Senate Sends Terror Surveillance Bill, Telecom Immunity Provision to Oval Office

[rushmc 23]

From the AP and Fox



Senate Sends Terror Surveillance Bill, Telecom Immunity Provision to Oval Office
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

:

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that will overhaul rules on terrorist surveillance while giving the Bush administration a win it had sought for months: legal immunity for telecommuncations companies that helped in its secret eavesdropping program.

The Senate approved the changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on a 69-28 vote.

The action sends the bill the president's desk. The House approved the measure last month.

President Bush is expected to give remarks from the White House Rose Garden at 4 p.m. ET.

Earlier Wednesday, senators affirmed their intention to follow through on a promise to protect telecoms by turning back three amendments that would have altered the bill.

The long fight on Capitol Hill — lasting nearly a year — has centered on one question: whether to shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on American phone and computer lines after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, without the permission or knowledge of a secret court created by FISA.

The lawsuits allege that the White House and the companies violated U.S. law by going around the FISA court to start the wiretaps. The court was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

"This president broke the law," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

The Bush administration brought the wiretapping back under the FISA court's authority only after The New York Times revealed the existence of the program. A handful of members of Congress knew about the program from top secret briefings. Most members are still forbidden to know the details of the classified program, and some object that they are being asked to grant immunity to the telecoms without first knowing what they did.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed. They are all pending before a single federal district court.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., compared the senate vote on immunity to buying a "pig in a poke."

Opponents to immunity argue that only in court will the full extent of the program be understood, and only a judge should decide whether the program broke the law.

Just under a third of the Senate, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have stripped immunity from the bill. It was defeated on a 32-66 vote. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain did not vote.

Specter proposed an amendment to require a district court judge to assess the legality of warrantless wiretapping before granting immunity. It failed on a 37-61 vote.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., proposed that immunity be delayed until after a yearlong government investigation into warrantless wiretapping is completed. His amendment failed on a vote of 42-56.

The bill tries to address concerns about the warrantless wiretapping program by requiring inspectors general inside the government to conduct a yearlong investigation into the program.

The new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, and others loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that category of electronic surveillance on his own.

But the bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept up. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets, and how the intercepted American communications are to be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law required court orders be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law only allowed three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The bill is very much a political compromise reached against a deadline: Yearlong wiretapping orders authorized by Congress last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts, something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

So I guess anything this administration did or will do in contravention of our Constituion is all good now..

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The US constitution is in danger of becoming as meaningless as the Geneva Convention.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So I guess anything this administration did or will do in contravention of our Constituion is all good now..

Yeah, I believe that bill was passed by Congress before it reaches the President's desk.

Just admit that you're disappointed that President Bush is an underestimated politician and was able to make the case which allowed passage through the Senate by a very comfortable 69-28 vote.

I like hearing the whining from the likes of Sen. Feingold (D-WI), having co-authored the most f**k**d free speech impediment bill with Sen. McCain.

Passive surveillance is one thing. Being actively blocked from freedom of expression is a real crime.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Just admit that you're disappointed that President Bush is an underestimated politician and was able to make the case which allowed passage through the Senate by a very comfortable 69-28 vote.

I think I threw up in my mouth just a little.
Please don't give #43 credit for successful bribery by the telecom industry during an election year. We've got the best government money can buy.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Just admit that you're disappointed that President Bush is an underestimated politician and was able to make the case which allowed passage through the Senate by a very comfortable 69-28 vote.

I think I threw up in my mouth just a little.
Please don't give #43 credit for successful bribery by the telecom industry during an election year. We've got the best government money can buy.

Thats for damn sure. And all of them are for sale.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Just under a third of the Senate, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have stripped immunity from the bill.

At least a third of them seem to have some scruples, including the guy I'm voting for.

Quote

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law only allowed three days.

That's bullshit. It takes law clerks to apply for a court order, not intelligence operatives. There's absolutely no reason the suits couldn't be processing the paperwork concurrent with the unwarranted snoopage. Why do they need a week of freebie time before deciding whether or not they should be doing this in the first place? I'm guessing so they can get the cart out in front of the horse.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Just under a third of the Senate, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have stripped immunity from the bill.

At least a third of them seem to have some scruples, including the guy I'm voting for.

Quote

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law only allowed three days.

That's bullshit. It takes law clerks to apply for a court order, not intelligence operatives. There's absolutely no reason the suits couldn't be processing the paperwork concurrent with the unwarranted snoopage. Why do they need a week of freebie time before deciding whether or not they should be doing this in the first place? I'm guessing so they can get the cart out in front of the horse.

Blues,
Dave

Hmm, maybe your favorite Democrate Senator knows!

Passed by quite a margin

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Will this new law affect RIAA and MPAA lawsuits against end users? Here's my concern.

This new law prevents citizens from suing telecoms for breach of privacy if the telecoms give private user data to the government. The premise is the government feels that someone is a terrorist threat, and has the right to monitor not only their phone lines, but also emails (and therefore IP packet data).

Now, technically, the RIAA and MPAA should not be able to use this same privilege, because they are not the government, and they are not looking for terrorists. But they would really like to be able to get data on who they think are illegally downloading music and movies. One of the reasons the telecoms have been blocking them is fear of lawsuits from citizens over breach of privacy. They no longer have to worry about such lawsuits if they are giving the data to the government.

So the question is, will the RIAA and MPAA be able to use government authority to get information on Internet users? I don't think it's a far-fetched idea, because it's the FBI that usually locates and raids warehouses that are illegally copying CDs and DVDs for resale. The raids are "in conjunction" with the RIAA and MPAA. If that relationship already exists, then can't they use the same FBI (who now has unlimited access to Internet user information) to monitor who is downloading music and movies on the Internet? And can't the FBI order telecoms to give them that information without the threat of a privacy suit?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Will this new law affect RIAA and MPAA lawsuits against end users? Here's my concern.

This new law prevents citizens from suing telecoms for breach of privacy if the telecoms give private user data to the government. The premise is the government feels that someone is a terrorist threat, and has the right to monitor not only their phone lines, but also emails (and therefore IP packet data).

Now, technically, the RIAA and MPAA should not be able to use this same privilege, because they are not the government, and they are not looking for terrorists. But they would really like to be able to get data on who they think are illegally downloading music and movies. One of the reasons the telecoms have been blocking them is fear of lawsuits from citizens over breach of privacy. They no longer have to worry about such lawsuits if they are giving the data to the government.

So the question is, will the RIAA and MPAA be able to use government authority to get information on Internet users? I don't think it's a far-fetched idea, because it's the FBI that usually locates and raids warehouses that are illegally copying CDs and DVDs for resale. The raids are "in conjunction" with the RIAA and MPAA. If that relationship already exists, then can't they use the same FBI (who now has unlimited access to Internet user information) to monitor who is downloading music and movies on the Internet? And can't the FBI order telecoms to give them that information without the threat of a privacy suit?

Good points but I wonder, if a gov agency comes to a telecom and says I need data for terrorist surveylance, why should the telecom be libable?

This is a mess. Dont like much of it at all

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Just admit that you're disappointed that President Bush is an underestimated politician and was able to make the case which allowed passage through the Senate by a very comfortable 69-28 vote.

There are many to blame here. Both the House and the Senate passed it. But much like the Patriot Act, this change was Bushed through with fear and rhetoric. Back then most didn't read the full PA when they voted on it. This time Bush held back the majority of proof and information about the extent of the wiretapping. There were several Amendments that were voted on that would have allowed for that discovery but they all failed with a much closer margin than the overall vote.

So the rough guess is that about 70% of our representatives voted on the FISA changes without knowing exactly what they were voting on. How cool is that?? Even Spector, a Republican, admonished the vote and called it one of the most embarrassing moments in the history of the Senate.

I blame all of them, including the White House. None of this would have come up Bush didn't break the law originally. If there wasn't a whistle blower at Verizon none of this would have been brought up. Then under the guise of Executive Privledge, he forced the congress to vote against the 4th Amendment ignorantly. I still find it interesting that Nixon was forced out of office for something similar but now, under the fear of terrorism, it's ok.

Obama lost my vote for his stance on FISA, and I've let him know that as well. His oath of office was to protect the Constitution. Allowing it to be irrelevant is not change I can believe in.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Good points but I wonder, if a gov agency comes to a telecom and says I need data for terrorist surveylance, why should the telecom be libable?

This is a mess. Dont like much of it at all

Interesting enough, if you want this fixed you may need to support the ACLU. They are putting together a rather strong lawsuit they are hoping to get in front of the SCOTUS. A former journalist from the NY Times, Salon.com and Wired are all lending the information they have gathered as well.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Oh, and I so do miss the candidate that once said this:

Quote

"This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court."

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Good points but I wonder, if a gov agency comes to a telecom and says I need data for terrorist surveylance, why should the telecom be libable?

This is a mess. Dont like much of it at all

Interesting enough, if you want this fixed you may need to support the ACLU. They are putting together a rather strong lawsuit they are hoping to get in front of the SCOTUS. A former journalist from the NY Times, Salon.com and Wired are all lending the information they have gathered as well.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Oh, and I so do miss the candidate that once said this:

Quote

"This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court."

Sorry, I cant support a group that has taken the church and state bs so far.

While they do good work in many cases they are not driven by the constitution. They are driven by thier druthers............

And the war?

I still think it was the right thing to do for many reasons

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Sorry, I cant support a group that has taken the church and state bs so far.

So, out of pride you are ok with not supporting the best chance to get the 4th Amendment saved from being worthless? I can see holding a grudge, but this is about the foundation of what this country was established on.

Guess that tells me all I need to know.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, I cant support a group that has taken the church and state bs so far.

So, out of pride you are ok with not supporting the best chance to get the 4th Amendment saved from being worthless? I can see holding a grudge, but this is about the foundation of what this country was established on.

Guess that tells me all I need to know.

You paint my possion with a very wide brush here. Not to mention how you generalize the topic of the 4th.

But, in the context you present here? Ya.

The ACLU ranks somewhere just below the UN as far as I am concerned.

Yes, many of them (the local ones) do good and necessary work. But, I feel they have done more damage to this country and where it is headed than any good they have done.

Church and state, hate crimes, political correctness come to mind easiely.


As for the 4th? You would have to get more specific for me to reply

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

As for the 4th? You would have to get more specific for me to reply

Quote

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.

The previous FISA allowed all off shore communications to be observed, and in most cases it didn't care if the receiving end of the communication ended in the US....but that was always up to the court to decide.

Now the FISA changes allow any communication on American soil to be observed without moderation or justification. ANY communication (voice/data/mail/etc), and due to national security issues, you will never find out if you were observed.

I'm not sure how, after this has been going on for so long, that anyone could not understand that.

And before anyone tosses up the immunity thing. It became a lightning rod for some people to go after Bush. The telecoms even painted it that way to our representatives via lobbyists. I fully agree with Obama and the others that intent was fully misguided....and because of that immunity was passed. But what it now prevents is our ability to develop proof that Bush and his staff did break the 4th Amendment before the new FISA changes. We cannot get people on the stand to testify that they made it possible for them to do so in 2004. The Bush Administration was brilliant again in spinning this as all about the telecoms and everyone looked over at that bright spinning object. Meanwhile most ignored the real issue: warrantless surveillance of American citizens. It gets even better when you realize they are storing that data which is not allowed by law.....but we can't prove it now because of the immunity aspect of FISA. Cool stuff eh?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

As for the 4th? You would have to get more specific for me to reply

Quote

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.

The previous FISA allowed all off shore communications to be observed, and in most cases it didn't care if the receiving end of the communication ended in the US....but that was always up to the court to decide.

Now the FISA changes allow any communication on American soil to be observed without moderation or justification. ANY communication (voice/data/mail/etc), and due to national security issues, you will never find out if you were observed.

I'm not sure how, after this has been going on for so long, that anyone could not understand that.Well, I did not hear this anywhere. Do you have a link or source for this claim? Not saying it is not true but I hope you understand I want a little more

And before anyone tosses up the immunity thing. It became a lightning rod for some people to go after Bush. The telecoms even painted it that way to our representatives via lobbyists. I fully agree with Obama and the others that intent was fully misguided....and because of that immunity was passed. But what it now prevents is our ability to develop proof that Bush and his staff did break the 4th Amendment before the new FISA changes. We cannot get people on the stand to testify that they made it possible for them to do so in 2004. The Bush Administration was brilliant again in spinning this as all about the telecoms and everyone looked over at that bright spinning object. Meanwhile most ignored the real issue: warrantless surveillance of American citizens.I will fix this for you. ... communicating with a suspected terrorist out side the US. And court still needs to be brought it at some point. It gets even better when you realize they are storing that data which is not allowed by law.....but we can't prove it now because of the immunity aspect of FISA. Cool stuff eh?

I await some links or sourses. Interesting stuff, if true.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I will fix this for you. ... communicating with a suspected terrorist out side the US. And court still needs to be brought it at some point. It gets even better when you realize they are storing that data which is not allowed by law.....but we can't prove it now because of the immunity aspect of FISA. Cool stuff eh?

I await some links or sourses. Interesting stuff, if true.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I will fix this for you. ... communicating with a suspected terrorist out side the US. And court still needs to be brought it at some point. It gets even better when you realize they are storing that data which is not allowed by law.....but we can't prove it now because of the immunity aspect of FISA. Cool stuff eh?

I await some links or sourses. Interesting stuff, if true.

Many many things need to be judged and interpited in many many laws. Lines are crossed? At times yes. But you make a blanket statement which infered to me that the "intent" of the law was to allow what you stated. Big difference.

Yes, the intent of the changes are supposedly going in just to monitor terrorist activity. The only problem is where do you draw the line on that? I think the actual verbiage is "agent of a foreign power." Usually you use a judge on that. I need to reread the newest one that Bush signed to see if anything changed on ever needing judicial review of a wiretap. So let me do some research over the weekend as I can't do that right now. But what I originally read seem to imply that none was needed. It's possible that the recent changes to Heabeus Corpus could change that if they were looking to arrest someone.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Many many things need to be judged and interpited in many many laws. Lines are crossed? At times yes. But you make a blanket statement which infered to me that the "intent" of the law was to allow what you stated. Big difference.

As we know, intent of a law and practice of it are not always the same thing. Power corrupts....yadda yadda. Now imagine unmonitored power. As it stands the FBI has 100% access to all US to US based communications without a warrant. This is rather worrisome.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Many many things need to be judged and interpited in many many laws. Lines are crossed? At times yes. But you make a blanket statement which infered to me that the "intent" of the law was to allow what you stated. Big difference.

As we know, intent of a law and practice of it are not always the same thing. Power corrupts....yadda yadda. Now imagine unmonitored power. As it stands the FBI has 100% access to all US to US based communications without a warrant. This is rather worrisome.

I will agree it is worrisome and worth paying attention to.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Back then most didn't read the full PA when they voted on it.

And this is who's fault?

Quote

There were several Amendments that were voted on that would have allowed for that discovery but they all failed with a much closer margin than the overall vote.

And this is who's fault?

Quote

So the rough guess is that about 70% of our representatives voted on the FISA changes without knowing exactly what they were voting on. How cool is that?? Even Spector, a Republican, admonished the vote and called it one of the most embarrassing moments in the history of the Senate.

You know the question by now. Just shows that they're ALL fuckwits who only care about personal power.

Quote

I blame all of them, including the White House. None of this would have come up Bush didn't break the law originally.

You may want to look up Gorelick's testimony about FISA. This has been happening for years, but NOW it's bad because it's a REPUBLICAN doing it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

You may want to look up Gorelick's testimony about FISA. This has been happening for years, but NOW it's bad because it's a REPUBLICAN doing it?

Once again, you don't pay attention much to my posts if you think I fall in line with inane party lines when forming my thoughts and opinions. Please stop because it just makes me roll my eyes at the reply. And do you really need to ask "who's fault is this" when my own statements clearly point that out? By the way, that question is rhetorical.

Doesn't it get boring running in circles saying the same thing to the same people every day on every topic even if it doesn't match the topic? I'm not here to score one in my "internets win" column. If you want to have a conversation as an adult, I welcome it.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

You may want to look up Gorelick's testimony about FISA. This has been happening for years, but NOW it's bad because it's a REPUBLICAN doing it?

"physical searches" are not the same as electronic surveillance and, as Gorelick's testimony made clear, were not restricted at that time by the Foreign Intelligence Authorization Act (FISA), which has since been amended to include them. The foreign intelligence activity that the Bush administration has argued it can conduct without warrants -- domestic wiretapping -- has for 27 years been governed by FISA, which specifically requires court orders. On the other hand, the foreign intelligence activity to which Gorelick was referring -- "physical searches" -- was not covered by FISA when she said that Clinton had the "inherent authority to conduct" them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You may want to look up Gorelick's testimony about FISA. This has been happening for years, but NOW it's bad because it's a REPUBLICAN doing it?

Once again, you don't pay attention much to my posts if you think I fall in line with inane party lines when forming my thoughts and opinions. Please stop because it just makes me roll my eyes at the reply. And do you really need to ask "who's fault is this" when my own statements clearly point that out? By the way, that question is rhetorical.

Doesn't it get boring running in circles saying the same thing to the same people every day on every topic even if it doesn't match the topic? I'm not here to score one in my "internets win" column. If you want to have a conversation as an adult, I welcome it.

Ok... so you're pissed because I consistently show that Dems do the same things as you consistently post about the Reps doing, and you're saying that *I'm* not posting like an adult?

Am I hitting a nerve here, or something?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706