Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

Research

FISA bill passes House; no retroactive legal immunity for telecoms

By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:54:24 PM EST

While the Senate was willing to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that submitted to the White House's request for them to spy on Americans without a warrant, the House today voted to renew the surveillance bill without granting such legal immunity.
The House on Friday narrowly approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.

The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213 to 197, largely along party lines.

Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
More on the immunity debate below.

The government does have the power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with wiretaps if it gets warrants from a secret court. The government apparently did not get such warrants before initiating the post-9/11 wiretaps, which are the basis for the lawsuits.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the bill is meant to fix that. It would let a judge determine whether lawsuits should be dismissed, rather than having Congress make that decision.

"I believe that the nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last seven years, and I want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community," Reyes said.


Tags: telecom, immunity, fisa, abuse of power, government accountability (all tags)


Display:

FISA bill passes House; no retroactive legal immunity for telecoms :: 5 Comments

FISA Bill Passes House

    The president of the United States calls your company and essentially issues a command to do something illegal. Do you do it, or do you take on one of the world's most powerful people?

    Maybe I am looking at things backwards, but I really think Congress is backwards on this issue. The responsibility for the illegal phone and email spying rests first with the person or people who commanded it to be so. The telecommunications companies were just a means to an end.

    While I don't hold those companies blameless, I am thinking when the president speaks, people listen and for the most part, do what they are told.

    Congress and the public in general need to stop pussy-footing all around the issue of executive branch conduct, place the blame squarely where it belongs, and order impeachment proceedings against the man responsible for issuing the orders of illegal activity.

L.L. Woodard http://www.ifreelance.com/pro/28813 http://www.llwoodard.blogspot.com

by LLWoodard on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST


If we want to find out...

... exactly what happened -- because I agree that the first responsibility lies with the White House -- then granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecoms will make that nearly impossible.  If they have no legal liability and they're already "innocent," there's little that Congress or the courts can then do to coerce the details of the warrantless wiretapping program from them.  We have no guarantee that AT&T et al. will provide details voluntarily.  And we already know the White House won't be offering that info.  So stopping Congress from letting the phone companies preemptively off the hook is a critical step in full accountability for whatever the administration did.

by Josh Zaharoff on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:27:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Who will Josh be voting for Prez.

Josh Zaharoff,    Which Democratic candidate is your choice, obviously you'll never vote for a Republican. So tell us Obama or Clinton?

by Demoforlife on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 01:12:20 AM EST


really?

Your comment implies that you think what I'm saying is partisan (which I disagree with), and that means that I must be a partisan.

Rather than making it personal, why don't you explain why--I assume--you think it's okay for phone companies to receive retroactive immunity when they may have violated their customers' privacy rights and when their knowledge as party to the warrantless wiretapping program appears crucial to any investigation into the executive branch's conduct?

I'm terribly concerned that the next president will see this kind of lawbreaking activity as precedent for his/her own ability to thwart the Constitution and the Congress.  You're not?

by Josh Zaharoff on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 09:07:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Josh Zaharoff is non-partisan?

Josh    It appears that your trying to avoid the question. I like Obama for president, eventhough some of his supporters are racist and sexist.  

I realize that working for Common Cause you have to act like your non-partisan, but aren't you a liberal and didnt you vote for Kerry in the last election?

I doubt Common Cause has any Republicans or conservatives working on its staff. Maybe that's for the better anyways.

by Demoforlife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:11:17 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.


contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy