SOMEONE...ANYONE....tell me what do they have to GAINE from giving the telcos immunity?!?!?!?

[uponit7771]

Hillary lost the primary IN PART because of late and seemingly unapologetic attitude towards her IWR vote, she at the least THOUGHT she had something to gain from it.

What does Obama or the rest of the DNC THINK they have to gain from voting for telco immunity now?!?!?!

This is VERY disappointing to me, there NOTHING to gain and the Bush admin isn't going to give up SHIT in regards to disclosure because they haven't been cooperative till now!

They've been giving the American public the finger for the last 8 years!!!

Thank you for your input

[grahamhgreen]

1. This way it makes it more difficult to prosecute Bush for his admiited 30 felony violations of the

FISA laws.

Possibly, it makes Pelosi complicit in violating this law as well.

[uponit7771]

12. I've been thinking this too, Pelosi came out early for Obama and even said Obama\Clinton was a no go

...so I suspect some sausage is getting made and it don't look pretty at ALL

[roguevalley]

17. they immunized themselves because they were briefed. leadership

is always briefed on both sides about all evil shit. why do you suppose that old hag opposed impeachment from the beginning of 2006? she is complicit.

[uponit7771]

21. She's been better than Reid but that aint sayin much.

[Dinger]

2. How Did Obama Vote Today? (nt)

[bullimiami]

3. it was a house vote, house bill. we'll see when it gets to the senate if

we have 41 democrats with enough respect for the constitution to fillibuster this bullshit.

[Dinger]

4. Well I Hope They Do

How Do You think Obama will vote?

P.S. Sorry for my ignorance. I'm so pissed at pelosi, I can see straight.

[Me.]

9. He Will Vote For It

But there is a however

“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. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bi...
*shadow government*

[TheKentuckian]

5. Nothing is gained from this

that would make it worthwhile. Immunity from potentially widespread abuses of civil liberties spits in the face of the very spirit of America.

I'm stunned at the rolling over of the Congress and can only hope it is a political rope a dope to just get to and past the election but you have to wonder about our representation in big picture sense.

[uponit7771]

13. RIGHT! How does the DNC know that the Bush admin aren't wiretapping them!?!?!

[frickaline]

6. Okay maybe I don't get this. Maybe I'm an idiot. But why

do we want to hold the telcos responsible for what the Bushies did? Someone please explain this to me because I'm not getting it.

It seems to me that the Bush administration wanted wire taps. They requested cooperation from the telcos and assured them it was legal based on the IWR vote, correct? And these telcos are being granted immunity so that in the future, if we ask them for lawful interception information it is forthcoming. Is that right? And if so, where is the reasoning here that they should be held responsible for what our epic failure of a government did?

Like I said, I'm probably being an idiot and missing something here. Feel free to let me know.

[harun]

7. This clip has some a good summary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x149677

[grantcart]

10. when the government asked for the information from the telecom companies

those companies were not required to give it to them and could be sued for violating privacy provisions of the contracts that the users have with them.

However if the telecom companies requested that the White House certify that it was a national security matter (I don't know the actual technical legal statement) then the companies would have immunity and could not be sued.

A number of companies asked for the certificate and the White House did not offer any and these companies decided not to comply with the White House request. Other companies simply gave the information over and have no immunity although they could have had it under the existing law if they simply did not follow the wishes of the WH.

So why should private companies get immunity now when they didn't bother to follow the law at the time.

It irritates people that private companies have special standing under the law that even when they are provided special immunity provisions they don't bother to take advantage of it and treat the government like a subsidiary.

While we should not agree to grant this additional immunity I am not sure of why the Senate/House leadership decided to compromise. It may be that the decision was made that it would have given the Republicans too large a 'security' issue to use in the GE.

Part of the problem is that the leadership hasn't made any heroic stands during the last 8 years and so it seems to fit a pattern of compromising essential principles for no reason, however in my mind there is a huge difference between this and the IWR. In my opinion it is less a question of a dramatic loss of civil liberties than a special class of law for corporations that does not exist for anybody else, including you and me.

[frickaline]

16. Thank you.

I'm still not sure I get it entirely but I'll read your post again tomorrow. I had a beer tonight, and being 5'2", well, that's all it takes for me to fail at reading comprehension.

It does seem like it is a separate class of law. I agree with that. Thanks again for taking the time to write this up for me.

[uponit7771]

19. Jon Turley said it best: Some top dems KNEW of Bush's actions and went along with it. Obama has to..

...make some sausage on the issue mmostly for Pelosi cause it look like she came out for him early.

[grantcart]

23. well Obama doesn't HAVE to do anything. He has fifty different things he is looking at right

now and if he feels that it is better to take on other issues and address this as President its fine with me.

The reality is that Obama is under a different level of scrutiny and if he feels that it would be too counterproductive now I am willing to guess he is a better judge than me.

Personally I would prefer that we stood up and this one, but I also prefer a fine with the money going to the government than a thousand attorneys getting a big payout. But that's me - whatever BHO decides is fine with me.

[uponit7771]

14. If Bush called you up PERSONALLY and asked you to knock someone off that does NOT mean it's legal

Just because the president did it doesn't mean it's legal

[muleboy303]

8. i believe

i believe that all parties involved (Telcos, Bush Admnin, & Top Dems)
have an overwhelmingly vested interest in preventing the potential of the
"discovery" process in the pending lawsuits.

[harun]

11. Exactly, remember it isn't congress doing these investigations

it is the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) that initially brought this to light and is bringing this in the courts. If it wasn't for them we wouldn't even know about this, nor would congress be bringing it up. Top Dems and Repugs knew about this and they probably knew about it and initiated it before 9/11. So they let this go forward, not only is B*sh's goose cooked but so will some Dems. Hence the reason they are they are saying "shuks, guess we have to pass it *wink* *wink*".

[uponit7771]

15. Folk are brining up Pelosi and that would make since cause she came out early for Obama. This whole

...thing seems to be a big loser and there's no stop gap on it either!!

[Overseas]

18. Gee$, I$ just$ don$t know$ what$ they$ get$.

[uponit7771]

20. Yeap, the can get tons of money and lose heart felt support. I take the heart felt support any day.

[uponit7771]

22. K Russ, either YOU fillibuster or STFU about it...you can fillibuster and make Reid slam you on it

[SoCalDem]

24. Note Muche

:spank: me.. sorry couldn't resist

[charlyvi]

25. Telco money in the coffers. n/t