Senate Intelligence Committee OKs Wiretap Bill, Telecom Immunity; Dodd plans "hold"

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/Reuters

By REUTERS
Published: October 18, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate committee approved a bipartisan bill to tighten rules on government eavesdropping on terrorism suspects, but a Democratic presidential candidate said on Thursday he would try to block it.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted 13-2 for the measure, which Chairman John Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said strengthened national security and protected civil liberties. "It ensures that the unchecked wiretapping policies of the administration are a thing of the past," Rockefeller told reporters. The Senate committee's action came a day after a Democratic effort collapsed in the House of Representatives to pass an eavesdropping bill opposed by the White House....

The bill would allow wiretapping without a court order of suspected foreign terrorists, including when they call Americans, committee leaders said. It would grant lawsuit immunity, demanded by the White House, for telephone companies that participated in a secret warrantless eavesdropping program launched by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks....

To safeguard civil liberties, the Senate bill would require a secret court to approve methods for targeting suspects and eavesdropping, more congressional oversight, and the removal of identifying information from intercepted calls involving innocent Americans. An amendment added during committee debate would require court approval to eavesdrop on the communications of an American overseas. The bill would expire after six years....

Sen. Chris Dodd said he intended to put a procedural "hold" on the bill, which could effectively block it from a Senate vote. The Connecticut Democrat, who does not serve on the Intelligence Committee, said on his presidential campaign Web site he opposed the telecom immunity provision....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-eavesdropping.html

[Me.]

1. And Yet Reid, In Spite Of The Hold, Says He Will Bring It To The Floor Anyway

in November. Don't both Reid and Rockefeller get money from telecoms?

[angstlessk]

5. I did not read that..do you have more info we don't? n/t

[Me.]

15. Here You Go

“Tim Starks of Congressional Quarterly reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to bring the Senate's surveillance bill up for floor debate in mid-November. That's despite the hold that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) plans to place on the measure -- something first reported by Election Central's Greg Sargent.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2083524

[monktonman]

2. Go Dodd go! Finally someone with some guts.

Immunity After 911?
What about before?
Is that just plain old law breaking and what is anyone gonna do about it?

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Just this, from the article on that issue --

"The immunity would not apply to any eavesdropping before September 11, 2001. (Senator Bond, R., Mo.) said that before then, 'there was interception of radio communications on a broad basis,' but later described that as an allegation."

[monktonman]

9. Will call Leahy in the morning...

and tell him I want to nail these guys for tapping BEFORE 911.
Thats some serious bullshit right there

[robinlynne]

12. an allegation which will never be clarified if this f----ing bill passes.

[liberalmuse]

3. Whichever Democratic Presidential Candidate halts just ONE Bush bill...

by trying a novel strategy, or by holding his/her ground no matter what, or by refusing to even compromise so as to not allow yet another Republican victory on some heinous, UnConstitutional provision, THAT is the person who will get my vote in the primaries.

[robinlynne]

13. That would be DOdd. He did it today!

[TwilightGardener]

6. Sigh. So, I'm supposed to be all joyful because it's no longer an eavesdropping

free-for-all (which it shouldn't have been to begin with)? The Intelligence Committee took it upon itself to clear the telecoms' decks of all current related civil cases against them--how nice! I guess they're judge and jury now. And Chimpy is forever protected from his own wrongdoings. Good going, guys. At least Dodd, Feingold and Wyden have my respect. What happened to Whitehouse---thought he was against this? And to my Senator, Hagel--you blew it, buddy. I expected better of you.

[Kool Kitty]

7. Exactly.

What about all the evesdropping done BEFORE 9/11? Any of them going to address that, or is that something else we just shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about?

[TwilightGardener]

10. I'll bet that unless a civil suit is specifically brought for pre-911 activities, no

one will ever examine what they were doing, and why. Maybe the ACLU can look into it?

[robinlynne]

14. The ACLU is one of the plaintiffs the congress is screwing. The ACLU is ABSOLUTELY

against this and has been wroking as hard as possible to prevent it. There was a better bill last week, supported by teh ACLU, but they didn't even vote on it.

[BenDavid]

8. Tis time....We have to wait till January 2009

and we will have a Democrat in the White House. Second, prior to the swearing in I hope the Democrats in the Senate elect a new majority leader. One that will take control and lead as though the Democrats were the damn majority party. I look at Reid and I am reminded of Oliver Twist, and Old Harry asking, "Can I have another".....It tis time the Democrats got themselves a pair and I would not object to Senator Barbara Boxer being either the Majority Leader or second in command....

I do thank you
Ben David

[robinlynne]

20. with this fisa bill, we do not have a chance of winning at all. a free-for-all

secret wiretapping of democrats....

[robinlynne]

11. The vote was 13-2! WTF? Who are these people in congress?

[JDPriestly]

16. Who were the two true Democrats who voted against it?

[CTuttle]

18. Wyden and Feingold!!!

[moondust]

17. Screwn.

Judging by their actions one can only assume that Bushco is trapped in impeachable offenses and probably worse if anybody gets into the telcos' wiretapping records. Why would Dems apparently let them off the hook by granting retroactive immunity from prosecution? What happened to the rule of law and democracy and all that?

[DeepModem Mom]

19. a.m. kick