TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

House Passes Surveillance Bill without Retroactive Immunity

The House Dem leadership's surveillance bill just cleared the House by a vote of 213-197 with 1 vote of present. 12 Dems crossed the aisle to vote against it.

The bill has stricter privacy safeguards than the Senate's version -- and of course does not contain a provision granting retroactive immunity for the telecoms' participation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

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.

Update: Here's the roll call.


22 Comments

| Leave a comment

Is that a set of balls I see on Mrs. Pelosi?

Am I wrong, or did the NYT jump the gun on this one by reporting the following over an hour before the vote happened:

"After its first secret session in a quarter-century, the House on Friday rejected retroactive immunity for the phone companies that took part in the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it voted to place greater restrictions on the government’s wiretapping powers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/washington/14cnd-fisa.html

They appear to have been reporting on the successful vote to consider the bill without amendment (which went 221-188), as though it were the vote on the bill itself (which, as noted, went 213-197):

"The decision, by a largely party-line vote of 221 to 188, is one of the few times when Democrats have been willing to buck up against the White House on a national security issue. It also ensures that the months-long battle over the government’s wiretapping powers will drag on for at least a few more weeks and possibly much longer. "

Maybe this is nitpicking, or maybe I'm missing something.

user-pic

Between this and the news that Obama's gaining in super-delegates, I say "Hallelujah!"

Now if we only had some courageous folks in the Senate.

user-pic

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

Results Now Posted Instantly!

Check Back Weekly For New Polls!

Finally. Acting strong and on the side of the law and protections against abuse. Thank you House.

Democrats not afraid of own shadow! News at 11!

Way to go Pelosi and HOUSE Dems!
I'm excited to see who BushCo has "Spitzer-ed" in retaliation.

"Spitzer-ed" = 1.)leaking/exposing a (technically) "real" crime due to a political agenda. 2.) The direct result of BushCo's politicization of the Justice Dept.

user-pic

Please let it drag on until everybody realizes that it's patently illegal to wiretap American citizens for any reason, without a court approved warrant. PLEASE!!

user-pic

Bush can be impeached even after next January. Today's vote makes that event liklier. Although sooner would be very much better.

ITMFA

user-pic

I've called Sen Rockefeller at lest 3 times in as many months, and my own senators and several of the Bush-licking Dems as well; in this week's call, I told Rockefeller's staffer that he was a disgrace to America and the Constitution, and that he should either resign or switch his party to the R's.

Please get on the phone to these clowns. Thank you.

And always remember, maybe the pols in our grandfather's day were a slightly classier crowd, but this generation of Congress-critters, at least 85% of them, deserve NO RESPECT, NO DIGNITY, NO PRESUMPTION OF RE-ELECTION. We would do much better to recruit professional people with no previous political experience from groups like Code Pink, Pysicians for Soc. Resp. and MoveOn, and unite behind them in primary elections and just shut our ears to the blather from the Dem. Machine about the "experience" and "seniority" of our existing Congress-Critters.

Experience and seniority in selling us out are not the the kind of experience we need.

What a shock to see Democrats with guts!

But a question: Why did Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, along with liberal Peter Welch of Vermont, vote against? Kucinich and Maxine Waters also were the only Democrats to vote against the torture override.
What gives?

user-pic

My guess? They feel that even the House bill does not contain sufficient protections for the privacy of Americans. The ACLU opposes the House's RESTORE Act for that very reason. (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32207prs20071017.html)

user-pic

I think it reflects how difficult Kicinich feels his re-election will be?

user-pic

I was beginning to think that Pelosi was sliding into Reid territory but it looks like she's showing some strong leadership. The bill is a long way from perfect but it is substantially better than what the President wants.

Madam Speaker, I salute your leadership.

user-pic

Kucinich, Welch and Ron Paul are strict civil libertarians, and these bills do still contain some fairly odious provision (e.g. retroactive warrants for wiretaps) that they could not vote for.

user-pic

Interesting that 12 Dems voted against the House bill while 0 Republicans voted for it.

Nice to see some actual & meaningful obstructionism (for a change).

Can Bush grant a pardon to the phone companies and if he can will he?

I have been dismayed at the way the Dems have acted since gaining power in 2006. They promised a lot but backed down instead. NOW, those in the House have openly defied the Bush Regime by passing a bill that does not grant telecoms retroactive immunity. This issue is at the the heart of the calculated "firewall" this Regime has constructed since taking office. It turns out that domestic spying started months BEFORE 9/11 and no one knows the depth or scope of the warrantless wiretapping in the U.S. The reason why Courts have not exercised their power as the Third CO-EQUAL branch of Government is because the Regime has repeatedly invoked the "states secret" privilege to have lawsuits dismissed. This privilege is essentially the Regime saying: "we can't argue this case because to do so would bring national security secrets out into the open, so you just have to believe us when we say there are no laws being broken."

