Filibuster Threatened Over Wiretap Law

Senate Debates Competing BIlls Overseeing Surveillance Of Americans

(CBS/AP)  A Senate filibuster is promised against a bill that would grant immunity from lawsuits against telecommunication companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., reiterated his intent to block the Intelligence Committee's version of a renewed surveillance law known as FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) if it includes immunity.

The bill is S.2248. There is a competing FISA bill from the Judiciary Committee which does not grant immunity.

An amendment by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., which would have stripped immunity from the Judiciary Committee version, was tabled this afternoon, by a vote of 60-34.

"Few things are more detrimental to this country than the erosion of and attack on the civil liberties we enjoy," he said. "This isn't a Democratic issue or a Republican issue; this is an American issue.

"If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law.

"More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. For all those who have stood with me throughout this fight, I pledge, once more, to stand up for you."

Sen. Reid promised to keep the Senate open over the weekend in order to assure that a final bill is passed.

The original FISA law requires the government to get permission from a special court to listen in on the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States. Changes in communications technology mean many purely foreign to foreign communications now pass through the United States and therefore require the government to get court orders to intercept them.

The Protect America Act, adopted in August, eased that restriction. The bill contained a sunset clause, expiring February 1, to allow for more detailed debate before coming to a final bill.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates say the August bill went too far, giving the government far more power to eavesdrop on American communications without court oversight.

The White House, however, wants the law enacted in August made permanent.

A provision of the law which proponents deem crucial, however, relates to granting immunity from litigation to telecommunication companies who helped the administration spy on citizens without warrants, as if required by the Constitution.

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.

President has said a renewed FISA bill is imperative to protect the nation's security. Yet he also said that he would veto any FISA bill which did not protect telecoms from such lawsuits.

Sen. Dodd said today that the Intelligence Committee version granting retroactive immunity "is a dangerous, dangerous step."

"I would object to retroactive immunity not just with this administration but any administration," he said today.

On Tuesday, Reid sought to extend the current law for 30 days, to give more time to debating the bills under consideration, but Senate Republicans killed it.

White House press secretary Dana Perino criticized Democratic plans for a one-month extension of the current law. "Look, there's been six months to hash out the differences. Actually, there's been a whole year-and-a-half worth," she said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chided the White House for wanting to have it both ways: espousing the importance of not letting the current law expire on February 1, and yet fighting against a one-month extension.

Durbin reminded Senators that the same administration which Congress must act quickly to updated FISA law in order to keep the nation safe ignored Congress for years about its surveillance activities, until its secret program was revealed in 2006 and "their hands were caught in the cookie jar by The New York Times," and only now offers to work with Congress to update FISA.

"Where have you been?" Durbin asked, rhetorically.

Those who supported immunity also spoke out on the floor today.

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the legislation providing immunity to telecoms was to protect them from lawsuits he dubbed "frivolous."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., said telecoms are unable to defend themselves in court because the government has prevented them from releasing documents pertaining to surveillance, and so they should be protected from class action lawsuits.

She told of one telecom's CEO who told her, "'I don’t think that I should be put in jeopardy, or my shareholders or consumers, [for being] a patriotic American."

[hhkeller]

The Senators phones and email is already tapped by the White House. The NSA probably has the Courts tapped now too.

[kansas1946]

Well we can see by the Republicans behavior, as usual, they are putting party before country. If any Democratic president was doing, or trying to do, what Bush is doing, stomping all over the constitution, spying are American citizens without warrants, etc., the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder, as they should be. But no, since it is their president, (certainly not anyone else''s) they just go along. Anyone who supports their party over their country is a traitor, and that is exactly how I view any Republican that would support Bush on his unConstitutional grab for power.

[enoughya]

Good for Chris Dodd. It is good to hear we still have some true patriots in power, albeit far too few and far inbetween. Vote all other senators out of office.

[slpdisk]

Thank you senators and congressmen alike who still believe in the U.S. Constitution and are willing to oppose illegal attempts perused by this corrupt administration to create a police state based on lies and fear.

[be_thechange]

Bush has been a control freak since he first robbed the presidency from Gore to play king of the world. His corporate princes love to extract any information on consumer habits to use for their marketing, while Bush''s war-freaks want to erase anyone who isn''t a bible-toting neo-con praying for an apocalypse to justify the years they''ve spent on their knees. But the key to this issue is having control of you and me.
The best way to avoid terrorist attacks is to have the IQ to listen to warnings (such as pre September 11) and act on the intelligence from world experts.

[billof_right]

Get back to basics!
Amendment IV
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.

[billof_right]

In the news:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex. . . . . told of one telecom''s CEO who told her, "''I don%u2019t think that I should be put in jeopardy, or my shareholders or consumers, [for being] a patriotic American."

This CEO sounds to me like the kind of person who would pressure a law enforcement officer to let his or her kid off the hook for a drunken driving arrest because, %u201Chis future is at stake, you don%u2019t want to jeopardize a young person%u2019s future for a silly mistake would you?%u201D

Are we a nation of laws or not? Breaking the law is breaking the law. The telecom CEO who broke the law, and his company, knew the law; they are accountable for their actions. Even people who are ignorant of a law they break, are still held accountable for breaking the law in this country last I checked.
Based on the quote above reported by Ms. Bailey, Jack Ruby could have used the same argument about killing Oswald, %u201CI don%u2019t think I should be put in jeopardy for being a patriotic American.%u201D

How sloppy are we going to get in enforcing rule of law? What kind of precedent is being set?

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by downsteamjim at 09:12 PM

Gee, it must be nice to be able to add to other people''s comments like that. How else can you make yourself right? Sheesh!

[fiteit1]

downsteamjim, you brought up Saddam and I just compared Saddam to your hero Bush. Your right the issue is about political points, mine would be that protecting our rights has nothing to do with terrorists. when we lose our rights in the name of terrorism the terrorist win and the Republicans and our president are seeing that they win.

[fiteit1]

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the legislation providing immunity to telecoms was to protect them from lawsuits he dubbed "frivolous."

Answer, let the court decide. The truth is they don''t want joe public to know just who was being watched.

[downsteamjim]

To fiteit1: So in your logic there was no difference between FDR, Stalin, and Hitler. I guess Pol Pot was a hero. He was just trying to lower greenhouse emissions by killing a large portion of his population. A little perspective would do you some good.

[downsteamjim]

Here on planet earth, the issue is to make political points. To these people protecting the U.S.Constitution or the U.S. irrelevant.

[fiteit1]

downsteamjim, Bush is as bad as Saddam, Bush calls it patriotism and Saddam called it protecting my tribe. They both killed people (sorry, had them killed), stockpiled weapons of mass destruction (oh, that was just us), spied on there own people, tortured there enemy (we export for torture), hoarded money (Saddam''s was in gold and cash, Bush''s was in energy contracts and Halliburton, banking favors for future trade), invaded a country (Saddam was Kuwait, Bush was Iraq)

I can''t see a difference.

[fiteit1]

Once again the Democrat leadership is working to make the lives of terrorist easier. Posted by downsteamjim

What planet are you on? This is America where freedom and protection of my privacy is equal to life it''s self. There are special courts, warrants, rules and laws that can protect our freedom and privacy and still reduce the terrorist from freely moving money, arms, explosives and communications. Bushism has eroded all Americas rights, privacy and way of life. It is possible to not lose our rights, freedoms and privacy without jeopardizing safety, it just isn''t the current administration that can do it, that has been proven.

[downsteamjim]

Dear McVet: I''m sorry for you that your great heroes like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, his buddy during the destruction of Poland, Hitler [I guess that''s where you get your constant Seig Hiel from], and Saddam are dead. Next time try to get a decent hero.

[mcvet]

Once again the Democrat leadership is working to make the lives of terrorist easier.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by downsteamjim at 07:41 PM : Jan 24, 2008
+ report abuse

How''s that? Somehow I don''t see how protecting Corporations against law suits as helping the enemy? Now I know you fascist are tied to your fuhrer and your party''s view of things but you HAVE to be smarter that this... It''s probably the dumbest statement I''ve heard out of one of you bootlickers through all the LIES on top of LIEs told by Sir LIES-A-Lot. Try... try very hard to think for yourself... I know it''s new to you nazi''s but TRY!! Sieg Heil Bush!!

[downsteamjim]

Once again the Democrat leadership is working to make the lives of terrorist easier.

[rowdytexan2]

This article is distorted. We demonize AT&T, but they were only acting under the orders of our government. The telecom companies aren''''t at fault, the federal government is. I agree with granting immunity. The government wiretapping ordinary people without a warrent is clearly a violation of privacy. The government needs to be sued, not Verizon. Make the FBI defend their actions in front of a judge!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mcharlton4 at 05:12 PM : Jan 24, 2008

These telecom CEO''s knew what the law was! It''s their job to know the laws. They didn''t abide by them!

[rowdytexan2]

If the telecoms wanted to be patriots, they should''ve required the government to get the warrants like the Constitution says they have to do!!!

They don''t deserve immunity! They have violated the law!

[rowdytexan2]

CBS/AP) Yesterday, Vice President *** Cheney, in a speech before a conservative think tank, warned that if telecoms were not given immunity for past surveillance, they would hesitant to assist the government in the future, and is vital "to help us prevent another 9/11 down the road."

They won''t have to be hesitant!!! Just get a warrant and prove up the case! Takes a judge less than two minutes to sign a warrant!