Hillary voted against it.  McCain wasn't there.

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/shirts/daretohope800.gif

Obama voted for telco immunity.  I guess that's just the kind of change he believes in.

Currently playing: KMFDM, What Do You Know, Deutschland?

Hmmm.... The Senate is controlled by the Democratic party.

So we all know what to do...  BLAME IT ON BUSH!!!!!!!!!

and yet the front page of today's Boston Globe is Ted Kennedy passed a medicare bill... All the Republicans voted for this, and most of the Democrats.

Obama went back on his word for this, and he's already backing down from an Iraq withdrawal.  Not happy.  Re-enforces my negative opinion of politicians.  Glad I never sent him a dime.  If you feel like contributing money to something political, always better to give it to the ACLU.

Hillary voted against it, only because she has nothing to lose for doing it at this point.  You can bet if she had the nod, she'd be doing the same crap Obama is.

Hmmm.... The Senate is controlled by the Democratic party.

So we all know what to do...  BLAME IT ON BUSH!!!!!!!!!
i blame bush for breaking the law in the first place. but what obama and the demos did in enabling the bush administration to violate our rights sucks.

Wish I could complain to my Senators, but both voted against it.  I'd love to see this go to the Supremes and hope the ACLU can get it there somehow.  Sounds like reverse ex post facto to me.

and yet the front page of today's Boston Globe is Ted Kennedy passed a medicare bill... All the Republicans voted for this, and most of the Democrats.

Obama went back on his word for this, and he's already backing down from an Iraq withdrawal.  Not happy.  Re-enforces my negative opinion of politicians.  Glad I never sent him a dime.  If you feel like contributing money to something political, always better to give it to the ACLU.

Hillary voted against it, only because she has nothing to lose for doing it at this point.  You can bet if she had the nod, she'd be doing the same crap Obama is.


Had this not been his chance for a shot at the Presidency would he have still voted for it?  Probably not.  He's trying to prove to Republicans that he can be just like them.  If he gets elected something tells me that not too many things will change.  After all the right of privacy is not a republican strong point.  After all Republicans would just love to say they elected him, therefore he  does what they say.

bush just signed it. at the ceremony he said "no one thought we'd be standing here seven years after 9/11 without another attack on american soil." but there WAS a terrorist attack on american soil after 9/11 -- the anthrax attacks, which are still unsolved.  :-\\

This pisses me off. The Dems are once again kowtowing to Bush which I just don't get. And it really pisses me off that Obama is playing the same old, same old. I guess so much for change, and so much for accountability.



Cat

Obama went back on his word for this, and he's already backing down from an Iraq withdrawal.  Not happy.  Re-enforces my negative opinion of politicians.  Glad I never sent him a dime.  If you feel like contributing money to something political, always better to give it to the ACLU.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/ts_nm/usa_surveillance_dc_7;_ylt=AlkFWXaH4Zl6KZAYREEa9xMGw_IE

go figure.

" Bush signs spy bill and draws lawsuit

By Randall Mikkelsen 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/ts_nm/usa_surveillance_dc_7;_ylt=AlkFWXaH4Zl6KZAYREEa9xMGw_IE

go figure.

" Bush signs spy bill and draws lawsuit

By Randall Mikkelsen 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections."


The price of liberty is eternal vigilence...of YOU!!!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/evild.gif

I'm not disappointed in Obama.  I was expecting it.  I told other Obama supporters to expect Obama to end up a bit right of center by the middle of the summer.  The other scoffed, "Oh no no, you cynic, Obama doesn't hafta to that!"
Yes he does.
:(

The price of liberty is eternal vigilence...of YOU!!!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/evild.gif

I'm not disappointed in Obama.  I was expecting it.  I told other Obama supporters to expect Obama to end up a bit right of center by the middle of the summer.  The other scoffed, "Oh no no, you cynic, Obama doesn't hafta to that!"
Yes he does.
:(


He doesn't have to do that, but his advisers probably think he does.  Right now the Republicans are about as popular as bell bottoms were in the 80s.  No hardcore Republican is going to be swayed towards Obama by his voting for this, and anyone moderate is probably disconnected enough from politics they don't know or care one way or the other.

FISA Ads

I'm not disappointed in Obama.  I was expecting it.  I told other Obama supporters to expect Obama to end up a bit right of center by the middle of the summer.  The other scoffed, "Oh no no, you cynic, Obama doesn't hafta to that!"


http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/07/10/obama_fisa/index.html?source=newsletter

this writer thinks the left wing blog-o-sphere tended to make him sound more progressive than he was to begin with.  I think her viewpoint sums it up best about our choice in November:

While we're railing about Obama's craven vote on FISA -- rightfully; Glenn Greenwald is a hero for his work on this topic -- McCain was outdoing Dick Cheney with neocon crazy talk, warning that Iran's test of nine old missiles we already knew they had increases the chances of a "second Holocaust." Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to.

Wait... Telephone companies were ordered by the administration to follow through with taps ordered by the FBI and department of Homeland Security... and THEY should be held responsible? So, they have two options, be arrested, or be fined out of the ass?

I'd have voted for Telco Immunity as well, use some sense for once instead of automatically deciding that anything agreeing with the President is bad. I disagree with wire tapping as well, but private business aren't responsible for requests from the government.

Wait... Telephone companies were ordered by the administration to follow through with taps ordered by the FBI and department of Homeland Security... and THEY should be held responsible? So, they have two options, be arrested, or be fined out of the ass?

I'd have voted for Telco Immunity as well, use some sense for once instead of automatically deciding that anything agreeing with the President is bad. I disagree with wire tapping as well, but private business aren't responsible for requests from the government.


Hence the "we were just following orders".

Hence the "we were just following orders".


Essentially yes. Understand, I despise the idea of wire taps, but the fact of the matter is that if the telephone companies hadn't gone along with it then there would have almost certainly been criminal charges pressed.

Essentially yes. Understand, I despise the idea of wire taps, but the fact of the matter is that if the telephone companies hadn't gone along with it then there would have almost certainly been criminal charges pressed.


not true.  Qwest didn't agree to do it.  They lost government contracts as a result, but they weren't charged with a crime.  That's because they didn't commit a crime.  AT&T and the Bush administration however both did commit crimes. 

Whether the president orders you to do it or not is irrelevant.  Bush doesn't create laws, and he has to follow the ones already on the books.

not true.  Qwest didn't agree to do it.  They lost government contracts as a result, but they weren't charged with a crime.  That's because they didn't commit a crime.  AT&T and the Bush administration however both did commit crimes. 

Whether the president orders you to do it or not is irrelevant.  Bush doesn't create laws, and he has to follow the ones already on the books.


No? I'll admit some ignorance to the situation, I would assume that if the FBI came to you and requested that you do something, refusal to cooperate could lead to criminal charges, be they contrived or not.

No? I'll admit some ignorance to the situation, I would assume that if the FBI came to you and requested that you do something, refusal to cooperate could lead to criminal charges, be they contrived or not.


only if what they are asking you to do is legal.  For example an FBI agent can't order you to murder an innocent man.  Trust me, these companies are well versed in the law and they know what is legal and what is not.  The Bush administration is wrapping it in a layer of patriotism, when it's really just Nixonian style wire-tapping for their own political gain.

only if what they are asking you to do is legal.  For example an FBI agent can't order you to murder an innocent man.  Trust me, these companies are well versed in the law and they know what is legal and what is not.  The Bush administration is wrapping it in a layer of patriotism, when it's really just Nixonian style wire-tapping for their own political gain.


True, you make a good point, I hadn't really considered it like that.

I'm still not sure prosecuting the companies is the way to go, at the same time, this may not be as clear cut as I'd previously imagined.