The Tangled Web: Part 2, The Plot Thickens
Hello again readers, I hope everyone is in good health.
The subject of today's rant is once again the NSA and their illegal and ill-advised domestic spying program.
Since the last post on this subject, it would seem that BellSouth, and Verizon have been vigorously denying their involvement in the program. The companies have issued several statements saying that they never cooperated with the NSA and that the USA Today story claiming that they did is just plain wrong. They have also called on the USA Today to retract the story.
Well boys, if the story is so wrong, why not just sue the USA Today for libel? After all, statements such as those contained in the USA Today story are, according to you, damaging and false. As I am sure your corporate attorneys are aware, damaging and false statements in print are the foundation of any libel suit. However, since there is no suit forthcoming, I am left with only one alternative and that is to believe that the USA Today report is substantially correct in its assertion that you did, indeed, cooperate with the NSA and thus committed a violation of federal law. The USA Today has issued a statement in response to the BellSouth and Verizon denials asserting that they believe their story to be correct.
In other news regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal and these companies, BellSouth, Verizon, and AT&T have all been named in a suit in New York. The suit alleges that these companies have all violated federal law and customer trust by divulging their customers' information to the NSA without a warrant. According to CNN, the class action suit, filed in the Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion to their 200 million subscribers. Wow, talk about a helluva a rebate on your phone bill!!
The Manhattan suit is not the only court trouble for AT&T. AT&T is currently in the process of being sued by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation in US District Court in San Franscico for their (AT&T's) role in aiding the NSA. A retired AT&T employee has alleged that the company had installed equipment in a San Francisco office that was tapping into customers' dial-in information. The retired employee supplied EFF with documents substantiating his claim which EFF then filed under seal in US District Court as part of their lawsuit against AT&T. EFF then asked the judge in the case to unseal the documents so that they could be made public. AT&T opposed the move claiming that the documents were obtained illegally and contained "trade secrets" that could allow hackers to compromise their (AT&T's) system. In the meantime, the US Department Of Justice has gotten involved in the case. The DOJ is claiming that unsealing the documents and allowing this case to proceed could jeopardize national security. On Wednesday, the judge in the case ruled that the documents would remain sealed until he considered the DOJ's claims and, if the suit isn't quashed, until AT&T and the EFF could come to an agreement regarding the potential trade secrets contained in them.
What a load of crap. I can understand AT&T's desire to have these documents suppressed. If they are incriminating, AT&T's case would be shot to hell. I can also understand AT&T's claim that the documents contain trade secrets. The "trade secrets" claim is a commonly used tactic when companies don't want damaging documents released to the general public. However, the DOJ claim that national security may be compromised is pure bull. This is nothing more than one government agency stepping into to cover evidence of wrongdoing by a company on behalf of another government agency. At best, this is a misguided policy, at worst, it is criminal obstruction of justice and conspiracy in the advancement of a criminal enterprise, specifically the NSA spying. A quote from the San Francisco Chronicle shows just how far the DOJ is willing to go to obstruct justice in this case:
"When Justice Department lawyer Carl Nichols urged Walker to read the classified material -- which would have to be transported from a secure department site -- before ruling on the dismissal motion, the judge asked whether that would be fair to the plaintiffs, who will have to contest arguments they will never see.
'That is how it has to be done,' Nichols replied. 'To do otherwise would be to disclose facts, the result of which would be harmful to national security.' " (source: SF Chronicle, 05-18-06)
So according to the DOJ, it is harmful to national security to allow the plaintiffs to see the arguments that they will have to contest. In a country where the justice system is supposed to be transparent and the courts are supposed to be open to public scrutiny, this is the worst kind of obstruction possible. The DOJ is saying that now, due to "national security", you have to defend yourself against secret arguments. How can someone defend themselves against a secret argument? It is illogical. If you don't know what the argument is, you can neither defend against nor counter that argument. This is the DOJ saying to someone that "We have something against you. We're not going to tell you what it is, but you better be prepared to argue against it in court!" The sad part of this whole affair is that the DOJ is obstructing the very thing that they are charged with defending, JUSTICE! Tactics such as this have turned the Department Of Justice from an organization designed to defend the American people from the unlawful excesses of their government into the governmental equivalent of a Mafia lawyer who is less worried about true justice and more worried about assigning guilt.
In other news, Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's choice to head the CIA, continues to insist that the NSA program is legal and necessary to catch terrorists. He also claimed that the privacy rights of American citizens were a constant concern at the NSA. Yeah, right, let me guess, they were a constant concern that you considered and dismissed as being unimportant. Furthermore, General, you claim that the program is legal, how the hell would you know?!!? As evidenced by a recent MSNBC interview, you don't even know what the Fourth Amendment says. If you don't know what the Constitution says, how can the American people depend on you to make an informed decision about what programs are legal and what programs aren't? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you are using the same logic that the DOJ uses in it's "national security" type cases!
I am Chuck and I am sure that I will have a few more rants on the NSA before this is all done.
The subject of today's rant is once again the NSA and their illegal and ill-advised domestic spying program.
Since the last post on this subject, it would seem that BellSouth, and Verizon have been vigorously denying their involvement in the program. The companies have issued several statements saying that they never cooperated with the NSA and that the USA Today story claiming that they did is just plain wrong. They have also called on the USA Today to retract the story.
Well boys, if the story is so wrong, why not just sue the USA Today for libel? After all, statements such as those contained in the USA Today story are, according to you, damaging and false. As I am sure your corporate attorneys are aware, damaging and false statements in print are the foundation of any libel suit. However, since there is no suit forthcoming, I am left with only one alternative and that is to believe that the USA Today report is substantially correct in its assertion that you did, indeed, cooperate with the NSA and thus committed a violation of federal law. The USA Today has issued a statement in response to the BellSouth and Verizon denials asserting that they believe their story to be correct.
In other news regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal and these companies, BellSouth, Verizon, and AT&T have all been named in a suit in New York. The suit alleges that these companies have all violated federal law and customer trust by divulging their customers' information to the NSA without a warrant. According to CNN, the class action suit, filed in the Manhattan District Court, is asking that the companies pay $200 billion to their 200 million subscribers. Wow, talk about a helluva a rebate on your phone bill!!
The Manhattan suit is not the only court trouble for AT&T. AT&T is currently in the process of being sued by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation in US District Court in San Franscico for their (AT&T's) role in aiding the NSA. A retired AT&T employee has alleged that the company had installed equipment in a San Francisco office that was tapping into customers' dial-in information. The retired employee supplied EFF with documents substantiating his claim which EFF then filed under seal in US District Court as part of their lawsuit against AT&T. EFF then asked the judge in the case to unseal the documents so that they could be made public. AT&T opposed the move claiming that the documents were obtained illegally and contained "trade secrets" that could allow hackers to compromise their (AT&T's) system. In the meantime, the US Department Of Justice has gotten involved in the case. The DOJ is claiming that unsealing the documents and allowing this case to proceed could jeopardize national security. On Wednesday, the judge in the case ruled that the documents would remain sealed until he considered the DOJ's claims and, if the suit isn't quashed, until AT&T and the EFF could come to an agreement regarding the potential trade secrets contained in them.
What a load of crap. I can understand AT&T's desire to have these documents suppressed. If they are incriminating, AT&T's case would be shot to hell. I can also understand AT&T's claim that the documents contain trade secrets. The "trade secrets" claim is a commonly used tactic when companies don't want damaging documents released to the general public. However, the DOJ claim that national security may be compromised is pure bull. This is nothing more than one government agency stepping into to cover evidence of wrongdoing by a company on behalf of another government agency. At best, this is a misguided policy, at worst, it is criminal obstruction of justice and conspiracy in the advancement of a criminal enterprise, specifically the NSA spying. A quote from the San Francisco Chronicle shows just how far the DOJ is willing to go to obstruct justice in this case:
"When Justice Department lawyer Carl Nichols urged Walker to read the classified material -- which would have to be transported from a secure department site -- before ruling on the dismissal motion, the judge asked whether that would be fair to the plaintiffs, who will have to contest arguments they will never see.
'That is how it has to be done,' Nichols replied. 'To do otherwise would be to disclose facts, the result of which would be harmful to national security.' " (source: SF Chronicle, 05-18-06)
So according to the DOJ, it is harmful to national security to allow the plaintiffs to see the arguments that they will have to contest. In a country where the justice system is supposed to be transparent and the courts are supposed to be open to public scrutiny, this is the worst kind of obstruction possible. The DOJ is saying that now, due to "national security", you have to defend yourself against secret arguments. How can someone defend themselves against a secret argument? It is illogical. If you don't know what the argument is, you can neither defend against nor counter that argument. This is the DOJ saying to someone that "We have something against you. We're not going to tell you what it is, but you better be prepared to argue against it in court!" The sad part of this whole affair is that the DOJ is obstructing the very thing that they are charged with defending, JUSTICE! Tactics such as this have turned the Department Of Justice from an organization designed to defend the American people from the unlawful excesses of their government into the governmental equivalent of a Mafia lawyer who is less worried about true justice and more worried about assigning guilt.
In other news, Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's choice to head the CIA, continues to insist that the NSA program is legal and necessary to catch terrorists. He also claimed that the privacy rights of American citizens were a constant concern at the NSA. Yeah, right, let me guess, they were a constant concern that you considered and dismissed as being unimportant. Furthermore, General, you claim that the program is legal, how the hell would you know?!!? As evidenced by a recent MSNBC interview, you don't even know what the Fourth Amendment says. If you don't know what the Constitution says, how can the American people depend on you to make an informed decision about what programs are legal and what programs aren't? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you are using the same logic that the DOJ uses in it's "national security" type cases!
I am Chuck and I am sure that I will have a few more rants on the NSA before this is all done.
posted by Chuck | 04:21
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home