 Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX | Did anyone read the original interview? Has a single person read or even scanned the original interview in the El Paso Times newspaper? Mr. McConnell says (boldface is mine):
"Now the second part of the issue was under the president's program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private sector had assisted us. Because if you're going to get access you've got to have a partner and they were being sued. Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies. So my position was we have to provide liability protection to these private sector entities. So that was part of the request."
OK, the private sector was / is obviously AT&T, Verizon and a few more. Instead of just constantly blasting "W," I wonder if the carriers cooperated for free, were paid to cooperate or were "strong armed" into doing something they really didn't want to do ... as the decision to do so had to most likely come from their CEO or maybe even the board of directors. |
|
| At which rate they should be sued to oblivion. I am sure these companies have a team of lawyers and can rightfully say no to such requests, too. I don't buy the argument they were strong armed. I'm sure they were armed, with boatloads of cash, though. |
|
|
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | reply to Gwailo
said by Gwailo:[...] I wonder if the carriers cooperated for free, were paid to cooperate or were "strong armed" into doing something they really didn't want to do ... None of the above. They cooperated fully and voluntarily because it was in their financial best interest to do so. Brownie points/breaks/promises from the WH never hurts when you're a multi-billion dollar telco and you want to appoint your company as Internet content gatekeeper free and clear of any regulation or oversight of any kind.
--
The Toll
|
|
Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX | reply to jc100
It would be very interesting to find out but that's probably not in the cards for 20-50 years or so. I'd almost bet it was not "cash up front" but they did it for some future favor, like "you owe us one" for legislation favoring them, etc. But of course, neither of us know for sure. Someday ... maybe. |
|
| My guess, at the way things are currently headed, we'll never know. The right for documents to be declassified under the Freedom of Information Act will quickly be abolished. I got a pretty strong gut feeling this law is bound for an Axe in the near distant future. After all, you can't have people questioning the government, now can you? What kind of democracy would that be if the people demanded to be properly represented, holding their electorates accountable if failures occur? We can't have that happening, now can we?
I disagree, I still smell big bucks, funded by the tax payers. However, we'll never know once again. |
|
Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX | said by jc100:I still smell big bucks, funded by the tax payers. However, we'll never know once again. Are you implying to the corporations bank accounts, meaning ATT, Verizon, etc., or personally to the CEO's / top executives of the corporations to get them to give the "do it" orders? Think a minute before you answer as that's a rather strong allegation. |
|
| I'm implying both. I think, personally, the major players at these corporations were given multiple kickback and incentives. My guess, the most important execs were probably given monetary compensation while the company itself given special favors. By favors, I am talking ways to circumvent procedural happenings that otherwise might have required a lengthy process or certain permits. |
|
| reply to major marco
you mean like rushing a merger with SBC? |
|
Gwailo
join:2000-07-16
Richardson, TX | said by ATTringabell :
you mean like rushing a merger with SBC? Perfect example, PacBell, BellSouth, Cingular, etc., etc., it's better then the Energizer Bunny! I personally don't think Mr. Edward E. Whitacre Jr. (for example) got bribed with cash by the NSA / CIA. But quick approvals certainly helped his $158.5 million retirement package »money.cnn.com/2007/04/27/news/ne···hitacre/ |
|
Just BobPremium
join:2000-08-13
Spring Hill, FL | reply to Gwailo
said by Gwailo:...I wonder if the carriers cooperated for free, were paid to cooperate or were "strong armed" into doing something they really didn't want to do ... as the decision to do so had to most likely come from their CEO or maybe even the board of directors. If memory serves, in the aftermath of 9/11 it was widely reported that the telcos, financial institutions, and others offered any and all information and assistance they could provide. Warrants were not requested or required. Such cooperation enabled investigators to quickly flesh out the source and nature of the attack. This news was received with approval in the heat of the moment.
Much to our regret a greatly expanded level of information sharing without due process has become the standard and has been formalized and legalized by the Bush administration and congress. |
|
| reply to Gwailo
3rd party dummy corps were setup to acquire the data, to circumvent the legal logistics. |
|
 jvmorrisI Am The Man Who Was Not There.Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-03
Reston, VA | reply to Gwailo
said by Gwailo:Has a single person read or even scanned the original interview in the El Paso Times newspaper? I've not only read it, I'm in the process of deconstructing it in the Security Forum. You can start at »Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up! and work your way down (presuming of course that respondents use the reply to button on my posts, which seems to seldom happen).
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris |
|
