Phone Companies Muzzled On Eavesdropping

White House Forbids Telecom Companies From Telling Congress About Surveillance Activity

(AP)  Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans' phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.

"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," Watts wrote.

The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday.

The letter from Verizon provided some detail on the kind of information the government is seeking.

Verizon has been regularly asked in subpoenas and national security letters to identify a "calling circle" for certain telephone numbers and to provide related subscriber information.

The company has never complied with such a request as it does not maintain calling-circle records, according to Verizon general counsel Randal Milch.

The House is about to consider a new government eavesdropping bill. The White House has threatened to veto the bill unless it includes retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted government investigations without court orders.

The Bush administration has said the companies cooperated in good faith because of their patriotism and desire to protect the country in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and should not be punished.

However, last week a Colorado court unsealed documents in the case of former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of insider trading in April. Nacchio, who is appealing his conviction, maintains the National Security Agency asked Qwest to allow it to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in February 2001, six months before the Sept. 11 attacks.

On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., asked the Justice Department and McConnell for a full briefing on what he termed Nacchio's "disturbing revelation."

House Democrats vowed last week not to grant immunity in the eavesdropping bill without being told exactly what the companies did that requires legal protection.

Roughly 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies for their alleged cooperation with the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the details of which are classified. U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly eavesdropped on calls and e-mails in the United States without court orders.

A Senate version of the bill, scheduled for committee action on Thursday, is likely to include an immunity provision.

The Bush administration has thus far refused to disclose to Congress details of the program other than classified briefings provided to a small group of House and Senate intelligence committee members.

Telecommunications companies regularly and legally provide assistance to intelligence and law enforcement agencies. According to Verizon's Milch, the company received 88,000 lawful requests and demands for information from government entities - 34,000 from federal officials and 54,000 from state and local officials. Of those, 23,700 were emergency requests, 300 of them from federal officials.

Verizon received more than 1,000 wiretap and other court orders in 2006, he said. It has received more than 630 court orders since last January.

[toldyouso21]

How exactly can these companies say the federal government has told them not to answer questions when it is the federal government (ie., Congress) which is demanding answers? Why not tell the truth? It is Bush who told them to keep quiet and actually, he has neither the power or authority to do so--to allow any President to muzzle investigations is to invite any one man to become a dictator. That is what dictators do: tell everyone what they can and cannot do, and people obey them out of fear.

[speakinup]

You know, I can accept that you are uncomfortable about this, but to say, "There is zero evidence it has helped our security."

Don''t you think this is a bit over the top ? I mean, would they broadcast the people they have caught ?

Let''s not make up material as we go along here to support your personal beliefs.

I mean, otherwise, what about if I were to post that I was a telephone worker and I had personally found 347 terrorists talking about setting off bombs, and that I had seen them arrested.

[greco99-2009]

Everyone knows the spying program exists.

Everyone also knows it broke the existing law and Bush did not bother to change the law because he thinks he is above the law. If they can justify it and pass a law then so be it. They did not, they deliberately broke this and other laws with impunity.

There is zero evidence it has helped our security.

There is no independant oversight.

Wholesale spying without a warrant can be abused in many ways from checking up on reporters, candidates, and religious groups to insider trading. International banks will not do business here. If you like accurate news you are harmed. Of course, widespread spying has a chilling effect. This is just like the old Soviet Union.

If you don''''t think there will be abuse, please note that it was all over the press that they kept lists of religous (e.g Quakers) opposed to war. Ted Kennedy was placed (briefly) the ''no fly'' list. Worse than the old ''''Soviet Union''''. Anti-American to the max. Laws broken = criminal.

They are using secrecy (secret laws, secret courts, gag orders) to hide corruption.

But, the lies are out of hand. They are trying to protect cronies not the American people.

Those who broke the law were rewarded, while those who asked questions were punished!!!

So, if you are a lawyer for a large company and a government official asks you to do something illegal - do you advise your client to do the crime or ask questions? What kind of society will that produce?

[brianbwb-2009]

"White House Forbids Telecom Companies From Telling Congress About Surveillance Activity"

Since when can Bush prohibit private companies from complying with the law? If congress calls you and says "testify", refusal is contempt of congress, and therefore illegal.

[johnshaft4]

Makes you wonder who is the greatest threat to our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...Al Quieda or the US Federal Govt.

[condumism]

Posted by boatdocster
Clinton was impeached for breaking a law between him and one other person. Bush may have spied on thousands of Americans, breaking many laws in the process. Which is the greater crime against our country and it''''s citizens?

Your audience will depend on the answer that you receive. Cons of course will slip into their DENIAL and USED CAR SALEMAN personalities and attack you with every stoke of their keyboard. Libs, on the other hand, will be pissedoff knowing that the 2007 Congress has made no effort to impeach the fascist scum that are now the White House. Stay tuned, I guess......

[starleo146]

Fedupwithit1 you are absolutely right, and here it is again;
Lets recap what Bush has done for the USA.

1. Turned the first budget surplus we had had in many years into the largest [national debt] deficit in history.

2. Restarted the cold war.

3. Turned a worldly outcry of support for the USA into a world that hates the USA.

4. Entrenched us in an unjust war based on faulty and manufactured intelligence.

5. Created an environment of paranoia and fear unsurpassed in my lifetime.

You can thank the anti abortion right wing christians for this, they voted with their uterus'''' instead of their brains for a right wing bibull thumper whose agenda was anti g@y and anti abortion- THAT was why they put him in twice.


Posted by newster1 at 08:08 PM : Oct 16, 2007

I found this on another post, but thought Rangerdahl would understand it best.

[walt1944-2009]

The Great Emperor Bush is relieved that the 3 major telecommunications companies will not divulge to the wicked Democrats in Congress what information was handed over to the Emperor in his quest for "terrrrrorists" even before the country was attacked on 9/11.

Although the companies will not tell Congress what they have done, it has been learned that everything handed over to the NSA has been transferred into code and cannot be deciphered unless a special "decoder pin" is used. This pin, which is the only one in existence, is similar in design to the one Ralphie used and obtained after drinking "gallons of Ovaltine" in the movie "A Christmas Story", and is reportedly kept under intense security in a secret drawer of the Emperor''s desk in the Oval Office. It is occassionally inspected by the Emperor himself to determine its authenticity and decode secret messages from VP Darth Vader Cheney.

The Emperor, meanwhile, insists that all 3 companies be given immunity from any possible wrong doing from now back to the beginning of time, and forward into the future for as long as the new USSA is in existence (which, hopefully, won''t be long!).

HAIL TO THE INTENSE VIGILANCE OF THE GREAT EMPEROR BUSH II !!!!!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!

[boatdocster]

Agree with Rudy 646

If Bush was spying 6 months before 9/11 then he should have been able to prevent that tragic event. Other people were starting to put it together without the benefit of country wide eavesdropping.

Without the aggression of 9/11, the early spying would be a clear violation of the Federal Telecommunications and the FISA laws.

Was the simply the first step in the ROVE slander and re-election machine to start stacking the deck for the GOP? Data mining a la Watergate, taken to a new level?

Clinton was impeached for breaking a law between him and one other person.

Bush may have spied on thousands of Americans, breaking many laws in the process. Which is the greater crime against our country and it''s citizens?

[danstoned]

These past 2 1/2 years, while at work at the Los Alamos National Lab, my phone was tapped for every telephone call (I heard the clicks, which those with whom I talked with would ALWAYS ask ME if my phone was tapped) Reason? During my security clearance profiling, the NSA asked a man hating FEMALE HOMOSEXUAL *** who I worked with 7 years prior if I was a security clearance risk, to which she replied YES! I guess that was enough for the man hating female homosexual *** community, which permeates the NSA and much of federal government to pass along what this former colleague said about me, that I was a man, and that I had to be wiretapped.

