Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
03.14.2008 4:29 pm

Bond firm on intelligence bill

  • Email this
  • Print this

 

WASHINGTON — The debate over FISA and U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts has become increasingly bitter the past couple of days in the nation’s capital.

Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Friday accused House Democrats of gambling with our national security by passing a highly-partisan Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill. 

          “While the threat level remains high, some in this country, and in Congress, want us to let our guard down,” Bond said. “Letting our guard down is not a choice, it’s an invitation to disaster.”

          Earlier Friday afternoon on a party-line vote of 213-197, the House passed what Bond termed “a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill that would hurt our crucial ability to listen in on terrorists planning to attack American families here at home or our troops in the field.”     

“Unlike the partisan and flawed House bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan terrorist surveillance compromise that had been fully vetted by the intelligence community with an overwhelming 68-29 vote.”

          Bond criticized Democrats for “rolling the dice with the security of American families and our troops in the field by leaving for another two-week recess without passing a terrorist surveillance bill that can be signed into law.”

     

74 comments

Comments are closed.

Balh…blah..blah, kitty! Democrats bad, GOP good! GOP fight “terror!” Democrats “surrender!”
Geez, make sure this clown is off the booze and taking his meds. He votes to the right of Jesse Helms, and claims to be from Missouri? I think he lives in a bottle inside the GOP Beltway!

http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/11/09/real-terror-is-fear/

— Tim Hogan
5:43 pm March 14th, 2008

“Kit” Bond needs to be retired next election. The demagoguery that has been spewed by both Bush and his handmaidens on this issue is unprecedented in its inaccuracy. I seriously wonder how this guy sleeps at night—how many staff people does it take to keep him half-way versed on his convoluted and misleading position statements? McCaskill was also disappointing in her recent vote. Thank God the House showed better judgment—and in this case, more balls!

— gaydem
12:47 pm March 15th, 2008

Yeah! I mean, why would anyone in their right mind think we even NEED to be collecting intelligence from our enemies? That might make them think we don’t trust them, and we wouldn’t want people who hate us thinking maybe we don’t like them. As long as we show off good intentions, that should be enough!

Seriously, the two people commenting on this are the two people I trust least to have an “unbiased” opinion. To the right of Jesse Helms? Try reading your history. Demagoguery? Why? Because he thinks that maybe, just maybe, we might want to get a good bill passed-one that actually lets our intelligence community do their jobs?

Both of you need to stop the personal attacks on Bond. Show some class….oh wait, I forgot your party affiliation. Never mind.

— Nick Haynes
1:27 pm March 15th, 2008

There is no need for retro active immunity because the telecoms will de indemnified under the Government Contractor Defense which was expanded under the SAFETY amendment mad to the Homeland Security Act of 2003 for just this purpose.

Please explaing to me why there is a need for the retroactive immunity when government contractors already have such a defense to litigation, known as the “government contractor defense”, where they can be excused from tort liability if their performance met government specs of their contract? I find it absolutely incredulous that the Telecoms would have acted as they did if it were not for this….. This is exactly why SAFETY was passed to expand the former statue provideing for indemnifcation in cases such as this…. as well as the confidentiality of any evidence at trial that if released presented a threat to national security not to mention Bush’s executive orders of 2001 which expanded the protections afford contractors under the first HSA. The Schumer amendent in effect indemnifies the Telecom by substiting the Fed Gov as the Defendant but with one major. The language of Sec. 863 (the core of the SAFETY Act) is quite broad, and includes among other things:

- “There shall exist a Federal cause of action for claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed.” This allows plaintiffs injured by terrorist acts to sue companies where anti-terrorism systems have been deployed, but as we’ll see, it’s a very limited right.

- “Such Federal cause of action shall be brought only for claims for injuries that are proximately caused by sellers that provide qualified anti-terrorism technology to Federal and non-Federal government customers.” The lawsuit can only address injuries which result from the anti-terrorism technology’s use, not the terrorist act itself. Thus, a barrier maker can be responsible for injuries sustained because of the barrier, but not because of a bomb. (a very simplistic example)

- “No punitive damages intended … may be awarded”. This is huge, because it eliminates one of the major risks of litigation for corporate defendants and allows corporate executives to calculate litigation risk much more accurately. It also takes away a major bargaining chip of the plaintiff. In cases where there might be egregious conduct by the defendant-corporation, it may deprive the plaintiff of a remedy that he/she would normally have. There are other damages provisions which also substantially reduce the risk of a big payout for corporate defendants in the Act, particularly in the area of non-economic damages (i.e. damages for losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium).

- “Any recovery by a plaintiff in an action under this section shall be reduced by the amount of collateral source compensation”. Okay, so I’m intrigued by this part because I just covered Torts in my bar review class. But this is very significant, because in most litigation the collateral source rule works exactly the opposite. That is, the defendant cannot take advantage of plaintiff’s insurance by having the damages offset by the amount of insurance money. Again, this substantially reduces the potential liability of a corporate defendant here, because many plaintiffs will have some kind of insurance (health, life or other) that will compensate them in any kind of terrorist attack.

- “Should a product liability or other lawsuit be filed … there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the government contractor defense applies in such lawsuit. This presumption shall only be overcome by evidence showing that the Seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting information to the Secretary…” If the contractor’s system was certified, and if the contractor complied with the specs of that certification, there can be no liability according to the “government contractor” defense.

There are also regulations implementing this Act which define these terms in more detail and explain exactly how it shoudl be applied. But for the most part, all we really need to know as citizens is that it gives extensive litigation immunity to companies that 1) get certified by DHS and 2) make an anti-terrorism system that 3) is deployed at the time/place of a terrorist thrat which under the Act is very broadly defined.

This is why the Telecoms aren’t asking for retroactive immunity and their profession organizations are not lobbyting for. Does anyone really think that ATT counsel was not consulted before the company did the administration’s bidding.

What the Administration is demanding is to prevent a civil trial and the discovery process that is part of the litigation that would reveal the Administration’s criminality. The Telecoms have no concerns. The SAFETY act expanded FOIA so no national security issues could be made in issue but the administration illegal activities are not national securtiy issues.

— Luigi
10:05 am March 17th, 2008

corporate bond…

I found your post comments while searching Google. Very relevant especially as this is not an issue which a lot of peaople are conversant with….

— corporate bond
4:20 am March 19th, 2008

Insurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance…

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

Health Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance…

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…

Slot machines…

Slot machine…

— Slot machines
6:33 pm April 24th, 2008

Poker Online…

Online Poker…

— Poker Online
7:03 pm April 25th, 2008

Online Poker Sites…

Online Poker Sites
Casino Games
Play Poker
Online Gambling
Keno
Free Slots
Top Online Casinos…

— Online Poker Sites
5:18 pm April 28th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All