Listening In

Agreed. Telecoms have been spying for decades. See 1TT.mobi I used to know a guy who worked for GTE , and it happened all the time.

I am really surprised by these comments. You people don't understand what FISA is really about. FISA is not about snooping into Americans' affairs. The Dems have made it sound like that because it is politically hot. FISA is about monitoring foreigners' conversations, and being able to monitor them even when a signal hits an American router or station (as much of the communications in the world probably do, at least at this point).. Americans always have 4th ammendment protections and the government must get a warrant to listen to an American. I think this is very serious--we depend on companies' technology, know how, and their access to sensitive parts of the world. And if you think we shouldn't listen to foreigners conversations that may deal with terrorism, etc...then you are living in the wrong century....that is not a new practice by any strech of the imagination. We have had FISA laws for a long time and no one said a word about it until changes were needed to match new technologies. It is so pathetically easy to buy the "hot" story about how Bush wants to spy on Americans because of his stupid war in Iraq. But this isn't about the war. It is about human intelligence, and yes, human intelligence can prevent attacks. By the way, the bill that passed in the senate was very bi-partisan, something like 67 or 68 votes.

If they need to, theycan always use the FISA Court to get a legal warrant for any wire tapping needs that will give the telcoms full protection. However, they continue to refuse to take the legal route afforded to them. They would rather try to politicize the matter in an election year to try to 1) win votes, and 2) continue to stoke fear in the American people. The Dems are absolutely on target here - if it was such an issue that was going to put Americans at risk, then an extension was the most logical next step to take. This is all on the Republicans and the President by putting the telcoms immunity requests ($$$) ahead of the security of the people of the US.

.Weapons Of Mass-Destruction .. WAS FIRST
WHO IS THE IDIOT ? ? ?
.
VOTE MY WAY OR YOU AREN'T PATRIOTIC ! !
VOTE MY WAY OR THERE WILL BE ANOTHER ATTACK ! ! !
.
..
Members of Congress who have been charged with crimes since 2000:

_ Feb. 22, 2008: Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., indicted on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other crimes in an Arizona land swap that authorities say helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.

_ June 4, 2007: Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., indicted on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.

_ Jan. 19, 2007: Former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for trading political favors for gifts and campaign donations from lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

_ March 3, 2006: Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., sentenced to eight years and four months in prison. He collected $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes in a corruption scheme.

_ Oct. 3, 2005: Former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, charged with felony money laundering and conspiracy in connection with Republican fundraising efforts in 2002. One charge has been dropped and two others are being argued before a state appeals court.

_ Aug. 29, 2003: Rep. William Janklow, R-S.D., charged with felony second-degree manslaughter and three misdemeanors after his car struck and killed a motorcyclist. He was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to 100 days in prison.

_ May 4, 2001: Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of tax evasion, bribery, racketeering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted of racketeering and accepting bribes.

Thank goodness the telecoms and Democrats both have begun to show some chutzpah when it comes to Bush et al. Bush is just mad because he's lost his power and his ability to generate fear in the hearts of Congress and Americans. As someone else noted, he and his cronies have been lying to us for the past 7 years or so, and his words are now falling on deaf ears. When's the last time you even saw Bush on TV? Nobody cares! FISA was never anything more than an invasion of our privacy and a violation of our civil rights. I mean, the FBI couldn't even find one of the 9/11 bad guys who was listed in the San Diego phone book. It was a total lack of government capability and indifference that allowed 9/11 to happen.

I can't wait for Bush to pack his bags and get out of town. It'll be a fine day for America and the world. We can all breathe a sigh of relief that we made it through, scarred though we'll be (and I mean that literally for the thousands of brave ones who have been and are in Iraq). It's almost over....

The issue is safety for American people. If authorities are unable to protect American people
because congress won't protect telecoms from the weasals, their will be hell to pay for the Aclu
defenders and fearmongers of gov't protection. The Aclu has no interest in protecting americans
from terror attacks, they wanted to defend the 9/11 & Gitmo terrorists. Dead people have no rights.

if your

Good! Allow the criminal telecoms to be sued for acting without a warrant and the problem goes away. It's ONLY about money. Or, perhaps they can follow the law and get warrants for wiretapping.

Boo hoo, George Bush. This is the sound of the world's smallest violin playing for you. The congress (well, half of it) actually does its job in protecting Americans' civil rights and you go on and on whining about it. You'll get no sympathy from me.

The telecoms need to pay for breaking the law. It's as simple as that. Nobody - and no corporation - is above the law. I don't even understand this concept of making things legal "retroactively" - what kind of scam is that? So anybody can break the law now and just give a politician enough money to make what they did legal after the fact? Someone needs to explain to the American people why that should even be possible.

There's a reason the telecoms should be concerned about lawsuits: what they are doing is illegal. It is preposterous for the administration to blatantly seek protection for those violating the law. Congress should respond by impeaching W for high crimes.

This was never about intelligence. See, if people who were illegally wiretapped can sue the telecoms, then there will be discovery. If there is discovery, then the telecoms have to turn over their documents. If the telecoms turn over their documents, then people in the Administration will go to jail.

It was never about intelligence. It was always about Bush covering his backside.

Who wrote this article, Karl Rove. Lets get all the facts straight and get the rest of the information. What the hell. is no one editing these stories. These companies need to answer, and the U.S. Constitution is still around, and least I hope it is. That is, if George Bush hasn't burned it.

Here's the dilemma for the Administration: If people can sue the telecoms for the illegal surveilance, then there will be discovery. If there is discovery, the telecoms have to turn over their documents. If the telecoms turn over their documents, they people in the Administration will go to jail.

This was never about intelligence gathering. It was always about covering their backsides.

This writer should not only get facts straight but should include all relevant facts. There was no mention that the House and Senate committee members were to meet today to work this out and Republicans, directed by their leadership, did not attend. Since this information was available early this afternoon and the article was updated about an hour ago, this important piece of the FISA legislation puzzle completes the picture. Also, the comment that the Senate bill was opposed by a " . . . small group of liberal senators" made me think that I was on the Fox News website by mistake. It was opposed by Senators who understand that the rule of law applies to the Bush administration and that the rights and safety of citizens should prevail over corporate interests. Further, that Bush, McConnell, Mukasey, and other spokespersons of the administration "say so" means nothing to me and whatever percentage of Americans current polls demonstrate don't believe those who have been telling us half-truths or outright lies for the past 7+ years. Shame on them all for trying to shield Bush for spying on us without cause. Immunity should not be granted.

The original FISA requirements are just fine. 9/11 didn't happen because of a lack of information, it happened because of governmental incompetency. We don't need to let government spy on Americans with no court over-sight! That's the true mark of an oppressive government.

This is exactly how a democracy degenerates into a dictatorship.

In the wake of 9/11? Please get your facts straight. According to the trial of the ext Qwest CEO, Joseph P. Nacchio, the NSA spying program started six months before 9/11. Six months before 9/11 is not "in the wake of 9/11". Here is a reference from the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485_pf.html

In the wake of 9/11? Get your facts straight. According to the trial of the ext Qwest CEO, Joseph P. Nacchio, the NSA spying program started six months before 9/11. Six months before 9/11 is not "in the wake of 9/11". Here is a reference from the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485_pf.html

If telecoms are not willing to "cooperate" without immunity, that is proof that they are well aware that they are breaking the law by "cooperating." I oppose immunity for this reason. It also completely unacceptable to grant immunity without knowing why they need it. If U.S. citizens' privacy has been invaded, the Justice Department should have to show cause. If they can't show cause, there is no need. The real question is what the Bush Administration really wants to find out with this program cause it seems to have a much wider scope than terrorism.