Archive for category: emptywheel

A couple of you have pointed to the Rocky Mountain News article that claims to confirm what we’ve long suspected–that Joseph Nacchio was denied the ability to defend himself fully because of the Bush Administration’s invocation of "state secrets." I’m going to work through the filings available at the RMN site, but here’s an April 2007 filing that is fairly detailed about Nacchio’s claims. The program Nacchio claims he would have gotten, btw, is called "Groundbreaker."

Although Mr. Nacchio is allowed to tell the jury that he and James Payne went into that meeting expecting to talk about the "Groundbreaker" project and came out of the meeting with optimism about the prospect for 2001 revenue from NSA, the Court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting. [at least one sentence redacted] The Court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.

It appears that Groundbreaker was just a private net for the government that would be relatively safe from hacking, so that’s not the big secret. Though they later say that the meeting was to discuss,

a Qwest "CyberCenter" solution to the Groundbreaker networking issue.

And then, in another section, this filing quotes from a July 2006 interview with Qwest’s govt relations person.

Subsequent to the meeting, the customer came back and expressed disappointment at Qwest’s decision. Payne [Qwest’s govt relations person] realized at this time that "no" was not going to be enough for them. Payne said they never actually said no and it went on for years. In meetings after meetings, they would bring it up. At one point he suggested they just tell them, "no." Nacchio said it was a legal issue and they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do … Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally. [my emphasis]

Note to the Senate: this guy says he’s in jail because he refused to break the law. Yet you want to let AT&T off scot-free.

Update: And for those of you who want to ask Jello Jay Rockefeller why AT&T should have immunity for breaking the law while Joseph Nacchio rots in jail, indirectly, because he refused to break th law, Christy has the list of phone numbers.

According to Jill Simpson’s testimony, in January or February of 2005, Karl Rove met with the head of Public Integrity at DOJ and got him to assign resources to the Don Siegelman case.

A And so, anyway, he was telling me all of the things that Alice had done as far as having messed up the deal. And then I — and that since she had messed it up, he was definitely running, you know what — I mean — and then he proceeds to tell me that Bill Canary and Bob Riley had had a conversation with Karl Rove again and that they had this time gone over and seen whoever was the head of the department of — he called it PIS, which I don’t think that
is the correct acronym, but that’s what he called it. And I had to say what is that and he said that is the Public Integrity Section.

[snip]

Q Okay. And who — when you say they had made a decision, who are you thinking of?

A Whoever that head of that Public Integrity — the PIS was as Rob referred to it. And then whoever — and Karl Rove.

Q And what — well, from talking Read more →

Remember when Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face and then attempted to cover it up by reporting it through the local press? Well, Dan Bartlett wants you to know that that whole cover-up was Dick’s idea demand.

Then there was the time Cheney shot his pal during a hunting accident in Texas."We couldn’t get hold of him for quite a bit of time," Bartlett said."They were strategizing on their own, which as always got me worried. Icalled down there, and I finally get ahold of some of the peopletraveling with him and they kind of laid out their strategy.

" ‘We’re not going to talk about this. We’re going to give it to theCorpus Christi Caller-Times in the morning,’ " Bartlett said. He wasstunned. This little paper couldn’t even find the reporter because itwas the weekend.

"So finally, I said, ‘I have to talk with the vice president directly.I have to intervene in this.’ I get him on the phone. ‘Mr. VicePresident, I know you don’t have any traveling press with you, but weneed to pull together a pool, either get them down there, get you onthe phone with them. We need to work this out.’

"Dead silence." Then: " Read more →

I’ll withhold judgment until I see the text of the bill, but from this story, it appears the Progressive Caucus made some progress–though not on all counts–in their efforts to ensure the permanent FISA amendment safeguards privacy and civil liberties.

House Democrats plan to introduce a bill this week that would let asecret court issue one-year "umbrella" warrants to allow the governmentto intercept e-mails and phone calls of foreign targets and would notrequire that surveillance of each person be approved individually.

[snip]

The bill would require the Justice Departmentinspector general to audit the use of the umbrella warrant and issuequarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress, according tocongressional aides involved in drafting the legislation. It wouldclarify that no court order is required for intercepting communicationsbetween people overseas that are routed through the United States. Itwould specify that the collections of e-mails and phone calls couldcome only from communications service providers — as opposed tohospitals, libraries or advocacy groups. And it would require a courtorder when the government is seeking communications of a person insidethe United States, but only if that person is the target.

[snip]

The bill would not include a key administrative objective: immunity fortelecommunications firms facing lawsuits in connection with theadministration’s post-Sept. 11 surveillance program.

That is, this bill appears to have regular oversight of the program (IG reports to both FISC and Congress). And it refuses to give immunity to telecoms without first knowing what those telecoms did. These account for several of the eight demands issued by the Progressive Caucus. But the bill only requires a FISA warrant if the surveillance targets someone in the US, not if it touches on someone in the US (though this is better than the "related to" language in the amended FISA act).

There are several other important details in this story.

When I was at the Duke conference last week, I premised a question to ACLU’s Legal Director that ACLU was having more success in the courts than in Congress of late. He responded by joking about my faint praise. Perhaps I reverse jinxed him. Because we’re beginning to make some progress in Congress.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, postponed apress conference announcing new reforms of the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Act after progressive lawmakers banded together and saidthey would fight any legislation that did not include a set of eightprinciples on wiretapping that preserve the "rule of law."

"What’s most significant is that the Progressive Caucus cametogether and said to the leadership that all 72 of us require thatthese provisions be included," said Caroline Fredercikson, LegislativeDirector for the American Civil Liberties Union. "This changes thedynamic significantly."

Meanwhile, back in the Executive Branch, we are making no progress, as you’d expect.

The head of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission declined toinvestigate reports that phone companies turned over customer recordsto the National Security Agency, citing national security concerns,according to documents released on Friday.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin turned down a congressional request for aninvestigation as a top intelligence official concluded it would "posean unnecessary risk Read more →