Administration Succeeds In Delaying The Release Of Telco Lobbying On Immunity

from the transparency-is-good-in-theory... dept

Thu, Oct 22nd 2009 6:19pm — Mike Masnick

So much for that new Obama administration "transparency" claim, huh? After three unsuccessful attempts at stalling a court order to release documents concerning who lobbied for telco immunity in warrantless wiretapping lawsuits, the administration has succeeded in its fourth attempt, delaying the release of the documents at least until next year. Of course, by the time this is decided, it should be long after Congress is done debating the whole warrantless wiretapping issue... so that's convenient. I'm still trying to figure out who or what the administration is trying to shield. It seems pretty obvious that the telcos would lobby for immunity, so that's not revealing much. So what's so important to keep secret?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: immunity, obama administration, telcos, transparency, warrantless wiretapping

14 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2009 @ 7:17pm

It's probably more about preserving executive privilege/power/etc. for...the sake of preserving it for the future. No politician in either party ever wants to remove power once they have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griffon, 22 Oct 2009 @ 7:30pm

just sad
This whole thing makes me so sad. I was really hoping for, well change, and instead it's not just more of the same but even worse. I guess it's not shocking, though it should be, but it is galling. I used to give folks I know who don't vote a lot or crap but I swear I'm getting to the point where I truly wonder I should bother myself on anything not local.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul`, 22 Oct 2009 @ 8:25pm

US politics is as Bill Hicks put it "I feel the puppet on the right shares my beliefs | I think the puppet on the left identifies with me." No one can see that its the same puppeteer for both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2009 @ 9:56pm

That new Obama administration
Don't forget, Obama was one of the ones who voted *for* the telco immunity bill.

Still don't see why he doesn't want this to come out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- batch, 23 Oct 2009 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: That new Obama administration
  McCain voted for immunity, same as Obama. We'd be in the same situation regardless of elected president.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2009 @ 2:14pm
    
    Re: Re: That new Obama administration
    McCain voted for immunity, same as Obama.
    
    Yep.
    
    We'd be in the same situation regardless of elected president.
    
    Out of those TWO, yes. That's why I didn't vote for either one of them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2009 @ 10:54pm

Transparency
So much for that new Obama administration "transparency" claim, huh?

Yeah, transparency is great, as long as it's optional, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JP_Fife, 23 Oct 2009 @ 1:35am

Well, this and a lot of other things are chipping away at Obama. The Telegraph is running a story saying his popularity has severely dropped. Looks like America has been Blaired.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6409721/Barack-Ob ama-sees-worst-poll-rating-drop-in-50-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame rica/usa/
barackobama/6409721/
Barack-Obama-sees-worst-poll-rating-drop-in-50-years.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 23 Oct 2009 @ 4:16am

Not surprised
The Dems have been in control of Congress for 2 or 3 years now. Who do you think Obama is protecting; Bush or his buddies in Congress?

The truly sad thing here is people actually believed Obama would be different. They are all the same, they are politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DavidB, 23 Oct 2009 @ 6:18am

surprised? no.
I'm kinda surprised Techdirt readers HONESTLY expected any different. I laugh at all of those who "voted for change". Like has been said, Obama voted FOR telecom immunity as a Senator, gotta question the sanity/logic of anyone who thought he would do different just because he moved from the Senate to the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2009 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: surprised? no.
  Like has been said, Obama voted FOR telecom immunity as a Senator,
  
  Which is what kept me from voting for him, for two reasons.
  
  First, the bill itself was immoral, in my opinion, and he voted for it.
  
  Second, he stated that he was against it, but then he turned around and voted for it. That told me that he would say one thing, but do another.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nobody, 23 Oct 2009 @ 8:32am

not supprised, but still disapointed
I didn't expect anything different from Obama, but I did hope, and I still hope. But I didnt vote for him, as I dont believe in voting for the two party system.

If people really want a change, then start voting third party, that is the only thing that will scare the "two parties" in to actually working, and maybe we could start having some real choice in our elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hegemon13, 23 Oct 2009 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: not supprised, but still disapointed
  That's only a temporary solution. It transfers the same problem, which is the very idea of a party system. How about a leader run on his/her own merits, instead of the pre-packaged, propagandized "qualities" of a specific party? It doesn't matter what party you choose, they all, ALL present their views from the perspective of their "ideal" world. The problem is, we live in reality, not anyone's ideal, and our leaders need to govern from that position.
  
  Take away parties, and individual politicians have to work for their own image. They can offer their own ideas without worrying about "bucking" a party. Congress could discuss everything from the perspective of being a group of individuals with ideas, rather than "our team vs. their team." I know it this will never happen in my lifetime, though sadly, we had the opportunity. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, begged the nation not to adopt a party system. He predicted many of the political problems we have now. Maybe the next time, someone will get it right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gabe, 23 Oct 2009 @ 3:22pm

COMMUNIST
Obama is a socialist communist fucking asshole and he is but a pawn for the leninistic idealism he shares with everyone he has surrounded himself with. The only change is now the us govt is 'blatantly' ignoring' if not attacking, the wishes of the people and it's very much a free4all 'take no prisoners' attitude. Everyone has either been bought or stategically nurtured into complacency, but still bought none the less.
Communists will divide and severely damage ANY country they seek to control. Look around you. Freedom is not anywhere in sight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]