Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
--
make install -not war
We're screwing you for your own good.
This should come up in the confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General.
If verizon gets hammered by lawsuits over the illegal wiretapping it doesn't stop there, eventually there will be pressure put on the agencies that did this nonsense in the first place. I suppose that they figure by shielding Verizon it'll discourage any further suits and investigations into what the department was doing.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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".
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
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.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
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.
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...
It seems to me for the executive branch to demand a lawsuit be dismissed is meddling in the independence of the judiciary and violating the Constitutional separation of powers.
Oh, wait, I forgot "activist judges" are supposed to be a bad thing. Never mind about that separation of powers rubbish, then.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.