« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Bush: I Will Veto Any Surveillance Bill That Doesn't Protect Telecoms
Just in case the President's priorities were not clear:
President Bush issued a veto threat Tuesday in the debate to update terrorist surveillance laws, rebuking Democratic plans to deny retroactive legal protections for telecommunications providers that let the government spy on U.S. residents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks....The Bush administration's warning was aimed at legislative amendments that would bar retroactive immunity to phone companies and other telecom providers that have given the government access to e-mails and phone calls linked to people in the United States. Without the retroactive protections, the letter noted, telecom providers might be unwilling to help the government track down terror suspects in the future as they were asked to do in the days following the 2001 attacks.
Update: Here's the letter from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell in which they lay out the president's veto threat.
Advertisement
Comments (23)
Let him veto it and prove that he is more concerned about protecting corporations than he is about protecting Americans' freedoms, then impeach the idiot.
February 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good! Veto it and expose everything that's stupid about ourself, w...
February 5, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose it's much more important to protect the telecoms than it is to protect the country that you've sworn as the leader to protect. Welcome to 1984 all over again folk.
February 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress needs to make their position equally clear. Something along the lines of, "This is your only chance, veto this and you'll never see another bill! Take it or leave it!"
February 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is in a bear-hug. Approve or else!
February 5, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bring 'em on!"
--George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States
February 5, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, looks like this is shaping up to be a duel at the OK Corral. Who's going to blink first?
Bush refused to allow any bill without telecom immunity, yet with the recent IEEE Security and Privacy article it's become apparent that the entire surveillance system has the potential to be hijacked.
Once again, like on 9/11 -- when we had this surveillance program already in place, we face a major security crisis, this one precipitated by the very existence of the spying program.
It boils down to now protecting the telecoms and facing a potential hacker disaster, or the telecoms being held responsible and Bush facing impeachment. Gee, I wonder why he's acting so petulant?
February 5, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is impeachment off the table?
February 5, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush. Veto this.
Bush/Orwell 1984
February 5, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The senate will cave. I've given up trying to be heard by those assholes; when the idiots who voted for these thugs wake up and find tanks in the streets and Blackwater mercenaries dragging law-abiding American citizens kicking & screaming out of their houses and into black vans never to be seen again, I'll (hopefully) be in Iceland or something. This country is fucked.
February 5, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Without the retroactive protections, the letter noted, telecom providers might be unwilling to help the government track down terror suspects in the future as they were asked to do in the days following the 2001 attacks."
This is speculative.
Also, it's an error to confuse the issue: Has less to do with "tracking people," but with the opposite: FOrcing the telecoms to fully comply with the written law.
The argument is defective.
February 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
A veto by this president just like actions taken by Republicans in Congress have no relationship to the good of America or are they for the benefit of other than the few in power who they actually represent. America must finally put Bush into the perspective that he deserves: SELF-SERVING, INTENT ON MAKING HIS WAY PERMANENT, MAKING HIS MARK THROUGH DAMAGING AMERICA'S DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMICALLY ENRICHING HIS INNER CIRCLE.
This very bad "Domestic Spying Law" needs to be stopped! It doen't matter if that happens due to Republican obstruction and/or a Bush veto. AG Mukasey and NSA Dir. Mcconell both proven to be less than truthful sources, are pushing the fearmongering. Democrats need do the right thing and let this law die even if they have to fibibuster it until the new extension expires.
America needs a surveillance law that balances the rights of the American people with the needs for American security. This law does not accomplish this end. Let it die at the hands of Bush and the hypocritical Republicans who don't speak or act truthfully, and function from self-interest and not in the best interests of the American people. Senator Reid still seems to believe that he can negotiate with those who have no interest in preserving America's democracy and Constitution. By pusuing his approach Reid will ultimately sell out America.
Posted by
February 5, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's only ONE reason Bush can be demanding immunity -- illegal acts were committed.
February 5, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
DFH - Maybe it's cause I'm young that I'm optimistic, but that they haven't caved by now is a miracle and gives me hope.
Hope there's room in Iceland to come chill with Bjork at the hot springs if they fail :)
February 5, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the note of positivity--
It is heartening that we have the likes of Dodd and Feingold, heroically struggling to hold the line. One of my own Oregon senators, Ron Wyden (D), has been an inspiration as well.
It's just so frustrating to see this administration literally getting away with murder, over and over and over again.
February 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Telecommunications companies will comply with any legal order, because the consequences for them would be bad for business. (They should comply with legal orders because they're legal orders, but we're talking about businesses here.)
But let the orders be legal, not some sidestepped maneuver, the likes of which Qwest rightly refused.
If the Congress backs down one more time--and with something that will have a cascading effect for civil liberties--the repercussions for them have to be swift and strong, and come from their constituents. Until they understand that the people who voted them in do not want them to negotiate with or capitulate to Bush, this will keep happening. Not enough of them understand this yet.
I keep writing to my representatives, and they have voted appropriately (I'm not implying a direct cause and effect from MY letters alone). The Congress has to hear over and over until it penetrates their tiny, thick sculls that they are responsible to their constituents, not to their donors. The only way that can happen is if we do our part.
February 5, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the comment at 8:08 was from me, The Facilitatrix (the writer formerly known as Roberta). Even though I was signed in, the post came up blank. And I just had to sign in again.
February 5, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are scared shitless on this one! That tells me the muck feast of the century lies at the bottom of this. Watergate is starting to look like a grade school prank. Go long on book publishing companies if this starts to unravel on them.
February 6, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone catch me up?
When is the vote?
Why is a veto a bad thing? How would this hurt the Democrats?
February 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, go ahead, GEORGIE BOY . . . .
One of the primary characteristics of a NON-RECOVERED ALCOHOLIC is the inability to accept any form of supervision/criticism/opposition. . . . .
Looks like we may be getting back to Laura and the Dog.
OF COURSE, the Weak-Assed Democrats will lay down and roll over in the face of Dick Cheney's little boy.
And the band played on. . . . .America. Vote in some more Republicans.
February 22, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is unprecedented.
I can't ever recall anything like this before in the past.
Congress doesn't pass a bill to protect corporations so the Republican's role out an fear mongering ad?
This immunity thing is covering up more than we currently know or suspect.
I saw the ad this morning in Phoenix while putting on my shoes.
It's really quite revolting. I can see this blowing up in their faces.
The path forward for Dems seems really simple. Pass a bill without telecom immunity. Then if Bush vetoes the bill, it's his problem.
He won't veto the bill.
Vetoing the bill would simply mean he and the entire republican party are short order Fascists.
I'm sure they don't want that moniker hanging over their heads in an election year.
What's wrong with Senate democrats anyway. Oh, that's right, they're taking in money from corporations too.
What did Franklin have to say about our system of government? Something like... "It's a republic, if you can keep it."
February 23, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine if he stood up for the Constitution the way he stands up for the telecoms.
February 24, 2008 5:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it plain to see they are trying to cover up their actions??? WAKE UP PEOPLE -- why else would they want to suppress all the evidence gathering processes. There must be a treasure trove of dirt under their fingernails.
Congress should stand up to Bush and finally show some backbone.
They should pass the State Secrets Protection Act so that lawsuits can go forward that will reveal some of what's been behind that shroud of secrecy.
"GIMME SOME TRUTH"
-- John Lennon
February 25, 2008 4:35 AM | Reply | Permalink