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.

[undermyboot]

If what they are doing is legal, why do they need immunity? Clearly, Bush knows that he has broken the laws of the United States, and he has enabled the telecoms to break laws.

If Congress allows telecom immunity then they are simply providing cover for actions that Bush already knows were illegal. Is this a country of laws, or a dictatorship? This President seems to think he is above the law, and when he is about to get caught he wants to change the law to make his illegal activities "legal". This administration is, by definition, "liberal". It is not a law-abiding conservative leadership. What a pile of useless cr*p.

[Ed0719]

This administration and all who support it are traitors to the US Constitution and all that America has ever stood for.

[Krazcarl]

Now I''m mad our gutless leader has the nerve to talk this trash. The way I take it is he''s covery his and his cronie''s hinny and playing a very sick game of politics. Nixon wasn''t this bad lets''s all say the word IMPEACH he broke the law of the land he SWORE to uphold were now playing gutter ball. He needs to be removed from office he broke his oath and has failed the decent citizens of this country. But sorry congress will let him finish the term so they won''t have to get thier hands dirty and to be honest they should ALL be voted out of office. The last seven years has been the dirtyiest of my like {50} and everyone had a finger in the pie.

[simonsez40]

What a con-artist our President is (and I say that losely). Immunity is for those that have something to hide.........crooks all of them!

[ioweign]

"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.

Yes - let''s take a step backward and take look at this !

If everything is on the up and up then why immunity ??

[raskal_2]

In reference to the Protect America act of 2007 and the proposed revisions, history teaches that "...if you build it, they will come." If you build a new jail it gets filled; give the FBI unchecked power and it gets abused and overused; install back door listening posts in U.S. electronic infrastructure and somebody will listen. Think twice...

[cfin5]

IOWEIGN,....My thoughts exactly. I guess that us "conspiracy" people he ridiculed from Canada at the North American Union thing wasn''t so incorrect after all. Have you heard that ex-president Fox from Mexico said himself that he and Bush have been conspiring together with Canadian officials for the de-sovereignization of our currency et all? The Al Queda issue pales to nothing compared to Bush selling the deed to our nation to a strange entity. Is that why our troops are being killed for in Iraq? To not be Americans when they come home?

[ioweign]

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.

And Bush campaigned on "Accountability"

Everyone accountable except AWOL Bush !

[cantshutup]

STOP COMPLAINING ON THIS COMMENT BOARD AND CALL/WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE...YOUR COMPLAINTS MEAN NOTHING IF THEY AREN''T DIRECTED TOWARDS THE MORONS IN D.C.

[mh4cbs1]

Protecting Corporate Criminals, could we expect otherwise?

We have the highest per capita prison population in the world, but somehow the likes of Scooter Libby, corporate CEOs, *** Cheney (for his War Crimes)never seem to face jail time.

[mh4cbs1]

cantshutup:

Yes I write, email, call my congressional reps. But do you think it does any good? These SOBs are elected for life. The are nominated by their corrupt Republicrat political machine leaders, and after that they have a job for life. All we get is lip-service, while they serve Corporate America.

This is another traitorous act by Bush and the Bush
adminisration. Impeachment is the solution for this issue and many others, immigration, weapons of mass destruction, and this immunity issue just about DUHS it as far as accountability is concerned.

[finewoven]

"Congress hastily passed the temporary bill before leaving Washington for a summer break."

America''s tax dollars at work. Having a summer break in autumn, is like another paid vacation for the Beautiful People. They have it so nice. And then providing retroactive immunity to an aspect of industry that so far has had ''de facto'' immunity because all evidence is held ''top secret'' or ''National Security Sensitive.'' What a racket these beautiful people have, to extend their status to others like that. Next thing you know, they''ll be preventing due process of law so they they can incarcerate people without cause for concern.

It''s really tough on a culture, when the very institutions built for stability are turned on their head--so that power can be consolidated with the few. Ohh, to be one of the Beautiful People, too.

[finewoven]

Yes - let''''s take a step backward and take look at this !
If everything is on the up and up then why immunity ??
Posted by IOWEIGN at 02:17 PM : Oct 10, 2007

The Decider(er) has impunity. Only he can bend the laws to his liking and re-interpret our U.S. Constitution. Isn''t he the most beautiful? All bow before his decisions.

[finewoven]

But sorry congress will let him finish the term so they won''''t have to get thier hands dirty and to be honest they should ALL be voted out of office. Posted by crzmeat at 01:54 PM : Oct 10, 2007

Do you think that''s really it? I would argue that we simply don''t want the Office of the President to be held in disrepute. To protect the image of the office, people will ignore all the harshest suggestions, even if there is substantial proof.

Does anybody know why "the proof is in the pudding." I haven''t been able to figure this out.

[finewoven]

This administration is, by definition, "liberal". It is not a law-abiding conservative leadership.
Posted by UnderMyBoot at 01:19 PM : Oct 10, 2007

BITE YOUR TOUNGE!! Man, if word got out.

[juwboy]

finewoven:

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.

[jjp735i]

I 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.

[trillion1]

These companies broke the law at bush''s behest which makes him guilty. If they hadn''t commited a crime then would be no need for immunity.

[mcvet]

This is Amazing! This low life piece of Human Trash and the Cult that follows him have taken to the bunker. He''s so low in the opinion polls that he doesn''t care and those who drink the kool aid he''s handing out, aren''t smart enought to know what he is and has done to our beloved constitution. How ANYONE can read that Constitution and say that the actions taken by this president from He11 are right should have another drink of Kool Aid... make that TWO drinks!! Sieg Heil Bush!! SIEG HEIL!! SIEG HEIL!!

[liberalme]

Awww come on---we''re all targets!! Bushs'' Anti-Americanism is blatently apparent!

Bush?? Read the Constitution? He can''t find anyone to read it to him that agrees with it!

RULING by his own set of rules and laws--this idiot has destroyed the very core of what being an American means.

I pray to God these "evil doers"are held accountable for EVERYTHING they have done, not only to us, but to Iraquis as well.

This

[liberalme]

As long as he is "insisting" on this--we should all "insist" he go to jail now--do not pass go and do not collect $200.

Lets "insist" that anyone who has been killed, maimed or injured because of his war for profit--should be able to sue his butt for all they can get.

The American people need to start "insisting" on retribution from this government, after all, this is OUR COUNTRY!

[simonsez40]

What an idiot - can we put Bush in the Fulton prison? Maybe he could round up the Aryan Brotherhood and create his own utopia without laws that you have to follow????

[finewoven]

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.

[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.

[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)

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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