Congress may OK 'compromise' bill to derail spying lawsuits
Anne Broache
C Net News
Friday, May 30, 2008
The U.S. Congress may soon vote on a new "compromise" spy law
that would still likely derail pending suits against AT&T and
other companies accused of opening their networks to the
government in violation of wiretap law.
Democratic leaders, facing intense election year pressure from
Republicans and more conservative "Blue Dog" members of their
own party, had said they hoped to reach an agreement on a
contentious rewrite of a 1978 electronic-surveillance law
known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA,
before their Memorial Day recess.
That self-imposed deadline passed without action. The major
sticking point has been whether to grant so-called retroactive
legal immunity to telephone companies facing lawsuits over
allegations that they illegally assisted the National Security
Agency, violating their customers' privacy.
(Article continues below)
The latest proposal, which Republicans are touting as a
"compromise," would ****ft that debate behind closed doors,
allowing a secret court to dismiss lawsuits related to the
president's warrantless-wiretapping program--that is, during
the period after the Sept. 11 attacks and before then-Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales agreed to submit the so-called
Terrorist Surveillance Program to the same secret court for
review.
In order to dismiss the suits, the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, whose 11 judges are appointed by the U.S.
Supreme Court's chief justice, would be required only to
consider whether the attorney general's "certification"
requesting surveillance assistance from a communications
company was terrorism-related and legally authorized by the
president. That's according to a draft proposal and summary
provided by Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.)'s office and discussed at a
press conference last week.
"It's clear that they're giving (the provisions) nice titles,
and Bond is suggesting that he's made a lot of concessions,
but ultimately, the way the provisions work out is, the
administration gets what it wants," Caroline Fredrickson,
director of the ACLU's Wa****ngton office, said in a phone
interview. "The immunity provision is garbage."
Critics--including the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, which have filed legal
challenges against the surveillance activities--say that would
amount to a rubber stamp of sorts on any past warrantless
eavesdropping.
Aides to Democratic leaders told CNET News.com that their
bosses are reviewing the proposal and haven't yet taken a
position on it. But civil-liberties groups say they fear that,
thanks to political pressure, they will ultimately accept much
what they call a "sham" compromise.
The White House and Republicans, of course, have preferred all
along to give more blanket "retroactive" immunity to telephone
companies. Earlier this year, they appeared poised to get
their way, when the U.S. Senate voted to approve a bill (PDF)
that likely would have wiped out scores of pending legal
challenges against the likes of AT&T and Verizon
Communications.
But the House of Representatives ultimately objected to that
approach and refused to call up that bill for a vote, opting
instead to narrowly approve a version (PDF) lacking so-called
"retroactive immunity" for phone and Internet companies
accused of wrongdoing.
The "compromise" this time around appears to involve a couple
of things: Outside parties challenging the government's
warrantless surveillance would be allowed to submit briefs to
the secret court. There would also be an arguably lower legal
standard than in the already-approved Senate bill for when
court would be allowed to review the attorney general's
"certifications," though civil-liberties groups said it's
unclear exactly how that will work in reality.
Under the revised proposal, the secret court would also have
the option of sending a legal challenge back to a regular
federal court, if it--and a subsequent secret appeals court--
determines the case against a phone company should not be
dismissed.
There's no guarantee, however, that such a move, if it even
occurred, would not result in the federal court simply
throwing out the case itself. After all, appeals courts have
already dismissed similar suits on the grounds that state
secrets would be revealed.
FULL STORY: CLICK HERE
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9953745-7.html
Click here to discuss this story in our forum
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/300508_b_spying.htm
--
A government, of, by, and, for: Rich, Elite, Freemasons.But
all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light:
for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.The light ****neth
in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.The light of
the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy
whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil,
thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the
light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ
shall give thee light.For my yoke is easy, and my burden is
light.
|
