Bush threatens terror-surveillance veto

[lily]

Ratchet up the rhetoric......Americans want us safe from terror!!

.........and Bush wants telcoms safe from lawsuits. What a crock. If they broke the law, that's their problem. There are many telcom companies that said, sure, we'll give you the things you want, just bring us a warrant. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23609777/)

Bush threatens terror-surveillance veto
President calls Democrats' version of legislation inadequate


updated 10:52 a.m. ET, Thurs., March. 13, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday that the House Democrats' version
of a terrorist-surveillance bill would undermine the nation's security and
that if it reaches his desk, he would veto it.

Ratcheting up his rhetoric, Bush said, "The American people understand the
stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror."

The House is expected to vote on the measure later Thursday. Bush went
before cameras on the South Lawn before the vote to encourage Democrats to
drop their effort and, instead, support a Senate-passed version.



Bullying Congress
Replying to Bush, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the president was
trying to bully Congress and mislead the people.

"He refuses to accept that under our system of government, neither the
president nor the telecommunications companies gets to decide which laws to
follow and which to ignore," Kennedy said in a written statement.

"The president wants Congress to pretend that his administration did not
conduct a massive, illegal, domestic warrantless surveillance program that
was one of the most outrageous abuses of executive power in our nation's
history. Rather than accuse Congress of playing politics, the president
should stop playing politics with our national security," he said.

The law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by
making it easier to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass
through the United States. The law expired Feb. 16 after Congress did not
quickly renew it. Bush opposed a temporary extension and has warned that
failure to renew the law would put the nation at greater risk.

Bush said the House bill "could reopen dangerous intelligence gaps by
putting in place a cumbersome court approval process that would make it
harder to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists."

"Their partisan legislation would extend protections we enjoy as Americans
to foreign terrorists overseas," the president said. "It would cause us to
lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats, and it is a risk that our
country cannot afford to take.

Class-action concern
The Senate-passed version would grant legal immunity to the
telecommunications firms. Bush said lawsuits against telecommunications
companies would lead to the disclosure of state secrets. Further, he said it
would undermine the willingness of the private sector to cooperate with the
government in trying to track down terrorists.

Directing his message at the House, Bush said, "They should not leave for
their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk."

He said the Senate would not pass the House version of the bill, and even if
the Senate did, he would veto it.


Nineteen Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a statement on
Wednesday challenging the administration's arguments.

"We have concluded that the administration has not established a valid and
credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting
blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill," they said in
a statement issued by the committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

They said they have seen no evidence that lawsuits have harmed the
telecommunications companies' reputations or finances, or that intelligence
gathering has been compromised.

[piratemonkey]

Bush:
If we don't get a FISA bill passed, the terrorists will kill us.
If Congress doesn't pass a FISA bill with telecom immunity, I'll veto the FISA bill.
ergo,
Telecom immunity is more important to Bush than the terrorists killing us.

[apdst]

It's a good thing for the telecoms that it's not illegal to voluntarily hand over info on international calls.

[piratemonkey]

If that true, then why is telecom immunity a deal-breaker for Bush?

If they did nothing illegal, why are Republicans throwing a fit about giving them immunity?

[apdst]

If that true, then why is telecom immunity a deal-breaker for Bush?

Because frivilous and useless lawsuits are filed everyday in this country. A person, or corporation can be perfectly in the right and still spend a couple hundred grand defending themselves in a lawsuit. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The filing of a lawsuit doesn't instantly make the lawsuit a just one.

Remember when Johnny Cochran sued John Deere (or was it Massey Ferguson?), because John Deere built and sold farm implements to Southern slave owners? How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars did it cost John Deere to make that BS go away. Public relations damage control alone probably ran into the millions, nevermind legal fees; And, it never went to court!

When William L. Shirer wrote, "The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich", he stated that The Didler-Werke Company built the cremotoriums used in the death camps. Didler-Werke sued Shirer forcing him to add a footnote stating: "The Didler-Werke have raised objection to the name of their firm appearing in the chapter concerning the extermination camps. Dr. S. Trastel, a professor of engineering in a statement of Aug. 1961 established that the measurements are those which are standard for a crematory oven of not very modern design intended for small cemeteries and would be unsuitable for mass burning.", and therefore lent alotta credence to Holocaust deniars, world wide.

So, let's not put too much stock in the fact that someone tried to sue the telecoms.

[piratemonkey]

So you are actually saying that reducing the number of "frivolous lawsuits" in our country by two or three is more important than protecting the country from terrorists.

Really?

If renewing FISA is SOOO important, why do they have to link it with Telecom immunity?

[Scribbler1]

Unless the system is changed, why should telecoms have any more advantage than anyone else? These days, anyone can sue anyone for anything.

And I still haven't heard anyone show how the telecoms would be hurt if they were acting LEGALLY. I know they have plenty of lawyers on retainer. I doubt anyone suing them would have quite the same resources.[hr]
So you are actually saying that reducing the number of "frivolous lawsuits" in our country by two or three is more important than protecting the country from terrorists.

Really?

If renewing FISA is SOOO important, why do they have to link it with Telecom immunity?
If Bush was an honest man, he would sign the bill and then champion a SEPARATE telecom protection bill. Either that, or he knows something we don't about how much danger we're REALLY in.

[Go Fish]

"Either that, or he knows something we don't about how much danger we're REALLY in."

It isn't like there haven't been enough hints. How many planeloads of innocent people does it take? How many people in wheel chairs need to be shot and dumped from cruise ships? How many Israeli Olympic teams need to be taken hostage and murdered? How many more Beslans are required to wake some people up?

[apdst]

If renewing FISA is SOOO important, why do they have to link it with Telecom immunity?

Bush isn't trying to renew FISA, he's trying to revamp FISA. It's the pinnacle of stupidity to require American intel agencies to obtain a warrant to surveil foreign telephone calls.

It's equally stupid to allow telecoms to be sued over giving the FBI information on foriegn phone calls.

[piratemonkey]

So you didn't even answer the questions... why do they have to be linked?

Why is telecom immunity worth putting Americans at risk of being killed by terrorists?

[apdst]

So you didn't even answer the questions... why do they have to be linked?

Who handles most of the phone calls in The World? Answer that question and you'll know why they should be linked.

[Scribbler1]

"Either that, or he knows something we don't about how much danger we're REALLY in."

It isn't like there haven't been enough hints. How many planeloads of innocent people does it take? How many people in wheel chairs need to be shot and dumped from cruise ships? How many Israeli Olympic teams need to be taken hostage and murdered? How many more Beslans are required to wake some people up?If my country is to go to war, I think we need more than "hints". Maybe an actual, verifiable threat, or an attack on us.
You just CANNOT go to war based on a suspicion that another country MIGHT do something to justify it. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

[apdst]

Maybe an actual, verifiable threat, or an attack on us.

That attitude spawned World War 2. I would think we would like to avoid a do-over of World War 2, but I could be wrong.

[Scribbler1]

If renewing FISA is SOOO important, why do they have to link it with Telecom immunity?

Bush isn't trying to renew FISA, he's trying to revamp FISA. It's the pinnacle of stupidity to require American intel agencies to obtain a warrant to surveil foreign telephone calls.But Bush specifically said the original bill was one we needed to protect this country, and he ONLY vetoed it because it didn't grant immunity.It's equally stupid to allow telecoms to be sued over giving the FBI information on foriegn phone calls.
Not if those companies are actually breaking the law. Bush has repeatedly stated they were doing nothing illegal, so why is he so afraid they will be sued.
And it's pretty obvious no such lawsuit will be won anyway. The bulk of any case against them can easily be declared to be classified information and unavailable to any civil court.[hr]
Maybe an actual, verifiable threat, or an attack on us.

That attitude spawned World War 2. I would think we would like to avoid a do-over of World War 2, but I could be wrong.No, an attack on this country by Japan started our involvement in WW2.
Are you implying we should have nuked Japan BEFORE they did anything? I'd love to have seen Roosevelt try to explain THAT.

[apdst]

Not if those companies are actually breaking the law.

As I said earlier, they could be total legal and still be sued, still costing untold amounts of money to defend themselves. A company doesn't get sued, then just don't show up to court. Guess who wins in that case?

No, an attack on this country by Japan started our involvement in WW2.

Very good, you're right. My point is, however, that if we had become involved in WW2 in 1938, the length of the war and the death toll may not have been nearly as great. Instead, we sat back while Japan and Germany took over most of the known world, klling millions and our allies were nearly beaten. Not a good scenario.

[Scribbler1]

Not if those companies are actually breaking the law.

As I said earlier, they could be total legal and still be sued, still costing untold amounts of money to defend themselves. A company doesn't get sued, then just don't show up to court. Guess who wins in that case?As I said, I agree the system needs to be fixed, but if they ARE acting legally it should be easy to prove. In that case, the loser may even pay the costs.
And again, if the Administration simply says that what the telecoms did was classified information, the plaintiff doesn't have much chance of winning a case on heresay. Now, if Bush knows they WOULD lose such a case, and they are NOT following the law, then it's a whole different ball game.

No, an attack on this country by Japan started our involvement in WW2.

Very good, you're right. My point is, however, that if we had become involved in WW2 in 1938, the length of the war and the death toll may not have been nearly as great. Instead, we sat back while Japan and Germany took over most of the known world, klling millions and our allies were nearly beaten. Not a good scenario.But we didn't sign the Munich Agreement which led to the start of the war. We had no grounds to start it ourselves.
It COULD have been prevented, IMO, but we were not a party to it and were under no threat from the Axis. Some people might have THOUGHT we were threatened at the time, but that, as now, is no justification for war.


(Man, I really don't like this post merging.)

[apdst]

but if they ARE acting legally it should be easy to prove. In that case, the loser may even pay the costs.

You're totally missing the point. My point is, that either way, win, or lose, the telecoms will spends tons of money. You don't get sued and ignore it because you think you've done nothing wrong. You still have to hire a lawyer and you still have to show up to court and you still have to conduct damage control for the image of your company. All that will cost millions, even if the company is found to be right. It would be idiotic to allow the telecoms to get sued, right, or wrong.

Some people might have THOUGHT we were threatened at the time, but that, as now, is no justification for war.

Seeing how things turned out, ya think maybe we should jumped into the fight, before we did? The Japanese invaded China, full force, in 1937--actually, they invaded Manchuria in 1931. Looking back, we should have become involved while it could have been a small war, rather than waiting until it grew completely out hand. Who knows, maybe 4,000 Americans would have died instead of 400,000.

[Scribbler1]

Some people might have THOUGHT we were threatened at the time, but that, as now, is no justification for war.

Seeing how things turned out, ya think maybe we should jumped into the fight, before we did? The Japanese invaded China, full force, in 1937--actually, they invaded Manchuria in 1931. Looking back, we should have become involved while it could have been a small war, rather than waiting until it grew completely out hand. Who knows, maybe 4,000 Americans would have died instead of 400,000.Perhaps, but you can't say for sure either way. Too many variables for such a pat answer. Just like assuming attacking Iran at this time will be a knockout punch and our country will then become safe from them and/or terrorists. That's naive at best.

[apdst]

Perhaps, but you can't say for sure either way. Too many variables for such a pat answer.

Well, we know that waiting for the war to grow completely out of control nearly banrupted The United States costing us 400,000 lives and cost millions of lives world wide. We know that. A preemptive strike couldn't have been any worse.

[lily]

It's a good thing for the telecoms that it's not illegal to voluntarily hand over info on international calls.


Apdst........I thought my memory was bad! Don't you remember how this all started? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5399264)

Phone Companies Gave NSA Millions of Call Records
by Larry Abramson


All Things Considered, May 11, 2006 · The nation's largest phone
companies -- AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth -- reportedly have been providing
the National Security Agency with call records of millions of Americans. The
agency says it has not recorded or listened to the calls, but is using them
to form a database to detect potential terrorist activity.

The new allegations that the NSA has broadened its scope from intercepting
international communications to compiling a domestic telephone database
without any judicial oversight first appeared in USA Today. The paper cited
anonymous sources who charge that the NSA has compiled telephone calling
records for tens of millions of Americans.[hr]


You're totally missing the point. My point is, that either way, win, or lose, the telecoms will spends tons of money. You don't get sued and ignore it because you think you've done nothing wrong.

They have lawyers on retainer, so that argument doesn't fly.

The other telcom companies told the government to get warrants, and they'd be glad to comply......you're worried about lawbreakers, instead of standing up for law abiding companies.......now I think I've heard everything.

