Mystery Poster over at TP...Deep Modem

[Buttercup McToots]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003862.php

snip:
I too am trying to absorb Anon’s messages to understand the big picture. My two messages were questions for Anon to see if I’d boiled any part of it down. I was hoping to see a reply from Anon.
The big picture seems to be that war crimes have been committed abroad. No questions there - abandoning common article 3 of Geneva. And at home, abandoning the constitution by skirting FISA. And I think he’s saying that looking for RNC e-mails that may or may not have been destroyed is not necessary because of this third-party IP data capture stuff. An example is the link to the case with Verizon that captured internal admin traffic. The internal traffic was a reaction to a leak about possible illegal activity. The complicity of Legal Counsel, DOJ, and RNC (through the non-WH e-mail system) shows they were aware of the illegal activity. Destroying this evidence or classifying it is a crime and this third-party IP data capture or linking or whatever it is proof that there was complicity and parties were aware.
And I get the feeling Anon is trying to say that the WH and the DOJ are using the NSA TSP as a way to keep tabs on investigations but that this is leaving a trail. I may be way off. I’m just trying to pitch in and parse Anon’s messages.
Why would he/she bring it to TPM? The TPM commenters, the citizen journalists, were the ones that brought the fired USA scandal to light, right? This is the place, right? That’s how I heard about TPM. I saw Josh on Bill Moyers.
It doesn't appear that the Dems on the hill are too worried about this stuff. Giving Gonzales the job of oversight? Asking the bank robber to watch the money while the tellers go out for lunch? What?
Citizen journalists. There is a way.
Posted by: friday
Date: August 4, 2007 2:43 AM
________________________________________


...at a certain level - specifically, at a certain height - Dems and Cons and Bushies commingle indistinguishably...
It's deeply unfortunately but it's obvious that it's true. I don't think we are doing our job--as citizens--if we deny it, as much as we might want the Dems to be the good guys. Even if the Bushies are removed from office and some general semblence of democracy returns, there are still fundamental problems with our political culture. It may be that it's always been the case but it's clean that we've drifted into a political culture that's much closer to, say, Japan or Mexico has had in the post-war era than, say, the UK or Canada. It's the power structure that's shifted. Sure, corporations and defense contractors and oil barons and whomever have had more power than, say, black congressmen or southern governors over the years but they difference now is that some of these power bases have more power than, say, all of congress on certain issues. I don't think our political system will stablize until power is more evenly distributed, regardless of which party is in power.
Posted by: anon
Date: August 4, 2007 2:53 AM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003862.php#comments
Questions for Anon/Deepmodem:
1. Why isn’t the third-party IP collection of EOP, DOJ, WH, and DOD data illegal?
2. Is it possible that Congress is the “third-party”?
3. Is the “third-party” unable to go public without a request or demand from Congress?
Clarification:
Is it possible that IP data collection works like this? IP address A represents legal counsel. IP address B represents AG. IP addresses C-L represent DOJ, DOD, WH staff.
A damaging story about illegal activity within admin breaks at 10:30 am. IP activity between IP addresses A & B picks up at 10:35. At 10:40, IP activity between IP addresses B and C-L increases and holes in data sets appear or IP activity related to destroying data is logged at 10:45 am.
Is this how IP data capturing could be problematic for admin and counsel even though details of conversations have not been captured?
Posted by: friday
Date: August 3, 2007 6:48 PM

I think what Anon/Deepmodem is saying can be summarized like this:
The DOJ, WH, OVP, Legal Counsel, and/through RNC have been using the TSP as a heads-up on investigations regarding attorney firings, Libby, torture, renditions etc and for political purposes. The link to the state AG case involving verizon and the DOJ is an example of the “third-party” IP data capture and how this method could be used over and over again to compile evidence.
The references to war crimes is the motive. The third-party data capture doesn’t hold evidence of war crimes. The evidence of war crimes is all out in the open, torture, rendition, black sites etc. The fear of war crimes charges are just the motive to conceal the use of TSA, skirting FISA, for political purposes and to block investigations into war crimes.
Cheney refusing to comply with the Executive Order regarding oversight of classified material handling seems separate. But the reason Cheney refused to comply was because, according to Anon, it is illegal to classify material to cover up illegal activities. By the way, did this get dropped? Any work being done legally to force Cheney to comply with the classified material EO?
Posted by: friday
Date: August 3, 2007 8:54 PM

Friday - @6:48 and 8:54
Can you please be more specific?
I see your questions. I see your answers. And I sort of get a bit of the gist. But I'm not sure I really understand what you're trying to say.
Please, if you're still paying attention here on this thread, could you give me a bit more information?
A. I think you're suggesting (questioning?)that what's being captured is not specific conversations but bursts of activity, bursts of phone calls or emails - particularly at times when the administration is under fire. And that you can track how a conspiracy is occurring through those bursts and how they cluster in terms of who's in the loop?
B. Your summary about what Anon/Deepmodem is saying - that's where I'm confused. What is this TSP heads-up you're referring to? Can you give a specific crisis, as an example? And your reference to Verizon info? That's how it's captured? That's an example of the 3rd party data capture? And that's been referred to in Anon's posts - something recent, info in the public domain I seem to recall?
C. War crimes as the motive? Not sure what you mean by motive. You say "motive to conceal the use of TSA, skirting FISA and to block investigations into war crimes." Do you mean that, as you say, the evidence of war crimes is not in the data being captured (the bursts of activity, if I'm correct)? But that is already in the public domain - we know about it? And are you saying that the "excuse" of hiding the TSA program (with pretence of hiding war crimes) REALLY hides discovery of the conspiracy related to the bursts of activity (captured in places like Verizon)? If I'm correct, could you lay that out more logically, for a simple-minded person?
D. Cheney refusing to comply with oversight - only SEEMS like a separate issue? But what we should really get is that he's doing something illegal (or supervising it) - and the "classification" of illegal activity is against the law, right? And somehow, with all this other stuff going on, going after cheney has dropped off the radar?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THOSE TWO POSTS? Try to explain to the degree you can. I think I've cracked the "password" for today. And please explain anything else.
Thanks (to the "tooth" fairy)

Posted by: TheraP

With extensive outsourcing, traveling families, business trips, routine business, the number of Americans that would be caught up in any communication - phone, internet phone, web searches, e-mail - with a single international component would be astronomical. Some you'd never know about. Eight hundred and other numbers are, for example, routinely routed internationally to call centers.
But that's the point. Because the underlying technology captures entire data streams; it captures the river, not just the boats floating past. The effort is to make it legal for the govt to do that - with absolutely no restrictions on what it does with that information, including what private contractors it releases it to for "study" (and what they do with it), at any time.
Posted by:
Date: August 3, 2007 11:20 PM

Ok. It's the "data stream." And it's possible to sort out streams from rivers or maybe it's even like flow charts, so to speak?
But in any case, to capture the whole shebang. And then you can see "patterns" in it, like waves on on a river, or ripples?
Posted by: TheraP
Date: August 3, 2007 11:25 PM

so - to get the stream, you need world-wide capture
Posted by: TheraP
Date: August 3, 2007 11:28 PM

[wildbilln864]

1. kick! n/t

[Buttercup McToots]

2. Bump...up

:)

[Buttercup McToots]

8. dupe

dupe

[havocmom]

3. .

to the Greatest Page with ya!

Glad some real patriots are coming out with news to use. Figured there was a reason or two cheney is lookin so bad

[DemReadingDU]

4. afternoon kick

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Not me!

:)

[Chico Man]

35. Actually, that was my first thought

Your name must be embedded in my memory =)

[RainDog]

6. Rendon redux

I posted info from SourceWatch on kpete's early thread about deepmodem/anon posts on tpmmuck.

when Kucinich was questioning Rumsfeld about Tillman's death, Kucinich asked Rumsfeld about the use of Rendon or Lincoln Group... concerning the Tillman coverup, but his question was wider, about the entire Iraq war, but Rumsfeld answered it only as a question about Tillman till Kucinich rephrased. Rummy dodged with a nonanswer answer.

Deepmodem mentioned Fleischman Hillard because they do VNR for American audiences (planting fake news stories that are run on tv as though they are independently created stories, not propaganda.)

soooo, this river of data that Bushie wants to capture... the international issue is a red herring, imo, because the issue is its application in the U.S.

I wonder if one of the problems is that Rendon group, etc. would be able to take information from everyday people's lives and use it to structure propaganda to sell fascism, basically. Or war crimes and torture and undermining the constitution.

Again, I only have questions. Wish I had answers.

[bleever]

7. Curiouser

and curiouser.

[Buttercup McToots]

9. I need a brain...anyone got a brain...?

It is illegal for members of Congress appropriate money for illegal activities.

Then, you want to compare the nature, and terms of the Verizon contract with the various media-messaging firms within the GOP-WH-DOJ that are linked with AT&T. One of the names that may appear is Fleishman Hilliard. This firm's name is one that has been linked with AT&T, and could very well have a contract that permits it to get the stripped down versions of the NSA intercept data; and which they use to develop some sort of media messages. The speculation is that the Gonzalez testimony about "this program" or "that program" relates to the method by which NSA data is stripped of identifying information; and how this non-specific information is then transferred possibly through an Intermediary to a firm associated with DoJ and DoD. As you dig into the Fleishman Hilliard Contracts, you Will find a common contract number that crosses multiple Presidential programs and appropriations -- DoJ, DHS, DoD. The contract numbers are essentially the same.

[supernova]

36. Ohh,

contract #s and PO #s

I wonder how one would go about finding such a thing? does the OBM do regular data dumps?

[rhett o rick]

10. K & R

[wildbilln864]

11. kick again! n/t

[Buttercup McToots]

12. He has been doing his homework...If this is him...

Long but good and very pertinent...

Monday, January 29, 2007
Update on the Sixth Circuit Litigation Challenging the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program

Marty Lederman

This Wednesday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting in Cincinnati, will hear oral argument in ACLU v. NSA, one of the principal cases challenging the legality of the National Security Agency's NSA's "Terrorist Surveillance Program." The panel will consist of Judges Alice Batchelder (appointed 1991), Ronald Gilman (appointed 1997) and Julia Smith Gibbons (appointed 2002). The United States will be represented by Deputy Solicitor General Greg Garre. The ACLU will be represented by Ann Beeson. Garre and Beeson are both superb attorneys and oral advocates. (Lyle Denniston has more on the procedural moves in the case -- including a dispute over the government's refusal to file certain documents with the court -- here. And see Adam Liptak here: "In ordinary civil suits, the parties’ submissions are sent to their adversaries and are available to the public in open court files. But in several cases challenging the eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers have been submitting legal papers not by filing them in court but by placing them in a room at the department. They have filed papers, in other words, with themselves.")



Of course, two weeks ago, the Administration announced that the President has "determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," and that the Department of Justice will now submit its surveillance applications to the FISA Court for approval under FISA.

What does this development portend for the current case?

Let's recap where we are.

Last August, Judge Taylor found that the TSP was unlawful, and enjoined its continued implementation. In particular, the NSA was enjoined from engaging in electronic surveillance except as authorized under FISA. That decision was stayed pending the Sixth Circuit appeal.

But now, it appears that the NSA is complying with the injunction. If the Administration's account is to be believed, NSA now is conducting electronic surveillance only in accord with FISA, i.e., only after demonstrating to the satisfaction of the FISA Court that there is probable cause to believe (i) that the target of the interceptions is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and (ii) that each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

This development doesn't necessarily moot the appeal, any more than compliance with an injunction ever moots an appeal challenging that injunction. If the government were to prevail on this appeal and in other related cases, then presumably it would no longer be bound by legal orders requiring compliance with FISA. And the government's continuing legal position is that it does not have to comply with FISA; therefore it has some interest in continuing its appeal.

But the government has filed an unusual memorandum with the court of appeals, in essence arguing that the government's recent compliance with FISA eliminates the controversy between the parties.

If that were stictly true -- if the government were now committed to FISA compliance going forward -- it could simply dismiss its appeal, because the underlying injunction does not require anything more than such statutory compliance.

But the government isn't dismissing its appeal, because it does not want to be bound by the injunction -- that is, it wants to retain the option of departing from FISA again if and when the President sees fit to do so. As I wrote above, that's perfectly fine, and not out of the ordinary, even if I disagree with the merits of the government's position.

What is very odd, however, is that the government is now arguing that because of its compliance with FISA, the court of appeals should vacate the district court injunction.

According to the Department of Justice, there is "no longer any live genuine controversy to adjudicate." Well, that would be true, if the government were committed to FISA compliance going forward -- in which case the government could simply live under the injunction, and withdraw its appeal. But the government understandably wishes to preserve its future prerogatives to depart from FISA, which is why it has not withdrawn its appeal.

What, then, is the government's argument for why the injunction should be vacated? After all, parties generally do not have a right to have an injunction against them vacated simply because they begin to abide by it. Whether the "extraordinary" remedy of vacating an injunction should be granted, the Supreme Court has held, is a question principally determined by "whether the party seeking relief from the judgment below caused the mootness by voluntary action." U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 24. And here, the government inded has, by its own account, voluntarily complied with FISA, i.e., has done what plaintiffs requested and what the injunction demands. "To allow a party who steps off the statutory path to employ the secondary remedy of vacatur as a refined form of collateral attack on the judgment would--quite apart from any considerations of fairness to the parties--disturb the orderly operation of the federal judicial system." U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. at 27. (Indeed, even apart from compliance with an injunction, the general rule is that voluntary cessation of challenged conduct in response to a lawsuit challenging such conduct does not even moot a case, unless subsequent events make it "absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189. There is no such assurance here, of course, that the government will not resume the disputed conduct if not judicially compelled to refrain from doing so.)

I must confess that I don't quite understand the government's argument to the contrary. It claims on page 10 of its memo that its compliance with FISA was not voluntary but was instead the result of the action of an "independent judicial body," the FISA Court. See also page 13 ("the critical event was the product of an intervening act of a corrdinate branch of government"). But of course the FISA court has simply granted FISA orders sought by the government itself, and pursuant to a request from the government for such orders. (That's the way FISA works -- the government seeks an order, and the FISA court decides whether to grant it. The FISA court does not initiate proceedings on its own.) Moreover, that is precisely the remedy plaintiffs were seeking -- to require the government to seek and obtain orders from the FISA court finding probable cause that FISA's standards are met before engaging in any electronic surveillance. I should add that the FISA court orders in question presumably are only with respect to the particular electronic surveillance requested by the government in a particular case. The government's voluntary representation that it will not engage in such surveillance in the future -- i.e., in all other cases going forward -- except in accordance with FISA is not, of course, a representation made or ordered by the FISA court. It is the Administration's own doing. The letter is signed by the Attorney General, not the FISA Court. (For the ACLU's response to the government's request for vacatur, see pages 12-16 of its recently filed brief.)

The government's memo also appears to argue (page 14) that the injunction should be vacated because the district court's opinion addressed "extraordinarily sensitive questions touching upon issues of statutory construction and constitutional law, separation of powers, and, ultimately, Presidential authority in a time of war." I don't understand why that's a reason to vacate the injunction. The district court opinion has no stare decisis effect -- even other district judges in the Eastern District of Michigan are not bound to follow it. It will either be persuasive to other courts when similar questions are litigated in the future, or it won't be. And to the extent the government wishes to create better, more binding precedent in its favor, it can seek reversal on the merits in the court of appeals.

For these reasons, this non-objective observer predicts that the court of appeals will reach the "merits," at least of the government's state-secrets privilege claim, if not also of the statutory and constitutional questions in the case.

