Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

[poncho]

By PAMELA HESS,
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.



SOURCE...


All hail the corporate corruption state.

 

[carpro]

By PAMELA HESS,
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans.

SOURCE...

Good!!!! :applause:

 

[Revmitchell]

Good!!!! :applause:

Ditto.!:thumbs:

 

[KenH]

Boooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The telecoms should not have been granted immunity.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I agree. And we should prosecute Bill Clinton for violating John Gotti's rights.

Bipartisian spying on Americans. The reason the telecomms need immunity is for when the next president is in.

 

[Revmitchell]

Just what Americans have been spied on?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I see. Why do the tele-comms need immunity ?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Just what Americans have been spied on?

Those who called or were called by known terrorists overseas.

The telecoms immunity part should have been the easiest part of the bill to pass. Why would anyone hold them accountable for what the government does to start with? If laws are broken and people found guilty then they should serve jail time but I believe civil lawsuits with monetary awards should be eliminated across the board.

 

[Revmitchell]

I see. Why do the tele-comms need immunity ?

To stop trial lawyers like John Edwards from filing law suit after law suit to fill their pockets. The poor companies would be so tied up with litigation and it would cost them millions if not more. The blasted trial lawyers are just biting at the bit to get in that door. There are a ton of suits just waiting in the wings.

Add to that this is an issue the Dems would love to work over and create an issue where none exists.

Short answer the telecoms need immunity to stop the total abuse waiting in the wings.

 

[KenH]

The telecoms should be called to account if they break the law. If they need defending for carrying out President Bush's orders, then let the taxpayers pay for their defense. If the taxpayers want the telecoms to be not incur costs, then let the taxpayers be responsible for the costs.

 

[poncho]

Those who called or were called by known terrorists overseas.

How do know that for sure? Got proof? Or is it just a matter of "trust us we're the government" again?

These days all crime is being viewed as terrorism and given as "reason" for the government to grant itself more power and control over us.

 

[Revmitchell]

The telecoms should be called to account if they break the law. If they need defending for carrying out President Bush's orders, then let the taxpayers pay for their defense. If the taxpayers want the telecoms to be not incur costs, then let the taxpayers be responsible for the costs.

Isn't there some sort of congressional oversight on this? I don't think average trial lawyers should be able to see details of this program. this junk would end up on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN etc. They just love tipping our hand tot he enemy.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

The telecoms should be called to account if they break the law. If they need defending for carrying out President Bush's orders, then let the taxpayers pay for their defense. If the taxpayers want the telecoms to be not incur costs, then let the taxpayers be responsible for the costs.

The immunity they are granted by the bill is very specific immunity from CIVIL lawsuits. If they break the law they can still be held accountable.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

How do know that for sure? Got proof? Or is it just a matter of "trust us we're the government" again?

These days all crime is being viewed as terrorism and given as "reason" for the government to grant itself more power and control over us.

Why would I care? Why would anyone using international phone lines have any expectations of privacy or immunity. Why should we not be able to moniter communications of terror suspects?

I am all for personal liberty, but I don't see the infringement here.

 

[dragonfly]

The immunity they are granted by the bill is very specific immunity from CIVIL lawsuits. If they break the law they can still be held accountable.

Good point.:thumbs:

Although I am not a Bush supporter, I am glad the Court ruled as it did in this case. The telecom companies were put in a bad situation.

If they had refused to cooperate with the government and the U.S. has suffered another attack which might have been stopped with their help, the public would have run them out of business.

Now since they did cooperate, these companies should not be forced to spend their money defending themselves in court.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I am glad that the United States has one more very important line of pre-emptive defense set up.
However, at the same time I am also apprehensive about possible sources of abuse of power.
For example, my country, the Philippines, has Muslims with ties to the Al-Qaeda network, the Abu Sayyaf. There are US troops operating there right now. As a matter of fact, after the lady missionary who lost her husband during rescue operations was taken back, the take out of their kidnappings' mastermind was undertaken thru CIA materials, funds, and guidance.
Now, what is to stop those tasked with monitoring calls to monitor every call made to that region even by Filipino Muslims living here in the United States even if the call is just harmless calls to relatives ?
These calls could be a source of delay and more bureaucratic red tape when they apply for US citizenship, all because there happened to be intelligence files on them, no matter how low in the totem pole, making a call to a known terrorist region.
When I applied for clearance from my country's National Bureau of Investigation (the equivalent of the FBI here), my clearance was held in abbeyance until I could produce another document from the courts that I was in fact found not guilty and did not do prison time for a recorded arrest for gambling, an offense which is clearly not national security related but just happened to be in their files because the country had come under Martial Law and the dicatator had ordered all crimes stashed into some sort of paper database which were later on transferred to an electronic database when the agency went computerized.
Sorry about all the details, but there are indeed setbacks that can be activated by just plain human nature.

 

[poncho]

Why would I care? Why would anyone using international phone lines have any expectations of privacy or immunity. Why should we not be able to moniter communications of terror suspects?

I am all for personal liberty, but I don't see the infringement here.

That wasn't what I was asking. How do you know for sure that the only ones that got spied on were using international phone lines? General Hayden himself said the government doesn't need warrants because the fourth amendment says nothing about probable cause and this guy was the head of the NSA at the time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM

So is it just a matter of trusting guys like this to tell us what they've done or do you have real proof they only spied on "terrorists" overseas like they claim?

In the 60's and 70's the government was spying on citizens all the time without warrants. Cointelpro.

Our government is no stranger to "secretly" breaking the law.

In other words.

All I'm asking is do you have proof that what the government claims is true or are you just taking the word of folks like General Hayden?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

All I'm asking is do you have proof that what the government claims is true or are you just taking the word of folks like General Hayden?

I understand your doubt but do you have any proof that they were, or that harm was caused? There is a principle called innocent until proven guilty that should extend to our government as well as our citizens.

Your right about probable cause and I don't believe the government should need any warrents. The real story here is that groups that are supporting terrorists (left wing of the democratic party) were planning to derail this essential inteligence by filing wide ranging civil lawsuits. This bill stops that:applause:

 

[poncho]

I understand your doubt but do you have any proof that they were, or that harm was caused?

I asked you first. Twice.

There is a principle called innocent until proven guilty that should extend to our government as well as our citizens.

The government has already been found guilty of spying on citizens before.

Your right about probable cause and I don't believe the government should need any warrents.

The government doesn't need warrants to spy on foreigners overseas. Which is why I question the whole immunity thing. If there were no laws broken there would be no need for immunity...would there? If there were no laws broken there would be no need to "reform" FISA.

In these United States according to the constitution (law) the government needs warrants to search citizens and/or their property in spite of what General Hayden believes.

The real story here is that groups that are supporting terrorists (left wing of the democratic party) were planning to derail this essential inteligence by filing wide ranging civil lawsuits. This bill stops that.

Well that's the story (emphasis/propaganda/hyperbole) we get from the so called right wing (neocon) commentators and opinionists but the real story is it shields the tel-coms and the government from investigations that may have turned up wrong doing and maybe even illegal criminal actions.

It puts the president and congress above the law not to mention the mega conglomerated transnational corporations. That's not what I would call a victory for freedom or national security. More like a victory for corporatism over the the people of the USA by giving the corporate state retroactive immunity from investigation and prosecution.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I asked you first. Twice.

ok, fair enough, no I do not have any proof that only those with terrorist connections were spied on. The truth is that many suspected connections were probably checked out and discarded. But that is what investigators do, they investigate. That is another reason why investigations need to be kept confidential, to protect the innocent.

The government has already been found guilty of spying on citizens before.

yea and it probably needed to and will need to again.

The government doesn't need warrants to spy on foreigners overseas. Which is why I question the whole immunity thing. If there were no laws broken there would be no need for immunity...would there? If there were no laws broken there would be no need to "reform" FISA.

but the law does not give immunity to criminal offenses, only civil ones. There is no immunity granted from any law, only from civil lawsuits filed by individuals who feel their civil rights were violated. It gives the telecoms the same protection the government has when they are operating for the government. You can't sue the government for listening in on your calls now. This law changes nothing, it only extends protection to those companies cooperating with our government so they will not be sued for helping.

In these United States according to the constitution (law) the government needs warrants to search citizens and/or their property in spite of what General Hayden believes.

it all comes down to what you consider reasonable search and seizure.