Bill's Page Views

This Week: 302   All-Time: 3382

My Vote  All Votes
Support This BillAyes:3
Oppose This BillNays:82

S.2248 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007

An original bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.

11/16/2007--Reported to Senate amended. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 or FISA Amendments Act of 2007 - Title I: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - (Sec. 101) Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to add a new title concernin more...

All Bill Titles See Full Bill Text See Full Voting History Show All Actions

Amendments

This bill has 69 amendments. See All Amendments


Bill Status

Make a Bill Status Widget (What's this?)
IntroducedresultVoted on by SenateresultVoted on by HouseresultConsidered By PresidentresultBill Becomes Law
October 26, 2007February 12, 2008

In the News

February 25, 2008 Sen. Herb Kohl explains why he voted for telecom immunity

To that end, on October 26, 2007, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence approved S. 2248, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act. ...

source: ACLU (press release)
Rate this article: (?)



February 25, 2008 Today's Surveillance Developments...

... bipartisan passage of the legislation (S. 2248) and chiding House leadership for going on vacation instead of acting to extend surveillance authority. ...

source: Manufacturers' Blog, DC
Rate this article: (?)



February 23, 2008 The Fear Factor

This bill, S. 2248, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2007, would grant the administration unfettered access to all ...

source: JURIST
Rate this article: (?)



54 more articles...

Blog Coverage

February 26, 2008 Government Surveillance Commercial

Government Surveillance Commercial by Wager on February 26th, 2008 A COMMERCIAL???!!!?! Talk about hiding in plain sight ... , S.2248 will allow government surveillance to go unchecked and gives retroactive immunity to

source: SOAKvsKAOS
Rate this article: (?)



February 26, 2008 Stand Up Against Administration Fear Tactics

Earlier this month, the Senate passed S. 2248, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2007, which allows for limitless warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch and includes retroactive immunity for ...

Rate this article: (?)



February 25, 2008 American Legion Commander to Congress:Pass Surveillance Law Now

DoD Photo INDIANAPOLIS (February 25, 2008) – Congress should put America’s national security ahead of frivolous lawsuits, ... enactment of S.2248, The Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA).” The bill ha

Rate this article: (?)



371 more posts...

Information made available by


Technorati

For more info about the campaign contributions behind this bill, visit its page on MAPLight.org.

Rating Filter: 5 (What's this?)

Comments (What's this?)


  • Anon-img-ex1 by srsimons | Jan 27, 2008(about 1 month ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 6.8 | Login to Rate

    Telecoms should not be granted immunity from suits alleging that they violate citizen's civil rights when they wiretap domestic phone lines without a warrant.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by wreade | Feb 01, 2008(25 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 8.6 | Login to Rate

    Let the courts decide if the telecoms acted illegally. Congress shouldn't simply grant immunity for fear of looking weak on terrorism.

  • Ozarkguru_s by OzarkGuru | Feb 01, 2008(24 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 6.0 | Login to Rate

    Telecom should not be held liable for being good corporate citizens and complying with requests by the US Government to track communications with International terrorists.

    If there is a complaint, the Gov't is not claiming immunity so sue the government agency and let an approriate special court of jurisdiction here the case.

    • Anon-img-ex1 by Anonymous | Feb 03, 2008(23 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

      In general, citizens cannot sue the government unless there's a specific law that says that they can. There's no such law in this case, so there can be no suit against the government here. If this bill passes, we'll never, ever know what really happened with the wiretaps.

    • Anon-img-ex1 by shepherd | Feb 13, 2008(13 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

      Just like judicial, legislative
      and executive branches are separate
      entities in our government process,
      corporate America should be separate
      as well. They should not be helping
      government violate our rights to
      privacy, especially without probable
      cause, reasonable suspicion or
      oversight.

      Fact is, they are complicit to the
      Bush Adminstration's scheme of violating
      FISA and immunity should not be
      tolerated by the People.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by davereed | Feb 04, 2008(22 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    OzarkGuru:

    The "I was just following orders" defense was pretty well defeated about 60 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

  • Anon-img-ex1 by jaronson | Feb 05, 2008(21 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    If telecoms did nothing wrong, they do not need immunity--especially legislated immunity.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by One_Eyed_Pony | Feb 06, 2008(20 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    HEY, If the requests ARE LAWFUL, then why do the all TELECOMM/corporations need immunity interjected into the FISA Bill?

    Blatant Violations of the CONSTITUTION... send all of them to PRISON

  • Anon-img-ex1 by Anonymous | Feb 12, 2008(14 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    Any citizen who is a constituent to a senator who voted to release telecoms of their legal liabilities in this matter should stand up on their two legs and work to replace that senator. They are traitors. They have voted to never EVER investigate the wrongdoings of the Bush Administration. This is the worst slap to our faces the senate has ever dealt. What's next? Marshall law? Google InfraGard and you will see.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by skrap | Feb 12, 2008(14 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    The list of democratic senators voting against the Dodd amendment, from
    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/2/12/115245/547

    Bayh (D-IN), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Inouye (D-HI), Johnson (D-SD), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Mikulski (D-MD), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO) Stabenow (D-MI), Webb (D-VA)

    Obama showed up to vote...Clinton did not.

    • Anon-img-ex1 by shepherd | Feb 13, 2008(13 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-20


      According to the above site, Obama did not show up to vote. Maybe I am missing your point???

      • Anon-img-ex1 by Alecto | Feb 13, 2008(13 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

        Obama showed up to vote in favor of the Dodd amendment. He didn't bother showing up for the ultimate vote, because it was obvious it was going to pass.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by Anonymous | Feb 12, 2008(14 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    Once again Feinstein shows her true colors. I, being from California, and one of her constituents, will NEVER vote for her again. Unfortunately, she is in office until 2012, so we have 4 more years of this traitor. I'm a Democrat and very, very ashamed of her. God help us all.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by dnuttle | Feb 13, 2008(13 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    The very concept of retroactive guilt or innocence or liability or immunity is to utterly foreign to our system of law that I simply can't believe that it's being given serious consideration...and in fact it appears to be about to become law.

    My personal theory about this is that the widespread spying being done without warrants or supervision is being used to gather enough dirt on the members of Congress that most of them can be sufficiently blackmailed or extorted to go along with pretty much whatever is demanded of them. As far as the telecoms, they've gotten some pretty sweet deals from the last couple of administrations (Democrat and Republican), so they have a pretty strong incentive to play ball, especially when they're told that, by definition, anything and everything they do is, if not legal, at least not something for which they can be prosecuted or sued.

    Why would anyone need retroactive immunity from anything unless they were doing something wrong, and knew only too well that they were doing something wrong?

  • Anon-img-ex1 by Anonymous | Feb 14, 2008(12 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    This bill should have never passed giving the telecommunication company's immunity.I can't believe the senators did not defeat this bill.Can it be that Bush has something on these senators that they are so scared to against him.This is another issue that the american people have no voice in.The fear factor is not going to work for Bush this time.

  • Linus_s by linus | Feb 15, 2008(11 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    It's not a matter of whether the Telecoms did anything illegal or not. Much like the rest of politics, the illusion of doing something illegal is just as bad.

    Providing immunity doesn't lay blame. Arguing "if they didn't do anything wrong, they don't need immunity" is tantamount to saying, "If you didn't commit a crime, why care if the government looks at your stuff?"

  • Anon-img-ex1 by heftyjake | Feb 15, 2008(11 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    It's time we took our freedoms back and it appears that this bill is the perfect soapbox for Democrats to stand on and call out those who have taken them from us. Who will stand?

  • Anon-img-ex1 by EricMcpherson | Feb 15, 2008(11 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    If the House doesn't get this bill signed, I think that we are dooming ourselves to a huge mistake. In this day and age, we need our intelligence to be on the ball and not lagging behind the enemy.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by frederickbaroh | Feb 15, 2008(11 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    A labyrinthine ammendment fuelled by paranoia. It's only certain effect will be a flood of financing to black hole operations.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by marilynb21 | Feb 16, 2008(10 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    I have a question for all you very smart people....why does Harry Reid allow the repubs to 'fillibuster' all the bills they want to by just saying 'we fillibuster', and then make Senator Dodd actually stand up and physically FILLIBUSTER?? Is there any way we can get rid of Harry, and get Senator Dodd in as the Majority Leader? Harry is basically useless.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by Anonymous | Feb 19, 2008(7 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    to marilynb21:

    ...you need a 2/3 majority to get cloture on a filibuster- the Democrats aren't there yet, and wont be under any leadership.

  • Anon-img-ex1 by verbunk | Feb 19, 2008(7 days ago) | Reply | Overall Rating: 5.0 | Login to Rate

    Most of the concerns here seem to be centered on the revision of FISA dealing with telecom immunity, ... which I agree with. Basically the telecom's did indeed break the law at the executive office's request, but they still went against current law (and subverted the spirit of the constitution if you ask me) by providing details about their clients to the Feds. Concerns over becoming a big brother state aside, we have a perfectly reasonable procedures law enforcement can follow to obtain warrants allowing access which telecoms must follow. There is absolutely no need (or desire, hopefully) to allow law enforcement access to any line they please at any time without oversight. I hope people are familiar with studies that found upwards of 85% of (currently) illegal were useless and unnecessary (sorry, I forget the source) so why should the American public be gung ho about bringing the telecoms onboard to giving them less oversight legally?

    I really hope the people that are roiled at this addendum can take a second to write to their rep and ask them to Vote Nay.


Add A Comment

Please Login or Signup, unless you wish to post anonymously
Comment :
Spam check :
F62b204545b7a561fb34dd8288c0791f29a852d4

type the text from the image

OpenCongress comment boards are an open forum for discussion, so please do not post any information here that you do not wish to be public.

Learn

Bills are the most common form of proposals for laws. In order to become a law, a bill must be approved by a majority vote in both the House and the Senate, and then must be approved by the President.

Data made available by


Govtrack.US

Help Open Up Congress:



OpenCongress is a joint project of the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. Questions? Comments? Contact Us