DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Just Between Us ( Surveillance Bill )

Telecoms and the Bush administration talked about how to keep their surveillance program under wraps.

The Bush administration is refusing to disclose internal e-mails, letters and notes showing contacts with major telecommunications companies over how to persuade Congress to back a controversial surveillance bill, according to recently disclosed court documents.

The existence of these documents surfaced only in recent days as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by a privacy group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The foundation (alerted to the issue in part by a NEWSWEEK story last fall) is seeking information about communications among administration officials, Congress and a battery of politically well-connected lawyers and lobbyists hired by such big telecom carriers as AT&T and Verizon. Court papers recently filed by government lawyers in the case confirm for the first time that since last fall unnamed representatives of the telecoms phoned and e-mailed administration officials to talk about ways to block more than 40 civil suits accusing the companies of privacy violations because of their participation in a secret post-9/11 surveillance program ordered by the White House.

At the time, the White House was proposing a surveillance bill—strongly backed by the telecoms—that included a sweeping provision that would grant them retroactive immunity from any lawsuits accusing the companies of wrongdoing related to the surveillance program.

Although a version of this proposal has passed the Senate, it has so far been blocked in the House by Democrats who are demanding greater public disclosure about the scope of the administration's post-9/11 surveillance of individuals inside the United States. Negotiations between House Democrats, the Senate and administration representatives over a possible compromise have made little progress so far. Capitol Hill officials now say Congress may not get around to final action on new surveillance legislation until right before a one-year temporary law expires in August—right before the presidential nominating conventions.

The recent responses in the Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit provide no new information about the administration's controversial post-9/11 electronic surveillance program itself, but they do shed some light on the degree of anxiety within the telecom industry over the litigation generated by the carriers' participation in the secret spying. One court declaration, for example, confirms the existence of notes showing that a telecom representative called an Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) lawyer last fall to talk about "various options" to block the lawsuits, including "such options as court orders and legislation." Another declaration refers to a letter and "four fax cover sheets" exchanged between the telecoms and ODNI over the surveillance matter. Yet another discloses e-mails in which lawyers for the telecoms and the Justice Department "seek or discuss recommendations on legislative strategy."

The declarations were filed in court by government lawyers only after U.S. Judge Jeffrey White in San Francisco, who is overseeing the case, ordered them to fully process the Electronic Frontier Foundation's FOIA request for documents showing lobbying contacts by the telecoms. The government initially resisted even responding to the FOIA request, but White found that disclosure was in the public interest because it "may enable the public to participate meaningfully in the debate over" the pending surveillance legislation.

But while complying with the judge's order to confirm the existence of some documents, administration officials have told the judge they cannot actually disclose the documents themselves, in part because to do so would undermine national security. Even to confirm the identity of any of the carriers with whom administration officials have discussed the surveillance issue would implicitly identify the carriers that participated in the program and therefore "would provide our adversaries with a road map" that would help them thwart surveillance against them, according to a court declaration filed by Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess, director of the ODNI's intelligence staff.

Spokesmen for the Justice Department and ODNI today declined comment to NEWSWEEK on the grounds that neither agency will talk about pending litigation.

The revelation of the existence of the documents comes at a time when Congress is bracing for what is expected to be a grueling summerlong debate over the surveillance measure. Administration officials say that unless Congress acts by this summer, existing court orders permitting surveillance of suspected overseas terrorists will expire, threatening the U.S. government's ability to keep track of potential plots against the homeland. If new legislation is not enacted before the current stop-gap law expires, Republicans may try to use this as an election issue against Democrats.

The debate over a new surveillance authorization is likely to be complicated by figures showing sharp increases in the government's electronic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. One report filed with the office of the administrator of the U.S. Courts shows that standard wiretaps approved by federal and state courts jumped 20 percent last year, from 1,839 in 2006 to 2,208 in 2007. Later this week another report is expected to also show increases in secret wiretaps and break-ins approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in terror and espionage cases. But even these secret wiretaps and break-ins—estimated to be about 2,300—tell only part of the story. They don't include other secret methods the government uses to collect personal information on U.S. citizens.

Terror Watch appears weekly on Newsweek.com

© 2008

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134930

I have to say, things like this, microchipping, the erosion of our civil rights, HAARP, The North American Alliance, (and a host of other things,) scare the living crap out of me and leave me little hope for the world my grandchildren's children will be living in.

Does this surprise anyone? He's let the power go to his head and with his lame-duck status, he's going to test the waters as much as he can before he leaves office. That can't happen soon enough btw.

So let me see........we want the govt. to protect us, yet we don't want the gov't. to be able to do anything to protect us - unless, of course, they go to a persons house, knock on the door and say "we are going to tap your phone lines. If you could just sign here allowing us to do so, our nation would be greatly obliged. Thanks.".

Geez, protect us, but don't you dare do anything to infringe on my rights, right?

And then these same people, IF there is another attack, will be hollering "why didn't the gov't. do anything?".

But, in the article you posted, it seems to me there's a whole lot of "..this administration is doing bad things" comments, and a whole lot of "...the democrats are stopping the bad things" comments.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Our rights should never be eroded because of fear. There are plenty of legal ways to find evidence. People have done it for thousands of years, but because of the first attack on U.S. mainland in almost 200 years people want to give those rights to feel safe. Our country was successful at preventing attacks and threats without breaking the ULTIMATE LAW OF THE LAND for so long, 9/11 didn't change it. Those who have fear and are willing to sacrifice their freedoms for "safety" will be the exact ones who scream for smaller government and how the government is running rampant when we are constantly being watched in a dystopia ala 1984.

Quote:

---

What the hell do people want?

---

People don't want to be bothered with facts.

Quote:

---

What the hell do people want?

---

To have the government be kept in check. All I ask is a warrant before they tap a line.

The government should be afraid of the people. Not the other way around.

Is it January 20th yet?

Quote:

---

Is it January 20th yet?

---

Arch, you're trying to reason with liberals. Can't be done. They won't be happy until we get a roughneck like Obama or Hillary in office.
If Bush wants to listen to my wife tell me to pick up milk on the way home its OK with me.

If you take a good look at the world right now, most of the places that are limiting freedoms at alarming rates are all using the premise of fear. The word "terrorism" is being used by all sorts of countries as an umbrella to revoke rights and liberties. In places like Egypt, you see "emergency rule", which allows the government to execute and jail without trial, and it's done in the name of protecting the country from terrorism. Here in America, we see liberties eroding that were once cited as what sets us above the rest of the world.

The indifference to torture and illegal searches or wiretapping and jailing without charges or attorneys is alarming to me. It makes me think that ethnic concentration camps a la the Japanese in World War II is something that isn't out of the realm of possibility.

When I looked into what the NSA were doing a few months back I didn't see what the big fuss was all about. They were mainly collecting phone records of incomming calls from know hot spots of terroism.

For instance someone in Afganistan called some one in New York and then the person in New York immediatly called some one in Saudi Arabia. They collected data and if they saw a suspicious pattern they would target on it.

The average American has nothing to worry and you will not be giving up any of your freedoms and the government isn't listening to you make calls to your Aunt Sally.

I wonder if they are all still freaked out about Dubai. If so, I'm probably being monitored right now after all the phone calls back and forth.

Just an observation....

Anti-smoking laws, mandatory seat belts, and DUI check points (unreasonable / illegal searches).

These are just 3 examples off the top of my head of having some individual's rights stomped on. Many people on this board don't have a problem with them because they were enacted in the name of safety, but they do have a problem with the government checking to see if your contacting a terrorist.

Its been said before.....eventually it will be something you value.

DUI check points are NOT unreasonable or illegal searches.
You are being stopped on the roads that you have been conditionally granted the PRIVILEGE of driving upon. If you appear or are suspected of being intoxicated, they now have Probable Cause.

Seatbelts, Helmet Laws and the Smoking Ban I agree with you on... I feel that those ARE infringements upon my rights.

You are not being detained.. you are being stopped and questioned and sent on your merry way ... and that is entirely within their ability and legal powers.

You are making your presumption based on your misguided belief that you actually have a RIGHT to be on that road... you do not. You being allowed to take your vehicle onto that road and then get stopped by them is a PRIVILEGE granted to you.

Phil, if another attack does occur you will be one of the first to blame Bush. You worry about how the prisoners in Gitmo are being treated and wonder if Bush is lisening to your very important phone calls. Maybe you should be more worried about American lives. These things you are so worried about have already saved untold number of lives. Water boarding works.

One thing to be out of touch and do some of this crap; but this is cultivated and sought. Scares the living daylights out of me. We don't need the "FEMA touch" on our Bill of Rights. Eroding the checks and balances IMO. Get out the votes!

Just so we're clear.....a form of interrogation that "broke" member of the CIA in 14 seconds doesn't "work"? The longest a member of Al Queda lasted was a little over 2 minutes before breaking. That doesn't "work"?

Oh, I forgot. everything the U.S. does is bad. Foreign terrorists are the result of evil America and should be protected.

Yeah, torture works so we should torture the information out of anyone we wish.

Good thing we have human rights or people like you would do horrible things in name of "justice".

Oh and for every report of torture "working" there's countless others of people lying to get it to stop.

Well, maybe it's just me, but your stance on how to treat those that want ot destroy every one of us is what is wrong with this war and the war in Viet Nam. Sorry, I'd rather make sure that thousands of innocent people aren't killed because a group of terrorists don't like the fact we don't practice their religion. I guess I'm crazy like that.

This isn't about justice. This is about war. If you don't know the difference, then I understand where you got your response.

How do you know they're guilty? What proof is there? You can't go around torturing innocent people... or people at all. Even McCain agrees and he's a war vet.

You are acting like I'm implying rounding up everyone and putting them through this. I'm not. I'm talking about terrorists that our military knows is involved in terrorism, not Joe Citizen walking down the street.

Well if they KNOW they're terrorists, then why not obtain a warrant? Isn't that the whole point of that little clause in the Constitution that talks about "illegal search and seizure"?

Why do you need a warrant for someone that isn't a citizen or even IN our country? I'm talking about someone captured during WAR, not Joe Citizen. Please tell me how the "illegal search and seizure" applies to someone in another country captured during a war.

Quote:

---

I'm talking about someone captured during WAR, not Joe Citizen.

---

Captured where and by whom? Are the phone calls between two nations not named the United States? I want to answer the question properly so I'll await your response before I answer.

They couldn't care less about Joe Citizen, or Jane, for that matter.......man, some people have no faith in gov't. whatsoever, yet they are the first to complain when an attack happens. It's so sad it's unbelievable......some want us to spy to protect the country, yet at the same time they say "don't spy. I have rights".

Just what in God's name do you want the gov't. to do if they can't tap phone calls from certain parts of the world. Just what do you want the gov't. to do if they are not allowed to tap phone lines in order to get more proof?

Exactly HOW are we supposed to track people we think are bad? I'd like to hear your answers. The fisa act allows us to do it? If so, why complain? You put your faith in the fact that you're hoping these people have been convicted of something before.......sorry. Doesn't work that way.

You state that fisa allows the feds to monitor pretty much anyone, and you stated that there are courts that will grant subpeonas for basically any reason....what do you want?

I bet I know.......you want a reason to complain.

Phil, I heard Hillary say torture doesn't work and we all know Hillary doesn't lie.....Well except for everytime she opens her mouth.

And Nasty, I stopped caring about how terrorists are treated the first time I saw some innocent get his head cut off on the internet.

I'll answer all in one post.

Big Nasty:

I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but have you been following the thread? This turned from phone calls to how ineffective water boarding is. The discussion has now turned to whether water boarding should be used during interrogation of war prisoners.

Lyukeda: Name one citizen that has been water boarded because the government tapped their phones.

Phil: I understand you try to muddy the waters by jumping into semantics and sentence structure when you can't refute what is said. However, I was referring to THIS war with that statement and you know it. However, are you SERIOUSLY saying that the Viet Cong didn't use geurilla warfare, and using civilians as weapons much like these terrorists? If so, then don't bother to respond. The entire point is that you, and others, want to have this gentlemen's approach to an enemy that will use any means necessary.

Please cite the amendment that talks about "reasonable evidence" before looking into phone records. I missed that.

Who authorized the set-up of the FISA courts??? Bill Clinton...

Who began massive wiretaps on TransAtlantic calls during WWII? FDR...

Who enjoys watching the Bush Admin. just do what they think is necessary in the Terrorism struggle....me for one.

Thank you for providing CASE LAW that INTERPRETED the Constitution to say this. It's not in the constitution.

As for your other link concerning the media having phone records reviewed, where does it say it fell under this agreement and where does it say that a warrant wouldn't be obtained? After all, they are investigating government leaks. That was a reach, at best, to say that affects Joe Citizen. How many of us have federal informants and are investigated for it?