Quote:
Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002  Yeah, Obama won't get any of my money now over FISA.
Who is marketing themselves as the "straight talker"? |
I was feeling that way about FISA until I read a few more details. It seems to me that two things have moderated my opinion (however since it would've passed even if Obama had voted "no," I still confused why he voted "yea")
Point 1 - It only gives civil immunity to telecoms for wiretapping AFTER 9/11/2001. Since most of the wiretapping was started before 9/11/2001, many of the civil claims may still be able to go forward. Plus it only restricts civil claims, not criminal claims.
Point 2 - They only get immunity IF they can provide proof of who ordered them to gather and provide the information. I think this is good because it forces the telecoms to reveal exactly who (and when) is responsible for wiretapping in the administration. I think this could be just what is needed to go after the Bush administration for illegal wiretapping.
I don't know if these two points will end up making a difference, but it does give me pause and makes me realize that the wording is fairly carefully presented with specific "proofs" being required. Perhaps its not as bad as it initially appears. Fingers crossed.