House Approves Dem Surveillance Bill

Measure Faces Veto From President Because It Does Not Protect Telecommunications Companies From Lawsuits

(AP)  The House on Friday narrowly approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.

The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213 to 197, largely along party lines.

Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The vote sent the bill to the Senate, which has passed its own version that includes the legal immunity for telecom companies that Mr. Bush is insisting on.

Without that provision, House Republicans said, the companies won't cooperate with U.S. intelligence.

"We cannot conduct foreign surveillance without them. But if we continue to subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits, we risk losing their cooperation in the future," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

The government does have the power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with wiretaps if it gets warrants from a secret court. The government apparently did not get such warrants before initiating the post-9/11 wiretaps, which are the basis for the lawsuits.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the bill is meant to fix that. It would let a judge determine whether lawsuits should be dismissed, rather than having Congress make that decision.

"I believe that the nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last seven years, and I want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community," Reyes said.

About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies by people and organizations alleging the companies violated wiretapping and privacy laws. The lawsuits have been combined and are pending before a single federal judge in California.

The Democrats' measure would encourage the judge to review in private the secret government documents underpinning the program to decide if the companies acted lawfully.

The administration has prevented those documents from being revealed, even to a judge, by invoking the state secrets privilege. That puts the companies in a bind because they are unable to defend themselves.

Just a fraction of Congress has been granted access to the records.

Democrats argued against quashing the lawsuits without knowing in detail why the immunity is necessary. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said the government may have as many as five ongoing clandestine surveillance programs. "Congress is not fully informed, and it would be reckless to grant retroactive immunity without knowing the scope of programs out there," Harman said.

"All members of Congress should see those documents so they could see the breadth and scope" of the wiretapping program, said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.

The surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S, and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.

A temporary law expired Feb. 16 before Congress was able to produce a replacement bill. Bush opposed an extension of the temporary law as a means to pressure Congress into accepting the Senate version of the surveillance legislation.

Mr. Bush and most Capitol Hill Republicans say the lawsuits are damaging national security and unfairly punish telecommunications companies for helping the government in a time of war.

"There is not one iota of evidence that the companies acted inappropriately whatsoever," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

Democrats say the bill protects the privacy rights of Americans by making sure the telecommunications companies - and the wiretapping program - did not violate any laws.

"We have the opportunity to serve the protection of our country ... and uphold our oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Let us take that opportunity."

The Democratic bill also would initiate a yearlong bipartisan panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the administration's so-called warrantless wiretapping program.

Friday's vote came after House Republicans forced a rare, late-night secret session of Congress on Thursday to discuss the bill. It was the first such session of the House in a quarter century; the last one was in 1983, on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have occurred in the House since 1825.

Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas said she didn't believe any minds were changed on the bill.

"We couldn't have gone more of an extra mile to make sure we're doing the best for national security," she said.

[libsrweak]

Prove it, you witless wonder.


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

Posted by guidosfoot at 09:38 AM : Mar 17, 2008
+ report abuse


**************

you seem agitated..HIT A NERVE??

[libsrweak]

Prove it, you witless wonder.


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

Posted by guidosfoot at 09:38 AM : Mar 17, 2008
+ report abuse

************
well the DNC, the liberal masses and liberal Hollywood are all in protecting the rights of terrorists..

name one thing that the DNC had placed on the table to help of war against terrorismm(FORGET IRAQ)...anything..anything at all that would help ANY EFFORT to fight terrorism ANYWHERE..name one......

the liberal masses and liberal hollywood..plays a new character to replace the true character of these terrorists..POOR LITTLE UNDERDOGS..look at all the post posted by liberals..they are PRO-TERRORIST..name it..may it be a murderer..a dictator (oh man you should see how the liberal masses orally copulated both castro and chavez)..a radical cleric..or a simpleton terrorist foot soldier..YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR A PEEP OF ANYTHING NEGATIVE..the call for impeachment over something that would not float..and the DNC knows it wont float but went along to get voted in..

do you want details?? let me know

[guidosfoot]

muslims terrorists are very lucky..they have the DNC,,the liberal masses and Hollywood working for them

Posted by libsrweak at 11:34 PM : Mar 16, 2008

Prove it, you witless wonder.

[libsrweak]

muslims terrorists are very lucky..they have the DNC,,the liberal masses and Hollywood working for them

[Stratmaster7]

Well, you got about 5 correct on your list there Mar

[kiens0y]

Korea was a mistake...
Vietnam was a mistake...
Panama was a mistake...
Somalia was a mistake...
Iraq was a mistake...
Afghanistan is proven to be a mistake...
The Civil war was a mistake...
The Indian war was a mistake...
The Mexican war was a mistake...
WWI was a mistake...
WWII was a mistake (you have to consider others point of view)...
All wars are a mistake...

Your whining and complaining will never stop future (mistaken) wars from happening. War will be with us whether you like it or not (and you don''t).

What matter is: are you with U.S. or with them?

[michellem99-2009]

Bush..He and the members he put in. The constution is to obeyed. I know the nanny govt listens. It is not right.

[Stratmaster7]

down, there is nothing at all farfetched about my scenario. no black helicopters required. It has already been proven the administration violated wiretap laws... that is why everything they want passed ahving to do with spying has always needed to be retroactive. I believe (admittedley haven''t gone out to refresh my memory) the Patriot Act was retroactive in some aspects. did you not notice the line in the article that says the Telcos would have problems defending themselves because the administration won;t allow any access to any records. How could releasing info on whether or not the laws were follwoed in obtaining the wiretaps jeopardize our security? What jeopardizes our security is a criminal adminsitration continuing to lie us into wars, break laws and hide it from the public.

[downsteamjim]

To Stratmaster2: Was this before or after you flew the black helicopters?

[Stratmaster7]

Lets be VERY clear. The reason the Bush administation will veto this bill is becasue if the Telcos go to court, damning information about the bush administrations illegal activities will have to be exposed. At this point, this has nothing to do with protecting national security. The government can make the Telcos tap a line anytime it is waranted without this bill. I worked for the telcos for years and there are specific guidelines and processes in place for providing info. This is all about protecting the criminal administration, not protecting our citizens.

[downsteamjim]

downsteamjim,,,, Isn''''t John McBush called Mr. Amnesty ?? ---- As far as his paying attention to his own state,, Yuma now wants to build a Moat
Posted by j-whitman Once again, I defy you find any time that I have defended illegal immigration. McBushTedHillBor are all on the same and wrong page

[downsteamjim]

To McVet: I believe your hero, Ted Kennedy knows more about lethal water torture than anyone at Gitmo. I don''t believe that you are so naive that you think Teddy is so easily fooled.

[downsteamjim]

J. Whitman: I defy to find anywhere I have ever said there was a connection between Al Queda and Iraq pre destruction of Saddam. A little honest would be nice.

[mcvet]

What about his dealing with Kennedy et al on education and amnesty for illegals.



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

Posted by downsteamjim at 01:19 PM : Mar 15, 2008
+ report abuse

ROFLMAO RIGHT!! I think if you check with Kennedy you''ll find that Sir Lies-A-Lot lied to him just like he did with all the rest of us!! You freaks had better throw this piece of trash under a bus before he bites you again!! ROFLMAO Running for office as a Repig with this garbage in office is like running a sprint with a anvil around your neck!! ROFLMAO It''s not a matter of IF he''s going to screw up, that''s a given, it''s a matter of when!! ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush

[j-whitman]

downsteamjim,,,, Isn''t John McBush called Mr. Amnesty ?? ---- As far as his paying attention to his own state,, Yuma now wants to build a Moat

[j-whitman]

downsteamjim,,,, Obviously you''re not keeping up with the news --- Pentagon said there was no connection to Al Queda, Iraq was a mistake, Iraqi soldiers watch our news & are pulling for a democrat win & here''s another one today....

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida is in Iraq to stay, according to military leaders and other officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23638351/

[ioweign]

Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.

Well veto it, so much for "National Security", Roy !

"You are either with us or against us" - sound familiar...

[downsteamjim]

I can''''t recall one instance where Bush actually came half - or even a quarter - way.

Posted by Rafterman1 at 12:25 PM : Mar 15, 2008
What about his dealing with Kennedy et al on education and amnesty for illegals.

[b-easy63]

t was so the GOPervs could BEG the Dems not to expose Shrub and Darth to Prison for Treasonous Criminal Spying on their personal and political enemies. They didn''''t want the American people to witness their groveling, hand-wringing and whining begging for mercy.
They know they are about to be whipped so severely in the upcoming elections, they''''re begging to be allowed to die as a Party without further indignities.
I say drag them out one by one under the spotlights, on live TV, and announce what Sleezy, Slimy, Criminal Scumbag things they''''ve been doing for the last 8 years.............
Then kick them into the crowd of American Citizens, where true Justice can be carried out.....

Posted by veteran71 at 10:01 AM : Mar 15, 2008


ARONG. It was so the GOP could REMIND the House Dems all the stuff the shrub has on each of them and threaten to expose all if they, like the Senate--did not bend over and let them shove that retro immunity up America''s azz. The problem is--the Senate was scared and blinked. After all this time, they have all the times they gave in to account for--and it makes the info Bush has on them more indicting. I have a feeling, the house took a different approach so far--they are saying "go on and tell on us--then we can tell the American People what you really have been eavesdropping on and why. Shades of Nixon magnified times 1000.

[b-easy63]

"There is not one iota of evidence that the companies acted inappropriately whatsoever," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.


LMAO--Well.. we guess not, since the Government won''t share exactly what each program is doing and why....

It''s sort of like the stupid argument, that there is no murder (no matter how much blood and damage in a home is found) if there is no body.

Only a fool would grant retro active immunity without knowing what they really just granted immunity for. guess the Senate is peopled by fools. vote all who voted for the bill out--and that includes those who decided not to vote (like Hilary Clinton) to save her political "I''se be in de middle, so''s I''see ain''t votin'' " azz.