Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here is what our Democratic Presidential Candidate has to object to:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » National Security Donate to DU
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 11:58 AM
Original message
Here is what our Democratic Presidential Candidate has to object to:
House Democratic leaders heralded the bill as a “bipartisan compromise” because instead of giving blanket retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program, it would route the grants of immunity through a district court. As long as the companies could demonstrate to a judge that they were instructed to spy on Americans by the Bush administration they would be spared the trouble of litigating more than 40 pending lawsuits , even though they initiated the surveillance without legally required warrants.

“This is an astonishing giveaway,” Feingold said. http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/23/feingold-farce-wiretap-deal-could-be-hiding-impeachable-offense/

Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. Too late, he's already attached his lips to the asses of Pelosi/Reid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-29-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. Here's my idea of a compromise position...
OK, give the telecoms immunity if they received an "order"--but don't concede the legality of the order. Thus, the question becomes, was the order legal? Investigating this would require the same disclosure of the actual order given, the person who "gave it," and all internal written justifications by which they gave it. If after that review, the order was determined not to have been a legal order under the Constitution, the person who gave the order can, and should, be prosecuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » National Security Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC