President Bush said he will not sign a new eavesdropping measure passed by a House committee yesterday that would restrict surveillance in foreign countries and would deny immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped the government conduct warrantless wiretapping after the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Bush said that legislation passed by the House Judiciary Committee yesterday “would take us backward.”
“While the House bill is not final, my administration has serious concerns about some of its provisions, and I am hopeful that the deficiencies in the bill can be fixed,” Mr. Bush said.
Democrats vowed not to compromise on key provisions, including approval from a special court of any surveillance of foreign targets communicating with people inside the United States.
“This bill … successfully provides the national security tools needed to go after terrorists and protects vital rights of Americans,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat.
Kenneth Wainstein, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s national security division, said the proposed rules would present a huge obstacle to intelligence agencies, which can’t predict when calls or e-mails from foreign targets might be directed within the United States.
“We won’t know necessarily where that communication goes,” Mr. Wainstein said. “It means we would still have to go to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court for the vast majority.”
Mr. Conyers, however, said the bill “insists that procedures be in place — approved by the FISA court — to ensure that no American is being targeted, and that his or her privacy is protected.”
The other main sticking point is that Democrats are refusing administration requests to give legal immunity to telecommunications companies for their cooperation with the post-September 11 secret surveillance program unless the Bush administration tells Congress what specific actions the companies took.
“It would be grossly irresponsible for Congress to immunize companies without knowing whether their conduct was legal or not,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat. “Congress should not blindly grant blanket immunity for such a serious matter.”
Mr. Wainstein argued that the companies “stepped up and answered the government’s request to assist the government in efforts to protect against a second wave of attacks after 9/11.”
“It just seems, sort of at a gut level … unfair to now turn around and have them face, you know, not only the costs and difficult consequences of having to defend against litigation but … potentially crushing liability, you know, to the tune of billions of dollars,” Mr. Wainstein said.
The White House is seeking to update surveillance law permanently, after Congress enacted a six-month provision in August.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.