Topic: FISA Legislation | |
---|---|
Here's how the Senate voted on 'a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.'
http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-they-voted-on-fisa.html This basically immunizes telecom companies from lawsuits and give warrantless eavesdropping privileges to the President, which is just what Bush Jr. wanted. Here's how the Presidential candidates voted: Obama: Yea Clinton: Nay McCain: Did not vote. I'm not going to speculate at this time as to why McCain was absent for this important vote. I am disappointed that Barack Obama and other Democrats caved in to the President. I'm with Hillary on this one. |
|
|
|
(crickets chirping)
I guess no one cares about the government spying on you. |
|
|
|
I cant find out what is contained in the bill.
They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret) Supposedly they voted in the blind. All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted! I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then! Does anyone know what was in the bill? I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules? |
|
|
|
I cant find out what is contained in the bill. They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret) Supposedly they voted in the blind. All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted! I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then! Does anyone know what was in the bill? I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules? I'll probably still vote for Obama, because, look at the alternative. But I was disappointed he voted with the other Democrats on this. Hillary voted against it. I think the Dems caved in to the President on this one. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Thu 07/10/08 09:07 PM
|
|
I cant find out what is contained in the bill. They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret) Supposedly they voted in the blind. All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted! I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then! Does anyone know what was in the bill? I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules? I'll probably still vote for Obama, because, look at the alternative. But I was disappointed he voted with the other Democrats on this. Hillary voted against it. I think the Dems caved in to the President on this one. I dont think it gives as broad authorization as the illegal wire tapping Bush was allowing, but I cant find what it allows or doesn't allow! Do you? Do you know the specifics? They said it was a blind vote. I dont think they should have allowed it to be that way, but like I said I think there was some kind of deal cut between the parties! From what I read it gives the telecom companies immunity for past violations, and they had heated debates over some of the rules, but that's all I can find! There weren't many who voted nay though! What can you do? I'm still voting for Obama too. I'm disappointed but what can you do? |
|
|
|
I cant find out what is contained in the bill. They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret) Supposedly they voted in the blind. All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted! I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then! Does anyone know what was in the bill? I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules? I'll probably still vote for Obama, because, look at the alternative. But I was disappointed he voted with the other Democrats on this. Hillary voted against it. I think the Dems caved in to the President on this one. I dont think it gives as broad authorization as the illegal wire tapping Bush was allowing, but I cant find what it allows or doesn't allow! Do you? Do you know the specifics? They said it was a blind vote. I dont think they should have allowed it to be that way, but like I said I think there was some kind of deal cut between the parties! From what I read it gives the telecom companies immunity for past violations, and they had heated debates over some of the rules, but that's all I can find! There weren't many who voted nay though! What can you do? I'm still voting for Obama too. I'm disappointed but what can you do? I don't know the specifics, and of course they cut some kind of deal, but cutting a deal where the President gets most of what he wanted anyway stinks to high heaven to me! In my opinion, they capitulated. Why didn't Hillary vote for it, if it's such a great deal? I think it just keeps the door open for the telecom companies and the President to spy on anyone they damn please. |
|
|
|
clinton...presidential candidate?????
|
|
|
|
clinton...presidential candidate????? OK. My bad. FORMER Presidential candidate. |
|
|
|
Edited by
mnhiker
on
Thu 07/10/08 09:28 PM
|
|
I cant find out what is contained in the bill. They said 70 of the senators weren't even told. (top secret) Supposedly they voted in the blind. All I can find is the part about the amnesty for the telecom companies. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I suspect there was a deal cut so the Dems could get something they wanted! I' was going to look more later and didn't want to comment before then! Does anyone know what was in the bill? I mean the specifics. I know it was about surveillance, but what are the rules? I'll probably still vote for Obama, because, look at the alternative. But I was disappointed he voted with the other Democrats on this. Hillary voted against it. I think the Dems caved in to the President on this one. I dont think it gives as broad authorization as the illegal wire tapping Bush was allowing, but I cant find what it allows or doesn't allow! Do you? Do you know the specifics? They said it was a blind vote. I dont think they should have allowed it to be that way, but like I said I think there was some kind of deal cut between the parties! From what I read it gives the telecom companies immunity for past violations, and they had heated debates over some of the rules, but that's all I can find! There weren't many who voted nay though! What can you do? I'm still voting for Obama too. I'm disappointed but what can you do? I don't know the specifics, and of course they cut some kind of deal, but cutting a deal where the President gets most of what he wanted anyway stinks to high heaven to me! In my opinion, they capitulated. Why didn't Hillary vote for it, if it's such a great deal? I think it just keeps the door open for the telecom companies and the President to spy on anyone they damn please. Fanta, Here's more information: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist_surveillance 'Its passage was a major victory for Bush, an unpopular lame-duck president who nevertheless has been able to prevail over Congress on most issues of national security and intelligence disputes.' |
|
|
|
At least there are rules on it now. He was doing it without anyone's knowledge until he got busted!
Still Id like to know what the rules are! I do think some wiretapping is necessary, but with rules and closely monitored! |
|
|
|
Ive read that. It tells nothing about what the rules are.
I think just the fact that there are rules now signifys a defeat for Bush! He didnt want any rules! |
|
|
|
At least there are rules on it now. He was doing it without anyone's knowledge until he got busted! Still Id like to know what the rules are! I do think some wiretapping is necessary, but with rules and closely monitored! Here's what's contained in H.R. 6304: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304 Excerpts: ‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; What about unintentionally targeting? ‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States...' Ditto. ‘(i) there are procedures in place that have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that are reasonably designed to-- ‘(I) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and ‘(II) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; So if you're on vacation outside the country, you're fair game? I'll let you read the rest of the document yourself and decide for yourself if it's reasonable. |
|
|
|
That's odd, because here's what I found!
Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter pointed out that 70 senators have not even been briefed on what the warrantless spying program entailed. "There's an old expression: buying a pig in a poke. It means buying something that you don't know what it is you're buying. Well, that's what the Senate is being asked to do here today — to grant retroactive immunity to a program where the members don't know what the program is," Specter said. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398782 |
|
|
|
That's odd, because here's what I found! Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter pointed out that 70 senators have not even been briefed on what the warrantless spying program entailed. "There's an old expression: buying a pig in a poke. It means buying something that you don't know what it is you're buying. Well, that's what the Senate is being asked to do here today — to grant retroactive immunity to a program where the members don't know what the program is," Specter said. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398782 In other words, they've been had. Too bad their ignorance affects the rest of us! |
|
|
|
That's odd, because here's what I found! Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter pointed out that 70 senators have not even been briefed on what the warrantless spying program entailed. "There's an old expression: buying a pig in a poke. It means buying something that you don't know what it is you're buying. Well, that's what the Senate is being asked to do here today — to grant retroactive immunity to a program where the members don't know what the program is," Specter said. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398782 In other words, they've been had. Too bad their ignorance affects the rest of us! Also from that article: 'Republican presidential contender John McCain spent the day campaigning.' Great dodge, McCain! |
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Thu 07/10/08 10:02 PM
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=92398782&m=92398748
NPR radio!! The new bill is a revision of the 1978 bill. The immunity is to protect the telecom companies from lawsuits for allowing the warrant-less taps Bush was secretly doing! The new bill pretty much allows what was already legal, with a few exceptions, since 1978! (not as bad as it seems) I think the Bill you showed is the 1978 Bill! The new Bill stops Bush from the illegal taps without giving him immunity for breaking the law. (I hope!) I wonder what exactly the new provisions consist of?? |
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=92398782&m=92398748 NPR radio!! The new bill is a revision of the 1978 bill. The immunity is to protect the telecom companies from lawsuits for allowing the warrant-less taps Bush was secretly doing! The new bill pretty much allows what was already legal, with a few exceptions, since 1978! (not as bad as it seems) I think the Bill you showed is the 1978 Bill! The new Bill stops Bush from the illegal taps without giving him immunity for breaking the law. (I hope!) I wonder what exactly the new provisions consist of?? I wonder too. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Fanta46
on
Thu 07/10/08 10:11 PM
|
|
I guess we will never know!
Good Night Hiker Good Night JSH!! |
|
|
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=92398782&m=92398748 NPR radio!! The new bill is a revision of the 1978 bill. The immunity is to protect the telecom companies from lawsuits for allowing the warrant-less taps Bush was secretly doing! The new bill pretty much allows what was already legal, with a few exceptions, since 1978! (not as bad as it seems) I think the Bill you showed is the 1978 Bill! The new Bill stops Bush from the illegal taps without giving him immunity for breaking the law. (I hope!) I wonder what exactly the new provisions consist of?? I wonder too. FISA Amendments Act of 2008: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6304eh.txt.pdf |
|
|
|
I'll check it out tomorrow!
|
|
|