Login Here
In the battle over FISA revisions, one thing should be perfectly clear: the Bush Administration would not be pushing so hard for telecom immunity if there weren't a reason for them to hide something from the public eye. By doing so, the Bush Administration's admission against interest that they need this immunity to keep the telecoms quiet is showing.
Thus, let me say something very clearly for the record: never allow the alleged criminal to dictate the terms of your investigation or the bargain for the entry of a plea. When someone is working this hard to cover their ass, you can bet yer booty that more than their slip is hanging out there in the wind. Congress holds a very strong hand with public accountability and oversight. And it is high time they played it that way.
From Robyn Blumner in the Courant: (H/T to dakine)
The administration's demand that Congress shield the telecommunications industry from lawsuits for aiding in the systematic warrantless wiretapping of Americans has far less to do with protecting national security than its own exposed flanks.
Make no mistake, telecom immunity is about keeping a flagrantly illegal program from public scrutiny and maintaining the illusion that the president ordered a small, precision surveillance program, when the opposite is true....
According to Klein, going through this "splitter" were AT&T's links to other Internet providers, such as Sprint, Qwest and many others, meaning that the wholesale surveillance scooped up customers of these entities as well.
In conversations with other technicians, Klein says he was told of other secret NSA rooms in Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, and he has an AT&T document that mentions Atlanta. The document also implies that there are other such rooms across the country.
So here it is, a dragnet bigger than one's brain can conceive, the ultimate Big Brother. Government computers watching what millions of us do on the Internet, plucking out for a further look-see anything that they find suspicious.
We are all suspects now.
The administration claims it wants telecom immunity from lawsuits because those companies came to the nation's rescue during a national emergency. Well, that might be true if the program lasted only a few days or weeks after 9/11. But it has been years. The telecoms have smart lawyers and knew this was illegal. Qwest Communications reportedly wouldn't go along for that very reason.
No, the fight over immunity has to do with trying to keep the startling breadth and invasiveness of this program from court review.
One of our inalienable rights is that we don't have to live in a fishbowl. But for those who think anything that furthers security is justified, the truth is that this kind of build-a-bigger-haystack approach to finding terrorist-needles is actually counterproductive....
Welcome to the fishbowl, my fellow Americans. Do not allow the slinking cats, claws outstretched, to invite themselves over for a game of "go fish," what do you say?
(Photo via _tris_.)
Share This 
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
It’s time for the Bush Regime to push their skirts down! They’re embarrassing themselves for gawd’s sake. We know their skirts are pushed up past their shoulders and exposing what they think we don’t see, but in reality, they think they look pretty with their skirts up around their shoulders and they think no one has noticed their hideous underwear!
Wasn’t there also something about this starting before 9/11?
Go Christy
Thanks for the h/t Christy. I thought that editorial would get your attention. :})
Prairie Sunshine @ 2
I think there was. Also, if not for FDL and the netroots action on this, I think Charlie Dems would have attempted to kick Lucy R’s football again. CHS and other real patriots are holding our representatives cold feet to the fire. Ever seen that mixed metaphor??
Prairie at 2 — Yes, according to the former CEO of Qwest, the Administration approached them prior to 9/11 about setting up the information Hoover and then, when they refused, their government contracts were allegedly pulled.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 6
Qwest was the only one - or one of very few - which refused participation in the clandestine government wiretapping scheme. Then, their stock share price took a big hit. I don’t know where it is today.
Hmm–Has congress called quest to testify as to exactly what they were asked to do?
It’s not like the government doesn’t have better things to do, like say, prepare for hurricanes, fires or earthquakes. Or find Osama Bin Hiding Out. No, they want to know how snarky Trex is every evening.
And the CEO of Qwest, for daring to stand up to this criminal administration, was prosecuted on phoney, drummmed-up charges…see below:
What was Nacchio’s reward for such heroic action? The feds indicted him and convicted him of a federal crime, for which he has been sentenced to serve six years in a federal penitentiary. What was the heinous crime that Nacchio was convicted of? Insider trading, that heinous economic crime in which there are no victims.
In other words, the message delivered by the feds to the telephone companies after 9/11, when the federals were feeling the full force of their power, was, “You need to play ball with us, or else.” Some of the other companies, in an act of extreme cowardice, apparently folded, kneeled, kissed the rings of federal officials, and did what the feds wanted them to.
Not Nacchio and Qwest, for which they deserve the praise and accolades of every freedom-loving American.
At Nacchio’s trial, the federal judge refused to permit him to introduce evidence that his prosecution was retaliation for his refusal to go along with the federal request to violate the law and the rights of his customers. (See “Documents: Qwest was targeted,” by Sara Burnett and Jeff Smith, in the Rocky Mountain News, October 11, 2007.) The judge said the evidence wasn’t relevant. All that was relevant, the judge said, was whether Nacchio had sold some of his Qwest stock as a result of insider information he had acquired as a Qwest executive.
November 20, 2007
· The Top Line for 2008
Presidential Race: Charlie Cook today gives Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney each a 45 percent chance of winning the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and Democrats a 60 percent chance of capturing the White House.
The U.S. Senate: Senior Editor Jennifer Duffy believes that Democrats will score a net gain of between three and six Senate seats next November.
The U.S. House: House Editor David Wasserman estimates today that Democrats will pick up between two and eight House seats next year.
The Governors: Senior Editor Jennifer Duffy sees the potential for no net change to a Democratic gain of one seat among next year’s 11 Gubernatorial races.
The Cook Political Report plans to periodically update these estimates, as the fortunes of candidates and parties rise and fall, which they obviously will over the next year. This represents our best guess at this point of where things stand.
(Cook)
rw at 8 — Not yet, I don’t think. It came out in filings in civil litigation with a shareholder fight on lost income — the government is trying to prevent him and other former Qwest officers from using the evidence in their defense under a state secrets claim. Let’s just say that the judge, thus far, has been a bit skeptical of the government’s attempts. But it’s early…
hackworth @ 7
Not only that, but they then pursued Nacchio for his denial, they sic’ed the SEC on him…
Why does congress have to grant immunity?
Couldn’t the president pardon the telcos?
Maybe a pardon does not cover their future intentions?
Or in other words, they did it, and want to continue doing it for the forseeable future?
Beside the constitution being left as trash on the wayside;
there are $1.4785 now required to buy one euro, the dollar is shortly joining the trash heap. The commies aren’t to burry us, our own government is doing a bank job that results the same.
Great posts today, got to go.
rwcole @ 8
Good thinking. You should be in Congress. Quest knew that the things they were asked to do were illegal. Somebody in the company (or that former CEO) would be an excellent source of information.
As far as I know there was a “Project Echelon” that was public information as early as the late 1990’s. The stated goal was to vacuum up every email, cellphone, landline and internet communication to search specific key words. The project was started as a “just in case” apparatus. Really, if you want to take this whole thing back by one step, it was Nixon and one of his key aides that envisioned a “wired nation” and I believe that somewhere out there is a memo or white paper from the 1970’s. After 9/11 people within the Bush admin must have realized the tremendous political opportunity to decide who is a bad guy simply by massively reaping all of the electronic info out there. Ergo, anti-war, maybe Democrats, Quakers and the like were thrown into a bin where there lives had the potential to really suck.
An additional six senate seats would give a much more comfortable dem advantage in the senate- enabling them to pass legislation over the votes of several of their own conservative members.
Bush could pardon the telecoms for crimes but couldn’t protect them from civil suits (as far as I know)- so congress is critical- could be big dollars at stake here- not to mention a civil trial that would rock Washington.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Now, in this country, you are considered guilty until proven innocent.
My next question is, why won’t Congress play the hand they’ve been dealt? Why are they having such apparent qualms and such division about telling the President emphatically, “No!”? What possibly could be the temptation to say yes to the President on this when they know that they are being soundly criticized for their constant capitulation? I don’t get it!
ABC’s Grandpa Charlie reporting from his day with Dubya and Laura at Camp David.
Because he’s a great president in his own mind and he wants us all to know it….
Grandpa Charlie giving Bushie the opportunity “to crow see I told you so” about the surge.
We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us penetrating the unreality in the msm, folks.
Prairie Sunshine @ 2
Yes, I believe there was. Like it started in February, 2001. Maybe that’s what they think they’re hiding!
AP just picked up the Scott McClellan story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....LA0iCs0NUE
Christy Hardin Smith @ 6
Isn’t there something illegal about that? Shouldn’t there be?
Can we trust the Bush Regime to interpret what we say on the telephone or in an email? Nope.
Frank Probst @ 23
Brian Williams and David Gregory reporting it now.
rwcole @ 18
I think you are right - they want immunity from lawsuits. Privacy rights have been violated numbering in thousands - likely millions - of citizens. The bad PR from this - if the sh*t hits the fan - would be crippling to the Republicans and the Telcos. Though they pretend otherwise, when it comes down to it, Joe and Jane Republican really don’t want their phones tapped, though they don’t care if their neighbor’s phone is tapped.
Boston1775 @ 27
Okay, I just clicked on my own link, and that’s the most damning AP story I’ve read in quite a while. Here’s the last paragraph:
Bush most recently addressed the issue in July after commuting Libby’s 30-month prison term. He acknowledged that some in the White House were involved in the leak. Then, after repeatedly declining to discuss the ongoing investigation, he said the case was closed and it was time to move on.
Frank Probst @ 24
“McClellan’s book, “What Happened,” isn’t due out until April, and the excerpt released Monday was merely a teaser.”
I found a typo. I think it should read, merely a taser.
I need to make an important point;
the real reason we need privacy protection is not to guard our embarrassing secrets
it’s to guard our proud secrets
I don’t want my competitors to know what I am working on, I don’t want them to know my contacts, what I bid on, what I sell, what I buy, what I plan
of course I don’t want them to look up my wifes dress, I don’t want them listening to my kids conversations and I don’t want them to know my secret desires, but those is not the most important reasons for privacy protection, the most important reasons for privacy protection is to guard that information that is ours
it is brutally clear the administration spied on politicians, they knew how someone was going to vote and they had the information to blackmail their adversaries into delivering decisions they wanted
that is how we need to broach this issue too
“if there are officials that blackmailed politicians to get laws passed I want them prosecuted and I want those companies that facilitated these crimes prosecuted as well”
we need to do more then represent our disdain, we need to demonstrate the ramifications if we acquiesce
meanwhile, ABC’s Grandpa Charlie still tapdancin’ with Mr. Heh, Heh, Heh…about Democracy now…oooh and pull back the camera to show those beautiful woodlands you’re payin’ for folks. Cause Bushie annoints Hillarinevitability [slavering, you think?] while saying he just doesn’t have a sense of the Rethugs because he hasn’t been out there…. smarm reigns.
Ooops, Mr. S. says enough of this dreck and switches to the scifi channel…end of the liveblogging moment…
Boston1775 @ 26
Shuster had reported it a couple of times over the last two hours on MSNBC, even with Tweety… I’m sure KO will take a swing or two at it… ;-)
CTuttle @ 33
That is a good story! Don’t mess with Mother (of) Scotty!
Scotty’s pretty smart to use a sentence that appears to ding Bush as a teaser- he’s gettin tons of free publicity- which will be likely followed by tons of invitations to come on teevee and talk about the fuckin book. Good goin–fuckhead.
Umm, a teeny question from one who rarely sees network news:
Who is “Grandpa Charlie?” What have I missed here?
perris @ 31
But..but…other than exorbitant legal representation fees, they have nothing to fear, because you are innocent until proven guilty in our legal system. Right? Oh…yeah, that was before
9/11January 20, 2001…but that doesn’t count if Bushco is involved, and that only counts if anything they did occurred after9/11January 20, 2001. Right? Right.EW over at TNH has another piece of this– that security surveillance is being used to advance political ends — in this case, against the Edwards campaign. A harbinger of things to come? It fits right in with the other politicization schemes pushed by the DOH for the past 7 years.
Bob in HI
tejanarusa @ 35
Charlie Gibson, the ABC Anchor…
Happy Thanksgiving all you liberals. And you know who you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
rwcole @ 35
I caught your comment before re: The Draper Bush Bio. I’m thinking that you are right. This bit from Scotty very likely amounts to all the red meat found in the Scotty Book. Sycophantic Pablum all the rest. Scotty was not a principled man. No reason to quit (being unprincipled) now. This is about selling a book.
WTF? GQ names Ron Paul ‘Man of the Year’… Huh?
Fixed it for you.
hackworth @ 41
And is likely to be followed up (and soon) by intimations that the lines were taken “out of context”. Otherwise, I can’t imagine Scotty and Chimperoo rocking on the porch together in their Golden Years…
Spying on Americans, perhaps. But I can imagine that what the Nixonians in the White House really are up to are virtual Watergate break-ins and snooping.
Hmmm. @ 42
707! Oops… ;-)
Paging Larry Flynt.
rwcole @ 19
I thought they were going with Arlen Spector’s suggestion that the lawsuits could proceed but the government would bear the expenses?
tejanarusa @ 36
Grandpa Charlie is Charles Gibson who carefully cultivates his benevolent easy-going family man brand.
So, as Commander-in-Chief, is W eligible for Courts Martial??
Clusterfuck is immune from any criminal prosecution as long as he is in office- after that- he’s like anyone else- with millions of dollars and thousands of important political friends.
Frank Probst @ 24
Matthews is really on this subject on Hardball! He starts with David Schuster. Making the case for a relationship between lies told in the press room being the same lies as what Libby was convicted of. He’s definitely hot on this!
rwcole @ 51
The only immunity given by the Constitution is to members of Congress by the Speech or Debate clause. I don’t have the refs at hand but the SCOTUS has not ruled that a President can’t be prosecuted while in office. IIRC
I digg it!
Steve
Yes I think you are right that there is no definate ruling- but constitutional experts have long been fairly unanimous on the point.
Anybody want wager if George W. Bush will ever be booked into jail for the murders he is responsible for?
Ann in AZ @ 51
heh - they just showed an old clip of Scooter Libby and his wife: I still think, that in the movie version, Michael Jackson could play Mrs. Libby…
Oklahoma kiddo @ 56
That would be the same as buying a lottery ticket right?
jayt @ 57
that was a low blow
I’ve had it.
Impeach.
Well… you can have all the laws on the books you want. But if the people who are supposed enforce the laws don’t, then law becomes meaningless. The other Decider, the Speaker of the House has decided there will be no impeachment. As we know.
Steve-AR @ 53
Scotus did rule that a sitting Prez can be pursued for Civil suits, remember it was Clinton’s grand jury testimony that provided the perjury charges…
I do think the stuff about doing these wiretaps BEFORE 911 needs more publicity. I can at least understand the arguments for post-911. I DON’T agree with those arguments…but I can at least see the argument.
But, BEFORE 911??? I can’t come up with any good reason at all.
Ghostman
Jane’s up giving Rove the journalist hayell.
Jane’s up giving Rove the journalist hayell.Ghostman @ 63
There was a reason floating around…cyberterrorism…Now, the problem with that is that they will say it was Clinton’s policy, and they were just acting on it.
Jane’s up
LS @ 65
They are, after all, the Thought Police.
LS @ 65
Interesting. Cyber stuff greatly concerned Richard Clark….but I wonder if he advocated the “hoover”, or if Commander Guy just used Clark as an excuse. The plot thickens!
Ghostman
rwcole @ 55
Most have felt that Impeachment and conviction was needed before indictment otherwise the Pres could pardon himself or give himself immunity. Jones v. Clinton may have clouded that somewhat. (It is always fun to talk about things about which I know nothing.)
Ghostman — As I recall, Clarke said that the Bushies wouldn’t take the cyber-terrorism issue seriously, and were really dismissive about it. If I had to guess, I’d say he’s an after-discovered CYA excuse, if anything…
rwcole @ 35
Since the book is not out till April, I can’t help but wonder why they came out with a teaser this early? Why just before Thanksgiving when whole families will be getting together and having discussions?
wagonjak @ 10
Not heinous, but hardly victimless. Those who buy the proffered stock are victims of the seller who knows by his/her inside position that the value of the stock will soon drop, probably precipitously, when the information he/she has becomes public.
Wow, posts really pile up quick around here — re answeres to my long-ago question (I went to feed the cats) about Grandpa Charlie -much thanks to all who answered.
http://cybersafe.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
Link to (VERY LONG) piece on whether or not a sitting president can be indicted- don’t have time to read it before the cocktail hour…
Tweety continues his attack on Hillary– he really hates her ass.
It is noteworthy that all the rhetoric and accusations regarding Federal surveillance and nobody can site a SINGLE American who has either lost their life, job, or liberty.
Isn’t it about time to redirect efforts to something substantive?
Ann in AZ @ 71
:-) why indeed!
EagleX @ 76
How bout’ them Packers!
newtonusr @ 67
and if my thought dreams
could be seen
they’d probably put my head in a guillotine
but it’s allright ma…….
bob
EagleX @ 76
Brandon Mayfield, for one, an innocent American citizen (who could prove standing, unlike other innocent victims of secret Executive Branch-authorized spying), illegally and unConstitutionally imprisoned (i.e., ‘lost his liberty’), spied on, house and papers and effects secretly searched by federal authorities, slandered: in Oregon, the United States of America. Read all about it (don’t wait for the corporations to “inform” you via television):
http://www.ord.uscourts.gov/ru.....pinion.pdf
Just another day in the life of the “domestic security surveillance” spying now being done by our Department of “Defense” and its $40 BILLION dollar (every year, and growing) military intelligence apparatus (largely contracted out to private, for-profit entities), in order to watch us within our borders:
http://www.concurringopinions......kes_d.html
P.S. Robyn Blumner - Your editorial hits the bullseye, with unerring precision. That enormous and growing “haystack” of dragnetted data is obviously now absurdly and dangerously unmanageable, even aside from the blatant disregard for our Fourth Amendment-protected [not -granted, -protected] right to privacy that such activity so threateningly exhibits. What a propaganda-dissecting piece of writing that is. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, dakine and Christy.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 61
OKK
“The other Decider” - lol
Ghostman @ 63
Ghostman, I asked John Dean about this, what Cheney was up to with the NSA surveillance prior to 911. I got the impression from his answer that this NSA stuff turns Cheney on (my words, not his). Why I haven’t a clue.
rwcole @ 74
I think we’re going to need a truth and reconciliation commission after this administration ends.
Way epu’d, I know, but the key to the telecom dragnet is the start-date. If it was before 9/11, we have a different problem.
The only way to find that out is to force the telecoms to tell us. They won’t do that with retro-active “immunity” because lawsuits against them will be thrown out.
When did they start the illegal tapping? That is what we need to know.
“”Brandon Mayfield, for one, an innocent American citizen (who could prove standing, unlike other innocent victims of secret Executive Branch-authorized spying), illegally and unConstitutionally imprisoned (i.e., ‘lost his liberty’), spied on, house and papers and effects secretly searched by federal authorities, slandered: in Oregon, the United States of America. Read all about it (don’t wait for the corporations to “inform” you via television):”"–Pow wow
I stand corrected.
You identified 1 American out of 300 million who had his liberties denied for a couple weeks due to erroneous evidence that linked him to Madrid bombings.
Someone please violate my rights since Mayfield received over 2 million dollars from the government for the inconvenience and an apology.
How about citing 2 Americans out of 300 million.
EagleX @ 85
Why don’t you do a little of the work, yourself, before challenging facts about which you are uninformed? You asked for one example, I gave you one example.
Yeah, they were caught red-handed in the Mayfield case, which is both why he got a settlement (with a lot of help from pro bono, pro-American legal eagles, including Oregon public defenders who did the digging to establish crucial facts in the case) and why we know as much as we know about what happened to that man and his family and law practice - it’s an appalling tale of abuse of federal police powers, based on religious prejudice, in defiance of information to the contrary from the Spanish police authorities who were investigating on behalf of the actual victims of the attack in Spain.
