[NYTr] Democrats vote to curb Bush's warrantless spying

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Reuters - Nov 15, 2007
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1533973720071116?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&sp=true

Democrats vote to curb Bush's warrantless spying

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying President George W. Bush, the U.S. House
of Representatives voted on Thursday to protect the privacy of
Americans in his anti-terror spying program and refused to shield phone
companies from lawsuits.

The vote in the Democratic-led House was 227-189. Lawmakers voted
largely along party lines.

The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration. If it passes both
chambers, the White House has threatened to veto the measure, warning
it would hamper electronic spying efforts, subjecting the United States
to increased risks.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the bill "fails to give our
intelligence community the tools it needs, and it fails to protect
companies facing massive lawsuits for allegedly stepping up and
answering the nation's call for help after the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

She said Bush would veto such a bill.

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer defended the measure, saying, "This
legislation gives our intelligence community the tools it needs to
listen in on those who seek to harm us while addressing concerns that
(a Bush-backed) bill passed in August could authorize warrantless
surveillance of Americans."

Democrats rejected Bush's demand for retroactive immunity for any
telecommunications company that may have taken part in the warrantless
domestic spying program begun after the September 11 attacks on the
United States in 2001.

Nearly 40 lawsuits have been filed accusing AT&T, Verizon and Sprint
Nextel Corp of violating Americans' privacy rights in helping the
government's warrantless domestic spying program.

Opponents said it would be irresponsible to grant protection for
telecommunications companies until it was determined if they violated
any laws.

Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, opposed the bill, saying, "We are
at war with terrorists who spend every day plotting attacks to kill
Americans. Our intelligence community needs effective tools to detect
and disrupt such attacks."

The White House said it was prepared to work with Congress on a
possible compromise bill that "would strengthen the nation's
intelligence capabilities while respecting the constitutional rights of
Americans."

FINAL PASSAGE UNCERTAIN

It was uncertain when or if any such bill would win final congressional
passage.

The Senate Intelligence Committee passed a bill last month to tighten
eavesdropping laws while providing the retroactive immunity for
telecommunications firms demanded by Bush.

But the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of its own on
Thursday -- with no immunity. The matter is certain to be fought out in
the full Senate where some lawmakers have suggested the government be
held liable.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that the
government receive the approval of a secret FISA court to conduct
surveillance in the United States of suspected foreign enemy targets.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush secretly authorized
warrantless surveillance of communications between people in the United
States and others overseas if one had suspected ties to terrorists.

Critics charged that program violated FISA. But Bush argued he had the
wartime power to do it. He put the program under FISA supervision in
January, yet terms remain secret.

In August, Congress bowed to the administration demands and expanded
the government's power to conduct surveillance without a court order.

The measure authorized the National Security Agency to intercept,
without a court order, communications between people in the United
States and foreign targets overseas.

The House bill would provide new safeguards.

It would require, for instance, court approval to listen in on foreign
suspects making calls into the United States. In such cases, the
government would be allowed -- without a court warrant -- to eavesdrop
on Americans on the other end of the line.

A warrant would be needed only if the American was a target.

(Editing by Howard Goller and Lori Santos)