« McCain's First Wife. | Main | U.S. Military Hoped for Virtually Unlimited Freedom of Action in Iraq »

The House has passed a new FISA bill that gives the telecoms immunity from prosecution for previous eavesdropping on American citizens:

The House Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.

The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.

What's interesting is that there are wide differences in opinions on both sides as to whether this is a good bill or not. Take Jane Harman, for instance, who's part of the Democratic leadership:

"This bill, though imperfect, protects both," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the intelligence committee.

The problem is that this new bill authorizes "a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit."

Basically, if the President says that wiretaps were needed, then you can't sue the telecoms for spying on us illegally. If the president says it's so, then that's the law, and this is why Bush supports this bill:

President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.

And the Speaker of The House, Pelosi, agrees:

"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said. She continued with a lukewarm endorsement: "I'm not asking anybody to vote for this bill. I just wanted you to know why I was," Pelosi told the House. "Difficult decisions for all of us. ... I respect every point that was expressed on this floor today. ... The knowledge, the sincerity, the passion and intelligence of those who supported and who don't support this bill have been very valuable in making this bill better."

Yet you have Republican Arlen Spector up in arms over this bill:

Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.

"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.

That said, almost every Republican supported this bill.

Finally, here's Constitutional Scholar, Johnathan Turley, on Countdown on the "evisceration of the Fourth Amendment":

Name (required)
Email
Website
Remember personal info? Yes   No
Comments

home | music | democracy | earth | money | projects | about | contact

Site design by Matthew Fries | © 2003-23 Consilience Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Consilience Productions, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
All contributions are fully tax deductible.