Submit your comments on this article | ||||||
Home Front: WoT | ||||||
Dhimmi Concessions Expected on | ||||||
2007-10-09 | ||||||
As the debate over the N.S.A.Â’s wiretapping powers begins anew this week, the emerging legislation reflects the political reality confronting the Democrats. While they are willing to oppose the White House on the conduct of the war in Iraq, they remain nervous that they will be labeled as soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on intelligence gathering. A Democratic bill to be proposed Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. wiretapping that the administration secured in August for just six months. But in an acknowledgment of civil liberties concerns, the measure would also require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the N.S.A.Â’s interception of foreign-based communications.
“We want the statute made permanent,” Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said today. “We view this as a healthy debate. We also view it as an opportunity to inform Congress and the public that we can use these authorities responsibly. We’re going to go forward and look at any proposals that come forth, but we’ll look at them very carefully to make sure they don’t have any consequences that hamper our abilities to protect the country.” House Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the interim legislation in August and believed at the time they had been forced into a corner by the Bush administration. As Congress takes up the new legislation, a senior Democratic aide said House leaders are working hard to make sure the administration does not succeed in pushing through a bill that would make permanent all the powers it secured in August for the N.S.A. “That’s what we’re trying to avoid,” the aide said. “We have that concern too.” The bill to be proposed Tuesday by the Democratic leaders of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees would impose more controls over the N.S.A.’s powers, including quarterly audits by the Justice Department’s inspector general. It would also give the foreign intelligence court a role in approving, in advance, “basket” or “umbrella” warrants for bundles of overseas communications, according to a Congressional official. “We are giving the N.S.A. what it legitimately needs for national security but with far more limitations and protections than are in the Protect America Act,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. Perhaps most important in the eyes of Democratic supporters, the House bill would not give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s domestic eavesdropping program — a proposal that had been a top priority of the Bush administration. The August legislation granted the companies immunity for future acts, but not past deeds. A number of In the Senate, the Democratic chairman of the Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, is working with his Republican counterpart, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who was one of the main proponents of the August plan, to come up with a compromise wiretapping proposal. Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Mr. Rockefeller, said that retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies is “under discussion,” but that no final proposal had been developed. The immunity issue may prove to be the key sticking point between whatever proposals are ultimately passed by the House and the Senate. Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who was among the harshest critics of the legislation passed in August, said he would vigorously oppose any effort to grant retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies. “There is heavy pressure on the immunity and we should not cave an inch on that,” he said in an interview.
Civil liberties advocates and others who met with House officials today about the proposed bill agreed that it was an improvement over the August plan, but they were not quite as charitable in their overall assessment. ‘This still authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without a warrant in far too many instances and without adequate civil liberties protections,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, who was among the group that met with House officials.
| ||||||
Posted by:Steve White |
#6 "all governments are fascists?" No. But all governments tend to become fascist in the absence of strong resistance. PC speech codes and thought crime 'hate' crimes strike me as fascist, for instance. |
Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-09 08:44 |
#5 Nope. And it's salmon, not pink. Yes, of course. The important thing is, you believe that. We don't judge you, you know. |
Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-10-09 05:48 |
#4 That's Dr. Salmon to you, pal. |
Posted by: Seafarious 2007-10-09 00:40 |
#3 Nope. And it's salmon, not pink. Governments have the right to manage communications through its borders -- that's one of the fundamental rights of sovereignty. Every single country on this planet has rules for international mail and telephone calls, as one example. And virtually every country will monitor said mail, calls, e-mail, etc crossing its borders. Again: domestic is different. A 'fascist' nation (e.g., Saddam's Iraq) spies on everyone at home. A democratic nation that honors personal liberty (e.g., ours) has rules to protect the privacy of honest citizens whilst going after criminals. But domestic isn't international. A sovereign nation has the right to investigate communications across its borders that threatens the state. And the only way you can argue against that is to be a transnationalist. |
Posted by: Steve White 2007-10-09 00:39 |
#2 The troll needs to fire up google to get some bearings on "fascism", it seems. |
Posted by: twobyfour 2007-10-09 00:39 |
#1 So is Mr.Pink saying that all governments are fascists? |
Posted by: buy one war, get one free! 2007-10-09 00:29 |