Let's keep the bitching and moaning to a minimum, eh?
:)
Not a happy scenario, but let's try to temper our collective disappointment with the fact that The FISA amendments DO NOT provide immunity for criminal violations
Wow! so Keith of you to say that. If they are having trouble passing a bill that holds the telcom accountable in civil courts. How did you jump to the conclusion that they would gravitate to criminal accountability?
How did you jump to the conclusion that they would gravitate to criminal accountability?
Uh, what does that mean? Nobody would have to gravitate anywhere. If the FISA amendments pass as is, there's no immunity for criminal violations.
Obama has said:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve. So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody['s] above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.
You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody['s] above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
Emphasis mine, BTW.
"... if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought], then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody['s] above the law..."
Just sitting here and looking. Waiting to see if anyone says anything.
Do you not see the double talk in there? Let's take this sentence
if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge [aforethought]
Define knowingly. Define consciously broke.
It's a political statement because the new FISA compromise allows everyone to go free if they have a letter from the president and the Attorney General saying this telcom action was lawful. So think about it. If you are excused as `it's okay' on one hand. How do you expect then to turn around and say oh it's not okay any longer i.e criminal?
Now unless senator Obama plans to try the President for criminal intent. Everyone else is truly free from any further actions due to the new Fisa. Nobody ever will go to jail over this.
the pardons for criminal activity roll out.
The bill preempts any prosecution for violation of State wiretapping statutes, both retroactively and for any future gov't induced spying.
small problem Benmasel - this NSA act can only be addressed under federal law. Because state has no clue who they tapped to even start an indictment. It's off limits to them.
