in their own words
 |
|
|
 Subscribe to the WHPC RSS Feed
|
White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 2/25/08 (FISA Bill and Telecom Retroactive Immunity)
— Monday, February 25, 2008 — Q Is the President's position that he would veto it without retroactive immunity? MS. PERINO: That has been his position for a long time, and the reason is because you can't have -- without the cooperation of the companies, we won't have a program. You know, if we had a nationalized telecommunication system, then we -- the government could do it on its own, but in our system of government and the way that we are set up as a capitalist-style country, we have to have the cooperation of the private sector. They have the technology, they have the means, and they want to cooperate, but they have been burdened with over 40 lawsuits, class-action lawsuits that would -- that, one, already are costing them lots of money to deal with. And if the suits were to go forward, it could cost them possibly billions. And that cost is going to be borne by the consumers of those businesses, the customers of those businesses. But more importantly, the companies at this point are saying that they are growing increasingly reluctant to continue to work with us because, even though they want to, they are concerned about the trial lawyer lawsuits that are pending. Q Dana, critics would say that -- MS. PERINO: Reluctantly so. And it took a lot of work on behalf of the Justice Department and the office of Director of National Intelligence to work with the companies to work with companies to -- work with them to tell them what we need, and to tell them that we are going to continue to push for prospective and, more importantly, retroactive liability protection. Q Who gave them the right to break the law? MS. PERINO: Nobody broke the law, Helen. That might be your opinion, but nobody broke the law. Q When these companies -- when no warrant is given, and they didn't break the law? MS. PERINO: Helen, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts. Q Oh, come on, let's -- MS. PERINO: And the facts are that companies were asked to help, and they were helped -- Q Why can't they get -- MS. PERINO: -- and they allowed -- they helped with a legal program that has helped save lives. Q Who told them they could break the law? MS. PERINO: That is just -- that's not true, Helen. Q Is it not the case, as the writers of the op-ed in today's Post claim, that the law protects all of this until August? MS. PERINO: There are -- it's a little bit more complex than that, but there are certainly directives that were approved last August when the Protect America Act was passed. Q For how long? MS. PERINO: For one year. But it's not for -- it's not necessarily -- that does not necessarily apply to all the new targets. And it doesn't apply necessarily to maybe new companies or new providers that we would need to work with in the future, that might not already be under a directive that we're -- Q But one of your complaints of prospective. They don't affect anything that's going on right now. MS. PERINO: That's not necessarily the case. As you heard in the letter -- you didn't hear from him, but in the letter that Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent on Friday -- that there were several days last week where we lost information. Late Friday night there was a company that agreed reluctantly to continue to cooperate with us. But one of the things you have to understand is in the world -- Q They lost information because companies wouldn't cooperate. MS. PERINO: Correct. There was -- they are reluctant to cooperate. And during that time frame when they were trying to work with them to get them to cooperate, and to give them the comfort that they needed to be willing partners, it just took a little while. And then once that was given on Saturday morning, that the Justice Department and the Office of Director -- the DNI, put out a statement saying that they had gotten this cooperation. But this is not the kind -- this is not the way we should be running an intelligence program where you are trying to track terrorists who are calling into or out of America. We don't want to have to be having our lawyers and other professionals in the intelligence community having to coax companies to cooperate. These companies want to cooperate. I mean, all they're saying is that they want the retroactive liability protection which passed the Senate 68-29. Dana Perino | FISA | Helen | President Bush | Press Briefing | Vetoes | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, FISA, Helen, President Bush, Press Briefing, Vetoes, White House Press Corps
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:14 PM  White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/19/07 (Senate FISA Bill) — Friday, October 19, 2007 — Q The White House has allowed Senator Rockefeller to see some key documents that he'd like to see. I'm wondering if, in general terms, you can describe those documents and perhaps lay out who else in Congress he may allow to see them. MS. PERINO: Well, I think it's premature to say who else might see them. The Senate Intelligence Committee and Senator Rockefeller and Senator's Bond's staff had showed a willingness to want to include in their legislation retroactive liability protection for companies that were alleged to have helped the United States in the days after 9/11. Because they were willing to do that, we were willing to show them some of the documents that they asked to see. The Senate FISA bill has many good components. We appreciate the serious work that has been done by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond. We have not seen the final product yet that came out of the markup. And so we need to see that before we comment further. We are disappointed that the bill includes a sunset provision. We don't think that that's necessary. And we have strong concerns about one of the amendments that came out of the markup yesterday -- the Wyden amendment. That is one that we would like to see taken out of the bill. We don't think that it was intended to be in there, and I think the staff is working on that. And so we'll let that process play out. But to the extent of anyone else being able to see the documents, I think that we'll wait and see to see who else is willing to include that provision in the bill. Q Dana, could you talk about the Wyden amendment a little bit? What specifically -- MS. PERINO: Well, we haven't seen the final language, but as we understand it, we would have concerns because we would not be able to accept it. The Chair and the Vice Chair, Senators Rockefeller and Bond, I understand recognize the problem with the language and are in agreement that it needs to be changed. It basically was, as I understand it, hastily drafted and agreed to, and it would, as an end result, take a step backwards beyond even before where we were when the original FISA bill was passed in 1978 in regards to targeting foreign intelligence overseas. Bond | Dana Perino | FISA | Press Briefing | Rockefeller | Senate | White House Press Corps | Wiretapping | Wyden Labels: Bond, Dana Perino, FISA, Press Briefing, Rockefeller, Senate, White House Press Corps, Wiretapping, Wyden
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:05 PM
|
|