WASHINGTON, Feb. 23, 2008
Bush Again Demands Telecom Immunity
President Repeats Calls For Lawsuit Protection Over Wiretaps; Would Surveillance Suffer Without It?
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Domestic Surveillance The debate over the Bush administration's controversial wiretapping program.
Legal scholars also point out that the FISA court has approved virtually every single wiretap request given it over the past three decades, hence the desire to know the reasons for the Bush administration to circumvent the court in order to spy on Americans, since its argument that FISA stands in the way of intelligence gathering is weak.
"Punishing" Patriots
In remarks before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Mike Mukasey said:
"[T]his legislation protects telecommunications companies now under legal assault because they are believed to have responded to the Government’s call for assistance in the aftermath of September 11."The head of the Justice Department, the leading criminal enforcement officer in the United States, equated a lawsuit charging a defendant with breaking the law as a "legal assault," as if the plaintiffs were the assailants.
Mr. Bush said today, "It is unfair and unjust to threaten these companies with financial ruin only because they are believed to have done the right thing and helped their country."
Doing the "right thing" might not have been the only reason why some telecoms agreed to switch on wiretaps that were not legal - and telecoms could not argue that they believed the wiretaps were legal, because at least one company, Qwest, refused to participate because it recognized the wiretaps were illegal. It was later divulged in court documents that Qwest's refusal cost it lucrative government contracts.
Also unmentioned by immunity backers is a recent report that FBI wiretaps were switched off by the phone companies because the Justice Department failed to pay their phone bills.
The Mixed Argument
Mirroring his comments last week that terrorists around the world are planning actions that would make 9/11 "pale by comparison," President Bush said we must never forget that "somewhere in the world, at this very moment, terrorists are planning the next attack on America." Which is likely true.
Certainly no one can argue that terrorists are not planning attacks. But the president pushes this fact forward to imply that that creates a choice between preserving national security and maintaining constitutional protections, like wronged parties being able to sue.
Mr. Bush made it a point to focus his attention not on citizens, but on their lawyers:
"Members of the House have a choice to make: They can empower the trial bar - or they can empower the intelligence community. They can help class action trial lawyers sue for billions of dollars - or they can help our intelligence officials protect millions of lives. They can put our national security in the hands of plaintiffs' lawyers - or they can entrust it to the men and women of our government who work day and night to keep us safe."Trial lawyers are almost as easy a target as terrorists.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, rejected the notion that intelligence gathering has been compromised by the fight over immunity. In the Democratic Party's response to Mr. Bush's radio address today, Conyers said, "There should be no question in anyone's mind that the United States intelligence agencies have the legal ability to take all actions necessary to protect the security of the American people. For anyone to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and totally inaccurate."
Terror experts, advocates for civil liberties, and constitutional scholars point out that holding lawbreakers accountable does not mean that a court case looking into past offenses will in any way inhibit the intelligence community's ability to track current or future communications between terror suspects (although some government officials claim that "state secrets" about the country's intelligence gathering will be revealed, and thus compromised, in an open court).
But while Congress debates future law, the courts remain the only place where the spy program's past actions can be documented and clarified - if the courts are allowed to.
But the road to legal clarity is not easy, as witness this week's Supreme Court rejection of an appeal by the ACLU over its lawsuit aimed at declaring the National Security Agency's wiretap program illegal. The Sixth Circuit Court had earlier overturned a summary judgment in favor of the ACLU on narrow procedural grounds related to their standing (they could not demand evidence that they were actually spied upon, because of the State Secrets Doctrine), without actually addressing the legality of the government's surveillance program.
The Supreme Court refused to answer that question, and let the case die.
By CBSNews.com producer David Morgan.
Update:
Just hours after having chided Congress for failing to pass a new FISA law, and suggesting that telecoms were refusing to submit to government requests for wiretaps, the administration backtracked Saturday.
In a statement reported on by the Los Angeles Times, Mukasey and McConnell said that all wiretaps were continuing, and that intelligence agencies were getting all the information they requested, even without the new law, "at least for now."
A Democratic official called the new message "serious backpedaling," saying that the adminstration has been saying "that the sky is falling, and the sky is not falling."
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 206 CommentsI would offer immunity to these corporations only if they testify against the administration''s lawbreaking which results in long prison sentences for those responsible.
How can you lose something you ''never'' had? "intelligence", give me a break
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?
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.
I just love how you people frame your denials.
"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.
"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.
I demand the idiot Bush step down and take your little bulldog Cheaney with you you war criminal.
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
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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
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.
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?
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.
http://www.post-gazette.com/robrogers/
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!
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.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 206 Comments