bingo!...that's precisely what the liberals/terrorists (We Hate the Americans Club) want....
Posted on 05/24/2008 8:22:38 PM PDT by CutePuppy
Republicans Making Concessions on FISA Surveillance Rules
By Pamela Hess, Associated Press
May 23, 2008
Washington (AP) - A months-long logjam over a new government surveillance bill may be coming to an end, with Republicans offering a compromise that would let people who think they were illegally spied on by the government have their day in court -- albeit a secret one.
House and Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled their latest proposal aimed at resolving the roughly 40 civil lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated in the so-called warrantless wiretapping program.
The Republican proposal makes other concessions. It would:
--Allow an inspector general investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program.
--Allow a secret court to review in advance a government's plan for the surveillance of non-U.S. citizens abroad to make sure the privacy of Americans they may come in contact with is protected.
--Confirm that the new law would be the exclusive authority to conduct electronic surveillance -- essentially outlawing a revival of the warrantless wiretapping in the future.
House and Senate staff from both parties said the proposal represents a real shift toward the House Democratic surveillance bill.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said he received the GOP proposal Wednesday and is reviewing it.
The most important shift comes in the matter of the telecom lawsuits.
The companies allegedly allowed the government to eavesdrop in the United States on phone and computer lines for nearly six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks without the permission of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court created 30 years ago precisely for that purpose. Those lawsuits are pending before a single federal court.
The White House favors the Senate version of an electronic surveillance bill that grants full immunity to the telecommunications companies. The House-approved version would let the cases go to court, leaving it up to judges to determine whether the companies acted illegally.
The new Republican proposal -- which Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri said is backed by the White House and intelligence agencies -- would allow the FISA court to decide. It would require the attorney general to certify that the companies acted lawfully and at the request of the president.
The court would be allowed to read the requests to telecom companies for the wiretaps to be placed, and the plaintiffs could file their complaints with the court. The court could dismiss the lawsuits if it finds that supported by "a preponderance of the evidence."
"We have to draw a line in the sand and say we've compromised enough," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Smith said at a Republican news conference that he and other lawmakers were coming forward to pressure Democrats to accept their proposal.
"There's not a whole lot farther you can go without seriously damaging" national security, said Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
Hoyer called Republican "rhetoric" at the news conference "unhelpful."
The American Civil Liberties Union says the Republican compromise language on telecom immunity is not an improvement over the original Senate bill. The FISA court is still not empowered to determine whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal-- just whether the attorney general sent a letter to the companies requesting assistance.
The compromise "just says that the existence of an order -- whether legal or not -- is enough to dismiss the cases," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative consultant with the ACLU.
The new surveillance law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails between foreigners abroad and Americans in the U.S and remove barriers to collecting purely foreign communications that pass through the United States-- for instance, foreign e-mails stored on a server.
"There's not a whole lot farther you can go without seriously damaging" national security, said Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra
Really??!! What got you that far?
Just wait till we get hit again. Those appeasement DUmmies are gonna get us all killed.
American Hiroshima.
I wouldn’t put it past Kode Pink types to monkey wrench this by falsely claiming to believe they’ve been spied on just to create a log jam of secret court trials, with the tax-payer footing the increasingly increasing bill.
“Really??!! What got you that far? “
I know, a sad state of affairs. But this is what we’re faced with. Pelosi (et al) has THAT much power, to prevent FISA bill renewal/Protect America Act from even being on the agenda (after letting it expire), for further discussion, much less a vote. So, the first priority is to even get it back on the table, and at least RENEWED in some fashion.
So does this mean if Obama feels he was unfairly spied on he can go to court, even though we all know he is a terrorist leader?
ROFL!!
I seriously meant to say Osama!!!
I would just as soon make this and similar cases a campaign issue, particularly in conservative districts against so-called “conservative blue dog” Democrats. If they voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker and Harry Reid for Leader, they effectively voted for this.
Tie them to Pelosi and her agenda on these issues just by virtue of their votes for her as a Speaker and take the seats back. Simple math - a Democrat elected to Congress, personally “conservative” or “moderate”, means not representing wishes of the conservative district if Pelosi continues as Speaker. Security is the issue that does resonate with broad electorate... excluding moonbats, of course.
Of course, that means Republican politicians need growing a spine and standing up, calling Dems’ bluffs (like they did on “Iraq”) instead of “compromising” and begging for some kibble.
They should be very careful what they wish for...
It would be open season...
Sigmund Freud alert! :)
“I would just as soon make this and similar cases a campaign issue, particularly in conservative districts against so-called “conservative blue dog” Democrats. If they voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker and Harry Reid for Leader, they effectively voted for this.”
Excellent point, and a good idea-—but the vast voting public is, or appears to be, SO brain-dead that (would you believe) most of them haven’t followed, or are even aware of, this important issue - FISA/Protect America Act.
These idiot Republicans. Let the Democrats kill FISA. Then when NY gets hit again we can hold them up as responsible yet again.
Well, whose job is it to educate them and especially on issues like these that just naturally lend themselves to a campaign?
Democrats want to keep these national issues low profile and run on local and “pork” issues with pretend-”conservatives”... Republicans in these districts and states should raise the profile of these national issues and Democrats leadership’s national agendas (along with majority power to confirm judges) which are completely out of sync with their electorate, and keep the heat on their elected Democrats for every such vote or “tabling” national security issues to let them expire or for sake of enriching their lawyer lobby, thus jeopardizing the country.
It’s a win-win strategy, if only RNC or Republican congressional election committees had enough brains or interest to execute it.
“...enough brains or interest to execute it”
The problem is defined; will we hold their feet to the fire, probably not. I hear the new free health care program is going to give us free KY to make it easier to take.
HEY!...be sure to proscribe "KY JELLY"...not just KY, thats' a (Southern) state, too....90% of US wouldn't know the difference, but they could sure feel it. 
And republicans wonder why they are losing special elections. Should real conservatives ever form a caucus it won’t take very long to call the roll.
This is what comes from Republicans staying home on election day in 2006.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.