Wiretaps? Check!

[Siji]

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Saturday U.S. telecommunications companies have agreed to cooperate "for the time being" with spy agencies' wiretaps, despite an ongoing battle between the White House and Congress over new terrorism surveillance legislation.

The Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement saying wiretaps will resume under the current law "at least for now."

"Although our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty and have indicated they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists," the statement said.

On Friday U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said telecommunications firms have been reluctant to cooperate with new wiretaps since six-month temporary legislation expired last weekend. As a result, they told Congress, spy agencies have missed intelligence.

Democrats accused the Bush administration of fear-mongering and blamed it for any gaps.

President George W. Bush has said he would not compromise with the Democratic-led Congress on his demand that phone companies be shielded from lawsuits for taking part in his warrantless domestic spying program.

The measure passed by the Senate would provide retroactive lawsuit immunity to firms which cooperated with warrantless wiretaps that Bush authorized after the September 11 attacks. But the House of Representatives has opposed it, and Democratic leaders of both chambers said they would try to find a compromise.

Democratic leaders of congressional intelligence and judiciary committees issued a statement on Friday saying they were committed to passing new legislation and urged Bush to support an extension of the temporary law. Bush has said he would hold out for a permanent overhaul of the 1978 surveillance law.

[Fairweather Pure]

they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty and have indicated they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists

Sounds like a bunch of doublespeak to me. If they were really concerned, they would've fought harder against it years ago. How long does the "uncertainty" have to persist before they really fight?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

They all know how important it is, but need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

[Boogahz]

They all know how important it is, but need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

Private companies are elected?

[Siji]

They all know how important it is, but need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

Private companies are elected?

Not in the really real world, but not all of us live here..

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

They all know how important it is, but need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

Private companies are elected?

Sorry. I was a bit vague. Fixing it.

They all know how important it is. By they all, I mean, Dems and Reps. However, they (the Dems) feel they need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

[Boogahz]

They all know how important it is, but need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

Private companies are elected?

Sorry. I was a bit vague. Fixing it.

They all know how important it is. By they all, I mean, Dems and Reps. However, they (the Dems) feel they need to act like they don't so their masses will vote for them.

My point was that you missed the first part of the damn sentence:

"Although our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty and have indicated they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists," the statement said.

[Forthe]

It is funny how they paint this picture where the telecoms have a choice to comply with a warrant or not. They don't.

[Animale]

The thing is there isn't warrants on this. If there were warrants it wouldn't be an issue as the telecoms would have themselves covered. But instead, the administration is asking them to put their ass on the proverbial line for something of questionable legality - and then saying that "it would cost them too much money" on the lawsuits WHICH THEY FORCED UPON the telecoms in an attempt to retroactively cover their tracks.

If it was illegal at the time, then they shouldn't be protected retroactively, but should instead have the power to counter-sue the government for full disclosure of the "reasons" behind their requests off of warrant. If the government didn't do anything wrong, why hide behind this retroactive legalese bullshit?

Animale

[Aabidano]

If it was illegal at the time

It wasn't illegal at the time, there was legislation in place, which stood on dubious constitutional ground authorizing it. That authorization is now gone\going away and the telecoms aren't willing to stick their necks out without assurances that they aren't going to be prosecuted. Imagine that.

This is a continuation of the "why can't they use FISA?" conversation we've had a half dozen times. This should die, and go back to existing law that includes judicial oversight. There is absolutely no justification for warrant-less\unsupervised wiretapping. It has nothing to do with the war on terror, and a lot to do with the ongoing erosion of privacy and expansion of Govt power.

Everything they want was already available in existing legislation, except that the people demanding the wiretaps were accountable to the judiciary.

[Nick]

This is a continuation of the "why can't they use FISA?" conversation we've had a half dozen times. This should die, and go back to existing law that includes judicial oversight. There is absolutely no justification for warrant-less\unsupervised wiretapping. It has nothing to do with the war on terror, and a lot to do with the ongoing erosion of privacy and expansion of Govt power.