Blog - Congress Gives Bush His Wiretapping Bill 
Congress Gives Bush His Wiretapping Bill
July 10, 2008 - by Donny Shaw
After almost a year of wrangling with the White House, Congress on Wednesday finalized a bill to modernize and broaden the government’s ability to wiretap. Twenty one Democrats joined every Republican in the Senate in voting for and passing the wiretapping bill, which, despite a valiant effort by civil libertarian activists, gives retroactive legal immunity to the telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration execute its warrantless wiretapping program from 2001 to 2007.
Before their final vote to pass the bill along to President Bush to be signed into law, the Senate rejected three amendments that dealing with the telecom immunity provision.
The first amendment, which would have struck the immunity provision out of the bill entirely was rejected by a vote of 32-66. Click here to see a list of the Democrats that voted for it.
The second amendment would have only allowed the telecoms to be given immunity if a federal district court decided that the warrantless wiretapping program they participated in was constitutional. It failed by a vote of 37-61 with the support of 35 Democrats, <a href=“http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/4849?party=Republican&vote=Aye>one Republican, and ”http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist/4849?party=Other&vote=Aye">one Independent.
The third amendment would have delayed a decision on immunity by Congress until at least 90 days after they receive a report from the the Justice Department’s inspector general on Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. It would have given Congress, most of who haven’t yet been briefed on what actually happened during the warrantless wiretapping program, a chance to learn what kind of action their vote would be providing immunity for. It fared somewhat better then the other amendments, but still failed on a vote of 42-56. More Democrats voted for this one, but still only one Republican.
Seven Democrats voted against all of the telecom-immunity-altering amendments and voted in favor of the overall bill:
Evan Bayh (IN)
Thomas Carper (DE)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AR)
John Rockefeller (WV)
…plus Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman (I-CT).
For a broader outline of how this bill will change the government’s wiretapping policies, see this post from ArsTechnica entitled The new FISA compromise: it’s worse than you think.
Subscribe to Blog Updates
Want to get each blog update sent to you by email?
Send Us a Tip
-
Proposed Bill HR-2674 Prote...
Submitted by Mary on Jun 16
-
Amendment No. 601 to the Om...
Submitted by Winifred on Mar 3
-
I noticed the Rep. John Con...
Submitted by Pamela Kemp on Jan 14
You can submit a tip anonymously, or attributed to your own name and e-mail, whichever you prefer. Read more about submitting a tip.
Recent Posts
- Senate Health Care Bill Released!, November 18, 2009
- Nelson Seems Willing to Let a Health Care Debate Happen, November 18, 2009
- Omnibus Budget Bill Looking More Likely, November 18, 2009
- 'Audit the Fed' Undermined by Dem Congressman, November 18, 2009
- More Last Minute Tweaks, November 17, 2009
Archives
See All ArchivesBlogroll
- The Baseline Scenario
- Capital Eye
- Capitol Briefing
- The Caucus
- CBO Director's Blog
- Congress Matters
- The Corner
- Crooks and Liars
- FiveThirtyEight
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hot Air
- Huffington Post
- Instapundit
- Ezra Klein
- Little Sis
- Megan McArdle
- The Moderate Voice
- My DD
- The Next Right
- OMB Watch
- Open House Project
- Open Left
- The Page
- Party Time
- Plum Line
- Political Animal
- Political Wire
- ProPublica
- Real Clear Politics
- Real Time Investigations
- RedState
- Senatus
- Andrew Sullivan
- Sunlight Foundation Blog
- Talking Points Memo
- Glenn Thrush
- The Treatment
- The Washington Independent
- The Weekly Standard
- Wonk Room
- Matthew Yglesias
Sort By
Comments ?
What's this?
OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion. Let's build public knowledge about Congress together, so please keep the discussion civil -- no harsh language, subject to our community Comment Policy. Do not post any information here (for example, your name or email) that you do not wish to be public.
Filter Comments to a Rating of at least
What's this?
The Ratings Filter allows you to determine how many user comments to view on pages here on OpenCongress. Setting the filter higher (towards 10) allows you to see only the comments rated "most helpful" by users, while setting the filter lower (towards 0) allows you to see more comments on a page.
Telecoms always had retroactive and legal immunity until Congress took it away. The question is will they take it away again and have the telecoms sued? This is why the telecoms no longer can allow the US government to force them to tap phones. Dems planned on this when they removed the immunity. This is how dems make laws and spend.
What nonsense. Telecoms did not have immunity, retroactive or otherwise - the lawsuits that were proceeding against them are evidence to that fact. Once retroactive immunity is granted, the lawsuits will be dismissed.
Hmm .. it seems that the goal here is to make sure that no one(government or telecoms) get away with searching the property(and in this case listening into conversations) of any American citizen without a warrant. Right? So in reviewing the FISA bill, I found that Section 702 (b) (5)provides the following limitation saying that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) "shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
.. and (not to insult anyone's intelligence) the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So, with the passing of this bill, we have simply reinstated the originating fourth amendment? I wonder how much that cost the American taxpayer. I really don't think that the telecoms or the government will ever get immunity, not should they get immunity from any unconstitutional activity. If there is a warrant provided for a search, then go ahead.
Furthermore, I see that this whole wiretapping effort started in an attempt to protect us from terrorists that are plotting attacks on the US. While I am the first to say I do not want a terrorist attack on any soil in the world (who does?!), it's important to remember the words of a great founding father, Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."