[starleo146]

Posted by rangerdahl at 07:04 PM : Oct 16, 2007

What is disturbing about this is the inability of this administration to share any information with the intelligence committee. And yet, they expect even broader measures to be passed, with no oversight.
"formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs,"
I do not know if anyone has gone to jail or been impacted in any way by the telecom spying, however, years ago during the "red" scare, many files were secretly kept on Americans labeled "red, or even, pink" That operation too, was kept secret because of "national security" , although many good Americans lost their careers because of being labeled. Many who justified that considered themselves, "patriotic" and anyone who disagreed as "unpatriotic" It is not inconceivable that Americans are being spied on by this excessively secretive administration simply because they disagree with national policies.

Posted by pastdue1 at 07:26 PM : Oct 16, 2007

Maybe you can understand this Rangerdahl, but I think when a neocon is a neocon there mind and eyes are shut.

[kansas1946]

What is a "tinhat" anyway?

[kansas1946]

Hey you paranoid tinhat bush bashers: Please quit throwing the word "fascist" around willy nilly.
*********************************

If I recall, I think it was Rush that started with the goofy term, "Islamofascist." And now that is all you hear from the Bush apologists. Islamofascist...Islamofascist...
Yeah, you are right, it has lost its punch.

[kansas1946]

ranger,
No, you can relax because a lot of us don''t and never will. If you know sheep, most will follow the leader into a river in full fleece and drown, but there are always a few that say, "What the hell," and stay on the bank. I choose to stay on the bank and bleat like hell about a president that strives to be a dictator.

[rudy654-2009]

"maintains the National Security Agency asked Qwest to allow it to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order in February 2001, six months before the Sept. 11 attacks."

I sure wish somebody would explore and explain this. Six months before the attack?? Or you kidding me?? Did they know something six months before the attack, or what exactly were they doing then violating due process? This is very odd; about as odd as that anthrax situation that followed the 9/11 attacks and were traced to US labs.

[usayesterday]

Hey you paranoid tinhat bush bashers: Please quit throwing the word "fascist" around willy nilly. You''''ve basically rendered that word meaningless now. At least look up fascism and get an understanding of what it really is. I mean this in all seriousness.

Posted by YankeeRebel7 at 07:02 PM : Oct 16, 2007
.....................

I have researched what a fascist government really is.

Perhaps you should too. Or how many more freedoms do you need taken away or restricted before you realize what fascism really means?

And by the way...

I wear no hat on my head, and no ideology, (religious or political), on my sleeve.

[yankeerebel7]

Whoa, somebody get you guys tinhats!

[mystixa]

The bad thing about claiming this as a state secret, is that it really has nothing to do with national security. Anyone with any knowledge of modern technology after the 80s knows that the government can listen to any conversation, and only through our law does it not do so routinely. So there is no security gained by keeping any company from speaking about the fact that wiretapping is in fact done.

The only security that kind of policy addresses is that of those who broke the law. The administration is using national secrecy laws to protect its own interests.

As soon as that is proven I believe it will indeed amount to high crimes and misdemeanors since these crimes work directly against the constitution.

Why on earth would we grant retroactive immunity for crimes committed? That doesnt even make any sense. If these companies want to be acquitted for committing crimes because they truly felt it was in the country''s best interest let them convince a jury of that. However since this program began b4 9-11 it is doubtful to be possible.
Some of you deniers may not have realized it yet.. but we do live in the age of computers, its not nec. for a human to be listening at the other end in order to have monitored communication.

[rangerdahl]

Well, I''m off to the gym to lift weights. I need to be strong next time I go to Iraq so I can choke Iraqis who desperately need it. Until tomorrow my fellow Americans.

[rangerdahl]

MCVet:

Where''s my pot pie Granpa? and I want sose good smelling stuff in my bath too. Now hop to it!