Senate Backs Wiretap Bill to Shield Phone Companies

Senate Backs Wiretap Bill to Shield Phone Companies

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Need I add any snide comments? They have their immunity now.

Late edit to highlight/relate to earlier threads:

Liberal Democrats in the Senate, led by Senators Feingold and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, sought in vain to pare down the proposal. An amendment sponsored by Mr. Dodd to strip the immunity provision from the bill was defeated, 66 to 32.

Two other amendments were also rejected. One, offered by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, would have required that a district court judge assess the legality of warrantless wiretapping before granting immunity. It lost by 61 to 37. The other, which would have postponed immunity for a year pending a federal investigation, was offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico. It was defeated by 56 to 42.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


This is BS, and to all of you who think we still have the same liberties we use to, this is proof that we do not and we are turning into a police state. I guess I will have to be moving out of the country soon if this crap continues.

reply to post by bakednutz


While I agree with your sentiment, I can't leave. I have got to find a way to make this right for my kids. I don't want them living in an Orwelian future...

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Maxmars]

I really don't see why some here are going insane over this bill.

First of all the bill does not cover Americans using the phone domestically. The bill covers the wiretapping of international communications of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda.

While the National Security Agency would be allowed to seek court orders for broad groups of foreign targets, the law creates a new, 7-day period for targeting foreigners without a court order in “exigent” circumstances if government officials assert that important national security information would be lost otherwise. The law also expands from three to seven days the period in which the government can conduct emergency wiretaps without a court on Americans if the attorney general certifies that there is probable cause to believe the target is linked to terrorism.

The attorney general must certify the taps so it's not like there is no oversight. We are mainly talking about foreigners with suspected links to terrorists.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Everytime i see a news post of something like this, why do I keep hearing that song by Ministry called New World Order..

Interesting that..

Call it what you will but America is not America anymore.......... Its not a republic, its not for the people by the people, its a crapless country really to go down the toilet soon..

You guys keep voting for idiots who have other ideas and not yours in mind... its cool.. I will thank you for the crack ass ride when its over and we are all dead from civil war.. All because you people like American Idol and Football more than you care for real life situations.

reply to post by WhatTheory


The problem is the process. The AG 'certification' means exactly what? That he is taking responsibility for the tap's legality? No. Only that he gave the go-ahead.

Also, the retroactive immunity seems to be couched in here without so much as a 'howdy-do'. Perhaps the issue wouldn't be so volatile if they had dealt with that separately, but then, I think the purpose of inserting it in there was to ensure the immunity was passed.

reply to post by WhatTheory


The attorney general is there for oversite.....hmmm so government officials Crony is there for oversight so who cares right? He wouldnt have any agendas or anything. This country wasnt set up for judges or anything was it? Why not just get rid of the judicial branch. Why keep it there is no need for it. Who needs checks and balances anyways we can trust the government to do our bidding....dude you are the liberal my friend. Rely on government? So are you voting Obama 2008?

[edit on 9-7-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by Maxmars


Thanks for the U2U Maxmars.

I'll return the favor by giving this thread a bump also.

I agree that I will also not stand idly by and allow a fulfillment of an Orwellian future for my children.

I also however feel that this is an important tool that is sorely needed by SOME of the dedicated professionals watching out for all of us.

I have personally witnessed a thwarting of a plan to do harm to the USA and it's citizens by the use of eavesdropping.

While I also feel that to whom I speak and about what is no ones business; I am also not blinded to the fact that most governments monitor their citizenry and have done so since we have had governments.

Originally posted by mybigunit
dude you are the liberal my friend. Rely on government? So are you voting Obama 2008?

Oh, that's funny.
But what you fail to realize is that one of the purposes of government is to provide a national defense and to protect us from enemies. So, yes, we have to rely on government for defense of the nation as that is one it's purposes in life.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Oh, that's funny.

But what you fail to realize is that one of the purposes of government is to provide a national defense and to protect us from enemies. So, yes, we have to rely on government for defense of the nation as that is one it's purposes in life.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Provide national defense and the police state are two different things. You dont need to rip rights away from people to defend them and if you feel that way WOW. The ole quote by my friend Ben Franklin "He who sacrifices liberty for freedom deserve neither" To me this rings in as a true statement.

Next would you like to get a new version of FDRs new deal thrown on us to protect us from the economy. Social Securty, Medicare, and government wealth robbing wasnt enough...lets have them protect us from that to by ripping all of our rights. Do you see what I mean? This slope is real slippery when you start yanking rights for the sake of government protecting us. Frankly I feel the people can protect themselves just fine and if worse comes to worse the government can have a nice military to back us up.

Keep in mind we had all the information on 9/11 we didnt need all this tapping. We just needed leadership to step up and take the information where it could be used.