Bush administration forced to turn over spying documents by Friday

A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to divulge documents related to immunizing telecommunications companies from lawsuits, saying they illegally opened their networks to the National Security Agency.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco gave the Office of the Director of National Intelligence until November 30 (Friday) to turn over documents relating to conversations it had with Congress and telecommunications carriers about how to rewrite wiretapping laws.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation had filed this case to seek faster processing of a Freedom of Information Act request it filed, which could help buttress its ongoing lawsuit against AT&T. There are approximately 250 pages of unclassified material and 65 pages of classified material, which would be redacted, that the administration has identified but said could not be turned over until December 31.

Note that Illston's order doesn't deal with the NSA's wiretapping program itself (how it works, what companies are involved, whether there really is a secret room at AT&T's 611 Folsom Street location). Instead the documents relate only to conversations and communications about retroactive immunity for companies like AT&T that are accused of violating the law.

Note also that if AT&T and other telecommunications companies followed the law, no retroactive immunity is necessary. Because AT&T and the Bush administration are supporting such a legal shield, you can draw your own conclusions about what's really going on.

The Friday deadline means that the documents will likely be available in time to influence congressional debate over amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Some FISA amendments expire in February 2008, which means that Congress is likely to return to the topic soon.

The House of Representatives rejected retroactive immunity on November 16. The Senate Judiciary Committee seemed to like the idea of immunity, but the debate is expected to resume on the Senate floor next month.

[WJeansonne]

It Figures! Another Liberal Activist Judge Trying to Re-Write Laws

What a joke! Won't these terrorist hugging fools for judges go and try to save to some whales or something rather than interfere with the Bush Administration's attempt to thwart terrorism. It's totally disgusting and these creeps should be removed from office--ASAP! But fat chance in hell coming from San Francisco.

[jimmyhoops]

Quit living in fear, you neo-con(ned) fool!!!

This is not a case of a judge trying to re-write the laws, it is a <br />case about finding justice with a White House that has sought to <br />immunize itself from the law and do what ever they please in the <br />name of national security. Well I have news for you. We are a <br />nation of laws and that law must be abided by, by everyone <br />including those in the oval office.<br /><br />As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those willing to give up a little <br />liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."<br /><br />Quit living in fear, you neo-con(ned) fool! The fact of the matter <br />is that you are now living in a country that is LESS safe now then <br />it was before 911 but the difference now is that you have given <br />up your liberty for a false sense of security. To that, you <br />deserve neither!!!

[duerra]

*sigh*

I wondered where my bottle of stupid pills went. Could you send them back, please?

[Dalkorian]

couldn't have it more wrong

You have it totally backwards. The judge isn't trying to re-write <br />laws, she's trying to enforce them.<br /><br />It's Bush who's trying to re-write the laws. Bush hates America <br />and all it stands for, so he's done everything he could to destroy <br />our great nation. Remember that he *KNEW* terrorists would <br />strike using commercial aircraft as weapons IN AUGUST 2001! <br />Why would he do this? $$$<br /><br />I guess morons like you just won't accept the fact that the first <br />request the Bush administration made on a telecom to turn over <br />traffic records (Quest) happened almost a year BEFORE 9-11 <br />HAPPENED!!<br /><br />Bush has been trying to rewrite the laws so that his past actions <br />won't have been illegal. That's also why he insists on immunity <br />for the telecoms - both he and they knew they were breaking the <br />law.<br /><br />At least you were right about one thing, these creeps should be <br />removed from office. You're just wrong about who those creeps <br />are.

[AgentSTS]

Are you high?

If being 'safe' from future terrorism means that I have to give up my rights to privacy then I say let the bombs (or whatever) fall where they may. While I'm wholeheartedly against terrorists and quite frankly believe we should just nuke the area and let God sort it out, I'm not about to let a facist and deceitful administration trample to death 200 years of freedoms in a mere 8 years.<br /><br />The senior administration has proven time and time again they are dishonest scum hellbent on world domination and American subjugation. To me, things have to make sense... eroding the very thing the administration claims to be fighting for all while making backroom deals and being caught with unclean hands in the name 'defeating terrorism' just doesn't.<br /><br />You're a sheep. You're a lemming. You're thinking is defective.

[Had_to_be_said]

Why is it..?

