House to vote on eavesdropping bill {Senate bill contains immunity for telecoms]

Source: ap




House to vote on eavesdropping bill

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 35 minutes ago



WASHINGTON -......

A vote was expected Thursday on the second attempt in a month to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which dictates when the government must obtain court permission to carry out electronic eavesdropping. Last month House Republicans used a procedural maneuver to force the withdrawal of a similar bill just before a vote.

......

The Democratic bill lacks one key feature President Bush is insisting on: legal immunity for telecommunications companies alleged to have secretly helped the government monitor Americans' phone calls and e-mails without court permission. About 40 civil lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies, alleging they broke wiretapping and privacy laws, and the White House has threatened to veto any surveillance bill that does not protect the companies. The White House contends lawsuits could bankrupt the companies and reveal classified information.

The House bill would allow unfettered telephone and e-mail surveillance of foreign intelligence targets, but would require special authorization if the foreign targets are likely to be in contact with people inside the United States — a provision designed to safeguard Americans' privacy.

......

Also on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee was to work on its own eavesdropping bill. The Senate Intelligence Committee's version of the same bill contains an immunity provision for telecom companies.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_go_co/terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=AqT6fUFqEuUhRiQp1lGRPxCs0NUE

not a valid reason for granting these companies immunity from prosecution or protection from a civil suit.

"Well, yeah, I robbed the bank and shot your granma, but if you prosecute or sue me, I'll go bankrupt!"

The Senate bill does not contain the immunity provision, NOT YET anyway. As the article mentions, it has to go through the judiciary committee first.

If our Constitution and the Rule of Law mean anything, if we and our elected representatives want to reclaim some degree of integrity and morality for our United States, and if we simply want to go back to the days of doing the right thing - then no one, no organization, can be above the law.
No immunity. If any branch of government receives immunity for past criminal actions, what is to stop the other branches, or any other person or entity, from claiming the same thing to cover their own butts for past actions of possible/probable criminality? Immunity for telecoms would set a dangerous and irresponsible precedent - and we all know by now that the Decider and Shooter would be first in line to be let off the hook ( and Lord knows they will have much to answer for in the coming years ).
No to immunity for the telecoms - now or ever.

If they vote this through with immunity for telecoms, I'll be damned angry.

:eyes:
rocknation