The senate passed the terror bill 69-28, the t-coms are safe now from civil cases. Is that good? What say you?

Barack decided to vote yes to it this time, a BIG NO from before. Is it finally considered a flip flop?The senate passed the terror bill 69-28, the t-coms are safe now from civil cases. Is that good? What say you?
As well they should be safe from civil suits, if the goverment is going to force them to comply with wire tapping (as they should), they should not be held responsible or sued civilly for it. Obama did the right thing this time. Yes, he flip flopped along with a bunch of other things recently. But he's still very dangerous for this country.The senate passed the terror bill 69-28, the t-coms are safe now from civil cases. Is that good? What say you?
I don't like this idea at all. The government can see ';anything'; you do on the internet, unless you encrypt it - unknown if they can decrypt it.





I work for a service provider and learned about CALEA a few years ago. In brief, CALEA allows the government to install equipment into a service providers network that enables them to monitor ';all'; of your traffic. Every US provider has this equipment at one point in the OSI whether they are aware (i.e. leasing L2/L3) of it or not. This is not a conspiracy theory but is an actual reality of our privacy being taken away. They might as well have a camera installed in your shower, as it's breaking the same moral ground. Where do you draw the line?





Wake up people. Listen! Vote!
';The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.';





That is the fourth amendment... What our leaders have allowed is absolutely unacceptable and disgraceful.





Once you decide that 'oh, this law can be broken, and this part of the constitution can be violated just this one time for this one cause', you just opened the door up to many more violations of our citizens basic rights. What part of the constitution will they decide to disregard next?
It's a small flip flop--but,I think, a reasonable one. there are times you have to give grund to get a consensus. What Obbama--and the rest of the Democrats (plus quite a few decent Republicans) did NOT do is give Bush what he's been after for 7 years--namely a dictator's power to spy at will without having any accountability.





Soory to put it so strongly--but whetehr you think Bush shoud have that kind of power or not--that is waht he was demanding. He did not get it.





That's the important part. Any surveillance MUST be vetted by the FISA court either prior to acting or within a reasonable time afterward (in the event of an emergency).





As for the tleecoms, I'm not particularly concerned. They wern't the real threat to our freedom. As to the individuals involved--some , we know, were threatened and intimidated. Others cooperated willingly. But the reality is that there's no way to seperate the vctims from the willing accomplices. and a lot of decent people who happen to work for those companies will et hurt if we try to push tis issue.





I'd like to see those who voluntarily cooperated with Bush spend the rest of their lives in a federal prison--tat is where they belong. they deserve it.





But the hard cold fact is this: there's almost certainly no way to identify these individuals with any certainty. And the IMPORTANT thing--making sure that searches and surveillance are conducted in a legal and constitutional manner-has been take n care of.
just in according to PBS barrak obamma has renounced his democrat nomination in favor of Hillary Clinton,and has demanded McCain step down so he can run on the republican ticket.lol!until you see either that announcement or obamma Frenching bush libs will never admit their candidate reverses himself constantly.although according to larry sinclair obamma would be willing for the second option!
Yes.


OBAMA is UNFIT to be PRESIDENT.
Not good, but we would have paid the telephone bills anyways if it went to court. Rep. would have blocked it or held it up if it didn't include it and the President would have vetoed it. We'll get even after January.
No, it's not good.





If I broke the law and got caught, I would be punished, even if the government told me to do it. Why should the telecom companies get immunity for lawbreaking?
Obama has a lot of years to learn what the government is all about. He is having a hard time taking the heat now just wait till he gets to be president if he does.
No, this is not ';good';. And I hope that not having any recourse for being wrongly targeted for domestic spying is found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Its amazing how things change from one moment to the next..... What ever happened to.... One Country, One God, One Language, One People, One thought, One principle Indivisible with liberty and justice for all?
I say thank God Obama has finally done something sensible, flip-flop or not.
He is the flip flop master he is falling apart and the liberals are going crazy it's great!!!!!!!!
No, this is not a flip flop. You must be a racist for saying that. (sarcasm)