Im am trying to figure out, exactly, why...<br /><br />...some of the people that post here appear to absolutely hate the U.S. Constitution, and virtually every basic American-right, so much.<br /><br />One theory that might explain this, seriously, irrational-behavior is that they either, arent even Americans, or possibly, are simply well-under 18 (or both), and are therefore, simply immature "trolls", childishly trying to evoke the strongest-reactions that they can provoke. This would explain why they keep spewing the most cowardly, Anti-American, and utterly ridiculous RHETORIC (in defense of such criminal-actions). They actually are, intentionally, trying to be insanely-outlandish.<br /><br />This would also explain why it is that they vomit hatred every single time there is even the slightest-hint that some powerful (and clearly corrupt/criminal) entity might be, in any way, held accountable for their-own actions (...when they are clearly shown to be violating the law, the U.S. Constitution, and/or the most fundamental-rights of others).<br /><br />No one can take these posters seriously, because their tirades are complete nonsense to begin with... merely parodies of the actual issues.<br /><br />However, in the end, I just wish that such posters (whether or not, they actually believe the unmitigated-crap that they keep coughing-up), could stop using the same-old standard, pedantic, and extremely-limited, vocabulary... of the very corrupt, totalitarian, and treasonous, propaganda-pushing CROOKS... that certain, well-known, posters keep defending... But, maybe, that is just asking too much.<br /><br /><br />Signed,<br /><br />A Freedom-Loving, Constitution-Hugger.

[deemzzzz]

why do you hate america

WJeansonne - <br />Why do you hate America and it's freedom so much? <br />I would be careful with this one - its people like you that hate our freedoms that perform terrorist attacks.

[markdoiron]

Yep, Appointed by Pre;sident Clinton

Yep, it appears she was appointed by President Clinton. However, you'll have to explain something to me, please, WJeansonne: What law is she rewriting? It rather looks like she's simply trying to enforce the ones put into affect by congress, and signed into law by presidents prior to this one. I know, President Bush doesn't care for some of those laws--they get in the way of his idea of protecting America. But, those laws are there for good reason. Especially the ones in the constitution itself. <br /><br />--mark d.

[Save_Me_from_my_Govt]

It Figures! Another Liberal Activist Judge Trying to Re-Write Laws

If we didn't have a neocon Conservative Activist President who thinks that he is above the Constitution, we wouldn't need judges who BELIEVE in the Constitution's protections again "unwarranted search &#38; seizures".<br /><br />Thank heavens someone is finally saying ENOUGH!!!

[awoody2]

Terroist hugging fools?

wjeansonne: What you should be afraid of are all of the lies that Bush has saddled us with about terrorism. It was the same with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, all BS. If we would get our butts out of other people's countries and quit trying to jamb our form of govt down their throats, just maybe we could save a lot of money and American lives and let them run thier countries the way they have done for several thousand years.

[deemzzzz]

Finally a little check on power

The Bush administration has had far too long with almost no checks on power. Thank you judiciary branch!<br /><br />I know there are those who will say that if you are not a terrorist you should have nothing to hide. To those I would say that there are many reasons for keeping private data private until there is a subpoena. <br /><br />To the nutjob with the first posting - why not have the FBI or NSA search through your house without a warrant or probable cause. These records are not for actual suspects but anyone that is in the extended social network of potential suspects. That why they can't get a subpoena. I'm sure you are somehow connected to a suspect a few degrees away (6 or 7? can't be too safe these days) so if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide.

[suyts]

I suppose we'll see

about the breadth and width of the wire tapping but as I read the policy, it was confined to non-citizens' overseas phone conversations. If it was indeed only that, then fine, I don't have a problem with it. Please remember, we haven't had a repeat of 9/11 since. Do you think that it is true because a) the terrorists aren't that hateful anymore or b) we're really lucky c) the Bush administration has taken some extra-ordinary measures to keep us safe. or d) what ever it is that you imagine why we haven't had any re occurrences.

[tvstrategies]

Who are these people anyway?

Who are these people that call patriots - such as the Judge, the EFF and the US (Democrat) congress - a bunch of liberal hacks?<br /><br />Who hires these "conservative" flamethrowers to spew venom at the people who want to preserve the real America?<br /><br />I can't imagine any of them thinking for themselves. They must be that 23% of people that can't be turned, once they make up their minds, fact or not.<br /><br />I just don't get it