This New York Times story that ran in the Grand Rapids Press is about the Senate vote on whether or not phone companies can legally be held accountable for their cooperation in the government program of monitoring phone calls. The GR Press version of the story is considerably shorter than the original New York Times version and leaves out the comments from legislators and a “former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies.” The story says that the vote was 68-29, but does not provide a break down along party lines. The article does mention some partisan positions by saying, “Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats fears of being branded weak on terrorism.” Unfortunately, none of the “liberal advocacy groups” were identified.
The story does mention that GOP Presidential candidate John McCain did vote for this bill. Both Democratic Presidential candidates, Senator’s Obama and Clinton did not vote on the matter, but the story does mention “Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.” The story ends by saying, “AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal,” although no details of these lawsuits are provided, nor whether or not this legislation will impact the outcome of those lawsuits. One other omission worth mentioning is the role that the TeleCom industry plays in both lobbying and campaign contributions in the this year’s election, information that might have some bearing on the Senate decision.
After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the governments spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bushs program of eavesdropping without warrants.
One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the governments surveillance powers. Finally, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve legislation that the White House had been pushing for months. Mr. Bush hailed the vote and urged the House to move quickly in following the Senates lead.
The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bushs wiretapping program. The wide-ranging debate before the final vote presaged discussion that will play out this year in the presidential and Congressional elections on other issues testing the presidents wartime authority, including secret detentions, torture and Iraq war financing.
Republicans hailed the reworking of the surveillance law as essential to protecting national security, but some Democrats and many liberal advocacy groups saw the outcome as another example of the Democrats fears of being branded weak on terrorism.
Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration, said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who leads the Judiciary Committee and who had unsuccessfully pushed a much more restrictive set of surveillance measures.
Among the presidential contenders, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, voted in favor of the final measure, while the two Democrats, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, did not vote. Mr. Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.
The measure extends, for at least six years, many of the broad new surveillance powers that Congress hastily approved last August just before its summer recess. Intelligence officials said court rulings had left dangerous gaps in their ability to intercept terrorist communications.
The bill, which had the strong backing of the White House, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets.
The Senate plan also adds one provision considered critical by the White House: shielding phone companies from any legal liability for their roles in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. The program allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.
AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal.
Text from the original article ommitted from the Grand Rapids Press version:
A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.
This is a dramatic restructuring of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. And the thing thats so dramatic about this is that youve removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets.
The Bush administration maintains that if the suits are allowed to continue in court, they could bankrupt the companies and discourage them from cooperating in future intelligence operations.
The House approved a surveillance bill in November that intentionally left out immunity for the phone companies, and leaders from the two chambers will now have to find a way to work out significant differences between their two bills.
Democratic opponents, led by Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, argued that the plan effectively rewarded phone companies by providing them with legal insulation for actions that violated longstanding law and their own privacy obligations to their customers. But immunity supporters said the phone carriers acted out of patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president.
This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation, said Senator John D. Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Mr. Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican on the intelligence panel, said the bill struck the right balance between protecting the rights of Americans and protecting the country from terrorism and other foreign threats.
Democratic opponents, who six months ago vowed to undo the results of the August surveillance vote, said they were deeply disappointed by the defection of 19 Democrats who backed the bill.
Mr. Dodd, who spoke on the floor for more than 20 hours in recent weeks in an effort to stall the bill, said future generations would view the vote as a test of whether the country heeds the rule of law or the rule of men.
But with Democrats splintered, Mr. Dodd acknowledged that the national security argument had won the day. Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing, he said. Theyre convincing people that were at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.
There was a measure of frustration in the voice of Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, as he told reporters during a break in the daylong debate, Holding all the Democrats together on this, weve learned a long time ago, is not something thats doable.
Senate Republicans predict that they will be able to persuade the House to include immunity in the final bill, especially now that the White House has agreed to give House lawmakers access to internal documents on the wiretapping program. But House Democrats vowed Tuesday to continue opposing immunity.
Congress faces a Saturday deadline for extending the current law, but Democrats want to extend the deadline for two weeks to allow more time for talks. The White House has said it opposes a further extension.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats hope to put some pressure on Republicans on Wednesday over another security-related issue by bringing up an intelligence measure that would apply Army field manual prohibitions against torture to civilian agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency.
Republicans plan to try to eliminate that provision, a vote that Democrats say will force Republicans to declare whether they condone torture. Democrats also say it could show the gap between Mr. McCain, who has opposed torture, and the administration on the issue.
We know how we would feel if a member of the armed services captured by the enemy were, for example, waterboarded, Mr. Reid said. So I think that were headed in the right direction, and I hope that well get Republican support on this.