Senate Backs Wiretap Bill to Shield Phone Companies

New York Times ^ | 9 July 2008 | By ERIC LICHTBLAU

[shrinkermd]

WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.

The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late. And it represented a stinging defeat for opponents on the left who had urged Democratic leaders to stand firm against the White House after a months-long impasse.

“I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill,” Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in closing arguments.

But Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there was nothing to fear in the bill “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”

Supporters of the plan, which revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, said that the final vote reflected both political reality and legal practicality. Wiretapping orders approved by a secret court under the previous version of the surveillance law were set to begin expiring in August unless Congress acted, and many Democrats were wary of going into their political convention in Denver next month with the issue hanging over them—handing the Republicans a potent political weapon.

So instead, Congress approved what amounted to the biggest restructuring

[counterpunch]

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“When the Dems declare pro-lifers, NRA members or conservative blog posters “domestic terrorists” maybe then you will wake up. Until then , enjoy your police state.”

FISA, The F in FISA stands for Foreign, not domestic.

If I remember correctly, FISA existed under the Clinton administration, so I am sure you can name the names of all the conservatives who were against it under Clinton.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“The government has plenty of means to fight terrorists without infringing upon the forth amendment. This bill has killed the forth by nearly eliminating the need to seek a warrant.”

This bill has done NOTHING to the 4th amendment for those within the USA.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“So you honestly feel that it’s good that the government can listen to your phone conversations? You trust the government that much? The founding fathers certainly didn’t that’s why they put so many restraints on the government.”

The founding fathers intercepted mail going to the British during the Revolutionary War. It’s the enemies, stupid.

[supercat]

I want you to name one person, ONE PERSON that has had their rights infringed upon because to this bill.

Everyone's rights are infringed upon when the government manages to gain a new power to usurp the Constitution.

According to Article VI, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any action which is contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate.

While a jury would have the power to acquit someone or hold him not liable for obeying an illegitimate order, I see nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress such power. To give Congress plenary power to protect people who obey illegitimate orders of government is to give plenary power to have illegitimate orders enforced. Can you not see the dangers in that?

[supercat]

This way the telecoms will continue to supply info without the fear of being sued.

Suppose you run a publicly-traded telecommunications company and a government agent comes knocking. He asks for certain information he really has no authority to demand, and tells you that if you refuse he'll make your life miserable. If you want to take things to court, you'll win, but your shareholders will be out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Whereas if you simply supply the information you can guarantee that your shareholders will be off the hook.

Given that your fiduciary duty is to your shareholders, rather than to the public at large, how could you justify going against the government agent in that scenario?

[supercat]

Since the executive branch has had the constitutional authority to spy on America's enemies and conduct spying without any type of warrant or congressional authorization on foreign lands, and on communications from outside of the US, tell me how this new legislation is any different or an increase in this power?

The government has the ability to make people's lives miserable for pretty much any reason it wants. This power can be, and often is, abused to make people do things the government wants but has no legitimate authority to demand. There are limits to this power, though, since people will often balk at doing illegal things whose penalty would exceed the pain the government could assert for refusal.

Granting the government the power to protect people who do illegal actions on its behalf is very dangerous. To be sure, crooks already have too much power within the government, but to allow the government to extend its corrupting tentacles beyond itself is extremely dangerous.

Telecommunications wiretaps are just the beginning.

[supercat]

This bill has done NOTHING to the 4th amendment for those within the USA.

Does it shield the telcos from lawsuits resulting from unlawful domestic wiretapping? If so, that's a huge blow to the Fourth Amendment,

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“Does it shield the telcos from lawsuits resulting from unlawful domestic wiretapping?”

First of all, it is not wiretapping, no matter how often the media calls it that.

Second, every call is foreign, no calls are domestic.

Third, the lines that are being intercepted are owned by the telecos, not the persons at each end, and the telecos have agreed to the intercepts, therefore, no warrant is needed. This does not effect the 4th amendment in the USA at all.