Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
He authorized wire-taps of the communications of known terrorist, some of which started or terminated within this country.
Perhaps, you are correct and at least certain members of Congress should know. But I will never support making a public "peep" show out of this issue, which is what will happen if the bill passes as presented.
Again, if national security is an issue - I support keeping the information confidential. And in this case, given no reported abuses (that I am aware of, if there are - my opinion may change) I give the benefit of the doubt to the President.
In either case there is no value in opening up telecommunication companies to endless numbers of class action lawsuits for the benefit of the trial lawyer's lobby. Why is that in the bill if not for them? Please, don't tell me how class action lawsuits help the "little guy".
Some of it, yes. Other parts of it - no. I say they should focus on true oversight issues, if they do the bill will be signed.
We have a list of terrorists. We know who they call, when they call, and where they call to and in some cases where they call from. This bill would make that information public record.
All I am saying is that there are two components of the bill that are going to be the basis of a veto. Like it or not there are legitimate reasons for those two components to be excluded.
|
There is nothing in this bill that requires that information be made public, but only that Congress is provided the information on a quarterly basis (and it can be in closed session) and FISA is informed prior to any surveillance action (this does not give FISA the power to stop the surveillance but requires the Exec to submit the formal request in a timely manner after the fact).
The provision regarding the telcomms is a safeguard so that those companies do not roll over at every request by the Exec......and it currently does not apply to the future where the telcomms would still have immunity (a compromise by the Dems), it only applies retroactively for their past potentially illegal actions, again between 2003 and 2006 when the Congress and the courts were left in the dark.