You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
House Version of Domestic Surveillance Bill Passes 213-197
2008-03-14
Bush will veto this version. There is no retroactive protection for the telecoms. Lawyers and terrorists win!
Won't get past the Senate. We'll be doing this again in two weeks. Article EFL to the new stuff as we have an article from earlier today.
The House on Friday narrowly approved a Democratic bill that would set rules for the government's eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.

The bill, approved as lawmakers departed for a two-week break, faces a veto threat from President Bush. The margin of House approval was 213 to 197, largely along party lines.

Because of the promised veto, "this vote has no impact at all," said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The president's main objection is that the bill does not protect from lawsuits the telecommunications companies that allowed the government to eavesdrop on their customers without a court's permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The vote sent the bill to the Senate, which has passed its own version that includes the legal immunity for telecom companies that Bush is insisting on. Without that provision, House Republicans said, the companies won't cooperate with U.S. intelligence.

"We cannot conduct foreign surveillance without them. But if we continue to subject them to billion-dollar lawsuits, we risk losing their cooperation in the future," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

The government does have the power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with wiretaps if it gets warrants from a secret court. The government apparently did not get such warrants before initiating the post-9/11 wiretaps, which are the basis for the lawsuits.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the bill is meant to fix that. It would let a judge determine whether lawsuits should be dismissed, rather than having Congress make that decision.
Because a judge knows more than the President, National Security Council, Director of Central Intelligence, the NSA and the intel leaders of Congress. Stands to reason.
"I believe that the nation is deeply concerned about what has gone on for the last seven years, and I want to restore some of the trust in the intelligence community," Reyes said.
Frankly Silvestre, the nation doesn't give a rip just as long as it's protected from the bad guys. If bad guys stage another 9/11 and we figure out that we would have known about it, if only we could have listened in, your party will never win another election.
Democrats argued against quashing the lawsuits without knowing in detail why the immunity is necessary. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said the government may have as many as five ongoing clandestine surveillance programs. "Congress is not fully informed, and it would be reckless to grant retroactive immunity without knowing the scope of programs out there," Harman said.
Congress is as informed as it wants to be. The House and Senate Intel committees can dig as deep as they want, and Harman should know that since she's been there.
"All members of Congress should see those documents so they could see the breadth and scope" of the wiretapping program, said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.
And share them with the New York Times.
The Democratic bill also would initiate a yearlong bipartisan panel modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate the administration's so-called warrantless wiretapping program.
Just what we need, another investigation.
Posted by:Harry Reid

#15  If you would like more discussion about lawyers, and are having a problem with overly low blood pressure, and would like to raise it, I recommend Overlawyered.com
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-03-14 23:01  

#14  No insult to the good barristers here, but I have seen far too many medical lawsuits against doctors I know that were completely frivolous, but were launched to make money for the lawyer with no regard to the truth. They were suing for a payday, because they knew how much the malpractice insurance would pay out in lieu of the cost of a trial.

You cannot guarantee outcomes in medical procedures. Human bodies react differently and there are cases where predisposition and circumstances overcome the skill of the doctor.

That is why I despise these lawyers. They and the unjust astronomical awards are one of the major drivers of medical costs and one of the reasons for over-prescription and overly cautious and counterproductive medical practices (c.f. rise in c-sections).

The lawyers that promote these types of suits deserve to be beaten to death by chimpanzees.

Same thing goes with product liability suits, and many other cases of Legal Idiocies.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-14 22:42  

#13  pssssst...congress(ssshh)...we are watching you.
-your constituants.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-03-14 21:50  

#12  More or less any "class action" lawyer is pond scum. They make millions for themselves and award pennies to the "members" of the class. How many times have you gotten something in the mail notifying you that you, as a member of a class, are entitled to damages as a result of a class action suit? The amounts to which I was entitled varied from 47¢ to $1.17. When I lived in Cincinnati, I watched Stan Chesley shamelessly exploit human suffering for personal enrichment (always contributing huge amounts to the Dems). You may know a few good ones, but the ones I have met have their own circle in Hell, just above their Dem enablers.
Posted by: RWV   2008-03-14 21:03  

#11  To put it another way, why do some doctors get HUGE fees? Because they are the best at what they do for their clients..

Same should go for lawyers. You good at what you do? You charge more. You mediocre? You get less.

Welcome to the free market. No more lawsuit lotto.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-14 20:23  

#10  Problem is there seem to be more trial lawyers bent on abusing the system than those with establishing a just outcome.

And in general, most I have met are intelligent, liberal and sleazy.

Sorry - although that sort of occupation draws crusaders, it also draws far more con men.

We would not allow such scumbag behavior on the part of Doctors or Bankers, so why not some common sense on Lawyers?

Eliminate lawyers receiving any share of the awards. Awards are for plaintiffs. Not the lawyers.

Put limits on punitive awards above and beyond actual provable damages in civil cases.

The problem is that civil suits do not really punish scumbag lawyers for bringing frivolous suits, nor using bad tactics. Like the McDonalds verdict, or the venue shopping (E Texas for example). They instead encourage bringing suit for an amount that will cost less to settle than it would to litigate. And that is no good in that for anyone except the scumbag lawyers who bring such suits.

For big awards, make the lawyers put some of their own skin into the game on BOTH sides.

If you want to sue under unlimited awards, or take a share of the award (contingency), then you must agree to the rule that the losing side pays the fees of the winning side. In the case of the indigent, the LAWYER pays.

Risk and reward needs to be rebalanced. That would do it.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-14 20:09  

#9  Cingold, AFAIK, is not a class-action parasite like the ones for whose benefit this is intended. If Cingold is, then I reserve the right to criticize. Given the reasonable responses/comments from Cingold, I think I'm safe
Posted by: Frank G   2008-03-14 20:04  

#8  but this is just to get votes
Posted by: ex-lib   2008-03-14 19:01  

#7  why don't you just say BAD trial lawyers

there's bad people in every profession

I'm proud of cingold

if your lying insurance company whom you have been paying premiums to for years, denies benefits you are entitled to after an accident, and you are suffering physically, a trial lawyer is your only hope
Posted by: ex-lib   2008-03-14 18:59  

#6  cingold is a trial lawyer, and I get plenty sick of everyone bitching about them
Posted by: ex-lib   2008-03-14 18:57  

#5  Dems sold out to the trial lawyers. As usual.

Vermin, both of them.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-14 18:38  

#4  wor? work, even.....Damn, I hate typing when I'm angry
Posted by: Frank G   2008-03-14 18:17  

#3  political treason for lawyer contributions and to placate the moonbat wing. Get their names on the record (including their lawyer backers) and when the next attack happens...prosecute and string em up (in whichever order you wish to do that....not up to me to judge...). The Senate and the Exec won't go along and this needs to be made into GOP attack ads at the national level:
"when the means to provide security to the nation were up for a vote, House Democrats chose terrorist's privacy rights and big windfalls for their trial lawyer backers over teh safety of your wife going to wor, your kids in their school, your coworkers and friends. Why? Because the House Democrats have different priorities and values than you, America. Sleep well?"
Posted by: Frank G   2008-03-14 18:16  

#2  Please correct me if I am wrong but the totality of the lawsuits AGAINST telcomms number about 12. So the Commie Pinko Faggots (aka Democrats) are hoplding the nations security at bay for a dozen moonbats? Please somebody give a speech outlining this and describing what actually happened after 9/11 versus some moonbat black helocopter wet dream. The only way that you could have had your rights "technically" violated was if you were in direct communications with a KNOWN or HIGHLY SUSPECTED terroroists over seas. I was in the intel community for 20 years and I have to tell you right now that this is NOT a FISA question, This very scenario is taught at intel school TODAY.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2008-03-14 17:51  

#1  "All members of Congress should see those documents so they could see the breadth and scope" of the wiretapping program, said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass.

John Tierney AKA Marty Meehan Lite...
Good God, John, don't call attention to yourself! The voters will remember you're down there!
Posted by: tu3031   2008-03-14 17:26  

00:00