by James Oliphant
A wave of finger-pointing has come in the wake of the decision Thursday by Democratic leaders in the House to adjourn rather than take up the Protect America Act before it expires Saturday.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would not push through a Senate bill passed Tuesday reauthorizing the surveillance act because the House did not have enough time to debate its provisions, particularly one that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies for their role in aiding the administration's warrantless wiretapping efforts. The Senate bill appeared to have the support of a slim majority in the House.
Instead, the House will be out for 12 days. When it comes back, it will return to reconciling the Senate bill with a measure it passed in November that does not have the immunity provision.
The White House and congressional Republicans have seized on the action, saying Democrats are putting the nation's security at risk.
Bush administration officials said yesterday that the act's expiration means that private telecom companies will be more reluctant to help the government in its anti-terror spying efforts. The companies want relief from some 40 lawsuits they face for cooperating with the administration's now-defunct warrantless spying program that the Protect America Act was intended to replace.
Officials also said that the act's expiration will result in an intelligence "gap" because the government's wiretapping actions will be governed by the language of the old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed in 1978.
But as has become the norm, those officials would not say which companies were reluctant to help the government, nor the nature of the intelligence gap created by the act's expiration, citing national security.
FISA requires a warrant be obtained by applying to a secret intelligence court before a wiretap can be placed on a line used by a foreign agent. The Protect America Act, passed just last year in a rush by Congress, expanded that power to allow the National Security Agency to monitor calls originating in foreign countries that pass through U.S. communication nodes without having to obtain a warrant. It also allowed, in certain circumstances, the NSA to listen in on calls involving U.S. citizens and foreign targets without a warrant.
The act also contained a provision granting civil immunity to telecom companies going forward. Congress placed a six-month expiration date on the act so that its civil liberties ramifications could be debated more thoroughly.
Here's what happened: The House passed its bill, called the RESTORE act, which scaled back the Protect America Act and denied retroactive immunity protection to the telecoms. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, produced its own bipartisan bill that basically mirrored the current act in many respects, including granting retroactive immunity. But the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy, attempted to place several amendments on the bill, one that stripped the immunity provision, and another that sought to prevent the act to be used to "reverse-target" Americans.
After a long, drawn-out procedural battle over whether those amendments would be voted on on the floor of the Senate, nearly all of them failed earlier this week and the Rockefeller bill was passed and moved over to the House. That gave the House just days to act. Democrats accused Senate Republicans of putting the brakes on the bill while it was in the Senate to produce this very situation.
House leaders had just a few choices: rubber-stamp the Senate bill, try to get another extension on the Protect America Act while it worked on a final bill, or allow the act to expire, take the political hit and work on a new bill anyway. Meanwhile, President Bush Thursday racheted up the pressure on the House by saying he would delay his trip to Africa to help work on a final bill before the current one expires.
The House attempted to pass a 21-day extension of the act Thursday, but it failed after President Bush said he would veto it.
That pushed Pelosi and company chose Option 3 and decide to let the act expire, saying the House wouldn't cave in to what she called "fear-mongering" by the White House. Democrats say that because any wiretaps authorized under the Protect America Act are good for a year, U.S intelligence-gathering won't be damaged while a new bill is worked out.
The White House, not surprisingly, disagrees. Any new wiretap, it says, will now require a warrant -- a lengthy and time-intensive process.
But remember that second option, the extension? The White House was pressed Friday as to why, if the Protect America Act is so important to national security, Bush wouldn't agree to a three-week extension. Here is the exchange between reporters and deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel:
Q: Why not have another -- I know you guys are sick of these, but another 15-day -- I mean, if the threat is so grave, isn't that better --
STANZEL: Simply passing -- Congress -- you must remember that Congress set its own deadline. They set a six-month deadline to review these issues. We felt that that was plenty long enough, and the fact that it was going to expire is not something that we supported in the first place. The terrorist threat is not going to expire.
So they asked for a 15-day extension to again review these things. But I think as you heard, I think it was [Rep. John] Boehner talk about, it calls into question their desire to really address these issues in a full way if we are doing extension after extension after extension, and that is no way for the intelligence community to go about its planning. And it causes greater concern, I think, to our ability to work with the private sector to make sure that we're able to track what terrorists are planning overseas.
Q: But why isn't a temporary extension still better than nothing? I mean, I understand why you want to get the retroactive immunity and why you think that's important. But if the leadership isn't offering that, why wouldn't another temporary extension be better than nothing?
STANZEL: I would put it another way: What is it that they need more time for? The solution is there. The solution is before them. But they are blocking the solution. Why are they blocking the solution? For partisan reasons. They are blocking that because they are beholden to class-action trial attorneys.
Q: But given that they seem to be intractable right now, wouldn't you still prefer to let the law keep going for a while, than to have it expire?
STANZEL: Well, an extension was rejected by a majority in the House of Representatives.
Q: Right, and I'm asking why, given that they're allowing that to happen, it seems to me to call into question some of these statements that now there are going to be gaps -- dangerous gaps in intelligence-gathering.
STANZEL: There will be.
*****
Q: I'm just still not clear on the question about the -- why the administration decided that, hey, we're not going to do an extension.
STANZEL: I would take -- the question is premises on the fact that an extension was available. An extension is not. A majority in the House of Representatives rejected that approach.
Q: But that's based on -- said he would veto --
STANZEL: They've known since November -- they've known since November that our approach has been very clear, that --
Q: But if the President is serious about protecting the United States, which is the point that he has made in now three statements in three days about this, that if this is so vital and that the process is so cumbersome to get the kind of warrants you need through the previous process, before PAA, then why not tell the Republicans on the Hill, his party, that, okay, you know what, we need an extension, to continue doing it the way that he wants --
STANZEL: Democrats are in control of the House of Representatives. If they're serious they will bring up the bipartisan Senate-passed bill for an up or down vote. Simple as that.
So, who's at fault? House Democrats? Nancy Pelosi? The White House? All of the above? None of the above? Decide for yourself.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
It's about time the Dems got some guts!
Posted by: proudliberal | February 15, 2008 2:15 PM
"The White House and congressional Republicans have seized on the action, saying Democrats are putting the nation's security at risk".
The Rethuglicans still don't get it that their fear and smear tactics don't work anymore.
WE ARE NOT LESS SAFE BECAUSE THE TELE-COM COMPANIES DON'T HAVE RETRO ACTIVE IMMUNITY.
This Republican administration can still spy on Americans like they want to, they just have to get an f-ing warrant now, something that these corrupt criminal Rethuglicans should have had to do all along.
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 2:17 PM
As much as I hate to defend the democrats, the press shouldn't be asking "who's to blame" and starting a flamewar between the two parties. This is a situation best left to the parties to resolve so that the FISA extension - which everyone has agree to - can go into effect.
There's been enough blameshifting as it is.
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 2:24 PM
Let's see, this bill was extended twice. The provision giving immunity to the Telecoms had been the point of debate for months. The Senate passed it Tuesday. The House could have done so Thursday. It would have passed in the House, something the News Distorters at the Trib continually neglect to support.
Speaker Botox Bug Eyes contentin is a pile of bull feathers. A lie. Garbage. It's time to string up Syria's best friend on treason charges.
Posted by: John D | February 15, 2008 2:38 PM
"THE BUSH/CHENEY SYNDICATE SPEAKS"
OH MY GOD! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO NOW? STOP READING "PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFINGS" NO WE DID THAT ALREADY. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? RELEASE AN OLD FOOTAGE OF "OSAMA BIN LADEN" IN A CAVE? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? HIDE HARRIET MIERS AND JOSHUA.
WHO IS GOING TO PARDON YOU DICK? WHO IS GOING TO PARDON AT&T OR VERIZON WIRELESS EXECUTIVES GEORGE?
WHAT IF "CONGRESS GIVES THEM IMMUNITY" TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE DID PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2001. WHAT IF THEY TURN OVER THE "PELICAN BRIEF" RELATING TO FORMER SUPREME COURT JUDGES CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU DICK?
