House Holds Closed Session To Discuss Surveillance Bill

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - House Holds Closed Session To Discuss Surveillance Bill stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

PAMELA HESS | March 14, 2008 08:32 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
President Bush makes a statement on FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) legislation, Thursday, March 13, 2008, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States. The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213-197, largely along party lines.

Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the measure a "political ploy" designed to give Democrats cover for their failure to grant full retroactive immunity to the telecom companies.

The vote sent the bill to the Senate, which has passed its own version that includes the legal immunity for telecom companies that Bush is demanding.

Without that provision, House Republicans said, the companies won't cooperate with U.S. intelligence.

"We cannot conduct foreign surveillance without them. But if we continue to subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits, we risk losing their cooperation in the future," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

The government does have the power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with wiretaps if it gets warrants from a secret court. The government apparently did not get such warrants before initiating the post-9/11 wiretaps, which are the basis for the lawsuits.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the bill is meant to fix that. It would let a judge determine whether lawsuits should be dismissed, rather than having Congress make that decision.

Story continues below

"I believe that the nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last seven years, and I want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community," Reyes said.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging the companies violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California.

The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program to decide if the companies acted lawfully.

The administration has prevented those documents from being revealed, even to a judge, by invoking the state secrets privilege. That puts the companies in a bind because they are unable to defend themselves.

Just a fraction of Congress has been granted access to the records.

Democrats argued against quashing the lawsuits without knowing in detail why the immunity is necessary.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said the government may have as many as five ongoing clandestine surveillance programs. "Congress is not fully informed, and it would be reckless to grant retroactive immunity without knowing the scope of programs out there," Harman said.

"All members of Congress should see those documents so they could see the breadth and scope" of the wiretapping program, said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.

The surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S, and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States_ for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.

A temporary law expired Feb. 16 before Congress was able to produce a replacement bill. Bush opposed an extension of the temporary law as a means to pressure Congress into accepting the Senate version of the surveillance legislation.

Bush and most Capitol Hill Republicans say the lawsuits are damaging national security and unfairly punish telecommunications companies for helping the government in a time of war.

"There is not one iota of evidence that the companies acted inappropriately whatsoever," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

Democrats say the bill protects the privacy rights of Americans by making sure the telecommunications companies _ and the wiretapping program _ did not violate any laws.

"We have the opportunity to serve the protection of our country ... and uphold our oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Let us take that opportunity."

The Democratic bill also would initiate a yearlong bipartisan panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the administration's so-called warrantless wiretapping program.

Friday's vote came after House Republicans forced a rare, late-night secret session of Congress on Thursday to discuss the bill. It was the first such session of the House in a quarter century; the last one was in 1983, on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have occurred in the House since 1825.

Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas said she didn't believe any minds were changed on the bill.

"We couldn't have gone more of an extra mile to make sure we're doing the best for national security," she said.

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States. The bill, approved as law...
WASHINGTON — The House on Friday approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States. The bill, approved as law...
Filed by Nick Sabloff  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
67
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 (3 pages total)
- rchwel I'm a Fan of rchwel 5 fans permalink

Isn't it great living in a secretice country lile China or Russia ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 AM on 03/14/2008
photo

Yes it is. Look for the post regarding the treasurer of the RNC and the over $1 million dollars in theft and diverting of funds through wire transfers. But you won't hear a lot about that because we are on "penis patrol" over Eliot Spitzer's admitted hypocrisy. The slight of hand of these criminals is stunning. "Nothing up my sleeve...PRESTO!" With Steny Hoyer...so called "majority leader" helping stage this charade. Rush Holt, Democrat from New Jersey said this "meeting" took less than an hour, and he still doesn't know why there was a meeting in secret. Now ask yourself..what were these magicians were doing somewhere else in our government while many members were tied up in a meeting? A little more wiretapping perhaps? Or perhaps something more nefarious?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:09 AM on 03/14/2008

The business of Congress is the business of the public. Secret sessions suggest either political cowardice or deceit if not both. National security is reliant on public awareness of threats and danger to our nation and our fellow citizens.



Q:Who pays the salaries of all members of Congress?

A: you and I the American taxpayer



Q:Who approves the yearly "cost of living" pay raises for Congress

A:Congress



Q:To whom does every congressman and woman swear an oath of allegiance to protect:

A:Our Constitution that guarantees inalienable rights, priveleges and benefits to each and every legal citizen of our nation.



Q: Does our Constitution provide an exemption for retroactive protection for law breakers?

A: No. It actually and specifically prohibits that practice. No immunity for telecoms. No immunity for torturers/



Q: Which candidate has called for the impeachment of Bush and for former president Clinton for lying under oath and breaking his word to the American public.

A: Bingo! Ralph Nader



Q: Should American voters have a choice in voting for a genuine candidate of change?

A: Yes, unless we wish to uphold a contradiction that a democracy can both be free and allow nonConstitutional political parties to limit democracy, actively disinclude, and marginalize other voices and choices at the expense of voters rights to freely choose.

http://VoteNader.org

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 AM on 03/14/2008

I won't comment on your solution to the problems you mention (Voting for Nader) but I will comment on your misstatement of Constitutional law.

As has been repeated on this website time and time again, the Constitution does not prohibit the actions that Bush is requesting, granting "retroactive protection for law breakers" - or more specifically in this case immunity from the civil law suits which is what he is requesting.

The "Ex Post Facto" clause only prohibits making illegal an action that was NOT illegal at the time it was done, NOT granting a pardon, forgiveness or immunity from prosecution for and act that was illegal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 AM on 03/14/2008

The business of Congress is the business of the public. Secret sessions suggest either political cowardice or deceit if not both. National security is reliant on public awareness of threats and danger to our nation and our fellow citizens.

Q:Who pays the salaries of all members of Congress?
A: You and I the American taxpayer

Q:Who approves the yearly "cost of living" pay raises for Congress
A:Congress approves its own salary hikes

Q:To whom does every congressman and woman swear an oath of allegiance to protect:
A:Our Constitution that guarantees inalienable rights, priveleges and benefits to each and every legal citizen of our nation.

Q: Does our Constitution provide an exemption for retroactive protection for law breakers?
A: No. It actually and specifically prohibits that practice. No immunity for telecoms. No immunity for torturers.

Q: Which candidate has called for the impeachment of Bush for high crimes against our nation and historically for former president Clinton for lying under oath and breaking his word to the American public.
A: Bingo! Ralph Nader

Q: Should American voters have a meaningful choices in voting for a genuine candidate of change?
A: Yes, unless we wish to uphold a contradiction that a democracy can both be free open, and inclusive, yet allow nonConstitutional corporate political parties to limit democracy, actively disinclude and marginalize opposition voices and reduce choices at the expense of voters rights to freely choose and candidates to have equal access.
http://www.VoteNader.org

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 AM on 03/14/2008
- Rule Of Law I'm a Fan of Rule Of Law 165 fans permalink

Let's get this straight---They want to spy on every single one of us without court orders or messy legalities, but it needs to be talked over in Secret?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 AM on 03/14/2008
- stargazer13 I'm a Fan of stargazer13 104 fans permalink
photo

can any one say Q west 6 months before 911
thats what the court records reveal hum and they still could not avert 911
get real America this is not about our enemies it,s about us as Americans
now we must beg the ? why spy on us any thoughts huff posters

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:38 AM on 03/14/2008
- Lemeritus I'm a Fan of Lemeritus 110 fans permalink
photo

That's an easy one, stargazer13! The government -- I want to say the Bush Administration, but until I see a real push-back from the other branches, I'm afraid it's "the government" -- wants us to know that it CAN, whenever it chooses, without warrant or recourse. It would like us to forget "probable cause" just as it is trying to erase the inconveience of "habeas corpus".

"People need to watch watch they say, watch what they do." Ari Fleischer

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:22 PM on 03/14/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

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

Connect