FISA with Telecom Immunity Passed

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I just don't see how this will involve many people and I know it won't affect anything in my life. All it does is give them the power to tap people of interest that have or they suspect to have terrorist ties. We have to remember that these people want to kill us and if it helps capture a few of theses guys then the bill has surved its purpose. Its not like they are going to tap each and every American to see what and who they are talking to.

Very reasonable response. I think people think this bill allows wire tapping whenever the governement has a hunch and it's just not so. This version, whether one likes it or not, does have some checks and balances, much more oversight from the courts and congress, which won't allow the White House to run free willie with the Constitution.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Very reasonable response. I think people think this bill allows wire tapping whenever the governement has a hunch and it's just not so. This version, whether one likes it or not, does have some checks and balances, much more oversight from the courts and congress, which won't allow the White House to run free willie with the Constitution.

If I'm currect they can tap a suspect but then they have to get a court order or something like that to continue tapping that person. I just feel that this is a war that the terrorist are fighting from within so we have to give the goverment some powers to track them. Its not like they are taking up arms and saying hey lets have a war and fight this out. They will atack from within when ever they get the chance so we have to do what ever we can to stop them. I also think this should have been done behind closed doors with both parties working it out. The way it was done now makes it known to the terrorist that the goverment has the power to tap their comunications. We allready have made public to many of the ways we are fighting terrorist.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If I'm currect they can tap a suspect but then they have to get a court order or something like that to continue tapping that person. I just feel that this is a war that the terrorist are fighting from within so we have to give the goverment some powers to track them. Its not like they are taking up arms and saying hey lets have a war and fight this out. They will atack from within when ever they get the chance so we have to do what ever we can to stop them. I also think this should have been done behind closed doors with both parties working it out. The way it was done now makes it known to the terrorist that the goverment has the power to tap their comunications. We allready have made public to many of the ways we are fighting terrorist.

Basically, that is how it works. Basically. I fully expect this bill to come up again and be presented to Congress again if Obama get's in the White House. This isn't the last we've heard about this.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Basically, that is how it works. Basically. I fully expect this bill to come up again and be presented to Congress again if Obama get's in the White House. This isn't the last we've heard about this.

Well Obama voted for the bill and if he thinks he is going to win the White House maybe he realized that he too will need this to fight terrorist.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well Obama voted for the bill and if he thinks he is going to win the White House maybe he realized that he too will need this to fight terrorist.

It really was a no win situation for him as a candidate to be honest. On one hand, vote against it and you look weak on terrorism. Vote for it, you appear to slight the Constitution.

Also what isn't being reported is that earlier that same day Obama voted for a similiar bill, sponsored by Chris Dodd, that would have stripped out the immunity portion. It was defeated overwhelmingly. Later that day Obama voted for the other version of the bill that passed through the Senate.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

It really was a no win situation for him as a candidate to be honest. On one hand, vote against it and you look weak on terrorism. Vote for it, you appear to slight the Constitution.

Also what isn't being reported is that earlier that same day Obama voted for a similiar bill, sponsored by Chris Dodd, that would have stripped out the immunity portion. It was defeated overwhelmingly. Later that day Obama voted for the other version of the bill that passed through the Senate.

So then what your saying is that Obama votes based on what he thinks will get him the most votes and does not vote on his belief.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So then what your saying is that Obama votes based on what he thinks will get him the most votes and does not vote on his belief.

Not saying that all. But it still remains a fact. He's damned if doesn't and damned if he doesn't. Is he a politician? Absoulutely.

Votes? I'm not sure how this get's him more votes though.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Also what isn't being reported is that earlier that same day Obama voted for a similiar bill, sponsored by Chris Dodd, that would have stripped out the immunity portion. It was defeated overwhelmingly. Later that day Obama voted for the other version of the bill that passed through the Senate.

I don't understand why some folks wanted the telecoms liable for cooperating with a Federal investigation. If they could've been held liable the result would've been a group of lawyers representing terrorist/anti-American interests and suing the telecoms for damages. This would then force the telecoms to not allow the government to access their information for investigations involving national security. The cost of the judgements if the telecoms lost would've been passed to the American people in the form of higher rates. It's a lose/lose for the American people we've hampered the government's ability to track and disrupt terrorist activity and we've raised our costs for phone/E-mail/internet.

I personally don't have a problem with the government(led by Rep or Dem) being able to access my phone/E-mail/Internet records if it has reasonable suspicion that I am involved in supporting terrorist activity. For the government to actually prosecute me or negatively affect me in any way they've got to jump through numerous legal hoops to make it happen. They can't break through my front door and cart me away to prison because I looked at a terrorist web-site one time.

I'll go down with a fight anyway, thanks to the recent 2nd Ammendment ruling (sarcasm)

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Basically, that is how it works. Basically. I fully expect this bill to come up again and be presented to Congress again if Obama get's in the White House. This isn't the last we've heard about this.

The point about the Telecom immunity probably won't be able to be re-visited though, correct?