Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Backs Wiretap Bill to Shield Phone Companies
New York Times ^ | 9 July 2008 | By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Posted on 07/09/2008 1:05:04 PM PDT by shrinkermd

WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.

The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late. And it represented a stinging defeat for opponents on the left who had urged Democratic leaders to stand firm against the White House after a months-long impasse.

“I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill,” Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in closing arguments.

But Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there was nothing to fear in the bill “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”

Supporters of the plan, which revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, said that the final vote reflected both political reality and legal practicality. Wiretapping orders approved by a secret court under the previous version of the surveillance law were set to begin expiring in August unless Congress acted, and many Democrats were wary of going into their political convention in Denver next month with the issue hanging over them—handing the Republicans a potent political weapon.

So instead, Congress approved what amounted to the biggest restructuring

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 110th; 1984; 5thamendment; congress; counterterrorism; fisa; fourthamendment; governmentspying; notbreaking; oldnews; policestate; privacy; senate; surveillance; telecom; ussenate; wiretap; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 07/09/2008 1:05:05 PM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
"there was nothing to fear in the bill “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”"

Unfortunately, when speaking of leftists this is not a stretch at all.....
2 posted on 07/09/2008 1:07:15 PM PDT by Enchante (OBAMA: "That's not the Wesley Clark I knew!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

I bet Obama did not even bother to vote.


3 posted on 07/09/2008 1:07:55 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

I don’t trust the government. While I certainly have nothing to hide, it’s a slippery slope. We can only hope that the precident doesn’t allow some future president to justify more overt spying techniques.


4 posted on 07/09/2008 1:09:03 PM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

>>>>>>the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.

Pointless to correct this again, but it wasn’t a “wiretapping” program, it was a trap-and-trace and pen-register program.

There’s a huge world of technical and legal difference among those terms.


5 posted on 07/09/2008 1:10:12 PM PDT by angkor (Conservatism is not now and never has been a religious movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

He was there. How he voted I am not sure. Said he would vote for it. But you know an empty suit is just that!


6 posted on 07/09/2008 1:10:12 PM PDT by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I bet Obama did not even bother to vote.

He voted yes. Hillary voted no.

7 posted on 07/09/2008 1:10:33 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
"The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late."

LOL! Bush just got the war funded... AGAIN!

8 posted on 07/09/2008 1:10:41 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"I bet Obama did not even bother to vote."

Actually, I read on FR that he voted in favor of this. I could be wrong.

9 posted on 07/09/2008 1:10:46 PM PDT by cdbull23 (What's going on in my brain? Check it out: cainsbrain.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Well I was wrong. Obama did end up voting. He voted yes like he indicated in his recent flip-flop announcement. McCain however did not bother to vote, probably hurting his chance to capitolize on this issue.


10 posted on 07/09/2008 1:11:32 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The issue put Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. After long opposing the idea of immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping operation, he voted for the plan on Wednesday.
11 posted on 07/09/2008 1:11:39 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

The DUmmies and KOSnuts heads’ must be exploding this afternoon!


12 posted on 07/09/2008 1:13:50 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The article says he voted for it.

"The issue put Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. After long opposing the idea of immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping operation, he voted for the plan on Wednesday. His reversal last month angered many of his most ardent supporters, who organized an unsuccessful drive to get him to reverse his position once again. And it came to symbolize what civil liberties advocates saw as “capitulation” by Democratic leaders to political pressure from the White House in an election year."

Can't wait to hear his nuanced explanation.

13 posted on 07/09/2008 1:14:18 PM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...
...broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies...

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.

14 posted on 07/09/2008 1:16:40 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

What’s hillarious about this is that

THE

point of contention was the ability for tort lawyers to enrich themselves suing the telecom companies for helping the feds protect us from terrorist attacks shortly after 9/11.

unfrickinbelievable.


15 posted on 07/09/2008 1:17:10 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

If it weren’t so close to elections, I wouldn’t be so afraid of who or how the bill is used in the future.


16 posted on 07/09/2008 1:19:32 PM PDT by prisoner6sson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: avacado
where he has had little success of late."

Other than the Columbian free trade deal, I can't think of a single defeat Bush has suffered in congress in the two years the Rats have controlled it.

17 posted on 07/09/2008 1:19:37 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Obama: This is not the FISA I know... so I vote for it.


18 posted on 07/09/2008 1:20:05 PM PDT by paudio (Like it or not, 'conservatism' is a word with many meanings. Yours may be different from mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

well, giving up liberty for security is a proud American tradition. /s


19 posted on 07/09/2008 1:20:29 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late.

Obviously, they haven't been paying attention. The Republicans/Bush have been kicking their butts all over the place.

20 posted on 07/09/2008 1:20:30 PM PDT by NRA2BFree (LIBERALS SHOULD BE EUTHANIZED FOR THE "COMMON GOOD.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Here's the list of Democrats voting for the bill:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

and 'Independent Democrat' Lieberman (ID-CT)

21 posted on 07/09/2008 1:20:51 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
I looked over at DU and they are vowing to stop Obama donations and redirect them to the ACLU.

The kids are having a fit.

22 posted on 07/09/2008 1:22:24 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Those who give up a liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

Benjamin was a smart guy. I don’t trust the government to stop at this. Once the government gives itself power, it rarely gives it back.


23 posted on 07/09/2008 1:23:18 PM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

The ACLU is only $10 away from having this ruled unconstitutional.


24 posted on 07/09/2008 1:24:08 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
LOL. Omamba rapidly running right.

Soon he will placing himself right of McCain, advocating a flag burning amendment and saying David Duke is a friend of his.

25 posted on 07/09/2008 1:27:39 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Barack Hussein Obama thinks he will be Mr President Obama in January. If you were a power-hungry stealth-communist on the cusp of assuming the highest office in the nation, with grand visions for remaking America, which way would you vote?


26 posted on 07/09/2008 1:30:33 PM PDT by M203M4 (True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Something to think about: Why did Hillary vote no?

Put aside what she thinks about the merits of the bill, and put aside her liberal ideology for a minute. The vote won't make a difference in terms of her next Senate run, and will be long forgotten by 2012. By voting yes instead of no today, she would have decreased the left-wing heat on Obama (not much, but a little). Instead, she opted to draw a contrast between him and her with the vote. It's almost as if she's still in the running to be the Dem's nominee this year.

27 posted on 07/09/2008 1:37:44 PM PDT by Califelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Hehehe, I was just going to post the same list, I see you got it from the same place I did... :-)


28 posted on 07/09/2008 1:38:17 PM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

“I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill,” Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in closing arguments.

Why would Feingold be worried about the rule of law? McCain-Feingold violates the 1st Amendment and he doesn’t seem concerned about that at all.


29 posted on 07/09/2008 1:54:09 PM PDT by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

How did McCain vote?


30 posted on 07/09/2008 1:55:22 PM PDT by Taking Congress back in 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.' --Dosteovsky's 'Grand Inquisitor'
31 posted on 07/09/2008 1:56:23 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Califelephant

You are correct....... Her NAY vote was a great big “neener neener, I told you so” to the left.


32 posted on 07/09/2008 1:57:56 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Do you have a link to the full vote rundown? Thanks.


33 posted on 07/09/2008 2:01:54 PM PDT by bamahead (Avoid self-righteousness like the devil- nothing is so self-blinding. -- B.H. Liddell Hart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Obama promised to filibuster it but now has just thrown all his “civil liberties” base under the bus.
34 posted on 07/09/2008 2:02:32 PM PDT by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Califelephant

I’ll add that it was textbook Clintonomics for her to vote that way. We all know darn well she could care less about FISA and she voted NAY to stick it to Hussein and his followers. Just like all her votes and everything she says and does ~ strictly politics for her advantage.


35 posted on 07/09/2008 2:05:28 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Welcome to 1984. It’s telling that not a single Republican senator voted against this.


36 posted on 07/09/2008 2:06:31 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

>>>>Obama promised to filibuster it but now has just thrown all his “civil liberties” base under the bus.<<<<<<

They got him the nomination.... he don’t need them anymore.
Now he has to concentrate on Joe Sixpack in the center.


37 posted on 07/09/2008 2:09:29 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PastorTony

Yes very telling, TROLL.

Telling that they want to protect your sorry ass even though you hate them.


38 posted on 07/09/2008 2:11:06 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: envisio

So hypocritical, because if this same bill was introduced by a Democratic president all the fake conservatives would be screaming about how it is unconstitutional, but because it’s Bush’s bill we should all be assured that the government will only use this to protect us.


39 posted on 07/09/2008 2:14:15 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PastorTony

What you say is redundant because no democrat is going to put forth a bill to protect us from terrorists.

OH, I forgot, terrorists don’t really exist, right?


40 posted on 07/09/2008 2:17:46 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PastorTony

Ever more reason why your and our informed votes are so precious, aren’t they?

But then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if your city or family were decimated by terrorists, as long as no government agency had, God forbid, listened into their plotting before hand.


41 posted on 07/09/2008 2:21:20 PM PDT by STARWISE (They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: envisio

It’s already been posted here but it bears repeating: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”

When the Dems declare pro-lifers, NRA members or conservative blog posters “domestic terrorists” maybe then you will wake up. Until then , enjoy your police state.


42 posted on 07/09/2008 2:21:37 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
The government has plenty of means to fight terrorists without infringing upon the forth amendment. This bill has killed the forth by nearly eliminating the need to seek a warrant.
43 posted on 07/09/2008 2:23:39 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PastorTony

BYE idiot troll.


44 posted on 07/09/2008 2:25:19 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: envisio

It really is a sad day in America when so called conservatives cheer for a bill that is not conservative at all. No wonder the GOP is in such a sad state, you all have forgotten the basic principles that the party was founded on.


45 posted on 07/09/2008 2:27:07 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PastorTony

I am calling my aunt when I get home to get her apple pie recipe.
I feel really bad because now Bush (with his super secret ear-phones) is going to listen in and the secret recipe will be out.


46 posted on 07/09/2008 2:28:05 PM PDT by envisio (If you ain't laughin yet... you ain't seen me naked. 8^O)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: envisio

So you honestly feel that it’s good that the government can listen to your phone conversations? You trust the government that much? The founding fathers certainly didn’t that’s why they put so many restraints on the government.


47 posted on 07/09/2008 2:30:39 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Why? Obama isn’t going to attack him for not voting on it, and his vote wasn’t needed.

What I don’t understand is why Obama voted. It was bad enough for him that he promised to filibuster and then didn’t, but to actually vote FOR something he vowed to stop 7 months ago is pretty brazen.


48 posted on 07/09/2008 2:30:51 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
What I don’t understand is why Obama voted.

Because he wants the same unchecked power.
49 posted on 07/09/2008 2:32:44 PM PDT by PastorTony
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Califelephant

Of course she’s still running. It ain’t over yet. I’m not counting her out.


50 posted on 07/09/2008 2:33:44 PM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson