Congress panel rejects Bush eavesdropping demand

[Lone_Star_Dem]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush warned Democrats against backsliding in the war on terrorism in new eavesdropping legislation as lawmakers on Wednesday defied his call to shield phone companies from pending lawsuits.

Committees in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives met to begin work on legislation to replace a temporary eavesdropping measure, the Protect America Act, which the administration pushed through in August.

<snip>

Shortly after he spoke, the House Judiciary Committee voted 21-14 to reject an amendment sought by the White House that would shield telecommunications firms retroactively from lawsuits for participating in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched after the September 11 attacks.




Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1025071120071010?sp=true

[TwilightGardener]

1. Good! They did something right for once!

[gateley]

2. Are things turning around? This is great news! nt

[madrchsod]

3. miracles will never cease....

but they are few and far between...

[Purveyor]

4. By asking for retroactive immunity for the telecoms, are they not admitting

that their eavesdropping without a court order was indeed 'illegal'?

[Fearless]

8. Yes of course.

Not like a petty thing like laws would stop Bu$hCo.

[Jim__]

5. That's good news, but the proposed legislation protects the telecoms from future lawsuits.

From the article: The proposed legislation would protect the firms from future lawsuits provided they comply with the law but not from pending suits. Does this imply that this legislation will increase bush's power? Will it increase his power to spy on Americans? The fact are in. Bush can't be trusted. Congress should only pass legislation to reel in bush's power. Nothing new shouldbe granted to him; and any defense they need to make of this should simply be that bush has proven himself not trustworthy.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. WTG House! Stand firm! No Libby pardon for AT&T and Verizon!

[gratuitous]

7. An old joke

Two bulls are standing on a ridge looking down on a field of heifers. The young one excitedly says, "Hey, let's run down there and get us one of them cows!" "Son," rejoins the old bull, "Let's walk down. And get 'em all."

The frantic passage of the six month extension back in August was disgraceful. Let's take our time on this one, shall we? Gather some evidence, get some testimony, and make a measured, considered decision on just how much unfettered power to spy on its citizens this crooked administration really needs, mmmkay?

[rateyes]

9. Kick & Rec

:kick:

[Lugnut]

10. All right!

K&R

[sabra]

11. Democrats defy Bush, approve spy bill

Source: reuters

WASHINGTON, Oct 10 (Reuters) - In defiance of U.S. President George W. Bush, Democrats on Wednesday voted to bolster civil-liberty safeguards in his anti-terror spying program and refused to shield phone companies from pending lawsuits.

Just hours after Bush warned Democrats they would be rolling back efforts to protect against another Sept. 11-type attack, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved legislation to ensure congressional and secret-court oversight of the surveillance of enemy targets. The vote was 20-14.

The measure would require the administration to obtain one-year "blanket warrants" from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor telephone calls or e-mails of suspected terrorists when they involve a U.S. citizen.

It would not require individual warrants to listen in on Americans communicating with terrorists, unless the U.S. citizen is also a specific target of the surveillance. No warrant would be needed to monitor foreign suspects speaking to each other overseas.

"The legislation before us today seeks to once again strike the appropriate balance between needed government authority and our precious rights and liberties," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat.

Read more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10273743.htm

[mbperrin]

12. Well, maybe someone is noticing that *'s approval

sucks.

[Orsino]

27. ...and is still higher than theirs.

Last I heard, anyway.

[still_one]

13. As long as the Democrats hold strong and don't cave in it will be OK /nt

[Zandor]

14. The folks accusing the Democrats of pandering to Bush

will be disappointed at this.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. No, baby steps are better than no steps. Will the legislation grant future immunity to

the telecom companies?

[Changenow]

19. I will be thrilled

if anything close to this becomes law. The fact is it will not.

I'd love to be disappointed for once, but this won't be the time.

[againes654]

47. Disappointed???

You really don't get it do you?

[Changenow]

15. It's an illusion

Don't get your hopes up.

Dems opens door for immunity in spy bill

Democratic Leader Opens Door for Telecom Immunity in New Government Spying Bill

A top Democratic leader opened the door Tuesday to granting U.S. telecommunications companies retroactive legal immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders, but said the Bush administration must first detail what those companies did.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Democrats introduced a draft version of the new law Tuesday _ without the immunity language.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/10/dems_opens_door_for_immunity_i.php

[Lone_Star_Dem]

55. From what I read Hoyer isn't suggesting giving immunity w/o first seeing what it's for

Which is information that bush has already said he will not provide.

"We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done, for which we've been asked to give immunity," Hoyer said.

In a conference call with reporters, a senior Justice Department official called Hoyer's offer "encouraging" but would not commit to sharing the data. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity while negotiations with Congress continue.

<snip>

The bill would also require the Justice Department to reveal to Congress the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since Sept. 11, 2001, including the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was a secret eavesdropping program undertaken after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without the approval of the FISA court created 30 years ago to monitor such programs.

The Bush administration agreed on Oct. 5 to "assemble" that information by Oct. 22 _ after the bill is supposed to be voted on by Congress _ but warned that many of the requested documents may be withheld.

[Cha]

17. Congratulations DEMS...ya

made me not feel sucky for once when I read the news about what you've let bushit get away with.

[gateley]

18. I think things are beginning to turn. We need to give credit to our Dems for

taking this step and hope it's the beginning of a trend. We should thank our reps who voted 'correctly' to let them know they have our support to continue on in this direction.

[Cha]

24. Sorry, but if you could

realize how many times we've read on DU.. "Think things are starting to turn now".

We always thank them when they've done the correct thing and we've always protested when they've caved to bushits.

[Nightjock]

53. RIGHT ON!

I was so disgusted with them but they FINALLY made a move in the right direction. We need to acknowledge this!

[ProudDad]

20. As usual, the Dems pass the WRONG FUCKING BILL!!!

Congress must remedy the situation it created in August when it handed the Bush Administration vast new powers to invade our privacy with no meaningful oversight from the courts or Congress. When Congress failed freedom, it caused a massive outcry from freedom-loving people across the country.

As the result of the outcry, two bills were introduced yesterday to fix the disastrous Protect America Act that was rushed through Congress in August, rubberstamping the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Both were efforts to fix FISA, but we must make it clear that only the FISA Modernization Bill does the job.

The RESTORE Act caves in to Bush’s fear-mongering in a major way by allowing for program or basket “warrants,” which aren't really warrants at all. They're the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they're more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever.



Please, call your representative now to stop basket warrants from being used against Americans.

Tell him or her to support the FISA Modernization Bill of 2007 instead of the RESTORE Act.

Here are some talking points for your call:

1. Please support the FISA Modernization Act of 2007 introduced by Representative Rush Holt, instead of the RESTORE Act. Only pass a FISA modernization bill that has individualized warrants.

2. Blanket or program “warrants” that allow the government to vacuum up the international telephone calls and emails of Americans aren’t really warrants at all, and they aren’t constitutional.

3. Americans are looking to Congress to stand up to the Bush Administration, not cave in to threats of being labeled soft on terrorism.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=729&pg=makeACall&page=UserAction&JServSessionIdr009=t9qo82qrk7.app26a


On Edit: Why the FUCK can't the Dems pass the RIGHT FUCKING BILL -- it's going to be vetoed anyway!!!???

[Dhalgren]

28. You are right. And even Duers who are usually up on these things

have missed the boat. The bill passed today not only leaves the "door opened" to immunity, but grants the dictatorship the use of "blanket warrants" good for a year! That equals no warrants folks! They get to siphon up all communications and sift through for whatever they can use and then claim they had a "warrant" - the Nazis worked along those same lines...

[robinlynne]

40. why the hell is it that these really important bills get 30 minutes of debate?

[Beetwasher]

21. Wait A Sec!!! What About All Those Headlines That THEY WERE FOLDING AGAIN????

You mean we were bing lied to by the Traditional Media? Nahhh....

[sampsonblk]

29. This is the what they did when they caved on funding the war

Passed a bill, got the veto, then passed the one that Bush wanted.

So we are at first base. Let's pray they stick to their guns this time. But it isn't time to gloat till they withstand the heat.

[Beetwasher]

35. Who's Gloating?

Just pointing out that you can't always believe what you're told. A few days ago everyone was convinced they were definitely folding on this because that's what was WRONGLY being reported in the corporate media.

Now we see those reports were full of shit, for a change.

[sampsonblk]

39. I hope you're right

[Dhalgren]

30. They did fold - they voted for the wrong bill...

[Beetwasher]

32. WTF Are You Talking About?

n/t

[Dhalgren]

36. Here you go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2012231

[Beetwasher]

41. But They Are NOT Caving To Chimpy

As the previous headlines and posters have suggested and that is what MY post is about.

The merits of the bill that was passed are debatable, however it is NOT WHAT CHIMPY WANTED AND THEY AREN'T FOLDING TO HIM. Get it? There's a difference. It was being reported that they caved in to Chimpy's demands and lot's of people here bought it and slammed them for it. Those reports were wrong. Maybe this is a bad bill, but it's better than what the admin. wanted and they certainly DIDN'T fold or give in to Chimpy's demands.

[Dhalgren]

60. Just wait and watch Bush "reluctantly" sign the bill - it gives him what he wants...

He is protesting to stay in character - get it?

[robinlynne]

34. No. According to the ACLU, they passed the BAD bill, not the good bill. The blanket

warrants are not ok with the ACLu or the liberal wing of the party.

[Beetwasher]

38. They Are NOT Caving To Chimpy

As the previous headlines and posters have suggested.

The merits of the bill that was passed are debatable, however it is NOT WHAT CHIMPY WANTED AND THEY AREN'T FOLDING TO HIM. Get it? There's a difference. it was being reported that they caved in to Chimpy's demands and lot's of people here bought it and slammed them for it. Those reports were wrong. Maybe this is a bad bill, but it's better than what the admin. wanted and they certainly DIDN'T fold or give in to Chimpy.

[ananda]

42. Not caving like an Arizona mine..

.. or folding like a cheap suit.

Just ass sucking.

[Beetwasher]

44. I Guess There Are Some People

Who take the opportunity to slam every Dem every chance they get.

The fact is, this is in direct contrast to what was reported previously.

It may be a shitty bill, but it's not giving the admin. what they want, so it's NOT caving.

[robinlynne]

43. read the letter from the aclu. read the posts about WHY this is caving.

forget the rhetoric. read the facts. basket warrants means they dont need warrants. That is what was being debated. We lost. bigtime.

[Beetwasher]

45. Bullshit

This is not the bill the admin wanted. It may not be a great bill, but it's NOT caving as has been reported previously. Not at all. I read the ACLU letter, and honestly I agree w/ them. It's not a great bill (maybe not even a good bill), but it's still not caving to the admin. This is NOT the bill the admin. wanted.

[robinlynne]

46. There were 2 bills. One supported by the ACLU. one not. The bad one won.

how much clearer can I be? billA supported by the left, billb supported by the right. bill b won. The reason the ACLU sent warnings to the whole world yesterday, is so that people would not get confused as you are.

[Beetwasher]

49. What Part Of They Are Not Caving To The Admin

As has been previously reported do YOU not understand?

I am not confused, YOU are confused. I understand there were two bills, one better than the other, however, this bill is STILL not what the admin. wanted, even though it's not a great bill.

[robinlynne]

50. BUsh got everything he asked for except one thing: retroactive liablity for the telecoms.

Everything else he got.

[Beetwasher]

52. Bullshit!

The warrants are subject to FISA courts AND congressional oversight too. The blanket warrants suck, but the warrants are subject to MUCH more oversight than previously AND they are not giving the telecoms immunity.

So, again, this is NOT caving, it's a shitty compromise, but it's not caving. You are buying and propogating the bullshit spin.

[annabanana]

22. I'm with the ACLU on this one..

"blanket" or "basket" warrants are just cya for spying on Americans without a warrant which is still, as far as I know, prohibited by the Constitution.

[Dhalgren]

31. Right! "Blanket warrants"= no warrants...

[bluestateguy]

23. Bush will veto, and then they will capitulate and give the Spoiled Child everything he wants, again

After the veto the (DLC) Democrat Loser Capitulators will hold some bullshit press conference, talk a bunch of mush about "bipartsian solutions" (Grover Norquist was right; bipartisanship is a form of date rape) and then proceed to give Baby Bush everything he demands.

Just watch.

[ProudDad]

25. I thought DLC = "Democrat Loser Capitalists" (n/t)

[Dhalgren]

33. Bush won't veto this bill, because it gives him pretty much all he wanted.

[sampsonblk]

26. I am praying they stick to their guns this time

[robinlynne]

37. You mean democrats defy the ACLU and the liberal democrats! Giving Bush

blanket warrants instead of individual warrants which is what was ALWAYS the law, is in bush's favor, not ours!

[derby378]

48. WTF?

It would not require individual warrants to listen in on Americans communicating with terrorists

So they can still snoop on our private conversations? How is this a good thing?

[lovuian]

51. I like it

:applause:

[CTD]

56. The key is what happens after Bush vetos it.

Do our Dems cave again?

[spotbird]

57. Bush has no reason to veto

The only provision he wants but didn't get was the immunity, Hoyer has indicated he'll get that as well.

[ToeBot]

54. Yay! We get to pretend Congressional Dem's have a spine even while they rollover, again. nt

[kurth]

58. Good. Tell the monkey to call 1-800-EAT-SHIT

[sarcasmo]

59. Is that a spin I see?