Senate Panel Rejects Telecom Immunity

House Spying Bill Advances, As Court Says "State Secrets" Block Key Evidence In Lawsuit

(CBS/AP)  Actions in both the House and Senate moved forward legislation to strengthen court oversight of government's surveillance capabilities, while also refusing to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that helped the Bush administration eavesdrop on American citizens.

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court sent an Islamic charity's lawsuit over alleged illegal wiretapping by federal investigators back to the lower court, stating that the plaintiffs could not bring to court a key piece of evidence which the government claims is protected as a state secret.

On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out its rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill without a provision granting immunity to the telecoms.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said granting immunity would give the Bush administration a "blank check."

"When we give the government sweeping surveillance powers, there need to be clear rules and checks and balances to prevent abuses against the American people," Leahy said.

"While I appreciate the problems facing the telecommunications companies, the retroactive immunity issue to me is not about fixing blame on the companies but about holding government accountable. Passing a law to whitewash the administration’s undermining of another law would be a disservice to the American people and to the rule of law."

A voice-vote of committee members on Friday upheld the decision.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel's top Republican, said court cases may be the only way Congress can learn how far outside the law the administration has gone in eavesdropping.

When the full Senate takes up the bill, Specter is likely to offer a compromise that would shield the companies from financial ruin but allow lawsuits to go forward by having the federal government stand in for the companies at trial.

Critics have suggested, by making the administration a party to the lawsuits, that the government could then use "state secret" privileges to sink the lawsuits anyway. That has been a strategy in cases brought against the government by privacy advocates.

A write-up of the FISA bill passed down by the Senate Intelligence Committee did include a provision for immunity. It may be up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to decide which version to bring to the floor for a vote.

Senator Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has promised to filibuster any version which includes immunity.


Democratic House Passes Bill Without Telecom Immunity

The House surveillance bill, or RESTORE Act (H.R. 3773), approved 227-189, was a rebuke to President Bush who, while stressing the urgency of passing the legislation to protect national security, has promised to veto any bill that does not also shield telecom companies from civil lawsuits.

About 40 civil suits have been filed alleging the companies broke wiretapping and privacy laws by monitoring phone calls and e-mails without permission from a secret court created 30 years ago for that purpose.

One such lawsuit was brought about after a whistleblower revealed the existence of a secret room at an AT&T switching station in San Francisco. Retired AT&T technician Mark Klein helped connect a device in 2003 that he says diverted and copied onto a government supercomputer every phone call, e-mail, and Internet site query made via AT&T lines.

Mr. Bush argues that such lawsuits could bankrupt the telecoms if they are found liable, reveal classified information, and discourage future cooperation with legal surveillance requests.

In a statement after the vote, the White House said, "This evening House Democrats passed legislation that would dangerously weaken our ability to protect the nation from foreign threats." It reiterated Bush's intention to veto the legislation in its current form.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D- Mich., left the door open to an immunity deal but said the White House must first give Congress access to classified documents specifying what the companies did that requires legal immunity, which the administration has repeatedly refused to do.

He told reporters even that might not sway him.

"My own inclination is I'm less kindly directed toward those telephone companies," he said.

House Republicans favor immunity. "These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of harassing litigation," said Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Judiciary Committee's top Republican.

The House bill, while allowing unfettered telephone and e-mail surveillance of foreign intelligence targets, would require special authorization if the foreign targets are likely to be in contact with people inside the United States - a provision designed to safeguard Americans' privacy.

The special authorization is called a "blanket" or "umbrella" warrant and would let the government obtain a single order that authorizes the surveillance of multiple targets.

Republican critics say even blanket warrants would impede intelligence agents by slowing their ability to collect intelligence on terrorist suspects.

"This is all about lawyering up the process," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill balances security and civil rights.

"It defends Americans against terrorism and other threats, protects Americans' civil liberties and restores checks and balances," she said. "No president should have inherent authority to collect (intelligence) on Americans without doing it under the law."

It was the House's second attempt in recent weeks to pass an eavesdropping bill, and small changes made by Democrats since the first attempt held their party's slim House majority together. Last month, House Republicans used a procedural maneuver to force the withdrawal of a similar bill just before a vote.

The new bill tightens rules on the sharing of identifying information gleaned from electronic surveillance that involves Americans. It provides protections against "reverse targeting" - that is, using unfettered foreign surveillance to secretly monitor Americans. It increases the size of the secret court that oversees intelligence. It also prohibits future presidents from conducting electronic surveillance outside the procedures established by the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This so-called exclusivity provision would undermine Mr. Bush's claim that Congress' approval of the use of military force after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was all the approval he needed to bypass FISA and eavesdrop inside the United States without court approval.

The White House opposes the exclusivity provision, saying it encroaches on the president's constitutional powers.

Congress had passed a temporary surveillance measure last August, when the White House argued that national security was jeopardized if court warrants were required to eavesdrop, and there were rumors of an impending attack on Washington shortly before the vote which, critics say, prompted Congress to bend to the request.

But now Congress wants to strengthen the requirements for warrants in a permanent law, which the White House says does not go far enough.

Indeed, the Bush administration wants a permanent rewrite of FISA, contending that changes in telecommunications technology have made the 1978 law an obstacle to intelligence-gathering.

Current FISA law requires the government obtain court approval before conducting electronic surveillance on U.S. soil, even if the target is a foreign citizen in a foreign country. However, many purely international communications are now routed through fiber optics cables in the U.S.

The White House wants authority to monitor foreign communications with Americans without first getting court approval, as long as the American is not the intended target of surveillance.


Courts Cites "State Secrets" In Kicking Back Wiretapping Lawsuit

A federal appeals court dealt a near-fatal blow Friday to an Islamic charity's lawsuit over alleged illegal wiretapping by federal investigators, ruling the case can't go forward because a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a top-secret call log obtained by lawyers for the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation can't be used as evidence. Lawyers for the Bush administration had argued the government would be forced to reveal sensitive "state secrets" if the lawsuit were allowed to proceed.

[b-easy63]

It is amazing, but perhaps not surprising, that apparently none of the companies said: Where is your FISA warrant?

Posted by LawyerTom1 at 06:56 PM : Nov 16, 2007


One company did say that and refused to participate. They were called Qwest. Remember them? Remember what happened to the principles of Qwest? When he went to court the President of Qwest wanted to introduce threats and info from the gov. into his defense but the government declared it a national security.

This is what happens when companies try not to give in to rogue Presidents and circumvention of the law. They get s.c.r.e.w.e.d. and most of us do not even protest the demise of those who fought against them.

[b-easy63]

When companies agreed to help Bush--they were breaking the law and knew they were breaking the law. Not only should they not be granted immunity, but any case brought civilly should also have the government as defendant and the government must establish behind closed doors that the information requested in the law suit specifically applies to the suit and that info is really national security.

if Bush was having an affair, I have no doubt, he''d claim any info about it was national security--it is just a by word to hide acts--some legal, some illegal, but all a secret as far as the criminals involved are concerned. At some point, even Republicans must begin to hold this man and his admin. accountable.

[undermyboot]

The first modern "State Secrets" claim was used to hide federal government wrongdoing, not to protect "secrets". The first modern use was in 1953 to block attempts by family members to find out what happened to the crew of a crashed B-29 bomber. The government claimed that revealing anything about the accident would endanger national security and reveal a "top secret mission". The Supreme Court allowed the government to bury the information, and thereby established the "State Secrets" precedent. The families never got the truth.

In 2000, ALL of the information in this case was released. It revealed all claims of "national security" were fraudulent. There was NO SECRET INFORMATION. However, there WAS information that revealed the crash was caused by GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING, which would have been embarrassing to the President. This was the real reason the information was kept from the American People.

The idea of "State Secrets" is completely un-American. It was NOT a law passed by Congress. It was created by the 1953 Supreme Court ruling (where are the "Strict Constructionists" to decry "judicial activism" on this one?). "State Secrets" use has exploded in the last 5 years. It allows the President & his people to hide the truth forever and hide their crimes. This is not what our country stands for. Americans need to wake up and fight to eliminate "State Secrets" through legislation and litigation.

[toolmangler-2009]

This entire administration should be brought up on charges of treason.
Posted by trillion1 at 07:52 AM : Nov 17, 2007


I agree, 100%

[tylenol6]

If your pretty well fed up with the republicans and
democrats, google, RON PAUL. He is running for President. He is the democrats and republicans WORST
NIGHTMARE. Read what RON PAUL stands for. The news media does not want the american people to know about him. That is why they don''t want to report about him. THEY FEAR HIM.......LOOK HIM UP.....

[tylenol6]

I had heard these telecom companies gave big money to
Mr. Rockefellers campaign. I guess one hand washes the
other. I think our IDIOTS in congress will eventually
give in to Bush.....THEY ALWAYS DO!!!!!!!! THAT''S OUR
IDIOTS FOR YOU....

[undermyboot]

The King and his court demand more power. Today they say, "Let us violate the 4th Amendment at our whim, and let us use telecom companies to do our illegal bidding. Make it so no one can question our power to do whatever we want." They claim it is needed to make you safe. They say that liberty is an illusion and freedom is the enemy of safety. The dumocrats bend over and spread their cheeks for the King. The country heads toward fascism and dictatorship. The Congress applauds this. The King claims unlimited power is his divine right. The people follow blindly. The press is silent. The Party mouthpiece Faux News supplants the truth with lies and calls it "fair and balanced". "Truth" is redefined by the King and his sycophants to be whatever they say. Behind the scenes the last vestiges of the Constitution are burned under a veil of "national security" and "State Secrets", and the population applauds the end of liberty as if it were a victory. The monkeys howl their success. The founders of the USA roll over in their graves one last time. The Republic is lost.

[undermyboot]

And now this story has been buried within 12 hours by CBS. Get your guns people. Hide them where the coming Gestapo will not find them. The fruits of liberty are always bathed in the blood of patriots who fight and die so that the rest may be free. A second American Revolution is inevitable. With power hungry despots like the Republicons and incompetent corrupt buffoons like the Dumocrats, there will be no other way to restore the PEOPLE''S liberty.

[micma-2009]

Bu$h knows he broke the law and wiped his @ss with the Constitution and that''s why he wants to pass a law that retroactively makes what he and the telecoms did legal.

[shaggydaddy1]

I used to believe in our Democratic government, but it seems that our government leaders are slowly taking away our democratic rights.

[rowdytexan2]

Do not grant these companies immunity! It''s Mr. Bush trying to cover his behind for illegal acts!

Geezus, don''t send him another piece of legislation to pass, except what it takes to run this government for the next 15 months, and enough to bring our troops home.

This man is a treasonist murderer! DON''T ANY OF YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?

[jjp735i]

It''s really simple. If they did not break the law, why do they need immunity? Because Bush and friends broke the law and they are trying to cover their behinds and Congress will sooner or later allow them to do so by giving into Bush and granting immunity.

This Congress is a total failure and we the people are at a loss as to what to do. Who do we vote for? It''s always pretty much the same people running with special interest money. A freash face stands little chance in most states now a days.

[trillion1]

This entire administration should be brought up on charges of treason.

[undermyboot]

The very first "State Secrets" claim was used to hide federal government wrongdoing, not to protect "secrets". "State Secrets" first modern use was in 1953 to block attempts by family members to find out what happened to the crew of a crashed B-29 bomber. The government claimed that revealing anything about the accident would endanger national security and reveal a "top secret mission". The Supreme Court allowed the government to bury the information, and thereby established the "State Secrets" precedent. The families never got the truth.

In 2000, ALL of the information in this case was released. It revealed all claims of "national security" were fraudulent. There was NO SECRET INFORMATION. However, there WAS information that would have revealed the crash was caused by GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING, which would have been embarrassing to the President. This was the real reason the information was kept from the American People.

The idea of "State Secrets" is completely un-American. It was NOT a law passed by Congress. It was created by the 1953 Supreme Court ruling (where are the "Strict Constructionists" to decry "judicial activism" on this one?). "State Secrets" use has exploded in the last 5 years. It allows the President & his people to hide the truth forever and hide their crimes. This is not what our country stands for. Americans need to wake up and fight to eliminate "State Secrets" through legislation and litigation.

[undermyboot]

Today, the one powerful man and his subordinates can destroy your life without any any recourse to stop them.

They can put you in jail forever- without an attorney, or even without admitting they have you in jail. They can confiscate all your property. They can bear false witness. They can get you fired from your job. They can slander and spread lies about you. They can put a camera in your bedroom. They can obtain every bit of personal information about your life. They can search and tear up your home. they can take away your children. They can kill you at their whim.

They can do all of these things even though they violate every principle of American Constitution and the rule of law. How? Simply by two very dangerous words, "State Secret". With "State Secret" there is no obscenity against the Constitution, our laws, or individual Americans that cannot be committed. They can do whatever they want because, simply by uttering these magic words, the Congress, the Courts, and the People become powerless.

Americans fought to be free of this despotic power 230 years ago. We fought for a Constitution and law that stood above any man of power. We fought to protect the individual from the fist of oppressive government. We created the greatest documents ever conceived to establish a government ruled by the people. Now all of that is trumped by the odious words "State Secret" and a new King that wields them.

[undermyboot]

We are being told that all will be well if we simply give up our liberty and American Principle piece-by-piece. Today it seems like a little loss of liberty, a little more tolerance of unnecessary government secrecy will never lead to despotism. However, many great Americans understood that this is a path that leads to the end of the American Dream. It is a path that without fail leads to despotism and authoritarian government.

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
-Justice William O. Douglas

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

[undermyboot]

Even those who do not call themselves conservatives must acknowledge the power and enduring value of core conservative beliefs: belief in individual agency and responsibility, respect for American institutions and traditions, a resolute commitment to freedom, a willingness to take principled moral stands. It is a movement that draws its inspiration from towering figures: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Burke. It stands for caution in foreign adventures, fiscal sobriety and a profound respect for tradition.

Or at least it used to stand for those things. Today''s conservatism is a caricature of that movement: It embraces pointless wars, runs up a vast debt, and trashes the Constitution. Selling out their principles for power, abandoning deeply seated American values and traditions simply because someone on "their side" demanded that they do so, conservatives have made a deal with the devil that has reduced their movement to an empty, ends-obsessed shell. How did the party of Lincoln end up marching under the banner of Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh, *** Cheney and Ann Coulter?

[undermyboot]

Bush declared that habeas corpus, a magnificent cornerstone of Western law, did not apply to those he designated, without judicial review, "enemy combatants." He claimed the right to lock those individuals up forever, without allowing them to bring their case before a jury. He made torture official U.S. policy, while disingenuously saying "my administration does not torture". His approval of warrantless wiretapping constitutes perhaps the most serious frontal attack on the right of privacy enshrined in the Fourth Amendment in American history. He has made unprecedented use of "signing statements" to disobey laws he disagrees with, marginalizing Congress in the process. His radical theory of the "unitary executive" runs roughshod over the balance-of-powers doctrine that has guided American governance since the Founders.

These Bush policies all represent a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution, long-established legal and political traditions, and accepted American values -- in short, on the heart and soul of American civic life. If American conservatism will not take its stand in defense of these things, what will it take a stand for?

[undermyboot]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

For 218 years the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has stood. Now Bush and his traitors want to "redefine" what ".. to be secure..." and "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause ..." mean.

Bush & his traitorous cadre follow the philosophy of the disgraced "Federalists" of the 1700''s who WANTED A KING IN AMERICA. They believed the "general population" could not be trusted & must be controlled by an iron hand. Today, Bush''s supporters push for unlimited Presidential power under the concept of "unitary executive"- code for the "KING" these modern Federalists dream of. Their "King" has unlimited power: warrantless surveillance of all Americans, secret DOJ "memos" claiming Bush need not follow the law or Constitution, refusal of oversight, using tax $ to push their political power agenda, suppressing dissent, no accountability, shredding Habeas Corpus for Americans, claiming no limits on their power in an endless "wartime", and more.

These are not patriots or conservatives. They want radical constitutional change, and massive government control over Americans by one party & an all-powerful "President". They must be stopped.

[undermyboot]

"State Secrets" claims have been nothing but a lie from the beginning. It has been used to hide crimes of government officials and elected representatives from the very first use.

The first use was to block the attempts of family members to find out what happened to the crew of a bomber lost in on a training mission back in the 1950''s. The government claimed that revealing anything about the accident would endanger the country and reveal "vital secrets". 40 years later the "secret" information became public. Everyone - EVERYONE- who reads these documents agrees that there were no secrets or danger to America in the documents. Instead- it revealed wrongdoing by the government.

Like today- the primary use of State Secrets claims is to hide the wrongdoing of the government from the people. It is completely un-American to allow one branch of government the power hide the truth and protect their own crimes. this is not what our country stands for. It is a black mark on the USA and "Government by the people".