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)
The government can get the warrants *retroactively* up to three days later. I simply don’t understand why this program is even needed—it’s certainly not a matter of taking the time to get the warrant.
I’m constantly amazed at some of the opinions here. Do we really want Hillary or Hussein to have this power?
I want to kill every fracking terrorist, too. But falling to foreign hands? Our nation falling to Al Qaeda?
How would that work, exactly?
Illegal immigration is another subject entirely, and neither Congress nor the executive branch have done anything about it. I regard that particular problem far more important than benign foreign to domestic phone call monitoring in the interest of our domestic security.
The history of our country has seen civil rights swing more like a pendulum rather than a slow march forward or a lazy drift backwards. In times of war patriots have often sacrificed some of their civil rights to get the job done. Lincoln, FDR and others have done far more along these lines then Bush ever thought of doing (jailing reporters, internment camps for Americans, forced rationing, blackouts, drafting citizens, etc.). Yet, after Nixon’s abuses were exposed we couldn’t pass enough laws in the 70s, 80s and 90s protecting individual rights as well as promoting special rights for every sort of American we could think of. We crippled our intelligence agencies and handcuffed our law enforcement organizations to ensure individual freedoms. I suspect when the current war passes, Americans will again reclaim their rights in one way or another. Yes, I expect there will be abuses of the laws we pass today which are done for the express purpose of protecting Americans. When that happens, I am sure the pendulum will swing again toward more civil rights, individual freedoms and of course more risk. Some Americans sacrifice by putting on uniforms and making lousy paychecks. Others accept the fact that their conversations may be monitored. This is nothing new and I would not have it said that this generation was the first generation who would not sacrifice in any way shape of form because someone somewhere might abuse that power. Of course power will be abused and we must always be on guard against such things. At the same time, it may be a cliche that freedom isn’t free and I see this as one of the prices we are forced to pay... but for the time being, only.
do you believe these folks.....’cant surrender rights....for safety’
....i’ll gladly give up my right not to have phone calls monitored for jihadi terror patterns in order to keep the country safe from incineration.....that is one great trade off in my book
apparently there are some who don’t think its a great swap...whew....do they have death wishes or what?....the Constitution is not a suicide pact....the founders never envisioned the speed and lethality of jihadi’s with millions of oil money, cell phones and suitcase bombs...plain and simple.
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.
Not to forget fax machines, electronic text messaging, TTY phones, Voip, computer to computer, email, and at least a zillion other ways for bad guys to communicate with themselves.
The real challenge is how to best monitor in real time, all those methods within the bounds of Constitutional Rights and freedoms as the founders understood it. A most difficult, and I might add life and nation threatening dilemma.
The only workable solution is well armed and free citizens.
There isn’t much to argue with except for the fact that I do not consider myself well armed, and every day that passes, because of government regulation and law, I become even less so. Well armed might begin with an Abrams in the driveway an F-15/F-22/F-35 with all the extras in the garage, and a nuclear sub at the summer home on the coast.
Nope and that was my point. Some things you won't stop. Nuke attacks? Did we pass laws rescinding rights and freedoms during the Cold War? A nuke I am not worried about. It's the Bio and chemical weapons that can be sneaked around and no law is gonna help except perhaps SECURING OUR OPEN BORDERS something Bush will never do.
But at the same time well armed citizens can stop such things as a small group of thugs with box cutters from taking over a plane. For that matter a small group of unarmed passangers can stop it as we found out. Which would you rather see? A system where everyone but the foreign nationals is nearly strip searched for a flight, or simply having some armed persons onboard who reduce the odds to nil and make flight actually the fastest way to travel again. When our troops are strip searched during the process of bringing home a fallen hero we have a problem. Scrap TSA. TSA was another bad idea pushed upon us by fear over reason.
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.
Tell it to the persons who have placed almost every critical Naval asset we have all in the same port area how about it. If that area gets hit we will not recover ever. The potential for the entire East Coast Carrier Fleet and any future production capabilities gone in minutes. That threat has been there ever since but thanks to Poppy, Cheney, Clinton, and congress is far more serious now as other key facilities which could have done the job as well are gone for such things as to make room for China to bring in more crap to our ports.
Intel is the answer and acting on it but you aren't gonna get what you need from the ones in charge of it today. All of our existing laws pre-Bush were sufficient. The real problem is having competent persons to gather and process the information. Make gathering intel on foreign nationals a military operated task instead of one controlled by DOJ and state department which is where the failures are coming from. But first we need a POTUS of Reagan caliber who will get the job done. Rudy? Forget it. Mitt? Nope not him. McCain? I don't think so. Thompson? He would likely appoint a John Warner type as Sec of Defense no thanks. That leaves Paul who is not strong in that area either his weakest area IMO the rest I agree pretty much with him on, Tancredo who would be good domestic wise as good as Paul, and Hunter the only one running with answers on this.
Any candidates demanding our boundaries be placed back at 50 miles? If you go to a beach on any given day except in the pouring down rain and look out at sea any ship you see is likely in International Waters. As for subs? Why are the S-3 Vikings parked and sitting idle? A China sub surfaced near a carrier a year ago and what has the Smirking Chimp done? China is gonna pass us up Navy wise real quick and our Chimp in Chief won't even have congress step up our own defense productions because it might cut into his precious nation building program funding one of the most insane ideas in post WW2.
We need more ships especially subs to counter this threat but what is he doing Instead? Nothing but foolishness. Wanting to create meaningless data-banks on your phone and Internet habits. See a problem there? Wrong answers for the needed solution. The persons he wants to give these new powers too have done proven they can't do the job right to start with. That is the real problem. They demand more realistic solutions.
Indeed. The Constitution is our safeguard against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If we throw out the Constiution, we're not the United States anway. We might be "the land formerly known as the United States."
Well, thanks for starting my day with my daily requirement of cliched rhetoric. I should have known since you sidestepped my initial point--always a bad sign. Another sign is when you drone on and on in order to get out of direct responses to a couple of sentences.
Reagan signed an amnesty, so if the above is the best you can do--oh, Poppy was funny, too--to address the actual issues, I'll say have a nice day.
“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.”
Such a novel idea.
“The biggest act and the most important one which has stopped terrorist attacks has not been new laws or programs. It happened on 9/11 in the skies over Pennsylvania.”
And that worked out so well for the passengers.
I’d suggest you start stocking water, canned goods and ammo and convert your paper money into gold, then lock yourself in a closet.
We have to go back to what worked and it wasn't that complicated. A fully armed F-15 parked on the tarmac with a pilot suited and able to be in the air in a few minutes is one. That was not there on 9/11. Our defenses were so slack the enemy saw oppertunity and took it. You, me the spy down the street at that time could walk on any military facility including submarine berthing areas unchallanged. The history channel was showing classified material as well. Nukes were removed form most ships a deterant to chemical and bio attacks.
Basically though we still are not in a defensive posture. We are still doing too much with too little and Bush is a clueless one on national defense matters except to make certain of his No Contractor Left Behind Programs. That is because he hired fools from Republican failures past to do the task. The ability to hire wise advisors and listen to them instead of loyal yes men is what made Reagan a legend in good national defense posture and will make Bush one of the worst presidents in modern history because of his loyality demands. Nobody tells a Bush they are wrong mentality has done it's damage.
I won't even go into his just like Clinton technology exchanges with China. The difference is Bush simply calls it Free Trade and the sheeple believe it because he is a Republican. Who dare speak against the king in time of war they say? Bush and his dad have done as much if not more damage to our military and national defense as Bill Clinton. It was a GOP majority who had the house most of the time this happened as well.
Think about this a few minutes so it can sink in. You enjoy freedoms today because at some point a Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, or even the milita's of 1776 saw the price of their sacrifice as worth it for the freedom of this nation.
The people on that plane knew they were doomed. They and they alone choose how they would respond to a terrorist attack. Their act of heroism did more to deter future attacks than any government program created since. When Americans finally once again understand what was understood up till just a few decades ago it will not get better no matter how many rights you surrender to Uncle FED. Giving up freedoms for security makes you as much a slave to a master as the enemy itself.
I suggest you find better heros than John Lennon.
The Founding Fathers could envision “Millions for Defense, but Not One Red Cent for Tribute!”
There are NONE today who might embody that simple maxim. The Fathers knew that evil must be confronted and defeated, not dialogued and appeased.
Well said! I just don’t understand how anyone on FR can trust Hillary Clinton with this authority. And my own conscience says if I can’t trust Clinton then NO MAN or WOMAN should have this power. Period.
Yes Reagan did make a few mistakes. But he was also wise. For example he let Israel take out Saddam's nuclear program. Funny isn't it they knew where to hit and when. Did he send in Sec of State to say Oh wait a minute now? Bush's Road map to hell with Israel is a disaster anyone who has read the Bible should recognize.
Now as for your beloved Poppy? Who ended the F-14 project? Who even when at war was taking the nation into a massive downsizing of troops? Who was that POTUS who set policies that allowed a carrier to become unsafe for sea yet Clinton sent it out after Poppy got done with it {Three major deployments in three years} and it had a boiler room explosion? Which congress was the majority for six years under Bill Clinton yet did nothing to reverse or even stop his and Poppy's tearing down of our defenses?
People love to gripe and blame the DEMs for their dirty deeds and they should. But why excuse the GOP for the exact same thing then? Rummy was a looser Sec of Def during Fords term who actually created what Republicans refer to as the Hollow Carter Military. It was hollow when Carter got it. I remember I was in it. AWOL and desertion was rampant. Morale was zilch. Tradition was gone. That was February 1977 when I got to my ship.
When I left it in Oct 80 thanks to Carters Sec of Navy 79-80 the only thing Carter did do right actually those things were dealt with in a quick and expedited manner.
I do my homework which includes looking up actual End Troop Strength Numbers during Clinton's terms as well as ship strengths during Reagan's years. If you think the Kitty Hawk and Kennedy fiasco's immediately after 9/11 where they could not get underway was the first warning sign of bad problems you are wrong. The warning came in 1994 and was read in the halls of congress in an address to Sleepy Eyed John Warner himself.
Let me tell you something else. I don't care about your politics, your political party, or likely even your candidate. I care about this nation as the founding fathers intended it to be.
As for side stepping your point? No I didn't. The WOT is a Bush policy with the childish slogan he used with it for getting his bad ideas through and trying to label unAmerican all who dare disagree with him. Dangers we have always had and always will. Up till the post Reagan White House we managed to avoid the idea of swapping rights for security. Bush has even used the WOT to push through Fast Track Trade Authority and some are too blind to see it. Possibly our children and for certain our children's children will be slaves to China thanks in a large part to Clinton and Bush policies. All because the sheeple could not and would not open their party blinded I love my parties king eyes.
In todays political party worship times even Patrick Henry himself would be labeled a traitor and whackjob by ones calling themselves conservatives.
huh? Unless it’s your phone thats tapped....of coarse.
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.