Posted on 12/17/2007 5:08:20 PM PST by xcamel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's demand for immunity for telephone companies that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program won an initial victory on Monday in the U.S. Senate.
On a vote of 76-10, far more than the 60 needed, the Democratic-led Senate cleared a procedural hurdle and began considering a bill to increase congressional and judicial oversight of electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists.
It includes a provision to grant retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that took part in Bush's spying program -- surveillance without court warrants of e-mails and telephone calls of people in the United States -- begun shortly after the September 11 attacks.
Nearly 40 lawsuits have been filed accusing AT&T, Verizon and Sprint Nextel Corp. of violating U.S. privacy rights.
Backers of immunity, who include some Democrats as well many of Bush's fellow Republicans, contend companies should be thanked, not punished, for helping defend the United States.
But civil liberties advocates and a number of Democratic lawmakers argue the courts should determine if any company violated privacy rights of law-abiding Americans.
Democrats vow to offer amendments in coming days to remove the immunity provision while backing a number of proposed new civil-liberty safeguards that enjoy broad support.
Sixty votes will likely be needed to prevail on any such immunity amendment in the 100-member Senate. "It's going to be an uphill battle," a Democratic aide said.
Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, interrupted his long-shot presidential campaign to return to Washington to help lead the charge against immunity. "For the last six years, our largest telecommunication companies have been spying on their own American customers," Dodd said.
"That decision betrayed million of customers' trust," Dodd added. "But was it illegal? I don't know. And if this bill passes in its current form, we will never know."
The White House said in a statement, "Providing liability protection to these companies is a just result" and warned that allowing litigation "risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding intelligence sources and methods."
The House of Representatives last month defied Bush and refused to shield phone companies from lawsuits. Both chambers would have to agree to immunity before it could be granted.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires the government receive the approval of a secret FISA court to conduct surveillance in the United States of suspected foreign enemy targets.
But shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized warrantless surveillance of communications between people in the United States and others overseas if one of the parties had suspected ties to terrorists.
Critics charged that Bush violated FISA, but he argued he had the war-time powers to do so. In January, Bush put the program under FISA's authority. Terms remain secret.
In August, Congress bowed to Bush's demands and expanded U.S. power to conduct surveillance without a court order.
The Senate bill would provide new protections of civil liberties, such as requiring tougher congressional and judicial oversight.
(Editing by Patricia Zengerle and David Wiessler)
Yeah well for 135 years we didn't have a phone in every house and for 215 years we didn't have cell phones. Now we not only have cell phones outnumbering landlines but throw away phones available in every community.
When foreign calls from suspected terrorists in terrorist-harboring countries call we don't always have the time.
The very phrase is a lie. The targetted communications were always between a party overseas suspected of ties to Al Qaeda, and another party possibly in the U.S.
Traffic analysis? Sure I’ve done that. But here computer programs are sifting through call detail records, emails and probably all forms of communications looking for patterns related to terrorist names and numbers. They then hand the results over to people to investigate. I fail to see your problem.
As far as the likes of Hillary getting in again this is tailored towards foreign-to-domestic. Not the other way around where a warrant is necessary as far as I understand.
Again the threat has always been there. Radio communications were used and Uncle still was clueless even with it broadcasted in the clear. The problem is these are foot in the door precedents for domestic intimidation or possibly prosecutions on matters completely unrelated to terrorism or even national security at all. Right now I bet if I had access to your computer hard drive I could find evidence that would make your life miserable. Would you like the world to know your phone conversations? Are you absolutely certain about that? What about those jokes your old army buddy sent ya know those pictures? Yea Mr Whoever we have them in our records.
Now let's address another issue. With the storage of databases kept on all of us which is where this is leading up to comes the problem of data theft. All this bits and pieces at a time sold to the sheeple in the name of the WOT. No thanks.
I’d be upset at a warrantless domestic spying program, but applying that description to a program intercepting communications to and from suspected AQ agents abroad is simply a lie.
The executive branch has the power as an accident of war to intercept suspected enemy communications. It does not need a warrant to do so. An innocent party calling, say Pakistan, having their conversation monitored as a result of NSA monitoring of communications between the US and Swat province is no more a victim of government violation of privacy than an innocent party calling a business suspected of being a mob front on which a warrant for a wiretap was issued. The only difference is the constitutional basis for the intrusion, in one case presidential war powers, in the other, a court finding that the telecommunications analog of a search was reasonable.
Tell me something. Are you any more dead by say 200 years ago causing a stampede through town killing people? The threat of violence is as old as Cain and Abel so are attacks by the weapon of the age. Name me one government that has suceeded in stopping it. The only workable solution is well armed and free citizens.
Criminals will do what they wish, regardless of law. As will socialists.
I cannot support restricting freedom because of what the base-minded might do with freedom. If a citizen abuses another, we as Americans must have an answer, sufficient to prevent a recurrence of the offence. If a citizen offends the rights of another citizen, we must have a punishment suitable for the greatest of offenses. That is what our Founders envisioned.
But an object, by itself, cannot reach that level of offense. A firearm (gun) is incapable of such an act. We punish the offender, not the object.
Your opinion on this topic was made very clearly in post #3, now you are being redundant!
Post 37 will likely make you very happy then :>} Short and to the point.
Technology is no defense against the US Constitution.
We monitor millions of communications more than we can actually use. The idea we might use the concept that there are more communications than we can intercept as the reason why ALL communications are subject to intercept is, well, anti-American.
The US Constitution trumps all.
As a Former Hole Snipe, Nothing you have been rambling about makes me happy...