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF WE ARE HELD TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF AMERICA CONTINUES TO RECOGNIZE "THOSE FOREFATHERS" THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO DICK?
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 15, 2008 3:00 PM
Speaker Botox Bug Eyes contentin is a pile of bull feathers. A lie. Garbage. It's time to string up Syria's best friend on treason charges.
Posted by: John D | February 15, 2008 2:38 PM
Nice....just like a typical Rethuglican, if they don't get their way they want to start killing people and blowing up cities here in America.
There really isn't much difference between today's rightwing lunitic fringer (John D) and radical Islam.
Johnny DiceLand,
Again, why do the Rethugs like you think it's necessary for the Tele-com companies to have immunity in order for America to be "safe"?
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 3:01 PM
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080213_the_powerful_and_obn.htm
Posted by: Blaine Kinsey | February 15, 2008 3:01 PM
It's not a complicated issue.
The White House and the Republicans have operated under the current bill happily for months now.
THEY are the ones who say that the current bill MUST be changed. (That point is open for debate, but let's assume it is true.)
So until the issue that is holding the bill up is decided, why is it that the current, acceptable legislation can't be used?
Hopefully, the Democrats will dig their heels in on this one and show the country what hypocrites the Republicans truly are.
Posted by: dogjudge | February 15, 2008 3:24 PM
John D once again calls for violent acts. I fear there is a very thin line separating John D from becoming Stephen Kazmierczak. I hope he doesn't have access to guns.
Posted by: Luke | February 15, 2008 3:24 PM
George Bush is willing to let Americans die in order to protect the phone companies. This fool needs to be tried for treason - I am dead serious.
Posted by: Dave | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM
Any new wiretap, it says, will now require a warrant -- a lengthy and time-intensive process
This of course ignores the provision of FISA that allows them to wiretap first and the take up to 72 hours to get the paperwork together.
Are we to understand that the main impediment to our effectively fighting terrorism is laziness?
So it would appear.
Posted by: Paul Dirks | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM
John D IS RIGHT,
Pelosi has actively tried to undermine Americas efforts to win the war in Iraq and on terror.
Between her actions involving Turkey, the way she lead the dems to try and get Turkey to stop providing us vital logistical support and now after 194 days sitting on the bill she finds no time to deal with the issue.
I think it is very close to Treason.
Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM
"Luke" and the Swamp's resident nut, John E., please explain how suggesting Pelosi be brought up on treason charges is an act of violence? Pelosi defiantly cavorted with Syria's Assad and now she is endangering the lives of Americans. By law, each of those instances is an act of treason.
And, by the by, esch and every day you Loons call for Bush and Cheney to be imprisoned, waterboarded, hanged, shot, etc., etc. So, who is advocating violence? Again, if you folks can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: John D | February 15, 2008 4:15 PM
The house already passed a version of the bill that does not include Telecom immunity. Why are the Republicans and DINOs like Rockefeller in the Senate putting the interests of the Telecoms ahead of their constituents? They must be getting some very nice payoffs via campaign contributions from these corporations.
Posted by: Tom O | February 15, 2008 4:16 PM
What is it that democrats are doing against America that wiretaps worry them so much?
Posted by: Mike McBride | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM
George Bush is willing to let Americans die in order to protect the phone companies. This fool needs to be tried for treason - I am dead serious.
Posted by: Dave | February 15, 2008 3:26 PM
You sound like you are more brain dead than dead serious.
Posted by: cj | February 15, 2008 4:17 PM
The Congress should be working on a bill re-affirming the 4th amendment and our Constitutional protections in general, which they are under oath to protect in all their actions. Regardless of what they pass, it is not legal under the Constitution to spy on Americans without probably cause of a crime.
Posted by: Bob Dobbs | February 15, 2008 4:19 PM
John D-
You said to string her up, i.e. lynch her.
It's certainly not the first time you've wished for prominent Democrats or others you disagree with to be killed. You seem to have some strong violent tendancies. Seriously seek help before you harm others.
Posted by: Luke | February 15, 2008 4:38 PM
If the timing on this is so critical then Why aren't the senators trying to pass the bill that the house passed several months ago?
Posted by: Carl L | February 15, 2008 4:47 PM
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO DICK?
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 15, 2008 3:00 PM
Roger you should really seek some mental treatment, perhaps some "meds" might be in order. Your beginning to sound as moronic as John E.....and that takes some doing Roger.
Posted by: Don B. | February 15, 2008 4:48 PM
No matter what Pelosi says, the House has already agreed to the FISA extension. If she'd allow it to go up for a vote it'd pass.
The delay technique is shameful, but she still has a chance to do the right thing and schedule the floor vote as soon as possible.
There's no argument, whatsoever, over whether or not it would pass.
Posted by: Jeff | February 15, 2008 4:53 PM
John D. - What should we do with the other Republicans and Democrats that joined Pelosi to Syria? GOP Reps. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, Frank Wolf of Virginia and Robert Aderholt of Alabama held talks with Assad the same weekend.
Posted by: pd | February 15, 2008 4:57 PM
I couldn't have put it better than they did at Fark.com...
Bush: if we don't let telcos off the hook for letting me spy on everyone YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE
Posted by: rncbs | February 15, 2008 5:04 PM
Luke,
You are wrong and you know it. It was obviously not literal.
Just dishonest at your core....
Posted by: joe | February 15, 2008 5:04 PM
Facts:
The White House was on board with the Senate Bill.
The Senate Democrats were on board with the Bill.
The Senate Republicans were on Board with the Bill.
The House Republicans were on Board with the Senate Bill.
Most House Democrats were on Board with the Senate Bill.
The Bill would have passed on the House floor.
President Bush would have signed the Bill.
The House Speaker Pelosi, didn't allow a vote.
You all can try and spin this thing anyway you want, facts are facts.
If, if something did happen and it could have been stopped, but wasn't because the House refused to vote on it, because they wanted to get out of town, who are you going to blame? Read the facts before answering. Bush or Pelosi.
Posted by: PG | February 15, 2008 5:07 PM
The House Dems are standing my ground by standing their ground. Good job House Dems!! Please continue to stand firm for us after the 12 day break. Then, when Bush gets back, offer him your best bill that protects America WITHOUT immunity for lawbreakers. At that time, let Bush veto a bill that protects America. If he wants to protect corps. over Americans, I hope that will begin putting impeachment back on the table. This way, the lawlesness will stop. The Good American victims can learn who they are, what was done to them, and, hopefully, they'll be given a means for amends to restore their names. I do not want to live in a lawless land--the Count of Monte Cristo was SO two centuries ago.
Posted by: Vivian | February 15, 2008 5:16 PM
Between her actions involving Turkey, the way she lead the dems to try and get Turkey to stop providing us vital logistical support and now after 194 days sitting on the bill she finds no time to deal with the issue.
I think it is very close to Treason.
Posted by: Joe | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM
That's because you're a moron who lacks this self confidence to even stick to one post name on here.
Juanito
Leo T
MJ
Anonymous
joe
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 5:25 PM
The phone companies gave the government information they had concerning the routing of phone calls. A bunch of greedy lawyers who value their money more than anything else have contributed to Pelosi and now want to cash-in. She's been bought and paid for.
Posted by: whatnow | February 15, 2008 5:29 PM
Joe-
I have no idea what John D may be thinking, nor do you. All I know is that he comes on this site daily and makes a disturbing number of comments speaking positively about violence on Democrats and those who disagree with him. That pattern of behavior is not normal, and may very well be a warning sign of actions that may follow.
Posted by: Luke | February 15, 2008 5:31 PM
"Luke" and the Swamp's resident nut, John E., please explain how suggesting Pelosi be brought up on treason charges is an act of violence? Pelosi defiantly cavorted with Syria's Assad and now she is endangering the lives of Americans. By law, each of those instances is an act of treason.
And, by the by, esch and every day you Loons call for Bush and Cheney to be imprisoned, waterboarded, hanged, shot, etc., etc. So, who is advocating violence? Again, if you folks can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
Posted by: John D | February 15, 2008 4:15 PM
Lil Johnny BeefJerky,
Treason? you mean like when Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby outed an undercover CIA agent for political purposes, that kind of Treason???
