And you've got it backwards. As a whole, the legislation smelled like roses. Most of the initiatives it proposed actually protected more freedoms. It was the immunity clause that stunk.
But most of the Democrats desires were expressed in the legislation. This all-or-nothing, fight to the death until we get what *we* want attitude is exactly what paralyzes progress from being made in congress.
It actually put *more* restrictions on the executive branch.
While taking away our ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that might have broken the law accountable.
Just because part of it smells like roses doesn't mean the legislation as a whole doesn't stink.
This is just how bills in the Senate are and it is naive to think otherwise. Every bill is a compromise. You are never going to get something that satisfies everyone because everyone wants the bill to say different, contradictory, things. Everyone is giving something up for the sake of getting some of the progress they want.
There are reasons for giving the telecoms immunity. They were coerced by the government. I'm not saying I agree with an all-out immunity but the case for it is not totally unfounded.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone. This is very unfair to Obama. This was a tough call for him. You talk about him like he's a spineless ninny. The reality is that he actually THINKS and is willing to change his mind when he thinks it is best for the country.
Take a look at his statement on the issue:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary
He was unhappy with the way it was drafted ("I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power.").
Senate bills are not this cut-and-dry, guys. The quote from the OP article above is very biased. There were good things about the amendment and bad things about the amendment. The quote makes it sounds like the bill only supported further violations of privacy and, frankly, that is a complete load of sh*t. Just look at the Wikipedia article that summarizes the amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008
Obama didn't want to lose the good things in this amendment by voting against it for the bad things. If this amendment had not passed and the Democratic core had actually won their protest against it, we all would have been open to even greater violations of our privacy because, without the amendment being passed today, we would have lost important surveillance orders this summer.
Slashdot Mirror
And you've got it backwards. As a whole, the legislation smelled like roses. Most of the initiatives it proposed actually protected more freedoms. It was the immunity clause that stunk.
But most of the Democrats desires were expressed in the legislation. This all-or-nothing, fight to the death until we get what *we* want attitude is exactly what paralyzes progress from being made in congress.
It actually put *more* restrictions on the executive branch.
While taking away our ability to find out exactly what the hell happened and to hold those that might have broken the law accountable.
Just because part of it smells like roses doesn't mean the legislation as a whole doesn't stink.
This is just how bills in the Senate are and it is naive to think otherwise. Every bill is a compromise. You are never going to get something that satisfies everyone because everyone wants the bill to say different, contradictory, things. Everyone is giving something up for the sake of getting some of the progress they want.
There are reasons for giving the telecoms immunity. They were coerced by the government. I'm not saying I agree with an all-out immunity but the case for it is not totally unfounded.
But that's the thing: much of the legislation was about *protecting* privacy and freedom. It actually put *more* restrictions on the executive branch.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold the phone. This is very unfair to Obama. This was a tough call for him. You talk about him like he's a spineless ninny. The reality is that he actually THINKS and is willing to change his mind when he thinks it is best for the country. Take a look at his statement on the issue: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary He was unhappy with the way it was drafted ("I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power."). Senate bills are not this cut-and-dry, guys. The quote from the OP article above is very biased. There were good things about the amendment and bad things about the amendment. The quote makes it sounds like the bill only supported further violations of privacy and, frankly, that is a complete load of sh*t. Just look at the Wikipedia article that summarizes the amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008 Obama didn't want to lose the good things in this amendment by voting against it for the bad things. If this amendment had not passed and the Democratic core had actually won their protest against it, we all would have been open to even greater violations of our privacy because, without the amendment being passed today, we would have lost important surveillance orders this summer.