House Democrats to Bush: No way on telecom immunity
Rebuffing a series of incendiary statements from President Bush, House Democrats left town for a week without granting telecommunications firms immunity from violating federal privacy laws.
In a speech on Thursday, Bush accused Democrats of endangering "the lives of countless Americans" by not enacting the legislation he and fellow Republicans had proposed, which includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that illegally opened their networks to the National Security Agency.
The White House subsequently circulated a statement saying: "This risks creating new intelligence gaps, which damages our national security and makes no sense if the first priority is making sure our citizens are safe."
There is a sharp political irony here. The irony is that nearly all House Democrats actually had voted a day earlier to extend the controversial wiretapping law for three weeks--but that bill didn't include telecom immunity.
That wasn't good enough for Republicans, who wanted both the extension and retroactive immunity. Bush even threatened a veto of a bill without retroactive immunity. Portions of the so-called Protect America Act are scheduled to expire on Saturday.
What makes this situation rather bizarre is that retroactive immunity (for alleged illegal activities by AT&T and other telecommunications companies years ago) is unrelated to extending the Protect America Act (which deals with future surveillance authorization). That makes this situation a little like Bush threatening to veto, say, a defense spending bill if it doesn't include authorization for an invasion of Iran.
For their part, Democrats are dismissing Bush's claims as unnecessary fear-mongering. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said:
The president asserts that the expiration of the Protect America Act will pose a danger to our country. The former national security council advisor on terrorism says that's not true. Former assistant attorney general says that's not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that's not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act.
Hoyer is, of course, talking about the secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That court has existed since 1978, and has the power to grant wiretapping orders upon request (remember that the Protect America Act has only been around since last August). FISA even permits the attorney general to conduct wiretaps without court approval in an "emergency situation."
Rep. John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, added:
From what I have seen from the Justice Department documents so far, there is no need to provide amnesty to telecommunication companies who are protected under current law, as long as they and the government are acting accordingly. I have not seen anything that leads me to believe, as the president seems to believe, that providing amnesty to these companies is a more compelling public interest than our constitutionally-protected right to privacy. We must maintain our civil liberties and give the government the tools it needs to collect intelligence information, but I do not believe telecom amnesty is necessary in order to accomplish that goal.
So what happens next? Not much, until Congress gets back from its recess. Then we'll see if the president is willing to negotiate with House Democrats over the scope of federal wiretapping law and retroactive immunity--or whether he'll go back to violating McCullagh's First Law of Politics.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
"The trial lawyers and the activists are licking their chops to press class-action lawsuits... It threatens to undermine Congressional will on national security, and worse yet, leaves us exposed to terrorist attacks through willful neglect of critical intel.
Congress has to act to immunize the telecoms. The lawsuits are nothing but an end run around the legalization that Congress itself passed. That decision didn't come from the telecoms and they should not pay the penalty for Congress' action. These companies have acted to help secure the nation in accordance with our intel communities, and their reward should not be bankruptcy. The American public should not have to pay higher telecom bills in order to provide trial lawyers with big paydays..."
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/013442.php
BS. Total BS. They acted to make money. As soon as the FBI was late on the bill AT&T
and the others cut them off:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080110/D8U35C500.html
That's how much the Telcos care about our security.
They deserve what's coming and thank you, thank you, thank you congress for
showing some spine for once.
This is no different than a man in dark glasses and a suit going to your apartment manager and asking to get into your apartment. THEY CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT A WARRANT. If they did so, you have a RIGHT to seek damages related to this breach of privacy. End of story.
* New York city police officers who sodomized a Haitian immigrant Abner Louima with a toilet plunger, causing major internal damage and two months of hospitalization, have asked Congress for retroactive immunity from criminal and civil liability. An attorney for NYPD officer Justin Volpe argues that without retroactive immunity for his client, who is serving a 30-year prison sentence, criminals would be emboldened and police would live in fear of lawsuits.
* Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who shot and killed unarmed Vicki Weaver when she was holding her 10-month hold daughter, has asked for retroactive immunity. So has the BATF, which paid $3.1 million to settle a civil suit. Both claim that immunity is necessary to protect the "Good Samaritans in law enforcement that are trying to help us" and will have a "chilling effect on law enforcement" if not granted.
And that's just the start...
(The above is satire, in case you didn't get it.)
Declan may have his faults( he knows I beat him up about it) but he is not guilty of what you are frothing on about. You sir are in error not Declan. This time.....
The only thing they want immunity for is breaking the law by
warrant-less-ly wiretapping innocent American citizens'
communications. We all know they did this and are still doing
it now. Somebody, at least, should be held accountable for this
breach of trust. If the telecoms had any integrity to begin with,
they would have told the NSA "do it yourself, I'm not going to
violate people's privacy for you." Does anyone really doubt that
the NSA or CIA has the ability to monitor anything on their
own? Come on, they have an almost infinite budget and the
most high-tech equipment known to man. They already have
spy satellites that can read the VIN number off the dash of your
car.
In today's government, one hand washes the other. Big
corporate money and secret gov't activity are inextricably
linked. I don't want the phone company to be the government.
sand when asked for the warrants, whereas everyone else caved? If
I'm incorrect on this please let me know.
Democrats understanding is not much better. Frankly, is Ron Paul
the only person in the U.S. government that has a clue? I certainly
hope some in government are willing to defend the Constitution
before it becomes pure birdcage liner.
isn't working anymore, it'll soon be time to reap what you have
sown.
I can't wait until the treason trial begins ...
- Capitalism means...
- by Aelwrath April 6, 2008 8:44 AM PDT
- ... that protecting corporations is higher on the priority list than protecting citizen's rights.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)