FISA set. Senate passes.

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Feb 12, 2008.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    After a year or so of 'on-camera' emoting outrage on Dubya's FISA program, the Senate Dems tossed their cards in and passed the bill, which expands the powers somewhat but mainly exempts telecom's from civil suits for following executive orders.

    Now it needs to get past the house, but that will happen well before the November election to give the loony left time to simmer down.

    The script then allows the 'residual outrage' to be aimed at Dubya's administration, while giving the {likely*} Obama Administration the National Security Tools it needs. I'm sure Dubya's okay with that, I am too.

    What a Clinton Administration would do with it, though, is up in the air... as everyone on here knows from past experience.

    * Gingrich Warns of GOP Catastrophe
  2. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Jan 4, 2005
    FISA: Why House Refuses

    Let's look at this again:
    "House Democrats refused to cave in to Bush, the Senate, or their own Republicans and wouldn't change their FISA bill, which does NOT include retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies. "

    Now if the telecom's were acting on Executive Order, then why should they be allowed to be sued in Civil court? This does not address whether or not the Executive Order is indeed valid, it addresses intent on the part of Telecom Management.

    In essence... which means to boil it it down.. if the Telecom refuses the executive order, then it cannot be sued for 'invasion of citizen privacy'.

    However, if some terror attack occurs and it can be proven that the act was discussed on some channel which can be reasonably proven as 'recorded by a telecom', then that telecom can be sued as aiding and abetting, right?

    No! You say.. who would DO such a thing? That's unAmerican, right?

    Well, the ones who would do such a thing are right in front of us.. the subject of more derogatory jokes and comments than any vocation including 'Buy here, Pay Here' used car salesmen.

    ... not your local practice attorneys who draw up your legal documents, the ones who advertise on TV, that you MIGHT be able to sue if the Dog only growls at you, that you might be able to sue if you lived next door to a guy who installed auto brakes for a living in the 70's.

    Just follow the money.

    1. Who are these people in the house, standing on principle?

    2. Who makes up the majority of elected politicians?

    3. Where does a large part of financial campaign support for these elected come from?

    4. What KIND of Lawyers?


    What does this mean? It means that the House Democrats are more than willing to extend FISA... AS long as Telecom immunity is NOT included.
    In short... while Sen Jay Rockefeller, certainly as partisan as anyone in the party on 'Bush Administration' policies, is quite outspoken on the need for immunity, the House Dems, with their lower profile and larger {relative} appetite for special interest money feel they can get away with this.

    Yeah... THAT'S the Dems... looking out for us little guys against the Big Money Corps!
Similar Threads: FISA Senate
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous A FISA Fix: Atty Gen Dec 12, 2007
Miscellaneous FISA and the Dems: The REST of the story Aug 11, 2007
Miscellaneous FISA decision.. think the LIBS won something? Aug 18, 2006
Miscellaneous Senate vote to debate will pass Nov 21, 2009
Miscellaneous Senate Passes Bill Oct 1, 2008

Share This Page