What good are DemocraPs if they are constantly folding like an accordion, readers?
Hi, gummint. :-(
"Panel Approves Eavesdropping Compromise" by SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — The Senate Intelligence Committee voted Thursday night to approve compromise legislation that would strengthen court oversight of eavesdropping on Americans while granting telephone and Internet companies legal immunity for their role in assisting government surveillance programs since 2001.
After nearly five hours of closed discussions, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman, and Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the Republican vice chairman, emerged to announce that the measure had been approved in a 13-to-2 vote.
“There were substantial compromises on the part of all members and, frankly, of the administration,” Mr. Rockefeller said of the measure, which would expire in six years. Two Democratic senators, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Ron Wyden of Oregon, cast the no votes.
But passage in the committee came with one unexpected hitch. In an interview after the closed session, Mr. Wyden said he had succeeded, by a vote of 9 to 6, in adding an amendment that would offer additional protections by requiring that the government get a warrant whenever it wanted to wiretap an American outside the country, like an American soldier based overseas or a business person.
“The individual freedom of an American shouldn’t depend on their physical geography,” he said.
But Mr. Wyden said the administration vigorously opposed that measure and was threatening to veto any final bill if it is included.
[Go ahead and veto it!
I don't want any more intrusive laws made by this shit government!]
House Democrats have also raised questions about the compromise, which emerged after the Bush administration agreed to share documents related to the secret eavesdropping program with the Senate committee. Other committees have demanded access to the same documents.
[So, give him what he wants, or he won't give you what you want.
In some circles, that's called EXTORTION!]
In addition, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who is running for president, announced on his campaign Web site Thursday that he would put a hold on the proposed bill. That legislative maneuver would create another obstacle.
The Senate compromise proposal is similar to a bill proposed by House Democrats. Both plans would allow the National Security Agency to seek blanket or “bundled” warrants for foreign-based communications, but they would give the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a bigger role in the process than did the measure passed hurriedly by Congress before its August recess.
The main difference between the two plans comes down to the question of giving immunity to the major telephone carriers — AT&T and Verizon — that are now being sued over their roles in the eavesdropping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. The House bill does not grant immunity.
“That’s the biggest sticking point,” a senior House staff member acknowledged.
The legislation would replace the August measure that was approved in the final hours before Congress went on its summer recess after strong warnings from the administration that the legal loopholes in wiretapping coverage had left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. That measure, known as the Protect America Act, expires in February.
[And THAT WAS A LIE!
Just ask Jane Harman!]
House Democrats said Thursday that, unlike their counterparts on the Senate Intelligence Committee, they still had not been given access to classified internal documents related to the origins and framework of the N.S.A. program after months of requests. House officials made it clear in interviews that without access to those documents they would be unwilling even to consider immunity for the telecommunications companies.
"We want to be able to judge the legality of the program, and we can't without the documents," another enior House staff member said.
The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Bond, worked out an agreement with the administration giving committee and staff members access to the documents in exchange for scheduling Thursday’s review of the bill. But just what those documents showed was a matter of intense dispute.
Mr. Feingold, who had a staff member review the classified documents at a secure location earlier in the week, came away with a different impression:
“The documents made available by the White House for the first time this week only further demonstrate that the program was illegal and that there is no basis for granting retroactive immunity to those who allegedly cooperated.”
[If its ILLEGAL, where is the god-damn IMPEACHMENT?!?!]
Mr. Feingold and other Democrats said they would oppose any efforts to give immunity to the telecommunications companies. Mr. Dodd, announcing his hold on the proposed legislation, described the immunity proposal as “amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the president’s assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.”
[This president just loves to provide amnesty, doesn't he?
Wish the American people could get an amnesty from HIM!]
Pointedly, Mr. Rockefeller refused to include in his plan immunity from civil or even criminal prosecution for government officials who took part in the security agency’s program.
The administration had sought such protection for its own officials in the face of assertions made by some Democrats that administration officials should face criminal inquiries over the eavesdropping program for violating the law requiring warrants for wiretaps."
[Never mind the Fourth Amendment or anything!
Oh, and by the way, RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Article I, Section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."]
