General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton calls for restoration of constitutional privacy protections weakened after 9-11
from the Guardian:
____ The former secretary of state, who has hitherto largely stayed out of the debate sparked by leaks from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, called on Congress to restore constitutional privacy protections weakened after terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre.
"We are finally taking stock of the laws that we passed after 9/11," she told Fox News interviewer Greta Van Susteren. "We did all of this in an a hurry because we were worried and scared and now we need to take a step back and figure out how we make sure that the balance between liberty and security is right . . ."
"Laws that were passed after 9/11 gave the executive very broad authority ... what has happened is that people have said, OK, the emergency is over and we want to get back to regular order," she said.
"It's a really difficult balancing act, but you are absolutely right that we need to make some changes to secure that constitutional right to privacy that Americans are due."
read: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/18/hillary-clinton-overhaul-nsa-surveillance-powers?CMP=twt_fd
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)mattclearing
(10,091 posts)It's not encouraging when she says, "...laws were passed...," like she had nothing to do with them.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)should qualify, mostly federal
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And the telecom immunity vote came after she lost the primaries.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)07- 9-08 - The Senate passed a revamped version of FISA legislation on Wednesday. But that conclusion was never in doubt. The real intrigue surrounded which Democrats would buck the compromise, which included immunity for telecommunications companies, and what side Sen. Hillary Clinton would come down on.
Late this afternoon, Clinton voted against the bill, putting her at odds with the party's presumptive nominee, Barack Obama. In a statement put out by her Internet guru, Peter Daou, the New York Democrat struck a similar chord as her Illinois counterpart, describing the compromise as legislation that will "strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts." She also, like Obama, pinpointed shortcomings in oversight, immunity, and other aspects of the compromise. But, in the end, she, unlike Obama, was persuaded to vote no.
statement:
One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today's vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.
The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration's surveillance activities. Some of the legislation's provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration's surveillance activities.
While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration's surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President's power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government's targeting and minimization procedures.
But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens - and in particular to New Yorkers - all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.
Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used - and used within the law - for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/clinton-fisa-compromise-a_n_111742.html
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)That's about it. I think had the tables turned Clinton would've definitely voted for it. McCain was really ramping up the rhetoric.
bigtree
(85,975 posts). . . and her recent statements:
"We are finally taking stock of the laws that we passed after 9/11," she told Fox News interviewer Greta Van Susteren. "We did all of this in an a hurry because we were worried and scared and now we need to take a step back and figure out how we make sure that the balance between liberty and security is right . . ."
"Laws that were passed after 9/11 gave the executive very broad authority ... what has happened is that people have said, OK, the emergency is over and we want to get back to regular order," she said.
"It's a really difficult balancing act, but you are absolutely right that we need to make some changes to secure that constitutional right to privacy that Americans are due."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/18/hillary-clinton-overhaul-nsa-surveillance-powers?CMP=twt_fd
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Were the tables turned.
Remember, Obama was talking down about FISA/NSA/CIA crap, but yet he voted for telecom immunity? What the fuck?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Some she didn't. It was actually a good interview.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)It has been explained to me, very condescendingly, that stuff said during a campaign is not necessarily stuff that will be done/at least argued for when elected, and that's okay, because the only important thing is to win.