EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Panel Drops Immunity From Eavesdropping Bill
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - Reflecting the deep divisions within Congress over granting legal immunity to telephone companies for cooperating with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a new domestic surveillance law on Thursday that sidestepped the issue.
By a 10 to 9 vote, the committee approved an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that dropped a key provision for immunity for telecommunications companies that another committee had already approved. The Senate leadership will have to decide how to deal with the immunity question on the Senate floor.
On Thursday night, the House voted 227 to 189, generally along party lines, to approve its own version of the FISA bill, which also does not include immunity.
But the administration has made clear that President Bush will veto any bill that does not include what it considers necessary tools for government eavesdropping, including the retroactive immunity for phone carriers that took part in the National Security Agency's wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Since the N.S.A. program was disclosed nearly two years ago, the major telephone companies have been sued by civil liberties groups and others, who argue that the companies violated the privacy rights of millions of Americans.
After lobbying by the telecommunications industry and the White House, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence agreed to the legal protection last month. Under a complicated legislative process, the Intelligence Committee's bill had to be considered by the Judiciary Committee before it could go to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
Because the two committees could not agree, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, will determine which proposals will be considered by the full Senate, said a spokeswoman for the Judiciary Committee.
"The full Senate will yet need to resolve the immunity issue," Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement after the committee vote.
Even as Mr. Leahy sent the bill to the full Senate without dealing with the immunity issue, there were efforts by leading Democrats and Republicans to strike a compromise.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel, is pushing a plan that would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. That would mean that the government, not the companies, would pay damages in successful lawsuits.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said in an interview after the vote Thursday that he would support a compromise along the lines of the Specter proposal.
Mr. Whitehouse was one of two Democrats who voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, that would have banned immunity for the companies. "I think there is a good solution somewhere in the middle," Mr. Whitehouse said.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who also opposed Mr. Feingold's measure, pleaded with Mr. Leahy to defer the immunity issue because she wants more time to consider several compromise proposals.
In the House, Republicans complained before the vote on Thursday that Democrats had blocked efforts to change the final bill through parliamentary procedures. Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California, said the Democrats were playing "political games" on "one of the single most important issues we will deal with this year or this Congress."
The plan, Mr. Lungren charged, would tie the hands of the N.S.A. and give "greater protection to Osama bin Laden than an American citizen" by preventing intelligence officials from disseminating intercepts that had been inadvertently collected.
But Democrats and said their bill struck the right balance between protecting the United States from another terrorist attack and protecting the rights of Americans. The vote, said Representative Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, was "another chance to get things right" after what he characterized as the flawed bill that was hurriedly passed by Congress in August before its summer recess.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's bill was the result of a compromise between Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the panel, and the White House. Mr. Rockefeller agreed to the immunity measure, and in exchange won the administration's support for other provisions that would provide greater court oversight of the government's eavesdropping operations.
© 2007 The New York Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

21 Comments so far
Show AllCan you sue me now?
So there's an initial target list: Whitehouse, Feinstein, Rockefeller. Who else on the Intelligence Committee voted for telecom immunity?
Any of them running next year? We need long memories, folks.
We all know what compromise means when it comes to the Democrats: Bush gets what he wants and the people get the shaft. Wait and see.
So, if the Bush Administration claims the eavesdropping program is legal, why do they need to have a vote over immunity? If the Bush Administration has nothing to hide, why did the Judiciary Committee need to take on this issue? Yet another classic example of the government abandoning the people. This among many other cases gives us legitimate reason to dissolve this government. What the hell are we waiting for??
The criminality of this is glaringy apparent---if you are a rich corporation, this President will male sure you're not prosecuted for crimes you committed at an earlier date, no matter how serious. BUT if you were a poor, black inmate on death row, you would not even be considered for clemency. Folks---we are staring in the face of evil. Bush doesn't even bother any longer tryng to rationalize his dispicable behavior and motives----how can any citizen not see the dual "injustice" system we have. Can it get any clearer? How many other examples of this do we need?????
And why should any legislator have to compromise with this president or any other to get him to abide by the law? It's a national disgrace and every Senator who stoops to this should be driven out of Wshington. I'm sick of them!
staroftesea.People do see the duel injustice. What can we do. Get a drive going and you get shot by one of Bushie/Chaney robots.After all these repugs neo-nazi bastards think they own the world because their leader is the most dangerous dictator that ever existed. After he is booted out. What will the twenty-two percent do. I know who they are in my neighborhood and I will never let them forget. Hang them high with the yellow back assholes.
No corporate welfare, eh? My heart bleeds.
Well, they've broken the 4th Amendment, so it seems not totally unreasonable to justify a citizen's arrest.
I'm curious about the nature of the immunity, as it was originally concieved. If someone as a private citizen puts a phone tap on someone's line, whether indoors or outside somewhere, I assume that all sorts of federal laws kick in -- and he'll be Abu Ghraib'd.
Now if this person works for a telecom company that got the go-ahead from Bush, and does it on company time -- but unknown to top management -- is he protected?
I mean, companies don't exist as real individuals, and they don't ultimately go to jail. So does the claim to corporate immunity apply to all who are employed by the corporation, or just the Spooky plants at the top, who direct employees below them to break the law? And it's ok to break the law if your Spooky manager tells you to do so, but not ok if you do it on your own?
Interesting world we live in. I wonder why we've got so many lawyers -- our laws aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Where the heck is the free market? The relationship is between the company(ies) and subscribers. It seems Company(ies) violated the law and allegedly either received benefits in the form of government contracts or were not penalized like those who refused.
How can these so called free-market champions want to get in between two private parties?
Socialism for the rich and corporate interest - Free market for the rest of us. So much for rule of law!
Fortunately, there is a third branch of government the Judiciary ..
"Progressive Newswire"
ACLU Responds to Federal Court Ruling in "State Secrets" Lawsuit About Warrantless
Wrong link ..
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1115-13.htm
Right link ..
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1116-13.htm
Representative Dan Lungren, Republican of California, said the Democrats were playing "political games" on "one of the single most important issues we will deal with this year or this Congress."
Ain't no fun when others play by the rules set by Republicans, is it, Mr. Lungren? Just shut up and let the big boys and girls run the agenda. That's what you Republicans lost when you lost in the 2006 elections. Stop whining.
But according to various published accounts, AT&T whistleblowers had that company cooperating with NSA to install hi tech eavesdropping equipment in January, 2001, long before the 9/11 attacks. And not all US companies (ie., Qwest) acquiesced in NSA's request that they facilitate illegal spying upon their customers.
Which is worse - just giving these corporate giants a free pass for violating the Bill of Rights, FISA, and Title III (sort of like giving immunity to the Watergate burglars), or Senator Specter's alternative proposal that the public treasury simply pick up the tab for the telecom spooks' wrongdoing (like the Savings & Loan bail out)?
Whatever happens, you can bet a whole lot of campaign donations are going to get directed to the folks who do the immunizing.
Bill from Saginaw
Sad times when corporations become camouflage for what would get individuals jailed.
Senator Specter's compromise is basically another corporate bailout, a pardon in advance. There was a choice for the telecoms--only one company refused, Qwest. They are guilty, just as the Bush administration is guilty. Those lawsuits should go through, and not have Uncle Sugar pick up the tab again for corporate irresponsibility.
Let me get this straight, the "compromise" is to have the taxpayer pay the lawsuit bills, as opposed to the lawbreaking telecom companies? Do I have this right?
Welcome to the Orwellian nightmare world called the U.S.A.:
Government taxes population. Uses tax money to "install" imperialist economic entities like the World Bank, IMF and "free trade" agreements onto the populations of south and Central America. Multi-National corporations move into those countries. Hire workers on pennies a day with no benefits, to jobs formerly done on U.S. soil by American citizens. Rape and pillage the land. Sell goods to U.S. taxpayers for "cheaper". Make billions in profits. U.S. taxpayer sees very little return on their tax investment. CEO's give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".
Government borrows money. The debt is now a shared debt for the population at large. Borrowed money is used to "fund" invasion of Iraq. Defense and re-construction corporations make billions in profits from this taxpayer funding in what amounts to tax-subsidized war profiteering. Population gets a ZERO return on their borrowed money. Iraqi Oil fields opened to "investment" by Multi-National corporations. Oil industry makes tens of billions in profits. U.S. taxpayer pays record high gas prices. CEO's of these corporations get huge bonuses for their "hard work".
Government taxes population. Uses taxes to fund government agencies like FEMA. Government sabotages FEMA through rampant corruption and cronyism. FEMA fails in its duties when a disaster strikes. Poor people lose their homes and jobs. Government says "see, the government can't do anything right!" Government then pushes forth initiatives to "privatize" the jobs formerly done by FEMA. Multi-national corporations get huge no-bid contracts. Make billions in taxpayer dollars. No oversight. Land formerly inhabited by the poor and lower middle classes are "sold" for pennies on the dollar to corporate developers, who build large scale for-profit condominiums and work spaces for the upper classes to enjoy. CEO's give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".
And most recently, government taxes population and borrows trillions from China. Government asks telecom corporations to blatantly violate the law. Population gets wind of it. Files lawsuits. Government changes laws to protect lawbreaking telecom companies. Government becomes victim of lawsuits. Population pays penalty to itself for telecom lawbreaking. CEO's of telecoms give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".
When will the American public at large wake up to the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act of their "leadership"?
Senator Arlen Specter is responding to those who are saying we have to grant immunity; it's about the money, it's about the money, it's about the money; it's about the cost to the telecoms of pending and future civil lawsuits.
Senator Specter is saying immunity though is not the answer; immunity will interfere with us getting at the truth and will interfere with us prosecuting criminal behavior.
redjeff November 17th, 2007 12:05 am
"Senator Specter's compromise is basically another corporate bailout, a pardon in advance. There was a choice for the telecoms–only one company refused, Qwest. They are guilty, just as the Bush administration is guilty. Those lawsuits should go through, and not have Uncle Sugar pick up the tab again for corporate irresponsibility."
This IS another corporate give-away at the expense of tax payers; and sadly, it appears that Democrats are going to sign on to this legilation which enables lawless corporations to bypass the criminal justice system, again.
For those who have cell phones: DFA Wireless (workingassetswireless.com) also refused Bush's request to wiretap U.S. citizens. Check them out!
To hell with the compromise plans. A compromise is to let the Vichy democrats rot in prison rather than be hung by their nuts with barbed wiretaps.
Senator Specter you mean the one magic bullet man from the Warren Commision/Kennedy Asasination investigation? How these crooks keep resurfacing and reinventing themselves and clinging to power is beyond me.
I can't believe this story is posted at my primary discussion board and there has been zero response. Here is Bush caught red handed lying to the public about what the NSA is doing, trying to grant retroactive immunity for phone companies cooperating with the NSA in violation the Constitution of the United States, and all for the greater cause of King George keeping all calls in the US from all citizens under surveillance with no warrants, no probable cause, even with people with absolutely no criminal records. It's outrageous, but the apathy I see is even more outrageous.
"will determine which proposals will be considered by the full Senate" immunity done!
It will be a prearranged close vote of course, ah , the disappointment, the hand wringing, the finger pointing will all be done too.