[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: House Could Take Up Surveillance Legislation Next Week House Could Take Up Surveillance Legislation Next Week By Keith Perine, CQ Staff House Democrats are planning floor action next week on a new version of contentious electronic surveillance legislation, but it’s unclear what the bill will contain. “We don’t have agreement, but ... I am very hopeful that we will have legislation on the floor next week, “ House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., told Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. The House and Senate have each passed versions of a surveillance measure (HR 3773) that are significantly different, and there is as yet no agreement between the parties or the two chambers. Hoyer was to meet later with top lawmakers to work out a possible compromise. The majority leader has been under pressure from all sides to have the House take up the issue again before a two-week March recess. Hoyer is trying to broker a compromise among at least House and Senate Democrats on some form of legislation, perhaps one that does not address the biggest sticking point— retroactive liability protection for telecommunications firms being sued for cooperating with warrantless surveillance. The Senate’s nearly six-year overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511) contains retroactive immunity but the House version does not. President Bush is insisting on the provision, and emphasized the point again in a White House news conference. “Allowing these lawsuits to proceed could make it harder to track the terrorists, because private companies besieged by and fearful of lawsuits would be less willing to help us quickly get the information we need,” Bush said. “Without the cooperation of the private sector, we cannot protect our country from terrorist attack.” Some Democrats say the phone companies should not be immune from lawsuits because they broke existing law by complying with surveillance requests that were made by the administration without a warrant from a special court. But the Senate version containing the immunity provision passed 68-29 on Feb. 12 with broad Democratic support, and a number of conservative House Democrats have wanted to take up that version. House Republicans want the chamber to take up the Senate version and have kept up the pressure with a series of unsuccessful procedural maneuvers; their latest attempts came Wednesday as the House acted on energy legislation (HR 5351). But Republicans planned to participate in Thursday’s compromise talks for what appears to be the first time since a temporary surveillance law (PL 110-55) lapsed earlier this month. A bid to extend the law by 21 days failed 191-229 on Feb. 13, when 34 liberal and conservative Democrats joined every House Republican who voted joined to block the measure. Blunt said he would attend the afternoon meeting, but warned that progress on the immunity issue can only come from the Democrats. “We need voluntary compliance by the telephone companies or it doesn’t matter if there’s a law or not,” Blunt said. “The only way in the short-term future to get voluntary compliance is by dealing with the liability issue.’’ Blunt said he has been told “the companies are increasingly reluctant to cooperate and are sending signals they won’t be able to do this much longer.’’ The House Judiciary Committee is continuing to review Justice Department documents related to the program, as lawmakers weigh the retroactive immunity question. But a Democratic committee aide said the panel is still awaiting more information. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., questioned Bush’s argument that Democrats have jeopardized national security by not sending him a new bill, noting that the White House has opposed extending the temporary legislation. “If he thought the country were in jeopardy, he almost certainly would have agreed to a 21-day extension,” Pelosi said. Edward Epstein contributed to this story.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Everyone needs to be contacting their representative about this one. Tell them to stop making what's illegal legal and start holding some of them accountable. We are now under total surveillance - like East Germany.
And that is the proper result of the "Checks and Balances" on an unrestrained and illegally operating Executive. No "Probable Cause" = No Warrant. No Warrant = no legal surveillance. I see nothing wrong with that. Somehow I don't think the Founding Fathers would either. We have a criminal Executive that is trying desperately to protect themselves from prosecution because THEY broke the law. There are no complex issues here. "No Warrants shall issue except on Probable Cause ..." That is the Constitution and it is the most senior law of the land. Secret Government, and criminals, want to be protected from the consequences of their crimes, but then so do all CRIMINALS.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||