The Senate version of the FISA bill protects the government and those entities who acted outside the Constitutional protections and provisions at the behest of the government. The House version protects the people and the Constitution, while still allowing surveillance and intelligence-gathering pursuant to efficient and appropriate safeguards (and it doesn't grant immunity to thsoe entities who acted extra-Constitutionally at the behest of the government without even a disclosure of how egregious those entities' actions were). The House verision is clearly the more appropriate form of this bill.

If Senator Hatch gave a fig about the Constitution and the people he's supposed to represent, he would support the House version of the FISA bill. Sadly, he cares more about protecting the government against the people than representing the interests of the people who elected him to office. It's really time for him to be sent home, and sent home in disgrace. We need someone in office who work FOR us, not against us.

Attornies linning their pockets is more important than our safety.

If government surveillance could be absolutely limited to surveillance of terrorist and other enemeies of this country I would gladly give my favor to this bill.

However the ability to surveil terrorist also gives the government the ability to surveil everone. For myself I would care less, but for the polititians who depend upon democracy in this country, the ability of the current government to peek into their secret lives and thus effect future elections, is a horrible threat.

Further since there has been so much talk about it, I really doubt that the terrorist are going to use cell phones and computer e-mail to communicate their plans. Thus it seems to me that the real reason for the government spying is for political and economic purposes.

I can't see a phone company losing a lawsuit to a terrorist, so their fear of losing lawsuits is over the domestic spying either political or business.

All of you high minded liberals who think the Democrat party is above all the corruption might want to rethink things. War for oil? Puh-leez. I know Republican legislators aren't perfect but the corruption and sleaze in the Democrat party is downright scary.
The Democrat party is owned lock, stock and barrel by Trial Lawyers and Labor Unions. Why would they block free trade with Columbia when all it would do is allow our goods to go to Columbia without tariffs? I'm starting to think that there is a more sinister group running the DNC - maybe the Chinese?

To "the high minded"

You're way off topic pard, if you can't focus, don't waste our time.

if the Democrats in the House are pandering to the trial lawyers by not waiving liability to communications companies for assisting the Feds in monitoring international communication between potential terrorists overseas then exactly how is that off topic?
I guess the truth hurts 49wrlpal50 huh?

Ultra Bob is right on target. We are told we have to give up constitutional rights in order to have laws that fight terrorists, but the laws are then used against American citizens. Case in point, recently our state attorney general used the extreme powers of search and seizure to gather information agianst a person who was sending nusance emails to his office. Banking laws that the government said they had to have to track movement of money going to terrorists are used to track everyday Americans and used, of all things, to prosecute a governor accused of using a prostitute. I am not saying the governor was wrong, but laws made to fight foreign terrorist should not be used against Americans for non terrorist activities.

Mr. Hatch,sir
I can and will not agree in the new protect America bill for the simple fact that I see this as a way for you and others in a partisian manner to pull the wool over our eye's. Do you not think we as americans have given up enough of our rights in this "war on terror" to your satisfaction?
I thought we are are nation of laws if we were not could i not steal to feed my family? Do the means justify the ends

Isn't there a way to do both?

Time is of great importance when it comes to counter terrorism, they should not be hampered down by the courts. If there is justifiable evidence or suspicion that a person is involved or connected to terrorism there should be no restriction into tapping that persons communication lines, and since it's not known who all the terrorists are or will be the law has to be general enough to encompass all possibilities.

As to the protection for constitutional rights, there also needs to be a substantial punishment for the abuse of tapping the communication lines unjustly.

This is just an idea but, after a tap is placed then it goes to the court, if the court finds it not justified, then after being sent notice of the tap, the person being tapped could file lawsuit.

I don't think, however, that communication companies should share any burden of blame, unless they are the ones that initiated an unauthorized tap.

...ANY CALLS FROM PAKISTAN OR AFGHANISTAN...WHY WOULD I CARE? IF HE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO COME AFTER SOMEONE THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY. EVER HEARD OF THE IRS?
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CALLS ROUTED THROUGH THE US- NOT CALLS FROM US CITIZENS. WHAT PART OF THAT DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND? WE CAN'T EXTEND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PEOPLE AREN'T EVEN US CITIZENS

Hatch is saying that we have to grant the telecoms immunity for their illegal actions, or else they might not cooperate when the government asks them to do something illegal in the future. That's the long and the short of it. It was blatantly illegal for AT&T to disclose the information that it did, but they did so anyways, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts.

Yep, they got paid to break the law. Now Hatch wants to terminate the investigation into their wrongdoing.

There is no reason these lawsuits shouldn't go forward. The cost of defending the lawsuit isn't even a rounding error when compared to AT&T's yearly profits, and the judicial system is perfectly capable of handling classified information. The only argument left is, "well, the damages could be crippling." They were supposed to be. Anyhow, if the telecoms were clearly following the law (as Hatch has suggested elsewhere), then AT&T will never be fined.

Finally, EFF's entire yearly operating budget is about $3M, less than AT&T pays its lead counsel. Maybe Orrin thinks they're just in it for the money, but Washington has made him cynical. Some people really do care about freedom.

And so exactly how are we supposed to head off terrorist attacks if our intelligence community is crippled?
The attitudes of many people make me think this country isn't even worth fighting for...