It doesn't count as a lie if you cross your fingers
May 17, 2006 12:21 PM   Subscribe

It doesn't count as a lie if you cross your fingers when you say it. Presidential Memorandum of May 5, 2006 assigns his authority under 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A) to Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. What is 15 U.S.C. 78m(b)(3)(A)?
With respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States, no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed upon any person acting in cooperation with the head of any Federal department or agency responsible for such matters if such act in cooperation with such head of a department or agency was done upon the specific, written directive of the head of such department or agency pursuant to Presidential authority to issue such directives. Each directive issued under this paragraph shall set forth the specific facts and circumstances with respect to which the provisions of this paragraph are to be invoked. Each such directive shall, unless renewed in writing, expire one year after the date of issuance.
In plain English, it's a license for a company to lie if the President asks you to. Maybe this is the answer to this story? (via)
posted by scalefree (31 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: sounds like a partisan leap of faith



 
Can Congress void such directives?
posted by edgeways at 12:41 PM on May 17, 2006


They could if they had a backbone.
posted by keswick at 12:42 PM on May 17, 2006


Yay! A get out of jail free card!

Except it would be cool as hell if the definition of "matters concerning the national security of the United States" could be defined to be stuff that is really matters of national security.

I'm sick and tired of the governent hiding behind this "national security" bullshit.
posted by birdherder at 12:42 PM on May 17, 2006


In plain English, it's a license for a company to lie if the President asks you to. Maybe this is the answer to this story? (via)
posted by scalefree


Bullshit. Complete bullshit fearmongering.

This is why you shouldn't rely on partisan websites/wanker for legal analysis.

There is nothing the least bit controversial about the fact that the President authorized the Director of National Intelligence to utilize the same provision that is available to "the head of any Federal department." Read the statute. Contemplate the Constitution. Consider the executive function and the fact that the piece of legislation at issue came from Congress. Use your mind and think about national security actions and why such a framework might be important.

But instead of just presenting the story and allowing the analysis to take the course of people actually reading it and determining what is going on, you provide your editorial bullshit about how it is a license to lie.
posted by dios at 12:46 PM on May 17, 2006


anyone who has ever used the term "moonbat" in a non-ironic manner really needs to be beaten with a tire iron.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:47 PM on May 17, 2006


Actually, it's not a license to lie, because it only obviates liability under paragraph 2 of the section requiring issuers to maintain financial records and implement internal accounting controls. In other words, it appears that if operating in cooperation with an agency pursuant to a Presidential directive under this section, a telco need not maintain financial records of any transaction with the agency related to that cooperation. It does not appear, however, to obviate other bases for liability under the securities laws, such as use of a manipulative or deceptive device in violation of § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, for example. In other words, a telco could passively conceal such a transaction by failing to maintain records of it, but could not affirmatively conceal the transaction by lying to the market. That's just an off-the-cuff analysis, though.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:47 PM on May 17, 2006


Can't be the answer to that story.

Your exceprt says "...no duty or liability under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be imposed..."

Paragraph (2) is about accounting practices: "make and keep books... which ... fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer", "devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls..."", and "pay the allocable share of such issuer of a reasonable annual accounting support fee".

Nothing at all about a license to generally lie. Only a lie to hide assets if disclosing such assets concern national security.
posted by ewagoner at 12:49 PM on May 17, 2006


scalefree, did you even bother to read the entire statute and try to figure out what it means? Or did you just see this mentioned on thinkprogress and run with it?
posted by dios at 12:49 PM on May 17, 2006


If I'm reading this statute right, paragraph 2 describes the companies' obligations for reporting transactions in their periodic filings to the SEC. Unless they were expected to include the transfer of these records to the NSA in their annual report, I'm not sure how the quoted exception applies here at all.
posted by justkevin at 12:55 PM on May 17, 2006


I think this is a license to get out of paying the allocable share of the reasonable annual accounting support fee! Cheap bastards!

Anyway, in all seriousness, this is just a delegation of authority -- an extremely common occurance -- in line with a statute that specifically allows such delegation. In other words, there's no there there. It's sheer and utter speculation, which sucks balls as a MeFi front page post. This is, of course, why it's rarely a good idea to post grand theories that originate on sites like thinkprogress.

And all of this is even before you get to the point made by m_b and dios.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:58 PM on May 17, 2006


Is it possible they sold the records to the NSA? One of the weird parsings that's happened a couple times in recent days is companies saying they have no "contract" or "arrangement" with the NSA. Seems like it would be easier to just say, "We did not provide records to the NSA, nor did we allow the NSA passive access to any such information," if that were the case.
posted by aaronetc at 12:59 PM on May 17, 2006


aaronetc,

They did sell the records to the NSA.
posted by sourbrew at 1:03 PM on May 17, 2006


I did read it, yes. I could've found better words to express the nature & limits of the lying that's being authorized. But I believe the basic point still stands & I bet the Administration won't be as strict about the limits of the authority as you all are.
posted by scalefree at 1:05 PM on May 17, 2006


scalefree, as pardonyou? points out above, there's no reason to even infer that this is related to the NSA spying scandal. Not only is the legal analysis sorely lacking, the underlying factual connection is pure speculation.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:08 PM on May 17, 2006


Is it fair to think this allows corporations to not disclose financial assets they receive from the government if it might compromise national security? That seems to make sense to me from the governments point of view. It could easily compromise a mission if the corporation reports they recieved millions of dollars from the NSA for undisclosed work.

But how does this work with taxes and shareholders? Does the company basically gain the assets tax free and without disclosing it to their shareholders or do they report it another way? I would expect someone would notice when the tax statements do not line up with bank accounts or reported earnings.
posted by Crash at 1:12 PM on May 17, 2006


The moonbat glides in twilit skies,
He dives for passing bugs and flies,
The moonbat.
posted by Wolfdog at 1:14 PM on May 17, 2006


There's no evidence tying it to the NSA affair. I did phrase the connection as a question, not a statement of fact. But there is confusion over whether the companies are being truthful & this seems a logical explanation. All it'd take is an opinion from a DOJ lawyer that "statements to the press can be considered financial documents because their bottom line would be hurt if the truth got out" & away they go.
posted by scalefree at 1:18 PM on May 17, 2006


i for one was wondering where Dios went of late. I do concurr with his assesment fully on this issue.
posted by Elim at 1:22 PM on May 17, 2006


Use your mind and think about national security actions and why such a framework might be important.

Yeah, dios, but the U.S. Government is supposed to use their mind and think about what is CONSTITUTIONAL. National security, and every other boogeyman, is secondary to this or this is no longer America.
posted by three blind mice at 1:25 PM on May 17, 2006


Why would the telecoms say anything at all if they are involved? If they deny involvement but later proof comes out that they're lying, they're screwed. They can try to fall back on the arguement that it's ok b/c they were authorized, but I'd expect them to get hammered by public opinion and the markets.
posted by Crash at 1:25 PM on May 17, 2006


monju_bosatsu (+) for addressing and correcting the post, thanks.


Was going to post something snarky about other reponses, by why bother?
posted by edgeways at 1:25 PM on May 17, 2006


I hate the neocons.....
posted by stevejensen at 1:26 PM on May 17, 2006


All it'd take is an opinion from a DOJ lawyer that "statements to the press can be considered financial documents because their bottom line would be hurt if the truth got out" & away they go.

Uh, no, it wouldn't. Statements to the press certainly aren't either financial records or accounting controls within the meaning of § 13(b)(2)(A) or (B). Look, if you want to get your panties in a twist about this, go look into the state secrets doctrine, the doctrine by which the government is actually seeking to have the suit against AT&T dismissed. This particular delegation by the White House, which might well be wholly unrelated to the NSA scandal, is a distraction.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:27 PM on May 17, 2006


They already have a license to lie. Lying isn't illegal.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 1:27 PM on May 17, 2006


There's no evidence tying it to the NSA affair. I did phrase the connection as a question, not a statement of fact.

But if you take that insinuation/speculation away, what's left of your post? A critique of a provision of the securities act? An analysis of the ability of the executive to delegate authority? I seriously doubt that's what you had in mind when you posted this.

You might also be interested to know that the section of the law in question (i.e., the "national security" exception) was added in 1977.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:31 PM on May 17, 2006


Oh no, now the telcos are united against us.
posted by IronLizard at 1:38 PM on May 17, 2006


This post is hurting...nah.
posted by disclaimer at 1:55 PM on May 17, 2006


Here's how the NSA got the records. AT&T (and Verizon and others) gave the NSA logins to the systems where the data was stored. This means that they didn't *transfer* the records over to the NSA. But hey, maybe after the NSA boys logged in, they made copies of the files, but there's no way to know that now is there? So this is why they all claim a very clintonian "there is no arrangement between us and the NSA." That's true, if vacuous.

The NSA certainly got your records. And they certainly got the records of Washington Post troublemakers er, reporters, which is even more important.
posted by zpousman at 2:09 PM on May 17, 2006


supercilious metatalk post in 3... 2...
posted by Hat Maui at 2:14 PM on May 17, 2006


Well, it may be that there is some connection, with this 'no contract b.s.' Maybe there is a contract and there allowed to say there isn't one.

On the other hand, meh.

Who the hell cares about some stupid, random statute?
posted by delmoi at 2:26 PM on May 17, 2006


 “'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” - Thomas Paine

----
“Cocaine's a hell of a drug!” -
posted by XQUZYPHYR

Charlie Murphy!
*SLAP!*
posted by Smedleyman at 2:33 PM on May 17, 2006


« Older Blogging the Bible   |   What's your dot tel? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments