I think the telecoms did what they did because BushCo were threatening to take away major business contracts with the government and because it was in the shadow of 9/11, so they were being good citizens. What CEO today can afford to lose major business to uphold principle. And, what citizen wouldn’t have done anything the government asked to catch the bad guys?

I can’t buy that supposition. Simply put, the government had no other means to warrantlessly wiretap than through these telcos.

The telcos were going to lose business to other entities? To whom?

In spite of the demonopolization of the telcom industry (circa 1983 breakup of AT&T), the actual facts are that these telcos still hold and maintain a monopoly on our communications networks.

Believe it from one who worked in, and with, these very same telcos for over a dozen years.

I just don’t see how it makes sense to make the telecoms out to be bad guys in those circumstances.

MarkH, I generally like your commentary, but on this one, you’ve missed it entirely.

It was against the fookin’ law for the telcos to assist the government in warrantlessly wiretapping! It was a fookin’ criminal act as defined explicitly in FISA!

The telcos knew it, the government knew it, and now, nobody is going to fookin’ jail!

Make no mistake the telcos are just as fookin’ criminal as their government co-conspirators!

This isn’t even a close one!

Technically, I think telecoms were in an untenable position anyway. Under FISA the gov’t has something like 14 days to show a warrant, so on day one the gov’t doesn’t have to have the warrant. How can a telecom KNOW the Bushies don’t ever intend to get the warrant? They have to assume everything is copacetic and the warrant will appear later. But, then when it doesn’t appear and the Bushies use an AG letter or some other crap, then the jig is up. That’s why they aren’t so much at fault as they would have been if the warrant had been required up front, but wasn’t there and they still allowed the wiretapping.

I just don’t see how it makes sense to make the telecoms out to be bad guys in those circumstances. But, when the warrant was due and BushCo went ahead without it, then somebody was breakin’ the law.

Obama Administration Enables Saudi Princes to Escape Accountability for Material Support for 9/11 Terror Attacks, Families Charge

On the day that President Obama holds his first summit with Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in Riyadh, the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism charged that recent actions by his administration would enable five of the king’s closest relatives to escape accountability for their role in financing and materially supporting the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In response to the administration’s action, the 9/11 families released allegations made in 2002 of the Saudi royal family’s sponsorship and support of al Qaeda that the families believe have been ignored by the Obama Administration.

On May 29, the president’s top lawyer before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, filed a brief arguing that it would be “unwarranted” for the Supreme Court to even hear cases brought by the 9/11 families charging that five Saudi princes knowingly and intentionally provided financial support to al Qaeda waging war on America. By urging the high court to not review lower court decisions dismissing these cases, the Obama Administration took the side of the Saudi princes over thousands of family members and survivors of the 9/11 attacks seeking justice and accountability in U.S. courts…

I always thought “the Law was for Justice”, but apparently I’ve got that wrong.

It seems according to our government, “the Law is for Just Us!”

Not really good for lawyers. The sophisticated lawyer will be able to use it, but the generic schlub will have no idea about it and wind up getting blindsided every time. Those that survive will [have to] go elsewhere.

in that case a template can be prescribed