Posted on 03/11/2008 3:36:05 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AP) — Locked in a standoff with the White House, House Democrats on Tuesday maintained their refusal to shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without a secret court's permission.
But they offered the companies an olive branch: the chance to use classified government documents to defend themselves in court.
House Democratic leaders unveiled a bill that they hoped would bridge the gap between the electronic surveillance bill passed by the Senate last month and a rival version the House approved last fall.
The House bill also would create a bipartisan commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the Bush administration's secret wiretapping program.
The legislation drew swift criticism from congressional Republicans and from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, who said it fails to fix problems with the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that Congress is trying to update. They also said any bill that does not provide telecom immunity is unacceptable to the Bush administration.
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said the bill would impose "cumbersome" requirements on the intelligence agencies to conduct wiretaps. She also said the proposed investigative commission shows "House leaders are more interested in playing politics" than they are in preventing terrorist attacks.
House Democrats point out that Congress still does not know what the telecommunications companies did that requires legal immunity because the White House has only allowed Judiciary and Intelligence committee members to read the secret documents that underpin the program.
The 1978 FISA law dictates when the government needs court permission to conduct electronic eavesdropping inside the United States. The law has taken on particular importance in the global effort to thwart terrorists since the 2001 attacks on the United States.
The most contentious difference between the two bills is whether they grant legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap phone and computer lines after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without first getting approval from the FISA court. Congress created that court 30 years ago to prevent government abuse of its surveillance powers.
The Senate bill would provide full immunity to the telecommunications companies. The House bill includes no such provision.
The compromise proposed Tuesday by House Democratic leaders is expected to be brought to the floor for a vote Thursday. It would allow the roughly 40 lawsuits that are pending against the companies for their participation in the secret wiretapping program to go forward.
"We are not going to cave in" on immunity, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.
The companies are hamstrung from defending themselves in court, however. The Bush administration is invoking the "state secrets" privilege to block the companies from revealing secret documents that might bolster their argument that the eavesdropping program was legal.
The House compromise bill would encourage the federal district judge hearing the telecommunications lawsuits to review those classified documents in secret to determine whether the companies acted legally.
Judges in criminal cases often hear classified evidence in secret, but judges in civil cases do not, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that does not grant the companies full retroactive immunity from lawsuits.
Democratic leaders say they are trying to strike a balance between protecting the country against terrorist attacks and protecting civil liberties.
Back to serious business!
Gotta have that trial lawyer cash for November, don’tcha know.
Good! I don’t think the telecoms should be immune from such lawsuits. The government should do it’s own spying, and the telecoms should focus on how to provide me with better service.
Now I have a problem with your statement,...since they can’t access the traffic without using the Telco equipment.
Absolute nonsense, the companies didn’t just do this “w/o court approval” as the article says, they did it in accordance with the legislation Congress passed. To have the companies sued for cooperating with a government security program is a nasty little bit of backhanded democrat treason.
Wasn’t there a bit of telecom eavesdropping involved in snagged “Hunka-Hunka Burnin’ Love” Spitzer?
Your implying that they would be found guilty of something. Why do you think that?
The best argument against the House Democrats is an emotional one. Focus on how they pander to the trial lawyers and sell their country out for 30 pieces of silver. That is what they do. Everyone would understand that.
Intel Adviser Breaks with Obama over FISA, Telecoms
****************************EXCERPT***********************
March 07, 2008 12:22 PM
In a new interview with National Journal magazine, an intelligence adviser to Barack Obama's presidential campaign broke with his candidate’s position opposing retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies being sued for cooperating with a dubious U.S. government domestic surveillance program.
"I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity," former CIA official John Brennan told National Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview. "They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context."
"I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that's the right thing to do," added Brennan, who is an intelligence and foreign policy adviser to Obama.
That wasn't just a personal opinion, Brennan made clear to Harris. "My advice, to whoever is coming in [to the White House], is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what's out there, identifying those key issues," including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he said -- the law at the heart of the immunity debate.
"They need to make sure they do their homework, and it's not just going to be knee-jerk responses," Brennan said of the presidential hopefuls.
2 The telecom companies did nothing more than provide assistance in accordance with a law passed by Congress. They would never have done it otherwise.
3 I'm sure you don't like getting sued for cooperating with the government, the legal fees will be millions, and millions more of our tax dollars spent by court involvement.
4 This isn't a dispute over a tree branch hanging across your neighbor's property, this is a war, national security, life and death. You either want the telecom surveillance or you don't. Law suits are preposterous.
5 The telecoms won't cooperate anymore if they will be sued for their cooperation.
Other than that it's fine.
LOL, those scumbags know who butters their bread - - the "jackpot justice" trial lawyers!
“...maintained their refusal to shield from civil lawsuits...”
How much did this cost the trial lawyers in donations to the dems?
Nancy Pelosi is just a high priced call girl for tort lawyers.
Veto! The traitors don’t deserve to have their “compromise” even looked at.
“1 Civil suits do NOT use an “innocent until proven guilty” standard, nor is there a need to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No such protection exists...”
___________________________________________________________
Excellent post. The lawsuits were filed to make a political statement and to fleece the telecoms.
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.