House passes spy bill and rejects phone immunity

[Scribbler1]

LINK (http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/02/14/NEWS-USA-SURVEILLANCE-DC/)
I'm sure Bush will veto this one, but it raises previously asked questions about how important this bill REALLY is to the Administration.WASHINGTON — The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives defied President George W. Bush on Friday and passed an anti-terrorism spy bill that permits lawsuits against phone companies.

But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity.

The battle over whether to shield companies has been a key reason why the House and Senate have been unable to agree on a bill to replace a law that expired last month that expanded U.S. authority to track enemy targets without a court order.

It has also prompted Republicans to accuse Democrats of undermining national security, while Democrats have accused Bush and his fellow Republicans of election-year fear mongering.

"It is time to reject the scare tactics of the Bush administration and enact this carefully crafted legislation," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto fired back: "Their bill would make it easier for class-action trial lawyers to sue companies whose only offense is that they are alleged to have assisted in efforts to protect the country after the attacks of September 11." Alleged? I recall Cheney said straight out that they DID assist them.
I really like this line:Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized warrantless surveillance. Critics charged he broke the law, while Bush says he had the war-time power to do it. He later put the program under FISA court supervision. Terms remain secret. If he had the power, why then did he give it to the court?

[Drocket]

The simple fact that the word "alleged" slipped in there says mountains about why the White House wants immunity so bad. Seriously, when was the last time you heard the word "alleged" without it being connected to a crime?

[4Reaganomics]

Maybe they don't want phone companies to be afraid of a radical muslim slapping them with a lawsuit for millions of dollars if they participate in securing the country.

[just a grunt]

In that there are lawsuits currently placed against phone co's, deliberately using the term alleged is probably appropriate.

[Grizz]

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized warrantless surveillance. Critics charged he broke the law, while Bush says he had the war-time power to do it. He later put the program under FISA court supervision. Terms remain secret.

After 9/11? Yeah, I know most news stories contain something like this, but apparently, that isn't so:

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews)

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- 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.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.'' Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer)

It's quite evident that our constitutional freedoms were under attack well before 9/11 and the only thing preventing the full disclosure is the refusal of the Bush administration to release any records or allow an investigation into what really happened.

[Scribbler1]

It's quite evident that our constitutional freedoms were under attack well before 9/11 and the only thing preventing the full disclosure is the refusal of the Bush administration to release any records or allow an investigation into what really happened.Which adds ammunition to the arsenal of the growing number of people who believe the government was behind 9/11 all along.

As a skeptic, I don't buy into many of these theories, but neither do I buy into anything that comes out of this administration either.