[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 Passes Surveillance Bill - Ignoring Bush Demands, Measure Does Not Offer Telecom Immunity House Passes Surveillance Bill By Jonathan Weisman A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation today, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening the impasse on a fundamental national security issue. Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break. The legislation, approved 213-197, would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies. But it challenges the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by restoring the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal protections to the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and now face about 40 lawsuits alleging they had breached customers' privacy rights. Instead of granting them immunity, as the Senate has, the House measure would send the issue to a secure federal court and grant the companies the right to argue their case before a judge with information the administration has deemed to be state secrets. A dozen Democrats sided with a united Republican Party against the legislation. The House's action ensures that Bush will not receive surveillance legislation for several weeks. But some lawmakers from both parties said the impasse is now so deep that the issue may not be resolved until a new president takes office next year. Bush and Republican lawmakers have shown no desire to move further toward the House Democratic leaders' position, and the Democrats are showing no sign of buckling under the mounting political pressure. "I'm very uncomfortable with an issue of this importance entering such a political realm, but I don't see us pulling it out of this mess either," said Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a swing-district freshman who shrugged off a barrage of advertisements accusing him of jeopardizing national security. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, such showdowns have followed a predictable path: After some protest, Democrats have given in to White House demands, fearing the political fallout as Bush hammered them for allegedly jeopardizing American lives. Last month, the Senate appeared to follow the script when it passed a surveillance bill to Bush's liking with bipartisan support, after turning back the efforts of some Democrats to strip out legal immunity and strengthen privacy protections. Bush appeared on the White House's South Lawn yesterday to demand House passage of the Senate legislation, warning lawmakers that "voting for this bill would make our country less safe. . . . The American people understand the stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror." Then the House went off script. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded to Bush's appeal, all but calling the president a liar. "The president says Democrats in Congress should not be deceived. They are not deceived. They know the law. They know the Constitution. We understand our responsibility to protect the American people. What the president is trying to do is something that we think should be stopped," she said, adding, "I am stating a fact. The president is wrong, and he knows it." Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) jumped into the fray, charging, "once again, the president is playing politics with something that should be able to get bipartisan support. There is no need to give immunity to phone companies, particularly when there hasn't been a full airing of what was done in these programs. We're not going to give a blank check to private entities who potentially are violating the privacy of their customers." House Republican leaders tried to increase political pressure yesterday, demanding that the House go into a rare secret session -- only the fifth since 1825 and the first since 1983 -- to hear classified information they said would bolster the case for offering immunity and stripping out other House provisions. After a two-hour security sweep to ensure the House chamber was secure, the session convened at 10 p.m. But with the chamber about half full, Republicans apparently failed to present any information compelling enough to derail the Democrats' legislation. Democrats said very little was discussed that could not have been revealed in open session. Pelosi didn't show up, and Democrats, underwhelmed by the GOP's evidence, used just 10 minutes of their allotted 30 minutes of secret time. "We probably could have gone and eaten together at McDonald's, and it would have had just as much effectiveness," said Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), one of the conservative Democrats the GOP was targeting. Republicans agreed the secret session proved to be deflating, not because of the quality of the evidence but because of the Democrats' unwillingness to listen. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said he referenced 25 different documents deemed secret, the lowest level of classification, but classified nonetheless. "It was depressing," said Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). "When your ears are closed and your eyes are shut, you're not going to hear anything new." Republicans maintain that telecom firms must be granted strong, retroactive legal protections to guarantee their ongoing cooperation with intelligence efforts. They say the House legislation seeks to criminalize the intelligence community with unwarranted investigations and would add onerous levels of bureaucracy to wiretapping efforts that require split-second responses. Democrats counter that they cannot offer immunity without knowing precisely what actions they are forgiving. By turning the issue over to the courts, they say they have compromised with the White House's position. And they say their legislation grants Bush all the authority he needs to conduct surveillance. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: robin (#0)
Here's CQ's article.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
bad link for some reason
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Misunderstanding all you see. Describes the chimperor.
The fucker will veto it.
And how long is former AG Gonzalez prison sentence for firing prosecutors? The law matters not one whit if their enforcement is at the whim of tyrants.
“Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life." - Jack Kerouac
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||