Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties

rgiskard01 writes "Glenn Greenwald is reporting at Salon.com on a win for the EFF, in the battle for clarity regarding the telecom surveillance scandal. A federal judge ordered the Bush administration yesterday to accede to the EFF's Freedom of Information Act request. Assuming the White House follows the court order, they would have to make public their lobbying ties to the telecoms industry. 'These disclosures will reveal ... which members of Congress McConnell and other Bush officials privately lobbied. As an argument of last resort, the administration even proposed disclosing these documents on December 31 so that -- as EFF pointed out -- the information would be available only after Congress passed the new FISA bill. The court rejected every administration claim as to why it should not have to disclose these records.'" Greenwald goes on to argue that the order should be leveled against Senators as well, to get a sense of who else is in Ma Bell's pocket.

Comments

Sudden outbreak of common sense...

[Glowing Fish]

Has anyone else noticed how much that tag is used?

If it is used every day on a different issue, it seems that common sense isn't as rare of an asset as was once believed.

If I am not mistaken

[zoomshorts]

The FCC and SEC are all filled with Bush Appointees.
He did this with knowledge and aforethought. Bush is
really a traitor to the American people.

Re:If I am not mistaken

[Shadowlore]

You know what is really funny. A group of people saying Bush is stupid, dumb as a box of rocks, and a dunce all while claiming he masterminded a grand conspiracy and is pulling it off.

Even funnier:
They don't see the contradiction.

If you s/funny/sad/ or s/funni/sadd/ it holds just as well.

But here is a newsflash for the poster:
a decade ago the SEC and FCC were filled with Clinton appointees. And *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.
a decade before that, the FCC and SEC were filled with Reagan appointees; *he* did that with knowledge and forethought.

Are we seeing a pattern here? G
uess what, 5 years from now the SEC and FCC will be filled with appointees of the next president who will do with knowledge and forethought.

Can you see the pattern yet?

Furthermore, do you want a President appointing people to the SEC and FCC without knowledge and forethought? Wouldn't you think about putting people into those posts? While it can be argued these posts should be eliminated, I hold it rational to assume that if they are going to exist that qualified individuals should hold those positions.

That's one of the differences, IMO, between a mere malcontent[1] and a genuine dissident. A malcontent will just make thing sup that sound important or impressive, and label his or her target with whatever epithet sounds denigrating at the time. If it suits a malcontent's argument to say the target (in this case the POTUS) is stupid, he or she will do so. The next day if it suits the malcontent to say the target is a criminal mastermind, he or she will do so. Why? The point is not discussion and resolution. It is about bitching, whining, or an agenda to make oneself (or political allies) feel or look better. And for some it is about blog ad revenue.

A dissident however, has no need to make such contradictory claims. A dissident doesn't care whether he or she likes the POTUS, he or she knows the POTUS gets neither blame nor credit for the economy by right (for example), or can see good and bad, agreeable and disagreeable in, for example, the POTUS regardless of party, state of origin, campaign contributor beliefs, sex, or whatever else.

And finally, there is no "The American People". We are a very diverse bunch. We do not all agree on pretty much any given political or social matter. Malcontents like to portray this fiction because it lets them imply or claim that their target is not among the group. It's a form of the logical fallacy known as appeal to popularity. It is particularly popular for nationalist malcontents to portray a country's population as a people; and for the same reasons.

1: malcontent (a person who is discontented or disgusted); not the Shakespearean/English theater Malcontent.

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[FatMacDaddy]

My bet: They won't ignore it. They'll use the national security ploy to deny the order or delay compliance until they can get legislation passed to make it a non-issue. It's not like Congress has the guts to oppose anything that purports to protect us from terrorists.

Re:constituents

[Trepidity]

And what's more, the EFF would need to conjure up someone worth voting for. As it currently stands, the Democrats control both houses of Congress and are poised to pass a telecom-immunity bill. So voting to maintain Democratic control is not going to do anything there. Voting to switch control to the Republicans, meanwhile, will probably also not improve matters (if anything they'd pass the same telecom immunity bill, only with more enthusiasm).

Re:They'll ignore the court order...

[truthsearch]

What does the lame duck atmosphere, approval ratings, or economy have to do with anything? This administration has already accomplished most of their goals and will suffer no consequences for any actions. The president doesn't care at all about his approval ratings or changing the economy. Everything has gone pretty much according to plan, so why would they not ignore this court order?

Re:Why isn't this done allready?

[Intron]

The justification for not releasing the names of Cheney's Energy Policy group members was that the Administration didn't think they had to, even though the FACA has been on the books since 1972. However the court ruled that they did in April 2004, so we expect those names any day now.

Re:Well, if it's required by law

[purpledinoz]

As funny as that statement is, how scary is it that now the norm is for the White House to break laws with impunity?

US Govt

[youngone]

Sorry guys. Your system of Government has been up for sale for a long time now. The highest bidders are just sorting themselves out now. Democracy has ended in the US, is it now an oligarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy or a Plutocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy ?