Passing FISA with telecom immunity

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Sad. Though its a step in the right direction, letting the telecom's off the hook just proves that the big guns get away with whatever they want. The more money you have, the more powerful you are.

Obama said the right things, that he would like to punish them in the future, but signed on to the bill anyway. Disappointing.

Responsibility and accountibility. Who needs it.

[Rohirrim]

Just another piece of evidence in the overwhelming case proving that the American people are no longer represented in Washington. Period.

[orangeatheist]

letting the telecom's off the hook

You made a funny.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sad. Though its a step in the right direction, letting the telecom's off the hook just proves that the big guns get away with whatever they want. The more money you have, the more powerful you are.
Obama said the right things, that he would like to punish them in the future, but signed on to the bill anyway. Disappointing.
Responsibility and accountibility. Who needs it.Yep, money talks. This is the reason I won't use AT&T since they gave information on millions of people without nary a word. Verizon refused and so did a couple of others.

[Odysseus]

I used to work for Qwest. I would love to start a Qwest thread just so I can rail on the corruption of just ONE of the many corrupt telecos. The whole deregulation of ATT was a farce and the baby bells are all reunited except for my old buddy Qwest.

The problem with industry politics is until you are in a position to change those kinds of things you end up having to go along for survival sake.

It's too bad.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

You made a funny.

HAHA so i did

[Traveler]

Sad day in America. Why Dems caved is beyond me.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I used to work for Qwest. I would love to start a Qwest thread just so I can rail on the corruption of just ONE of the many corrupt telecos. The whole deregulation of ATT was a farce and the baby bells are all reunited except for my old buddy Qwest.

The problem with industry politics is until you are in a position to change those kinds of things you end up having to go along for survival sake.

It's too bad.This is very true. A big part of that is the mentality of the voters that forces these positions by candidates and elected officials.

[Rohirrim]

Sad day in America. Why Dems caved is beyond me.

Kucinich was the lone voice shouting out to those chicken****s what it meant to stand up for the Constitution. Pelosi's appeasement speech should have earned her a face full of ****. I despise that cowardly b****.

[Spider]

Spineless ****ing wonders .........

[Spider]

Vote Pelosi out , Reid out and the rest of the chicken**** bastards

[spdirty]

Vote Pelosi out , Reid out and the rest of the chicken**** bastards

^5 :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Vote Pelosi out , Reid out and the rest of the chicken**** bastards

+1

F@cking traitors.

[BABronco]

I'd vote just about any name you recognize out....

[mhgaffney]

Cindy Sheehan was going to run against Pelosi. I hope she hasn't bowed out for some reason.

She is a smart and articulate woman and could beat Pelosi, who has betrayed her base of support. SF is one of the most progressive districts in the nation.

[cutthemdown]

Sad day in America. Why Dems caved is beyond me.

you don't think there is chance that they think it was best for the security of the country?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

you don't think there is chance that they think it was best for the security of the country?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the security of the country.

There was nothing wrong with FISA as it stood.

This is about CYA for BushCo.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

you don't think there is chance that they think it was best for the security of the country?No, it's about money.

[cutthemdown]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the security of the country.

There was nothing wrong with FISA as it stood.

This is about CYA for BushCo.

Then that could only mean the Dems and Repubs are in on everything together.

[Dudeskey]

Then that could only mean the Dems and Repubs are in on everything together.

Ain't that about a bitch...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9KVTfcAyYGg&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9KVTfcAyYGg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Cito Pelon]

Sad. Though its a step in the right direction, letting the telecom's off the hook just proves that the big guns get away with whatever they want. The more money you have, the more powerful you are.

Obama said the right things, that he would like to punish them in the future, but signed on to the bill anyway. Disappointing.

Responsibility and accountibility. Who needs it.

I agree completely.

[Cito Pelon]

Yep, money talks. This is the reason I won't use AT&T since they gave information on millions of people without nary a word. Verizon refused and so did a couple of others.

Actually I think only Qwest refused to go along.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Then that could only mean the Dems and Repubs are in on everything together.

This wouldn't be the first time the Dems have caved to the smirking sociopath.

That's why I told them to pound sand and to take me off their mailing list three years ago.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Actually I think only Qwest refused to go along.You may be right. I know Verizon had refused initially but maybe they gave in.

------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20th, 2008 House Falls Down on the Job (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/house-falls-down)

Posted by Hugh D'Andrade (http://www.eff.org/about/staff/hugh-dandrade)
The House of Representatives today has fallen down on the job. By passing the FISA Amendments Act (293-129, with 105 Democrats in favor), they voted to give this lame duck President an undeserved parting gift by passing immunity for telcoms that helped the President violate the Constitution by participating in the NSA's massive and illegal (http://www.eff.org/nsa/hepting) spying program.


While Speaker Pelosi (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/intern_survival_guide.html#comment-500393) and President Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080620-1.html) describe it as a "balanced bill" with "bipartisan support," the millions of Americans whose privacy rights have been violated by the President's illegal spying program seem to have been left out of the equation.
Senator Bond's gloating statement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20fisa.html) to the New York Times showed the true picture: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get." The Washington Post wrote that the bill "hands President Bush one of the last major legislative victories (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html) he is likely to achieve." And the San Francisco Chronicle, writing from Speaker Pelosi's home district, called the vote "weak, timid, spineless." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/20/ED8D11BV4T.DTL)

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/20/ED8D11BV4T.DTL)
To say that EFF is disappointed in the House Leadership's support for this bill is an understatement. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, so vocal in their opposition to telecom immunity last March, capitulated to a dangerous "compromise" that gives the telecoms and the Bush Administration what they have been demanding for over a year: Protection from court cases that threaten to uncover the extent of the President's illegal spying program.


Many Democrats stood up for the rule of law, and they deserve our thanks. Senators Conyers (http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=990) and Nadler (http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny08_nadler/AgainstFISACompromise_062008.html) have been consistent and vocal in their staunch opposition to immunity. Senator Feingold has spoken out as well, saying that the bill "is not a compromise, it is a capitulation." (http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm)

(http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm)
Republican Senator Arlen Specter has shown himself more supportive of the rule of law than Speaker Pelosi on this issue: "I am opposed to the proposed legislation because it does not require a judicial determination that what the telephone companies have done in the past is constitutional. It is totally insufficient to grant immunity for the telephone companies’ prior conduct based merely on the written assurance from the administration that the spying was legal. (http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=a64d90e3-f406-72b5-56ed-fa0512b90a3c&Region_id=&Issue_id=)"


As the fight moves to the Senate, we now look to Senators Leahy, Dodd and Feingold to lead the opposition to the immunity provisions in the Senate version of the bill. Contact your Senators now and tell them to stand strong. (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=389&pg=makeACall)
Related Issues: NSA Spying (http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying)

[Spider]

We need a terminator that is a Dem ......... Kick ass and take names ..... I would do it , but I have ot be at work tomorrow , we have 1,300 tones of dirt and rock to move .......

[kappys]

Giant corporations getting a freebie from the government. Hardly a shocker.

[alkemical]

Giant corporations getting a freebie from the government. Hardly a shocker.



Same with the government stealing what's ours.

[alkemical]

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/27/att-billing-site-mak.html

AT&T billing site makes jokes about company's participation in warrantless wiretapping?

http://www.consumer.att.com/onlinebilling/images/landing_feature_top_right.gif

[W*GS]

This wouldn't be the first time the Dems have caved to the smirking sociopath.

That's why I told them to pound sand and to take me off their mailing list three years ago.

It wasn't until merely three years ago that you dissociated yourself from the Democratic Party?

Wow.

[sisterhellfyre]

Then that could only mean the Dems and Repubs are in on everything together.

Gee, ya think? Welcome to the last 100 years, dude.

Regards,
m.

[alkemical]

Gee, ya think? Welcome to the last 100 years, dude.

Regards,
m.

lol

[alkemical]

See what they are telling us:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/w/b/bush_finger_flip.jpg

[Cito Pelon]

You may be right. I know Verizon had refused initially but maybe they gave in.

------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20th, 2008 House Falls Down on the Job (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/house-falls-down)

Posted by Hugh D'Andrade (http://www.eff.org/about/staff/hugh-dandrade)
The House of Representatives today has fallen down on the job. By passing the FISA Amendments Act (293-129, with 105 Democrats in favor), they voted to give this lame duck President an undeserved parting gift by passing immunity for telcoms that helped the President violate the Constitution by participating in the NSA's massive and illegal (http://www.eff.org/nsa/hepting) spying program.


While Speaker Pelosi (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/06/intern_survival_guide.html#comment-500393) and President Bush (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080620-1.html) describe it as a "balanced bill" with "bipartisan support," the millions of Americans whose privacy rights have been violated by the President's illegal spying program seem to have been left out of the equation.
Senator Bond's gloating statement (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20fisa.html) to the New York Times showed the true picture: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get." The Washington Post wrote that the bill "hands President Bush one of the last major legislative victories (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061901545.html) he is likely to achieve." And the San Francisco Chronicle, writing from Speaker Pelosi's home district, called the vote "weak, timid, spineless." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/20/ED8D11BV4T.DTL)

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/20/ED8D11BV4T.DTL)
To say that EFF is disappointed in the House Leadership's support for this bill is an understatement. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, so vocal in their opposition to telecom immunity last March, capitulated to a dangerous "compromise" that gives the telecoms and the Bush Administration what they have been demanding for over a year: Protection from court cases that threaten to uncover the extent of the President's illegal spying program.


Many Democrats stood up for the rule of law, and they deserve our thanks. Senators Conyers (http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=990) and Nadler (http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny08_nadler/AgainstFISACompromise_062008.html) have been consistent and vocal in their staunch opposition to immunity. Senator Feingold has spoken out as well, saying that the bill "is not a compromise, it is a capitulation." (http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm)

(http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm)
Republican Senator Arlen Specter has shown himself more supportive of the rule of law than Speaker Pelosi on this issue: "I am opposed to the proposed legislation because it does not require a judicial determination that what the telephone companies have done in the past is constitutional. It is totally insufficient to grant immunity for the telephone companies’ prior conduct based merely on the written assurance from the administration that the spying was legal. (http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=a64d90e3-f406-72b5-56ed-fa0512b90a3c&Region_id=&Issue_id=)"


As the fight moves to the Senate, we now look to Senators Leahy, Dodd and Feingold to lead the opposition to the immunity provisions in the Senate version of the bill. Contact your Senators now and tell them to stand strong. (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?alertId=389&pg=makeACall)
Related Issues: NSA Spying (http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying)

I'm sure I'm right about Qwest being the only Telecom that refused to go along with the internal spying. That is why the rest of them put the fullcourt press on to get immunity. The rest of them could have been ruined by lawsuits, while Qwest picked up ascendancy.

It was a sad day in the US when that bill was passed, it really makes me wonder what my vote is actually worth.

[Bronco Jamus]

I'm sure I'm right about Qwest being the only Telecom that refused to go along with the internal spying. That is why the rest of them put the fullcourt press on to get immunity. The rest of them could have been ruined by lawsuits, while Qwest picked up ascendancy.

It was a sad day in the US when that bill was passed, it really makes me wonder what my vote is actually worth.

You can look that up.

[Cito Pelon]

You can look that up.

Look what up?

[Odysseus]

Ain't that about a b****...
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9KVTfcAyYGg&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9KVTfcAyYGg&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Rest in Peace George.

[Odysseus]

Actually I think only Qwest refused to go along.

I wonder why Qwest is the only Baby Bell not invited back to Ma Bell's house?

[alkemical]

Look what up?

Heh, how much your vote costs.... LOL!

[sisterhellfyre]

Heh, how much your vote costs.... LOL!

Reminds me of an old joke...

Man to Woman: "Would you sleep with me for $50,000?"

Woman: "Well, yes, probably."

Man: "Would you sleep with me for $5?"

Woman: "What kind of girl do you think I am???"

Man: "We already know that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

Regards,
m.

[alkemical]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON — The Senate gave final approval on Wednesday to a major expansion of the government’s surveillance powers, handing President Bush one more victory in a series of hard-fought clashes with Democrats over national security issues.

The measure, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, is the biggest revamping of federal surveillance law in 30 years. It includes a divisive element that Mr. Bush had deemed essential: legal immunity for the phone companies that cooperated in the National Security Agency wiretapping program he approved after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The vote came two and a half years after public disclosure of the wiretapping program set off a fierce national debate over the balance between protecting the country from another terrorist strike and ensuring civil liberties. The final outcome in Congress, which opponents of the surveillance measure had conceded for weeks, seemed almost anticlimactic in contrast.

[TailgateNut]

The goverment and our reps are bought by, and sold to the highest bidder. One can hope for change, but the likelyhood of change is akin to winning the lottery. I could happen, BUT.....!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The goverment and our reps are bought by, and sold to the highest bidder. One can hope for change, but the likelyhood of change is akin to winning the lottery. I could happen, BUT.....!

Yep.

They are all complicit in a crime - Bush broke the law, and the reps are driving the getaway car.

As for the telecoms, if they did nothing illegal, then why would they need immunity from prosecution?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/bushe-avesdrops.jpg
"Screw the Constitution.
I'll wiretap whoever I want!"
http://www.bartcop.com/tutu-senators-pelosi-2007-small.jpg
"We don't mind..."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush signs spy bill and draws lawsuit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/pl_nm/usa_surveillance_dc_7;_ylt=AmH9k2QLQ14xxoIhqqld_KA E1vAI)
By Randall Mikkelsen Thu Jul 10, 5:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy.

"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections.

"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power, and that's exactly what this law allows," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in announcing the suit.

The action was filed on behalf of human-rights groups, journalists, labor organizations and others who say they fear the law will allow the U.S. government to monitor their activities, including compiling of critical reports on the United States.

Bush quickly signed the bill a day after Congress gave it final approval, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama dropping earlier opposition to vote for passage. Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, has supported the bill but was absent for Wednesday's vote.

The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

The administration says the measure will allow it to swiftly track terrorists. But the suit charges the law permits warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens who may have legal and legitimate reasons for contacting people targeted by government spying.

The bill seeks to minimize such eavesdropping on Americans, but the suit says the safeguards are inadequate.

The law lets government "conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it's conducting the surveillance," said ACLU national security director Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney in the suit.

The most contentious issue in negotiations over the bill was a provision that grants liability protection to telecommunication companies that took part in a warrantless domestic spying program Bush began after the September 11 attacks.

The law shields those firms from billions of dollars in potential damages from privacy lawsuits.

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency, and ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson called it "very disappointing."

The Democrat's campaign had earlier said he would support efforts to block legislation with a telecommunications immunity provision, but Obama voted for the overall bill Bush signed after casting a losing vote to strip the immunity provision.

"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise," Obama said on his campaign Web site.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/unfit-fisa.jpg
</center>

[alkemical]

Bush signs spy bill and draws lawsuit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/pl_nm/usa_surveillance_dc_7;_ylt=AmH9k2QLQ14xxoIhqqld_KA E1vAI)
By Randall Mikkelsen Thu Jul 10, 5:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy.

"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections.

"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power, and that's exactly what this law allows," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in announcing the suit.

The action was filed on behalf of human-rights groups, journalists, labor organizations and others who say they fear the law will allow the U.S. government to monitor their activities, including compiling of critical reports on the United States.

Bush quickly signed the bill a day after Congress gave it final approval, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama dropping earlier opposition to vote for passage. Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, has supported the bill but was absent for Wednesday's vote.

The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

The administration says the measure will allow it to swiftly track terrorists. But the suit charges the law permits warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens who may have legal and legitimate reasons for contacting people targeted by government spying.

The bill seeks to minimize such eavesdropping on Americans, but the suit says the safeguards are inadequate.

The law lets government "conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it's conducting the surveillance," said ACLU national security director Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney in the suit.

The most contentious issue in negotiations over the bill was a provision that grants liability protection to telecommunication companies that took part in a warrantless domestic spying program Bush began after the September 11 attacks.

The law shields those firms from billions of dollars in potential damages from privacy lawsuits.

McCain criticized Obama's vote in favor of the law as an inconsistency, and ACLU Legislative Director Caroline Fredrickson called it "very disappointing."

The Democrat's campaign had earlier said he would support efforts to block legislation with a telecommunications immunity provision, but Obama voted for the overall bill Bush signed after casting a losing vote to strip the immunity provision.

"Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise," Obama said on his campaign Web site.


Ya, **** you man. (not you beerslug, or at least in this instance ;) )

[alkemical]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support

AT&T Throws Party to Support Dems Who Voted to Grant Telecoms Immunity for Illegal Domestic Wiretapping

[alkemical]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/rights-group-su.html?cid=131441792#comment-131441792

Rights Group Suing AT&T for Spying Sues NSA and Cheney, Too

Just a day before the government will try again to get AT&T out of court for allegedly helping with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans, the scrappy civil liberties group suing the telecom giant filed another suit -- this one against the government and top officials involved in the spying.

By suing the government directly, the EFF is attempting to undermine the government's plan to use a new power handed to it by Congress in July. The so-called telecom immunity provision nearly automatically forces a judge to dismiss lawsuits against companies accused of helping the government spy -- without court approval -- on the phone and internet communications of Americans.

Last week, the government told a federal court judge overseeing some 38 cases against the telecoms that it would file those papers on AT&T's behalf by Friday.

Thursday's potential class action suit (.pdf) against the government -- filed in federal district court in Northern California -- seeks a halt to the program, an accounting of who was spied on and damages for the five named plaintiffs.

It also names high government officials -– in their official and personal capacities -- putting them at risk of fines they would be personally liable for.

Among those listed – former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, along with current and former heads of intelligence agencies involved in the spying.

"In addition to suing AT&T, we've now opened a second front in the battle to stop the NSA's illegal surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and hold personally responsible those who authorized or participated in the spying program," said senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston.

The suit argues the spying violated federal wiretap law, the First Amendment's guarantee of anonymous speech and the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

Others have challenged the government program directly, but no one has succeeded so far. The EFF hopes the whistle-blower evidence it has used to keep the AT&T case alive will also work to prove it has a right to sue the feds as well.

The EFF plans to contest the legality of the so-called telecom immunity powers -- but wants to have another avenue to pursue its goal of having the program declared illegal.

Though the full extent of the secret spying is not known, media reports indicate the government collected phone calls and emails – with the help of American telecoms -- where one party was inside the U.S. and one was outside the country.

Until recently, wiretapping law required court orders to collect that information inside the U.S.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely legalized did not immunize the government or government officials.

The EFF filed suit against AT&T in January 2006, alleging that the company massively violated federal wiretapping laws by turning over billions of phone records to the NSA and letting them building a room for the NSA to spy on the internet.

The suit relies heavily on company documents provided to it by former AT&T technician Mark Klein, who says the NSA controlled a secret internet spying room in an AT&T facility on Folsom Street in San Francisco.

That suit so annoyed the government that the President threatened to veto a bill expanding his ability to spy without warrants unless Congress also included retroactive legal immunity for telecoms being sued for allegedly helping the government warrantlessly spy on Americans.

After a drawn-out fight over immunity that included a threatened filibuster, the Democratically controlled Congress acceded in July to Bush's demand for immunity.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said it was too early for the government to respond -- given it hasn't even seen the suit yet.

"Once we are served, we will make a determination about how we will respond in court," Miller said.

Thursday's suit is known as Jewel v. NSA, while the AT&T suit is known as Hepting v. AT&T.

UPDATE: The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the suit sought damages for millions of potential class members. The suit seeks an injunction for all, but fines for only the named five plaintiffs.

Credit: AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke Brita

[baja]

God this is such nic picing. Why do they insist on picking on Cheney he is just trying to get the terrorists and make a little retirement money. So what is 100's of thousands have died they should have thought of that before they allowed bin laden over in Afghanistan to attack the WTC with Assad like expertise. Just because the Bush / Cheney administration did nothing with the multiple warnings about attacks from terrorists using air craft is no reason to investigate them, god anyone can make a mistake. I say leave the poor guy along he had your and my interests in mind when he did all these things, right.