[apdst]

They have lawyers on retainer, so that argument doesn't fly.

Yep, that's right and lawyers on retainer suddenly start drawing OT when they become actively involved in a case, or step into a court room. So, my argument just grew wings.

The other telcom companies told the government to get warrants, and they'd be glad to comply

They can still be sued.

[lily]

Yep, that's right and lawyers on retainer suddenly start drawing OT when they become actively involved in a case, or step into a court room. So, my argument just grew wings.

If you say so......I don't know how a lawyer on a retainer doing some work, is going to cost so much more than a lawyer sitting on his butt reading the newspaper is going to cost big telcom companies......but if you think so........



They can still be sued.

They can? For what?

....oh I noticed you just skipped over where they handed over American's records............that's ok. I understand.;)

[apdst]

I don't know how a lawyer on a retainer doing some work, is going to cost so much more than a lawyer sitting on his butt reading the newspaper is going to cost big telcom companies......but if you think so........

How? Because when a lawyer on retainer has to put his reputation on the line for his client, his price goes up. It's a fact. The retainer is for the lawyer to handle day to day legal crap and, typically, the lawyer on retainer isn't a litigation attorney.

They can? For what?

Because Peggy Sue Jenkins in Ardmore, Oklahoma was having phone sex with her boyfriend in Atoka and believes that she was unreasonably surveilled by The FBI and that their warrant didn't name her, specifically. Based on that, she's filed a lawsuit against the telecom for illegally releasing the wrong information, thereby causing here mental anguish.

Bullshit? Yep, it sure is; of the first order. But, ya know what? The telecom still has to spend the money to respond to the suit. Then, they have to spend more money on damage control.

[lily]

How? Because when a lawyer on retainer has to put his reputation on the line for his client, his price goes up. It's a fact. The retainer is for the lawyer to handle day to day legal crap and, typically, the lawyer on retainer isn't a litigation attorney.

You're joking, right.....lawyers live to have their name in the papers, it's their bread and butter. The more high profile the case, the better!



Because Peggy Sue Jenkins in Ardmore, Oklahoma was having phone sex with her boyfriend in Atoka and believes that she was unreasonably surveilled by The FBI and that their warrant didn't name her, specifically. Based on that, she's filed a lawsuit against the telecom for illegally releasing the wrong information, thereby causing here mental anguish.

Bullshit? Yep, it sure is; of the first order. But, ya know what? The telecom still has to spend the money to respond to the suit. Then, they have to spend more money on damage control.

At least give me the same respect I give you when responding. I don't think it's asking too much. I and others give links to back up our argument.......it's kinda a thing around here and where other serious debators go to, to discuss with some intelligence. If you didn't have an honest reply.......you could have skipped the question entirely....like you did when you were disproven on the "it was only overseas calls............"

The fact of the matter is.......Bush doesn't give a shit about keeping this country safe.......he cares about cowtowing to big business. Always has.......always will.

[4Reaganomics]

For someone who hasn't been concerned about keeping the domestic homeland safe after 9/11, he sure has done a good job Lily.

I wish I could be that good at accomplishing things that I do not care about.

[lily]

You think so? I think it's pure dumb luck. All the "terrorists cells" that have hit the papers have been found out by observant citizens. If he actually found one, he's be parading them every single night.

Don't get me wrong, I know the agencies that are trusted with our security are doing their job..........but it has little to do with Bush.

You need a warrant for a wire tap to stand up in a trial. I'd prefer terrorists that are thinking of doing our country harm dead and that requires a legal trial.......so that all the world can see and really learn a lesson from.......don't see much of that happening.

[Scribbler1]

You think so? I think it's pure dumb luck. All the "terrorists cells" that have hit the papers have been found out by observant citizens. If he actually found one, he's be parading them every single night.Exactly. It's not like the Administration has been low key about their accomplishments. They made a big deal out of those morons in Florida, so you KNOW if they were directly responsible for busting a terror cell they'd let everyone know about it.Don't get me wrong, I know the agencies that are trusted with our security are doing their job..........but it has little to do with Bush.I agree completely. The only accomplishment, albeit a dubious one, was the DHS, which essentially was another layer of bureaucracy over our existing intelligence and law enforcement departments. Departments, by the way, which would do a MUCH better job if the politicians would keep their mitts off them.