Bush Again Demands Telecom Immunity

President Repeats Calls For Lawsuit Protection Over Wiretaps; Would Surveillance Suffer Without It?

(CBS/AP)  In his radio address today, President George W. Bush again called for retroactive legal immunity from class action lawsuits initiated against telecommunication companies that participated in the government's wiretapping program without court-ordered warrants.

It follows many other recent statements by the Bush Administration and its supporters in Congress who are trying to push through a legislative measure that removes a citizen's right to sue, as part of the law overseeing the government's surveillance of citizens and foreigners.

Critics have called Mr. Bush's tone and choice of words "fear-mongering," if not merely wrong, when he characterizes the importance of retroactive immunity for past lawbreaking in being able to protect America from future terrorist threats.

The immunity provision currently being fought over (and which will be back in the spotlight when House members return this week) is part of the update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (or FISA), a law first enacted in 1978 which sets the conditions under which the government can engage in surveillance of citizens and non-citizens.

Under FISA, intelligence agencies must obtain warrants from a special court when setting up a wiretap. There are procedures in place, such as a 3-day window in which to get approval after the fact if time is of the essence. There are also protections when communications involve American citizens inside or outside of the U.S.

After it was revealed in December 2005 that the Bush administration had set up a secret surveillance program outside of the FISA court, and had engaged the cooperation of some telecom companies in tapping into and copying all telephone and Internet communications of every American beginning in 2001, discussions started on how to move forward in bolstering the legal protections afforded by FISA.

In addition, several dozen citizen lawsuits were launched to seek discovery against the telecoms' role in the wiretaps, which were run outside of the protections of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

Congress is split on providing immunity to the telecoms from civil liability (which would shut down the court cases, thus preventing discovery about the spy program's parameters); House and Senate versions differ and must be debated and agreed to before sending a bill to the White House.

President Bush has made it known repeatedly that, while he demands an update to FISA in order to ensure national security, he also will not sign any law that does not grant protection from lawsuits to the telecoms.

Mr. Bush's veto threats, the war of words, and the Congressional Republicans' refusal to allow an extension of current law (which expired earlier this month) meant that Congress left for a recess without voting on the new surveillance bill.

Mr. Bush laid the blame for the lapse on the doorstep of Capitol Hill: "Congress' failure to pass this legislation was irresponsible," he said in his radio address today, implying that our nation will be "increasingly vulnerable to attack."

"House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits."

"They cannot have it both ways," leading Congressional Democrats responded. "If it is true that the expiration of the [surveillance law] has caused gaps in intelligence, then it was irresponsible for the president and Congressional Republicans to openly oppose an extension of the law."

But how do class action lawsuits factor into intelligence gathering today, or tomorrow?

The Refusal To Cooperate

Mr. Bush says that, if telecoms do not get liability protection for wiretapping conducted in the past, they will refuse to do so in the future. "Without protection from lawsuits, private companies will be increasingly unwilling to take the risk [emphasis added] of helping us with vital intelligence activities," he said. "In other words, the House's refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies. And that undermines our efforts to protect us from terrorist attack."

In a letter to Congress Friday, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey claim the lack of a new law has cost the government some intelligence information over the past week because some private companies have delayed or refused compliance with requests to initiate wiretaps against people covered by orders issued under the expired law.

They said most companies are cooperating, but some have suggested they will stop if "the uncertainty [over immunity] persists."

McConnell has described the companies' stance as, "You can't protect me. Why should I help you?"

Such comments tend to color the White House's characterization of those companies' past warrantless wiretap efforts as patriotic ("They did the right thing").

Senior administration officials refused Friday to specify which companies, or how many, were not cooperating. They said the companies believe the law's expiration means no changes can be made in existing wiretaps, which can last for as long as a year.

FISA law compels phone companies to switch on a wiretap when presented with a warrant, although some claim a technicality in the currently expired law (the Protect America Act) does away with that.

While McConnell told the Associated Press, "There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, said that even when the law expires, existing wiretapping orders would continue to protect telecom companies.