Since you can’t be bothered to research the public record for all the many egregious cases already known, and the evidence - circumstantial and otherwise - already courageously proffered at great personal risk in many cases (see, for example, Mark Klein’s smoking gun documentary evidence as cited in the editorial which is the subject of this post) - why don’t you prove to us that we aren’t being unConstitutionally surveilled? Prove that politician ’skeleton-in-closet’ files, business competition and stock-trading secret spying, National Security Letters to ISPs in order to secretly compile dossiers on political activists, airport “watch lists” restricting free and unmolested airline travel, persecution of minority “others” (via spying on Americans and their attorneys) like the many localized groups of Arabs or Muslims or even Quakers in America - etc., etc., are all figments of our fevered imaginations, and ‘no big deal.’ Show us how that $40 BILLION of our money is being spent every year, wisely and prudently, to identify and isolate only actual, realistic, likely threats to our nation, while leaving innocent American citizens in peace. You are the naysayer. Prove us wrong.
Because another very well-known case impacting multiple Americans [since you’re counting, at least two, and likely actually in the hundreds or thousands under the “TSP,” unbeknownst to the secretly-surveilled domestic targets], about which you are apparently oblivious - and which is specifically related to the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” - just had a Ninth Circuit appeals ruling come down on Friday. That’s the case where American lawyers had a smoking gun document (the transcript call record of their conversations) provided (mistakenly) to them by the government that evidently proves that our government (the same government that was pursuing their clients on certain charges) was unConstitutionally monitoring their attorney-client conversations on American soil (and apparently secretly searching their homes and law offices).
Of course, that documentary “proof” of standing is now a verboten “state secret” - so I guess we’re all wrong to be concerned. Since if it’s a “state secret” it must be Constitutional - right? What were those Founders thinking, by requiring the feds to contain their police powers within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment… Didn’t they know that “our betters know best” and will let us know, in their own good time, what actions our government takes “for our own good” that may, or may not, be disclosed to those paying the bills, whom they rule, rather than serve??
Which is the whole point, isn’t it? If we could prove we weren’t being spied on, because we knew the Judicial Branch was still an unavoidable check on the awesome modern technological spying powers of the Executive Branch within the continental U.S., I suppose we could all return to being as blase as you apparently are about our right to privacy. But we can’t prove it, one way or the other, because - whatever it is or isn’t - it’s all now a “state secret” if and when it even gets into court via the personal sacrifice and courage of individual Americans (who you prefer to taunt and mock), with the dedicated help of American patriots like those at the ACLU and CCR.
Any comfortable myth, to the contrary, that we can all surrender our will to the federal “authorities” and just “trust” in the benevolence of actors in the Executive Branch, has long since been blown out of the water by this administration. Only those of bad faith determined to create and enhance secret, totalitarian government would continue to demand unobtainable-by-definition “proof” of unilateral Executive Branch secret domestic spying, before acknowledging that all indications are that such unilateral Executive Branch secret domestic spying does exist, and needs to be stopped if our claim to be a free people, living under a Constitution, is to survive.
I trust the American people, both with all the information they need to make informed choices about the government they want, and with the defense of their nation and its borders, if and when the next real threat draws near - so long as they have not been kept in the dark. It was, after all, despite White House propaganda to the contrary, American citizens who prevented a commercial jetliner from destroying the White House or the Capitol on 9/11. Those citizens gave up their lives, on their own initiative, to do so, and have been given scarce credit for it, by either the media or the government. Dick Cheney still thinks he “ordered” the airliner shot down. Our air defenses didn’t even know where the plane was by the time American civilians were sending it into the ground - which ended up being the only “defense” that worked on behalf of “national security” the way it needed to on 9/11/2001. And that successful civilian defense didn’t cost the taxpayers a dime.
We, the people, are the best defenders of this nation, and its well-being, that anyone could ever hope for or ask for. If we are in the dark about the actions of our own government - not only our rights, but our nation’s defense itself is endangered.