Bush: Surveillance compromise unlikely

[Moby]

Protecting Telcos is more important then protecting Maerican lives. Is there any other way to see it?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist_surveillance_7

FORCE ONE - President Bush on Thursday stood by his demand for legal protection for phone companies that help the government eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, saying he sees no prospect of a compromise with congressional Democrats.

ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One, Bush renewed his call for Congress to adopt a Senate bill that would make it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.

The Senate bill also adds a provision to shield cooperating telecommunications companies from liability lawsuits. Democratic leaders in the House refused to vote on the Senate bill.

The House passed its own version of the surveillance law in October and it does not include telecom immunity. Democrats want to negotiate a compromise with the Senate when lawmakers return from a 10-day recess.

Democratic staff members from the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees were meeting informally this week to work on compromise language, the committees said. Republicans are not attending the meetings because they want the Senate version of the bill, which passed 68-29, and believe that any changes to the Senate bill would make it unacceptable to the White House.

In the meantime, a temporary surveillance law adopted by Congress last summer expired at midnight last Saturday. House Republicans and three dozen Democrats voted against extending it last week in hopes of pressuring House Democrats into adopting the Senate bill.

"It's positively Orwellian that the president forgets that he's the one who blocked an extension of the warrantless wiretapping program," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

Asked about a potential deal with Democrats, Bush said, "I would just tell you there's no compromise on whether these phone companies get liability protection." The administration says it needs the help of the phone companies for its post-Sept. 11, 2001, surveillance.

Bush said his strategy for breaking the deadlock on the surveillance bill will be to keep talking about why it should be passed on his terms. "The American people understand we need to be listening to the enemy," he said.

Bush spoke as he flew home from a five-country Africa trip.

[Smurf-Herder]

I think the idea is to get everything settled, once and for all; instead of dragging everything up every few months with extentions.

[Moby]

I think the idea is to get everything settled, once and for all; instead of dragging everything up every few months with extentions.
That's right. So pass the law that protect Americans. After all, Bush says that his own delay is costing American lives.

Deal with amnesty at some other time when Americans are not in danger.

[mwillman]

Bush can stop any legislation he wants but he cant force much to pass and the house isnt really in a mood to keep dealing with the liar and chief especialy when he has a less then 20% approval rating.

Giving Telcos amnesity is just one more attempt at corporate handouts from the king of corporate handouts.

[Smurf-Herder]

That's right. So pass the law that protect Americans. After all, Bush says that his own delay is costing American lives.

Deal with amnesty at some other time when Americans are not in danger.

That's the whole point - having the telecoms cooperate, to help keep Americans out of danger. Otherwise the NSA can't do their job, which puts Americans in danger.

[disrupter]

This is about giving branches of government & their corporate criminal conspirators the ability to break the law & then just ask the enslaved congress to re-write the law around their crimes.

These are liars, cheats & criminals,
not leaders,
unless of course you want them to lead you to an outlaw hell.

'The law was too much trouble to follow'?
you think ANY judge in this land would every allow YOU this excuse?

These people & their supporters are the worst form of life,
& are a defilement to righteous law everywhere.

These are the kinds of people who destroy economies, because they don't know how to do anything but lie cheat & steal.
And they hide behind waving flags, wars, vitriol, bibles & claims of national security,
but they rob you & then steal from your own children, so you won't even feel it & respond to it with outrage.

[Moby]

That's the whole point - having the telecoms cooperate, to help keep Americans out of danger. Otherwise the NSA can't do their job, which puts Americans in danger.
If the law that passed the House without amnesty is passed then the Telcos have to comply. This isn't about moving forward. It's about the Telcos breaking the law in the past.

If people are in danger then the law that passed the House 4 months ago would protect them. The Senate filibuster and the President's veto threats are currently what's stopping the law.

There are two completely separate issues here. The Telcos broke the law years ago. If we are supposed to obey the law of the land, as is often spoken by the pubs then the Telcos have to own up to breaking that law years ago.

[Smurf-Herder]

If the law that passed the House without amnesty is passed then the Telcos have to comply. This isn't about moving forward. It's about the Telcos breaking the law in the past.

If people are in danger then the law that passed the House 4 months ago would protect them. The Senate filibuster and the President's veto threats are currently what's stopping the law.

There are two completely separate issues here. The Telcos broke the law years ago. If we are supposed to obey the law of the land, as is often spoken by the pubs then the Telcos have to own up to breaking that law years ago.

That's your view.

Either the government broke the law, or they didn't. The telecoms wanted to cooperate in good faith to help protect the country after 911. And I'm not in favor of making the telecoms a sacrificial lamb, so the left can have it's whipping boy.

Regardless, all evidence is secret military intelligence and cannot be used in a court of law, by it's very nature. All you'd be doing is opening them up to billions of dollars in frivolous law suits, that can never prove their case; but force the telecoms to spend millions to defend themselves and fill the pockets of ACLU trial lawyers on the other side.

The Supreme Court just rejected hearing the case against the government, because of no evidence. No Evidence can ever be brought into court, because it's classified national security foreign intelligence. But even though there is no chance of ever winning a case with no evidence, the trial lawyers will be raking it in, just going through the motions and wasting everybody's time and money; just so people can play on your fears for political gain.

[bigfootzx]

That's your view.

Either the government broke the law, or they didn't. The telecoms wanted to cooperate in good faith to help protect the country after 911. And I'm not in favor of making the telecoms a sacrificial lamb, so the left can have it's whipping boy.

Regardless, all evidence is secret military intelligence and cannot be used in a court of law, by it's very nature. All you'd be doing is opening them up to billions of dollars in frivolous law suits, that can never prove their case; but force the telecoms to spend millions to defend themselves and fill the pockets of ACLU trial lawyers on the other side.

The Supreme Court just rejected hearing the case against the government, because of no evidence. No Evidence can ever be brought into court, because it's classified national security foreign intelligence. But even though there is no chance of ever winning a case with no evidence, the trial lawyers will be raking it in, just going through the motions and wasting everybody's time and money; just so people can play on your fears for political gain.


Exactly, and that's the way is should be. The ACLU couldn't get anywhere with the lawsuit started in 1994, now Clinton is gone, and the Bush hate mentality gave new energy to a worthless fight. The ACLU has no place interfering with national security. They couldn't successfully sue the govt. so they go after Telecoms. Telecoms provide a service to the govt. and they need amnesty for the past, present and future.

The ACLU is more about generating revenue for its lawyers in this case, many others too. The ACLU is not a governing body nor should it suggest they are representing the people when they have not petitoned all 50 states to form a true consensus. Wait till a Democrat is in the whitehouse, Dems will quitely fade this fight and the Reps will start their sound bites just as they did when Clinton was President.

Telecom Amnesty is a must have and the infighting within the parties is going to be settled with mild changes and plenty of ryders and earmarks to push the Bill through. If the people want privacy they need to throw away their cell phones, wireless home phones, faxes, PC's etc..... NSA computers do the majority of the work and no human ever sees the majority of such communications unless keywords are triggered. Wasted time and $$$$ fighting a fight against telecoms, telecoms are the victims here.