The HUGE problem with this rationale is the proven record of deception by this Administration. For example, the Top 3 reasons we went to war in Iraq: vast stockpile of WMDs; connection between al-qaeda and Saddam Hussein; and vague implications to the attacks of 9/11. ALL 3 have been disproven... by our Government nonetheless! Pentagon reports and other agencies have concluded that there were virtually no WMDs; there was no al-qaeda in Iraq before we invaded; and there are not facts tying Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11. *For more lies perpetrated by the Bush Regime, find a report released by the Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard /) that counted 935 false statements during the past 7 years.

If the Congress is truly interested in the pursuit of truth and of having a Government that is conducted by ALL 3 CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, then we must allow the Courts to look into these key issues like domestic eavesdropping. So, stick to your guns Democrats and all of us in the public domain should express our support for truth, freedom and honesty!

I listened to the debacle on C-span this morning where repeatedly REP. RUSH HOLT D-New Jersey, 12th Dist. East Brunswick, Princeton ignored a question (twice) about the fact that the NSA started the taps on Americans BEFORE 911.

When wired magazine ran the story that both AT&T and Qwest in coufrt testimony point to February 2001 as the begining of the Bush programme.

ttp://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html

BOTH times the Congressman just ignored the question as if the conversation was "stuck on stupid" or "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11," Biden said.

ttp://www.c-span.org/Radio/web/schedule.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CSR

The truth is that for anyone literate, INCLUDING republicans the fixation with immunity is making the GOP look bad.

When Wired ran these facts mainstream and the topic was not marginalized as 911 conspiracy theories, but the Talking points were Fisa = 911, the discussion broke down on C-span.

Listen yourself and see how the House Member avoided the questions, it is probably worthy of Joshua doing a veracifier on.

Judge for yourself.

I suggest that Congress asks the CEO's of the telecom companies to appear at a hearing and state under oath why they broke the law. This would put a human face on this. I remember well seeing the moral midget CEOs of the tobacco companies state under oath that nicotine was not addictive and tobacco was not harmful.

I don't think the Qwest CEO was a moral midget.

I also think this immunity crap, where the congress members discuss "protecting the telephone companies" who were "good samaritans" and were "patriotic" after 911 is horsesh1t.

Are these the same "globalist patriots" who cutoff the taps when the feds didn't pay the bill????

And then back to the fact, this started BEFORE 911.

So really what is needed is a Timeline showing when the taps started based on publicly available court documents in Feb 01, then the date that the lawsuit by EFF was brought on AT&T, then when the taps were cutoff due to the feds not paying their bill to the phone companies, and all the political contributions to congress during that time.

Bush cannot grant immunity for anybody to violate or an entity to violate our civil rights, or break the constitution, which he is sworn to uphold.

Bush needs congress to pass a law, to abridge the constitution, and frankly after 2008, even if the fisa with telco immunity had passed, I bet the issue of if the congress could pass that law, would have gone to the Supreme court.

The GOP is imploding, I saw Ron Paul siphon off the swing voters on the libertarian segment, and I estimate that at about 2.5% of the vote, my guess is that in any close election the GOP tossed their futures with this immunity crap, and will go down in defeat this fall for it, if all other factors being the same.

The internet is creating results where in the C-span interview being asked TWICE and ignoring the question, watch pedro's face.. cannot ignore the fact online on the internet.

And remember informationweek, Wired, all the IT periodicals ran this story..

So if you want to look like a bold faced liar, corporate shill, then try yet again to pimp some fear for corporate cronyism and irritate and allienate yet another GOP voter.

Unless McCain goes straight talk on this issue, gets his issues straight with torure, this is not the straight talk express but the flip flop train wreck.

If McCain wants to get some press and shake things up, he has to just say no to the telcos.

He will lose if he thinks the public is as dumb as the geriatics that makeup most of the townhalls, there is few, damn few, IT professionals who don't know the inconvenient truth of the FISA fear mongering and those white collar swing voters who supported him in 2000 don't like his silence on this.



Just because the GOP opposes it, and it passes, doesn't mean that it's a win. Who's read the bill? It sets up the Commission to investigate the 9-11 violations to be powerless.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address