PS - you and joe need to start uping the dosage of your meds, Pelosi was accompanied by 4 REPUBLICANS on her trip to Syria....oh that's right, now I see why Lil Johnny is crying, I forgot, we're not supposed to talk to people we don't like just like 8 year olds do on the play ground...my bad, I forgot.
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 5:34 PM
If the past successes of The Bushies and The Republicans are any indication of future success, what could possible harm could this bill do. Whoa!, I guess they might uncover The Canadian Invasion Plot.
Posted by: thomas fullman | February 15, 2008 5:44 PM
Education instead of emotion.
Here are the Congress sites (votes). Check their votes, check what else they did (description).
If you get tired of being called a moron, then just show facts. How they voted, who voted, what else they worked on instead of this Bill.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/index.asp
You see who voted hit the number on the left.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020
However you look at it Congress is controlled by the Democrats. They put the Bills on the floor, not the Republicans. Facts folks, facts.
Posted by: PG | February 15, 2008 5:44 PM
Democrats are more interested in playing who took steroids than protecting America. There was 2 days for the House to debate but the Democrats didn't want to debate. If the Senate Democrats wanted to stall till day 164 to pass the bill then claim their hands are clean the House Democrats may want to address them on the delay instead of Republicans. They have both chambers. The House leaders could have voted on the bill and if they didn't like it vote against it but vote anyway, that's their jobs.
Posted by: Toby Hill | February 15, 2008 5:52 PM
"The White House and congressional Republicans have seized on the action, saying Democrats are putting the nation's security at risk."
And I'm tired of Republicans putting our freedoms and liberties that are the foundation of this country at risk.
Posted by: DD | February 15, 2008 6:36 PM
"John D once again calls for violent acts. I fear there is a very thin line separating John D from becoming Stephen Kazmierczak. I hope he doesn't have access to guns.
Posted by: Luke | February 15, 2008 3:24 PM"
We should be thanking the lord jong d has access to weapons! I no some bad things have to happen because of them, but it's the 2nd amendment for god sake.
Everyone hear should be proud to bare guns!
Get out of here liberals.
Posted by: Bushman | February 15, 2008 6:42 PM
I should proof read! ha! I meant John d not jong!
This internet is incidious.
Posted by: Bushman | February 15, 2008 6:44 PM
What is it that democrats are doing against America that wiretaps worry them so much?
_____________________________
Defending the Constitution.
Posted by: rncbs | February 15, 2008 7:42 PM
However you look at it Congress is controlled by the Democrats. They put the Bills on the floor, not the Republicans. Facts folks, facts.
Posted by: PG | February 15, 2008 5:44 PM
I guess as a Republican I'm supposed to be scared right now because our big Tele-Comm company pals don't have retroactive immunity from the crimes that they didn't commit even before 9/11, huh?
Good god fellow Republicans, grow a pair would ya?!?!?
Quit giving up your Constitutional rights just because you think you're towing the Party line, Bush and Cheney are leading you off a cliff...
Posted by: Fuke | February 15, 2008 7:46 PM
That's because you're a moron who lacks this self confidence to even stick to one post name on here.
Juanito
Leo T
MJ
Anonymous
joe
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 5:25 PM
johnny little e,
I did I admit the other day submit a post and inadvertently left out my name portion and the post went up under "Anonymous"
As for the other names you refer to - haven't used them. I assume that you bring them up because they have spoken poorly of your posts.
I'm not surprised really, I am sure there are a lot of people that visit this site that think poorly of your posts. I am glad they have chimed in on your corrosive and childish shrill.
You are very annoying, is that your goal?
Posted by: joe | February 15, 2008 8:30 PM
You are very annoying, is that your goal?
Posted by: joe | February 15, 2008 8:30 PM
YES!!!!
...and that goes out to you and all of your phony post names, you socio-path.
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 9:37 PM
Suddenly! Joe tries to be the voice of reason...
Posted by: C.Morris | February 15, 2008 10:20 PM
Suddenly! Joe tries to be the voice of reason...
Posted by: C.Morris | February 15, 2008 10:20 PM
I remember a picture taken while the 2000 election was yet to be decided by the US Supreme Court. There was Bush, flanked by two top advisors, with a mug in front of him with the inscripted words, "Continue to Play Hardball". And that's all that Bush and the Republicans have played since taking office. When Bush finally admitted that there were no WMD's, he sacrificed whatever power he thinks he has. But he still wields it with the help of a Republican congress and shell-shocked Democrats. The bill ought to die. And Bush/Cheney ought to be impeached.
Posted by: ji_john | February 15, 2008 10:49 PM
The shaking in our boots that this country has been doing for the last eight years is beneath a great nation.
From my discussions with Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals in my home town it is obvious that they are scared shitless of their shadows... and proclaim themselves to be the Big Daddy Party all day long. In fact, they are cowards who shiver and cower behind the cloak of Bush and Cheney who they proclaim to be Big Brave Men. The Texas National Guard AWOL story tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Bush and tells you quite a bit about what you need to know about the rest of the Republican Party.
I have no respect for fearful, whiny people who crave a despotic tyrant to protect their tiny little existences and who scurry toward tyranny at the first sign of a crisis. That is exactly what the Republican party represents. Our present administration is nothing if not an embarrassment to anyone who believes in freedom, open government and democracy.
Ironically, it is those who are not sufficiently afraid of terrorism who are called cowards by the Scaredy Pants Rightwing. If you are not shitting in your pants in fear of the taliban coming to your local school board, then you are unpatriotic!
Those who view the taliban and their ilk as a bunch of piss-ants who should not be accorded the status of soldiers in a war but merely criminals are viewed as Un-American. Those who believe the 'war on terror' is a power-grab orchestrated by the Republican/military industrial complex are called cowards! Those who are insufficiently hyperventilating are sissy-pants!
It's long past time to throw this whole sack of nonsense back in their faces.
I am not averse to telling people to their faces that they are more likely to be struck by lightning than a taliban boogeyman. I try to make people think about it, but I am not above making fun of their fear.
Posted by: joey | February 16, 2008 12:37 AM
Joe, you need to know that "John E" posts as many people on this Swamp. He'll even post as Swamp posters, isn't that right John E?
Anyway, Luke, you still don't get it, do you? When I advocate "violence" against Dems or those "I disagree with," I'm just giving back to you folks the same stuff you dish day after day.
The reality, though, is that Nancy Pelosi does practice treason day after day. As does Harry Reid and many other Dems. I'd love to know how FDR would deal with them, wouldn't you?
Posted by: John D | February 16, 2008 1:06 AM
1. Does "liability protection" have anything to do with creating a gap in our intelligence collection capability?
No! Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, admitted as much in an interview Thursday morning on National Public Radio:
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.
The "real issue" is not intelligence collection gaps but liability protection for the private sector.
2. Why is the Bush administration so insistent on giving retroactive immunity to the telecoms?
Taking them at their word, George Bush and Mike McConnell are putting the nation at risk in order to insure that AT&T and Verizon do not have to be held accountable in a court of law for having broken the law.
Twisted and corrupt indeed. But, remember, it's not just so that AT&T and Verison aren't held accountable. It's to prevent legal action going forward that, in the discovery process, would expose the full extent of the administration's illegal activity. This isn't just protecting AT&T and Verizon. It's protecting the Rove/Gonzales/Cheney/Bush cabal.
Friday morning’s Rocky Mountain News, not known as a bastion of liberalism, editorialized,
No immunity:
If immunity is in the final legislation - and Bush has said he'd veto any bill that doesn't include it - it would kill the 40-plus lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms in federal court. The litigation challenges the legality of the program and the actions of telecoms that cooperated with the government.
If the lawsuits don't move forward, we may never learn if some telecoms compromised the privacy of innocent Americans. A grant of immunity could also set a dangerous precedent for other businesses when federal agents or local cops who don't have a court order demand private or confidential information about their customers.
3. Didn’t the President’s illegal wiretapping program begin in response to the panic after 9/11?
Not according to the editorial (and confirmed in other sources):
Court documents released in October revealed that Nacchio [Qwest’s CEO at the time] first met with national security officials in February 2001 - six months before the 9/11 attacks. "Nacchio's account," The Washington Post reported, "suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon."
4. If immunity is granted will the private sector refuse to cooperate with the government?
After all of the speeches Republicans made on Thursday, you might think this was a big deal. It is, but not in the way you may think. The claim is dishonest and the Bush administration knows it. Under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They don’t have any other option. Without immunity, the telecoms will be reluctant in the future to break the law again, which should be a desirable outcome. It was the Qwest legal team’s opinion that the request was not legal, so they didn’t participate. AT&T and Verizon said that Washington persuaded them that it was legal and so they participated.
What the protests from both the administration and the corporations amount to is one law-breaker telling another law-breaker, "you cover for me and I’ll cover for you." Or, as the Rocky Mountain News concluded:
Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush said Wednesday, punish companies that want to "help America." Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution - and so should the government.
Posted by: ghost of joe | February 16, 2008 1:25 AM
bushdog, 6:44pm is pretty early for being totally inebriated.
Hooray for the Dem leadership finally showing some spine to Mr. 24%. Let's make Blubberin John Boner cry some more!
Posted by: weinerdog43 | February 16, 2008 1:28 AM
Mike McBride, What is it that president and the telecoms have done against America that makes them worry so much about retroactive immunity?
Posted by: Tom O | February 16, 2008 2:20 AM
The Democrats think the War on Terror is a bumper sticker. They won't make America safe Change to these Jackasses means soft on radical Islamic Jihad and AlQueada. Osama is hoping B. Hussein Obama gets elected it will be cumbaya before America is destroyed along with Israel.
The Dems sold out the country by not passing this bill for wiretaps for war criminals to trial lawyers desire to make big amounts of money from suing phone companies deep pockets and they own Emmanuel and Pelosi along with Dickie Durbin who invented the magic Obama.Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | February 16, 2008 8:27 AM
From the UK Spectator:
"Should members of Britain’s beleaguered and persecuted bombing community be subjected to intrusive surveillance techniques such as bugging? It seems a bit illiberal, given their very real difficulties in day-to-day life. Hard enough trying to find a safe place to hide all that fertiliser, castor beans, etc., without having to worry if your whispered conversations after Friday prayers are being eavesdropped upon by some spook. There is probably a European Union law about bugging Muslim terrorists, which insists you have to notify them in advance and also provide disabled access ramps if you’re bugging them in a public place."
Too funny. Too true.
Posted by: Harry Lauder | February 16, 2008 8:48 AM
You are very annoying, is that your goal?
Posted by: joe | February 15, 2008 8:30 PM
YES!!!!
Posted by: John E | February 15, 2008 9:37 PM
Well little john e,
Now no one can say you never accomplish anything.
You are a said case indeed.
Ya can't fix stupid...
Posted by: joe | February 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Mike McBride, What is it that president and the telecoms have done against America that makes them worry so much about retroactive immunity?
Posted by: Tom O | February 16, 2008 2:20 AM
They haven't done anything wrong but in case you don't get it- lawyers can still use law suit tactics to extract $$$$ from them.
Democrats - The party of special interest - the pandering party - have long been in bed with the Trial Lawyers. Never saw a law suit they didn't see profit in- the hell with the country .
That's why they need retro active immunity.
How can all you people not see that?
Posted by: D. Wham | February 16, 2008 1:30 PM
The fact is, democrats have more concern for terrorists than they do Americans. Look at gitmo.
Democrats worry about the terrorists more than they do our own troops. Democrats in Congress have taken 7.5M in contributions from the ACLU and Trial Lawyers. That is what is holding up this bill. The right to sue is more important to Democrats than the rights of the rest of us to live in safety and security, and will be the driving reason they won't take the White House this year.
Posted by: Mike McBride | February 16, 2008 1:38 PM
Posted by: John D | February 15, 2008 4:15 PM
So it's treason of anyone decides to not vote for a law that you are in favor of?
You are such a loser, John D.
The Bush administrations activities of trying to undermine the rule of law and circumvent the constitution in an attempt force all republican beliefs on the American people is what is truly treasonous.
Posted by: syj | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM
Fuke,
I don't care what Party your with or who you vote for, the facts are what they are.
Democrats control what happens in Congress, not the Republicans, and that includes Bush/Chaney.
However you look at it Congress is controlled by the Democrats. They put the Bills on the floor, not the Republicans. Facts folks, facts.
Now, if you want to debate what Constitutional rights are being stripped away, by either Party, all Political officials and special interest groups, that'd be fine by me.
So lets just start with every entitlement program that Politicians have promised/created (for votes) ignoring the Constitution, forcing the taxpayer to pay for something that isn't in the Constitution.
Posted by: PG | February 16, 2008 4:12 PM
joe,
'ya can't fix stupid'
You're the self generating proof of that one, buddy.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 16, 2008 8:12 PM
D.Wham, So that means Dubya is willing to veto the new FISA bill and accept the risk to our country he says that will cause because he is determined to save AT&T a few bucks in court costs? Yeah, right.
Posted by: Tom O | February 17, 2008 4:13 AM
D.Wham, So that means Dubya is willing to veto the new FISA bill and accept the risk to our country he says that will cause because he is determined to save AT&T a few bucks in court costs? Yeah, right.
Posted by: Tom O | February 17, 2008 4:13 AM
Tom O,
A pretty simple answer to your question.
President Bush "has to have a Bill to veto".
The House Democrats refused a floor vote for the FISA Bill. No Bill, no veto.
Facts, facts facts...........
Posted by: PG | February 17, 2008 2:55 PM
CORRECTION: I have been notified via e-mail that I unwittingly gave some misinformation about Mark Klein in a previous post. In November 2007, Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, visited Washington D.C. to talk to Senators, congressional staff members and journalists about his personal knowledge of wiretapping by the National Security Agency (which directed the Terrorist Surveillance Program), including massive unfiltered electronic surveillance of Internet traffic and telephone calls to and from U.S. citizens. This disclosure has been an integral part of a pending lawsuit against AT&T, yet this information had received little media attention prior to Mr. Klein's visit to Washington. I erroneously wrote that Mr. Klein testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 8, 2007. Mr. Klein's trip to Washington coincided with a Senate Judiciary Committee "mark-up" hearing that had been scheduled on November 8, 2007 (and that was postponed one week) to discuss the pending FISA legislation, and I had misinterpreted some contemporaneous news reports to indicate that Mr. Klein was going to testify at this Senate hearing (which was not really a hearing). I reviewed several contemporaneous news reports about Mr. Klein's trip to Washington in November 2007, and these reports are vague with respect to any members of Congress who may have met with Mr. Klein, but Mr. Klein provided information to staff members of Senator Dodd, some other congressional staff members and journalists in November 2007. Mr. Klein tried to provide information to some Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Senators Feinstein, Senator Leahy and Senator Specter), but Mr. Klein was ignored publicly by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Klein never testified before any congressional committee. I am attempting to correct an article I wrote that included this misinformation, and I apologize to readers for my error.
Posted by: Blaine Kinsey | February 17, 2008 8:00 PM
PG, Fact is, Bush threatened to veto the bill if it did not include telecom immunity, didn't he? He doesn't have a bill to veto yet because the Democrats in the House didn't cower in fear when the president made his little speech.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 18, 2008 1:16 AM
Good spin. "Bush threatened to veto".
There is a difference between a threat of a veto and actually having a Bill TO veto.
But it was good spin.
Point was the Bill, was going to pass, that's why there was no vote.
Posted by: PG | February 18, 2008 12:52 PM
Veto: one more point.
If the House felt so strong about this option in the Bill, and a threat of a veto, then.......
You still bring the Bill to the floor, (how you want it) the House then votes, Bush then veto's, then Congress has the chance to vote again over riding the veto. Or it gets changed.
You don't say "well, well Bush is threatening a veto and go home." That's why people are sick of Congress.
Posted by: PG | February 18, 2008 1:03 PM