"Veto threat for proposed spy laws; Presidential Veto Threatened for Surveillance Bills That Don't Protect Telecom Providers"
by Lara Jakes Jordan Associated Press February 5, 2008
"President Bush threatened a veto Tuesday in the debate to update terrorist surveillance laws, assailing Democratic plans to deny protection from lawsuits for telecommunications providers that let the government spy on U.S. residents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Why does the MSM press CONSISTENTLY LIE about this issue?!
See: New York Times Admits Bush Administration Spying Began in December of 2000... BEFORE TAKING OFFICE!
The threat came in a 12-page letter to Senate leaders from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. It was issued as lawmakers prepare to vote on legislation seeking to update a 1978 surveillance law without violating privacy rights.
"If the president is sent a bill that does not provide the U.S. intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect the nation, the president will veto the bill," wrote Mukasey and McConnell.
The letter was sent to Senate leaders and the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the letter was premature since there still isn't any legislation yet.
"It's a little early to have a veto threat," he said.
But you will bend over when the time comes, right, Reid?
The existing surveillance law will expire Feb. 15. Bush has said he would resist extending it again. After nearly two months of legislative wrangling, Reid announced the Senate would begin voting on amendments Wednesday. Debate began Tuesday evening.
And it won't be long, will it?
The administration's veto threat was aimed at amendments that would bar retroactive immunity to phone companies and other telecom providers that have given the government access to e-mails and phone calls linked to people in the United States.
Without the retroactive protections, the letter noted, telecom providers might be unwilling to help the government track down terror suspects in the future as they were asked to do in the days following the 2001 attacks.
Except: New York Times Admits Bush Administration Spying Began in December of 2000... BEFORE TAKING OFFICE!
WTF is with the MSM and why would you ever believe them again, readers?
Twice in the same article?
Why REEMPHASIZE the LIE, readers?
Gotta DRUM IT INTO YOUR HEAD?!!
"Private citizens who respond in good faith to a request for assistance by public officials should not beheld liable for their actions," Mukasey and McConnell wrote.
Then I WANT IMMUNITY for ANY CRIMES I MAY HAVE COMMITTED -- even though I've committed none!!
Who cares if it is unconstitutional:
Article I, Section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
A bill already approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee "is not perfect," Mukasey and McConnell wrote. But since it provides the legal shields, they said they would support it if the amendments are dropped.
How much you want to bet they will be?
That FALSE-FLAG TERROR ATTACK -- maybe in the Middle East, what with the internet cut -- seems VERY MUCH A POSSIBILITY, no, readers?
Then Bush is sure to get telecom immunity!
The Senate could vote on the surveillance bill and amendments this week.
Some 40 civil lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies. They carry with them a threat of crippling financial penalties, which the White House says could bankrupt the companies.
Yeah, don't cripple those telecoms!!
Never mind the foreclosure crisis and that vet you had to step over in the street today!
THAT is what this is about!!!
PROTECTING FASCISTA CORPORATIONS!!!
Congress has struggled to strike a balance between catching terrorists and improperly spying on U.S. residents since last summer, when it sought to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That law requires the government to get approval from a secret court when it seeks to electronically eavesdrop on suspected terrorists or spies in the United States. The law does not apply to government wiretaps on people outside the country.
Over the years, however, foreign communications have been routed through technology based in the United States — raising the question of whether the government should have FISA court approval to listen in on those conversations. The bill being debated now seeks to resolve that issue.
Civil rights and privacy advocates say current law, which Congress approved in August in a hasty attempt to update the 1978 version, still allows the government to eavesdrop on Americans without court oversight. That law was set to expire Feb. 1 but was extended for two weeks as Congress works to hammer out a compromise.
The administration also rejected proposals to have the secret FISA court decide whether to give immunity to telecom firms, arguing that doing so could merely result in lengthy legal battles.
"It is for Congress, not the courts, to make the public policy decision whether to grant liability protection to telecommunication companies who are being sued simply because they are alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001th attacks," Mukasey and McConnell wrote.
Source: AP News"
They don't need to spy on me; it's all RIGHT HERE for YOU to SEE, fascista government monitor!!
So which side you on -- FREEDOM or SLAVERY?
WHO you working for, and how will you explain it to your God?
