Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties

Posted by Zonk on from the fess-up-to-it-boys dept.

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.

35 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. They'll ignore the court order... by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They think they are above the law already.

    1. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by __aawbkb6799 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Im not sure if they can, given the atmosphere of lame duck surrounding the administration right now. Approval ratings in the 30s and a hellacious economy going into the xmas season, it would seem like a battle not worth fighting... for right now at least. But then again, the likelihood that any action will be taken before the end of the administration seems slim; I can see them just playing out the clock for 417 days...

    2. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by FatMacDaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    3. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by Nimey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Bush admin are masters of stonewalling and delaying tactics. I'd be pleasantly stunned if this happens.

      You *know* they're going to appeal this to the federal appeals court, and if they lose that one the Supreme Court will take quite a while to make a ruling, and there's a certain chance that the Supremes will make some bullshit ruling about how the EFF doesn't have standing rather than rule on the actual crime.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Developers: We can use your help.
    5. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What happens when they do ignore the court order? Nothing?

      Pretty much. Undoing things and removing people in power is incredibly difficult in Government, not necessarily because the procedures are long winded, but because its a representative democracy so the people can't do it themselves.

      If someone commits a crime against you, you can't put them in jail yourself, you can't seek charges against them yourself, ect. You have to have the police arrest them, but there's no rule saying the police have to arrest someone, either. So you really have to find a cop who's willing to go to the trouble to arrest them, and a prosecutor who will attempt to prosecute them. Of course, these are these people's jobs, but the fact remains they don't always do them.

      It's the same with government. Even if there's an overwhelming amount of evidence the president did this or did that, and those things are illegal, they don't automatically get in trouble for it. Congress has to agree that the action was serious enough to warrant them getting off their asses to do something. And with party politics you'll have a bunch of people who will agree with the president and therefore feel he's doing nothing wrong, even if law books say he is. So they wont want to do anything, and without the needed majority agreement nothing will.

      And the crook gets away with it.
    6. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Repeat after me: Bush != conservative.

      But he calls himself one, and so do all his fans.

      I would consider myself a "conservative" because I'm generally comfortable with things working the way they did most of my life as I was growing up. Unfortunately the people now usually referred to as "conservatives" want to restore the world to the way it was a hundred years before any of us were born (according to a grotesque understanding of history which considers the Founding Fathers as Christian ayatollahs with beliefs that apparently contradicted all the writings they left behind). These people are "conservatives" in the same way that the "National Socialists" were "socialists". So I don't call myself a conservative, and I pay no attention to the "true" meaning of the word since it's commonly understood as meaning its antonym. The meanings of words change over time, and when the meaning of my self-description changes, I start describing myself differently.

    7. Re:They'll ignore the court order... by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I don't call myself a conservative, and I pay no attention to the "true" meaning of the word since it's commonly understood as meaning its antonym.

      Yes, and this is not an accident; it's an unusually good example of Newspeak. The word didn't just gradually evolve its meaning over time, but instead it took on its completely opposite meaning in less than a decade. This is what happens when masses of people identify with a term without knowing anything about its history. The people who identify with a party or a label simply because their parents did are not doing themselves or their parents any favor. You need neither a conspiracy nor a coincidence to explain this. As politicians and others with a media presence continued to call themselves "conservative" the former meaning simply became less and less true. So long as the change isn't too sudden, those who use the term will continue to receive the backing and political support of those to whom the term appeals. This works so well because party affiliation is best understood as a poor substitute for thinking for yourself.

      The practical effect this has had is that there is no longer a choice about whether state power and size should continue to increase. You may elect either a Democrat or a Republican and in either case this will be the result; all of the arguments in the mainstream media are about how and why it should be done. Whether it's for the war effort, for senior citizen prescription drug entitlements, for a public health care system, or to bail out irresponsible home buyers who signed the dotted line on a loan they couldn't afford -- and of all of these, only the military action is a legitimate power of government -- there is always some justification being sold to us as to why government should be expanded with little attention paid to the full consequences of doing so.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  2. Clarification by AchiIIe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article is a bit dense, but those documents don't relate to the spying, only the the telecom immunity bill which was proposed.

    --
    Nature journal lied in Britannica vs Wikipedia Ask to retrac
    1. Re:Clarification by kat_skan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Specifically it seems to be records of lobbying activities. Does anyone know where the Administration's arguments for keeping this sort of thing from the public can be read? I would like to know why they think that the public shouldn't be allowed to know who is trying to sway the opinion of their representatives.

    2. Re:Clarification by pluther · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The supreme court had already said that the Vice president could claim executive privilege over a meeting with oil execs before the drafting of an energy policy months after the administration first took office.

      The supreme court never ruled on that use. Congress demanded the documents, Cheney claimed executive privilege and Congress chose not to pursue the matter any further, as they didn't think at the time anything would be gained by doing so.

      So far, this has been the case of all of the Bush administration's use of Executive privilege. None have (yet) made it to the Supreme court. In previous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled (Clinton and Nixon being the two most recent), they have ruled that it covers only cases of national security, directly involving either military details or discussions with foreign nations.

      The claims where that the ability to keep comments secrete were essential for getting truthful, honest as well as unpopular advice without the threat of retribution on those giving the advice.

      Which, it should be noted, is exactly the claim made by Nixon, which the supreme court rejected in ordering him to turn over his tapes. From which, of course, someone had accidentally deleted a completely inconsequential 14 minutes.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    3. Re:Clarification by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The supreme court never ruled on that use. Congress demanded the documents, Cheney claimed executive privilege and Congress chose not to pursue the matter any further, as they didn't think at the time anything would be gained by doing so.
      Are you sure we are talking about the samecase?

      So far, this has been the case of all of the Bush administration's use of Executive privilege. None have (yet) made it to the Supreme court. In previous cases where the Supreme Court has ruled (Clinton and Nixon being the two most recent), they have ruled that it covers only cases of national security, directly involving either military details or discussions with foreign nations.
      Wow, Am I reading this Wrong? IT might be that Bush's cases have never made it to the supreme court but it appears that the answer is more then national security and military. Actually the first links shows the intent better. But this one isn't really lacking.

      Which, it should be noted, is exactly the claim made by Nixon, which the supreme court rejected in ordering him to turn over his tapes. From which, of course, someone had accidentally deleted a completely inconsequential 14 minutes.
      Actually, the Supreme court said that private matters are not protected and that was why he had to give it up. there is some extensive discussion about it on the Washington post link above. Nixon couldn't claim executive privilege because it was about a private matter and criminal in nature. And after rereading it, I noticed that they forced two people to offer testimony and restricted 1 or two as noted by the redacted who did fall under the executive privilege. So it appears that the context of the discussions is what matters most.
  3. Sudden outbreak of common sense... by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
    1. Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense... by techpawn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing. Not so much that it's a rare asset, but, that perhaps this is what my polisci prof. meant by a realignment of the system.

      The people are getting more and more fed up with the system and it's beginning to show itself more and more with favorable laws and judicial decisions after minor elections and before major ones.

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  4. constituents by ryen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once all the greed comes out, how will the EFF get that information into Joe-citizen's hands in time for elections and voting (and not just the tech-community and other usual suspects).

    1. Re:constituents by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    2. Re:constituents by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 You know, I was thinking about this the other day while researching the presidential candidates. None really fit what I want. Ron Paul seems like the most interesting one to me because he's big on smaller government and returning power back to the states. To bad he comes across as a bit of a nut job. Hilary is just too socialist. Obama doesn't seem to know what he wants to run on. The other Republicans and Democrats seems mostly interchangable with each other to me. I'm thinking what we need is a candidate that is not part of the current establishment. Someone like a Arnold who would show up and question everything instead of doing something because that's the way it's always been done. Why do we have a 'war on drugs'? What has it solved? Is it worth it? Does the tax code need to be so complicated that we have to spend billions of dollars to enforce it? What are the goals in Iraq? Where are we currently? Can they even be achieved?

      I'm just totally fed up with both sides, and have no idea how to approach the problem of voting next year. I agree with something I heard once. "Anyone who wants to be President should automatically be disqualified from every becoming President."
    3. Re:constituents by FunWithKnives · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hillary Clinton is about as far from a socialist as possible. I have no idea why people trumpet this baseless notion. She is part of the capitalist status-quo, just as the rest of the "popular" candidates are. Her proposed "health care" plan, which is the only part of her platform that I imagine one could even attempt to call "socialistic" (though all of the main candidates have or will have something similar), would do absolutely nothing to combat the broken private system. True socialist change would involve placing the health insurance and pharmaceutical giants under public ownership, where they would be conducted as a public trust under democratic control of the workers. That is socialism. Creating a "safety net" or a "welfare state" is not socialism. Those are simply policies meant to keep the populace complacent, nothing more.

      Also, I believe that if she were truly socialist, she would receive much less than she does in "campaign contributions" (read: legalized bribes) from corporations. Anecdotally, regarding her "health care" plan, if it would really make any profound difference in the current system, then why is she currently the number one recipient of contributions from both the HMO Industry and the Health Professionals Industry for the 2007-2008 election cycle?

      --
      "We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
    4. Re:constituents by mbius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the risk of being read sockpuppetty, "nut job" is a hatchet job. From Bill Maher to Sean Hannity, everyone on TV is a jerk -- yes? -- supporting one party's lizard so the other party's lizard won't win. I don't hear crazy from Ron Paul. I hear it from them.

      Drugs, taxes, and Iraq are all in the Ron Paul platform, aren't they? Questioning the system? Right? And from a guy genuinely more interested in policy than his political career?

      Can I ask why your image of the ideal presidential candidate, then, is a guy who (1) found celebrity lifting weights, (2) has conventional ties to a "side you're fed up with," (3) isn't running and (4) legally can't?

      Directly: which Republican candidate do you want on the ballot? It's not an abstract choice.

      I did process of elimination, and once I crossed out guys who remind me of Bush and guys who deny evolution, the guy left was the one whose contrasts I like. That Fox News seems to hate him is gravy.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
  5. If I am not mistaken by zoomshorts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:If I am not mistaken by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but Bush didn't some chick a blowjob, so he's clearly still a good president.

    2. Re:If I am not mistaken by Shadowlore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  6. Well, if it's required by law by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then I'm sure the White House will get right on that.

    1. Re:Well, if it's required by law by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. Re:This will be fun to watch... by Bearpaw · · Score: 2, Funny

    This will be fun to watch...kinda like switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches scurry for cover to hide.

    The risk is that the rats and roaches may attack rather than scurry for cover. Make sure your flamethrower is fully charged before turning the light on.
  8. Yeah Right! by explosivejared · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    And I'd like a pony that floated on rainbows and candy and secreted money instead of sweat! Geez! Can't you learn to be content!

    Joking aside, that would be the next logical step. Of course having all lobbying be completely transparent has always been the logical next step to cleaning house, but now Washington doesn't run on logic does it?

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  9. Re:This will be fun to watch... by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scurrying for cover isn't their style. More like, switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches invade Iran.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  10. No, Washington runs on money. by xC0000005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and logic says that if you are a congress man living on lobby money then you don't want a clear paper trail, because it will make it harder to get more of that wonderful pony sweat. Logic says that the man who makes the laws should work to protect his own interests as often as he can without completely alienating the plebes who vote him in based on his name recognition.

    --
    www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
  11. Re:Why isn't this done allready? by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  12. Re:So what? by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's a pretty good guess as to how the initial release will work. Then the EFF will have to file a lawsuit or something arguing that the documents are too redacted and don't fulfill the request. Then we're back in a long, protracted court case.

  13. US Govt by youngone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ?

  14. Re:This will be fun to watch... by Karzz1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not just use the flamethrower for light?

    --
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
  15. Re:This will be fun to watch... by morcego · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure if are joking or not, but this is a real issue.

    In politics, what you describe is called "bullring tactics". It is a very well known and effective way to keep the population under control, by diverting their attention toward an outside "enemy". An enemy that threatens the very thing that makes us human, perhaps (Nazi). Or someone that threatens our way of life (Terrorists). Or someone who corrupts our children (Commies).

    This happened and still happens on many countries, not just USA. The USA is just the more obvious one. Maybe because they have such much presence on the media. Actually, you can see it happening everywhere if you study the history of any country. Sometimes the enemy is fabricated. Sometimes the enemy is real (ie: the politics got lucky and didn't have to create one). The tactics is always the same.

    This is so widely known and used that you can even read about it on books (1984, Chapterhouse Dune etc). You can see it in your own country (doesn't matter where you live). You can see it in your church (in case you belong to one).

    The saddest thing of all, even if you and everybody else can see plainly what these leaders are doing, 99% of the population accept it. I don't know why. Maybe people just don't want the responsibility. Maybe they like to be tricked. Maybe it is because a leader is that makes us a people (don't laugh, it is a verifiable historical truth). Maybe they just don't care. It usually takes things getting pretty serious on a personal level (something like the great depression or even worst) for they to do something.

    Enters Caesar. Bullrings tactics, add some breads and circus, and you have a very simple recipe for keeping the population under control. How simple ? Take a look at the presidents of countries like Venezuela and Brazil. I'm mentioning those just to take a bit of the "anti-Bush" flavor out of this post.

    Let the USA government continue to waste the country's money on all these wars for a decade or two more, and suddenly Iran and North Korea are no longer the real problem anymore.

    Even if you agree with what your government is doing, don't simply accept it. Ask yourself also WHY they are doing it. Do actions and words agree ?

    This EFF court case is a very good way to find out real motivations. I, for one, praise them, and hope they can manage to get the information. If the government tries to hide it, thats ok too. That by itself is enough of a message, telling us, again, what the real motivations are.

    --
    morcego
  16. Re:Checks and balances by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realize that the founding fathers also said how the checks and balances were to be made right?

    They didn't give all out authority of one branch to interfere or "express oversight" with the another. It has to be done within the context of the constitution. This is something that makes me believe this would be overturned in future appeals.

  17. don't worry too much by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Don't worry yourself too much. It won't last. After the next election the millions of Americans who have all this time believed that holding the President accountable under the law was equivalent to helping the enemies of our nation will suddenly discover a newfound skepticism of government, a newfound fondness of government oversight, and a newfound reverence for the rule of law. Signing statements will go from being a vital tool in the war on terror to the mark of a looming dictatorship. Detention without trial will go from being vital to our freedoms back to what it has always been, a hallmark of totalitarian governments. Torture will become torture again, especially when the militia movement pulls a couple of stunts that clearly qualify as terrorism.

    They will loudly denounce all the very things they considered so vital. The 180-degree turn will be fun to watch, but also sad, in that I know now that they're all lying would-be totalitarians who only distrust government because they don't happen to like who's in charge that week.