FCC says NSA illegal spying with AT&T is OK

Posted by Deanna Zandt at 8:11 AM on May 25, 2006.

The FCC won't investigate due to the "classified nature" of NSA's work.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
9 COMMENTS

1984

Share and save this post:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

The Mix RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Also in The Mix

On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
Evan Derkacz

Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
Evan Derkacz

Religious right rally's first gaffe
Evan Derkacz

Well, it's just like watching dominoes fall, isn't it? First the Feds blocked the Justice Department from investigating the NSA, and now the FCC is saying it also won't investigate AT&T and the NSA because of "national security issues." FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin sent this letter (PDF) to Rep. Ed Markey explaining:

I know that all the members of this Commission take very seriously our charge to faithfully implement the nation's laws, including our authority to investigate potential violations of the Communications Act. In this case, however, the classified nature of the NSA's activities makes us unable to investigate the alleged violations discussed in your letter at this time.

Oh, it's just all so frighteningly Orwellian, isn't it? We can't investigate the people gathering all kinds of classified, personal and/or private information on you because that information is classified, personal and/or private. Markey responded:

"We can't have a situation where the FCC, charged with enforcing the law, won't even begin an investigation of apparent violations of the law because it predicts that the administration will roadblock any investigations citing national security." "If the FCC initiates an investigation and gets blocked by the White House, then the White House is stonewalling. But if the FCC refuses to even demand answers, then the White House never has to block the enforcement agency from getting to the bottom of this. The American people deserve answers."

I can't wait to see what happens next. Which agency will be next in line to wash their hands of this abomination?

Deanna Zandt is a contributing editor at AlterNet.

Return to The Mix » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 9 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in The Mix
On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break A response to a colleague... Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.	Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO] A whole new definition of Democracy. Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.	Religious right rally's first gaffe Church opposes bigoted agenda Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
FCC is a big business shill these days. [Report this comment] Posted by: lamar on May 25, 2006 9:28 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] The FCC used to protect the small guy. Ted Turner said it something like this: The FCC used to be a referee in a boxing match. When the big guy started pummeling the little guy, the referee sent the big guy to his corner and helped the little guy to his feet, keeping the fight going. Now the FCC is like pro wrestling, in which the big guy and the ref kick the little guy at the same time. Of course, the FCC is like other agencies under Bush: subverting their own calling. Turner article [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Well then, It's Official [Report this comment] Posted by: mizpearl on May 25, 2006 10:07 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] America as we used to know it may not be dead yet, but it is now a quivering mass barely clinging to life, with well-fed men in expensive suits stomping on it (us) and kicking the tar out of it (us), trying to finish the job. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Well then, It's Official [Report this comment] Posted by: mizpearl on May 25, 2006 10:09 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] America as we used to know it may not be dead yet, but it is now a quivering mass barely clinging to life, with well-fed men in expensive suits stomping on it (us) and kicking the tar out of it (us), trying to finish the job. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Sorry for the Double Post [Report this comment] Posted by: mizpearl on May 25, 2006 10:10 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Computer glitch [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Don't Wake Me [Report this comment] Posted by: thebeardedlady on May 25, 2006 11:08 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Whether it's next year or ten years from now, the truth will be known. You can't hide the truth forever. It will get out. Once everything has blown over, but eventually it will get out. The great thing about this country is the checks and balances and the right to free speech and freedom of assembly. The only catch is that we have to participate in these great things otherwise they don't work for us. There are too many "little guys" to bow their heads. We take things the way they give 'em to us because we're busy with work, school, family, friends, diet, exercise, and the mortgage. We only wake up every now and then to look Uncle Sam in the eyes. Guess what? We won't like what we see and he'll hear it loud and clear... as soon as we finish this really good dream. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] sounds like Nixon [Report this comment] Posted by: classcynic on May 25, 2006 2:35 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] he tried that whole "national security" malarky as well. I don't think it worked so well then, but then that was a pre-9/11 world. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] The snake biting its own tail [Report this comment] Posted by: tanstaafl28 on May 25, 2006 7:26 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] A shame it's come to this. Barring a miracle, we'll not dislodge these sneaky bastards without a full-blown revolution. What galls me is they are so confident that they're above the law, they're not even paying the traditional lipservice our previous leaders did. Their blatant arrogance in the face of herds of "sheeple" makes me wonder what we've done to earn our freedoms. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Help stop AG Gonzales! [Report this comment] Posted by: World Citizen on May 26, 2006 3:51 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj2.htm This story about the failure of the U. S. Dept. of Justice deserves intense coverage. AG Gonzales is overreaching far beyond the legal scope of his duties and his office and must be exposed and STOPPED! He is a very, very dangerous member of the current administration. Please try to get permission to reprint the above article on your website. Also, please circulate the story as widely as possible. Maybe — just maybe — the mainstream media will become more interested in this explosive story. As John Dean said, “This IS worse than Watergate.” It should be called “Traitorgate.” [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] The FCC is a paper tiger [Report this comment] Posted by: NoPCZone on May 26, 2006 6:45 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] When the Fairness Doctrine and ownership caps went away the FCC died. It's all big business, all the time. For those too young to remember, the FCC used to limit media companies to ownership of 5 TV, 7 AM & 7 FM stations total. If the company owned a Newspaper in the same market they had to divest their Radio or TV Holdings. Movie studios and Networks could not be owned by the same company. The idea was to have a diversity of ownership of media to limit the ability of any one person or company from having undue influence. The Fairness Doctrine mandated a balanced presentation of opposing views-- not lip service. Station owners had to prove that they were actively serving 'in the public interest'. All gone. Clear Channel alone owns up to 7 Stations in a single market. To see a list follow this link- http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

«	December 2008					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

The Mix archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search: