Use it or lose it.
Our Granite Roots
NH ConstitutionFair Elections FundUser loginGrow the Grassroots!DFNH GearStay in Touch with your Public Servants!Granite Roots NewsletterHands-On Elections HandbookElection Training from the NH Dept. of StateCounting the VotesWe're Counting the Votes Kit Or send your check to DFNH, PO Box 717, Concord, NH 03301 NavigationWho's newWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 104 guests online.
Blogs
Democracy for AmericaDaily Kos
Syndicate |
Senate passes FISA
OBAMA, MCCAIN, CLINTON DID NOT VOTE
Here are the 15 who tried to block the bill: Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Wyden (D-OR) The other two who didn't vote were Byrd and Kennedy, both of whom are still out for medical reasons. Yeas were 32 Democrats and 48 Republicans. SOURCE: Reuters.com Spy, phone protection bill clears Senate hurdle By Thomas Ferraro2 hours, 42 minutes ago A White House-backed spy bill to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday and headed toward final congressional approval. On a vote of 80-15, mostly Republican supporters of the bipartisan measure, which would also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock. Overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives on Friday, the bill may win needed Senate concurrence before Congress begins a holiday break the end of this week. President George W. Bush has promised to sign the measure, which would replace a temporary surveillance law that had expired in February. In addition to providing a special court review of lawsuits against telecommunication companies, the bill would increase oversight of U.S. intelligence activities and bolster privacy protection -- but not as much as civil liberties groups and a number of lawmakers want. "This bill is not a compromise. It is a capitulation," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat. Feingold has offered an amendment to strip out protection for telecommunication companies. But both Democrats and Republicans predict the amendment will be rejected. Sen. Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican and a chief negotiator of the legislation, urged passage. "We have a chance to tell the American people that the (U.S.) intelligence community on which our citizens, our troops and our allies rely ... can continue to do its job," Bond said. LAWSUITS FILED "We can tell those companies that answered their government's call for help in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks that a grateful nation stands behind them and that they will be given the civil liability protection they rightly deserve," Bond said. The bill would protect companies that participated in the warrantless domestic spying program Bush secretly began shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. About 40 lawsuits have been filed accusing AT&T Inc, Verizon Communications Inc and Sprint Nextel Corp of violating Americans' privacy rights. Damages could total in the billions of dollars. While the House-passed bill would not provide the retroactive immunity Bush had demanded, it would enable a federal district court to dismiss a suit if written certification is presented that the administration assured the companies that the program was legal. Such assurances were provided. But critics charge that Bush, in implementing the program, violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that requires secret-court approval to electronically track any foreign target in the United States. Such an effort can sweep up law-abiding Americans communicating with foreigners. Bush maintains he had the wartime power to authorize the program. But he put it under FISA jurisdiction in January 2007. Terms remain secret. Democrats control the House and Senate. Yet they have faced election-year pressure to pass the bill, fearing failure to do so would let Republicans paint them as weak on security and force them to accept what they saw as a more objectionable earlier version of the legislation. |
US ConstitutionAction AlertsElection Defense Alliance NewsVoting in NH
Iraq War Casualty CountElection IntegrityElection Integrity ResourcesBrowse eventsUpcoming events
Feature stories
|