I'm not terribly torn up about it. Everyone agrees that FISA needs to be updated for new technologies, and everyone in the Constitutionality camp wants to make sure that our government's Executive branch can't violate the rules without oversight from the other two. From what I understand the bill does all that well enough.
The immunity is a sticking point, as wiretaps have been used in the past on civil rights leaders and so-called "enemies" of the particular President of the time (i.e. Nixon). I'd rather the telcos hadn't pitched in when the Bush/Cheney syndicated told them to, but those were heady times and I'm not sure the companies did so enthusiastically.
In any case, rather than blaming Obama for the sins of the GOP Administration, I'd rather get him in office and start the promised transparency January 20, 2009. As President he'll still need to keep some secrets and take steps to protect us all, but it's hard to imagine it will be in the treasonous manner of the mob that still inhabits the White House and associated offices.
While sometimes it's hard to remember, George W. Bush is still in office, and no amount of projecting a President Obama is going to make January 20th come any sooner.
3 comments:
I have a hard time supporting those who voted in favor of retroactive immunity. If we need changes to wire-tapping law they should have voted this law down and forced one without provisions that give AT&T a free pass. The "heady times" argument doesn't float with me.
You've got this core group of "Bush dog" Democratic Congresspeople, mainly from the South or Midwest, that are always going to be a bitch to deal with. Pelosi voted against it, as did my Representative, Henry Waxman. We'll see where Obama lands on it when his turn comes up in the bill's final trip through the Senate.
I'm happy to say our guy Ellison voted against it as well. I get the feeling that since this telcom business has the same tech stink as net neutrality that the average joe won't care much about it. It's much easier to spin the opposition as soft on terror than to explain the constitutional downsides.
Post a Comment