I want my government to do the “ONE” job they are supposed to do...KEEP OUR FAMILY SAFE! NO MORE NO LESS!
ALL the rest of your diatribe is you listening to the liberal mantra! PERIOD!
And that's what's important to 'conservatives' these days isn't it? 'Safe'. You'd sell out every freedom, every liberty, and every limitation intended on the federal government so you can 'feel' safe.
And when this round doesn't make you feel 'safe' what will you be willing to sell out next?
I’m going to say this ONE TIME!
If our nation falls to foreign hands because of snivelers whinning over/for their civil rights...who are you going to whine to.
This nation will survive with the support of all it’s citizens or be ripped apart, because of us arguing among ourselves.
I’m with defense FIRST, So we can enjoy our civil rights!
Yep the commies will be around next week. Oh wait, the Islamonazis. That's some faith you have in the general citizenry of this nation that you believe it could fall to a bunch of desert dwellers with no armed forces to speak of. Now let me say this one time eh?
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.--James MadisonYou want to hide under your bed, hand over your freedoms (present and future) to the government under the auspices of 'protecting' you? Fine the government will gladly do thatIf tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy--James Madison
Freedom and liberty are not cozy. They are scary. And with them comes the responsibility that you may not always feel safe and that you are going to have dangers that come with it. If you don't feel up to the job just say so..
So do I. I want a realistic military at least one third larger than todays which BTW is still at Bill Clintons 1996 End Troop Strength Levels. I want all gun laws repealed except for violent felons. I can keep my family safe. I do expect the congress however to abide by the Constitution and make provisions for our troops needs and instead not their stinking contractor buddies companies. I want Admirals and Generals to get off their Blessed Assurances in the Pentagon Offices and in the planes as in actually on watch and on duty like the men serving under them.
I want to see the eight year enlistment obligation scuttled for first timers and returned to three and three or four and two and them left alone after four years. I want to see the GI Bill I had that newer recruits did not restored. I want to end our dependence of National Guard Units and Branch Units as foreign combat deployable not once but several times ended enough is enough. I want to see more than one carrier producing yard operational preferably on another coast or at least outside Tidewater for Pete Wakes we now have one we did have four and we used two.
I want to see carriers stop using the ditch to cover the M.E. How about 24/7/365 in the MED again? We did it and two carriers on station. I'm for it.
I'm for US Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, and Sailors, wearing nothing but the finest American made uniforms. I am for their weapons and all other needs being no less as well.
I am for holding Pentagon Flag officers and civilian DOD /Pentagon officials responsible for such royal screw ups as the Kennedy and Kitty Hawk problems after 9/11. I bet the yard work request turned down tells the story. Two Captains were sacrificed instead then another then another.
Few realized that we lost a carrier in the mid 1990's thanks to poor planning under Poppy and Cheney as well as Clinton who sent it on cruise number three unfit for sea. Not a Forrestal Class one but the newest KH class carrier because somebody was pinching pennies from 89-94 and skimping on yard repairs. It blew up {MMR} at the pier at the end of a third deployment in as many years. Would you have wanted to been down in that HOLE Snipe?
I am damn sick and tired of reading about our troops being Court Martialed for actions in a civil war and second guessed by the former Army of Saddam and also their buddies who have been PC Indoctorinated into the kinder gentler military as well. All in the name of Political Correctness and don't offend the Islamics especially the Sauds who actually attacked us on 9/11. Tell me why on 9/11 Americans could not fly but certain Middle Easterners could and even out of the country?
Name me one POTUS since Reagan who has actually done anything but lip service for the troops? The adults never took charge and the help never came. I am PO'd that we are now alliance dependent for even covering our own turf domestic air space. 5 years into it you tell me what has changed? Even Carter finally woke up or rather his Sec Nav did. That was what actually began the New Navy that Reagan built on. I wore the old dress blues that looked like an officers uniform and whe I was getting out I had to buy the Cracker Jacks. 2000 and something along come Rummy to change it all again. Sheesh. I know what dysfunctional means military wise as I was in under Ford and Carter. I do not like Carter a bit. But we stayed mission functional despite him and Ford.
But no Republican will ever admit things had gone to crap military wise before Carter even took over. I remember the 30 day UA instant civilian policy and Rummy tried to do it again under GW Bush. When I got out if you walked they caught you. When they caught you they tacked the AWOL on to the enlistment time plus bad time {brig} and a BCD then still made you do your service time. That finally stopped it.
National Defense is the Number one function of government and it can't even do that right and that is not the fault of those serving that is a civilian and upper Flag Officers issue who are largely politicans themselves waiting on a cushy corporate seat on retirement.
Our troops should have been home from Iraq four years ago and Iraq in smoldering ruins but hey contractors who are friends of key elected don't make any money without nation building which I am 100% against.
I have had it with the GOP of Gerald Ford and their recycled failure has been appointees. We need another Reagan. Military wise Hunter is it he is the most knowledgeable in that area and our best hope to get it built back up. As for actual Conservatism and restoring us to a more Constitution anchored nation again Ron Paul is it. The rest? Not on my vote.
*(=
But don't play around with the law like this. If its good for the country, get the country behind it straight up and change the law out in the open, instead of this sneaky Executive "override" of Congress.
Agreed to all....
Except Ron Paul!
So well-armed citizens stopped every stampede that came through town?
New technologies call for new measures to defend against them. That's so basic it's hard to believe anyone can't grasp it. How would a well-armed citizenship defend against air or submarine attacks? Nuke attacks?
We have to be vigilant when it comes to these kinds of new laws, but to simply say "Nope, what worked 200 years ago will work for the next 200 years" is to be uninformed about reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.