Posted 6:02 AM by Marty Lederman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments:


The Maine Public Utilities Commission will probably outline today how it is going to move on the complaint about Verizon's cooperating with NSA wiretapping. Maine law gives 9 months for public hearing and to adjudicate. PUC is under considerable pressure to move ahead.

# posted by Dryki : 8:57 AM

Prof. Lederman,

What is your opinion of what the President's voluntary cessation of the TSP portends for the parallel case of CCR v Bush in the Southern District of New York? Is mootness a greater threat to plaintiffs in that case, which Judge Lynch has not yet decided?

# posted by JaO : 9:39 AM


I must confess that I don't quite understand the government's argument to the contrary. It claims on page 10 of its memo that its compliance with FISA was not voluntary but was instead the result of the action of an "independent judicial body," the FISA Court. See also page 13 ("the critical event was the product of an intervening act of a corrdinate branch of government"). But of course the FISA court has simply granted FISA orders sought by the government itself, and pursuant to a request from the government for such orders. (That's the way FISA works -- the government seeks an order, and the FISA court decides whether to grant it. The FISA court does not initiate proceedings on its own.) Moreover, that is precisely the remedy plaintiffs were seeking -- to require the government to seek and obtain orders from the FISA court finding probable cause that FISA's standards are met before engaging in any electronic surveillance.

If they follow the lead of some of the lower courts, the 6th Circuit could decide to vacate summary judgment, apply the state secrets privilege and remand for discovery on standing consistent with the state secrets privilege. Given how fast and loose with the law Judge Taylor was in prematurely granting summary judgment, it would not surprise me at all if she orders disclosure of classified material and the government appeals this case to 6th Circuit once again.

The government is obviously attempting to short circuit this process by giving 6th Circuit an out with the mootness defense. The Government appears to be attempting to reassure the Court that the FISA court is the proper place to resolve this complaint and that the FISA court has already provided a remedy for plaintiffs.

I think the Government is well aware of the points which Professor Balkin raised in this post. The way the Government is presenting its mootness argument followed by a long list of policy arguments, I think they realize that dismissal on this ground will be a matter of discretion by this panel.

I would dearly love to see 6th Circuit reverse Judge Taylor's awful decision on the merits so it cannot be used as precedent in future suits in this area. However, courts generally seek to avoid political battles between the elected branches and may leap at this opportunity to bail.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:36 AM

The ACLU's argument that the "voluntary cessation" standard blunts the government's mootness claim seems persuasive. Common sense might actually be congruent with the legal technicalities here.

But I still think the biggest uncertainty remains the question of standing, which was problematical before Gonzales announced that the TSP is being stopped. (I confess that I, too, am rooting for the court to reach the merits.)

As an aside, now that the program is being discontinued, there no longer seems to be justification for the stay of the injunction pending this appeal.

# posted by JaO : 12:36 PM

JaO, I don't know if this makes a difference to your question, but:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/govt_misconduct/govtArticle.asp?ObjID=RovrtPD8Bc&Content=694
On December 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered CCR v. Bush transferred to the same court in San Francisco
where the Electronic Frontier Foundation's case, Hepting v. AT&T, and
several dozen other cases against private telecommunications companies
are being heard. The case is thus at least temporarily out of the
hands of Judge Gerard Lynch, who held an extensive oral argument on
the matter on September 5, 2006, and before Judge Vaughn Walker, who
is currently attempting to streamline the many actions against phone
companies. ...

Order: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/govt_misconduct/docs/MDL_final_transfer_order.pdf

# posted by ej : 12:54 PM

I suspect that this consolidation of the FISA civil cases was the reason why Judge Taylor prematurely awarded SJ to plaintiffs before the case could be removed from her court.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:54 PM

These cases have been transfered to Judge Vaughn Walker. For those who are interested, Judge Walker wrote a lengthy and scholarly opinion covering the standing and state secrets privilege issues in the Hepting v. AT&T case before denying the Government's motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in order to conduct more discovery on the standing issue.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/
308_order_on_mtns_to_dismiss.pdf

I suspect this opinion earned Judge Vaughn the jurisdiction over the other FISA cases and may be followed by 6th Circuit to remand the case to Judge Vaughn's court for further discovery.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 2:15 PM

EJ,

Thanks. I had completely missed that development in CCR v Bush. The administration continues to play its rope-a-dope strategy, avoiding consideration of the merits. The immediate affect seems to be delay.

FWIW, Judge Gerard Lynch seemed concerned at his hearing about standing in that case. As to the merits, he clearly indicated that he was unimpressed by one of the two prongs of the government's theory (that the 2001 AUMF authorized warrantless surveillance) and pressed DOJ to defend its other argument, the Article II supremacy theory expounded only indirectly, more forthrightly.

Notably, the same consolidation order also transferred to Judge Vaughn Walker the unique case that had been pending before Judge Garr M. King in Oregon, in which plaintiffs claim they actually were surveilled and had seen proof in a document the government had accidently disclosed to them.

# posted by JaO : 2:31 PM

Candidate for most inexplicable "logic" ever:

: "Moreover, added, the Circuit Court should avoid a ruling in the case on the merits, because that would involve exploration of "extremely sensitive constitutional issues" about presidential power."

Say huh?!?!?

Cheers,

# posted by Anonymous : 4:47 PM

Here's the actual gummint quote:

In its submissions Wednesday, the Justice Department argued that, while the trial judge's order not to conduct the Program outside of the FISA Court's reach was now moot, that order should be wiped off the books because it sought to resolve "extraordinarily sensitive questions touching upon issues of statutory construction and constitutional law, separation of powers, and, ultimate, presidential authority in a time of war."

Heavne forbit they do such a thing.... At least that's what the maladminstration is hoping, and that's what JaO and Glenn Greenwald have been claiming -- correctly, it seems -- for quite some time. The maladministration doesn't want -- and in fact fears -- a decision on the merits.

Cheers,

# posted by Anonymous : 4:51 PM

Merits are only for college admissions, Arne.

# posted by Anderson : 9:17 AM

I think the Government is well aware of the points which Professor Balkin raised in this post.

I believe this blog was posted by Marty Lederman, actually.

# posted by athomas : 1:08 PM

athomas said...

I think the Government is well aware of the points which Professor Balkin raised in this post.

I believe this blog was posted by Marty Lederman, actually.

Ouch! You are right. My apologies to both men.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:35 PM

If the Administration's account is to be believed, NSA now is conducting electronic surveillance only in accord with FISA

I'm not sure that's correct, even taking the administration's representations at face value.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought they stated that specifically the Terrorist Surveillance Program is now being conducted in compliance with FISA. But this falls well short of saying they are complying with FISA as a general matter. In particular, they are presumably still violating the pen register provisions of FISA with the call detail database (the story first reported by USA Today).

# posted by crust : 6:26 PM

[Buttercup McToots]

13. ORCON Executive Order corruption....

< ORCON Executive Order corruption >


ORCON, it's illegal to classify evidence of illegal activity.

Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON.
It doesn't matter whether the "EO" did or didn't apply, the 32 CFR 2800 does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR does list EOs which do apply.

Whether the standards listed does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the requirement regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is legally enforceable. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and the data which must be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.

This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White Hose legal counsel did something very stupid:

1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege

2. Created an illegal backup database

3. Destroyed that database

Here's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?

Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was known to be revealed; and that claims of executive privilege would fail, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the existence and content of that backup e-mail could be breached.
In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the expectation of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to destroy the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.

* - -

Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a claim that the court does not have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences about missing data suggest that the evidence was illegally destroyed, the claim of privilege is one that the court is not required to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail.
Executive privilege isn't something the court is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a court recognized claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.

The key is for the Grand Jury to know: It can decide that the claim of privilege was not real; and that it was not reasonable for legal counsel to believe that the claim of privilege was bonafide. In other words, going forward from the time that the e-mail was created, and the fact that that "supposedly privileged e-mail was destroyed" would undermine confidence that counsel really believed that the evidence was privileged or protected. Again, it makes no sense for counsel to argue "but it's privilege" while that supposed "stuff which would never see the light of day" is destroyed.

This then translates into whether legal counsel's assertions to the grand jury about what they believed was privileged are true; or whether the legal counsel has retroactively asserted something which is not supported by the subsequent actions. Namely, once legal counsel says -- in hindsight -- we "believed' our actions were lawful, they key point is: That is a dubious belief and a dubious assertion of what was a belief because of the subsequent destruction of information that was supposedly going to be shielded.

In so many words, the problem legal counsel has is that their "assertion of a belief" about that evidence and legality of that data archiving method gets called into question: And forms for the Grand Jury a reasonable basis to impeach that legal counsel as a witness. This means that the Grand Jury says, "We do not believe this witness"; whether they want to investigate that legal counsel further over that dubious claim is what the Libby Grand Jury did.

* - -

In other words, going back to our discrete events, RNC legal counsel and WH Counsel established that illegal database and e-mail system; but then were alerted to questions about that content; but then worried that their claim of executive privilege would fail.

This is linked to the Grand Jury subpoenas in re Libby and Ashcroft. Once the evidence destruction time is known, we can pinpoint what they were responding to. Again, if the privilege claims were bonafide -- that the WH counsel "believed" the documents were privileged -- they would not have a reason to set up any backup system; or destroy the very thing that was supposed to be shielded.

The key is subtle: When did WH counsel suddenly get religion and realize, "Our dubious belief that this claim of privilege would prevail isn't going to work; someones told them what is here; we can't hide this behind privilege; we have to destroy this."

The only people who could understand what data there was; where it was located; how it was created; and the assumptions they had relative to executive privilege...were the people who made the rules, did the vetting for the documents, and knew the rules of privilege.

At some point after the Grand Jury subpoena landed, WH counsel had two paths they attempted to go down at the same time: First, their legal/public position of asserting privileged; but second, the private path of comparing which documents would most likely be admissible, and not survive the claim of privilege, and had to be destroyed.

Someone did a comparison after the Subpoena landed, but moved quickly enough to sort through the data, and get rid of the things that had previously been retained. In other words, someone convinced themselves -- after a first look -- that the documents would be protected; but then something changed.

* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Timeline: (Time from left to right)

There are seven milestones: < A-G >
< > --<1> -- X ---<2> ---- 0 -----<3> ------- D
A. < > Origination of data
B.
C. X First visit/review
D.
E. 0 Subpoenas land
F.
G. D Destruction

* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

The time line is simple: After first creation point < >, A , there is a timeline of data; that was not tampered with for some time , B; then, they had a problem, looked at the data , but decided to do nothing , D; then they had a real problem : Ooops, we aren't going to be able to hide this , F; then the destruction orders went out .

Each of those points is discrete; and things were kept; and other things were not kept; things were reviewed; and there were discussions inside the RNC and WH Counsel's office.

Again, we're not talking about conversations that are privilege, but the WH Counsel's office discussions about the problematic data: That discussion is different, and not protected. That's what the outside legal counsel has a problem with right now: They were the ones who knew the standards; did the audit; and came back with certifications.

Either they found problems and documented them; or they didn't find the problems and left them alone. Their problem: They don't know which data was deliberately placed in the WH Datasets, and sent through the RNC e-mails with the intent that it be destroyed: It would create a hole for the auditors to ask: "Why isn't this here?" RNC doesn't know what was test data; and which was real data. They can't tell the difference. Someone else does. Not them.

The problem they have is that they didn't realize what was happening while it happened. Again, this isn't just in the WH, but all over the place. and not just in the President's office, but OSC, DoJ, EOP, OVP, NSA, NSC, and Congress.
They have no control over the baseline data which has been captured, and remains secure outside their control. They're being led to believe the data -- including all backups -- has been totally destroyed. Now they realize they have a problem.

But it's worse than they imagined. CIA transferred data to the EU: This is connected with the NSA intercepts of the war crimes; confirming the timing of the notifications to the White House; and explaining the timelines of the destruction actions. Add in the Libby and Abramoff investigations and destruction, and the President has another problem: Too many discrete events that the RNC is responding to; and too many holes that are only linked with concerns about discrete events.

The destruction wasn't random, but related to awareness by WH counsel that their original delusions weren't going to prevail. That's the key: It only takes one link between notification, and subsequent destruction for the WH Counsel to hang themselves. It's already happened. Multiple Times. Take your pick:

A. Conversations over whether to transfer prisoners after disclosure of Eastern European prisoner abuses;
B. Whether to, after the Supreme Court ruled against them, to move the prisoners;
C. Coordination with members of Congress to start investigation of the leaks, despite the President knowing for one year that the NYT had been looking at things. Surely if the President was "concerned" about leaks, he wouldn't talk tot he NYT to confirm or Deny anything,b but would have -- without talking to the NYT -- order an investigation.

But the silly President got it backwards: Ordered the investigation publicly after the NYT disclosed what was a "big secret".

The key is simple: what should have been happening; and what did happen; what should counsel have been doing, but what were they doing. They want us to believe X, but reality best supports something other than X.

The timelines don't match. The GOP-Rove, and RNC have attempted to create a separate timeline that does not match what the CIA and EU know to be true about rendition, notification, and prisoner abuse. These are war crimes; and that evidence destruction relates to war crimes prosecution obstruction. This isn't about RNC e-mails, but about war crimes evidence.

The FISA violations aren't about the law, they're about transferring data for illegal objectives, including the support of illegal war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other breaches of Geneva. AG Gonzalez doesn't care about FISA violations because his real concern are the war crimes which the CIA has confirmed to the EU.

Keep in mind who you're dealing with: Legal counsel who believe they are generals, but have failed in military campaigns. Their idea of "winning" is to block enforcement of the law and hiding evidence of their complicity with war crimes. The think they are above the law. They're not. The holes tell us something else.
Posted by:
Date: July 29, 2007 11:56 PM

[Buttercup McToots]

14. Vaughn Court finding

Also consider the Vaughn Court finding: That the States are not required to assent to the Federal law; and that the states are not behold to follow the lead of Congress, DoJ, or the President when the Federal Government is not protecting the state citizens' rights. This is important when planning the State AG prosecutions of the President, VP, and Members of congress: State AGs do have standing, and the inaction of Congress on these matters does not mean the State AGs are forced into inaction.

[Buttercup McToots]

15. NSA contractors

The industrial base of contractors in industry seeking to do business with the National Security Agency has mushroomed in recent years, according to an NSA acquisition official. ....

The number of contractor facilities cleared by the NSA has grown from 41 in 2002 to 1265 in 2006 ....

Contractors now consume as much as 70% of U.S. intelligence spending ...

June 2007, Federation of American Scientists

From 41 to 1265 in four years. That seems pretty creepy to me. I don't know who all those contractors are or where they are, but I am positive contractors exist to make a profit (not to "provide for the common defense").

"This chamber reeks of blood." -- Sen George McGovern, 1970

[Buttercup McToots]

16. Behind the Surveillance

Quote:

Behind the Surveillance Debate
A federal judge's secret ruling restricting the intelligence community's surveillance powers helped spur a Capitol Hill bid to grant Bush new authority.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 12:17 p.m. PT Aug 1, 2007

Aug. 1, 2007 - A secret ruling by a federal judge has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas and prompted the Bush administration's current push for "emergency" legislation to expand its wiretapping powers, according to a leading congressman and a legal source who has been briefed on the matter.

The order by a judge on the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court has never been publicly acknowledged by administration officials—and the details of it (including the identity of the judge who wrote it) remain highly classified. But the judge, in an order several months ago, apparently concluded that the administration had overstepped its legal authorities in conducting warrantless eavesdropping even under the scaled-back surveillance program that the White House first agreed to permit the FISA court to review earlier this year, said one lawyer who has been briefed on the order but who asked not to be publicly identified because of its sensitivity.


Quote:
But last January, partly in a bid to quell criticism from Democrats and civil liberties groups, the administration agreed to submit the entire surveillance program to the FISA court for review. Much about the process has never been explained publicly. But at some point after the new program began, one of the FISA judges—who, by rotation, was assigned to review the program for periodic updates—concluded that some aspects of the warrantless eavesdropping program exceeded the NSA's authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the basic 1978 law that governs eavesdropping of espionage and terrorist suspects, said the lawyer who had been briefed on the ruling. The judge refused to reauthorize the complete program in the way it had been previously approved by at least one earlier FISA judge, the lawyer said, adding that the secret decision was a "big deal" for the administration.


Quote:
It was only after that ruling that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell this spring began urging Congress to pass an emergency "fix" that would clarify and specifically grant the NSA authority to tap switches based in the United States without review by the FISA court. The administration effort has accelerated in recent weeks—and won the support of key Democratic leaders—amid warnings from the intelligence community that the country is facing greater risk of a new terrorist attack due in large part to the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Congressional aides (who asked not to be identified talking about ongoing negotiations) said today that Democratic and Republican leaders of the intelligence committees met until late Tuesday night trying to reach an agreement on a short-term measure that would grant some of the enhanced authority—including the ability to tap telecommunications switches without warrants—that the administration is seeking. One stumbling block that has emerged: the administration's insistence that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales be given an expanded role to oversee the program—a particularly controversial move at the moment, given new allegations that the embattled attorney general has misled Congress about legal disputes over the surveillance program. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, said today in a statement that he has "become convinced that we must take some immediate but interim step" to expand surveillance, but that the administration proposal to grant Gonzales greater authority "is simply unacceptable."

In a conference call with reporters today, Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, lashed out at Democrats because they are resisting language in the administration proposal that would give Gonzales a new oversight role over the program. "The Democrats don't trust anybody in the administration," Bond said when asked about the objections to expanding Gonzales's role. "They didn't like Scooter Libby, they don't like Karl Rove and most of all they don't like President Bush. I don't care who they like. We need to keep our country safe."

But Bond declined to respond when asked if it was a federal judge who created the alleged intelligence "gap" in the first place. "I can't comment on why this has occurred," Bond said, after checking with an aide about whether he could respond to a question about a ruling by a FISA judge. "But the director of national intelligence has said we are significantly burdened in capturing foreign communications. It is a significant new burden."

[Buttercup McToots]

17. Name of the judge....

The name of the judge in question is James Robertson. He has resigned from the FISA court because of Bush's illegal activities.


This is the man that we need to help us.

[chill_wind]

25. Whoah. This is the first I've seen him named.

I wasn't sure we would see a name any time so soon.

How did it emerge, are you at any liberty to explain?

These are riveting discussions and disclosures. I just haven't known what to make of the anon conversations, wondering whether we're being played.

Trying to boil down the essence of some things put out here in this thread so far, much of which I don't completely follow (the writing style is really hard for me to read and try to stay with)---

I get this:

"The FISA violations aren't about the law, they're about transferring data for illegal objectives, including the support of illegal war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other breaches of Geneva. AG Gonzalez doesn't care about FISA violations because his real concern are the war crimes which the CIA has confirmed to the EU.

Keep in mind who you're dealing with: Legal counsel who believe they are generals, but have failed in military campaigns. Their idea of "winning" is to block enforcement of the law and hiding evidence of their complicity with war crimes. The think they are above the law. They're not. The holes tell us something else.'

I'll always believe they knew they were committing crimes. They knew that in the end, the world would see it that way, too, but they couldn't let it matter. They hoped they might get away from the worst consequences for longer than this, get away from them for at least as long as their elder mentors and benefactors have gotten away so far.

They hoped to be useless old men when they were finally found and taken away for good, their lives already spent, their missions accomplished, their already comfortably well-off families, their grandchildren, completely provided for in advance-- but if not, it was a calculation they were willing to make. In their own mad, arrogant delusions, in their lust, they believed it was worth it.


I'd love to dream they might not be such old men after all when the world's judgment day comes for them. This gives me a cautious shred of hope.


(edited to try to clean up some of the more hopelessly messy, messed up syntax of my own)

[RainDog]

26. Gonzales on potential war crimes charges

old Newsweek article maybe worth parsing again.

Gonzales and Yoo wanted Bush to stick with the line that Afghanistan was also exempt from the Geneva Conventions. Yoo even claimed that "international laws" have no binding effect on the prez or the military. ?!?!?! Shades of asshole Bolton at the UN.

after strong protests from Powell, the White House retreated slightly. In February 2002, it proclaimed that, while the United States would adhere to the Geneva Conventions in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan,

The Gonzales issue is the Taliban in Afghanistan. The administration claim that the Taliban were not entitled to Geneva conventions. This stems from the contention that Afghanistan is a failed state and therefore no rules that apply to states apply in Afghanistan. Gonzales' problem, according to Isikoff, is that G claimed the Geneva Conventions were not only "quaint" but also "obsolete."

also, the 2005 Gonzales Indictmentf by Marjorie Cohn.

Cohn notes that Article 3 states that a "competent tribunal" should determine the status of prisoners...not the AG for one side of a conflict. This is directly applicable to the ruling on The Taliban.

The military commissions act, Cohn argues, mandates that soldiers defy the Geneva Conventions. I wonder if (ex)soldiers could charge the Bush exec. branch with coercion to be part of a crime? Gonzales was one of those who drafted the military commissions act order in the fall of 2001.

A WaPo article about Gonzales and the OLC (office of legal council) concerning war crimes and the bush torture doctrine.

Deepmodem said information is out there... however, it may be "out there" in unsealed court documents... but the war crimes issue as a problem for Gonzales/ et al, is all over the place. But someone has to enforce the law... which is why deepmodem talks about the recourse to state-level impeachment and other charges. I looked for a "how to" site for such actions but no luck so far. however, that would be a good link to have for state politics fora.

[chill_wind]

28. State-level impeachment .... can we turn to incubator efforts so far in NM, WA State, Vermont?

I have a bad tendency to never get out of the Big Forums very much. so I don't know what all might be compiled in the many individual state ones-- I'd have to think just about everybody might have the bookmark for ImpeachPac, which tracks all sorts of impeachment activism news & blogging. It links to, among many places, Democrats.com forums, which has subforums like ours where people can hook up for efforts toward congressional district organizing, city townhall meetings, etc but you can also glean some links for state-legislature level efforts.

www.impeachpac.org

While not single blueprints for the states, possibly helpful links at ImpeachPac to some examples in various stages so far and worded proposed resolutions (Maine, NM)

Maine, as an example, has a website (working with 65 Maine Lawyers)petitioning for a push of their state legislature, and chronicling the news of efforts of several other states so far.

Investigations leading to impeachment start in the U.S. House of Representatives. But it is within the power of State Legislatures to make the U.S. Congress start the impeachment process. To push them toward action, we will deliver to the Maine Legislature the names of all Mainers who support impeachment action.

http://www.maineimpeach.org/About.html

They have the full text of both their own and the State of New Mexico's Resolutions.

House rules allow impeachment to begin with a Resolution from one state legislature. Three states have begun the process - NM, WA, and VT - and NM has an early lead.

