« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senate GOPer Hatching Secret White House Wiretapping Compromise
It's time for your surveillance bill update. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) says that he's drafted a compromise on retroactive immunity for the telecoms. How does it bridge the gap between the House Dems, who refuse to wipe away the forty or so lawsuits against the telecoms for collaborating with the administration's wireless wiretapping program, and the White House, who refuse to pass any surveillance bill without such a measure?
Well, he's not saying, although he's dropping some hints:
"I think we've come up with some things that would involve the court, but not get to a position where it would endanger the program or the carriers."...Bond said the language, drafted with White House consent, represented a "new provision we've come up with" on immunity. He would not give details other than to say that the FISA court would have a role. It is unclear whether the new approach will gain approval from Democratic leaders and negotiators.
Bond says that the measure is not the one that was offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that would have directed the secret FISA court to have determined whether the telecoms had followed the law or participated "in good faith with an objectively reasonable belief that such assistance was lawful." Most Democrats supported that, but all Republicans except Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) didn't. Since Bond says that his solution doesn't "endanger" the telecoms, one would think that his proposed solution would be even less risky than having the secret court make a determination as to whether the telecoms really believed they had legal cover. I can't wait to see it.
Meanwhile, The Hill also reports that Bond is negotiating directly with Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). It's unclear as of yet whether Hoyer is amenable to Bond's offer, but they're talking.
Josh
Zachary
Sounds like the same elephant, just a different sheet draped over it, trying to make it look like something other than an elephant.
(Steny will no doubt buy the illusion. He's a cheap date.)
May 13, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, No, NO! No telco immunity compromise! The Repub administration is behind this, pushing hard for a reason, & it's to cover their own asses, their own culpability. This desperate need for telco immunity runs very deep into BushCo corruption & its lying to the American people.
No Telco Immunity.
Remember, Dem Congressional leadership, it's an election year for many of your boys & girls.
May 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you completely.
Democrats should agree to absolutely no immunity of any kind whatsoever for anyone or any company that broke the law. That's why the law was written: to punish those who violate it and make them pay for their crime. Immunity of any kind makes a joke of our laws and encourages ore lawlwessness in the government and in the business community.
May 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy way for you & friends to send the message:
http://ga3.org/campaign/fisasenate
May 13, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Steno" Hoyer will probably roll over easily enough.
May 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We still don't have any commitment from either Democratic candidate to establish a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" charged with the responsibility for making public as much of the Bush and Cheney administration activities as possible. I would hope the Commission would be composed of members of Congress, would have subpoena power and would have the power to grant immunity to witness in exchange for their truthful testimony.
May 13, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It jsut struck me that if Bush has the power to issue prospective pardons upon leaving office for Rove, Rummy and the full list, which some commenters believe he can, what would prevent him from including the telecoms on the list?
May 13, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did I know that they would cav on this? The dems are forever spineless and it is equally their part that our country is as screwed up as it is.
DO SOMETHING you weak-willed, spineless, shameless people!!
o/t: Did you know that many in the Bush Administration have been charged with war crimes? Read it now!
May 13, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate. No immunity . . . Investigate.
May 13, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No immunity. Prosecute.
May 13, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess? This "compromise" will have the Attorney General as the one investigating instead of the FISA courts, since the Republicans can be fairly certain the AG will follow Bush's lead.
May 14, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any "language" drafted with the White House consent will mean effective immunity. Bush simply can not afford to let the telcos come under fire and under subpoena to spill the beans on who told them to spy on US citizens and when they started the spying, and of course who received all the lovely information and who directed who would be targeted.
Little Georgie and The Big Dick will not tolerate anything less than a bill that will muzzle the telcoms. Little Georgie still has that wonderful, magical power, granted to him by the Constitution to PARDON the telcoms for anything and everything associated with their spying on US citizens at the direction of the President or his appointees.
ITMFA
May 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus H. Crutch, we're the ones who have been endangered and will continue to be until the telecoms have to face up to the consequences of their actions.
Qwest sure suffered for not turning anything over without legal justification. I'd like to see some real suffering from the companies that didn't worry about their customers' rights under the law.
Hey, being asked to do something illegal didn't offend their delicate sensibilities back then, why should they need protection now?
May 14, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink