House Democrats refuse to delete pending spy lawsuits
Congressional Democrats on Tuesday dug in on their refusal to pass a revamped surveillance law that could wipe out some 40 lawsuits accusing telephone companies of illegal cooperation with government spies.
According to summary documents provided by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office, Democratic leaders are preparing to debate yet another new bill that would not offer so-called "retroactive immunity" to companies that allegedly opened up their networks to the National Security Agency without a court order. At least in theory, that means cases like the one the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed against AT&T should be able to proceed.
In addition, the new proposal would allow the judge presiding over such cases to review otherwise classified evidence about the extent of government wiretapping. The Bush administration has argued such documents cannot be used in litigation because "state secrets" may be revealed.
The new bill's full text was not made available at press time, but it is expected to go to a floor vote as early as Thursday. Its passage, however, is hardly a sure thing, as it's already drawing attacks from Republican politicians and the president.
It's the latest chapter in an ongoing tussle over "modernizing" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA for short, which governs eavesdropping of foreign-related communications when U.S. persons are involved in the conversations. There's agreement among both political parties that certain legal changes are needed to make it easier for intelligence agents to snoop on foreign communications without a warrant. But there's sharp disagreement over how much power to give the attorney general in authorizing surveillance without court approval--and whether to shield corporations who may have helped the Feds to conduct allegedly law-breaking surveillance.
The new House bill would also do things like require an individualized warrant for targeting Americans abroad and establish a "National Commission on Warrantless Surveillance" to investigate and report on the administration's wiretapping activities, according to the summary documents.
And it does grant some degree of immunity to companies that respond to lawful requests from the government for aid, as federal wiretap law always has. Companies who provide "lawful assistance" would be shielded from lawsuits going forward, assuming the bill is passed, according to the majority leader's summary documents.
The new House proposal is not nearly as expansive as a White House-supported bill passed by a U.S. Senate majority last month. The new House version arrives after that chamber refused to take up the Senate version, vowing instead to draft a "compromise."
The battle has been mostly, but not entirely, split along party lines--some more conservative Democrats have promised to reject a bill that does not contain retroactive immunity. Both President Bush's press secretary and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed the latest measure "dead on arrival" and accused the Democratic leaders of playing politics.
In a joint statement, the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said they were "concerned that the proposal would not provide the intelligence community the critical tools needed to protect the country."
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Sylvestre Reyes (D-Texas), the Democratic committee chairman leading the FISA rewrite process, retorted: "The American people expect government officials to wrestle with these difficult issues and reach common sense solutions that protect Americans from terrorism and preserve our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the president's advisers seem more inclined to issue 'my way or the highway' press releases concerning a bill the Administration hasn't even read."
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.V.), who has been leading the Senate's FISA rewrite, said on Tuesday that "considerable work" is still needed on the House bill but voiced confidence that the two chambers could work out a deal.
2008: $72 million to Democrats vs $22 million to GOP - 77% vs 23%
That's why the DemocRats support the lawsuits.
Geez.
I would also advocate for spying on Americans without a warrant. Spy on every Americans is good. That is the only way to prevent extremists like Tim McVeigh, environmental terrorists, etc.
You want to feel safe? Give up all your privacy and let the adminsitration spy on you. So they can protect you better. Wait wait, wouldn't that become more like China? yes, maybe, but safe first right?
The real targets of the lawsuit should be the heads of the Justice Department, the President and Vice. Oh yeah, a lawsuit against the President has to be in the form of impeachment proceedings if I remember correctly.
america knows no bounds as he once again puts corporations
ahead of americans
Also lets not forget that even if the laws were more constricting, collecting such information illegally will not stop, it only prevents its useage in court. I don't think the court's are on the hook to prevent things like 9/11. So there really is no reason for such sweeping powers.
We already know they had all the intelligence to act to prevent 9/11, and they did everything in their power to assure it happened without discovery of the truth...another Pearl Habor, only this time the public is not so blind.
If the telco's come forward with all of the records and evidence in their possesion pertaineing to the last 8 years of this administration's corruption, particularly the truth and lies about 9/11 and they come completely clean about it and there involvement, I would pardon them for complying, but never, never give them future immunnity for breaking the law and our basic human rights to privacy.
A pardon can be considered, but retroactive immunnity is absolutely out of the question. That action, that request alone, by this administration is, in my mind, grounds for impeachment by itself. No leader of any country claiming to be civilized, should ever consider such a thing, it is an abomination to the purpose of law itself. Not to mention the outright treason, with 9/11 and the war in iraq.
- Telco's Give Loads Of Money To Republicans...
- by lampietheclown March 12, 2008 5:52 PM PDT
- ... and so does the defense industry.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)So What?
I like to judge a law on what it does, rather than on how people who back it get paid. It seems much more straight forward.
A law that gives retroactive immunity to the telcoms sends a bad message about breaking the law. It also keeps the American public from finding out the truth when the smoke clears.
If the government told the telcoms that it was legal when it wasn't, we need to know.
If the government told the telcoms that it was illegal, but help us any way, and you won't get caught, we need to know.
I am sure that a judge, and / or a jury, will take all the facts and the situation at the time into consideration, if you are worried that the telcoms shouldn't be punished for helping catch terrorists.
Some of the questions that might never be answered if the telcoms get immunity?
Did the NSA program start before 9/11?
Is this the only domestic spy program the telcoms are helping with?
What other data mining is taking place?
Has the domestic spy program been used for other goals than terror defense?
Why do the Feds keep insisting that no checks and balances are needed?
Who else will be protected and given immunity by this bill? Who else is involved? ISP's? Google? AOL? Banks? Insurance companies? Microsoft?
What is it that they need immunity for? What exactly did they do?
Why is this immunity more important than American lives?
Do you think this last one is a bit over the top? I do too.
G.B. Jr. told us, and Congress, that if the FISA bill was allowed to expire, important tools to fight the terrorists would be weakened, and that would represent a major risk to the American people. Anyone who voted against the bill was, as he put it, "siding with the terrorists".
O.K.
So when the bill was drafted in the House without retroactive telcom immunity included, GB Jr. said quite clearly that he would veto the bill, even though the current law was set to expire.
The House Democrats offered to pass an extension for a few weeks so the problem of telcom immunity could be worked out, but GB Jr was having no part of it. He demanded retroactive telcom immunity or nothing!
The law expired.
This law, this powerful tool that was doing so much to keep the terrorists at bay and Americans safe, was not as important to GB Jr as protecting a couple of telcoms from the inquiring eye of the US court system.
You can take this one of two ways.
Either GB Jr exposed the American Public to a terrible risk of attack to protect the telcoms, and therefore sided with the terrorists, or he knows there isn't a risk, and figured that saving the telcoms was worth more than keeping the real (low) level of risk a secret.
Get the picture?
Lampie The Clown