Vermont pulling plug on telephone company probe

[L. Coyote]

Source: Vermont Public Radio

Two years after launching a probe into whether telephone companies released customer data as part of a federal government spying program, the state of Vermont may give up on it.

The state Public Service Department has recommended that the Vermont Public Board drop the investigation into whether Verizon and AT&T broke state law because a new federal law gives them retroactive immunity.

The investigation began in June 2006 after news media reports that the Bush administration had expanded the government's spying powers after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Vermont officials wanted to know if AT&T and Verizon violated state law by disclosing customer information.


Read more: http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/81718/

---

Friday August 15, 2008
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP)

[bean fidhleir]

1. Well THERE's a serious mistake!

Just because the @#$%! law purports to give retro immunity doesn't mean it's constitutional!

[searchingforlight]

2. I agree in principle that this is not a good thing

We are a small state and in this economy we must pick our battles. We fight for and lead the way for many causes but at some point it would be nice to see the wealthier states take on some of these battles.

[bobd0]

3. I've always loved Vermont

But any state with a city (Burlington) that has a warrant out for the arrest of Bush and Cheney, as well as a secession movement, is the kind of state that's easy to love.

I wish other states would follow Vermont's bold lead.

I'd really like to move to Vermont someday.

[Lucky 13]

5. You're actually thinking of Brattleboro...

but Burlington ain't much friendlier to them. I moved to Burlington, VT a year ago and love it here. So open and progressive. Very environmental. Everybody has their own vegetable garden. Everyone supports the local products - dairy, maple, chocolates, teddy bears ;)

But it is very small. VERY small. The state doesn't even generate a large enough budget to fund the state University (Univ. of Vermont) properly. UVM is kind of a public/private hybrid.

To take on a case like this requires significant resources. Resources that I GUARANTEE YOU this state needs in other areas.

Besides, they've made it clear that this case would go nowhere. Our own Democrats helped push the immunity on through. Maybe a case could fight through the Republican machine... but it seems all of our leaders want to protect the criminals.

[bobd0]

10. That's right! BRATTLEBORO!

What was I thinking? I used to drive to Brattleboro, to a company called C&S Wholesale. Burlington is much further north, right? It gets very cold up there, doesn't it?

I realize Vermont is a small state but you think BIG! If only some of the bigger states with the necessary resources would adopt the ideals Vermont embraces.

I agree wholeheartedly on immunity. It's up to the opposition party to actually oppose, not enable. This current crop of Democrats just doesn't seem to have the wherewithal for the fight. They've not only forgotten how to fight, sometimes they don't seem to remember what's worth fighting for.

Are they so afraid of Bush and Cheney or are they so deeply involved they're afraid for themselves?

[Lucky 13]

11. Vermont has always been a leader in big picture progressive issues.

Yes, Burlington is north of Brattleboro. I think 30 or so miles south of the Canadian border. It gets cold here, but then again, I moved here from Alaska, so maybe I just don't recognize HOW cold it gets.

Vermont has always been a leader in big picture progressive issues. Apparently, they were the very first state to abolish slavery. They actually wrote it in to the state constitution back in like 1777.

But being so small with such a tiny economy based largely on farming and dairies, I guess we can't afford the price tag of all the good fights we want to fight.

I don't know what the hell is wrong with the Dems on FISA. Even if they knew they didn't have the votes, I at least expected them to vote no... just to go on record that they were against it. I'm not sure what the problem is. Perhaps it's naive, but my last hope for them is that they are waiting to get GWB out of office, removed from his pardoning powers... then they will go after him. But deep down, I don't think this is it. It's either blackmail or complicity. Either way, it's horrible we have such few Dems with a conscience.

[RedLetterRev]

4. Is it legal for them to ask to pass the hat around?

Private citizens can get donations toward legal fees. I wonder what strictures city and state governments have. There are limits to what bonds can be passed and all, but it seems to me that the cause of protecting, upholding and defending the Constitution would be something toward which any patriot would be glad to open his/her wallet. There's so much I don't know. But what I do know is that the Constitution is in grave danger and we should think of every reasonable means to protect it against complete loss before any seeming unreasonable means becomes necessary to get it back.

[L. Coyote]

6. Exactly. At the least, this should be stalled until a ruling emerges somewhere.

[dysfunctional press]

7. isn't there a part of the constitution that bans any law of ex-post-facto?

why isn't retro-active immunity unconstitutional on it's face...? :shrug:

[bean fidhleir]

8. Ex-post-facto only applies to making things worse for someone

I.e., something can be made illegal, but nobody can then be punished for having committed the act before that time.


However, it IS unconstitutional on its face under the Fourth Amendment.

[dysfunctional press]

9. all ex-post-facto means is "after the fact"- it has no bearing on "good" or "bad"

it may have been the reasoning of it, but the wording of the constitution is NO laws of ex-post facto- i.e. no laws "after the fact".
you can't make something illegal and then punish someone for doing it before it was illegal- but you also can't exonerate someone by making an illegal act legal "after the fact".