Bush Insists On Telecom Immunity

President Says He Won't Sign Democrats' Eavesdropping Bill Without Immunity Provision

(AP)  President Bush said Wednesday that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

A proposed bill unveiled by Democrats on Tuesday does not include such a provision. Mr. Bush, appearing on the South Lawn as that measure was taken up in two House committees, said the measure is unacceptable for that and other reasons.

"Today the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees are considering a proposed bill that instead of making the Protect America Act permanent would take us backward," the president said.

Mr. Bush wants legislation that extends and strengthens a temporary bill passed in August. Democrats want a bill that rolls back some of the new powers it granted the government to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists.

Under pressure to close what Bush officials called a dangerous gap in intelligence collection, Congress hastily passed the temporary bill before leaving Washington for a summer break. Democratic leaders in Congress set the law to expire in six months so that it could be fine-tuned, and civil liberties groups are saying the changes they've already legislated gave too much new latitude to the administration and provided too little protection against government spying on Americans without oversight.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when the government must obtain eavesdropping warrants from a secret intelligence court.

This year's update to the law allows the government to eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even the communications flow through the U.S. communications network - or if an American is on one end of the conversation - so long as that person is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The Bush administration said this was necessary because technological advances in communications had put U.S. officials at a disadvantage.

The original law generally prohibited surveillance inside the U.S., unless a court first approved it.

Seeking to increase the pressure on the Democratic-controlled Congress, Mr. Bush said the update has already been effective, with intelligence professionals able "to gather critical information that would have been missed without this authority."

"Keeping this authority is critical to keeping America safe," he said.

[starleo146]

I apologize for the page 3 hangup it never showed published.

[starleo146]

I just called my congressman and told him to oppose the retroactive immunity to phone companies. Please do the same this is unconscionable that they (the Phone companies) can give your private information out without your permission. What are all those privacy things that come in the mail and you send a letter or call. Means nothing

[starleo146]

page3
# "Automatic Discharge. Committees may not consider the bill for more than 45 legislative days%u2026 after it is first introduced. If the implementing bill is not reported out of the committees to which it was referred within that time frame, those committees are automatically discharged and the bill is placed on the appropriate calendar."

# "Floor debate is limited in each House of Congress to 20 hours."

# "A vote on ultimate passage of the bill must occur in the House of Representatives and the Senate within 15 legislative days of the bill being reported out of the relevant committees or the automatic discharge of those committees. Thus, the maximum period for congressional consideration of a fast-track implementing bill is 60 legislative days, bu, of course, a final vote could occur in less time."

# "No Conference Committee."

[starleo146]

page3
# "Automatic Discharge. Committees may not consider the bill for more than 45 legislative days%u2026 after it is first introduced. If the implementing bill is not reported out of the committees to which it was referred within that time frame, those committees are automatically discharged and the bill is placed on the appropriate calendar."

# "Floor debate is limited in each House of Congress to 20 hours."

# "A vote on ultimate passage of the bill must occur in the House of Representatives and the Senate within 15 legislative days of the bill being reported out of the relevant committees or the automatic discharge of those committees. Thus, the maximum period for congressional consideration of a fast-track implementing bill is 60 legislative days, bu, of course, a final vote could occur in less time."

# "No Conference Committee."

[starleo146]

page3
# "Automatic Discharge. Committees may not consider the bill for more than 45 legislative days%u2026 after it is first introduced. If the implementing bill is not reported out of the committees to which it was referred within that time frame, those committees are automatically discharged and the bill is placed on the appropriate calendar."

# "Floor debate is limited in each House of Congress to 20 hours."

# "A vote on ultimate passage of the bill must occur in the House of Representatives and the Senate within 15 legislative days of the bill being reported out of the relevant committees or the automatic discharge of those committees. Thus, the maximum period for congressional consideration of a fast-track implementing bill is 60 legislative days, bu, of course, a final vote could occur in less time."

# "No Conference Committee."

[starleo146]

page3
# "Automatic Discharge. Committees may not consider the bill for more than 45 legislative days%u2026 after it is first introduced. If the implementing bill is not reported out of the committees to which it was referred within that time frame, those committees are automatically discharged and the bill is placed on the appropriate calendar."

# "Floor debate is limited in each House of Congress to 20 hours."

# "A vote on ultimate passage of the bill must occur in the House of Representatives and the Senate within 15 legislative days of the bill being reported out of the relevant committees or the automatic discharge of those committees. Thus, the maximum period for congressional consideration of a fast-track implementing bill is 60 legislative days, bu, of course, a final vote could occur in less time."

# "No Conference Committee."

[starleo146]

page 2
# "Following transmittal by the President of a proposed agreement, its implementing bill, and required supporting materials, the implementing bill%u2026 must be introduced in both Houses by the respective majority leaders on behalf of themselves and the minority leaders."

# "Following introduction of the implementing bill, it is to be referred, by the Presiding Officer in each House of Congress, to%u2026 the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee%u2026 and possibly others."

# "No amendments in the implementing bill are permitted%u2026 in the House of Representatives or the Senate. This limitation applies to committee consideration and in connection with a vote by either full chamber."

[starleo146]

Death Clock Begins: Bush Sends New NAFTA Expansion to Congress

By Todd Tucker, Eyes on Trade. Posted October 1, 2007.

A new investors'' protection agreement based on the despised NAFTA model is passing through Congress.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
COMMENT NOW

Share & save this story:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! icon

Also in WorkPlace

Americans Don''t Believe in the American Dream
Joshua Holland

Paul Krugman: Why Do Right-Wingers Mock Attempts to Care for Other People?
Mark Karlin

Wal-Mart Short-Changes Public Schools
Phil Mattera

Kurds Talk Contracts with Big Oil: ''It''s Now or Never''
Ben Lando

Hillary Embraces "Rubinomics"; Market Fundamentalism Lives
Thomas Palley

Houses of Cards
Joseph Stiglitz
More stories by Todd Tucker

RSS icon WorkPlace RSS Feed

RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed
Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!



Last night, President Bush formally transmitted the NAFTA expansion to Peru implementing legislation, setting the Death Clock in motion. Under Fast Track, Congress can''t amend the legislation, and not even Pelosi or Rangel control the floor. Per Fast Track guru Hal Shapiro:

* "Following transmittal by the President of a proposed agreement, its implementing bill, and required supporting materials, the implementing bill%u2026 must be introduced in both Houses by the respective majority leaders on behalf of themselves and the minority leader

[toldyouso21]

am a little confused. Bush made it sound like the law allowed him to spy with out a warrant, yet now he wants a law that goes back and gives retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that did the dirty deed. So Bush lied and those companies spied on Americans against the law? Why else would Bush want this law passed? To cover his arse of course. Congress should not cover Bush and his illegal act against us, nor cover the arse of the telecommunications companies. They broke the law and should be held accountable for it.
Posted by jjp735i at 06:00 AM : Oct 11, 2007

YOu are aware that in the summer of 2006, Bush had a law passed granting him and others immunity for breaking FISA laws and also for any war crimes he or others may be guilty of? Why? Because Bush knows that he is guilty technically of breaching international as well as domestic laws concerning wiretapping and starting wars, torture, etc--he wants reassurances. Unfortunately for him, domestic immunity granted by Congress stops with actions at the waters edge--according to our own Constitution, we must adhere to and submit to any international court when we breach any treaty, law, convention, etc--and that amendement also states that no branch of our government can claim jurisdiction or supercede the pronouncements from an international court. (ratified in 1797)

[toldyouso21]

The proof isn''''''''t in the pudding.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting or, alternatively, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Posted by juwboy at 05:21 AM : Oct 11, 2007

So I got my metaphor turned around. Tasting it, or experiencing it is the proof.

I was concerned there for a long time, thinking there my be something related to alcohol in pudding that it might be 80 proof or something. Then I''''d really be turned around. Posted by finewoven at 02:28 PM : Oct 11, 2007

The adage "the Proof is in the Pudding" refers to the chemical reaction of certain foods which is called "proving" The proof refers to the sticking or thickening factor. Thickening agents for puddings and other foods have ranged from the use of flour to agar and cornstarch. When a pudding "proves" the thickening agent causes a certain level of congealing if the right amount is used with the correct temperature of the other ingredients. If the wrong temp is used (ie, hot liquid to flour) or too much thickening agent is used--then there will be lumps or the pudding will not be smooth. If not enough is used, the pudding would be too thin. The phrase of the proof being in the pudding has nothing to do with taste but refers to following specific steps to get specific results. the rationale being--if the steps are not followed in the right order or with the right ingredients--it will show up in the end --when the results fail to prove. To prove also means to manifest or demonstrate.