Senators shelve vote to shield corporate wiretap collaborators

Update 12:42 p.m. PST: A key U.S. Senate panel on Thursday pushed back a hotly anticipated vote on a new proposal to shield telephone and Internet companies from lawsuits alleging illicit cooperation with federal spying programs.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had planned to consider the bill, known as the FISA Amendments Act, at its morning business meeting. The lengthy measure, among other things, would effectively crush the pending lawsuits against companies like AT&T and Verizon, as well as some ongoing investigations by state utility commissions into their practices. It was already approved by a 13-2 vote recently during a closed-door session of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But no debate occurred and no votes were held in the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, primarily because Republican ranking member Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) said he and his colleagues hadn't had enough time to review a batch of Democratic amendments circulated Wednesday night, according to committee aides.

The plan now is to consider the bill next week instead, giving the committee members more time to review proposed amendments and, if they're lucky, work out their lingering differences.

Congressional Democrats are in somewhat of a hurry to pass a new bill to replace a temporary rewrite of federal wiretapping law--as it pertains to electronic communications between foreigners and U.S. persons--that passed in August. Many of them argue the White House-backed law, set to expire in early February, was rammed through without proper checks on executive power and poses grave constitutional concerns.

The Bush administration, backed by many Republican politicians, has made it clear that it wants that law made permanent and has also indicated it will accept nothing less than total immunity (or "amnesty," as some skeptical Democrats have taken to calling it) for any companies that allegedly cooperated with its surveillance agents in the past.

An alternative idea that's been kicking around, albeit with seemingly limited support so far, is granting "indemnity" to the companies, meaning they could still be sued, but the government--or in other words, taxpayers--would foot the bill for damages.

Specter, who made the pitch for indemnification, said on Thursday that, unlike most of his Republican colleagues, he still vehemently disagrees with complete immunity from court action. But he said he's now leaning more toward a third, related possibility: "substitution," in which government lawyers would formally take the place of the telephone company or other parties being sued in the cases. That approach would still result in taxpayer dollars being spent to defend against the claims, and the Justice Department has dismissed the idea in recent testimony to the committee.

"As I've said publicly before, I'm sympathetic to the telephone companies," Specter said, according to a transcript provided by a Republican aide. "I think they have been good citizens, and I'd like to see them not prejudiced and not harmed."

[R. U. Sirius]

What has happened to this government?

Have they all gone insane? Since when is it okay to commit a crime then have congress make it okay? I voted for democrats because they promised change, and yet it seems it's the same as it was before. I won't make that mistake again.

[agitatr]

wellllll......

If this is the true R.U. I have a lot of respect for you.

Our government seems like it has been sold to the highest bidder, and that since the shrubs feel that they "got away" with their illegal incursion into Iraq.

Then they lost power to a congress that is 100% unwilling to start impeachment proceedings to make him account for all of the abuses that have gone down in the administration.

This is just another example of BOTH sides showing that they don't give a damn about anything unless their pockets are lined.

I really wish people would STAND UP AND SCREAM THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ANY LONGER. And actually push for accountability.

Unfortunately too many people either just don't care, feel like their voices don't matter, or are so disenfranchised that they don't want to make the effort.

And then you have the people that are calling Mark Klein a "traitor" for exposing these shenanigans to the American people & the press.

If only we had MORE TRUE Americans like him around.

[cary1]

What if Yahoo CEO shares the data with federal agencies?

because he was under fire from congress for sharing data with the chinese government. Does the same rule apply here?

[aka_tripleB]

I hope a judge strikes down this law right after it passes if it goes thru

This law is clearly a violation of constitutional rights and an over-exertion of both executive and legislative powers. Luckily, for us, the judicial branch does have to power to abolish any law that gets passed that is unconstitutional. We just have to hope that there is a judge that has a backbone that will actually stand up to this administration and congress.

Let's face it, no one should ever be above the law, either legally or perceived. Do want to live in a country that lives in fear of the mafia or companies that sell out their customers? Just look at companies that already have too much control and not enough regulation: credit bureaus, health care, and the RIAA. All three can destroy lives with a flick of a pen, but take years to correct wrong information. Putting another company above the law will only harm the innocent. Soon, the government is going to be issuing orange jumpsuits, pink underwear, and anklets or might as well hand them out because we won't be able to do anything anyways.