Domestic spying bill passes Senate: The Swamp
The Swamp
Posted July 9, 2008 5:00 PM

Senate Vote

The Swamp

by Katie Fretland

Sweeping changes to the domestic spying bill, which encountered months of debate over national security versus privacy, won the approval of the Senate on Wednesday. The bill grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for participation in the government's eavesdropping on Americans without warrants following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act dictate how the government can spy on suspected terrorists and foreign agents. Wednesday's overhaul, which passed 69 to 28, represents the broadest change to the bill since it was enacted 30 years ago. The measure now goes to Bush who says he will sign it.

Sen. Barack Obama, under fire over his decision to support the bill he once threatened to filibuster, cast his vote in favor of the bill after three attempts to amend the bill failed on the Senate floor. His opponent, Sen. John McCain, whose campaign attacked Obama over the reversal, spent the day campaigning in Pennsylvania and Ohio. He did not vote.

The main dispute over the bill was whether to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed seeking billions of dollars from companies like Sprint Nextel Corp. and AT&T Inc.

Bush directed telecom companies to tap phone and computer lines for about six years following Sept. 11, 2001, without the permission of a secret court that governs surveillance. The court was created to approve wiretaps placed domestically for intelligence gathering.

The revised measure allows the court to approve wiretaps before the government can eavesdrop on Americans overseas. The bill also gives the government powers to intercept communications of foreign groups with broad intercept orders.

Bush praised the passage of the bill, calling it a "vital piece of legislation that will make it easier for this administration and future administrations to protect the American people."

Obama voiced opposition to the bill, but recently pledged to support it, although it is "far from perfect" and fails to resolve concerns over abuses of executive power, he said. Thousands of his supporters took to the Web to criticize Obama's support for the bill.

The provision to allow retroactive immunity weakens the act by failing to demand accountability for past abuses, Obama said. However, the compromise bill allows the FISA court to act as a monitor to prevent abuses of the civil liberties of the public, he said. Obama also noted that the Inspectors General report allows for investigations of past misconduct.

"The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe," Obama said. "Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise."

Obama pledged that if he is elected president he would have his attorney general conduct a review of all surveillance programs.

McCain told reporters in Pennsylvania that Obama's change in position was not the first flip flop.

"Senator Obama and I are still in strong disagreement on the issue of immunity for the telecommunications corporations," McCain said.

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the passage of the bill, saying that the bill rides roughshod over the Constitution by allowing the FISA court to review only procedures for spying instead of individual warrants. The court will make decisions without knowing specifics about who will be wiretapped, the ACLU said.

"The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government's general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the [court]," the organization said in a statement. "The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime."

The vote Wednesday followed hours of debate.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) said the bill is critical to the nation's security and would strengthen the ability of the government to conduct surveillance of terrorists. Rockefeller said the bill would also grant new oversights and protections for the civil liberties of Americans, by insuring a review by the FISA court before surveillance is conducted. Sen Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said the bill would not allow surveillance of innocent Americans. Unless a person has al-Qaeda "on speed dial," that person would not be put under surveillance, Bond said.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) spoke against the provision to allow immunity for the telecom companies.

" could not be clearer that this program broke the law, and this President broke the law. Not only that, but this administration affirmatively misled Congress and the American people about it for years before it finally became public," Feingold said.

"I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation."

Three amendments that would have facilitated lawsuits against the telecom companies failed. An amendment by Dodd to strip immunity for the telecom companies from the bill failed 32 to 66.

An amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) to limit retroactive immunity failed 37 to 61. Specter aimed to limit retroactive immunity by placing more power in the federal courts. The bill would have limited immunity to cases in which a federal court ruled that the intelligence activity was constitutional.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (R. N.M.) proposed an amendment to stay pending cases against certain companies. The bill would allow companies to seek immunity only until 90 days after a final report on the Bush administration's surveillance program is submitted to Congress. It failed 42 to 56.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo


Are you sure we have a Democratic majority in Congress, because it appears to me that the majority are a bunch of turncoats with Obama leading the pack. And to think he had some expertise in constitutional law. Ambition and power are what motivates him, not change.

Honestly, after some of Obama's moves lately, I'm beginning to believe that Hillary was the "honest" one and what you saw is what you got with her. With Obama, he changes day by day.

You know this could all blow up in the Dems faces if Obama keeps changing his stance from one day to another to satisfy whomever it is he is trying to satisfy, and thus far it has not been the people who voted for him as their Dem. candidate.

Can't we have a do-over; where are you, Hillary?

Sen Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said the bill would not allow surveillance of innocent Americans. Unless a person has al-Qaeda "on speed dial," that person would not be put under surveillance, Bond said.

democrats momentarily recognized a legitimate matter of security. A Republican stands up. The bill passes. The democrat faithful is disappointed. And I'm in shock.

I understand that Sen. Bond is a Republican and therefore could never really be trusted. But just listen to your wife, your GF, your mother, your mother-in-law, Party of the 1st Part as they talk to The Party of the 2nd Part on the frickin' telephone. Watch them wave their hands in the air like they are directing a bunch of clowns at the circus. Who would possibly be interested in any of that. Ain't Nobody Lost No Freedoms.

Good now lets get cracking and spy on all those terrorists. We need to get them before they Kill again.

VJ Machiavelli

I'm glad they finally came to their senses and passed a bill. Had we had a FISA after the first attack on the WTC in 1993, we might have picked up on 9/11 and prevented it. We have to stay ahead of the enemy, and how can we do it if we aren't listening in?

Pelosi and Reid should resign yesterday. They either lack the courage of their convictions, or never believed their own rhetoric in the first place. I find the former difficult to believe, as I have never seen a lame duck president with approval ratings in the toilet browbeat a party with Congressional majorities like this. It has to be option two - they pay lip service to the far left, but know all along that the FISA bill is fair and necessary and will pass. How many times are you lefties out there going to let Reid, Obama, et al. sell you out like that? It's like watching Lucy pull the football out from Charlie Brown.

Are y'all serious?

Django - I agree that the government has no interest in the stuff most people say on the phone. But according to legal precedent based on our Constitutition, they do not have the right to unilaterally decide who they want to listen to. The government needs a warrant to legally wiretap a US person. My phone calls would probably bore the poor NSA guys to tears, but that doesn't mean I want them listening.

Chrissy - We've had a FISA law and a FISA court since 1978. Under the old law, the government could wiretap for 72 hours before they were required to request a warrant. The lack of a new FISA wasn't the reason we failed to stop the 9/11 attack. FBI field agents had reported to their superiors that these men were taking flight training classes in the US, but no action was taken. Besides, they were foriegn nationals, so the FISA law would not apply to them anyway.

Herbie H. - They are pitiful, aren't they?

Tom O,

I do acknowledge your point. I also do not claim to know the exact process by which they are able to initiate / proceed with their surveillance. However, by the very nature of the need for an act of surveillance, or espionage if that is a better term, if I knew or we knew, exactly what unlocks that gate, then so would those that present the threat, giving them an advantage that I would prefer they do not ever have.

It is my understanding that some probable cause still has to be presented to some special designated judge, somewhere, for legal permission to proceed. The probable cause may be weak and the ok to go may be a rubber stamp, but for me personally, I just don't seem to have an issue with that. I think that the concept is to be able to respond quickly and this gives them the legal means to do that.

It may always be a dangerous thing to just trust the government, but I still want to believe that at some level the welfare of the general population is still of some modest concern to those that are elected to protect the country and its citizens. Whether they are democrats or Republicans, an oath was taken to protect this country from enemies foreign and domestic. I have no doubt that those enemies do exist. Where or when, in what concentration, or degree of capability, where they go during the day or at night, I would barely have a clue.

A wire-tap of my phone would only reveal which Pretty Latina is re-shaping the visual esthetics of my dreams. A High Definition signal, by the way. For me, that would never be much of an issue or that much of a secret.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "y" in the field below: