Slashdot Mirror
Phone Companies Refuse to Give Congress Data on Spy Program
JohNNy1+4 writes "Several US telephone communications firms are refusing to answer the questions of a congressional panel about spying on American citizens. The panel is making an inquiry into Bush administration tactics in the years since 2001, but has been stymied by the administration's claim that releasing that information would be illegal. As a result Verizon, AT&T, and Qwest have declined to answer the panel's queries. '"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," AT&T Inc. General Counsel Wayne Watts said in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee that was released today by the panel.'"
I was just following orders!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
We should just tap their phones. That will let us know whether or not to trust them.
If a congressional panel doesn't legally have jurisdiction on a matter like this, then companies can't be expected to legally comply. If Congress wants oversight -- and why shouldn't it have this oversight? -- they should legislate it as such. They have the power to legislate, and they should use it.
[ think ]
Isn't the US Constitution clear on the point of oversight, giving Congress the ability to investigate and even remove the president, but not the other way around?
Or is the US truly near its nadir and soon "el Presidente" will be running everything, unopposed.
Anyone else find it amusing that they'll give information on everyone else to the government, but not themselves? That game me a little, sad, chuckle
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Sadly I bet that it is less to do with good will for privacy as it is to do with the money it takes to provide that info to the government. Like hardware for log files, etc
While wiretapping is wrong. Both sides have done it. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html%5C
So Bush did not have warrants, neither did Clinton why does the congress not investigate every presidency back to Nixon?
Yes I am ready to be flamed on this one.
I am just saying both sides are guilty of doing this. The problem is Bush got caught. Now news is coming out that Clinton did the same thing. I am sorry justice, and the constitution for that matter, applies to both sides of the isle, Democrat and Republican.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government? Find the fuckers in contempt of congress, and stop dragging this shit out already. We'll see how quick they start talking as they're frog-marched out by the Sergeant at Arms.
Stop and delay, stop and delay, eh, fellas?
The American government no longer matters. Welcome back to the Fuedal ages everyone! CEO's and boards are the land owners, lawyers are the knights. Get back to work you serfs.
Our lawyers are pretty sure we broke the law and complied with an illegal order. But they're also pretty sure that Congress doesn't have the balls to confront the White House about this. So, complain all you want, but we'll being skiing in hell before we testify before Congress about this.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Oh sure, now they stand up to a request from the government and refuse to fulfill it on the grounds that it would be "illegal". Maybe they should have given that response to the NSA instead of saving it for Congress.
The simplest and most expeditious way to handle this is to find the president of each phone company who will not testify in contempt of congress and jail them and not release them until they talk.
It may not be fair, but it will make any phone company wary of dealing with the government without making sure they're adhering to the law. In the future, they won't even take calls from the president. Which is a good thing.
The whole premise of this article is wrong.
The program REQUIRES that they go to court if an American is involved. Just because "I read this on 'so-and-so' website", doesn't make those "they're spying on Americans without court orders" true. If you're buying into that, you're an idiot for being a sheep not finding out the facts for yourself. Reminds me of people that go on protests organized by "ANSWER", but don't know who "ANSWER" really is. Useful idiots.
Arrest their CEOs for contempt. When the VPs fail to provide the data, arrest them too. Work on down the line.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Why yes I raped you, but telling that to the jury would just violate your privacy, so I won't. Ain't I a nice guy.
These companies violated the law, and now claim that confessing to that, violates the law?
I shot you in the head, but I won't take you to the hospital in a car because well, I don't have a driving license and I don't want to break the law.
The sooner this US goverment is taken down and replaced the better. I guess it is clear how republicans think, screw a girl IMPEACH, screw the nation, you are a hero!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Very simple....
Seems to me that if the law doesn't allow congress to pull their corperate charter for this, then the law needs to be fixed.
Loss of limited liability would either sink them or change their tune right quick.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
In the United Gulags of America.
Loozars!
PatRIOTically,
George W. Bush
If the story is to be believed, the aides in question were not part of the federal government's spy agencies. There's quite a bit of difference between two dorks recording whatever cell communications float into range of their receiver and the CIA/FBI/NSA strong-arming the phone companies to let them listen in on every call, text-message, email, chat, etc... that happens in America.
Also, keep in mind that beyond whether the Bush administrations actions were legal, Congress is currently drafting a law which will delimit the scope and breadth of the CIA/NSA/FBI's powers to spy on communication that travels through American telephone providers. In order to make a sensible law, they need a full understanding of what wiretapping has occurred, what results it has achieved, and how the existing laws have been interpreted by the current agencies.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Note that the Constitution provides no means for the Executive to remove Congress.
The Constitution make the Executive branch the authority over the military and law enforcement. The President can always order the wholesale arrest of all the members of Congress.... but of course, if he ever did that, it would open up huge cans of worms.
"If AT&T has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear!"
Best. Touché. Ever.
Mod parent insightful, please!
.. still give these companies their money :)
Stupid is as stupid does.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Bush fucking america in the ass again. Companies fucking america in the ass again. And then what? Getting modded down on slashdot for pointing it out? Idiotic.
That they ignored the request of the Congress (the will of the people) and instead chose to hide behind the president and so called state secrets. Shame on them and their disrespect for our Republic. They apparently believe that the president will protect them from punishment for their criminal acts. Congress establishes the laws in this country and as representatives of the American people they have every right to make sure the laws are carried out as intended. What is it that the executive branch and these companies are up to that they are so scared of revealing to Congress? According to our president only the terrorists have something to hide from the government so by extension does hiding information from Congress make the president and these companies terrorists?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
The Phone Companies are letting the government use their equipment to spy on Americans. In Return they mega corporations will get support from certain members of congress and the executive for supposed "Pro Business" regulations. These "regulations" will cement these corporations and give them government supported monopolies and allow the Telecoms to govern and regulate themselves. In Essence, they have entered into an unholy alliance with the US government. Greed is enabling, Power is corupting. You are witnessing the Rise of Pure Fascism in the US.
Verizon has indeed released information and it is as we thought. Giving away customer information like they are crazy eddie.
Excuse me but what kind of insolence is this ? doesnt congress represent american people ? what kind of charade is this.
Read radical news here
Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government?
The Telcos are relaying the message from the Justice department. A better question: how can the State Secrets Privilege apply against Congress, a branch of the state?
The clever thing for the Telcos to do might be to try getting the Congress' questions in written form, along with the instruction from the Judiciary to shut up, then provide the answers in sealed escrow to the Judiciary, to hand over or not as appropriate. That way, they can get out of the way of the impending constitutional slugfest, and let the real partisans brawl it out. The Telcos just want to be left alone to make some dough.
Of course, that's not so much a tactic of law as of politics. But hey, there's not much difference.
As for Congress, aside from hinting that the above approach might be acceptable, I don't see there's anything clever or subtle left to try. I'd say it's long past time for the old Inherent Contempt rules to be dragged out.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/15/amnesty/index.html
The judiciary has not told anyone to shut up.
Talk about the weakest congress in the history of the country. god damn.
"What I'd love to see, and I know it's just wishful thinking, is a few real candidates for this goaround. Ain't gonna happen, though. Real candidates haven't won an election since Ike."
And be honest about why that is. Look at the daily ream of posts from people who have formed strong political positions based on inaccurate or blatantly false information, people reading one thing and seeing another, and people who don't bother to read anything at all.
People don't want a good candidate, they want to win. They want "their guy". They want to beat "the other guy" at all costs.
Too many Americans think they're more wise and more politically informed than they really are, and that arrogance and self assuredness results in a candidate who can "win" regardless of their merit otherwise.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you...
Congress can file contempt charges against the telcos refusing formal requests, but those contempt charges have to be prosecuted by the Attorney General. Who is, of course, in Bush's pocket, chosen to protect illegal programs exactly like the one these telcos helped Bush violate. We don't even have an actual AG right now, but whoever is in the job will run interference against justice - obstruction of justice, but the bureaucratic kind that's even harder to get the Department of Justice to prosecute.
That logjam is one reason why Congress should have impeached Gonzales, the illegal wiretapping program's primary defender. Trying his impeachment would have given Congress power to force the telcos to turn over the evidence, without relying on the Justice Department whose head was on trial. In fact, it's still not too late to try Gonzales, even though he's out of office, as there is clear precedent in US law. William Belknap was impeached after he resigned (like Nixon, he resigned to escape impeachment).
Or, better yet, cut off the snake's head: impeach Cheney. Or cut out its forked tongue: impeach Bush.
Or leave it all to politics as usual, and leave the telcos and the next government with these same abusive powers. And watch the country continue to go down the drain, sacrificing both wealth and freedom on the altar to fruitless imperial power.
--
make install -not war
There is a congressional committee that can hear their testimony. The one making the request is not it.
This is just a fishing expedition, in a long list of fishing expeditions. It will be a sad day for congressional democrats when Bush and Cheney step down, because then they will actually have to do their jobs, which is write laws that make sense.
The US Government is just lawyers, all the way down. Hooray for the United States of Lawyers.
A law that revokes their FCC licenses.
let's see if Congress is willing to enforce their subpoenas. If they are the telco execs will almost certainly take the fifth amendment.
They are reluctant to give the info over without a granting of immunity.
Ascii artist &
...is patently ridiculous. Congress is part of the government. How can one branch of government keep a secret from itself, unless it is claiming that Congress can't have oversight or is claiming some sort of wacky separation of powers/executive privilege. Not to mention, AT&T isn't the government, and can't assert that it has the State Secret Privilege...
So it appears that the issue is whether or not these companies have the right, or for that matter the legal obligation, to not answer questions before this congressional comittee (I always spell that word wrong, apologies). This breaks it down to DoJ versus the House and Senate Intelligence Com(see note above)ees. As I understand it, federal agencies using FISA to secure telco records don't have to answer to Congress, but does that protect the companies which release those records? IANAL, but I work for some, and it seems like this could be analogized to a case where the defense attorney is Congress, the phone companies are witnesses, and DoJ is, well, the state. If the defense asks for a subpoena for records from the phone companies, then the DoJ as the attorney for the state can request a motion to deny the subpoena if those records are protected by law, or at the very least make it so that the defense can only see the records in camera, or in private (the judge's chambers in keeping with the analogy). Assuming this to be the case, aren't the phone companies within their rights? Wouldn't congress have to take this before the court to progress any further? Anyone who knows more about this feel free to shed some light.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
I agree 100% but please stipulate one important point:
don't give up the U.S. Constitution in the process.
You don't want another puppet government beholden to the power and money elite that has no pretense of constitutional limits.
given Congress' low approval ratings, it's debatable..
Sorry, but Clinton is not blameless here. We wouldn't be in this mess if Clinton (and Janet Reno) hadn't pushed so hard to pass the infamous "CALEA" legislation. CALEA is what put in place the technological infrastructure to allow easy wiretapping (even paying telecommunication companies hundreds of millions to install it). As predicted by EFF and other groups, it would only be a matter of time before this new capability would be abused. See http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/.
there was > (greater sign) to the right of the congress. so congress greater than any office it said. therefore, even with low approval ratings, congress still is the representative of the people. just think about bush's approval ratings.
Read radical news here
It's not just congress, but also the court system.
The chain of command is totally broken here.
From:
United States of America and Judge Dawson vs Irwin Schiff
Prosecutor: "Objection! Irrelevant!"
Judge Dawson: "Sustained!"
Irwin Schiff: "The income tax law is irrelevant?"
Judge Dawson: "I will not allow the law in my courtroom!"
Irwin Schiff: "But the Supreme Court said in the Cheek decision..."
Judge Dawson: "Irrevelant! Denied!"
Irwin Schiff: "The Supreme Court is irrelevant?"
Judge Dawson: "Irrevelant! Denied!"
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=26549
please!
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
You'd vote for a draft dodger and national guard AWOL-ee (and his running mate who was "too busy" to go to server) rather than a vietnam vet. No, this isn't about serving, this is about power and stupidity. If Bush had served, he might not have made so many many blunders in gulf war II.
the only thing that should be illegal about this case is not answering to the US Congress.
"Would be interesting to see what is faster, a nuclear-tipped GPS-guided cruise missile or a Congressional impeachment procedure"
If we can just guarantee that Bush and Cheney are in the White House at the same time both houses are in session.
Waxman just needs to break out inherent contempt and have the House Sergent At Arms arrest anyone short of the president or vice president who refuses to testify.
What does limited liability mean? I see a lot of people throwing around the term these days when they don't know what it means. Somehow they think limited liability puts executives in corporations beyond the law. It does not mean that.
Secondly, except for a few states, you do not own calls logs. The phone company owns their own call logs. They can do whatever they want with them. They can sell them, or they can hand them over to the government. There are some companies now that consider call detail records private information of the customer, but they still *own* the data.
Is the the executive or the legislative that butter's the telco's bread? (Okay, safer to ask is it the republicans or the democrats I know...) But of all the telecoms out there, Qwest refused to help with the executive's illegal activities and somehow Qwest is now under the gun for all sorts of things. Perhaps it would be best of the legislative started handing over various contracts to Qwest and start raising taxes on communications while controlling what the telecoms can charge the consumer.
I find it most interesting how they'll bend over for the executive and clam up against the legislative.
Are we witnessing the end of the republic and the beginning of a dictatorship? If congress has no respected power what is left? The judiciary?
The issue for the companies:
1) Contempt of Congress if they DON'T RESPOND.
2) Violation of multiple federal laws for disclosing classified info if they DO RESPOND.
They are well in their rights to demand that Congress and the Executive branch resolve the above BEFORE they respond one way or another. They are caught in a political pissing match.
This does NOT resolve if they were right or not, or if it was legal or not. Both are separate issues. This is solely about disclosure of classified information which was classified per Executive branch guidelines and orders, and YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR DISCLOSING SUCH INFORMATION!
What an incredible leap of faith to believe that these companies won't roll over and eventually give the requested information. I'm not certain why it should be a problem in the first place. My God people, AT&T is talking about policy, but at the same time they have no problems with policing the internet and rolling that information over to media companies and such??????? They are spying on us anyway. What's the difference who they spy on, it should be illegal. They are a service that apparently wants to be in enforcement and so they should be held accountable to that end. Anyway.... this is what Freedom is!!
the phone companies chose to listen to, they chose the executive branch over the oversight legislative branch? Which do you think you would clarify with and work with? I would work with the branch that passes laws, has a long-term memory, and controls the oversight. In addition, who are the phone companies listening to that suggests they not listen to Congress? What if Congress is right and the White House is wrong? I would expect punitive measures taken against the phone companies because of illegal behavior even if it was at the behest of illegal requests from the White House. I do not remember anything in the US Constitution that says if a request comes from the White House, you receive immunity for your illegal activities even if you did not know better. You could have taken the case to the court system as I am sure neither of the 3 phone companies have ever done. So, if the companies mentioned are not shy about fighting something out in court, why did they just roll over in this case? It is because they were not interested in clarifying that the request was legal.
You ask why?
Things Are a Lot Worse than We Thought!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA
Don't shoot the messenger.
~hylas
We wouldn't be in this mess if Clinton (and Janet Reno) hadn't pushed so hard to pass the infamous "CALEA" legislation. CALEA is what put in place the technological infrastructure to allow easy wiretapping (even paying telecommunication companies hundreds of millions to install it).
Yes - WITH A WARRANT. The two aren't on the same planet, much less the same page. Don't be a tool.
why is everyone shouting 'threat this...', 'contempt that...' as what congress should do to gett eh answers that it wants? What congress needs to do is guarantee immunity from prosecution under whatever probably-invalid-anyway national security rules AT&T says makes it illegal for them to release the information. If they really are a dumb functionary simply complying with the law in all of this, then, once they have that guarantee, it's in their best interests to hand the information over.
They will co-operate with congress when the threat from congress is greater than the threat from the executive. The way to achieve this is not to increase the threat from congress in absolute terms, it's to reduce the threat from the executive by taking its teeth away, thus increasing the threat from congress in relative terms only.
Don't you have congressional privilege?
FGD 135
Insolence? That's an odd word to use in a republic.
And doesn't the president represent the American people as well?
Seriously, this is a slippery slope.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Now, normally I don't pay much attention to the ads in the /. feed, but this one, well, see for yourself...
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9625/attironyiz3.jpg
Well, 2 remedies.
1) Grow a backbone, Congress
2) Contempt citations
"Since when is it up to a subpoenaed third-party to make claims regarding oversight between branches of government? "
Funny, I RTFA'd, and a subpoena wasn't mentioned. Aparently the committee requested their appearance, that's all. And they politely declined the request, and not everyone is crying foul.
"Ask" for "cooperation", and there will be "consequences" if they don't "help". Sound familiar? The committee is doing the same thing the Administration did to the companies - one for power, and one for political show. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which is which.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
They're congress. If they ask a question in an investigation about another section of governemnt, that other section of government should not be able to block it. Congress could make a new law stating that it is illegal to decline a question from congress in this sort of investigation. Maybe a generic "never decline a question from congress" thing would be overbearing and need constrained, but I don't think that these telecoms should be able to ignore congress in this kind of situation.
I saw the Frontline TV story a few days ago on this matter.
Though they did not say this, it was obvious that what the government was saying was BS as well as the bias of the story line.
I don't care if they really do have the ability to process such massive amounts of data, the fact still remains that using common language and subject matter as coded messages cannot be detected with such equipment... this goes back to the civil war underground railroad communications that even included song as example.
However, what is much easier to do and far more probable is the spying on american opinion of 9/11 and the following war drum banging.
The spying was used to feel out the general public attitude in order to know better how to manipulate it.
We all do know Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11....
Building 7 of the WTC contained SEC records used in investigation of illegal stock market manipulations.... such records vanished...
do a google search on "trillion dollar bet" and read the PBS transcript and wonder who the unmentioned winners and losers of that bet were?
Enron, Worldcom loser.... Dotcom investments winners.....easy come easy go......follow the money...
Grant them conditional immunity.
Congress has the power to do this, and once it's granted, they can no longer refuse to testify or they'll be in contempt.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Thanks, now I get to vote 15 straight Republican tickets because your ego is too big to allow you to shut your loser mouth.
You must be pretty stupid if you think posting on this web board is more important than your vote.
God I've enjoyed watching you moot yourself politically.
I see major advances in areas like network neutrality, mandates for uniform broadband service, splitting the telcos into separate wholesale and retail businesses, strict limits on bundling services, new mandates for access to the last mile copper and fiber loops and a reversal of the decay of CLECs' business.
Have gnu, will travel.
Isn't this what "Grand Juries" are for? i.e. criminal investigations?
Lets see...
1. Break the law of the land you were swarn to uphold collecting massive amounts of information about honest to god US citizens because the pres got more than a little over zelous with his war powers power grab.
2. Go out of your way to make sure noone else finds out.
3. If anyone finds out and complains smack them over the head with official secrets and tra1t0r speek.
4. When that doesn't work lobby congress to grant retroactive immunity while consistantly juxtoposing current FISA issues with completely unrealated domestic spying issues in an attempt to confuse the masses. (See also in 2001-2002 frequent use of Terr0r1st and Iraq being used repeatly in same sentance to justify war)
What they are really saying:
1. We all need to grant retroactive immunity to cover our own asses.
2. Lobbyists told us to do it.
3. No concerned citizen ever asked us to quash a single investigation of spying against them. Nor did they ask us to effectivly remove the judicial branch from the equation or support on its face unfair nonsense such as the retro-active application of law.
Regardless of what actually happened or what the intentions of all actors involved truely are... The constant invoking of secrets and immunity is a real danger to any free society.
I am just saying both sides are guilty of doing this. The problem is Bush got caught. Now news is coming out that Clinton did the same thing.
Not quite. It appears both wiretapped without a warrant; however, according to the reports, Clinton's was done via a traditional dirty tricks team, and no-one has claimed it was legal to perform the wiretapping. Bush did it using the official authority of the President of the United States, using official agencies of the Executive, and claims that it was legal just because he was the one who ordered it done.
One is ordinary corruption and politics-as-usual; the other is an attempt to rape the constitution. And because the Republicans have now shown that they can't be trusted in the same room with the constitution, I'll have to settle for voting for the crooked Democrat if she wins the endorsement.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
A law that revokes their FCC licenses.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
The appeal would be filed before the ink could dry on the (hypothetical, unlikely, and required) veto override, and the law struck down as a bill of attainder by every federal judge who looked at it. Even the current SCOTUS would go 9-0 on it if you could get certiorari; see US v Lovett, the clear precedent.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Here's the Frontline documentary, called, "Cheney's Law"
Also. . . I just saw the South Park episodes which dealt with 9-11 and Al Gore. Whew. Parker and Stone say they attack everybody equally, but that's nonsense. They're like everybody else; they have biases. While they're usually pretty good at cutting up issues to expose logical flaws, they have quite the conservative blind spot on several key items. They have a tendency to fall prey to their own cleverness; they declare opinions without fully researching the material they lampoon. "We're smart and witty, therefore we don't need to study the issue before rendering our opinion." Dude, that's so lame.
I wonder what their position is on wire tapping.
-FL
That they ignored the request of the Congress (the will of the people) and instead chose to hide behind the president and so called state secrets.
There's a succinct article on this from the UPitt Jurist , with links to copies of primary documents. The key is that this was only a request. As far as I can see, there was no subpoena, which would make it a demand. While I agree with your general sentiments, the rant really ought to wait until the Telcos turn down a Congressional subpoena. As is, I(AmNotALawyer) currently think the Telcos were correct to defer to the Executive branch assertion of the States Secrets Privilege as much as I loathe that "privilege" one — in the absence of a Congressional subpoena.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
yes
Both sides of WHAT, exactly? Both sides of THE SAME SIDE? We haven't had a reasonable of the people, for the people, by the people government since the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I'd say it goes back even farther, to the creation of the Federal Reserve, and since we have had a standing army. But of course, to stick with ideals isn't realistic, right? We're SUPPOSED to allow a monstrous war criminal executive to impose it's will across the other two branches and lie to the American public without any repercussions.
It's almost as if the schools haven't been teaching anything, and nobody here has read the constitution.
Both parties are owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporations anyway, so arguing the "both sides" thing is a horrendous straw man. I don't think "both sides" of Dow and Exxon give two shits about the liberty of the American citizenry, the safety of our constitutional democracy, or the longevity of this country without a violent bloody revolution. I feel they assume that Fox news can blather more lies and the people will just continue taking Zoloft and buy it.
History has proven these theories wrong already though, and there are PLENTY of examples from the past besides Rome. If you (like me) were not informed about them in public school, maybe you should get yourself to the Library on your own time, and READ for a second.
I'll wait here, screaming in the vacuum with my +1 nobody gives a shit.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Congress is supposed to represent the democratic souveraign in this country. Refusing to provide them with information about the executive branch's (wrong)doing brings democracy to it's end. Maybe the "liberation troops" supposed to bring democracy to Iraq are more needed in their homeland!
See "Project Shamrock" at Wikipedia. (Sometimes referred to as "Operation Shamrock")
Between 1945 and 1975, the NSA (and its predecessor agency) had a deal with Western Union, RCA et. al. to supply them with copies of ALL international cables to/from the US. This info was routed to many intel agencies. Included was a "watch list" of US citizens. From 1967 on, the NSA was supplying details about domestic comm's as well. Some writers claim that neither the Congress or the Prez was aware of this.
This brouhaha has been, er, brewing for 60 years.
Bush, for all of his 9-11 spouting, was actually tapping American's phones before September 11, 2001.
That is what Bush and the Telcos do not want Congress to investigate.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Ah, a variation on the good old "we can neither confirm nor deny" Glomar Response
Hmm, y'know, the real problem is that Congress is not appealing to the part of the phone companies that really wants to cooperate.
..well, you get the idea.
If I were,say, the majority leader, I would immediately have a hearing with AT&T about passing a law requiring IPhones to be unlocked.
Then there might be one about a law allowing telco's to be sued if phone service is cut off or limited for lack of payment of bills.
Then there would be a hearing regarding sharing phone lines and ISP's, then one regarding the relationship between employee payrolls and maximimum size and geographic coverage of telcos, and then
I think the phone companies would quickly realize that they really, REALLY want to keep Congress happy in the months before an election.
Seriously, pay for the records and they will all jump to give up the most data.
Just like they did the last time around.
Making it easy for law enforcement to tap phones with a warrant is an entirely different kettle of fish than mass warrantless wiretapping. And what planet do you live on where hypothetical abuses from intelligence agencies during the Clinton years is worse than massive abuses under the Bush Administration that we know for a fact have occurred.
Limited liability means that shareholders in the company are limited in their liability. That is, if I invest $1000 in the company, and thus become part owner, I am liable to lose that $1000 and only that money. So even if the company goes under, oweing billions, nobody can come after me, as part owner, for any part of that debt.
If limited liability goes away, then they have unlimited liability, which means that the owners of the company are liable for every dollar the company owes. If limited liability goes away, then I would expect investors to run away like hippies from soap.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"