Wiretapping debate in Congress resumes Tuesday

A high-stakes political debate over wiretapping and immunity for telecommunications companies has been pushed back by at least one day.

In two votes on Monday, senators failed to reach the 60-vote supermajority required to curb debate and force a vote on either of two wiretapping-related proposals, one favored by Republicans and the other backed by Democrats. Each vote was 48 yea to 45 no.

That means the debate on how to rework the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will continue later this week. In his State of the Union address Monday evening, President Bush is expected to press Congress to grant retroactive legal protections for telecommunications companies that allegedly opened their networks to the Feds in violation of privacy laws.

What's making this week's votes more pressing than usual is that a temporary law amending FISA expires on Friday.

That leaves Congress with three major options:

#1. Renew last August's law, called the Protect America Act, for 30 days. Both sides would get more time to maneuver. This is what the Democrats want, but Bush has threatened a veto of a temporary extension.

#2. Renew a modified version of the Protect America Act permanently, and immunize telecom companies from the legal consequences of any illegal activities they committed. This is what Bush dearly wants, and what a minority of Democrats are prepared to give him. If the president gets his way, the retroactive immunization would derail a slew of lawsuits pending against telecommunications companies, most notably the one against AT&T that's currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

#3. Let the Protect America Act (also known as the pro-privacy option backed by the ACLU and others), expire.The argument goes as follows: The Patriot Act dramatically expanded police eavesdropping powers in 2001, and there's no pressing need to go further. FISA has worked for decades, and has long included emergency no-court-order-required wiretaps as long as proper procedures are followed.

Even though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last year that the Protect America Act "does violence to the Constitution," there seems to be little official interest in option #3. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who voted against the measure on August 3, did something of a flip-flop on Monday, saying "none of us want the current law to expire."

Reid added, "In my 20 years in Congress, I have not seen anything quite as cynical and counterproductive as the Republican approach to FISA. The American people deserve to know that when President Bush talks about the foreign-intelligence bill tonight, he's doing little more than shooting for cheap political points--and we should reject his efforts."

So that leaves Reid and most other Democrats to rally around #1. Republicans want #2, and are being especially forceful. Bush said in last week's radio address, which he's likely to repeat in his State of the Union speech:

"Congress is now considering a bipartisan bill that will allow our professionals to maintain the vital flow of intelligence on terrorist threats. It would protect the freedoms of Americans, while making sure we do not extend those same protections to terrorists overseas. It would provide liability protection to companies now facing billion-dollar lawsuits because they are believed to have assisted in efforts to defend our Nation following the 9/11 attacks. I call on Congress to pass this legislation quickly. We need to know who our enemies are and what they are plotting. And we cannot afford to wait until after an attack to put the pieces together."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell elaborated on Bush's statement on Monday, saying Republicans will not allow the Judiciary Committee version of the legislation (which has no retroactive immunity) to become law. They want the Intelligence Committee version (which does). He said of the Judiciary version: "That bill will not, I repeat, will not become law. Reconstructing the judiciary committee bill is a pointless exercise. It's an exercise we do not have the luxury to engage in. We can get serious and pass the bipartisan Intelligence Committee product."

Note that the Intelligence Committee version goes further than merely immunizing telecommunications companies. As I wrote in October, it also would retroactively immunize e-mail providers, search engines, Internet service providers and instant-messaging services. It may cover black bag jobs too.

Expect the Senate to resume debating options #1 and #2 on Tuesday. So will the House of Representatives, where Democratic leaders have scheduled an afternoon vote. The House vote, especially, could call Bush's bluff--by putting him in a position to veto a law that he claims is necessary to thwart a terrorist "attack."

[rallynochaos]

If you break the law you should be persecuted

The telecommunications companies broke the law. Period. Don't allow them to hide behind the patriotic flag. The Republicans are ridiculous. They clearly support big business more then the people who elected them into office.<br /><br />If it wasn't for the people voting them into office, they wouldn't be able to get the Big Business bribes that make them so wealthy.

[inachu]

Wiretapping domestic enemies.

I have collected all the videos pertaining to the whitehouse being wiretapped and it wasn't by any hackers or cia or fbi or NSA but from Israel.<br /><br />We as american citizen have yet to know what became of the outcome on this.<br /><br />Either people are prosecuted for this crime as it was a direct attack on the white house or these mossad spies are patted on the back and FBI agents are fired for doing their job.<br /><br />I am sure Bush had the FBI agents fired.<br />Very unamerican if you ask me.<br /><br />I ask any NSA,CIA,FBI where is your pride now that you have been stonewalled by your own president?

[rashinal]

outrageous

I can't believe that this is even a discussion.<br />I fear for the future of my children.<br />(and not from "terrorists")<br />This sort of tyranny is precisely what the founders warned against <br />and vehemently sought to prevent. The constitution leaves absolutely no doubt about citizens right to privacy and the reciprocal transparency of government. <br />This is an outrage. It is the stuff of revolts and revolutions.<br />And make no mistake; as in all of history, this is NOT a measure of <br />'protection' , it is a method of suppression.<br /><br />If bush has his way, it will be the utimate win for 'the terrorists'.. <br />they will have frightened this country into destroying itself.<br /><br /><br />DON'T let it happen !

[Yog Sothoth]

Oh Please!

Somebody call the hospital! We got another case of BDS!

[R. U. Sirius]

wtf?

I was taught that when you commit a crime, you commit a crime and you will do the time. When did it become okay to willfully break laws? The telcos should be prosecuted. Disgusting. What country is this?

[aka_tripleB]

Congress can't give AT&T immunity

For the same reason the administration will not let the trial precede and then just pardon AT&#38;T: IT WOULD BE TREASON. There are only 12 people in this country that can "pardon" AT&#38;T. Only the jury of the case against AT&#38;T can find AT&#38;T innocent of the charges, because of what it is charged with. It violated the bill of rights not some silly law (i.e. you cannot fish from a giraffe's neck in the Chicago River). No act or amendment can nullify any part of the bill of rights, because the bill of rights is unalienable rights that cannot be taken away.<br /><br />Therefore, if Bush pardons AT&#38;T, it would be an act of treason because he would be mocking the bill of rights. And if congress passes this bill, giving AT&#38;T immunity, both anyone to voted yes to the bill AND the president would be committing treason for mocking the bill of rights. You have to remember that the president has to sign any bill into law, so he cannot keep his hand clean regardless of where the "pardon" comes from. As for AT&#38;T, the only way I can see it from being convicted on its charges is if there was an executive order to wiretap people AND it admits it on the stand during the initial trial against it. It should be allowed in any appeals court because it would be something that should come out during the initial trial because AT&#38;T would have know about it then.<br /><br />All you attentive readers, you may have noticed that there are many words and phrases that were not capitalized that should have been. I am doing it as a statement, because of what is at stake with this issue. If AT&#38;T is pardoned and our rights are violated it would mean that our government thinks nothing of our rights and do not merit the right to have such respect.

[chash360]

Choose #3 Let it die!

There is no reason for this horrific act that violates so much of the constitution. The telcos should not be immune to breaking the law. We do not need anymore surviellance powers, we had plenty on 9-11, they admitted it, and they ignored it, and admitted they ignored it. So tell me why we needed the patriot act, or any of these others when we had all the intelligence we needed to prevent 9-11, etc., but they just ignored it!

[SpiritMatter]

BusHitler Will Get You If You Don't Submit

True peace and security will never come out of the barrel of a gun or through abandoning the vision our forefathers had of a nation that would create hope by recognizing and protecting the truths that all humans are created equal (and some are not more equal than others), and they are endowed by their creator (not a self-righteous Big Brother government) with certain unalienable rights.....<br /><br />The Bush administration is following the playbook Hitler used. The slogan, "Arbeit Macht Frei" , "Work makes you free", was used to shame those who might question the government's policies. Shame is a powerful tool used by all controllers to get others to sheepishly comply. It led millions to their death. Likewise, the "Protect America Act" has a facade that would make anyone that loves America ashamed to stand up and question or disagree with government decisions, actions and unjust laws. Behind the facade is the dismantling of our hard won freedoms and the protective structure from abuse of power of checks and balances to power put by the wisdom of our founding fathers into the Constitution. If Hitler had the computer technology and information networking power that the government is putting in place today, hope and liberty would be long dead, and may be being killed off right before our eyes today.

[Yog Sothoth]

LOL

Did you take your medication today? Seriously, get professional help.