PDA

View Full Version : Bush: no compromise on phone immunity in spy bill


Saguaro
02-21-2008, 10:19 PM
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush said on Thursday he would not compromise with the Democratic-led Congress on his demand that phone companies that took part in his warrantless domestic spying program be shielded from lawsuits.

Bush has demanded Congress protect companies like AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications from civil lawsuits that accuse them of violating Americans' privacy rights in the administration's anti-terrorism program.

The Senate approved a measure that would grant the companies retroactive immunity but the House of Representatives has opposed it. The surveillance program began in 2001 after the September 11 attacks and some 40 lawsuits are pending.

House and Senate Democrats said they would try to find a compromise even as they said their Republican counterparts refused to permit staff to meet with them on Thursday.

"I would just tell you there's no compromise on whether these phone companies get liability protection," Bush told reporters as he traveled back from a trip to Africa.

A temporary law expired this weekend that expanded the federal government's power to track communications of suspected terrorism suspects without a court order.

Bush has contended that companies would become increasingly reluctant to help U.S. intelligence agencies without immunity and he argues that without listening to those communications, the United States is in greater danger of attack.

The issue will likely be at the forefront next week when Congress returns from a 12-day recess. Bush said his strategy for breaking the deadlock will be to keep talking about why it should be passed with immunity.

"The American people understand we need to be listening to the enemy," he said.

Democrats have countered that Bush was unnecessarily whipping up fears and said last week they were searching for common ground on the matter. Suggestions have included a secret court look at companies' actions before getting immunity or holding the government liable instead of phone companies.

"While we are disappointed that today's meeting could not reflect a bipartisan effort, we will continue to work and hope Republicans will join us to put our nation's security first," the Democratic lawmakers said in a joint statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080221/pl_nm/usa_surveillance_bush_dc;_ylt=AmMkldv9EEcuw8WSD73J s_pZ.3QA

No surprise, Bush doesn't compromise

AYFR
02-22-2008, 06:27 AM
Actually they should be shielded. They were doing what the government told them to do. Bush is the one that should be getting sued.

patriotsblade
02-22-2008, 06:35 AM
They were breaking the law Rev., the goverment telling them to do it is no excuse. That's like the old Nazi defense. "We were just following orders."

AYFR
02-22-2008, 07:19 AM
They were breaking the law Rev., the goverment telling them to do it is no excuse. That's like the old Nazi defense. "We were just following orders."

I am just saying wouldn't be more satisfying to sue Bush?

Would you tell the government no if they asked your dompany todo something? Knowing full well that said government COULD ruin you.

Trueblue
02-22-2008, 07:21 AM
That's what a democracy is all about-the government can't compel somebody to break the law.

patriotsblade
02-22-2008, 07:28 AM
I am just saying wouldn't be more satisfying to sue Bush?

Would you tell the government no if they asked your dompany todo something? Knowing full well that said government COULD ruin you.

I would absolutely tell them NO if they told me to do something illegal. Maybe they ruin me but that's highly unlikely because I believe in the justice system, not to have faith in the Constitution is un-American in my opinion. Keep in mind that the companies we are talking about are multi-billion dollar corporations that fight the government all day, everday on other issues.

Trueblue
02-22-2008, 07:46 AM
This reminds me of a story I read years ago. A young man shot and killed his father. The father had allegedly a sexual relationship with the boy's sister [his own daughter] and had beaten the boy's mother.

Child Protective Services hadn't taken any action when the man had been previously reported to them. I was talking to a CPS worker friend of mine about the incident. She said that she understood why CPS took no action, because the man worked for the IRS, and they might have been harassed about their taxes. Well I can't understand it.