It is also true that under the law telecoms would be safe from any lawsuits related to current or future wiretaps that invaded a citizen's privacy if they were engaged under a court-ordered warrant - it would be legal. The only wiretaps the telecoms could be liable for in civil cases would be illegal wiretaps - which the administration, under the law, couldn’t legally pursue anyway.

"Misguided Notion" Of Protecting American Rights

Concerns about constitutional breaches in citizens' rights have been downplayed by the administration, suggesting either that the information retrieved from warrantless wiretaps was valuable enough to warrant skirting the law, or that people in the Information Age should not expect the kinds of privacy protections our parents and grandparents expected.

In October, Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said, "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one-size-fits-all.

"I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity."

White House supporters in Congress are pushing the envelope even further, going so far as to suggest that those who keep an immunity provision from being passed might be to blame should another attack occur.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Southern California Republican, told the Orange County Register, "Just think about shutting down the interceptions because of some misplaced notion about protecting American rights and we end up with families being murdered at Disneyland because some messages weren't intercepted."

But there is that pesky Fourth Amendment, which clearly states,

"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."

Room 641A at an AT&T facility in San Francisco, through which phone calls, e-mail and Internet traffic were allegedly, indiscriminantly siphoned to be copied by the government, doesn’t quite fit.

It's All About Plaintiff's Lawyers

The president said, "The Senate bill would prevent plaintiffs' attorneys from suing companies believed to have helped defend America after the 9/11 attacks. More than 40 of these lawsuits have been filed, seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from these companies."

While damages are being sought based upon violations of such laws as FISA, the Wiretap Act, the Communications Act, and the Stored Communications Act, the lawsuits (such as Hepting v. AT&T) also seek access to classified information about the spying program: Who authorized it, who enabled it, and how the information was used.

To those who intimate that the administration's surveillance was used for anything other than tracking suspected al Qaeda members (such as for political purposes), the value of this case goes beyond any financial remuneration.

[bubbee4]

The Bush administration is bellowing and threatening for telecom immunity because they know that the lawsuits against the phone companies are the LAST REMAINING AVENUE for finding out the extent of Bush/Cheney/Rove''s illegal spying on you and me.
I would offer immunity to these corporations only if they testify against the administration''s lawbreaking which results in long prison sentences for those responsible.

[r_lamprey]

President George Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he can not be trusted to tell the truth, so it refreshing to see the House of Reps call his bluff on this current lie. It is too bad that the Senate still accepts no responiblity to provide oversight of this corrupt administration. The Bush administration has been much more interested in covering their illegal activities than in best interests of the United States.

[toolmangler-2009]

"White House backtracks on claims of lost intelligence" LA Times



How can you lose something you ''never'' had? "intelligence", give me a break

[quetzal0666]

SHRUB Jr, Fighting Terrorism one Law Abiding Citizen at a time.!!!

[knyghtwolf]

I DEMAND that bush get a brain and a clue but as an American taxpayer, will I get what I want?
I DEMAND that bush & cheney, along with the rest of his regime, be tried as WAR CRIMINALS, again, as an American taxpayer, will I get what I want?

[andor3]

"Anything with the CBS brand on it is pure leftwing spin."

Joking yes? I''m a proud leftwing liberal and CBS looks pretty far right to me, probably center in most political spectra. CBS is if anything, a scion of corporate media.

Maybe YOU are too far to the right and do not know where you fall in relation to your fellow American voters.

And no, the media is not liberal.

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by jowand at 10:39 PM

I just love how you people frame your denials.

[brianbwb-2009]

"White House backtracks on claims of lost intelligence" LA Times

"The House''s refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies, and that undermines our effort to protect us from terrorist attacks," Bush said in his second radio address in two weeks on the same issue.

But then;

"Hours after chiding Congress for not finishing a wiretapping bill and leaving the nation ''vulnerable to terrorist attack,'' officials acknowledge all requested information is being received." By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer February 24, 2008

So Bush again lies very loudly, but later the truth comes out quietly.

[brianbwb-2009]

By the way the constitution states clearly that;

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

The Bush proposed exclusions of the telephone companies from liability for past criminal acts, is exactly that, an illegal and unconstitutional ex post facto law.

I post again, because this clause of the US constitution seems to be consistently ignored in the debate.

[pared1]

Headline "Bush Again Demands Telecom Immunity"

I demand the idiot Bush step down and take your little bulldog Cheaney with you you war criminal.

[mrconservatv]

pure spin

Posted by jowand at 10:39 PM : Feb 24, 2008

Bin Laden is wanted: dead or alive, says Bush
09/18/2001



Within hours of the World Trade Center collapsing, the U.S. began pointing fingers at Osama bin Laden. And within days of those accusations, the Bush administration began talking of the "evidence" against bin Laden. Colin Powell has talked about it. Donald Rumsfeld has talked about it. President Bush has talked about it. The past two weeks have been dotted with press conferences, international committee meetings, lengthy legal discussions, all focused on one question: Where is the evidence of bin Laden''s guilt?

Colin Powell has been candid in saying that the evidence is not of the type that would stand up in an American court of law.
Wednesday, Oct. 03, 2001


"I don''t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don''t care. It''s not that important. It''s not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


THE SPIN MASTER KARL ROVE AND THE GOP

Hi my name is jowand and I''m a Bush oholic

[jowand]

Our great leader would never lie to us about real intentions or threats to America.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/
01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
Posted by harp1963 at 10:10 PM : Feb 24, 2008

Anything with the CBS brand on it is pure leftwing spin.

[harp1963]

Our great leader would never lie to us about real intentions or threats to America.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

[ajayvee]

kesac4650 wrote: It has nothing to do with anything illegal.

If you take a moment to read easily available information, you will discover that the Telecoms doing exactly what they have been doing without an express written warrant under FISA is indeed illegal. Under FISA, intelligence agencies **must** obtain warrants from a special court when setting up a wiretap. In December 2005 the Bush administration set up a secret surveillance program **outside** of the FISA court. This was and is illegal and Bush wants to reward the Telecoms for breaking the law with immunity.

[harp1963]

We cannot allow civil lawsuits to cripple America''''s intelligence gathering efforts.
This has nothing to do with Bush. It has nothing to do with anything illegal. It has to do with those who will stop at nothing to erect barriers inhibiting our ability to prevent another 9/11.

Posted by kesac4650 at 09:33 PM : Feb 24, 2008

Getting subpoenas for emminent danger security threats does not take any time at all and does not "cripple" our ability to deter threats.

Why is it that the abuse of power history must repeat itself over and over again before the gullible will believe it can happen again?

[ajayvee]

In a couple of weeks the House will sell out to the Telecoms like the Senate did. So why doesn''t Bush just shut the f*ck up and wait a little longer.

[kesac4650]

We cannot allow civil lawsuits to cripple America''s intelligence gathering efforts.
This has nothing to do with Bush. It has nothing to do with anything illegal. It has to do with those who will stop at nothing to erect barriers inhibiting our ability to prevent another 9/11.

[harp1963]

LOL!

http://www.post-gazette.com/robrogers/

[briannorwood]

"Mr. Bush says that, if telecoms do not get liability protection for wiretapping conducted in the past, they will refuse to do so in the future."

Excuse my ignorance, but is the Chimp in Chief''s argument that if we do not provide the telecoms immunity for crimes committed in the past, they will be unwilling to commit crimes in the future?

Sounds like a winner to me!

[harp1963]

Please use the court system Mr. Stalin. It was put there to protect the American citizens from the Adolph Hitler types. We Americans wonder if the Stalin/Hitler types might be pretending to be patriotic Americans that would possibly covertly sponsor attacks against Americans by foreign front groups so Americans would allow you to bug every phone in America and put GPS chips in all Americans to protect us against the evil terrorists who might just be our own leaders.

We like the court system to participate in the bugging process to protect us from abuse of power, which history has provided many, many, many examples.

Please America, get as upset about this as you would about your home state university football coach committing some NCAA recruiting violation.