Democrats seek alternative on phone immunity

[maddezmom]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic lawmakers drew White House fire on Tuesday when they offered an alternative to U.S. President George W. Bush's demand that phone companies that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program receive immunity from lawsuits.

Under the Democratic proposal, phone companies would present their defense in a closed-door U.S. district court, with the judge given access to confidential documents about the electronic surveillance begun after the September 11 attacks.

"This is a reasonable and intelligent way to proceed without jeopardizing our responsibility to fight terrorism," said House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan.

But the White House, along with Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress, the Justice Department and the office of director of National Intelligence denounced the proposal, drafted by House Democratic leaders as part of a sweeping spy bill.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1162638420080311

---

House Democrats refuse to delete pending spy lawsuits

Congressional Democrats on Tuesday dug in on their refusal to pass a revamped surveillance law that could wipe out some 40 lawsuits accusing telephone companies of illegal cooperation with government spies.

According to summary documents provided by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office, Democratic leaders are preparing to debate yet another new bill that would not offer so-called "retroactive immunity" to companies that allegedly opened up their networks to the National Security Agency without a court order. At least in theory, that means cases like the one the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed against AT&T should be able to proceed.

In addition, the new proposal would allow the judge presiding over such cases to review otherwise classified evidence about the extent of government wiretapping. The Bush administration has argued such documents cannot be used in litigation because "state secrets" may be revealed.

The new bill's full text was not made available at press time, but it is expected to go to a floor vote as early as Thursday. Its passage, however, is hardly a sure thing, as it's already drawing attacks from Republican politicians and the president.
more:http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9891367-7.html

[underpants]

1. 'reasonable and intelligent ' pretty much means that that crowd of bozos HAS to oppose it

Look they didn't get us where we are by not f**king up everything in new and previously unheard of ways

[Selatius]

2. Forget about the entire FISA bill. Just let Bush veto the whole goddamn thing.

Then revive it when a Dem is in the White House. Revive it without telecom immunity, that is.

[Deny and Shred]

3. Kudos, Congressional Dems. I heard Reyes last week after receiving

the 'documents' previously un-supplied to House Dems. He pretty much signaled, "Oh, alright, now you can have immunity."

I never though they had it in them. The spine transplant finally took!

Cooperation IS NOT immunity !!!
Fight Big Brother to the bitter end.

[Arctic Dave]

4. Whatever they do, just keep it in the headlines. n/t

[pleah]

5. Why do they even propose new bills on this?

:crazy:

[Sam Ervin jret]

6. excellent keep the courts involved, no immunity, let BUSH look like a crying apologist for BIG

communication companies.

His idiocy and hubris knows no bounds, let your standing on this be a turning point in this battle.

[plantwomyn]

7. This will never happen either.

"the new proposal would allow the judge presiding over such cases to review otherwise classified evidence about the extent of government wiretapping"
I read an article about the Bush regime refusing security clearance for law clerks working for these Judges. It would be impossible for the judges to review EVERY document themselves. Without their law clerks the trials would take forever.
The Bush regime is using this to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.

[DRoseDARs]

8. Here's an acceptable "alternative on phone immunity": Criminal prosecutions. n/t

[PSPS]

9. Again, the usual lie: "surveillance begun after the September 11 attacks"

Under the Democratic proposal, phone companies would present their defense in a closed-door U.S. district court, with the judge given access to confidential documents about the electronic surveillance begun after the September 11 attacks.

Does this mean the judge can have access to documents related to the illegal spying done before 9/11/01? After all, it was started shortly after bush was installed, in February 2001.

Here, the lie isn't as bold face as it usually is. But Reuters and other news organizations conveniently leave out any reference to the Feb, 2001 aspect of this particular bush crime, leaving the reader to assume it was started as a reaction to 9/11. It wasn't, and that aspect shows it for what it has always been -- a tool to use against political opponents by "loyal bushies."

