Federal Law No longer Applies to Obama Admin.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by pyld

What makes you think they'd be prosecuted?

Let's just say that Obama decided to prosecute them and the shield law was not passed. In order to do so, they'd either have to allow the technical details of the program to come up in defense (which would reveal methods) or invoke the state secrets act, which would moot the prosecution. Neither of those would happen.

There was never a threat of prosecution. There was a threat that the Bush administration would be forced to invoke the state secrets act a few thousand times in the course of the telcoms who went along getting sued by citizens in civil actions.

The telcos that went along did so to curry favor, not because they were particularly pressured. This is most applicable to AT&T, but true of all the others who went with it.

We are discussing FISA which offered immunity from prosecution to the telcoms that went along with the requests. If prosecution was not on the table and would never be there was no need for FISA and anyone's support or opposition to it would be moot (so why would you be upset with a person who supported it since it would never matter anyway?). It may well have also protected them from civil litigation, but I don't recall as it was long ago that I looked at that piece of legislation and I did not read it fully.

You may have some information that I don't regarding the motivation for compliance with the government request, but I am very hesitant to accept the notion that they did not face some pressure from the government.

[Aside]It's funny in one breath Bush and Cheney are evil masterminds forcing companies and citizens to conform to their iron fisted whims and then in the next companies are flocking to them and granting their every wish to curry favor. I wish people would make up their minds about those two.

[GHogHarvester]

Originally Posted by Adam-12

I do too. But Qwest stood up to them. There's no evidence the others even balked at turning the information over, let alone that the government actually drew down and pointed a gun at anyone's head.

AT&T had a reason to cooperate, QWest did not...

The two previous 10-year government-wide telecom contracts had two main providers. The first went to Sprint and AT&T. The second to Sprint and MCI Worldcom, since acquired by Verizon.

3/30/2007 9:10 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — AT&T (T), Qwest Communications (Q) and Verizon (VZ) on Thursday were awarded the government's largest telecommunications contract ever, a 10-year deal worth up to $48 billion.
The contract winners, who beat out Sprint Nextel (S), don't simply split a pool of money. They now have to compete with each other for the various telecom needs of dozens of federal agencies, the General Services Administration announced.

The contract covers voice, video and data services and technologies for as many as 135 agencies operating in 190 countries. Several major departments, including Homeland Security and Treasury, have already signed up.

While AT&T, Qwest Communications International and Verizon gained an important and deep-pocketed client, the announcement was a huge blow to Sprint, analysts said, because it has been providing telecom services to the federal government for nearly 20 years.

"The federal government was Sprint's first major customer since the company started," said technology consultant Warren Suss of Jenkintown, Pa.

While current GSA officials would not say why Sprint lost out, Bob Woods, a former official at the agency who now works as a consultant, surmised that Sprint could not meet the low prices of its competitors. Woods estimated that Sprint could lose roughly $200 million to $250 million annually in existing government business.

Executives from Sprint plan to meet with GSA officials next week to discuss why their contract proposal fell short, and the company will decide afterward whether to file a protest, spokeswoman Sukhi Sahni said in an e-mail.

For the winners, Thursday's announcement was perhaps most significant for Qwest, the smallest among them. Suss said Qwest can now leverage its government business to gain more corporate clients.

Qwest senior vice president Diana Gowen conceded that the company has its work cut out for it going up against AT&T and Verizon, but said Qwest's smaller size would make it more agile. "If you want to make it the David and Goliath story, we'll be the David and slay the dragon," she said.

Don Herring, president of AT&T's government business, said getting on the contract is "a really important first step," adding that it will be several months before the companies start bidding on specific agency projects. AT&T is based in San Antonio.

Industry analysts said they expect the federal government to spend at least $20 billion over the life of the so-called Networx Universal contract, which is capped at $48 billion.

"The advanced technologies and services defined in the Networx program will serve as a platform to transform the government's telecommunications infrastructure to a more seamless and secure environment," GSA's acquisitions commissioner Jim Williams said in a prepared statement. GSA procures and manages federal assets.

The two previous 10-year government-wide telecom contracts had two main providers. The first went to Sprint and AT&T. The second to Sprint and MCI Worldcom, since acquired by Verizon.

For the losers of the Networx Universal contract, there is a consolation prize on the table. GSA is planning in May to award a second telecommunications contract called Networx Enterprise — worth up to $20 billion — that contains fewer mandatory requirements and services in select areas across the nation.

In a statement, Sprint said it expected to win the second contract.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by adymond

Would you risk ending up in a hole in GitMo leaving family wondering what happened because you are going to do the right thing and not allow the government to listen to your cell phone conversation with another person? I don't know what I would do, but I would like to think my fellow citizens would understand the pressures exerted and judge the actions in the totality of the circumstance.

it is easy to be a holy man on the top of a mountain, no doubt.

i like to think i would tell the government to f' off in that situation. i honestly do think i would. at any rate, that is what i should do.

but, if i chose otherwise, i should be subject to criminal prosecution for breaking the law (assuming i broke a law) and to civil lawsuits for damages done to my neighbor, imho.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

it is easy to be a holy man on the top of a mountain, no doubt.

i like to think i would tell the government to f' off in that situation. i honestly do think i would. at any rate, that is what i should do.

but, if i chose otherwise, i should be subject to criminal prosecution for breaking the law (assuming i broke a law) and to civil lawsuits for damages done to my neighbor, imho.

I just figured outhow to explain why I give some leeway.

Governmental pressure = threat of force. Sort of like if you present your firearm you are presenting the threat of force. This can be justified or not.

Court order = use of force. Say you draw your firearm and actually aquire a sight picture.

[Adam-12]

Originally Posted by adymond

[Aside]It's funny in one breath Bush and Cheney are evil masterminds forcing companies and citizens to conform to their iron fisted whims and then in the next companies are flocking to them and granting their every wish to curry favor. I wish people would make up their minds about those two.

You're right. It had nothing to do with currying favor. They did it for two reasons. First, because the threat of future civil suits might inhibit telecoms from complying with future illegal requests. And second, because any investigation of the telecoms would lead back to the administration. Shutting down the possibility of investigation, especially through civil discovery, covered the administration's ass.

[pyld]

Originally Posted by adymond

We are discussing FISA which offered immunity from prosecution to the telcoms that went along with the requests. If prosecution was not on the table and would never be there was no need for FISA and anyone's support or opposition to it would be moot (so why would you be upset with a person who supported it since it would never matter anyway?). It may well have also protected them from civil litigation, but I don't recall as it was long ago that I looked at that piece of legislation and I did not read it fully.

My point is that the government would never, ever prosecute the telcos. In order to do that, they'd need to reveal methods and secrets that they won't reveal. It was never a threat.

Originally Posted by adymond

You may have some information that I don't regarding the motivation for compliance with the government request, but I am very hesitant to accept the notion that they did not face some pressure from the government.

[Aside]It's funny in one breath Bush and Cheney are evil masterminds forcing companies and citizens to conform to their iron fisted whims and then in the next companies are flocking to them and granting their every wish to curry favor. I wish people would make up their minds about those two.

I do (put it to you this way--I directly spend >$100 million/year of someone else's money on telco/network services a year at work) know a bit about this, lot of which I can't discuss--but right about the time the warrantless wiretapping things started, I had a senior VP from AT&T tell me and my senior VP "We have very good friends down in Texas." The implication was clear.

[Aside]What disgusts me about Bush and (particularly) Cheney is that they were willing to trade the liberty of US citizens from some bullshit modicum of security. I don't believe they "forced" anyone to do anything. But I don't care if they "forced" or merely "asked"--the government spying on it's own citizens without judicial approval disgusts and scares me. That they did so when FISA clearly had a path to do so legally disgusts me even further.

[addicted2freedom]

Can someone tell me what Federal Law was broken?

[adymond]

Originally Posted by pyld

My point is that the government would never, ever prosecute the telcos. In order to do that, they'd need to reveal methods and secrets that they won't reveal. It was never a threat.



I do (put it to you this way--I directly spend >$100 million/year of someone else's money on telco/network services a year at work) know a bit about this, lot of which I can't discuss--but right about the time the warrantless wiretapping things started, I had a senior VP from AT&T tell me and my senior VP "We have very good friends down in Texas." The implication was clear.

[Aside]What disgusts me about Bush and (particularly) Cheney is that they were willing to trade the liberty of US citizens from some bullshit modicum of security. I don't believe they "forced" anyone to do anything. But I don't care if they "forced" or merely "asked"--the government spying on it's own citizens without judicial approval disgusts and scares me. That they did so when FISA clearly had a path to do so legally disgusts me even further.

Since I am not privvy to the same info you are and you aren't able to discuss more than that quote I hope you won't hold it against me if I am not 100% convinced that there was no pressure placed upon the companies.

Were/are you equally disgusted and irate about how Clinton really build up the Project Echelon which is even more intrusive into our electronic communication? At least with the "warrantless wiretaps" there was an individual identified. It was not a program that was used against EVERY piece of electronic commuinication. Sadly the program still exists.

[crazyyankee]

Originally Posted by Adam-12

Right, it would make me hypocritical. But I'm against both Obama's and Bush's crimes. Every president since James Buchanan (the one before Lincoln) should have been impeached for his crimes (except maybe Grover Cleveland). Most of them should have been executed for their crimes, including Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Johnson and Bush II. So I'm appalled by what Obama's up to, but I'm suspicious that most everyone who's up in arms about it would hypocritically support any crime as long as the criminal were a Republican.

That is where you are wrong! I fought against the UNpatriot Act, just like I'm fighting against the unConstitutional Obamacare. If it is unConstitutional I will fight against it.. For example trials where the government doesn't allow you a jury, such as the IRS DEA and other corrupt agencies. The government has also rigged the jury system, for example if ypou know and understand what a Fully informed Jury is, you will not be called to serve on a jury..
So to think this is just about Dem or Rep is wrong on so many levels! It is about taking this nation back from the special interests and the corrupt politcos of all parties!

I'm a Constitutional conservative, I guess it would make me more of a Libertarian, but I really don't care what you call it!

Oh and trust me the corruption with Executive Directives (what Executive orders were called before FDR) have been wrong fro quite some time..

I would suggest you read the book called "the coming American Dictatroship" by John Silveira. It is put out by Backwoodshome Magazine. It is an interesting read and full of information..

[crazyyankee]

Originally Posted by adymond

Since I am not privvy to the same info you are and you aren't able to discuss more than that quote I hope you won't hold it against me if I am not 100% convinced that there was no pressure placed upon the companies.

Were/are you equally disgusted and irate about how Clinton really build up the Project Echelon which is even more intrusive into our electronic communication? At least with the "warrantless wiretaps" there was an individual identified. It was not a program that was used against EVERY piece of electronic commuinication. Sadly the program still exists.

Most have never heard of Project Echelon or Carnavore(sp)..Nor do they understand the ramifications of those programs...
While I didn't know about them till later when I found out I was po'ed to say the least and still am..

They continue to violate the Constitution in more ways then one and the sheeple just sit back, not knowing anything...