike. They're the ones to be commended. Dubya? Take a hike you douchebag and a half.

    Spying on Americans isn't patriotic unless you work for the enemy. Buncha traitors, like the commander in chief is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 6:47 PM GMT
    I know as a fact that the ones who cooperated help prevent attacks.

    Maybe some who are objecting would be dead.

    I am a long standing Democrat. However, in a time of war, when the government says it needs this information to protect us, the telecoms should not be penalized.

    The information was loaded into computers that sorted for certain words and expressions. As long as those did not come up, no one was aware of them.

    This is not listening in on all of those calls. No one could, there would have been too many of them.

    The civil libertarian in me thinks there should be an independed authority that does this so the information could not be abused.

    However, I don't think the telecoms should be suid for helping the U.S. government protect us.
  • yogadudeSEATT...

    Posts: 373

    Jul 03, 2008 6:50 PM GMT
    John43620 saidI think the telecoms that cooperated should be rewarded for their patriotism, not punished.


    mmmmmmmm, doughnuts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 9:43 PM GMT
    once again another act of treason brought to you by the democrat party of the United States of America...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 9:45 PM GMT
    McGay saidEmailed! There are some telecomms that told the gov't to take a hike. They're the ones to be commended. Dubya? Take a hike you douchebag and a half.

    Spying on Americans isn't patriotic unless you work for the enemy. Buncha traitors, like the commander in chief is.


    you sir are the traitor. People liek you, for the sake of your own power, have wanted to destroy this president because of the 2000 election. it is people like you, who believe what you do who are willing to destroy this country simply because Al Gore lost an election. Get over it and take your anti-american marxist bs elsewhere.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 9:49 PM GMT
    John43620 saidI think the telecoms that cooperated should be rewarded for their patriotism, not punished.

    Why do you hate America?

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 9:51 PM GMT
    Philadelphiabound said...have wanted to destroy this president because of the 2000 election.

    Destroy? Convict, more like, for lying us into war and ruining our economy. The Supreme Court is who I blame for the 2000 election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 9:53 PM GMT
    walternot saidI know as a fact that the ones who cooperated help prevent attacks.
    Facts require citations, walter. Please present your facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 10:05 PM GMT
    As a cog who works at one of the companies in question, I can say the leaders involved had a choice, and some chose differently. My problem is with the course of action proposed to "punish" the companies. I haven't seen anything where only the few people of power would be punished. Rather, it seems people are looking to tap corporate deep pockets through law suits. If that happens, you understand unknowing people like myself will be affected, since they'd have to cut expenses following a fine/suit? icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 10:36 PM GMT
    McGay said Spying on Americans isn't patriotic unless you work for the enemy. Buncha traitors, like the commander in chief is.


    Although I respect everyone's opinions and I generally enjoy reading your comments and responses McGay, I find this to be grossly vague and utterly unimaginable. One only needs to look through the pages of history to see where your US government, through it's authority of the FISA usage, has thwarted the ability of supposedly good US citizen from selling your country down the drain for a miniscule amount of money.

    Be careful how you question patriotism, spying to protect your rights is also affected. Should there be controls? Absolutely. But removing the ability of representatives of the government from being able to conduct investigations based on counter-intelligence acts is a very dangerous thing. You can argue case by case occurrences of potential misrepresentation but a blanket statement of the process being unpatriotic is absurd. The process of thwarting someone's attempt at selling your country, which means taking away your rights, requires a delicate balance of privacy vs intelligence and they are always inverse. At some point we all must recognize that loosening our individual freedoms some is sometimes to the benefit of the greater good. The government now doesn't just request a FISA for no reason, there are many restrictions and requirements in place by the FISA Board to insure appropriate accountability and authorization prior to a court granting the government the authority to conduct any FISA request.

    Balance is what is needed, otherwise the fight for freedom is lost to the enemy for whom the process is designed to defeat.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 10:38 PM GMT
    I'd hope you'd be protected from the lawsuit, but unfortunately with company's poor choices come consequences. Other telecom companies consulted their lawyers and came to a different conclusion on how to proceed.

    As a citizen, I have very little power to prevent my rights from being violated. My only remedies are voting and civil action. I don't see shielding you from the suit as ample justification for not pursuing a civil case.

    If the new FISA immunity bill becomes law, you have nothing to worry about, but my worries increase. The long-standing FISA law provided plenty of opportunities for the government to spy LEGALLY, and the administration chose not to include the judicial branch in its execution, because it felt oversight was a hindrance. In my neck of the woods, I count on one branch of government to keep the abuses of another in check, and this was one such area the checks and balances were broken down.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 03, 2008 11:00 PM GMT
    This isn't really punishment for the telecoms...
    because they were acting under the request of a LYING SACK OF SH*T President.....

    and like the Cuban Burglars in Watergate who were let go
    when you are acting at the request of our gov't and you expected them to be acting in good faith you shouldn't be held responsible

    BUT*********

    No one seems to know that this Criminal asked the telecoms BeFORE 9/11 to commit these crimes
    and I've signed on so that BUSH the criminal he is ... is not let off the hook
  • yogadudeSEATT...

    Posts: 373

    Jul 03, 2008 11:38 PM GMT
    Philadelphiabound saidonce again another act of treason brought to you by the democrat party of the United States of America...


    First off, it's the "Democratic" party, brother. You've been listening to too much Limbaugh. Try thinking for yourself. It's tough, but a little each day can do wonders.

    Philadelphiabound said

    you sir are the traitor. People liek you, for the sake of your own power, have wanted to destroy this president because of the 2000 election. it is people like you, who believe what you do who are willing to destroy this country simply because Al Gore lost an election. Get over it and take your anti-american marxist bs elsewhere.


    Second off, I'd say this president has destroyed himself. Lying a nation into war, spying on Americans, revealing the name of a covert agent, standing idly by as New Orleans drown, driving the economy into the deepest ditch since the Republican Depression. I'd say you're the one who needs to "get over" your blind support of Bush and open your eyes to what is going on. Reality sucks sometimes. Welcome to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 11:48 PM GMT
    IS Obama supporting this? He was at a certain point, but his statment in late June that "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people." reverses that.

    Personally, I think this FISA issue has problems that run much deeper than telecom immunity.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 11:58 PM GMT
    philadelphiabound, you sir are a nincompoop!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 12:15 AM GMT
    John43620 saidI think the telecoms that cooperated should be rewarded for their patriotism, not punished.


    Come on, for once say something surprising.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 12:17 AM GMT
    walternot saidI am a long standing Democrat. However, in a time of war . . .


    Oh, and when did Congress pass a declaration of war? In accordance with the Constitution, that is?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 12:19 AM GMT
    Philadelphiabound said you sir are the traitor. . . .Get over it and take your anti-american marxist bs elsewhere.


    Listen, newbie punk, take your incivility off to FreeRepublic with the other loons. You're entitled to disagree if you like, but that kind of talk is not popular here.

    Be civil or get lost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 7:30 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidIS Obama supporting this? He was at a certain point, but his statment in late June that "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people." reverses that.

    Personally, I think this FISA issue has problems that run much deeper than telecom immunity.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>M-Z - yes according to this "Friends of Chris Dodd" request to join as a citizen-sponsor, Obama and Reid had already supported it, and this email the site sent me went on to say that they need 51 or more senators to support it, so the amendment can pass. It left no question that Obama did agree to support it. I was suprised by this, and even more by Reid's supporting it. I think the public putting pressure on the senators is actually causing them to rethink their positions. This is the last hope to change the direction of Fisa, at least until a democrat is in the white house.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 12:25 PM GMT
    But he is also supporting the FISA bill with telecom immunity in it. Sounds to me like our man is trying to have it both ways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 2:29 PM GMT
    jprichva;

    Your criticism can't totally be dismissed. Congress should have passed a declaration of war. However, since Korea, the U.S. has entered into wars without declarations. I would prefer we would have had a standard declaration of war.

    However, the U.S. was attacked. The World Trade Center was destroyed, the pentagon suffered damage, and a fourth U.S. flag plane crashed in rural Pennsylvnia. The U.S. suffered the deaths of thousands of its citizens. The attack clearly established that we were at war.

    An argument could be made that we have been at war since the first attack on the world trade center in 1993. SUbsequent attacks on embasseys and the U.S. Cole were acts of war.

    HTTP://www.espionageinfo.com/Vo-Z/World-Trade-Center-1993-Terrorist-Attack.html is a link to a thoughtful article on the beginning of this war during the early part of the Clinton administration.

    This is a different type of war than most. We have no country that we are in a state of war with. However, we are in a state of war.

    In this odd war, there is no identifiable country or army that the U.S. is fighting. We are fighting hidden shadow groups. There is some trial and error in attempting to find this enemy and stop it.

    I agree that the Bush administration has made some terrible mistakes. I disagree with the statement that the Bush administration is evil. However, I believe incompetence has proven more costly to the country than an evil administration would have.

    The NSA, FBI, etc. are made up of Americans who are mostly partiotic, loyal, and have a keen sense of freedom. They truly act in our best interest to the best of their ability. I agree that the FISA court and other measures to preserve freedoms must be taken. HOwever, when we are fighting a shadowy, deadly enemy, we need unusual tactics.

    When the telecoms were approached, it was at least after 1993. The U.S. was already in a state of attack. Any cooperation with the government should be treated as a partiotic act. If anyone in the Bush administration, violated the law in their zeal to protect the U.S. then those individuals should be prosecuted and pay any penalty.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Jul 04, 2008 2:44 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidBut he is also supporting the FISA bill with telecom immunity in it. Sounds to me like our man is trying to have it both ways.




    Obama? Trying to have it BOTH ways??? SHOCKER!


    John43620 saidI think the telecoms that cooperated should be rewarded for their patriotism, not punished.




    I agree, John. This is definitely one of those "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't" situations. The telecoms participate in the, albeit unusual, but necessary tactics to try and thwart any attempts at attack and people complain. Had they not, and America were attached somehow, all the people here bitching and moaning would be the first ones shouting from the roof tops that our Government didn't do enough.

    I have absolutely no problem with the telecoms doing what is necessary (within reason, obviously) to do what they need to do to investigate people who are clearly communicating with known terrorists in other countries. People who have nothing to hide, should have no worries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2008 3:11 PM GMT
    Many of us are probably alive today because of the actions taken by the Bush administration. International terrorism certainly has taken the most severe hits on their personnel and infrastructure than ever before, thanks to the Bush administration.

    Compared to past presidents in times of national emergency, the Bush administration has been surprisingly cautious with regards to curbing the rights of American citizens. Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR exerted severe controls over the civil rights of American citizens, and with good reason.

    We are however, a country of the people and if the people collectively desire to remove such measures, there may be severe consequences. Those of us who support President Bush and the patriotic telecoms do so with this in mind. Those of you advocating the removal and even the punishment of the Bush administration's actions and the actions of the cooperating telecoms place us at a tangible risk.

    You would bear the responsibility for any future attacks on us.