Excerpt:

From True Majority…

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Russ Feingold spoke yesterday at the New America Foundation in Washington about the nation’s intelligence needs. Feingold was asked the latest FISA bill that includes immunity for telecom companies.

“I do think this is a total farce with regard to the immunity [for telecommunications companies]. It basically guarantees the immunity,” Feingold said. “It doesn’t simply have the impact of potentially allowing telephone companies to break the law. It may prevent us from ever getting to the core issue … which is the president ran an illegal program that could’ve been an impeachable offense.”

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Olbermann talks with George Washington law professor Jonathon Turley…

Rep. Tom Udall (D-NM) who is running for US Senate in New Mexico released a great statement explaining his decision to vote against the so-called compromise on FISA.

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.

That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Yesterday, Sen. Russ Feingold released a statement about the Democratic leadership caving in on the FISA to allow Telecom immunity.

The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.

And from Sen. Chris Dodd…

I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name.

“As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting American’s civil liberties by rejecting this measure.”

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

A compromise has been reached in Congress on the FISA bill. The so-called compromise bascially allows immunity to Telecom Companies for illegally spying on Americans.

The agreement would also pave the way for companies such as AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to shed the nearly 40 lawsuits they face for allegedly participating in a prior version of the NSA program, which have cast a shadow over their reputation on Wall Street and Main Street. To win immunity, they would have to pass review from a U.S. District Court.

It faces hurdles to becoming law, namely whether it will have enough support from other lawmakers in both parties in the House. Telecommunications companies, which have lobbied lawmakers aggressively in recent weeks, support the compromise as does the White House.

Critical to sealing the deal was a compromise that would grant conditional immunity to telecommunications companies for assistance they provided from September 2001 through January 2007. If the companies can show a federal district court judge “substantial evidence” they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating the president authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful, the cases against them will be dismissed.

Yesterday the New York Times had an editorial saying this agreement is unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights.

This week, the White House and Democratic and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill hope to announce a “compromise” on a domestic spying bill. If they do, it will be presented as an indispensable tool for protecting the nation’s security that still safeguards our civil liberties. The White House will paint opponents as weak-kneed liberals who do not understand and cannot stand up to the threat of terrorism.

The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out, but all indications are that many of its provisions are both unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights. The White House and the Congressional Republicans who support the bill have two real aims. They want to undermine the power of the courts to review the legality of domestic spying programs. And they want to give a legal shield to the telecommunications companies that broke the law by helping Mr. Bush carry out his warrantless wiretapping operation.

Democrats in the House have caved on this bill because a handful of Blue Dog Democrats, including Iowa’s Leonard Boswell.

A potential revolt by a group of Democrats pressed party leaders into compromising on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules that could come to a House vote by week’s end, a top Democrat said Wednesday.

The House will vote on this tomorrow. If you live in Iowa’s 3rd district, call Leonard Boswell and tell Telecom companies should not get immunity for breaking the law and ask him to vote against this bill.

Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa — Phone: (202) 225-3806

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Many people don’t realize that Bush violated FISA and ordered warrantless wiretaps before 9/11…

From Daily Kos…

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week. [link]

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court. [link]

The media doesn’t help the situation when they repeat the Bush administration’s lies…

AP:

Bush says the House version “would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats” and would not give liability protection against lawsuits to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

NYT:

Some 40 lawsuits are pending in federal courts, charging that by cooperating with the eavesdropping program put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the phone companies violated their responsibilities to customers and federal privacy laws.

AP:

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn’t provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

At this very moment the House is voting on an updating FISA legislaton. At stake is immunity for telecom companies for participating in illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Bush and Republicans have been trying to strike up fear while defending retroactive immunity for telecom companies, while the other side is defending the rule of law and sticking up for the Constitution.

The way Leonard Boswell votes on this bill will be very telling. On January 28th, Boswell was one of 21 Blue Dog Democrats that wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi urging her to include immunity for telecom companies. Adding to that, Boswell has received money from telecommunications PACs including $5,000 from AT&T.

However, the net roots has been putting pressure on these 21 Blue Dogs, and Boswell is in the middle of a tough primary race with Ed Fallon. Boswell has flipped on a number progressive issues since it came clear that Fallon would be challenging him. The question is if Boswell will flip again?

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

The Houston Chronicle summarizes the debate on terrorist surveillance, domestic spying, and telecom immunity…

What this dispute is really about is shielding telecoms from any responsibility for enabling surveillance of customers that might have violated their constitutional rights to privacy.

It’s understandable that Bush would want to prevent court scrutiny of a potentially illegal spying program that operated outside the law for so long. But the administration is putting the protection of corporations and partisan posturing above the constitutional rights of the American people.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

That is the reason George Bush gave for granting telecom immunity at a press conference this morning.

You can’t expect the phone companies to participate if they feel that they are going to be sued… How can you listen to the enemy if the phone companies aren’t going to participate with you?

This article from the Economist responds to this claim…

How are you going to listen? Well, presumably by way of lawful court orders or emergency certifications, as authorised under the old FISA statute, and now also on the independent authority of the attorney-general and director of national intelligence even without a court order, assuming some version of those expanded powers eventually passes. When surveillance is conducted pursuant to the law, there is no question of whether telecom firms will “cooperate” or “participate”, like children at day camp. They will comply, and they will do it because they are required to.

The worry about “participation” makes sense only if you anticipate asking these companies to turn over information outside the law, without a court order or any statutory authority. But that is precisely why we have laws establishing penalties for unauthorised data disclosure: To deter them from helping the government to circumvent the law. If you think they should help the government circumvent the law, then it seems you ought to stop poncing about with ad hoc amnesties and simply do away with the data disclosure statues, at least as they apply to information sharing with intelligence agencies.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Connecticut Bob made this great response to an ad being run by a Republican special interest defending domestic spying and granting telecom immunity.

Related Posts: