Are we being played? NYT: "Wiretapping Compromise Was Months in the Making"

[babylonsister]

Wiretapping Compromise Was Months in the Making


By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: October 20, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — Last June, in a phone conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney, John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, set down his conditions for revising the law governing the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping. Only when the committee got access to secret administration documents authorizing surveillance without court warrants, Mr. Rockefeller told the vice president, would it consider such legislation.

That vow paid off this week when, after some last-minute brinkmanship, the committee got to see the documents and then on Thursday night passed a bipartisan bill that offers a compromise between Congress and the Bush administration on the contentious eavesdropping issue.

Under the bill, the administration would get retroactive legal immunity for the telecommunications companies that have granted the N.S.A. access to private communications and phone call data; Democrats would get increased oversight of the agency’s eavesdropping by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Congress and inspectors general.

The bill is a long way from becoming law. The House Intelligence Committee, and the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and the House, have not been allowed to see the secret documents: President Bush’s orders authorizing the program, and Justice Department opinions laying out its legal basis. And White House officials are being coy about whether those committees will get access.

Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, said Friday that the Senate Intelligence Committee had gained access to the documents only after its leaders had indicated that they would grant immunity to the phone and Internet companies.

“To the extent of anyone else being able to see the documents,” Ms. Perino said, “I think that we’ll wait and see who else is willing to include that provision in the bill.”

The corresponding bill in the House does not currently grant immunity.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/us/nationalspecial3/20nsa.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

[aquart]

1. Sold out by a Congress that doesn't understand subpoena power.

[Mutineer]

2. You know, I'm having a very hard time with the Democratic party

right now. I've been a loyal and faithful Democratic my entire life but I'm so sick of Pelosi and crew and their spinless sell-outs to the GOP that I'm thoroughly disgusted with them these days. They fold like cheap lawn chairs on EVERYTHING! When did they stop being Democrats and become acomplices with the GOP exactly? It's like they haven't figured out that they are in the party in control now. WTF gives?

[rodeodance]

13. Feingold and WYDEN ---and Nelson FL voted NO to immunity provision:

....During a long committee debate behind closed doors Thursday, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, proposed an amendment to strip the immunity provision from the bill. But it was defeated on a 12-to-3 vote, with only Mr. Wyden and one other Democrat, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, joining Mr. Nelson.

In the end, only Mr. Feingold and Mr. Wyden voted against the bill, a result announced with a surprising show of comity for a committee that has often been mired in partisan sniping. Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Bond interrupted each other to praise the committee’s bipartisan effort.

[rodeodance]

29. but in the end, Nelson said AYE!

[babylonsister]

4. They understand, they just don't want to rock the money boat:

especially Rockefeller-

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/19/you-get-what-you-pay-for/

And subpoena power? That ole thing that no one pays attention to any longer, and apparently it doesn't matter?:grr: :grr:

[TwilightGardener]

3. Being allowed to see secret documents is some kind of big reward?

We're giving away amnesty for lawbreaking corporations because the intel committee wanted to peep at Cheney's documents? What does one have to do with the other? And why shouldn't they have access to these documents on demand anyway? Are they NOT the Intel Committee? It's like the Banking Committee not being allowed to see financial reports unless they beg somebody and make deals--weird.

[babylonsister]

6. I am so totally disillusioned and disgusted, I -could-spit. nt

[rodeodance]

23. i am taking deep breaths as my BP tends to rise.

[rodeodance]

5. White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2085819#2085819
2085819, White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges
Posted by kpete on Fri Oct-19-07 07:54 AM

White House Spy Docs Show Surveillance Was Illegal, Senator Feingold Charges

By Ryan Singel October 18, 2007
Senator Russell Feingold, (D-Wisconsin), who cast the only Senate vote against the Patriot Act and now sits on the Select Intelligence committee, seems to have looked at secret spying documents given by the White House to that committee and found that they do not exonerate the government's secret spying programs or the phone and internet companies that secretly aided them.

The White House seemingly provided the documents in exchange for legislation that would free its telecom partners from being sued by Americans for violating their privacy. The Senate Intelligence Committee is holding a closed meeting on the bill today.

According to a press release:

When the Committee considers this legislation today, I will also fight to reject immunity for anyone alleged to have cooperated with the Administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. The documents made available by the White House for the first time this week only further demonstrate that the program was illegal and that there is no basis for granting retroactive immunity to those who allegedly cooperated. The one silver lining of the flawed FISA bill passed in August was that it had a 6-month expiration date. It would be shameful to miss this opportunity to fix the law.


A spokeswoman for Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who unsuccessfully tried to subpoena documents about the secret spying programs, says that the White House has not yet promised to share the documents with his committee, but has not yet said no, either.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/white-house-spy.html

[L. Coyote]

25. Let's not forget who's money put BUSH and the Rs in there.

AT & T

$98,750 - 4/29/1997 - RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
$98,750 - 1/12/1999 - RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
$80,000 - 5/21/1999 - NRSC/Non-Federal
$100,000 - 5/4/2001 - RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
$40,000 - 5/24/2001 - RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
$100,000 - 10/17/2002 - NRSC/Non-Federal
$89,000 - 10/23/2002 - NRSC/Non-Federal
$200,000 - 11/4/2002 - RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte

the $$$$$ list goes on: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=exswn&txtName=AT%20&%20T&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N

[L. Coyote]

27. Telephone Utilities PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2005-2006 = $5.2M

Total Amount: $5,209,706
Total to Democrats: $1,878,773 (36%)
Total to Republicans: $3,304,933 (63%)
Number of PACs Making Contributions: 23

PAC Name 	 	Total 	        Dems 	        Repubs
AT&T Inc 	  	$1,772,683 	$567,750 	$1,198,933
AT&T Inc 	  	$338,500 	$135,500 	$203,000
BellSouth Corp 	  	$910,450 	$394,200 	$511,250
MCI LLC/Verizon 	$263,500 	$87,000 	$174,500
Nat. Tel. Coop.	  	$180,900 	$72,650 	$108,250
US Telecom Assn 	$295,500 	$101,500 	$187,000
Verizon Comm. 	  	$1,086,400 	$393,750 	$686,650

more details at: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.asp?txt=B08&cycle=2006

[rodeodance]

7. this is the same Jay Rockerfeller is has not done anything related to Phase II.

.....WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — Last June, in a phone conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney, John D. Rockefeller IV, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, set down his conditions for revising the law governing the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping. Only when the committee got access to secret administration documents authorizing surveillance without court warrants, Mr. Rockefeller told the vice president, would it consider such legislation.

[babylonsister]

8. And now we know why; he's part of the problem imo, despite his faux

outrage. Well, now I'M outraged.

[rodeodance]

11. He is to willing to 'make nice"

[rodeodance]

9. ACLU:--“Congress,” ,,, “bowed to the fearmongering of the administration, yet agai

.....In the end, only Mr. Feingold and Mr. Wyden voted against the bill, a result announced with a surprising show of comity for a committee that has often been mired in partisan sniping. Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Bond interrupted each other to praise the committee’s bipartisan effort.

Meanwhile, the administration has largely shunned leaders in the House, Democrats there say. And leaders of the House Intelligence Committee and both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees have said they still have no indication that they will be given access to the administration documents, which they have sought for months.

As administration officials press those committees to accept the Senate bill, they will face the staunch opposition of civil liberties groups, which generally oppose granting immunity to the telecommunications carriers. On Friday, Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned the Senate compromise.

“Congress,” Ms. Fredrickson said, “bowed to the fearmongering of the administration, yet again.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/us/nationalspecial3/20nsa.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

[rodeodance]

10. "the administration has largely shunned leaders in the House, Democrats there say":

Meanwhile, the administration has largely shunned leaders in the House, Democrats there say. And leaders of the House Intelligence Committee and both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees have said they still have no indication that they will be given access to the administration documents, which they have sought for months.

[babylonsister]

17. According to this, they didn't 'bow' to anything. It was a 'done deal'

months ago. I'm furious!

[rodeodance]

12. REC

[tom_paine]

14. God, I don't WANT to believe that, but the circumstantial evidence is mounting

Either is still possible, nothing is proven or even close to it.

I daily get the feeling that all these people care about (and I AM NOT making the argument that there is no difference between the parties - I WILL be voting D in 2008) is holding the whole ball of wax together for as long as possible, and that little else motivates them.

And maybe more and more Democrats are coming to the conclusion that Bushevism is the best way to keep "those people who should be arrested for vagrancy" (that's us Loyal Americans) in line.

Gleichschaltung.

[babylonsister]

20. And here many of us thought it was all about them being

afraid, or their phones tapped, or their lives threatened, when it seems it boils down to money. I'm so disappointed, and pissed.

[tom_paine]

24. Disappointed is too tepid a word. This may be the greatest mass deriliction

of duty to the People, Constitution, and Country in American History.

Each one of probably 80% of the 535 in one way or another, in allowing this to go unchallanged EVEN NOW WITH MAJORITIES, is culpable.

And of course, each and everyone of all of us (and yes, babylonsister, I include myself and everyone who sat back in the 90s thinking all was well under Clinton when the whole edifice was being chewed apart from the inside!) holds some small share. Less than some. More than others.

[leftchick]

26. well I realized it a long tme ago

corporate greed breeds the complicity we see through out our congress. I believe it really is so corrupted as to be beyond repair. I am thinking about Canada again. :(

[rodeodance]

15. Jay Rockefeller received $25,000 from Verizon employees since 06. Call him & ask 'was that bribery'.

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Jay Rockefeller received $25,000 from Verizon employees since 06. Call him & ask 'was that bribery'.
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2094963#2094963
2094963, Jay Rockefeller received $25,000 from Verizon employees since 06. Call him & ask 'was that bribery'.
Posted by cryingshame on Sat Oct-20-07 09:58 AM

Or, if you want to be more tactful, ask if that has influenced his position on immunity for telecoms in legislation before his committee.

firedoglake has the below graphic showing those contributions were a massive spike in the last year.

[babylonsister]

19. Check this out:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/19/you-get-what-you-pay-for

[rodeodance]

22. The Telecoms hedged their bets in 2006-guessed the Dems would win and started

pouring $$ into Dems coffers.

[rodeodance]

16. Jay Rockefeller received $25,000 from Verizon employees since 06. Call him & ask 'was that bribery'.

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Jay Rockefeller received $25,000 from Verizon employees since 06. Call him & ask 'was that bribery'.
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2094963#2094963
2094963, Jay Rockefeller received $25,000 from Verizon employees since 06. Call him & ask 'was that bribery'.
Posted by cryingshame on Sat Oct-20-07 09:58 AM

Or, if you want to be more tactful, ask if that has influenced his position on immunity for telecoms in legislation before his committee.

firedoglake has the below graphic showing those contributions were a massive spike in the last year.

[rodeodance]

18. ACLU Disappointed in Intel Committee FISA Vote, Wyden/Feingold Amendments Slightly Improve Bad Bill

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject ACLU Disappointed in Intel Committee FISA Vote, Wyden/Feingold Amendments Slightly Improve Bad Bill
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2094779#2094779
2094779, ACLU Disappointed in Intel Committee FISA Vote, Wyden/Feingold Amendments Slightly Improve Bad Bill
Posted by marmar on Sat Oct-20-07 09:25 AM

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32257prs20071019.html


ACLU Disappointed in Senate Intel Committee Vote on FISA, Wyden/Feingold Amendments Slightly Improve Bad Bill (10/19/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [phone] or [e-mail]

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union is mystified that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee would pass a FISA bill, drafted with heavy input from the Bush administration, which does not protect Americans from intrusive domestic spying and creates a path to immunity for telecommunications executives. However, a small improvement was made as Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) were successful in including the addition of a requirement that the government get a warrant when it targets an American abroad (such as a missionary, business person or soldier). Now the bill moves to the Senate Judiciary committee.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office said, "Congress bowed to the fear-mongering of the administration, yet again. Democrats should not capitulate to the administration. Letting the administration dictate the terms of this legislation once more will only doom us to repeat the disaster of the Protect America Act."

The ACLU will continue to oppose any immunity deal – whether for telecom executives or for administration officials. "The administration is trying to cover its tracks. A dribble of documents provided to Congress is a case of too little, too late," said ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Timothy Sparapani.

"The ACLU will be working to oppose the Senate legislation unless it is redrafted to include individual warrants for when the government spies on Americans," said Fredrickson. "Being constitutional is like being pregnant – either you are or you aren’t. And this bill isn’t. "

The public agrees with us: a new poll from the Mellman group found 61 percent of Americans in favor of requiring the government to get a warrant from a court before wiretapping conversations U.S. citizens have with people in other countries, and just 35 percent supported warrantless wiretaps.

Pollster Mark Mellman said, "Support for this constitutional right is both deep and wide, cutting across demographic subgroups." Seventy-four percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and even 46 percent of Republicans oppose tapping Americans without a warrant.

For more information on FISA, go to:
www.aclu.org/fisa

To read the poll from the Mellman Group, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/32189leg20071016.html

[rodeodance]

33. "or for administration officials"------this means the WH wants immunity for itself?

[rodeodance]

21. The White House negotiated the bill primarily through Christopher S. Bond of Missouri,

seems the WH thinks that the Dems have a disease!







Mr. Rockefeller, of West Virginia, and other Democrats were also dissatisfied with the changes to eavesdropping law rushed through Congress before the August recess. Ensuring that those changes would be revisited, Democratic leaders placed a six-month limit on the legislation, which was passed in response to a court ruling that had restricted the N.S.A.’s intelligence gathering. The bill adopted by the Senate committee on Thursday night would succeed that new law.

The White House negotiated the bill primarily through Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the leading Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a staunch ally in efforts to broaden the N.S.A.’s wiretapping authority. Officials said that while Mr. Rockefeller had had some direct dealings with the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and other administration officials, it was Mr. Bond who had acted as the main liaison to the White House on the issue.

This week, with the administration promising access to documents, but not before next Monday, Mr. Rockefeller threatened to cancel a committee meeting, scheduled for this Thursday, where the legislation was to be “marked up” — that is, debated and voted on. “We said, ‘Good, there won’t be any markup,’” he recounted.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. But now that it's in the public domain, maybe they'll change their minds

now that the info is in the publc domain and they can play the, "Well, now that we know now what we didn't know them." excuse?

[loudsue]

30. We need to SLAM Rockefeller with phone calls come Monday.

That fucking SNAKE! That Rockefeller blood line is still trying to do everything they can to undermine our Democracy. They never did get over the labor unions fighting them in the robber baron days.

Anyone....ANYONE .... who shares some of the same genes as David Rockefeller cannot be trusted with Democracy.

They're as bad as the bush dynasty, only with a little more polish.

:kick:

On edit:

We also need to call ALL the media news shows, and let them know this affects THEM as well. How many journalists want to have THEIR phones tapped?

:kick:

[The Backlash Cometh]

31. Historically, the reason why you couldn't take Democrats down when

the Republicans were caught doing something terrible, is because the investigations would show that there would be a few powerful Democrats caught in the net too.

In this case, when we don't know who was wiretapped, and what was discovered in those wiretaps, my guess is that the Dems voting in favor of giving immunitiy to George Bush, were caught doing something terribly wrong.

I suspect that giving immunities to the Telcoms will be the first step, the second step will be to gag the information.

[loudsue]

32. Prolly a good guess, Backlash.

There seems to be enough money that we're paying in TAXES to buy off just about everyone, and they all act against OUR best interests.