Jackson Free Press

The bill is coming out of committee in the House and should get a floor vote this afternoon. It grants the president many of the powers he wants for roving wiretaps, but it doesn't immunize the phone companies for going along with the administration's previously illegal use of those powers.

From the story Tempers Flare on FISA:

President Bush wasted little time weighing in on the House, issuing a statement Thursday morning blasting the measure and promising a veto if it were to pass the Senate.

"Members of the House should not be deceived into thinking that voting for this unacceptable legislation would somehow move the process along," he said.

The bill would not grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided the government in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and would include a court approval process for FISA warrants—two measure that have led Republicans to call the bill "dead on arrival."

No telco immunity is a good thing and Bush's arguments that we sleep less safely without this bill are a red herring. Remember...there's already a secret court that has never rejected a request for a secret warrant for the NSA.

The phone companies broke the law by going along with the White House's illegal requests, and they should therefore be forced to face lawsuits from their customers. Just because the government asks you to do something doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean you should comply. This is America. When the President asks you to do eavesdrop on parties in this country, you should say, "Sir, may I see the warrant?"

I think it's important to send this bill back to the Senate and get them to send it to George Bush. He can either have the war powers he wants or he can cover his ass...he can't have both.

Money quote:

"Once again, the President continues to try to bully the Congress and mislead the American people on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) in a statement put out just minutes after the president's.

"He refuses to accept that under our system of government, neither the President nor the telecommunications companies gets to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore."

Previous Comments

ID

117661

Comment

My main problem is mission creep. What starts out a bill to hunt terrorists becomes carte blache to hunt any criminal in the USA. From Drug Dealers to Habitual Offenders, everyone would get eventually labeled a "terrorist".

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-03-13T12:00:47-06:00

ID

117662

Comment

Agreed. That's why we have a Bill of Rights...whenever you chip away at it too aggressively (arguably that's already the case with FISA) then you lose the liberty itself. I hope this is brinkmanship by the Dems in the House to make the Republicans stand up and filibuster their own damned spy law. Meanwhile, *why* it's Republicans pushing this sort of thing against civil liberties I'll never understand. Am I to believe they feel the *government* should have this sort of power to spy on citizens? If so, then what's wrong with the government administering health care? ;-)

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-03-13T12:52:55-06:00

ID

117663

Comment

Um. I'd guess it's one thing to spy on people, but another to allow the government to open you up? I mean, I'm all against both. I don't trust the government to effectively administer drugs or wiretaps.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-03-13T14:20:16-06:00

ID

117664

Comment

That's my point. If you're going to be all about drowning government in a bathtub (not you, Ironghost, just the network standing behind you ;-) then you ought to also be against government usurping your civil liberties and right to privacy. The Bush admin, at the end of the day, was Big Government Conservatism...McCain is more of the same.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2008-03-14T08:44:24-06:00

ID

117665

Comment

It is nice to finally see Congress standing up to the Bush administration on something; I hope they finally have the spine to see this through and deny the president something he really wants. It's just too bad it took 6 1/2 years for them to decide to do their job and put a check on executive abuse of power.

Author

Tim S

Date

2008-03-16T20:59:24-06:00