DOJ Still Looks To Have Suit Against Verizon Tossed 79
An anonymous reader writes "With Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell acknowledging that the 'private sector' had a hand in assisting the president's warrantless wiretapping initiative, the DOJ is ever more strenuously demanding that the suit against Verizon be dropped. 'The Justice Department attorneys argue McConnell's statements did nothing to change the fact that it hasn't ever confirmed any of the activities alleged by the class action plaintiffs--and has, in fact, denied the existence of any sort of "dragnet." The arguments made by the class action plaintiffs rest on nothing but "speculation," the attorneys wrote. In the Justice Department's view, litigating the case would still require exposing how the program actually does work--which, it says, would in turn endanger national security.'"
Gone but not Gonzales (Score:5, Insightful)
They will hold our country hostage to get us to let them walk all over our people.
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good subject for confirmation hearings (Score:5, Insightful)
This should come up in the confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General.
Hopefully judges wont buy that sort of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would of thought that if that were the case that not all the hearings would be open to those without necessary clearance. Sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. Along the lines of "We've done stuff we shouldn't of done, but because it's in the interests of national security, we can't tell you what we did and how we will keep on doing it".
Congressional Hearings (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I usually can't stand the idea of Congressional hearings on anything (they end up being more campaign speech-y, than enlightened probes), but this might be an instance where I'm inclined to change my opinion. If there was any type of collusion between the government and big business to break the law of the land, quite a few corporate heads need to roll.
Note that I'm not advocating that these be public hearings - I'm willing to let the government keep a few of its secrets - but all testimony should be under oath. What I cannot abide is watching anybody lie to Congress [washingtonpost.com], and get away scot free. Especially corporations that have received substantial benefits (subsidies, market consolidation, etc.) from the very same people they are lying to.
It was a confession of guilt (Score:3, Insightful)
"Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,"
Which means they have merit. Moreover he said it publicly, so he can testify the same under oath without causing any additional problems for national security.
Re:Congressional Hearings (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I would think that in the interest of having 'checks and balances', in practice rather than theory, that is what ought to happen. If Major corporations have wronged their customers and the DOJ has acted in an illegal manner it needs to be corrected, not brushed under the carpet because it's "in the interests of national security".
Re:Gone but not Gonzales (Score:4, Insightful)
If you thought you saw something over the last decade - with big telecom industries operating a revolving-door operation with the FCC regulators, just wait and see what "intelligence" has in store! There is profit in War - that's what the size of the "defense" budget represents: how much of your taxes will be funneled as a subsidy to Haliburton and General Dynamics. Now, AT&T and VeriZion are in on the act.
They should be thrown out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They should be thrown out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They should be thrown out. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right. You have your legal department determine if the EO would make your company violate the law (not hard, since that's the office to which EOs are submitted in the first place) and, if so, file with the court to have an injunction placed on the feds.
Ignoring an executive order is as bad as just bending over for it.
Re:Pure B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not a big secret understanding what they want. They want to monitor all communications in the US, and be flagged when the system finds things they are looking for. They have wanted this for a long time, even before this administration, and was the whole reason of the original Echelon Network design. Meaning, for the rest of the world they have been monitoring traffic for some time, but were prevented from doing so to its own US citizens. Now they want this power and think that they can justify it by using the 'terrorist' angle...
Re:Congressional Hearings (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm wiling to make an even stronger statement: FUCK "national security!" If we, as a nation, have to make a choice between "national security" and checks and balances, then we're just damn well going to have to be "insecure!"
So wait...what about Yahoo (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet VZ follows the mandate of it's OWN gov't who i guarantee have the most weight in determining 'international human rights' and winds up in court. Then the DOJ is looking to have the lawsuit dropped?!
So wait.
China forces a company to provide private info to 'out' a journalist per a LAWFUL (in china) request = BAD
Verizon willingly cooperates with secret requests (of highly questionable legality) to not only provide information on-hand but actively seek out and CAPTURE information (i.e. wiretap) for the *US* gov't = GOOD??
I know we're 'holier than thou' but seriously...can anyone in their right mind justify the disparity? I mean, without resorting to 'because we said so' like my parents used to when I was 6.
Re:Congressional Hearings (Score:3, Insightful)
So all those acts must be made public to ensure that they actually do or would receive public approval. In hiding it's methods and it's actions, the current administration and it's political appointees know that the public would not approve of those methods used and the actions taken, and they are specially via their secretive actions are endangering the security of the citizens and in turn having a major negative impact on national security.
So you do in fact want national security, but you want if for real, not just legal bull shit to hide unconstitutional and criminal activities as well as the corruption that allows those activities to occur. The current administration gives major concessions to telecommunication industries that actively disadvantages the majority of citizens, in turn the telecommunication companies allows and supports gross abuses of the constitution and the law to occur on it's services for purely politically motivated purposes.