[FreepFryer]

11. Correct - give that anti-propagandist a cookie! (n/t)

[BearSquirrel2]

24. Actually giving immunity AFTER 9/11 might be a good strategy ...

Giving immunity After 9/11 to say last year may be a good strategy. Then no one can obfuscate the remaining lawsuits and we can put people in jail.

[FreepFryer]

10. The illegal spying had already begun in February 2001, not AFTER the 9/11 attacks!

In February 2001, just days before agency officials met with Qwest officials, the N.S.A. met with AT&T officials to discuss replicating a network center in Bedminster, N.J., to give the agency access to all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html

[sabra]

12. House Democrats refuse to delete pending spy lawsuits

Source: CNET

Congressional Democrats on Tuesday dug in on their refusal to pass a revamped surveillance law that could wipe out some 40 lawsuits accusing telephone companies of illegal cooperation with government spies.

According to summary documents provided by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office, Democratic leaders are preparing to debate yet another new bill that would not offer so-called "retroactive immunity" to companies that allegedly opened up their networks to the National Security Agency without a court order. At least in theory, that means cases like the one the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed against AT&T should be able to proceed.

In addition, the new proposal would allow the judge presiding over such cases to review otherwise classified evidence about the extent of government wiretapping. The Bush administration has argued such documents cannot be used in litigation because "state secrets" may be revealed.

The new bill's full text was not made available at press time, but it is expected to go to a floor vote as early as Thursday. Its passage, however, is hardly a sure thing, as it's already drawing attacks from Republican politicians and the president.



Read more: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9891367-7.html?tag=newsmap

[annabanana]

13. This is new and interesting....

I had heard that they were going to try & slip the immunity into a second bill...

[H8fascistcons]

18. Heard the same thing and that...

person who came up with the idea of a second bill, is an aid to a blue dog Democrat...That's all I know..

[Breeze54]

14. Woot! Happy Dances!!

This is great news!! :D

They're again standing up and acting like Dems again!!

I think this is the second time in two weeks they said No to * !!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:kick: & Recommended

[fascisthunter]

15. Good... Tell Bush to Dance and Sing to That One

the sick puppy.

[kristopher]

16. I'm happy to cheer for this one.

[sjdnb]

17. Happy to K&R and to know someone else is paying attn to important stuff

Very sadly for our country, everyone seems too wrapped up in 'primary hoopla', to noticed the Dems stand up today in the House (FISA/Telecom Immunity) nor did anyone notice the very important hearing on Iraq Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. If Americans watched this hearing, I have NO doubt - an overwhelming majority of them would be calling for Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, KBR, and all the war criminals heads and for a prompt withdrawal from this country. The Iraqi government is raking in the oil revenues, handing it out like candy and still have a budget surplus while they bleed us dry for their protection and reconstruction. It is revolting.

Unfortunately, hardly any of the committee or the press bothered to show up. Dorgan has the goods on the Admin and the war profiteers/corrupt Iraqi politicians, but, sadly, no one is listening. As of 7:57 CST, I couldn't find one comprehensive story on the hearing and only two articles were returned on a Google News search on the hearings. I've NEVER seen that before and I've been online since the early 90's.

On edit: Here is an example of the pathetic coverage this hearing received:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23576114/

[Patchuli]

19. The translation of the "state secrets"

= CYA! They are all a'scrambley scrambley! Yayyyyyyy for the Dems (for a change!)

K&R :kick:

*edited to correct a spelling of a non-word!

[dweller]

20. Dig in those heels, Dems!

i got your ankles covered.

don't back down now.
dp

[frog92969]

21. What nerve...upity Congress!

:sarcasm:

What's gotten into them?
There's been a noticeable change lately.

[FreepFryer]

22. decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, * was / spying on Americans’ phone usage.

Same URL as my other post in this thread.

“What he saw,” said Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the (FISA) plaintiffs along with Carl Mayer, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html

[BearSquirrel2]

23. Here's how to proceed

Grant immunity to anyone who isn't guilty.