Let Us Talk

June 20, 2008

What Does Immunity For The Telecoms Mean?

The U.S. House of Representatives gave George Bush what he wanted by approving legislation that would continue the controversial surveillance program at the National Security Agency (“NSA”) with limited court oversight at the same time the bill will immunize telecommunications carriers that participated in the program from lawsuits.

The House on Friday voted 293 to 129 to approve the bill. Democrats have the majority in the House so why would the Democrats pass this bill?  Is Congress being complacent or do they know something from their classified briefings that we don’t?

The bill would extend the NSA surveillance of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the U.S., while giving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) an opportunity to review Bush administration requests for wide-ranging surveillance powers. The bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, allows the NSA to receive blanket surveillance orders covering multiple suspects of terrorism and other crimes.

The compromise also sends the dozens of outstanding lawsuits against telecom carriers for their alleged participation in the NSA program to a district court, which will review whether they should be dismissed. The lawsuits would be thrown out if telecom companies can show that the U.S. government issued them orders for the surveillance that were presented as lawful.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign released a statement this afternoon saying that while Obama opposes amnesty for telecom firms that spied on Americans, he will support the House Compromise Legislation until further action can be taken to change it. (Obama has consistently opposed immunity for the telecoms).

The statement in full:

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over.

It restores FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people.

It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”

Today, in an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would attempt to remove the amnesty provision in the bill.

Reid said the Senate may try to remove a provision from the bill that shields telephone companies from privacy lawsuits. Holding a separate vote on that issue next week may provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Even though the attempt may fail, Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to “express their views.”

“I’m going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity,” Reid said in the interview which will broadcast this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt.”

“Probably we can’t take that out of the bill, but I’m going to try.”

The Democrats have no real leadership in the House.  They need a leader with balls ASAP!  Bring on Obama!!!

Paulette

Advertisements

3 Comments »

  1. Obama is with President Bush on the spy bill now, what does all the people that was against it before say now? All OK cause Obama is for it? LOL
    http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/06/20/obama-flip-flops-in-favor-of-president-bush/

    Comment by goodtimepolitics — June 20, 2008 @ 9:15 pm | Reply

  2. Relax Good Time, Obama isn’t WITH Bush. He says he’ll support the bill since it passed in the house. Big difference. I’m sure as President he’ll find a legal way overturn the bill. 🙂

    Comment by Paulette — June 20, 2008 @ 9:44 pm | Reply

  3. […] What Does Immunity For The Telecoms Mean? …also sends the dozens of outstanding lawsuits against telecom carriers … "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats […]

    Pingback by Against All Authority » Blog Archive » What Does Immunity For The Telecoms Mean? — June 21, 2008 @ 11:24 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: