Lawmakers Reach Deal To Expand Surveillance

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1213885424...d=djemalertNEWS

 

WASHINGTON -- After more than a year of partisan acrimony over government surveillance powers, Democratic and Republican leaders have agreed to a bipartisan deal that would be the most sweeping rewrite of spy powers in three decades. The House is likely to vote on the measure Friday, House aides said.

 

Removing the final barrier to action on the measure, which has been hashed out in recent weeks by senior lawmakers in both parties, House Democratic leaders decided to allow a vote on the bill, despite the opposition of many in their party.

 

The new agreement broadens the authority to spy ...

 

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.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

I love this. They don't actually have to determine whether or not any laws were broken. They just have to determine whether or not the President sent a nice letter saying it was ok. If only we all could apply that standard.

 

"Yes, Mr. Balta sent us a letter saying it was ok for him to play around in our bank vault for like 30 minutes while no one else watched. You can't charge him with anything."

[HuskyCaucasian]

I love this. They don't actually have to determine whether or not any laws were broken. They just have to determine whether or not the President sent a nice letter saying it was ok. If only we all could apply that standard.

 

"Yes, Mr. Balta sent us a letter saying it was ok for him to play around in our bank vault for like 30 minutes while no one else watched. You can't charge him with anything."

 

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/007569.html

Doesn't that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it's legal, it's legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn't that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?

[Balta1701]

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/007569.html

Doesn't that actually endorse and extend to private actors the Nixonian view that if the president says it's legal, it's legal, regardless of what the law says and the Constitution says? Wouldn't that set an awful precedent that an administration could get private actors to do whatever they wanted including breaking the law?

That's the short definition of the disaster that this administration has perpetrated on our laws.

 

You know, half of me hopes that President Obama flip flops and decides to be ridiculously corrupt. Because with the power that the Bush administration has grabbed for the President (with the willing help of the Congress), he could decide to become a corrupt near dictator and the law wouldn't be able to stop him.

[kapkomet]

That's the short definition of the disaster that this administration has perpetrated on our laws.

 

You know, half of me hopes that President Obama flip flops and decides to be ridiculously corrupt. Because with the power that the Bush administration has grabbed for the President (with the willing help of the Congress), he could decide to become a corrupt near dictator and the law wouldn't be able to stop him.

[Cknolls]

 

 

LMAO!

[Balta1701]

You're so going to disappear under an Obama presidency...

[ptatc]

You're so going to disappear under an Obama presidency...

 

And those that don't disappear will be taxed to death, then disappear

 

[BearSox]

And those that don't disappear will be taxed to death, then disappear

Yeah, but will we disappear in a way that helps the environment?

Edited June 20, 2008 by BearSox

[bmags]

Anyone opposed to this, make sure you let your rep's know. They keep trying to push this through, there is an uproar in blogs and highly vocalized minority groups and it dies for a couple of months. Let Hoyer and Pelosi and Rockefeller know what an outrage this is. It basically okays anything from now on as long as the president deemed it okay. And support Sen. Feingold and Dodd.

[Balta1701]

So here you go.

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise

 

“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 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.”

That's Senator Obama's statement.

 

So Republicans, either he's selling out our side, or he's more than happy to take the power the Bush Administration is trying to give to him. Take your pick, but either way, he gets your phone calls and emails.

[BearSox]

I fail to see why anyone has any problems with the Patriot Act. I could care less if some weirdo intelligence officer knew who I was hanging out with on a Saturday night. As long as it keeps me safe, I have no problem with this so called "invasion of privacy."

[lostfan]

I fail to see why anyone has any problems with the Patriot Act. I could care less if some weirdo intelligence officer knew who I was hanging out with on a Saturday night. As long as it keeps me safe, I have no problem with this so called "invasion of privacy."

The last time the federal government had carte blanche like that to collect information on U.S. citizens for no reason other than they want to, it didn't go over so well and it got abused. It led to Reagan issuing Executive Order 12333.

 

Also you sound oddly close to supporting outright fascism. That's a complete 180 of the way conservatives view the federal government (or are supposed to).

Edited June 21, 2008 by lostfan

[BearSox]

The last time the federal government had carte blanche like that to collect information on U.S. citizens for no reason other than they want to, it didn't go over so well and it got abused. It led to Reagan issuing Executive Order 12333.

 

Also you sound oddly close to supporting outright fascism. That's a complete 180 of the way conservatives view the federal government (or are supposed to).

Lol, I phrased that wrong. Of course I'm against fascism, but if reading messages or listening to phone calls that have repeated use of flagged words that could be a threat to national secruity, I have no problem with those messages/calls being monitored to make sure it isn't some sort of terrorist plot.

[lostfan]

Lol, I phrased that wrong. Of course I'm against fascism, but if reading messages or listening to phone calls that have repeated use of flagged words that could be a threat to national secruity, I have no problem with those messages/calls being monitored to make sure it isn't some sort of terrorist plot.

IMO domestic spying is perfectly acceptable and there is an obvious and legit need for it. But you need to have a warrant, or some type of authorization from the judicial system to do it. We have the Constitution for a reason. That was my main problem with the Bush administration doing it, they were acting like oversight was a complete joke and like they were insulted to have to do it. If it's necessary you will get a warrant, all it is is an extra step in the process.

[BearSox]

IMO domestic spying is perfectly acceptable and there is an obvious and legit need for it. But you need to have a warrant, or some type of authorization from the judicial system to do it. We have the Constitution for a reason. That was my main problem with the Bush administration doing it, they were acting like oversight was a complete joke and like they were insulted to have to do it. If it's necessary you will get a warrant, all it is is an extra step in the process.

So, what you are saying is that if the computer flags a message or something that goes through it, you'd need to get a warrent first before you can look into that message? Eh, makes sense to me.

[lostfan]

So, what you are saying is that if the computer flags a message or something that goes through it, you'd need to get a warrent first before you can look into that message? Eh, makes sense to me.

Not exactly (I don't know anything about code words and I think that just comes from movies, lol) but something like that yeah. Let's say you're under investigation by the FBI for being involved with foreign terrorist activity, the FBI has to go to the court and justify why they want to conduct electronic surveillance on you. If there is a legit reason they will be approved and they can monitor your communications (phone, e-mail, etc). If not, they can't do it and it's a violation of intelligence oversight laws. My whole issue with the thing is the bypassing of the need to get a warrant. As long as the Constitution is being followed I'm cool with it.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I fail to see why anyone has any problems with the Patriot Act.

A perfectly wonderful piece of legislation...

 

The most troubling development in the last 8 years of Republican rule is their ability to efficiently twist the simple language in their favor. "Patriot act" "flip flopper" "Free Puppies for everyone Act" "death tax" the list is enormous... Who needs facts when you can sell the country horsecrap under the "Protect America Act" nobody can be against that, right?

[lostfan]

I just read the whole thing and now I understand the part the Democrats are pissed about... I'm okay with the expansion/overhaul of FISA as long as the separation of powers is maintained (I have never been against the general concept of domestic spying, per se), but I really don't like the language in there about the telecom companies. That sets an ugly, ugly precedent. Basically the president can tell a private entity that it's ok to do something, and then there will be no repercussions if it's found that later the activity that took place was illegal. That's garbage.

[santo=dorf]

I fail to see why anyone has any problems with the Patriot Act. I could care less if some weirdo intelligence officer knew who I was hanging out with on a Saturday night. As long as it keeps me safe, I have no problem with this so called "invasion of privacy."

So you have no problems surrending what our forefathers fought for?

 

Indeed, you certainly do fail.

[southsider2k5]

So you have no problems surrending what our forefathers fought for?

 

Indeed, you certainly do fail.

 

Exactly. In reality you should be willing to die to protect the rights that our forefathers themselves died for.

[TCQ]

This is rediculous. This is just another example of how few rights we are keeping. And really that list is shortening because with this or the FCC for example, rights are being converted into privledges, and privledges can be taken away at the governments conveince.

[Rex Kickass]

Feingold is going to filibuster this.

[kapkomet]

Feingold is going to filibuster this.

Does he have enough votes to do it?

[Balta1701]

Feingold is going to filibuster this.

He needs 40 votes. In the House, nearly half the Dems voted for it, along with essentially all the Republicans.

 

There's only 1 man who has the power to drag along the extra 15-20 votes that the Dems would need to sustain the filibuster right now. And while he pledged to support a filibuster of immunity last November, he's out as saying earlier in this thread that he wants the immunity provision removed but supports the compromise bill otherwise.