Senate OKs New Rules on Eavesdropping

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Senate OKs New Rules on Eavesdropping stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

PAMELA HESS | February 12, 2008 11:28 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. right, looks on as Senator Christopher Bond, R-Mo., discusses Senate action on the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Tuesday, Feb. 12,2008, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday approved new rules for government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, giving the White House much of the latitude it wanted and granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped in the snooping after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Protection for the telecom companies is the most prominent feature of the legislation, something President Bush had insisted on as essential to getting private sector cooperation in spying on foreign terrorists and other targets. The bill would give retroactive protection to companies that acted without court permission.

The House did not include the immunity provision in a similar bill it passed last year. House Republicans now want to adopt the Senate bill, which would avoid contentious negotiations to work out differences between the competing legislation.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.

Bush promised to veto any new surveillance bill that did not protect the companies, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.

The president called the Senate bill a good piece of legislation that allows the intelligence community to monitor communications of foreign terrorists while protecting Americans' liberties. He urged the House to pass the bill and send it to his desk without delay.

The Senate bill provides "fair and just liability protection to those private companies who have been sued for billions of dollars only because they are believed to have done the right thing and assisted the nation after the September 11th terrorist attacks," Bush said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said Tuesday he still opposes retroactive immunity.

Story continues below
advertisement

"There is no basis for the broad telecommunications company amnesty provisions advocated by the administration," Conyers wrote in a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking for documents about the wiretapping program. The documents have been withheld from Congress.

The 68-29 Senate vote Tuesday to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act belied the nearly two months of stops and starts and bitter political wrangling that preceded it. The two sides had battled to balance civil liberties with the need to conduct surveillance on potential adversaries.

At issue is the government's post-9/11 Terrorist Surveillance Program, which circumvented a secret court created 30 years ago to oversee such activities. The court was part of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law written in response to government abuse of its surveillance authority against Americans.

The surveillance law has been updated repeatedly since then. Congress hastily adopted a FISA modification in August in the face of dire warnings from the White House that changes in telecommunications technology and FISA court rulings were dangerously constraining the government's ability to intercept terrorist communications.

Shortly after its passage, privacy and civil liberties groups said the new law gave the government unprecedented authority to spy on Americans, particularly those who communicate with foreigners.

That law, already extended once, expires Feb. 16.

Doubtful they can work out the differences in the bills by then, Democrats in both the Senate and the House prepared short-term extensions that would keep the law in effect for several more weeks. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky blocked an extension attempt Tuesday. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said Republicans in the House would fight another extension.

The White House said Bush would not sign another 15-day extension of the law.

"The intelligence community needs this good, long-term legislation, not a patchwork of extensions," presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "The House is risking national security by delaying action, and the president will not sign another extension."

On the way to passage, the Senate rejected by a vote of 67-31 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies. It also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.

One of the amendments, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecom companies in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.

The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the United States the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general.

While giving the White House what it wanted on immunity, the Senate also expanded the power of the court to oversee government eavesdropping on Americans. The amendment would give the FISA court the authority to monitor whether the government is complying with procedures designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans whose telephone or computer communications are captured during surveillance of a foreign target.

The bill would also require FISA court orders to eavesdrop on Americans who are overseas. Under current law, the government can wiretap or search the possessions of anyone outside the United States _ even a soldier serving overseas _ without court permission if it believes the person may be a foreign agent.

"You don't lose your rights when you leave American soil," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in an interview. Wyden wrote the provision into the bill when it was still being considered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. "In the digital age, an American's rights shouldn't depend on their physical geography."

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday approved new rules for government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, giving the White House much of the latitude it wanted and granting legal immunity t...
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday approved new rules for government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, giving the White House much of the latitude it wanted and granting legal immunity t...
Filed by Will Thomas  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
788
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
- drblack I'm a Fan of drblack 19 fans permalink

This is clearly not Constitutional.
No ex post facto (retroactive) laws may be passed and any search or seizure has to be very specific.
The whole bill is illegal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 02/12/2008
- Cunningham I'm a Fan of Cunningham 89 fans permalink
photo

For the record:

U.S. Constitution
Article 1
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:53 AM on 02/13/2008
- mach I'm a Fan of mach 12 fans permalink

Hows that for a lame duck.

Senate Votes for Expansion of Spy Powers


By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: February 13, 2008
WASHINGTON — After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government’s spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants.

One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the government’s surveillance powers. Finally, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve legislation that the White House had been pushing for months. Mr. Bush hailed the vote and urged the House to move quickly in following the Senate’s lead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 PM on 02/12/2008
- drblack I'm a Fan of drblack 19 fans permalink

Obama should have stuck around, but he voted on what was important.
he also probably knew what the vote would be...so as to appear neutral for political reasons he split.
Clinton didn't show up at all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 PM on 02/12/2008
- Ides I'm a Fan of Ides 21 fans permalink

That post makes absolutely no sense. Obama's on the record, he showed up to vote. There's no way he can appear NEUTRAL for political reasons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 AM on 02/13/2008
- skyhead I'm a Fan of skyhead 2 fans permalink

Actually, this looks more like a defense of Obama and a slight knock on Clinton. But I am not too into either of them, except to say hey 'better than Bush!' It makes sense that they both wanted to avoid criticism by avoiding this vote, in a calculating political sort of way. But this was a little too important for that kind of pandering.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 AM on 02/13/2008
- donaldw6 I'm a Fan of donaldw6 358 fans permalink
photo

Okay, so it's not unconstitutional... but it should be!

Obama voted against immunity... and then he didn't!

This FISA thing has been going through the Senate forever... and then they vote on it while everyone's watching the big primaries!

How did everything get so confused? While most of us want to look with hope and excitement to tomorrow, here come all the corrupted filth of our miserable system dragging us back down through the muddy earth.

Let's get up, clean ourselves off, and keep on fighting. The telecomm trolls may manage to get off the hook here, but to do so, they've amassed about 300 million people who hate their guts. I'm not sure how you get immunity for that!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 PM on 02/12/2008
- kevenseven I'm a Fan of kevenseven 501 fans permalink
photo

So, do you have any idea as to what to do next?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 PM on 02/12/2008
- Cunningham I'm a Fan of Cunningham 89 fans permalink
photo

Cry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:54 AM on 02/13/2008
- gcallaghan I'm a Fan of gcallaghan 52 fans permalink
photo

Qwest was the only major telecom to refuse unwarranted wiretaps and 8 honchos there were coincidently charged by the SEC with Financial Disclosure Fraud in '95. I don't know if any of the 8 did time or were fined, but I find it odd that, with rampant corporate fraud in the US, Qwest would be one of the very few charged.
Since telecoms need our money to survive, WE can punish those complicit in the government illegal wiretap program by switching service, where feasible, to Qwest.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 AM on 02/13/2008
- Ides I'm a Fan of Ides 21 fans permalink

Dude, he voted against immunity, PERIOD. He voted against proactive immunity and for an amendment preventing retroactive immunity.


That's two votes against immunity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 AM on 02/13/2008
- rixhex56 I'm a Fan of rixhex56 15 fans permalink

And when the amendment stripping immunity from the bill failed, he should have voted against the bill itself, which provided such immunity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:20 AM on 02/13/2008
- Plowboy I'm a Fan of Plowboy 25 fans permalink

Of course Obama opposed imunity for criminal actions against the American people. And, of course, the Bush criminals wanted that for their abettors. But, shhh! Don't you think that Neocon in sheep's britches did as much as she could: nothing! for us. How else could she have acted?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 PM on 02/12/2008
- BrickSykes I'm a Fan of BrickSykes 40 fans permalink


Guys, Guys!!

I haven't read the Bill, have any of you? I'd guess not. There must be a reason that so many good guys seem to have voted for immunity. I'm guessing that the Bill itself is constructed such that any vote for retroactive immunity might be the only way to continue any surveillance at all. Sounds squirrelly I know, but we don't want to cut out ALL surveillance, do we?

Maybe that's it...I just don't know. I do believe, though, that any legislated "protection" for the TeleComs would have enough holes in it to be meaningless when the BIG Witch Hunt comes after Bush and more Congressional Republicans are GONE!

Don't be so negative.

Brick

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 PM on 02/12/2008

The reason is because this is what the call "transactional votes" or in lay terms, payback.

Nobody wants to deny all of that good money from the telecom companies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 PM on 02/12/2008
- rixhex56 I'm a Fan of rixhex56 15 fans permalink

Brick,

Granting the telecoms immunity has NOTHING to do with ability to surveil anyone --- it is about avoiding any investigation of Bush's crimes. If these cases cannot be reviewed, then there is no chance to find out what crimes were committed. But there is NO DOUBT that these companies broke the law, and more importantly, that they knew they were breaking those laws. We are no longer a nation of laws.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 PM on 02/12/2008

Point well taken. This isn't about the telecoms, this is about Bush, just like the Federal Attorney firings. In the latter, Bush claimed executive privilege...for something he said he wasn't involved in. And now the telecoms, which he claims did nothing wrong. If they did nothing wrong, considering their mountain of legal eagles in permanent attendance, I'd say they're more than capable of handling any challenges that should come. This is about protecting Bushemada, only, not the telecoms, or the Attorney General, or the Federal Attorneys. It's all about Bush. Attorney General Gonzales had him "opt" out of the Geneva Conventions for a specific reason, to protect him from future litigation regarding torture.

And let's be clear about the FISA court, and the law, Bush is on record saying VERY CLEARLY, that he could ignore it, legally, which of course was untrue (go figure?). He said the FISA law didn't apply to him as commander-in-chief, and to protect the country he could do anything he felt necessary. And yet, now it's ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that the Congress and Senate pass the new, revised FISA law. He said he could ignore it, and yet he says he MUST have it...does this strike anyone as odd? Well, it's not. It's partly a delaying tactic, and partly a ruse to make the change retroactive to the time when he violated the law and in so doing, violated his oath of office, and exposed him to a possible prison term of 150 years. The delay being one of many, to run out the clock and get out of Dodge.

And the immunity for the telecoms is also partly a delaying tactic, to make it more difficult for investigators to dig up the filth on him, and use it against him in a proper court of law, unlike the kangaroo courts he's set up in Guantanimo. Telecom immunity is just another in a long and seemingly endlessly series of ruses, to deflect investigation, to cover their tracks, and to give them time to exit "gracefully".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 02/12/2008

I guarantee, whoever is the next President, will NOT pursue legal action against a former President. The only real hope to bring this criminal to justice is now in the hands of the international community. His travel in future will have to be very carefully planned to avoid certain countries, that are legally bound to take a war criminal like him (much like his old family friend Pinochet) into custody for trial. It's possible that the US would carpet bomb any nation (Republicans hope it's France) that tries this...but maybe not? Could be very interesting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 PM on 02/12/2008
- tbone99 I'm a Fan of tbone99 92 fans permalink

Negative? We don't need surveillence without warrants.In other words why are we being subjected to surveillence without legitimate grounds for suspicions.
Not really much different than a camera in every home , really...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 02/12/2008
- racom I'm a Fan of racom 3 fans permalink

Well bricksykes, you have just redefined 'naive'. For 7 yrs now the house & senate have been caving in to this administration and we are being negative because we just think the worst!!! Tell me you didn't vote for GWB.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 AM on 02/13/2008
- Cunningham I'm a Fan of Cunningham 89 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 02/13/2008
- argent1 I'm a Fan of argent1 16 fans permalink

Protecting big business not protecting citizens. Protecting the airlines after 9/11, the ones that were not too interested in checking boarding passengers. Protecting Wall Street not US jobs. Protecting energy companies not consumers. Protecting big oil not giving armor to our real protectors. Protecting China, our new banker. Protecting shipping companies not protecting our ports. Protecting Saudi Arabia. Protecting polluters not breathers and drinkers........

US CONGRESS, BUSH/CHENEY PROTECTED THEMSELVES NOT US

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 PM on 02/12/2008
- wedgie I'm a Fan of wedgie 17 fans permalink
photo

Retro active immunity.....
Saves
A
Lot
of
Pardons
don't
it?.........
Bush is a criminal.

**

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 PM on 02/12/2008
- pfc1369 I'm a Fan of pfc1369 88 fans permalink
photo

That is NOT Harry Reid in the foto. Looks like the cretin Mitch McConnell of Kintuk.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 02/12/2008
- zigzag1 I'm a Fan of zigzag1 6 fans permalink

Of course that's not Reid, it's penis head McConnell

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 PM on 02/12/2008
- Blurp I'm a Fan of Blurp 10 fans permalink
photo

Of course you voted on behalf of your owners... I mean "partners" in the private sector. Can't wait til you corporate fucks try to implant me with a chip.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 02/12/2008
- scooperss I'm a Fan of scooperss 69 fans permalink
photo

"You don't lose your rights when you leave American soil," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

You don't have them here to lose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 02/12/2008
- sammy333 I'm a Fan of sammy333 4 fans permalink

That is right. Feinstein voted for the immunity, while Barbara Boxer voted against. Mrs. Feinstein also gave us Mukasey, the Waterboard­ing-is-ok.
Obama voted against, Clinton conveniently disappeared.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 02/12/2008
- skyhead I'm a Fan of skyhead 2 fans permalink

Now this is some sweet spin! Let me see if I've got this right... Clinton is to be criticized for not showing up to vote on the FISA bill today. Obama, on the other hand, is to be commended for voting for the ammendment to strip telco immunity from the bill. Nevermind the fact when the bill went to the floor with telecom immunity in it, he skipped out and did not vote. Is that what you are saying? Oh, and Obama and Clinton were both MIA on the Mukasey vote as well, do I sense a pattern?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 PM on 02/12/2008

Yes, the pattern is called stupidity on your part for supporting Clinton.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 02/12/2008
- Ides I'm a Fan of Ides 21 fans permalink

He skipped out and didn't vote. He's on the record supporting the amendment, and now he's on the record not supporting the bill. What's the parsing?


If you weren't obsessed with figuring out a way to spin it against common sense....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 AM on 02/13/2008
- DebbieKat I'm a Fan of DebbieKat 8 fans permalink

I find the bickering between Obama and Clinton supporters quite funny. Like there's really a huge difference between the two? They're both the establishment candidates. Whichever one wins, the military industrial complex wins. Don't you all see that? Choose something ELSE!

Choose Mike Gravel.

www.gravel2008.us

www.allthingsgravel.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:44 PM on 02/13/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 257 fans permalink

Obama voted where it could have made a difference. His vote on the final bill would not have changed a thing. Not even a filibuster would have stopped it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 AM on 02/13/2008
- rixhex56 I'm a Fan of rixhex56 15 fans permalink

I don't really understand this reasoning -- the amendment had as much chance of passing as the bill did of failing -- Obama should have voted against the bill.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 AM on 02/13/2008
- tbone99 I'm a Fan of tbone99 92 fans permalink

This is the kind of issue that could have ended up in The Supreme Court but the retroactive law means it will never be measured through a constitutional lens.

How can "retroactive laws "even be legal.? What that means ,( in reverse), is : today you perform an action .
Later you can be arrested if it it becomes illegal.We're all in trouble using that rationale.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 02/12/2008

Here you go Dems. Nader was correct. The Democrats are no better than the Republicans. Yes there are a few that are progressive but not enough to make a difference when it comes time for a needed vote. That is why I am now a Green. I will vote for McKinney or Nader and will sleep well at night knowing that I did not betray my own beliefs. William Shakespearre said (in Hamlet) 'To thine own self be true'. If a few more people voted their hearts, minds, and beliefs no matter what the polls said or the media then we could have that progressive anti-war candidate. McKinney'08.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 PM on 02/12/2008

Cynthia McKinney, in her own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUDEn0-PNt8

The bully pulpit matters. And without publicly financed elections, it takes MILLIONS of dollars to buy yourself a bully pulpit.

If Obama delivered this speech, he'd pick up votes.
If Hillary delivered this speech, she'd pick up votes.
If McCain delivered this speech, Rush would have a coronary.
If GORE delivered this speech, we'd be going Hillary WHO? Obama WHO?

Mind you, the MSM, lobbyists, corporatists, and beltway crowd, would throw them all under a bus, but then... what does THAT say?

"You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."
-- Abbie Hoffman

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 02/12/2008
- wedgie I'm a Fan of wedgie 17 fans permalink
photo

Nader ought to know. He made sure we had the Bush Republican Presidency to compare our Democrats to.

Fuck Nader.

He is personally responsible for Bush and everything that has followed.

**

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 PM on 02/12/2008

Not much on the old truth thing are you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 02/12/2008
- HLMerkin I'm a Fan of HLMerkin 2 fans permalink
photo

No, fuck wedgie.

And fuck anybody who assumes that a vote for Nader was really cast by someone who would otherwise have voted for Al Gore.

Fuck any scenario with VP Lieberman.

And fuck a broken two party system that gives voters limited choices.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 02/13/2008
- Indyfromny I'm a Fan of Indyfromny 17 fans permalink
photo

-------------Still fuming but-------­----------

Hillary and Obama did not vote against the FISA bill today and frankly It disturbs me, but. I have heard Obama state that he will restore Habeas Corpus once he is elected POTUS.
So the question is why didnt he or they vote against it today?
Perhaps they are thinking further down the road when they face off against the NEOCON attack machine. If they are seen as weak on defense or if we're attacked again, the chances of winning swing states like Ohio or Florida are diminished.

I hate saying that most Americans are ignorant of their loss of rights but they are. Most dont understand or dont want to think about it. In some underlying way this might be a stroke of genius for Obama or Clinton to win in Nov.

At any rate my hope is that our country is'nt lost to the NEOCONS. The next president has alot of work to do, to restore our nation the way we all want it to be restored. With a Constitution intact.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:42 PM on 02/12/2008
- scooperss I'm a Fan of scooperss 69 fans permalink
photo

The question is can you trust him to keep his word.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 02/12/2008
- Indyfromny I'm a Fan of Indyfromny 17 fans permalink
photo

I have no other choice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 PM on 02/12/2008
- lynnn I'm a Fan of lynnn 42 fans permalink

He voted today duh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:17 PM on 02/12/2008

Maybe because he already had insider information that his vote wouldn't matter. Like mine did in '04 when the rest of the American idiots voted for monkey boy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 02/12/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (14 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect