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.'"
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
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?
What is the purpose of pointing this out? Two wrongs to NOT make a right and if you do not hold someone accountable now, then when do you plan on doing it? I am SO sick of people calling out previous administrations for their illegal activities and using it as an excuse for the current administration. It just isn't logically acceptable.
1) There is a problem now, we know what it is.
2) We know how we can stop this problem.
3) We use the resources available to us to fix the problem.
I see no where in that logical step anything about looking for precedent. Am I wrong on something here or what?
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.
I am not a big fan of Telcos myself. But they were between a rock and a hard place. Telcos and Government work hand to hand because they need both to keep and maintain their infrastructure so if the government says we need this Telcos will comply because the consequence could be dire. Comply and possibly be sued by a watchdog group. Or not comply and possible be sued by the government, loose contracts, Get sued by stock holders, Loose market value... The flip side of Just Following Orders is the consequences for not is worse then it is for them. So yes it was an illegal order but it would have cost them more. Now the democrats are out for blood, so the Telcos want protection before they help if not they will get into more problems.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Would be interesting to see what is faster, a nuclear-tipped GPS-guided cruise missile or a Congressional impeachment procedure.
And if the missile wins and the courts start to ask questions, the Pres can pardon everybody involved.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
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
"While wiretapping is wrong. Both sides have done it."
When first I read "both sides" I thought there'd be an interesting link on Congressional wiretaps. This is, after all, on its face a conflict between the federal executive and Congress, so that is naturally the dichotomy that came to my mind when I read "both sides."
I'm saddened by the realization that I am probably part of a slim minority that did not reflexively break this down into a partisan issue.
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
The question is if the military would obey an illegal order like that. Commander in chief does not mean he's being obeyed without questioning if he gives orders like that.
Hmm, let's check the old history book, oh my why here we have one of the "greatest" presidents arresting members of the maryland legislature and attempted to arrest the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Trust me, when the barbarians are at the gate, the military will jump to it.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.