The history of AT&T is publicly available at various links (e.g., click on my signature)

Without detracting from anything that Glenn Greenwald writes, I'd just like to point out that the various people that must have been involved in going along with Bush's warrantless wiretapping requests are a rather varied set.

In October 2000, AT&T announced that it would restructure over the next two years into a family of separate publicly held companies: AT&T Wireless, AT&T Broadband, and AT&T. In this way, each business could best obtain the capital structure needed to fund its growth. AT&T Wireless became an independent company on July 9, 2001. On December 9, 2001, AT&T and the cable-operator Comcast reached a definitive agreement to merge AT&T Broadband with Comcast. The businesses completed their merger on November 18, 2002, and began combined operations as the Comcast Corporation.

With the completion of the restructuring, David W. Dorman succeeded C. Michael Armstrong as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AT&T in November 2002.

So, if Bush's request was in 2001, even February of 2001, he was dealing with, at (then) AT&T, a company leadership team in major transition.

Meanwhile, SBC, that bought out AT&T in 2005 was entirely separate in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T

-- It raises all kinds of issues, e.g., if C. Michael Armstrong (who went to Comcast) made a decision to go along with Bush's request, did David Dorman endorse it? Could he have withdrawn from it even if he wanted to? etc., etc. Likewise, how is current AT&T leadership (which is from the SBC) responsible personally or corporate-wise for the decision made by the previous two AT&T CEOs? Was SBC which in 2001 was not really an international carrier part of Bush's wiretap order? Did SBC, when acquiring AT&T in 2005, learn about the wiretapping? Did they have a choice to end it? Was a condition imposed by the government for permitting the buyout?

Remember AT&T Wireless was bought out by Cingular. Cingular then was about 60% owned by SBC and 40% owned by Bell South. Later, SBC/AT&T bought out Bell South, gaining full ownership of Cingular, and then Cingular was merged into the AT&T brand.

When did, if the allegation is true, were government contracts issued as payback for cooperation with the government's illegal program?

Was Comcast bound in any way because of its merger with AT&T Broadband?

There are so many questions that I suppose only some future historian will answer, and among them is how to trace the web of decisions and personal responsibility for the wiretapping over these seven years. I suppose as immortal persons, corporations remain legal liable for the predecessors and for the corporations they buy.

I further want to point out that until around 2004, the AT&T lobby was in a fierce battle with the RBOC (SBC, Bell South, etc.) lobby. Click on signature for one link, or another is here:

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040722S0001

The issue at stake in the lobbying war was how much the RBOCs could charge AT&T and other long-distance carriers for the access to the consumer's home. This was set by FCC and challenged in court.

From the URL above:

# First and foremost, the March decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia paved the way for the RBOCs to raise the access fees they charge to AT&T and other firms to connect to their networks.

.....

# The RBOCs were given permission to enter long-distance markets in most states, while AT&T was shackled in its attempts to offer local-telephone service.

Given that the components of the current AT&T were at loggerheads until around 2004, one has to ask questions about what incentives from the Bush admin. and when are relevant to illegal wiretapping.

I'm not sure myself :)

I think the point is that a corporation is not a monolithic thing either. Just as our complaints are with specific departments and people in the Bush administration and not e.g., with the VA administration, or the Social Security Administration, etc., etc., something similar might be true about our complaints about corporations.

It is the policy makers we want to hold accountable, and any policy implementers that could have known and done better - in the government and in the corporations. It is not an indictment of the whole which does labor to produce essential services.

I suppose that was obvious to y'all, but I just had to get it off my chest.

That logo does not just represent the corporate leadership, it represents a lot of workers as well. Click on my signature to get to the Communications Workers of America Union homepage, where one of the links reads:

"Get 10% off Your Wireless Plan at AT&T, the Only Unionized Wireless Company".

Of course, we might all be feeling a lot better if it was the CWA that was the main sponsor of the Democratic Convention.

"The Fall of AT&T Wireless"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/191742_attw21.html

or click on sig should be read.

And perhaps this story, too:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/161419_attoptions20.html

And as far as taxpayer money supporting Israel... Why does US support Egypt in that case? They receive almost as much as Israel. Saudi Arabia also recently got some nice military package deal. Why do they deserve US support?

Simple answer: They don't.

Egypt is paid as part of the peace deal with Israel.

Saudi Arabia is supported because of oil; and because the Saudi monarchy lets American corporations rip off the country.

Sunstein in the very last bit had a very important (IMO) point - that the Congress has to build the apparatus to enforce its will, e.g., with respect to contempt of Congress; and sooner rather than later.

That is something that a President Obama cannot do.