1. New Mexico's resolution (SJR 5) cleared its first hurdle last Friday when it passed the Rules Committee on a unanimous 5-0 vote. Citizens turned out in force and gave powerful emotional appeals for impeachment. Incredibly, not a single Republican showed up to defend Bush! (Is that a signal that Republicans want to quietly help Democrats impeach Bush before the 2008 election to avoid a repeat of the 2006 GOP wipeout?) The NM bill must clear two more committees before it goes to the full Senate. Video and details here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/nm
http://impeachbush.tv/impeach/state_nm.html

2. In Washington State, Senator Eric Oemig's Resolution (SJM 8016) will have its first hearing on March 1. Activists led by "state-at-home mom" Linda Boyd will hold a rally for impeachment and investigations in Olympia on the Capitol steps at 1:00 p.m. Video and details here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/wa
http://impeachbush.tv/impeach/state_wa.html

3. In Vermont, Rep. Daryl Pillsbury's resolution (JRH-15) has 22 co-sponsors, with 75 needed for passage. State legislators are getting heavy anti-impeachment pressure from Vermont's Members of Congress, so a strong grassroots movement is urgent. Cindy Sheehan and John Nichols will barnstorm VT for impeachment from March 2-4. Audio and details here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/vt
http://impeachbush.tv/impeach/state_vt.html

http://www.maineimpeach.org/News.html

Their links page- lots more impeachment site links:

http://www.maineimpeach.org/Links.html

*******************

Thank you for the rest of your post and links-- a very good and helpful recap on the War Crimes legal genesis/timeline of things. Especially thank you for help bringing into sharper focus deepmodem's thought directions about state-level recourse. I'm re-reading things in here-- they make more and more sense with each read.

[salin]

37. Raindog! I was thinking about you earlier this week!

I miss you!

Per your post... I have to wonder if there will not be a series of trials after this administration ends - and a whole lot of convictions, without pardons. Too much is out there, as you point out. Time is ticking on the impeachment clock - but laws broken, when in office, remain broken long after the impeachment clock has run out.

While we are all devastating by the latest caving to the Bush powerplay - this is the reminder to me why we still have to work hard to both get the GOP out of the WH and to garner larger and larger majorities in congress - so investigations that can lead to federal prosecutions can occur, without pardon protection.

[RainDog]

44. yo home girl :)

I didn't even know if my account was still active -- it's been so long since I've tried to sign in. --I've been by to read from time to time, but I don't know how many years it's been since I posted here.

I was wondering how you were doing too. Nice to see your pixiliated self.

Bush world just gets weirder and weirder, eh?

[salin]

47. from the absurd to the obscene- about covers

watching bushworld.

I am doig okay - still working like a dog, but what else is new.

I thought of you when I read about that horrendous local story about the Cherry Hill church. How could a parent subject their child to that?!?!

Hope all is well with you!

[druidity33]

18. K&R and also...

heard any word from CorpGovActivist? Does he have an opinion on any of this stuff?

[Buttercup McToots]

19. k

k

[Buttercup McToots]

23. Wake up!!!!

Please wake up..

[Buttercup McToots]

20. k

kick

Please read...I Believe this is an insider...trying to help

[RainDog]

21. GAO ruled HHS medicare commercials illegal (VNR fake news)

this is a pdf from the GAO about the ruling made against the govt. for not identifying propaganda as such for tv ads to promote their program. This is illegal. This is one of AfterDowningStreet's listed offences for impeachment.

DIGEST

1. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s (CMS) use of appropriated funds to pay for the production and distribution of story packages that were not attributed to CMS violated the restriction on using appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Div. J, Tit. VI, § 626, 117 Stat. 11, 470 (2003).
2. CMS, in using appropriations in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition, incurred obligations in excess of appropriations available for that purpose. See B-300325, Dec. 13, 2002. Accordingly, CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, and must report the violation to the Congress and President in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 1351 and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11.

So who produced those commercials for the govt?

oh, and this is another HHS odd moment...very odd. aluminium beanie odd. surely old news around here, but here's a reminder-

Jerome Hauer, via Winter Patriot, hired John O'Neil, he got a contract for west nile just before it happened, he broke the law by only waiting one month to go to work for the company that got a contract for an anthrax vaccine, one of his underlings at one time was Steven Hatfield, Hauer was in charge of the never-really-did-crap anthrax investigation that made it possible for Bush to ram the Patriot Act, many parts unread, through Congress. Interesting guy.

He was the person who had everyone start taking Cipro, and he was managing director of the security company for the Twin Towers (the one with Bushbot brother on board too...the one with the shut down security systems prior to the week of 9-11.)

He went to work for Emergent and the company shut out a competitor (VaxGen) for the vacc. production -- ONE MONTH after he left the govt. (this is illegal.) He then went to work for Fleishman Hillard, the opened his own company and Fleishman Hillard got cut out of the deal.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't know for sure what happened. However, if I were a police detective investigating a crime, I would certainly wonder about those who benefited and then controlled the flow of information after that crime. But of course, a police detective would note it was simply coincidence and look for others who, although connected to these same people in the past, were responsible and not those who profited like pigs.

Hauer's work with Kroll is another issue.

[Buttercup McToots]

22. Thank you

so much...:patriot:

[Roland99]

31. dont forget politicization of the SSA and also people like Armstrong Williams

[RainDog]

24. whatever happened to...

EFF's class action lawsuit?

Mark Klein was a whistleblower from AT&T. His... job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

The secret room also included data-mining equipment called a Narus STA 6400, "known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets," according to Klein's statement.

Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.

EFF has some good news links on its homepage.

Klein was also in the Frontline doc about Spying on the Homefront

this pdf from the GAO. The inventories of efforts lists hundreds of organizations making information available about people's personal lives...but the report leaves out the NSA, the CIA and TIA (or whatever it's called now.)

It's posted in political videos, but Bill Moyers' old program on The Secret Govt. is eerily prescient about what's going on now. Or rather, Iran-Contra was a moment when citizens got to see what really goes in...and none of it has to do with consent of the governed.

.

[redacted]

27. < >

[Buttercup McToots]

29. Good Morning

:donut:

[NoFederales]

30. Ouch! This thread makes my head hurt, even with coffee.

I had lost track of this with all the other criminal activities and disinformation pouring around us. I have nothing to add except congratulations to everyone keeping this issue alive. Thanks.

NoFederales

[bonito]

32. K&R

[truedelphi]

33. Although I am VERY pro-impeachment, I don't understand

The fuss about the RNC emails.

I mean, okay there is illegal activity - but to me it is so minor compared to all the other offenses of this Admin.

Or is the matter most important because if we can RETRIEVE the emails then we may have proof of other things??

[HooptieWagon]

34. Yes

"Or is the matter most important because if we can RETRIEVE the emails then we may have proof of other things??"

ding, ding, ding!

[supernova]

38. Bingo!

You might be able to find verifiable evidence that x persons talked about n illegal topic on Y date. Juries LOVE that kind of stuff.

[viat0r]

42. yes

information can be retrieved.
all administrators have backups, All data especially email data has to be kept for a number of years by law.
If they say somthings been deleted ot isnt really deleted it is acutally still recoverable. Even if they removed the harddrive burned it smashed it with a sledge hammer and threw it in the ocean we could STILL recover data from it. So just saying the emails were accidentally deleted is a BS excuse because you say so what we wany all your hardware NOW and look at all backups of emails etc.

[Poiuyt]

43. Yes, but WHAT was in those emails?

My guess is that it was Karl Rove coordinating the election fraud in 2004. No evidence, just a gut feeling.

[Babsbrain]

39. Deep Modem is a coward, a fraud or afraid

Why would they post anonymously on the internet and not be doing something in the real world about what they know?

[willing dwarf]

40. How can you make that assertion?

What evidence do you have that Deep Modem isn't "doing something in the real world?"

Do you have some good ideas about what you/we/I? Deep Modem should be doing?

[RainDog]

46. maybe

any one of those things.

however, if someone is offering a trail to look for evidence that directly relates to gutting the Constitution, I think it makes sense to wonder about those things and look for information.

This is the same crew that said they were above the law and unapologetic (still) vis a vis Iran-Contra. The only difference now is that the american public is too afraid to question them in their abuses of power. But you know, terrorist acts can harm us (tho the probability of that happening is less then being in a car accident), but it's only those serving within our govt who can create a totalitarian state...with or without our acquiescence.

I wonder if DeepModem signed some sort of confidentiality agreement as part of the employment that led to some of this information, which would make him/her open to prosecution for direct statements. Or if DeepModem is employed by someone and giving this information is a way around acceptable venues for discovery of this information.

Or maybe this is just a scavenger hunt.

In any case, there is useful information to be gleaned from following up on some of the "for instances" DeepModem mentions. I doubt I have the skills to fully utilize the information given, but if I can help to provide some info that relates, then at least I'm trying to do something to stop the Bush junta.

[willing dwarf]

50. Marching Orders

Reading back some of the TPM Muckraker messages, I came upon this one which seems to give a good list of how we the people can effectively work to overcome the FISA business, aka the latest outrageous flouting of the Consitution. To quote a comment left there:


Fourth Branch - Time to Stand UP!

We the People seek redress.

Anon (aka Deep Modem) has pointed out what we can do:

Seek audits.

Get State Attorney Generals involved.

Impanel Grand Juries to enforce the Constitution.

[viat0r]

41. This is news??

Who here didn't think bush admin was capturing ALL packet data on the internet?
Who here didn't think bush was using the information for his own political gains?
Who here doesn't know about bush admin REMOVING information from the internet ie... web scrubbing?

[Buttercup McToots]

45. k

k

[Buttercup McToots]

48. The Black Sites

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true


In this week's New Yorker, here's Jane Mayer's indispensable story on the CIA black sites and the unlawful torture and cruel treatment that has occurred there. This is the single best, and most important, article yet written on the torture scandal.

As we have tried to argue repeatedly in this space, it is the conduct at these black sites, and not so much Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, that is at the heart of the scandal -- or, at the very least, it's at the CIA black sites that the problems began, and that's where the primary action is now, after Hamdan and the MCA. This is not a case, like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, where the government simply insisted that interrogators obtain actionable intelligence, promised them legal cover, and then turned a blind eye so that unsupervised thugs could do their dirty work. That was bad enough. But as Jane explains, the CIA program is much more systematized, approved in every detail at the highest levels of government, by DOJ and by the Director of Central Intelligence, instigated and pushed by the Vice President, and supervised by psychologists hired to give it a patina of respectability and orderliness. It is an official, systematic torture regime, conducted entirely in secret, and without any accountability, let alone punishment for those who have violated clear legal norms -- including the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act, and the prohibition on cruel treatment and torture in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

it's a must-read.

[RainDog]

51. thanks for the link!

Seems this goes directly to the issue of the CIA talking to the EU about rendition and the DoJ not realizing there is an email trail.

the dates when rendition began and was first reported, along with the media massaging services requested by the Bush junta would be one of the big issues re: deepmodem's info about emails that are not totally removed. No doubt the attempt to cover up who knew what when would have gone through the RNC emails in order to avoid having to lie that any emails were destroyed that were part of the WH system.

[chill_wind]

49. Did we all know about this? EFF v DOJ Thursday July 26 (2 weeks ago)

or what has come out of it?


July 23, 2007
Thursday Hearing on Secret Orders for Domestic Spying

Justice Department Withholds Records on Electronic Surveillance

Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, July 26, at 11 a.m., the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will argue for the release of court orders that supposedly authorize the government's highly controversial electronic domestic surveillance program that intercepts and analyzes millions of Americans' communications.

(snip)

Thursday's hearing, before Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, will include oral arguments from both EFF and the DOJ.


WHERE:
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Courtroom 25A
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

For more on EFF's lawsuit:
http://www.eff.org/flag/07403TFH

[RainDog]

52. #24, above

I mentioned it in a post above. Mark Klein wrote out information pertaining to the issue for their complaint. I haven't been on DU for a while, so I don't know if others have covered the class action suit.

Frontline has a pdf of Klein's statement called "AT&T's Implementation of NSA Spying on American Citizens." His statement says that AT&T is the named source for NSA intercepts, but in fact, AT&T connects to every other ISP in the U.S. in one way or another. So the spying is unlimited.

Knowing Bush and Rove, who only know how to do rat fuck politics, not policy, they have and will no doubt use this capacity to gain information about any political opponents that can compromise them. Funny thing is, republicans constantly out themselves as meth-head closeted self-hating homosexuals, or plants in the white house press room to lob softball or anti-dem questions, etc, all the while claiming they are the representatives of "traditional values." It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for this country.

EFF's Class Action Lawsuit

[chill_wind]

53. Thanks Raindog, but this is not the AT&T case. It's brand-new action about the Secret FISC orders.

Based on a filing as recently as February 2007, trying to get at what happened in the Secret FISC court orders Bush & Gozales are trying to keep supressed from public knowledge and are refusing subpoenas on. The ones they've recently claimed legalized what they are doing. (January 2007)

In other words, this tries to get behind the curtain and to the heart itself of the present FISA Fix SHAM.

FOIA Litigation: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Orders

EFF v. Department of Justice, 07-403-TFH (D.D.C.) filed Feb. 27, 2007

On January 17, 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it had let the shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) review the NSA's domestic spying program, which was previously operated without any judicial authorization whatsoever. This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case seeks disclosure of the FISC's secret orders.

While claiming that the FISC has now legalized the program, the Administration has refused to let anyone else see the court orders and confirm key details about what they permit. In addition to its refusal to disclose copies of the FISC orders in response to EFF's FOIA request, the Department of Justice has similarly refused to make the orders available to the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to a subpoena.

Oral argument in the case is scheduled for July 26, 2007, before Chief Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

http://www.eff.org/flag/07403TFH/

[RainDog]

55. oops

sorry.

I looked at the EFF notice about the class action suit but didn't see any new information. However, if EFF is involved in a class action suit, seems there might be a few hundreds of millions of people who would like to join them....

[Buttercup McToots]

54. Yes..

We keep taking the layers off the onion...
You guy...and gals...are fantastic...
Everything is there...

[Buttercup McToots]

56. From TP

This is just the begining. When the people start to realize that it is not a one party system and the two parties that mainly run things are acting in concert, It will be We The People vs. You the Corrupt. Of all the things I have typed here, this is the message of most importance. I read the DU and other sites, The message is not getting through. Corruption on both sides of the aisle must be repressed. The great politicians will happily misdirect you all with abortion, gay marriage and the Iraq war while taking away your liberties one by one and fully consolidating the resources of this country into the hands of just a few. I can only help you see things from my former allies. You must be able to see your own sides actions. The actions they took on this vote are blatant and right under your noses. They may claim they are against the Bush policies, but note how the votes go down....They dissenters are often late in the vote in order to ensure it passes before they vote against it, or they basically just vote for the very things they use to get support in their campaigns. We the People will lose our rights if We The People chase phantom issues while allowing the Constitution to be disregarded.

Wake up America!

Posted by:
Date: August 5, 2007 2:10 PM

[Buttercup McToots]

57. Good Morning

:donut:

[Buttercup McToots]

58. Mystery Poster

Rove can be exposed rather easily. The knowledge about his personal issues is well known in Washington circles. He will be exposed soon. The closet is getting smaller.

Posted by:
Date: August 5, 2007 2:44 PM

[Buttercup McToots]

59. Rove

The skeletal remains in Roves closet are compromised (No pun intended) of both economic and personal values. There are many dirty deals with different sources, some of whom have already been exposed. The key is for someone to dig into the people who have known issues and connect the dots back to Rove. Financial investigations of all involved parties would go a long way to that end. The personal issues are very well known, they can be proven fairly easily. Many people have knowledge of Roves life, The trick is to get them to speak freely and without fear of reprisals.

Posted by:
Date: August 5, 2007 9:33 PM

[Buttercup McToots]

60. More Rove

I might add that age is of importance concerning the personal issues. The right way to check into this story would be to start in the 1980's and go forward. There is an awful lot to check into, but the ages of those involved might be of extreme interest to the people.All I can say for now is to look into the call boy scandals from the 80's and other areas. These areas are of very high importance.

Posted by:
Date: August 5, 2007 9:41 PM

[Buttercup McToots]

61. From CREW

CREW: Jefferson decision could have devastating impact on congressional corruption investigations and prosecutions


Submitted by Anonymous on 5 August 2007 - 5:22pm.
I respectfully disagree with this assertion: "secure in the knowledge that it will be beyond the reach of federal investigators." Recall, the court ruled the Jefferson search lawful; the problem was the FBI's expanded search into other areas.

It is not credible to assert that Members of Congress can be confident their office is shielded absolutely. What they can be sure is that their illegal activity is investigated, when supervised by a Court warrant and lawfully investigated, will remain under the law.

Let's apply these lessons to the President. His offices can be searched. He does not have absolute immunity. The evidence of illegal activity is high. He may have privilege, but that privilege is one the court has the option to deny.


Submitted by Anonymous on 5 August 2007 - 8:09pm.
What is not credible is that the DOJ might search the office of the president for evidence of crime. It is naive to think that this is possible.

What is not credible is that the court majority would grasp what amounts to a legal pretext for justifying this decision of vast importance.

What is not credible is that the majority would overturn efforts against corrupt officials by inventing new "privilege" claims to arm the corrupt and provide scope for their crimes.


And if the Judge did apply the same rule....
Submitted by Anonymous on 4 August 2007 - 3:07pm.
We would enforce the FBI & all Interpol agents to rip the Judge's office to pieces, force him out of there in Handcuffs, and drag him by the scuff to the Grand Jury until they are all finished & done away with.

This will not be tolerated anymore, its time for crackdown.

overturns efforts against corruption
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 August 2007 - 10:44pm.
Very bad decision- this makes a congressional office a safehouse for crime. If Jefferson had hid the bribe in his office instead of his freezer, the FBI would have to return it!

One has to wonder if the majority of the court would apply the same principle in the case of a judge who took a bribe and hid it in his chambers.


Appeal the decision immediately.
Submitted by Anonymous on 3 August 2007 - 7:46pm.
We have MORE corrupt politicians to worry about in the Senate, and need to be able to raid them no questions asked.

Also someone start a movement to get the lead Judge who makes flimsy decisions like this without any evidence, indicted and thrown out permanently.

This kind of corruption is no longer allowed.

Jefferson
Submitted by Anonymous on 4 August 2007 - 9:02am.
if he is corrupt that is a pols then his office should not be insulated from lawful searches no more than mine or anyone else's...this is just another example of the monachy that these pols think they are.....

[Buttercup McToots]

62. It all goes back to here...

http://constantpated.blogspot.com/

The info on this site is incredible

[Buttercup McToots]

63. Bump up

:hi:

[Buttercup McToots]

64. More TP

What is the surveillance program that dare not speak its name?

John Boehner in his comments to Fox News this week has sought to create a meme that the judicial issue is a silly one over listening in on transmissions between foreigners if those transmissions happen to pass through U.S. telcom switches. Here is what Boehner divulged on Fox:

"There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States."

Parse Boehner's classified leak carefully. Reasonable people, both Democrat and Republican, would agree that intercepting communications among foreigners, even if U.S. telcom switches and Internet routers are involved, should pose little or no constitutional difficulty. Any nation state, after all, will seek to protect itself from potential threats by collecting foreign intelligence.

But here lies the possible rub: what if the only way to collect these communications between foreigners (because of the unpredictable routes taken by IP packets in a packet-swiching network, because of the fairly easy-to-implement practice of IP spoofing, and also because of the increasing use of commercial encryption, as with Skype and with various IPSec protocols) is literally to try to collect everything, everywhere--at least everything passing through U.S. telecoms and major Internet service providers?

What if the goal of Homeland Security State is to set up farms of terabyte upon terabyte collection servers to siphon up and store literally all electronic communications (voice and text), from whatever source or from whatever unidentified individual in the hope of later using data mining techniques to scour the collected data for individuals and messages of special interest? Might all electronic transactions, including all credit card and debit card transations, also be part of such a massive database?

If such massive data collection and data mining are the real goals, the constitutional questions suddenly become startlingly clear. If data mining techniques ever come close to matching the mere capacity to vacuum up raw electronic data passing through the electronic pipelines and through the routers and switches, it would become a trivial matter to filter out a complete picture of any individual American, for whatever reason.

A Homeland Security equivalent of "Google" could conceivably be configured to screen such massive databases for information on a particular American for everything from e-mail rants, to blog postings, to credit card purchases, to court cases, to mortgage information, to tax data, to political contributions, to church memberships, to library borrowing preferences, to magazine subscriptions, to foreign travel, to investment account activity, to phone calls to mistresses.

If we have arrived at that point--or are close arriving at it--we have already surpassed George Orwell's most nightmarish premonitions. Can anyone doubt that a hyper-politicized and neocon-dominated White House would hesitate to use such databases to go after perceived political enemies and to suppress political opposition to specific items on their neocon agenda? Or perhaps the Rovians would even use the database to micro-target likely Republican voters to get out their votes or to micro-target likely Democratic voters to suppress their votes?

Boehner, Rove, Cheney, Bush, and their legions of Republican and media enablers clearly would seek to promote such an Orwellian outcome.

If this kind of data collection and data mining program is indeed the surveillance "program that dare not speak its name," will the Democrats in the House and Senate have the wisdom and spine to defend the Constitution and preserve our democracy?

Posted by:
Date: August 3, 2007 11:05 AM

[G_Leo_Criley]

65. kick

:kick:

glc

[vanlassie]

66. Kick.

[Buttercup McToots]

67. Good Afternoon

:)

[Buttercup McToots]

68. Cunningham Figure in Secret Hearing

Cunningham Figure in Secret Hearing
By Paul Kiel - August 6, 2007, 11:28 AM
Thomas Kontogiannis, long the most mysterious link in the Duke Cunningham bribery case, has continued to be something of a mystery even after pleading guilty to channeling millions in corrupt payments to Cunningham. He pled guilty back in February -- a fact that did not become public until June. An even now, it remains unclear whether Kontogiannis will be cooperating and against whom he might testify.

What's clear is that prosecutors really want to keep the details surrounding Kontogiannis' plea secret. The Cunningham case, of course, has reached deep into the CIA with the prosecution of the former executive director Dusty Foggo. Does Kontogiannis have more information to provide about Foggo? Or does the classified information concerning his case run in a different vein?

This morning, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hold a completely closed hearing on whether the transcripts of Kontogiannis' prior hearings should remain sealed, something, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports, that's unprecedented in recent history.

Permalink | TOPICS: Brent Wilkes: Duke Cunningham

Mystery Poster below

Secret courts, secret witness, unspecified danger to the republic... This is sounding more and more like the apartheid South African regime.

Posted by:
Date: August 6, 2007 11:36 AM

It is very important to point out that during the impeachment investigation, executive privilege claims are invalid. Congress has unfettered access to all required evidence. Failure of the executive to comply provides additional grounds for removal from office.

Posted by:
Date: August 6, 2007 11:12 AM

[Buttercup McToots]

69. From Needlenose

Passing FISA threw the key reason


for impeachment out the door. Why a bunch of dandies sipping Manhattans in Chicago hold out the idea that the dems represent any meaningful difference than repubs befuddles me. I guess differing views on the issue of same sex marriage is all that is necessary to make two opposing parties. The dems are complicit in this government.


By Anonymous at August 5, 2007 - 8:09pm



The Iraqis' goals are not Bush's goals (whatever those are today). Why does that surprise people? By the way, our soldiers aren't dying for the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people, they're dying for Bush and Cheney and Kristol, et. al., and their ideology. The troops who think they're fighting for OUR "freedoms" or Iraqis' "freedoms" need to come home and confront Bush and the Republicans and Democrats. We've caused more Iraqis to be killed and maimed than Saddam ever even dreamed of. It just all leaves me babbling to myself, it's all so cruel and insane.


By Anonymous at August 3, 2007 - 7:34am