Bipartisan Support for New FISA, Nets See 'Controversy' & 'Spying'

Photo of Brent Baker.

Overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the Senate and House agreed to a new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) the President will happily sign, with the Senate -- including 21 Democrats -- voting for it Wednesday by 69 to 29, yet NBC and ABC painted it as “controversial” based on how the bill blocks lawsuits against telecommunications companies which cooperated with the President after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Though the program tracked communication between suspected terrorists overseas and people within the United States, not all of them Americans, NBC's Brian Williams delivered a more nefarious picture of firms that had “helped to spy on Americans” and ABC's Charles Gibson referred to “the ability to listen in on Americans without a warrant.” Williams announced:

The Senate approved controversial new rules allowing the government to listen in on phone calls and read e-mails. And what happened today is controversial in large part because America's telecommunications companies get unprecedented protection from lawsuits if they helped to spy on Americans in effect.

Gibson asserted: “One of the most controversial aspects of the bill will protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for giving the government the ability to listen in on Americans without a warrant.”

On NBC, reporter Pete Williams fretted: “This dooms more than three dozen lawsuits against telephone companies and e-mail providers over what they did to help the government intercept communications after 9/11. So this means that no court can now be asked to rule on whether the Bush administration's eavesdropping program was ever constitutional.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Only Pete Williams, however, noted the foreign requirement to the monitoring: “Now the government gets authority to spy on terror suspects overseas even if they are talking to people in the U.S. and it can do that without a court order.”

In June, the bill passed the Democratic House by 293 to 129.

The AP dispatch, “Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill,” portrayed the Senate as bullied into the bill by President Bush. The lead from Washington bureau reporter Pamela Hess cited Bush's “demands” and how the telecommunication companies “helped the U.S. spy on Americans.”:

Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate approved and sent the White House a bill Wednesday to overhaul bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans....

By comparison, the WashingtonPost.com story carried a more straight-forward headline: “Senate Passes Surveillance Bill With Immunity for Telecom Firms.” The New York Times article: “Senate Backs Wiretap Bill to Shield Phone Companies.”

ABC and CBS limited coverage to short items read by their anchors.

ABC's Charles Gibson, on the Wednesday, July 9 World News:

In Washington, the Senate has passed a bill which will overhaul the rules on the government's spying powers. The vote was 69-28. One of the most controversial aspects of the bill will protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for giving the government the ability to listen in on Americans without a warrant. President Bush has been pushing hard for this bill for months.

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric got to FISA after a look at Ted Kennedy's return to the Senate following his brain cancer diagnosis: “Coming up, the lion of the Senate hears the roar of the crowd.” Couric's short update:

Also in the Senate today, final congressional approval for an extension of terrorist surveillance rules, including warrant-less wiretaps. President Bush says the law will help track terrorist activity, but opponents say it threatens the privacy of U.S. citizens. The law also shields phone companies that participate in the program from lawsuits.

NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In Washington today, the Senate approved controversial new rules allowing the government to listen in on phone calls and read e-mails. And what happened today is controversial in large part because America's telecommunications companies get unprecedented protection from lawsuits if they helped to spy on Americans in effect. Our justice correspondent Pete Williams has more tonight from our Washington bureau. And Pete, for those who haven't kept up on this story, what's it all about?

PETE WILLIAMS: Well, it's all about the administration getting basically what it wanted and by a wide margin today, 69 to28. This dooms more than three dozen lawsuits against telephone companies and e-mail providers over what they did to help the government intercept communications after 9/11. So this means that no court can now be asked to rule on whether the Bush administration's eavesdropping program was ever constitutional. Now the government gets authority to spy on terror suspects overseas even if they are talking to people in the U.S. and it can do that without a court order, but auditors will monitor whether that authority is being improperly used to target Americans indirectly. The government will also have to get approval for its surveillance plans from a federal court and the bill adds a new requirement: no eavesdropping on Americans overseas without a court order, Brian.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: All right, Pete Williams in our Washington newsroom tonight, thanks.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Funny how you never hear the

Funny how you never hear the media say "the Democratic controlled senate" when such votes come down these days. The phrase "Republican controlled senate" was thrown about by the media on a daily basis for 10 years.

The bill is to protect us

The FISA bill is to protect us against terrorists...period...overseas, who may be calling the enemy within...period...they can attempt to twist this side-ways til the cows come home with their constant fear tactic that we are all being wire-taped, we all know if this whole situation were reversed, this would of passed long ago with the truth being told of exactly what this bill is about and for our own protection here, and over-seas regarding our militiary ect. with the msm leading the way....instead of being help up and delayed for months at the risk of all mentioned above...all for political gain and money for their backers. 

Trial lawyers are very unhappy...too bad so sad...the telecoms were requested to help us against the enemy and complied with basic protection they assumed they had, til the leftists and trial lawyers got their filthy leftist hands on this...

Hillary went with her trial lawyers...voted against it...but the bigger news is their new messiah, Obama voted for it!

Where was his name mentioned in this...HUH!?

Talk about bias by omission....

Btw...as an aside...I am so glad to have to not see that over-bearing arrogant b*tch Hess anymore on television that I am at least thankful for that, just my opinion of course...I got to where I absolutely could not stand her.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Americans are not target of surveillance

As I understand it, the surveillance is done overseas and only affects people inside the U.S. if they're in contact with the object of surveillance.  But the MSM never mentions that.  And they always say "spying on Americans", but not everyone in the country is an American.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Two comments: "Bush

Two comments:

"Bush administration's eavesdropping program"?????

Williams, you are a ignorant dork. Let me explain. My old man was in the FBI during J. Edgar Hoover's reign. Wiretaps without a warrant have been commonplace since the FDR administration. So, where in the hell do you get off spreading lies, misinformation, and other gobble-de-gook?

And Perky Katie??? Kennedy is the "lion of the Senate"??? He has been and always will be a bloated piranha. Get your &*#~$ stories straight.

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell

Phonies

Where did the Lame Stream Media find all of these anti-american jerks. Media colleges are now equal to clown colleges. No education other than how to jerk people around.

 

Old, Retired and glad of it.

It’s my understanding

It’s my understanding that the reason U.S. telecom companies were asked to assist us is that more and more of foreign communication is routed, even if temporarily, through underwater communication cables to the U.S. and resides on the telecom companies computers.  This is a change from past intelligence gathering where satellites picked up the majority of foreign communications overseas.  The intelligence community did not require a warrant if the communication was gathered from outside the U.S.  If the telecom companies had refused to help us without a warrant, especially right after 9/11, who knows how much critical intelligence would have been lost.  Moreover, there can be quite a delay when a request for a warrant is submitted to the FISA court since it requires probable causeCan you imagine how the Democrats would have butchered the telecom companies if these companies had refused to assist our government after 9/11 unless they had a warrant, and we suffered another attack similar to 9/11?  What hypocrites the Democrats in Congress are!

It’s my opinion that those on the left, including most of the media, are not concerned about what they call ‘domestic spying’.  They are resisting the protection of the telecom companies from civil lawsuits because these companies helped the Bush administration,  and they hate, and I mean hate, President Bush. They have tried to undermine the Bush administration at every turn. Also, those on the left have little love for this great country and are constantly trying to tarnish its image in the eyes of the world.

Rush Limbaugh said it best: “They are actively promoting the decline of America.  They are actively promoting economic disaster.  They are actively promoting and sought to secure defeat of the United States military in Iraq, and throughout the war on terror.  They have impugned the reputations and intentions of the US military and Armed Services personnel all over the world.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  They've made it very clear that they wish the Constitution were not in their way.  In a sane political world (which we don't live in, of course) they wouldn't stand a chance. They would be a laughingstock, they would be a joke, and they would be in the process of rebuilding themselves.”

-------------------------------------------------------

 Which political party is invested in our defeat in Iraq?

I love how the MSM say the

I love how the MSM almost omit the word terrorist in their reporting. Then harp on listening/eavesdropping on Americans. Perhpas these Americans shouldn't be receiving calls from terrorists or their agents. I am sure there are a few Americans that might be eavesdropped on mistakingly, but...I haven't heard of one of those Americans arrested for what might have been heard. Oh if the Feds mistakingly listen in on my conversations, please pick me up a case of Bud Light and some wine and what time is my sons lacrosse game again?

I love how the MSM say

athoughtfor2-----Great thought!!!!

Lawbreaking being downplayed

Why settle for such a mealy-mouthed term like "controversial" when we have a much more appropriate word like "illegal"?

Thirty something years ago when Nixon was newly out of office people were stunned to hear him claim "if the president does it, that means it's not illegal," which runs completely counter to the idea that we live under the rule of law rather than a monarch. Here we are again with a president asserting, because of national security concerns, he can break the law with impunity. Furthermore, any entity helping him break the law should also be immune to prosecution.

Yesterday was a sad day for this country.

the FISA courts themselves

the FISA courts themselves are unconstitutional, the President has the inherent Constitutional Authority to eavesdrop on Foreign Threats....and this is all something that has been ruled on for years by SCOTUS already.   FISA itself should be challenged.

 

good debate at the Federalist Society on this matter:

 

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.13/default.asp

Please justify your

Please justify your assertion that the program is "Illegal."

Can the US military monitor radio communications by enemy forces engaged in battle in CONUS?

If an enemy force such as, lets say 500 Cuban Paratroops were dropped in Florida with orders to attack US crowds, Infrastructure, and political targets, would the US army have to get a warrent to monitor their communications?

How about if these same parartroops infiltrated via sea in small groups of 2-3 personnel?

It's not very complicated

Ten minutes on Google is much more than enough time to ascertain what the president did was illegal.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222
of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies
are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers'
calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those
calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as
wireless calls, also are covered.

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush
signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping
without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since
argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to
proceed. Link

That's just not how our country works. The president cannot violate the law with an executive order. The power to make law is vested with the people's representatives in Congress.

In the case of the NSA's

In the case of the NSA's international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant.

Of calls originating in a foreign land which have no expectation of privacy.

I notice you ducked the question in total regarding enemy operations on US soil.

Please return to it and explain how this applies in todays world.

Your war games scenarios don't interest me

I don't play Dungeons & Dragons either.

Here's someone else's opinion on the legality of Bush's wiretapping program:

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.” Link

So, you obviously think

So, you obviously think that if the US military were to lissten to the conversations of enemy soldiers operating in Florida, we would be violating the law.

Very broad of you.  And delusional.

Back in the pre-WWII days, one of FDR's top folks in the perenially left leaning State Department, Henry Stimson - gave up the best quote on listening in to enemy communications from a liberals point of view when he said "Gentlemen do not read other gentlemens mail."

Need I say more?

 

don't forget the Paultards

don't forget the Paultards on the right, are on the same side as these people on this issue and the decline of this nation.

Such an intelligent & detailed critique

How to respond to such deep intellect when I'm so impressed with the Republicans' record?? Yep, I lose.
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.