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.
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
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 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.
'nother link, por favor?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html/
some how 5c got stuck on the end. Just remove that.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
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.
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"
I agree fix the problem now hold the current administration accountable. Also hold the others accountable. Think of it like this. If a CEO takes money from the company and then retires and the next CEO does the same thing. Why does only the first CEO get punished for it. THEY BOTH broke the law. THEY BOTH violated the constitution. THEY BOTH need to get punished for it.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
I agree, but I consider the individual actions of these people to be meaningless in the scope of the damage to our entire political system. I suppose what I mean is it would be so great if we could forget revenge and the satisfaction of nailing the guy and simply make things WORK PROPERLY for once. I would be glad to let Bush off scott free if it meant we never have to worry about this kind of ridiculousness happen ever again.
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.
"If AT&T has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear!"
Best. Touché. Ever.
Mod parent insightful, please!
The infamous "Clinton did it!" defense. In record time, too!
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
The Democrats are hardly innocents, either. St Hillary was Democratic counsel to the Watergate Hearings when they tried to oust Nixon and was so fired up on getting an impeachment rammed through she couldn't see straight. Strange that when Bill came under the gun for perjury she was the first to cry 'Witch hunt'.
While I have no problems with politicians indulging in extramarital sex while in office, I do have a problem when they commit perjury about it. Perjury is a felony, plain and simple. Bill was under oath both times. He lied once. For perjury, once is enough. The impeachment trial was a sham, everybody knew the vote would come down along party lines, politics overriding the issue, which made any possible impeachment of Bush for unconstitutional powergrabs out of the question, the spin being 'We went after your boy, you're just wanting revenge'. A shocking display of American politics at its worst.
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.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html/
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/15/amnesty/index.html
The judiciary has not told anyone to shut up.
Okay, I read it, and sweet christ - are you serious? You're pitting an alleged incident against one we know to have occurred? How much does one make Trolling for Dollars these days?
"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...
"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
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!
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
please!
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Firstly, you're insane or ignorant if you think the Watergate Hearings were some sort of witch hunt. I suggest you read some transcripts of the Nixon archive tapes before regurgitating that BS. Nixon decided to leave office when his OWN PARTY told him the game was over. I wish he still would have been criminally prosecuted for his REAL abuses of the Constitution.
Secondly, steering a Senate investigation into a President's extramarital affair is damned straight a witch hunt, especially in the context of the "Arkansas Group" and the BS Troopergate story. And, the Clinton impeachment vote wasn't along party lines. Even some Republicans weren't stupid enough to vote for it.
Third, Clinton didn't perjure himself. Go research the Clinton perjury myth.
But thanks for rehashing the same uninformed myths about our political history that reveal the widespread ignorance that gets us into debacles like Iraq.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
the only thing that should be illegal about this case is not answering to the US Congress.
Actually, nobody cares about what problems you had with Clinton and your attempts to derail the conversation.
We'll all be laughing our asses off when you right wing nutjobs realize how much power you gave Hillary.
"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?
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.
There is a congressional committee that can hear their testimony. The one making the request is not it.
This seems to imply that there is only one such Congressional committee against which the State Secrets Privilege doesn't avail. I would be interested in your legal and constitutional basis for claiming that the State Secrets Privilege may be applied against any committee of elected Federal Legislators.
(Even so, I can count at least four congressional committees with clear authority, so "not it" is clearly sloppy phrasing.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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
As usual for Clinton defenders, you glossed over the fact that he committed a felony. It was Clinton himself that forced all the sex stuff into the open by lying under oath and then not admitting to it when caught. Remember, Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair - he was impeached for criminal behavior. "This is all about sex" was spinning from the Democrats, and it's a testimony to their success that people like you keep on spinning.
As to your link: gee, everyone can use Google. I find nothing there persuasive in the slightest. I read the testimony, and there's no doubt he willfully gave an incorrect answer, and no amount of lawyerly parsing will get around that. In fact he was stripped of his law license in Arkansas because the judge found... he lied under oath. To believe otherwise is to be willfully blind to the obvious.
Well, 2 remedies.
1) Grow a backbone, Congress
2) Contempt citations
Sorry, but in our democracy you haven't committed a felony unless you've been found guilty of committing a felony. And, the impeachment vote FAILED. His law license was suspended for misleading testimony, that's as far as it went.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
"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
There's not much anybody can do to stop a congressional committee from holding hearings on anything the chairperson wants to hold hearings on. However, being a congress critter does not automagically give you a high enough security clearance to hear everything.
Dingle, et al, know what they are doing, even if you do not.
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...
Not true at all. You can commit a felony without being found guilty. And it has nothing to do with democracy, which isn't our form of government anyway.
First of all, he was impeached. It didn't "fail". He wasn't convicted because his party was willing to ignore the crime and the Republicans didn't have a supermajority. And maybe you can tell me the difference between "lying" and "giving misleading testimony".
ah, come on, presidents have been lying to congress for the last fifty years if not longer. And when they weren't outright lying they were trying to manipulate congress. What man do you know or maybe just you would admit to sleeping around on national tv in front of the wife with it also going into the public record. He only has to face congress and the public once in a while, he has to go home to her every night. Besides, just look at all the politicians that came out after they forced Clinton, many were republicans. Take your hypocrisy somewhere else. The whole Clinton presidency from the first few months was under a republican witch hunt to keep Bill from actually doing the job he had intended to do. The witch hunt worked by blowing up every tiny nothing the republicans could find and inappropriately waste taxpayer money on investigating. It's amazing the guy didn't turn into a drunk with all the people trying to destroy him for just trying to keep the peace and help the people he actually worked for. Care to guess why all we get is crap for leaders? I agree none in the running is worth anything. Real candidates haven't run since Carter and Ike wasn't that big an angel either although better than many.
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.
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.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty my friend. I said the impeachment VOTE failed, as in the vote that occurred during impeachment. Perjury charges also relates to relevance. The Republicans wanted to use their witch hunt investigations to start generally trawling around for dirt on Clinton. You'll note that the best they came up with in 8 years was that the President was getting blow jobs from an intern. EVERYTHING else turned out to be bogus stories floated to the gullible right-wing machine. Trooper gate, file gate, you name it. And, you'll note that while this was all going on, the Republicans were telling us all how Al Qaeda was just a "wag the dog" excuse to get away from the Monica affair.
As for the misleading testimony, one would be a crime and the other was professional misconduct. Accept the fact that there was no THERE there. You're rehashing a failed argument made 10 years ago.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Second is right though. First of all, he was impeached. It didn't "fail". He wasn't convicted because his party was willing to ignore the crime and the Republicans didn't have a supermajority. And maybe you can tell me the difference between "lying" and "giving misleading testimony". Clinton was guilty and he should be in the jail cell right next to Bush.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
However, being a congress critter does not automagically give you a high enough security clearance to hear everything.
Ture, but they DOJ aren't claiming that the matter is classified. Instead, they're claiming State Secrets Privilege, a horse of a different color. I repeat: what grounds do they have to assert the State Secrets Privilege against the State itself?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Isn't this what "Grand Juries" are for? i.e. criminal investigations?
Just from the list of sample questions that this commitee is asking:
"whether the administration asked them to install equipment to intercept e-mails"
If the answer is yes or no, the knowledge of that would be damaging to our state and empowering to our enemies. Just like releasing the info that we are tracking monetary transactions abroad has been damaging. No actual data was ever released about that program, but the knowledge that we were doing it basically ended the usefulness of that completely legal program.
My question for you is why does this committee feel the need to hold a public investigation? If they only need this knowledge to write better laws, they can do that and not have it out in the public. The fact that they are publishing the response from these companies is pretty telling and in my opinion an act of bad faith.
Seriously, there are other commitees that are looking into this that aren't just trying to make political hay.
Actually, that's not true, although it's probably a semantic point. Impeachment is equivalent to an indictment. Clinton was impeached. Period. The vote that failed was the vote to remove him from office. By then the actual impeachment was over. In any event impeachment proceedings aren't a criminal trial - the only sanction is removal from office. He wasn't charged with a felony after leaving office as a result of a political calculation, not a prosecutorial one.
The fact of the matter is the man lied under oath. It doesn't matter to me whether or not criminal charges were brought. If you read the testimony, that's the only reasonable conclusion. Do you not recognize the obvious unless twelve strangers tell you it's so? I agree he was never found guilty in a court of law, so I'm not advocating a criminal punishment. But I think it's time people on the left finally admit what even you know deep down inside. The man lied under oath.
No, no, no. Blowjobs are not what it's about - that's just spin. It's about breaking the law. The law is supposed to apply to presidents as well as people like you and me. The man committed a felony - that's what this is about. The blowjob is only relevant in that he lied about it under oath. At the time there were more than a hundred people in federal prison for lying about sex under oath. Why should he get a pass by virtue of his job?
Again, not true. Misleading testimony under oath is perjury. I would advise you not to try the same thing under oath, or you'll find yourself in the Grey Bar Hotel very quickly. And the age of the argument has no bearing on its validity.
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.
OK, where'd I say that going after Nixon was a witch hunt? I didn't. Thank you for playing.
Nixon was a thug. But was he guilty of masterminding the Watergate breakins? Dunno, don't care. At the end of the day, he took the hit and resigned, saying it didn't matter if he did or didn't, what mattered was he was responsible for the actions of his staff. Did he know ahead of time? Again, dunno, don't care. I happen to agree with him that he was responsible for the actions of his staff. And yeah, if he would have fought it, he should have been impeached. He chose to step down for the good of the country. So be it.
The Senate trial wasn't about extramarital sex. It was about perjury. The Democrats keep spinning that it's all about the sex, and blow off the perjury by claiming oral sex isn't sex and neither are cigars when used as sex toys. It wasn't about the sex. It was about the lying about the sex under oath during a trial. It was about the attitude he had that as president, he was above the law, and couldn't be touched, couldn't be sued, couldn't be prosecuted. Per the Constitution, he's a citizen that holds the office, nothing special. And no citizen is above the law, irregardless of political affiliation. That includes Nixon, that includes Clinton, and that includes Bush.
Well, I'm no expert on the sex laws of Washington DC, but if they're anything similar to what's still on the books but never prosecuted in the Deep South, oral sex is a count of sodomy, good for some prison time. So is inserting any object into a woman's genetalia. Adultry is just a civil offense, good for forking over a significant amount of your paychecks for the next zillion years as well as getting the privilege of paying for a house you're not allowed to live in.
And thank you for respinning the myth that if Bush is evilevilevil then the Clintons are saints. They're not. At best they're the lesser of two evils. Problem of course is, the lesser of two evils is STILL evil.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Um, no. You don't need a felony conviction to have committed a felony. Look at that 'second strike' registration they tried instituting in Ohio for priests whose crimes were past the statute of limitations. They still had committed felonies. They just couldn't be convicted of felonies. It doesn't make the deed "didn't happen". Tell that to the victims involved. Then duck, some of them might be armed.
The impeachment vote failed because everybody voted along party lines. By all rights, every single goddamned one of them shoulda lost their reelection, but it's an imperfect world we live in. So be it.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
My question for you is why does this committee feel the need to hold a public investigation?
Oh, I'll conceed, it's just political circus, and that discussing it publicly would be bad for our international interests. That's not relevant to my point; that's merely a question of whether or not it's Stupid, not whether or not it's Legal.
You haven't answer my question: on what legal grounds can "State Secrets Privilege" be claimed in the (evidently hypothetical) case of a Subpoena by another branch of the state itself? In order to keep from having to talk to Congress about it, the DOJ would have to be claiming Executive Privilege, which is a much narrower needle's eye to shove the camel through.
//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!
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
Please cut the pussy bullshit and just run for president as a Republican already.
Promising to waste your votes on losing Republicans for the rest of your life is hardly a scary threat. As if your puny vote for a permanent minority party is any kind of counterbalance to my telling the truth about it, and about politards like you.
--
make install -not war
That "both sides" is also a term used to create the impression that there is no one else other than the Democrats or the Republicans who would like to win elections and hold office. Contrast with "two of the parties" or "the two major parties" etc. In reality, there are third parties (my favorite being the Libertarian party -- they're the only ones I know of who would be willing to take radical steps to decrease the size and power of government and the dependency it creates) who would gladly do this and are routinely ignored or otherwise marginalized, since threatening to change the status quo is a great way to make sure you don't get the kind of support you need to win elections. The Sean Hannities and Rush Limbaughs of the world seem to pride themselves on their willingness to criticize both major parties, yet they also pretend that there's no alternatives available so we're just stuck with these two. This is hard to attribute to ignorance and is probably a deliberate technique; whether accidental or otherwise this is simply a false dichotomy that greatly limits choice.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
The executive has a long history of telling the congress and the courts something to the effect of...
"Yes, you have that power, now try to enforce it."
It's all part of the checks and balances and also makes for interesting political theatre. Right or wrong, it is what it is.
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"