Thread: FISA Bill

This debate is on CSPAN right now. The Democrats are livid (or at least doing a great job of pretending to be) that Bush has promised to veto the bill if there isn't retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

Kennedy is kicking butt.

I can't believe I just said that.

But it's true.

Anybody else watching or have any thoughts on this?

What is Bush's reasoning?

Correction: It's CSPAN 2.

Originally Posted by freckles

What is Bush's reasoning?

I haven't heard the other side speak their piece yet. Maybe they all went home for Christmas. Diane Feinstein wants a compromise of some sort.

I already know what Bush will say. We need this or we'll all get blown up in another 911. He says that about everything.

I can't help but wonder why this went on so long with most of these guys not being particularly upset about it.

Originally Posted by Blueneck

I haven't heard the other side speak their piece yet. Maybe they all went home for Christmas. Diane Feinstein wants a compromise of some sort.

I already know what Bush will say. We need this or we'll all get blown up in another 911. He says that about everything.

I can't help but wonder why this went on so long with most of these guys not being particularly upset about it.

Apparently the real reasoning is that the companies, if not immune, would face massive multi million lawsuits for cooperating with government requests.

Originally Posted by freckles

Apparently the real reasoning is that the companies, if not immune, would face massive multi million lawsuits for cooperating with government requests.

which would lead me to believe that by not granting them the immunity, all companies, not just telco's, will hesitate to cooperate with the government unless they are mandated to do so by law.

Were the telcos doing anything illegal by cooperating with the federal governments requests in the first place? and if so, should we allow them to be sued for doing what the government, the arbiters of our law, asked them to do?

They shouldn't just be handing over this information upon government request. The laws were clear, Qwest knew it and said, "get a court order". Now they are the only one not being sued.

You just can't let the government ask for people's personal records and expect to get them. That goes for all kinds of records.

Watch it live here: C-SPAN: Watch LIVE

Glad to see some Dems stepping up to help Dodd. Call your Senator today and ask them to stand up & show some spine.

And I second what Blueneck said in post #7.

Mikulski (D-MD) just finished; Sessions (R-AL) is up now arguing in favor of the bill.

This was just posted on the NY Times website about 45 minutes ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/wa...l?ref=business

The most interesting thing is that the NY Times has changed a paragraph from their previous posting. It now reads, ". . .supporters of the administration’s program of surveillance without warrants have described it as necessary to protect Americans from terrorists, and they insist the program strikes a sensible balance between national security and personal liberty." Earlier (on Dec. 15), it read, "At stake is the federal government’s extensive but uneasy partnership with industry to conduct a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime." Note the extra "and crime" that has nothing to do with terrorism.

Sessions is now on C-SPAN2 arguing some BS: "The telecoms responded to what they thought was a legitimate request from the AG." BS. These telecoms have hundreds, if not thousands, of attorneys on staff. They knew damn good & well what they were doing, and they knew damn good & well that it was illegal.

But I expect the Dems to roll over & play the part of the dog that's been kicked too often & allow these companies to get away with breaking the law.

Hey Sessions, I've got an idea: get a fucking warrant!!!! Ever heard of one of those? They're fairly novel, I know, but the 4th Amendment isn't really all that ambiguous. Can Alabama just become its own nation? These people are just friggin' unAmerican.

People like this Repug creep me out. . .

I don't really understand what exactly the debate is about. Where do the two ideas differ?