Phone Companies Refuse to Give Congress Data on Spy Program 279
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.'"
Don't blame me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't blame me! (Score:5, Insightful)
"If AT&T has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear!"
What's the over/under on cliches from tired totalitarian regimes for this session of testimony? I've got $10 riding in today's "Totalitarian Bingo" game and I still need a "Papers Please", "(n, canonically Five)-Year Plan" and a "Little (colored, canonically Red) Book" to win.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Funny)
Best. Touché. Ever.
Mod parent insightful, please!
Re: (Score:2)
Impeach
Impeach
Impeach
Impeach
Impeach
(Dream on...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't blame me! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't quite see how they could be sued by the government. It's one thing if the gov't had the proper warrants, but in this case it's just giving in. Legally, they'd be in the right to not comply.
As far as losing contracts...well...who ELSE would the government go to? It's not like a NASA contract and they have between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin. They can't choose between phone providers. "Well, gee, AT&T won't let us tap their lines. But they own the lines. Oh well, we're boned."
Re: (Score:2)
As for contracts it would be like AT&T we want to expand our lines across this national park we will do it in a way that i
Re:Don't blame me! (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiots.
Venal idiots.
Venal, cowardly, criminal idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
All the following is a summary of info from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Both houses can initiate criminal proceeding which can bring up to a year in confinement. The Senate also has procedures to initiate civil action against someone the Senate considers to be in contempt, but that only applies to Executive branch personnel.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a good start. Another good start would be to tell them that if they don't comply, you'll slip a rider into the next telecom bill that provides huge block grants for the installation of municipal communications infrastructure, VoIP research, etc. and explicitly exclude the major telcos from participation---basically threatening to create devastatingly cheap competition as a way to decimate their business if they don't testify.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the democrats are out for blood, so the Telcos want protection before they help if not they will get into more problems.
It's more than just protection from the democrats. The Telcos will side with the Executive branch because the Executive, not the Legislative, has the power to criminally prosecute them if they don't stay on the right side of the line in the sand. If the Bush Administration told them that revealing this information would be illegal, then they probably mean that they'll find a way to prosecute if that happens.
They're definitely stuck between a rock and a hard place... I just don't know if they'll end up ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Invoke "State Secrets" AGAINST Congress... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Himmler told me to (Score:2)
I hate to say it, but they're right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because it is their role. In order to legislate, they have to be able to determine the facts to adjust the legislation accordingly. That is why they have very broad investigative powers. Also it is the role of Congress to oversee the Executive, and if necessary investigate it and even remove the President, if the investigation warrants it. Note that the Constitution provides no means for the Executive to remove Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that the Constitution provides no means for the Executive to remove Congress.
Well, according to Article Two:
Would be interesting to see what is faster, a nuclear-tipped GPS-guided cruise missile or a Congressional impeachment procedure.
And if the missile wins and the courts start to ask questions, the Pres can pardon everybody involved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is a term for this plan: coup d'état.
And it would mean the end of the US as a Republic and an official beginning of the Empire.
Also note that in an effort to prevent such a scenario, all the armed forces take an oath to the Constitution, not to the President to make clear which has precedence over which.
Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is precisely what happened to Ancient Rome [wikipedia.org]. The Republic of Rome was effectively dead by the time Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus had fully consolidated their positions, but for the following several hundred years most Roman citizens politely pretended otherwise. I am not suggesting that this will happen to us, but it is wise to learn the lessons of history.
win/win situation (Score:2)
If we can just guarantee that Bush and Cheney are in the White House at the same time both houses are in session.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, let's check the old history book, oh my why here we have one of the "greatest" presidents arresting members of the maryland legislature and attempted to arrest the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Trust me, when the barbarians are at the gate, the military will jump to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. It's called the commander in chief. the Executive can simply order the military to detain congress. Of course it means you have to have generals in charge that are only loyal to the executive, and not to democracy.
Unless something changes drastically I fully expect a President to try this within the next 20 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the likelihood of this is rather remote, and I'm very pessimistic. If this were to happen, it would have to happen in less than 500 days, as that's the amount of time GWB has left, and he's the one I'd expect to try something like this if his chosen successor doesn't win the '08 election and continue the Iraq War and neocon empire-building. But I still really doubt he'd do it, even if an anti-war c
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is very likely. There is a lot of political power tied up in Guns through the NRA and other pro-2nd Amendment groups. Even if it did pass, it would likely start a civil war because there are a lot of "you can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands" types in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when the president vetoes it?
Re:I hate to say it, but they're right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh boy. It is up to the Legislative branch to determine what does, and what does not, "violate national security". Not anyone else. They, according to the Constitution, set all the rules. Not the Executive, not the Judicial, not the military or intelligence agencies. No one else. Legislative branch is the only one with these powers.
Their oversight role is one of the key elements of the Constitution. They cannot "write themselves" in because that is their core function, they cannot "write themselves" out because that would require a Constitutional Ammendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has such powers by definition as oversight over the activities of the Executive Branch is one of the key roles of Congress as granted by the Constitution. That is why they have very broad investigative powers granted by the same Constitution for this very purpose.
What oversight dispute? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheney just likes Hillary so much he's making sure she'll be the most powerful person in US history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather piss off Congress than this President. Don't forget they outted a spy just because her husband was a critic of the Ex
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, nothing to see here folks. Bush has had no compunctions about pulling the national security card thus far when it involved his dirty laundry, nothing is likely to change about that.
Anyone else... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Contempt of Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop and delay, stop and delay, eh, fellas?
Secrets from WHAT State? Denial? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 h
Justice Department != judiciary (Score:2)
The judiciary has not told anyone to shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THe judicial branch as this time is a neutral 3rd party.
Ding! Or at least, as close to one as can be found in the current circus [school-house-rock.com], and an obvious choice to settle a dispute between the Legislative and the Executive. Of course, presumably if both Congress and the Justice Department come to a sensible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H acceptable^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H sane^H^H^H^H compromise that doesn't make everyone grab for their guns, the Judiciary would hand over whatever is asked for at the mutual request... and sit on i
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how there is any confusion or even a leg to stand on here. If what they did was illegal, it's illegal despite what anyone in the executive branch says. Congress should just ignore the smokescreen of bringing the executive branch into this issue and concentrate on compelling the telcos to testify or be punished. And t
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Dingle, et al, know what they are doing, even if you do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having been subpoena'd, I can imagine... You can object to the subpoena. They'd have a pretty powerful objection in the "The president told us not to talk", and it's not clear to us he doesn't have that authority.
For this specific issue, Congress should order the records held in escrow, and go after whoever in the Executive branch is causing this confusion.
Re:Contempt of Congress (Score:5, Funny)
How the...? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How the...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever looked at the term "Wage Slave" and thought of how apt it really is?
I mean, sure, you can do what you want and say what you want. However, you like to eat don't you? Well, unless you raise and slaughter your own, that takes money. Want money? Well I guess you could start your own small buisness and drum up clients among your fellow free people... but realistically, for most, it means being someones wage slave.
Wage slave show up at 8 am. Wage slave, wear clothes according to this policy.
All the money is in the hands of the upper class, and the lower classes are lucky to slurp up what they can. Wages are balanced against social order, pay people just enough to be too comfortable to revolt.... have enough wage slaves under you, and you get the ear of congress. Thats not enough? Get together with a bunh of other upperclassmen and collectively get the congresscritters ear (its cleaner that way).
Overall mass media is capable of keeping things too confusing and spreads the idea that its all rigged and your vote doesn't matter anyway. Put up two nearly identical puppets who are both wholly owned subsidieries of some federation of corperations.
Make the people feel they are getting what they deserve because nobody is willing to stand up en mass, all while making issues too confusing and convoluted for anyone to get such a mass to stand up in the first place. Toss in a few wedge issues to get people a bit worked up over something that doesn't actually matter, to blow off the steam. And voi la.... you have a system of wage slavery that lets everyone pat themselves on the back for how free we are.
Free....to do as we are told.
-Steve
Re: (Score:2)
And it gets worse. One person can't build a modern combine by himself. So farming would have to be done with equipment that can be produced by a single person. Far less efficient in terms of man-hours, so you'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now! Don't dis medieval fuedalism. Those serfs got more time off for religious holidays and farming downtime than we do today at our jobs.
Oh wait... That just means the wage-slave is less free than the serf.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scumbags (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Scumbags (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Premise wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If AT&T has done nothing wrong, what do they have to hide?
Or is that argument only to be used against the peons when they get uppity about big brother looking down on them?
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, even if AT&T has done nothing wrong, they have been told in very bold terms by the DHS that if they divulge details, then they are guilty of divulging "state secrets" and will be prosecuted accordingly. The blame once again goes back to the executive branch of government.
It would be interesting if Congress held a closed session, where the "state secrets" defense didn't apply, and put the telecom executives under oath. I'm sure
Contempt of congress? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was glorious.
Re: (Score:2)
What a convenient time to become moral (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re:What a convenient time to become moral (Score:5, Funny)
All we have to do is get somebody to give Bush a blow job.
Any Republican congressman want to volunteer?
Re: (Score:2)
What would TJ say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tells a lot about these companies (Score:3, Insightful)
Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress Any office (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insolence? That's an odd word to use in a republic.
And doesn't the president represent the American people as well?
nay, the script filtered my title (Score:2)
Corporate Executive (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
The most effective strategy would be impeachment, which Cheney would especially ignore, which then could be tried as inherent contempt (which does include P/VP), an easier charge to stick. And then, once inherent contempt is applied, proceeding with impeachment, even in absentia, with severely weakened (even if still in den
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not overlook the extensive bribes (and threats of layoffs) that motive Democratic congressmembers, too, even if not so much as the Republicans. But with Democrats in the majority, that will switch over, too. Which is another reason why impeaching an official with whom Democ
I suggest... (Score:2)
or more to the point (Score:2)
Is it the executive or legislative? (Score:2)
I find it m
Don't Shoot the Messenger (Score:2)
Things Are a Lot Worse than We Thought!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-tCPSfHA [youtube.com]
Don't shoot the messenger.
Don't get it (Score:2)
They will co-
Frontline story... (Score:2)
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.
Howeve
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 th
These are not the same issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Democrats are hardly innocents, either. St Hillary was
Re:Ah...Yes wiretapping (Score:4, Informative)
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 [google.com].
But thanks for rehashing the same uninformed myths about our political history that reveal the widespread ignorance that gets us into debacles like Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
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 nothin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even Easier (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You can't pull a corporations charter. Under corporate personhood, that would be murder!
You don't own CDR's! (Re:Even Easier) (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
mod this up (Score:2)