House passes surveillance bill — sans telecom immunity

March 14, 2008

Well, I don’t imagine the White House is going to be pleased.

A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation today, rebuffing President Bush’s demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening the impasse on a fundamental national security issue.

Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break.

The legislation, approved 213-197, would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies.

But it challenges the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by restoring the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

And, of course, the legislation passed without retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program. As the WaPo explained, “Instead of granting them immunity, as the Senate has, the House measure would send the issue to a secure federal court and grant the telecommunications companies the right to argue their case before a judge with information the administration has deemed to be state secrets.”

This was all very encouraging — and a welcome example of congressional Democrats standing up to Bush on a matter of national security, Republican demagoguery notwithstanding.

What happens now? Paul Kiel offers a lay of the land.

As for what’s next, it’s over to the Senate where it’s sure to undergo some modifications. In a statement earlier this week, Senate intelligence committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said that “considerable work remains” on reconciling the House’s latest version and the Senate version. Rockefeller said he’s willing to adopt a number of the House’s provisions, including a much shorter sunset (2 years) on the law, but notably omitted the topic of immunity. Rockefeller supports blanket immunity for the telecoms.

The Senate is certainly a different place. Today, 12 House Dems voted against a bill that does not contain retroactive immunity (and some of those were from liberals like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Last month in the Senate, 18 Dems voted against an attempt to strip retroactive immunity from the Senate bill.

If you’re interested, here’s the roll call.

The Speaker’s happy; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is happy; the ACLU’s happy; and EFF is happy. This is so much better than the outcome I expected as recently as a few weeks ago, it’s hard to measure.

Not a bad day on Capitol Hill; kudos all around.

I imagine the Democrats want the Telecom Immunity because they get more money from Lobbyists than those in the House of Representatives.

  • I imagine the Democrats in the Senate want Telecom Immunity because they get more money from Lobbyists than those in the House of Representatives.

  • I’d like to know Dennis Kucinich’s reasons for voting against the bill. All the others are the usual suspects.

  • New Democrat Party song: “We’re going to party like it’s September 10, 2001!!!”

    New Democrat Party slogan: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Except that we have no shame.”

  • YES!!!! It’s about time that bossy little Texas (by way of Connecticut, big cowboy country) spaz lost one. I fully expected the Dems to cave, and I see some of them did – I hope their constituents remember that when they’re up for reelection – but in the end they held firm. The Deciderer will veto it, of course, but that’s a long way from getting what he wanted.

    I’m still convinced there is something so heinous buried in the Telecom case that the Bushies will do anything to keep it from being dragged into the light of day. We’re one step closer to finding out what it is.

  • New Democrat Party song: “We’re going to party like it’s September 10, 2001!!!” -SteveIL

    Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “We’re gonna’ party like it’s January 20, 2009!” 😉 of “Won’t get fooled again.”

  • New Democrat Party song: “We’re going to party like it’s September 10, 2001!!!” -SteveIL

    Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of “We’re gonna’ party like it’s January 20, 2009!” 😉 or “Won’t get fooled again.”

  • Looks like it must be something in the water, balls are sprouting in crotches all across the Capitol.

    Why only yesterday a 61-year-old draft dodger grew some:

    “I must say, I’m a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.” -Dubya

  • SteveIL, the warrantless wiretapping that the Whitehouse wants retroactive immunity for began well before September 11, so your taunt is more clueless than your usual drivel.

    If the telecoms want to argue that national security circumstances justified any law that they have been accused of breaking, let them have their day in court. But there’s no conceivable justification for blanket immunity without anyone being asked what even happened. Are you willing to take the argument to its logical extreme – if telecom workers had murdered people based on Whitehouse directives, they should still have immunity and no one should be able to find out anything about it, because 9-11 changed everything?

  • KMB @4:

    I’d like to know Dennis Kucinich’s reasons for voting against the bill. All the others are the usual suspects.

    I’d guess Kucinich doesn’t think the bill goes far enough to restrict the intelligence agencies and the Executive Branch.

  • Now Dems, doesn’t that feel good? Actually using your majority powers to CHECK AND BALANCE an out of control executive branch? More please.

  • SteveIL, the warrantless wiretapping that the Whitehouse wants retroactive immunity for began well before September 11, so your taunt is more clueless than your usual drivel. short fuse, if you look at the Senate version of the bill, the immunity for the telecoms is only data provided between Sept. 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007. Anything earlier is still fair game and not part of this. That is if anyone ever bothers READING the actual bills. Or reading the actual 4th Amendment instead of the one “liberals” thinks exists [emphasis mine]:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Now, Pelosi and the Dem gang want to pass that on to those we are at war with. There’s another provision in the Constitution that covers what they’re doing.

    Are you willing to take the argument to its logical extreme – if telecom workers had murdered people based on Whitehouse directives, they should still have immunity and no one should be able to find out anything about it, because 9-11 changed everything? In whose warped mind is this any kind of logical conclusion? Let me ask you this then, taking this the other way: are you willing to take this argument to its logical extreme – if telecom companies could pass this data on without a warrant, should they be sued for the possibility that they might?

    Yeah, that is a stupid question. Just like the one asked of me.

  • “We’re going to party like it’s September 10, 2001!!!”–SteveIL

    I get a kick thinking back to those pre-9/11 days too when the Department of Defense could not “track $2.3 trillion in transactions” on the day before 9/11 (September 10th, 2001).

    Can anyone tell me where to report an “Islam-O-Fascist” hiding under your bed? I’m afraid that he might try to frame-up a false-flag terror attack.

  • Thanks, CB, for keeping us informed about this important issue and for providing the link to the roll call. I looked up to see how my congressman voted today since I’ve called his office a few times on this topic. He voted with the majority. It’s gratifying to see even a few Blue Dogs come over out in favor of the rule of law.

  • SteveIL,

    The executive branch does not have the power to interpret what is or isn’t reasonable. A search may only be deemed reasonable by the judicial branch, by a court of law, and when a search is deemed reasonable, a warrant is issued.

  • doubtful (#17) The executive branch does not have the power to interpret what is or isn’t reasonable. Yeah, they do; that’s what they got all those lawyers for. Just like the guys and gals in Congress. Laws and Executive Orders do not go through the Judicial Branch before they are enacted; this is course Constitution 101. Besides, why were all those Dems on the Judiciary Committee asking Mukasey about waterboarding during his confirmation hearings if they didn’t want his interpretation on whether or not it was torture?

    On a similar note, the U.S. launched a secret satellite. Since it’s secret, it’s probably a spy satellite to keep watch on all our movements when it flies over the U.S. I hope there was a warrant issued or San Fran Nan will have to accept more campaign contributions from ambulance-chasing shysters who are going to sue.

  • SteveIL, you have convinced us all, believe me, that you would lie naked in your yard to be inspected by a satellite if your dream lover W deemed it necessary for him to feel secure.

    This is the same nonsense as the “they can tap my phone because I have nothing to hide” crowd.

    Next time you get pulled over by a cop, show your patriotism by offering to let him search your car and your person. If he “finds” something, then we’ll listen while you explain that the car was used when you bought it.

    Nothing is stranger to me than Americans rushing to sacrifice the rights we thought were self-evident. It’s an insult to every American soldier who ever fought for freedom.

  • SteveIL,

    It doesn’t matter what you say or how insulting you are, you’re still simply wrong. The judicial branch is the only branch of our government which gets to interpret what reasonable means as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment.

    Maybe you should stop taking ‘Constitution 101’ from Redstate.

    A bit of Googling would show you how wrong you are:

    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures citizens’ right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures …” The amendment goes on to set forth the conditions under which a warrant may be issued: “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    There are some exceptions to the ‘warrant requirement,’ but this situation is not one of them, and to get a warrant they need a judge (not lawyers, as you assert).

    Your disdain of liberty and the Democrat’s effort to protect it is disheartening.

  • Doubtful,

    “probable cause” might have too many syllables for SteveIL. Besides, it’s probable that we’re all closet Islamo-fascists (whatever that means), so the government needs to keep track…just to be sure.

    Man, don’t you know that there’s an undeclared war going on? Aren’t you scared yet? Just because you haven’t become a sniveling bed wetter doesn’t mean that the plastic underwear crowd feels safe. Why the evil ones might do terrible things to you before you can dial the 3am call. We need to keep track of who’s buying falafel in our grocery stores. We need to give the President (er, Commander in Chief of Freedom, Democracy, and Apple Pie) unfettered ability to do whatever he needs to do. Don’t you want to feel safe? We have to protect all the brave warriors who haven’t signed up to kill Islamofascists over there…

    I’ve been finding myself writing more and more thankful, encouraging letters to my Congressional Rep, and he’s being targeted by the Republicans in November. I think i might even send him a six-pack.

  • doubtful, you can’t argue common sense or facts with these people. They think that repeating lies enough times or twisting what you said or what was said to suit them makes it accurate.

    It’s like pissing in the wind.

    They have an agenda beit greed, they’re scared shitless little twerps, god, or they’re getting paid.

    The LAST thing they care about is any truth.

  • doubtful (#21): It doesn’t matter what you say or how insulting you are, you’re still simply wrong. The judicial branch is the only branch of our government which gets to interpret what reasonable means as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment. Uh-huh. Back to Constitution 101 class. The Legislative Branch writes the laws. In order for them to write them, they have to consider them constitutional. That takes lawyers. Second, if the Executive Branch wants something in the law and have the Legislative Branch put it in, he has an army of lawyers to tell him if it is constitutional. That, too, takes lawyers. If the Executive Branch writes an Executive Order, the President gets information from…you guessed it…lawyers…to see if it passes constitutional muster. That is how laws and Executive Orders go in. Now, where is the Judicial Branch in all of that? Nowhere. Why? Because the Judicial Branch isn’t involved in determining if laws or Executive Orders are constitutional before they are enacted; they do their work when somebody makes a federal case out of the law or Executive Order.

    By the way, thanks for displaying the same 4th Amendment that I displayed earlier, except without the correct highlight. There are some exceptions to the ‘warrant requirement,’ but this situation is not one of them, and to get a warrant they need a judge (not lawyers, as you assert). Oh, really? How do you know that? And are you ok for having your young child pulled out of line at airport security by the TSA and have an extra search done on them, without a warrant? The Supreme Court seems to think so. How is this allowed and not the other?

    Your disdain of liberty and the Democrat’s effort to protect it is disheartening. Yeah. What kind of liberty of mine are they going to protect when I’m dead, killed by a terrorist attack because some non-U.S. person wasn’t tracked, due to some ridiculous provision that said a warrant, showing probable cause, was required to track the communications of terrorists who are not in this country, and the tracking is done here? Answer me that. That’s exactly how you are interpreting the 4th Amendment, and now it covers overseas terrorists. And that is just garbage.

  • While it’s amusing to try and plumb the depths of SteveIL’s willful ignorance, please be aware of three things:

    1. There’s no bottom to that hole. So if you want to look for the bottom, well, you should just keep that in mind.

    2. He’s either too afraid or too stupid to correct his ignorance. All these things have been pointed out to him before, but as they say, ignorance is correctable — certain other conditions aren’t.

    3. He’s got to have the last word.

    The combination makes interacting with him amusing, but otherwise pointless.

  • There’s a word for a country or republic where the president or titular leader and his hand-picked legal branch are allowed to determine what is legal. See if you can guess – it starts with “dic”, ends with “ship”, and has “tator” in the middle.

    In StekeILland, the president could abolish term limits, and declare himself president for life: why not? he’s allowed to make up the law, or interpret it as he chooses. He could elevate family members to power positions just on his say-so. How do you like the idea of President Bush, Vice-President Jeb Bush, Secretary of State Laura Bush, Secretaries of Defence and Treasury the Bush twins? And don’t say the president would never do that, because he only appoints people who are qualified for the job – just don’t say it.

    Steve, you keep defending your position with rants instead of facts. Do you really think there’s a serious chance you will be killed by a terrorist if the president doesn’t protect you? I bet more people die in the United States every year from falling down the stairs – do you avoid all buildings of more than one floor?

  • Well, hi Charles. I missed ya. Tell everyone how willfully ignorant I am. No problem. At least I don’t bring someone’s mother into the “discussion” (link here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14844.html#comment-390765). I hope you don’t mind me putting in the link

    Mark (#26): He could elevate family members to power positions just on his say-so. How do you like the idea of President Bush, Vice-President Jeb Bush, Secretary of State Laura Bush, Secretaries of Defence and Treasury the Bush twins? And don’t say the president would never do that, because he only appoints people who are qualified for the job – just don’t say it. OK, I won’t say it. Because he didn’t appoint Jeb, Laura, or the twins to any position, did he? Hell, he could have put them all in as U.S. Attorneys when he had the chance (remember the 2005 Patriot Act Reauthorization, and which I didn’t support the changes it made to Sec. 546 of Title 28) and didn’t. Other than recess appointments (which only last for one two-year session of Congress), all others are confirmed by the Senate. You remember that part of the Legislative Branch, don’t you? And don’t give me anything about the “Republican Majority” rubber-stamp, it’s BS; it never was a 60-40 majority to override a filibuster, if one was made. Which means, the responsibility for putting in people in positions has to be shared with those Democrats who voted for those appointments. See, that’s what is known as a co-equal branch of the government.

    And you say I defend my position with rants?

  • Regarding SteveIL:

    Please don’t feed the trolls. It just makes them more active. Ignoring them is far more effective, as they then have less fodder for their ignorance and willful lies.

  • Did I miss a constitutional convention? Did a two-thirds majority vote in both houses and three-fourths majority of the states vote to drop the fourth amendment? So in the end it’s okay if our wannabe dictator-in-chief and his sycophantic legal disciples do whatever they want to further whatever fevered dreams they have;executive orders, signing statements, and legislation violating basic constitutional rights. They are judge, jury, and executioner. Thanks for the heads up StevelL

  • doubtful (#21): Your disdain of liberty and the Democrat’s effort to protect it is disheartening. I already have the “privilege” to live in a People’s Republic…oh, I’m sorry…I mean a state, that is ruled by the Communist Party…oh shoot, there I go again…I mean, the Democrat Party. If I’m lucky, I’ll soon be able to go to a doctor that is a government employee who is paying union dues. And I can’t wait until the Party will tell me what I can eat, what I can drink, what I can say, in order to be covered by their brand-spanking new health insurance and not be taxed or fined. That is if there’s anyone left to tax. And I won’t have to worry about donating to charity; I won’t be able to afford it, and the Communists here will just steal take my money to do the work of the charities in a more expensive and inefficient manner. Plus, the children, especially grade-school children, of this People’s Republic will have the privilege of being indoctrinated on condom usage, or indoctrinating kindergartners on their sexuality, and that “doing it” is ok, since you can just go to get an abortion in order to “do it” again, and in the glories of the Party. One other thing; those people who “do jobs Americans won’t do” (those of us who live in reality call them illegal aliens) have been getting mortgage rate breaks in order to buy houses, while the taxpaying citizen doesn’t get to benefit from such “generosity”. It’s no wonder the banks are in trouble; maybe more Democratic policy such as this should pretty much eliminate banking.

    No, thank you. I don’t think anyone can afford the “liberties” given to us by the Communist…oh, man, when will I learn…the Democrat Party.

  • Ultimately, Rockafeller and the other DINOs in the Saneate (Feinstien comes to mind) will kill this too, The REAL good news is, when the Senate is done castrating and butchering this bill, Chimp will veto it anyway, and there will likely be no new FISA expansion law until after the new administration takes over.

  • When the head and second in command of the CIA have a meeting with Condi Rice and do everything but “pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head” about Osama bin Laden attacking the US and when the President ‘s comment is “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” when he is briefed on al-Qaeda attacking the USA, then we can see that the problem was not the Intelligence gathering, but the complete lack of action by the President to DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

    And then when he does act, he completely f&*ks up catching OSB and starts a war with the WRONG country. Then he proceeds to LOSE both wars.

    How come every other President was able to stop this kind of terrorist crap without resorting to $hitting on the US Constitution?

  • SteveIL,

    I’m trying not to treat you as a troll, because it’s clear you are engaged, but your comment at 30 has no redeeming qualities. If you refrian from being insulting to Democrats, I will continue to try to engage you as an adult, but if you keep acting like a school yard bully, I’ll join the rest of the commenters in ignoring you.

    I would like to address some of the points you brought up in comment 24. The legislative branch does not actually have to consider what is Constitutional or not when they pass laws. That is the sole responsibility of the judicial system and why some laws that are passed are ruled unconstitutional by the court system.

    It makes sense for them to consider laws that are Constitutional, but they are not bound to.

    By the way, thanks for displaying the same 4th Amendment that I displayed earlier, except without the correct highlight. -SteveIL

    You’re just being childish. I was clearly quoting from the Wikipedia entry I cited.

    Oh, really? How do you know that? And are you ok for having your young child pulled out of line at airport security by the TSA and have an extra search done on them, without a warrant? The Supreme Court seems to think so. How is this allowed and not the other?

    Please, just reread what you wrote. My whole argument is that the SCOTUS gets to decide what is or isn’t reasonable search and seizure per the Fourth Amendment. What you wrote absolutely supports that claim. How is it allowed and not the other? Because the Court allows it.

    If you want the warrantless wiretapping powers declared Constitutional, the correct path is to allow the lawsuits to proceed. When they reach the Supreme Court, and ultimately they would, a final decision on their legality will be made.

  • Once again, if the telecom companies didn’t do anything wrong then they DON’T need immunity. Why is this concept so hard for Bush and others to grasp?

    • Comments are closed.