House votes 213-197 to reject retroactive telecom immunity
The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly approved an electronic surveillance expansion without immunization for any telecommunications companies that illegally opened their networks to intelligence agencies.
The 213-197 split, with most Democrats voting in favor of the bill (PDF) and most Republicans opposing it, hardly means that the political tussle over retroactive immunity is over. It now shifts to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said he was "encouraged" to see the House vote.
But the primary obstacle remains President Bush, who has threatened a veto. The White House circulated a statement after the vote calling it a "a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism" that was "not a serious effort to move the legislative process forward."
Another section that the Republicans dislike is this, which I'll excerpt:
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.--There is established in the legislative branch a commission to be known as the "Commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities"
The Commission shall ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts and circumstances relating to electronic surveillance activities conducted without a warrant between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007 (and shall) evaluate the lawfulness of such activities
Especially because the commission would be organized under the legislative branch, and would have subpoena power with the authority to enforce its subpoenas in court, it could result in some embarrassing disclosures about the National Security Agency's surveillance program.
Friday's vote also signals that the political climate has changed since last August, when Republicans outmaneuvered their opponents into voting for surveillance legislation with scant debate or hearings. Democrats acquiesced for fear of being perceived as soft on terror, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying the bill did violence to the U.S. Constitution.
But now, with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both opposing retroactive immunity, with a new Justice Department report critical of FBI surveillance abuses, and with a stronger public perception of the Bush administration as having gone too far, the Democrats are more willing to fight back. Nineteen Democrats released a statement this week saying that they've seen classified documents and no immunity was necessary; an unusual closed session on Thursday was intended to make the same point.
Before the vote, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes (D-Texas), said the measure gives telephone companies the ability to present otherwise-classified evidence, one-on-one with a judge, that could show they deserve such immunity. "If they did nothing wrong, as they have said, then they will be immune from any lawsuit," he said before the vote.
The debate before the vote was contentious, with more hoots and catcalls than usual. The lack of retroactive legal immunity for telephone companies also drew accusations from several Republicans that Democrats were handing out favors to lawyers who would ostensibly profit from the court proceedings moving forward. The bill is "nothing more than an earmark for the trial bar," charged Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)
Republicans also assailed the Democratic leadership for failing to permit an up-or-down vote on the Senate version. They attempted, but failed to push through, a procedural move that would have allowed the House to consider the Senate version of the bill automatically if the House version didn't pass.
Republican leader John Boehner accused Democrats of failing to bring up the Senate bill "because it would pass."
Democrats repeatedly accused the Republicans and the Bush administration of engaging in a smear campaign designed to undermine their bill's passage. "The president has said our legislation will not make Americans safe," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "The president is wrong, and I think he knows it."
Some pointed out that telephone companies and other corporations who open their networks lawfully to the government already have "immunity" under law. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) read from that passage of existing law and then proclaimed, "I think the administration is more concerned about their liability than the phone companies."
News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.
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. 
was lawful...it clearly was under the patriot act...the democrats are
trying to find out now if it was immoral...If the U.S.
government...not just the republicans...took this thing too far...they
can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned...as long as it
keeps terrorists away from here
point by point because you're just wrong in every single possible
way. This is how nazi germany came about, because of idiots like
you that are willing to throw away your liberties for the *ILLUSION*
of safety. Try studying some history, particularly how adolph hitler
came to power and what became of that. Maybe, if you have a brain
anywhere left, you'll start to see why you are so wrong.
The logic used by Bush is the same logic used by Julius Caesar, and which changed Rome from a Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, and by the democratically elected Hitler to justify becoming a self-righteous dictator. Bush and his followers are out to institute a pseudo sharia type false Christian morality into our supposedly religion neutral secular legal system. If Caesar and Hitler had the information and control capabilities that Bush wants to wield such as Real ID etc., their inhuman self-righteous tyrannies would still be ruling the world.
activities conducted without a warrant between September 11,
2001 and January 17, 2007 and not when it started?
Is illegal surveillance OK if it happened in the 9 months it ran
prior to 9-11?
It is so specific and unnecessary whilst being a howler, maybe to
set the stage for a whitewash? maybe.this is how the dems get
to cave in; stand tough, do an investigation and determine at the
end that it was all just a part of the flush of patriotic fervor that,
lord knows, any patriot would feel?
Go Ron Paul!
http://ronpaul2008.com
Terrorists can kill a handful of people but can't harm the US as an entity because it is too big and too strong, whereas an overly powerful and intrusive government can bring down the US way of life from the inside by taking away hard fought for freedoms and liberties.
To date no terrorist groups has ever taken away even a single US freedom by force of arms or argument, yet the US government has signed away so very many by means of legislation and law.
label do you give them? Sounds like dialogue from a three stooges
movie but not any where near as funny. Before Bush is done he will
have made Nixon and any other terrible president look like boy
scouts. The U.S. is just now starting to experience the result of
letting a complete ass run the world's most powerful country and I
would hazard a guess that it won't be out from under his shadow
for some time to come.
- If immunity is so important to the president
- by aka_tripleB March 15, 2008 9:40 AM PDT
- then why doesn't he grant a pardon and put his own butt on the line? The president is trying to use "state secrets" to cover something up, but won't tell other people why they need to do it. The legislation and especially the judicial branches should have enough privelage to now why they need to know why they should put own butts on the line to cover-up what the president did.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Perhaps...
- by Commander_Spock March 16, 2008 2:59 PM PDT
- ... it is like when the communication is: "SEAL Team One This is SEAL Team Two..... How about finding out the "answers" to your "questions" from BlackWaterUSA. Inc.!
- Like this
-
(33 Comments)http://www.blackwaterusa.com/