Slashdot Log In
Court Orders White House to Disclose Telecom Ties
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Nov 29, 2007 04:44 PM
from the fess-up-to-it-boys dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: White House Specifies And Mandates Secure Windows 242 comments
twitter writes "The Register is reporting on an effort to bring order to the wild world of Windows patching, at least in the US Federal Government. The White House has issued a directive to federal CIOs throughout the country, issuing a call for all new PCs to use a 'common secure configuration.' 'Registry settings and which services would be turned on or off by default [are specified and] the directive calls for suppliers (integrators and software vendors) to certify that the products they supply operate effectively using these more secure configurations. "No Vista application will be able to be sold to federal agencies if the application does not run on the secure version of Vista," explained Alan Paller, director of research at The SANS Institute.'"
[+]
FCC Declines To Probe Disclosure of Phone Records 97 comments
An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports that the FCC won't be investigating the phone record disclosures by communications companies under US government pressure. Despite a congressional request for that probe, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin quashed the inquiry based on comments from National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell. 'At issue are reports last year that some big telephone companies allowed the U.S. government access to millions of telephone records for an antiterrorism program. The reports have prompted scrutiny by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Democratic Rep. Edward Markey, the chairman of a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee, asked Martin to investigate. Markey, of Massachusetts, said McConnell's stance was "unsurprising given that this administration has continually thwarted efforts by Congress to shed more light on the surveillance program."'"
[+]
Politics: White House Wins On Spying, Telecom Immunity 658 comments
EllisDees sends in a Washington Post report that Senate Republicans have outmaneuvered Democrats, who withdrew a more stringent version of legislation to control the government's domestic surveillance program. The legislation that will go forward includes a grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
They'll ignore the court order... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They'll ignore the court order... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They'll ignore the court order... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:They'll ignore the court order... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:They'll ignore the court order... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:They'll ignore the court order... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Clarification (Score:4, Insightful)
Sudden outbreak of common sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
constituents (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:constituents (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:constituents (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Parent
Re:constituents (Score:5, Informative)
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 [opensecrets.org] and the Health Professionals Industry [opensecrets.org] for the 2007-2008 election cycle?
Parent
If I am not mistaken (Score:4, Insightful)
He did this with knowledge and aforethought. Bush is
really a traitor to the American people.
Re:If I am not mistaken (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:If I am not mistaken (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Well, if it's required by law (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, if it's required by law (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Yeah Right! (Score:4, Funny)
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?
No, Washington runs on money. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
US Govt (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:This will be fun to watch... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This will be fun to watch... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Why isn't this done allready? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Checks and balances (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent