DOJ Still Looks To Have Suit Against Verizon Tossed

An anonymous reader writes "With Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell acknowledging that the 'private sector' had a hand in assisting the president's warrantless wiretapping initiative, the DOJ is ever more strenuously demanding that the suit against Verizon be dropped. 'The Justice Department attorneys argue McConnell's statements did nothing to change the fact that it hasn't ever confirmed any of the activities alleged by the class action plaintiffs--and has, in fact, denied the existence of any sort of "dragnet." The arguments made by the class action plaintiffs rest on nothing but "speculation," the attorneys wrote. In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.'"

Comments

Gone but not Gonzales

[Doc Ruby]

Evidently, just finally dropping Gonzales from his stonewall turret isn't enough to force the "Justice" Department back into the service of the American people and our legitimate security needs. Eventually this circling the wagons over the illegal domestic spying will start claiming that holding responsible the guilty parties will threaten the existence of corporations like Verizon, and their buddies in the government.

They will hold our country hostage to get us to let them walk all over our people.

Re:Gone but not Gonzales

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Dead on, Baby. The super-secret outsourcing of "intelligence" to private-sector firms is the "$1000-Dollar Hammer" of the new century. With the added benefit from the both the size of the contracts and the protecting from public scrutiny because such information "is classifed" and discussion of the topic "aids terrorists" and "will result in Americans dying."

If you thought you saw something over the last decade - with big telecom industries operating a revolving-door operation with the FCC regulators, just wait and see what "intelligence" has in store! There is profit in War - that's what the size of the "defense" budget represents: how much of your taxes will be funneled as a subsidy to Haliburton and General Dynamics. Now, AT&T and VeriZion are in on the act.

In other words...

[hax0r_this]

We're screwing you for your own good.

Good subject for confirmation hearings

[Animats]

This should come up in the confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General.

Hopefully judges wont buy that sort of shit.

[AlanS2002]

In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.

I would of thought that if that were the case that not all the hearings would be open to those without necessary clearance. Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. Along the lines of "We've done stuff we shouldn't of done, but because it's in the interests of national security, we can't tell you what we did and how we will keep on doing it".

Congressional Hearings

[The Angry Mick]

You know, I usually can't stand the idea of Congressional hearings on anything (they end up being more campaign speech-y, than enlightened probes), but this might be an instance where I'm inclined to change my opinion. If there was any type of collusion between the government and big business to break the law of the land, quite a few corporate heads need to roll.

Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath. What I cannot abide is watching anybody lie to Congress, and get away scot free. Especially corporations that have received substantial benefits (subsidies, market consolidation, etc.) from the very same people they are lying to.

Re:Congressional Hearings

[AlanS2002]

Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath.

Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen. If Major corporations have wronged their customers and the DOJ has acted in an illegal manner it needs to be corrected, not brushed under the carpet because it's "in the interests of national security".

Re:Congressional Hearings

[mrchaotica]

Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen.

I'm wiling to make an even stronger statement: FUCK "national security!" If we, as a nation, have to make a choice between "national security" and checks and balances, then we're just damn well going to have to be "insecure!"

Re:Congressional Hearings

[rtb61]

Technically speaking, as a democracy, the security of it's citizens is the first priority of 'national security' as such, ensuring that the government and it's agencies does act in a manner that would be approved by the citizens is in the interest of the citizens and provides them with security.

So all those acts must be made public to ensure that they actually do or would receive public approval. In hiding it's methods and it's actions, the current administration and it's political appointees know that the public would not approve of those methods used and the actions taken, and they are specially via their secretive actions are endangering the security of the citizens and in turn having a major negative impact on national security.

So you do in fact want national security, but you want if for real, not just legal bull shit to hide unconstitutional and criminal activities as well as the corruption that allows those activities to occur. The current administration gives major concessions to telecommunication industries that actively disadvantages the majority of citizens, in turn the telecommunication companies allows and supports gross abuses of the constitution and the law to occur on it's services for purely politically motivated purposes.

It was a confession of guilt

[Anonymous Coward]

What he said was that the lawsuits would bankrupt Verizon:

"Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,"

Which means they have merit. Moreover he said it publicly, so he can testify the same under oath without causing any additional problems for national security.

They should be thrown out.

[DaveWick79]

When the DOJ comes to your company and says, "by executive order, do this", you don't just ignore them. It isn't the fault of these companies that phones were tapped, that's like blaming the gun for a robbery.

Re:They should be thrown out.

[TooMuchToDo]

What country do you live in? Obviously, not the US. The DOJ doesn't have "executive order". Unless they come to you with a warrant (even a FISA-issued warrant), you're a jackass for violating your customer's privacy. This isn't "24".

Re:They should be thrown out.

[Sunburnt]

When the DOJ comes to your company and says, "by executive order, do this", you don't just ignore them.

That's right. You have your legal department determine if the EO would make your company violate the law (not hard, since that's the office to which EOs are submitted in the first place) and, if so, file with the court to have an injunction placed on the feds.

Ignoring an executive order is as bad as just bending over for it.

Re:Pure B.S.

[tgatliff]

I disagree.. What ould endanger 'security' is willfully violating the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights longterm.... I understand the security concerns, and they have a valid point, but they must work within our Bill of Rights...

It is not a big secret understanding what they want. They want to monitor all communications in the US, and be flagged when the system finds things they are looking for. They have wanted this for a long time, even before this administration, and was the whole reason of the original Echelon Network design. Meaning, for the rest of the world they have been monitoring traffic for some time, but were prevented from doing so to its own US citizens. Now they want this power and think that they can justify it by using the 'terrorist' angle...

So wait...what about Yahoo

[torkus]

Ok. So Yahoo follows Chinese law and provides information to the chinese gov't ... and gets sued in US courts. Then people cry FAIR...saying Yahoo should know to obey 'international human rights' nonsense.

Yet VZ follows the mandate of it's OWN gov't who i guarantee have the most weight in determining 'international human rights' and winds up in court. Then the DOJ is looking to have the lawsuit dropped?!

So wait.

China forces a company to provide private info to 'out' a journalist per a LAWFUL (in china) request = BAD

Verizon willingly cooperates with secret requests (of highly questionable legality) to not only provide information on-hand but actively seek out and CAPTURE information (i.e. wiretap) for the *US* gov't = GOOD??

I know we're 'holier than thou' but seriously...can anyone in their right mind justify the disparity? I mean, without resorting to 'because we said so' like my parents used to when I was 6.