backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 86 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Mar 18 at 11:45 PM
Congress defies Bush Administration after a late night-secret session

The House of Representatives voted today to pass a key foreign surveillance bill that refuses amnesty to telcos for helping the government conduct warrantless wiretaps.

The bill, known formally as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 3773), replaces an emergency piece of legislation that expired last month, and it installs a number of new limits on how the country can conduct surveillance against foreign nations and citizens on and off American soil. The bill passed this morning by a thin majority – 213 to 197 – after the Bush Administration called the first secret house debate in a quarter century to discuss its merits last night.

H.R. 3773 turned into one of the central battlegrounds in the ongoing debate on whether or not to give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for assisting intelligence agencies that served them with warrantless wiretap requests, with the current administration demanding amnesty.

Adamant about shielding telcos from liabilities resulting from what the President views as valuable assistance, the Bush Administration maintained it will veto any spy bill that doesn’t meet its requirements, including H.R. 3773. Since the bill passed by such a close margin, it won’t have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

H.R. 3773’s passage is a “significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism,” said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

The Administration’s favor has instead been directed at a similar Senate bill, passed last month, which grants telcos immunity and provides far more expansive powers. Both the Senate and House versions of the bill are now slated for combination – mainly to resolve the two versions’ differences – and then head for President Bush’s desk.

“The good news is that the House bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate and, in any event, would be vetoed by the President if it ever got to his desk,” said Fratto.

Democratic representative Jerrold Nalder of New York accused the Bush Administration of fear-mongering. “It is time to reject the scare tactics of the Bush administration and enact this carefully crafted legislation,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy calls the House bill an improvement over the Senate version, and condemned the Bush Administration for thwarting compromise. “Unfortunately, congressional Republicans and the administration have refused to engage in meaningful discussions or negotiations about the legislation,” said Leahy. “The White House has tried, again, to treat Congress like a rubber stamp.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good for the House
By phisrow on 3/15/2008 1:30:29 PM , Rating: 1
That said, I can hardly believe that this is even a matter of debate. How have we come to a point where the question: "Should we grant retroactive immunity to criminals?" is seen as worth debating?




RE: Good for the House
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 1:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing what the debate is about. The Democrats are trying to call the telcos criminal. (After all, they are part of corporate America which is completely evil to begin with.)

The Republicans believe they deserve immunity because they were asked to help the government with wiretapping foreign communications not protected by the 5th amendment. This had nothing to do with wiretapping your phone conversations with you mom.


RE: Good for the House
By smitty3268 on 3/15/2008 2:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
I think you've got that backwards, there. It isn't the democrats who were insisting to put in a section of the law that says the telcos are criminals. It was actually the Bush administration who insisted on putting in a section that said no matter what the telcos previously did, they were making it not criminal. All the House has done is refuse to add something that Bush wanted, and said that if anyone has broken the law they shouldn't be let off the hook.


RE: Good for the House
By DRMichael on 3/15/2008 4:15:52 PM , Rating: 5
Try thinking logically for a second and without letting your unfiltered hatred for Bush to interfere: The reason for immunity is the government cannot divulge in a civil suit the classified nature of the foreign surveillance. This would mean when Mr. Sammy Socialist files a suit claiming AT&T violated his privacy on an incoming international call from Mr. Al Qaeda, the Feds are not coming to the rescue of AT&T to say “Well you see Your Honor, we had knowledge from an inside operative by the name of Agent Dead Manwalking that Mr. Al Qaeda is planning attacks”.

This entire topic is nothing more than Democrat Talking Points. There is oversight just as before. The difference is the amount of time needed to obtain warrants. Additionally, ask yourself why the Democrat controlled Senate passed a bill (68 – 29) that allowed immunity back in February.


RE: Good for the House
By rninneman on 3/15/2008 4:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Very well said. You deserve a +6.


RE: Good for the House
By RogueLegend on 3/16/2008 4:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
You know, you should give the logical thoughts a try yourself. If you would think without letting your favoritism of Bush for a moment, you would realize that Mr. Al Qaeda isn't going to use obvious means of communication (especially over American telephone lines) to relay attack plans.

Furthermore, this was never JUST an issue of surveillance on foreign communications- there's plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that they were monitoring domestic communication as well.

This entire topic has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans or even socialism (relating issues like this to socialism is one of the most brain dead arguments I ever heard from republican supporters). This has everything to do with American citizenship.

Privacy was NEVER a hallmark of socialist ideals. Socialism was more about economics if anything. But if you look at the way socialism was practiced, do you see anyone's privacy being protected? Answer that question before you respond to anything else.

Privacy was always an American democratic ideal. So the person you're accusing of being a socialist is suing to uphold his democratic ideals? You people twist language and ideas in interesting ways to fit your view of the world.

Further, Sammy is not a socialist. Remember Uncle Sam, the personification of America's identity???

This just shows how skewed your views are at a fundamental level.

What is most ironic here is that the Fed is using the telcos to violate our privacy- yet they use the priviledge of state secrets (yet another form of privacy) to protect themselves from presenting evidence in cases involving so called enemies of the state. I'm sorry, there's only so much hypocrisy that many in the American public can take before they fight back.

Yes a Democratic controlled Senate passed the bill, but if you paid any attention, most Democrats at the time were not at all happy with the way their friends voted. Obama happened to be one of those Dems who rejected it. There's a few reasons why the Democrats voted the way they did on that bill, none of them good ones, but I'm not going to start a whole secondary debate on this.

My main point is that this is not party issue, nor is an issue of socialism. Libertarians thankfully understand this. Bush is only bringing America closer to socialism by spying on its citizens and handing the telcos immunity after the fact. In fact, it sounds exactly like the kind of stuff that happened in the former Soviet Union. What's funny about this, he's trying to get it done at the end of his Administration. And yet, all the Republicans were pissed about Clintons pardons....


RE: Good for the House
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 9:39:42 AM , Rating: 5
Wow…you’re reading way too much into it, but if it makes you feel smart then good for you.
Let’s analyze your criticism, shall we? And I’ll attempt to stay above the fray by not speaking like a bigot i.e. “You people twist language and ideas in interesting ways to fit your view of the world”
quote:
you would realize that Mr. Al Qaeda isn't going to use obvious means of communication (especially over American telephone lines)

So just because you believe this, the government should not utilize FISA laws to monitor incoming calls from suspected terrorists? This is an invalid argument which neither I nor, I suspect, the American public would accept as a prudent step in defense of the homeland.
quote:
there's plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that they were monitoring domestic communication as well.

Really, if you have that evidence the ACLU would love to talk to you. You see, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled last July that they had no legal standing because they could not prove they had been targeted by the program. Additionally, the Supreme Court denied the appeal this last February.
quote:
There's a few reasons why the Democrats voted the way they did on that bill, none of them good ones, but I'm not going to start a whole secondary debate on this.

Secondary debate? This is the part of the post where it’s obvious that you are in denial. Please elaborate as to why on the one hand the Democrat controlled Senate voted to allow immunity for the Telco’s and on the other hand the DNC’s talking points are quite the opposite?
Listen, I understand you are simply repeating what you have read from some blog or have been told. However, it would serve you well to conduct your own research so that you have a CLEAR understanding of what it is you are talking about. The 1978 FISA ACT was amended by the Patriot Act. The current legislation passed by the Senate but amended by the House can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c110query.html Search by Bill Number HR3773

Once you’ve read it, come back and make your arguments; I would be happy to discuss it.


RE: Good for the House
By RogueLegend on 3/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Good for the House
By RogueLegend on 3/16/2008 4:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, meant to say "the government is monitoring domestic communication". I was a bit fast on the post button.


RE: Good for the House
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 6:40:32 PM , Rating: 5
I don’t really follow what you’re attempting to get across here. Let me state this as clearly as I can: As of now there is NO EVIDENCE of domestic spying. The ACLU brought a case before the court without substantiating evidence that domestic spying has occurred and the court dismissed their complaint.
quote:
Yeah, the "blogs" I've been reading are the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post. Feel free to look over these "blogs."


I looked at your sources and let me quote:
He (Mark Klein) alleged that the NSA set up a system that vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

This would seem to suggest that there might be some evidence to support your claim that there is domestic spying taking place. However, nowhere in Mr. Klein’s allegations did he say he was privy to what the NSA set up other than a ‘secret room’ with a ‘splitter’ that “was sweeping up everything”. While this makes for great newspaper headlines, it is far from knowing exactly how the information was being used. Your assumption is that the NSA is domestically spying.

However, in another source you suggested, I found the following:
The NSA "strictly follows laws and regulations designed to preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," agency spokeswoman Judith Emmel said in a statement …
Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB12051...

This would seem to dispute your assumption that the NSA is conducting domestic spying.
So here we are; he said – she said. As I stated before: There is no evidence that domestic spying is taking place.

As for the other comments you made: "you are obviously not interested in discussing anything. Your points are faulty at best, and you draw incorrect conclusions from the evidence you present."

You have no evidence of domestic spying other than hearsay. This is tantamount to saying you’ve seen Bigfoot, but have no conclusive evidence to substantiate your claim. Therefore it is you who have failed in your argument.


RE: Good for the House
By CarsonM on 3/16/2008 7:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome post DRMichael! But your probably waisting your time with this one.

As the Captain said in 'Cool Hand Luke' - "Some people you just can't reach"


RE: Good for the House
By Ringold on 3/16/2008 4:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Al Qaeda isn't going to use obvious means of communication (especially over American telephone lines) to relay attack plans.


I stopped reading right there, since you got that one entirely wrong. They do utilize phones, and they do utilize e-mail. Whether or not they come right out and say "The bomb will be at the corner of 1st & 23rd at 2:31pm" is a different issue. Have you even read in to the issue in the slightest? How do you think they communicate, carrier pigeons?!


RE: Good for the House
By phxfreddy on 3/18/2008 11:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why are cat lovers and femmy guys always democrat? Can you tell us? You certainly have first hand knowledge......


RE: Good for the House
By theapparition on 3/17/2008 7:24:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That said, I can hardly believe that this is even a matter of debate. How have we come to a point where the question: "Should we grant retroactive immunity to criminals?" is seen as worth debating?

Seems to be status quo for illegal immigration though, not that it's right either.......


This just boggles the mind
By theeq on 3/16/2008 12:24:16 AM , Rating: 3
This is something I just can't seem to understand. As a note, my political views are very liberal, but I'm going to ask you to completely ignore that for the time being. What I can't seem to understand is when did my country become such a shouting match? I'm not particularly old, but even I can remember a day when people wouldn't sling around slogans like "Sammy Socialist" and "Ignorant Cattle" and actually give an opposing viewpoint a chance. Folks talk about "applying logic" or "opening their eyes" or whatever phrase of the day it is, but what they really seem to be saying, at least to me, is "look at this from my point of view only." I'm sorry, but America was built on conflicting ideas and both sides of the fence need to recognize this. That's right, both sides. I am sick and tired of right wing accusations of "terrorist loving" - honestly, you really think we love the people who actively attack our home? - and left wingers accusing anyone they don't like as a fascist. Look at the political debates these days. No politician is prepared to say anything anti-war because they will instantly be branded as a pinko freedom hater. On the flip side, liberals will demonize any little phrase they dislike with equal gusto. I personally find very little logic in most of the things the Bush administration has done and will be glad when it is over. However, when I see some new policy or idea come from our present administration, I do my very best not to immediately dismiss it as idiotic drivel and consider it in relation to what is best for the country. Not my personal beliefs, not my agenda, not what mommy and daddy or the news tells me, but what I honestly believe would be better for the country. Do I think a ban on assault weapons would be good for the country? Yes. Do I think lower taxes are good? Yes. Do I agree with Bush's tax cuts? No, but instead of complaining, I try to think of ways they can be changed to help the american people as a whole and then write to my legislators. Issues are never, ever, simple right and wrong answers and I encourage anyone who truly thinks that to ponder over that viewpoint.

As to the issue at hand, I think both sides have very valid points. No, the Telcos should not get away with breaking laws. Yes, they were presumably doing their country a service and should be recognized. But as I understand, this has gone from civic duty to profit making machine. Once it was established that there weren't hundreds of even slightly useful phone calls being pulled every day or week, even, I would think that warrants and proper legal process would be entered into the equation though. And to head off someone trying to snipe me here, no I don't know for sure there weren't tons of useful calls being farmed. But at the same time, I have developed this opinion over several months of research and news stories with no real information to the opposite. If someone can present me with evidence to the contrary, I will be more than happy to incorporate it into my understanding and viewpoint.




RE: This just boggles the mind
By DRMichael on 3/16/2008 10:47:25 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
this has gone from civic duty to profit making machine

Please elaborate.
quote:
no I don't know for sure there weren't tons of useful calls being farmed. But at the same time, I have developed this opinion over several months of research and news stories with no real information to the opposite. If someone can present me with evidence to the contrary, I will be more than happy to incorporate it into my understanding and viewpoint.

So you’ve formed an opinion based on no proof either way? I would conclude, as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, that without proof it would not be appropriate to bring an accusation of wrongdoing.


RE: This just boggles the mind