Letters to the Editor
-
A Critical Question...
Why should/could immunity be granted for actions that took place before 9/11/01!?
if theres anything at all to the govt argument that this was all done for national security ... there should be a very very VERY Firm line drawn in the sand.
before 9/11 THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR BLANKET SURVEILLANCE OF INTERNET/PHONE/ETC.
All senators should be asked if they are attempting to claim that anything of this sort could at all be possible BEFORE that horrible day.
There's no way to justify anything thats occurred before esp since they didn't stop the attacks, or listen to warnings or .... building 7?
[even after, there is no excuse for vacuuming up all internet/phone data on American citizens, but this is a critical line in the sand that MUST BE DRAWN.]
No Immunities especially[!!!] for any Surveillance that occurred before that date.
-
Questions on the immunity provision
I'm curious to know exactly how the immunity provision is phrased, at least in the bill being debated.
For example, if I, as a customer of Verizon online, want to terminate my contract without incurring their obscene early termination fee, am I able to assert that their disclosure of my records is in breach of our contract? In other words, let's assume they have immunity from a lawsuit by me -- even so, does this mean they're not in breach of a contract so as to allow me to terminate without becoming liable for the fee?
I have more questions -- but I'd really love to see the exact text of the immunity provision.
-
openness
I they can be forced to disclose this lobbying-related information in this context, why not do the same thing in relation to other proposed legislation? If this worked all the time, it could go a long way toward reducing the ill effects of lobbying.
Do we not expect the administration to elevate this litigation in order to avoid or delay the consequences however?
-
WT, ondelette
Mr. Timberman I join you in thanking ondelette. I have been resisting his interpretation somewhat, but it is clear that he is right. I agree with you full disclosure must be a part of the cure.
-
FOI In Your Little Town
Kudos again to Glenn Greenwald on working the Joe and Time story.
Clearly, some nerves are vibrating; there has been a reaction in newsrooms and within the commentariat.
Literate blogs on the Klein story reflect an appropriate level of indignation; it is a rush to see smoke rise from the keyboard, on this and many other issues That's why blogging is fun.
However, as regards the story about telecoms and the apparently successful EFF Freedom of Information challenge in California, Salon bloggers could also "do" some direct democracy by filing their own FOI complaints.
You could say: venting is not enough.
As a person with reporting experience, I'm used to working town halls, courts, and state houses. I have filed some FOI complaints.
The state I live in has one of the most progressive FOI laws on the books. Other states have weaker FOI laws. Still others may have nothing. I don't know.
State FOI laws flow from the federal FOI law, passed in 1966. FOI laws are aligned with open meeting laws. The point is, you can challenge a closed meeting or file an FOI complaint if there are viable procedures where you live.
Here's a multitasking assignment: take your laptop down to the next local council meeting, work on your latest blog, watch what's going on, take some notes, and see if you can find out if everything is on the level. Ask some questions after the meeting. See what's up.
As far as actually filing a complaint, you could look at it on one level as throwing mud on the wall to see what will stick.
Or, by focusing more closely on a certain troubling issue, and by seeking some organizational support, a stronger, more specific FOI complaint can be filed.
If a state has a functioning FOI law it must respond in writing to any citizen who files a complaint.
The response may be that there are no grounds to proceed to a hearing, but you can file again.
Practice makes perfect.
Go for it.
No fear.
-
What's the schedule?
Glenn, assuming that information arrives on 12/10, what's the schedule look like for the committee hearing, floor vote and holiday recess? I get the impression that there's going to be a very tiny window to spark national discussion and constituent lobbying before the FISA bill gets ramrodded through.
And what do you think will be the most effective way we can process the info and lobby for change?
THank you for your stellar work, and thanks to those commenters who've been particularly good at keeping us informed of pertinent usable facts.
-
And...
If my understanding is correct, I'd also like to know why these same senators have been lobbying for protections that are already granted in previous enacted laws? They continue to use the "but the telcoms were just doing their patriotic duty when the government called upon them" schtick. If that's the case, and what they did was just good Samaritan behavior, what have they got to worry about?
The question is important because, as Glenn allows, perhaps these senators are not beholden to the telcoms. But if that's the case, why press for legal protections, as they describe, that already exist? Where there's smoke...
-
Re: update I
It occurs to me there are meetings, and then there are meetings. There is the closed door meeting in her office, where frank and lengthy discussions may be held. Then there are the “you have 2 minutes with the Senator as she is walking to her next meeting” meetings.
It would be interesting to see how the EFF and civil liberties advocates characterize their meetings with Feinstein.
-
Defendants including Verizon and AT&T?
Glenn,
You have probably done this already, but could you follow up with Scott Gerber and find out specifically which companies Feinstein has met with? You may want to anticipate a refusal and also ask on what grounds they are withholding that information. National Security? State Secrets?
-
KevinHayden
Glenn, assuming that information arrives on 12/10, what's the schedule look like for the committee hearing, floor vote and holiday recess?
I'm not entirely sure at this point. After the last Judiciary Committee votes, it all disappeared into the behind-the-scenes black hole. A lot depends on if Feinstein/Whitehouse/Kohl, who still want to get telecoms off the hook, can reach a deal with Specter that will substitute the government in a way that gets enough support on the floor.
But I don't think there'll be much time to do much. It will have to be fast action. They're not going to want some protracted process to enable "activists" to raise a lot of ruckus again.
I'm having a conference call in a couple days with the ACLU and others to find out about scheduling and where things are exactly, and will post more once I know.