Slashdot Mirror
Wiretap Ruling Threatens Telecoms
ches_grin writes "Yesterday's ruling on the NSA warrantless wiretapping program could mean that businesses that assisted in the program are in for some serious legal problems. The judge's decision clearly dismissed out of hand the arguments of the telecoms, saying that the protections due journalists and lawyers was a clear matter of the public's best interests." From the article: "Businesses accused of aiding the Bush administration in wiretapping could also be in for a legal bruising, say civil liberties groups that have sued telecom providers AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth for allegedly helping the NSA. The ruling could set a precedent other courts can't ignore. 'Every phone company that is assisting the government in its illegal surveillance would want to think long and hard before it continues that agreement,' says Ann Beeson, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case. 'There are already lawsuits claiming that their cooperation for the past several years is illegal and now that the judge has declared it is illegal, their liability increases. The risk is much greater from a business perspective.'"
What a novel concept!
Let's try this: Let's conspire with a telecom provider to monitor government employee's communications and try to figure out what the government is thinking and what they're doing. Then, we'll blow the story all over the media and claim immunity based on something we just made up. We can claim that we were just making sure the federal government wasn't doing anything wrong and that if they weren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have to worry or press charges. I wonder if the telecom provider and those involved would be prosecuted.
Oh, and we'll use a recent event to justify our actions. Like the war in Iraq. Yeah, uh, we need to make sure no one in the government is conspiring to start another war based on false information. That's it, that's why we need to monitor your communications.
If the government is taking actions like these that are illegal for us to take ourselves, it's starts to sound less like we're on equal footing with the government and more like the government is demanding we "do what they say not what they do." Does anyone else remember back in the day when the United States was a government of the people, by the people and for the people? None of these recent NSA actions sound "for" the people. More like "against" with what should be serious legal repercussions. What the hell ever happened to a weak federal government with strong local governments? That was the basic idea for our government I thought. Instead we have some backwards beltway insiders pushing everyone around while my local county and city governments try to figure out what the hell "PC Load Letter" means.
I say we jail those responsible (government directors and telecom CEOs who oversaw it) just as any citizen who tried the same thing would be jailed.
My work here is dung.
Until the Republican-slanted Supreme Court overrules that brave federal judge with a party-line vote, new guy Alito being the tiebreaker. This is a victory, but do not be mistaken, it is a hollow one.
There was burglary, theft, and perjury, not to mention numerous other items uncovered by Archibald Cox (and of course, others).
Oh yeah, and there were about 28,000 GIs killed in Viet Nam, not to mention about a quarter of a million Vietnamese.
I suppose those dead people didn't count in the indictments... nor the resignation of Spiro Agnew for tax fraud-- his vice president.
Now, between Bush Jr and Sr, we have about 600,000 Iraqis dead, 3,500+ of our troops.
So there's wiretapping incideous habeas corpus violations, and heavens knows what else in the Bush administration.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Ironically these people are members of the party that claims to champion a limited federal government that operates for not against the people. They campaigned on the very idea of shrinking government and reducing its invasiveness. They have reduced education and social spending (mostly through crippling unfunded mandates). They have left the science budget the same but selectively trimmed spending on some subjects e.g. Global Warming. But when it comes to spying on Americans and invading others no amount is too high and no law apparently can stand.
Not even Richard Nixon went around claiming that he was just "above the law because he says so" but apparently these people think that it is a valid legal principle.
This isn't flamebait, I'm being serious, the only other times that I can think of where anyone claimed such a thing (rule of law but my word is above all law) was the old Russian Tsars after Katherine the Great, and Adolf Hitler who had the "Furher's Princip". Again this isn't flamebait it is frightening.
No corporation can resist governmental pressure.
It has been widely reported that Qwest refused to comply with these requests on concern of their legality. And the administration did nothing about it because there was nothing for them to do. "Hey, give us a direct connection to your customers' personal data." "Sure thing, where's your subpeona?" "Oh, we're not doing that, we have the authority to ask for this data without any judicial oversight." "Oh wow, who gave you that authority?" "We did." What are they going to do if you say no, ask a judge to make you comply? Oh my, irony! Not only did they do nothing to Qwest, they said nothing about it because they have been applying every possible delaying tactic, including imposing as much secrecy as possible, to put off this day of reckoning. Not only is "because some bureaucrat told me to" not a good excuse for breaking the law, it is the worst excuse, exactly the kind of cowardly capitulation that leads to the worst sort of government corruption. Nobody deserves a free pass on this craven, cynical assault on the principles of freedom.
(on preview, the captcha for my sign-in was "conspire." Damn, they're on to me).
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
They're in a bad position? Oh, the poor corporations! We, the people, have for generations had to fight and die to defend our freedoms, but the new "Corporate people" who demand all the rights of citizenship might get stuck paying a fine or something if they refuse to actively break the law! The horror! The unfairness of it all!
I say the consequence for violating the constitution should be stiffer than anything corrupt officials can impose--say, complete and utter destruction of the corporation. Collaborate with corrupt government officials in an unconstitutional act? Fine. You aren't a corporation anymore. Everyone is fired, the assets are auctioned off and the proceeds (after all the corporation's debts are paid) goes to the shareholders. That way, it becomes a no brainer to say "No way!" the next time you are asked to betray the nation at the behest of a few power hungry elected officials or their minions.
That, or we could just give 'em a pass this time and hope that they've learned their lesson...
--MarkusQ
Yes, Nixon did some very dirty things, like trying to steal democracy from the American people. But his administration did more good for the country then GWB has. Just a few of Nixons lasting accomplishments:
- Creation of the E.P.A.
- Ending engagement in Vietnam
- Opening China to diplomatic relations, including their induction as a UN member state
- Singning of the SALT treaty and the ABM treaty with the soviets
- Embracing and signing-off on the NASA STS program
- Elimination of the "Gold Standard" of US Currency allowing more natural currency flux
No matter what, you can't seperate Nixon from Watergate. But he isn't anywhere near the worst president we've had. And in a way, watergate helped America. A healthy distrust for government is a good thing.
This world would've been a much better place today had RFK not been shot. He would've ate Nixons lunch in a general election and the course of history would've been changed. I'm a big blue-stater but I believe in giving credit where credit is due.