FISA Immunity--Can't we just make it a line in the sand?
One thing I am perplexed about is how adamant each side is in the FISA
immunity debate. I hear no talk of compromise--just either that it's
good or it's bad. Could language be constructed that said an
investigation will take place, list capitulations to the White House
that are ok, and list infractions that are not? We could call it
"limited immunity" or "the line in the sand that telecoms may not
cross". Thoughts?
Advertisement
I just mean, unless I'm reading this wrong, there's a good chance we'll loose this and telecoms are going to be free and clear.
June 23, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's just it... Bush says he'll veto anything with less than full immunity. So, no, there's no compromise, there's no partial immunity, it's all or nothing on that issue. So, yes, the telecoms are going to get away with it.
June 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I previously posted in both Oregonactivist's and Gasket's threads on this issue, I believe that Obama should be held to account for any failure to filibuster or block the FISA bill.
As many of you may recall, I was a rabid supporter of Obama over the primary, but I will not stand by for any "Reid-styled" pussyfooting on this bill. Similarly, I won't stand for "pissy-pants" democrat parsing or excuses for inaction on this shitstained bill, by anyone. If you choose to defend inaction, prepare for a shitstorm of ridicule from myself and others.
June 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wording in the FISA bill does say that justice department can review a case brought before the court. The problem is that regardless of what laws telecoms break, they can be issued a waiver of immunity.
It's just bad no matter how you look at it.
I'm not suprised that the DNC hasn't been able to raise much money for the democratic party.
A lot of democrats just aren't acting in good faith.
I support Obama, and please, I don't need a lecture on why I should give money to the DNC as well. I understand all the arguments, including we can't afford to have a Republican majority.
June 23, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink