Comments on: Update on the Government’s Response to Nacchio http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: MsAnnaNOLA http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1931 MsAnnaNOLA Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:39:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1931 <p>ReaderofTealeaves.</p> <p>Yes, civilian leaders for the CIA. I think that people also need to crack down on the Pentagon doing intelligence. IE Iraq study group. Remember CIA didn’t do the stovepiping really the DOD did under the direction and auspices of Cheney.</p> ReaderofTealeaves.

Yes, civilian leaders for the CIA. I think that people also need to crack down on the Pentagon doing intelligence. IE Iraq study group. Remember CIA didn’t do the stovepiping really the DOD did under the direction and auspices of Cheney.

]]> By: radiofreewill http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1930 radiofreewill Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:41:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1930 <p>OT but related</p> <p>I read Valerie Wilson’s HuffPo article regarding â€Why Military types should not run the CIAâ€:</p> <p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-plame-wilson/why-military-types-should_b_69609.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..69609.html</a> </p> <p>Followed by Charlie Rose’s HuffPo article on his interview of Gen. Hayden, which includes two video clips (Rose bumped Valerie so he could interview Hayden):</p> <p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlie-rose/my-conversation-with-the-_b_69598.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..69598.html</a></p> <p>Valerie is right on - the CIA needs a strong civilian Director that can give independent, un-biased intelligence assessments to the President, and not a Yes-man facilitator marching to the beat of the President’s unrestrained Political Policy.</p> <p>My take-away from the video clips in Rose’s article is that Gen. Hayden, and probably all of the Military in general, clearly does not have it in his personality to stand-up to Bush unless he has Legal support - that’s just not the way he thinks. Hayden is a ’make it happen’ order follower.</p> <p>That being said, if a Court were to decide that Bush is operating outside the Rule of Law and ordered a remedy (ie - put the Program under FISA/C where it belongs,) then I believe Gen. Hayden would implement the Court’s Order.</p> <p>However, because Gen. Hayden is a Military man, there is every reason to believe he considers Bush’s signing statements to carry the force of Law. Until successfully challenged in Court, which means ajudicating the UE Argument, we cannot be certain that Bush isn’t using ’secret’ Executive Orders and signing statements to ’evade’ Court Review of otherwise un-lawful activities - dutifully assisted by Gen. Hayden.</p> <p>If We could challenge the UE Argument in Court, then at least We could begin to get some important, basic definitions of Power and Authority that could/should/would pro-scribe Bush’s exercise of untrammelled Executive Power.</p> <p>Until then, Hayden has no choice but to operate trying to reconcile two worlds. Under the UE, Gen. Hayden has to serve two Masters - the Rule of Law in public, and Bush’s Law/Orders in secret.</p> OT but related

I read Valerie Wilson’s HuffPo article regarding â€Why Military types should not run the CIAâ€:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..69609.html

Followed by Charlie Rose’s HuffPo article on his interview of Gen. Hayden, which includes two video clips (Rose bumped Valerie so he could interview Hayden):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..69598.html

Valerie is right on – the CIA needs a strong civilian Director that can give independent, un-biased intelligence assessments to the President, and not a Yes-man facilitator marching to the beat of the President’s unrestrained Political Policy.

My take-away from the video clips in Rose’s article is that Gen. Hayden, and probably all of the Military in general, clearly does not have it in his personality to stand-up to Bush unless he has Legal support – that’s just not the way he thinks. Hayden is a ’make it happen’ order follower.

That being said, if a Court were to decide that Bush is operating outside the Rule of Law and ordered a remedy (ie – put the Program under FISA/C where it belongs,) then I believe Gen. Hayden would implement the Court’s Order.

However, because Gen. Hayden is a Military man, there is every reason to believe he considers Bush’s signing statements to carry the force of Law. Until successfully challenged in Court, which means ajudicating the UE Argument, we cannot be certain that Bush isn’t using ’secret’ Executive Orders and signing statements to ’evade’ Court Review of otherwise un-lawful activities – dutifully assisted by Gen. Hayden.

If We could challenge the UE Argument in Court, then at least We could begin to get some important, basic definitions of Power and Authority that could/should/would pro-scribe Bush’s exercise of untrammelled Executive Power.

Until then, Hayden has no choice but to operate trying to reconcile two worlds. Under the UE, Gen. Hayden has to serve two Masters – the Rule of Law in public, and Bush’s Law/Orders in secret.

]]> By: readerOfTeaLeaves http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1929 readerOfTeaLeaves Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:39:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1929 <p>Sigh. Another bright shiny object? Aren’t we already blinded by the glare?<br />Looks like ’Groundbreaker’ is the ArmitageRedHerring of this mess.</p> Sigh. Another bright shiny object? Aren’t we already blinded by the glare?
Looks like ’Groundbreaker’ is the ArmitageRedHerring of this mess.

]]> By: scribe http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1928 scribe Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:03:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1928 <p>Go read my comments - mostly concerning black-bag jobs (see here at CNET <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9801975-38.html">http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9801975-38.html</a>) - here <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2007/10/23/173823/69/2#2">http://www.talkleft.com/commen…..823/69/2#2</a> and here <a href="http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2007/10/23/173823/69/3#3">http://www.talkleft.com/commen…..823/69/3#3</a> on the intersection of New FISA and how Nacchio’s treatment was a foretaste of how the discretionary immunity the AG can dole out under New FISA will work.</p> <p>Comply, or else.</p> Go read my comments – mostly concerning black-bag jobs (see here at CNET http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9801975-38.html) – here http://www.talkleft.com/commen…..823/69/2#2 and here http://www.talkleft.com/commen…..823/69/3#3 on the intersection of New FISA and how Nacchio’s treatment was a foretaste of how the discretionary immunity the AG can dole out under New FISA will work.

Comply, or else.

]]> By: John Lopresti http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1927 John Lopresti Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:51:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1927 <p>sail’, <a href="http://telephonyonline.com/">There</a> is the industry gossip entity, which I read assiduously for one decade; take it with an insider’s skeptical grain of salt. I worked for consultants thru most of this saga, but am out of the trade currently enjoying other pursuits as the characterization goes. My suggestions were for history taking; ew excells at that, and has posted many appropriate insights, so the full comparative chronology should be a fairly easy next phase here. I have written to a journalist who used to work in the business concerning the JNacc case, which is scheduled for argument in a few months; so there is a modicum of time for some research to develop. I am very busy on other projects.<br />J.</p> sail’, There is the industry gossip entity, which I read assiduously for one decade; take it with an insider’s skeptical grain of salt. I worked for consultants thru most of this saga, but am out of the trade currently enjoying other pursuits as the characterization goes. My suggestions were for history taking; ew excells at that, and has posted many appropriate insights, so the full comparative chronology should be a fairly easy next phase here. I have written to a journalist who used to work in the business concerning the JNacc case, which is scheduled for argument in a few months; so there is a modicum of time for some research to develop. I am very busy on other projects.
J.

]]> By: sailmaker http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1926 sailmaker Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:35:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1926 <p>Um, is there a time-wiki on this subject? I feel like I’m reading a foreign language where I don’t know the the direct objects - i.e. who is doing what to whom (and telling lies about it). Maybe if someone could give a link to the starting point? </p> Um, is there a time-wiki on this subject? I feel like I’m reading a foreign language where I don’t know the the direct objects – i.e. who is doing what to whom (and telling lies about it). Maybe if someone could give a link to the starting point?

]]> By: John Lopresti http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1925 John Lopresti Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:19:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1925 <p>I would look at the USTA record for the timeframe during which Qw’s ceo is accused of insider trading. I sense an in-crowd flinging of elbows the ref is blocked from seeing here. JNacc is going to employ the CIFA dot process because it is available, naturlich. Also similar in JNacc’s argument is the white house use of the press as a source after planting a story with a chosen acolyte; at least, my particular stretch on this argument among titans would have it that way (comparing Judy’s role in a separate matter and the political strategist managing these affairs for Bush at the time): namely, it is a small club which comprises the likeliest bidders on defense telecoms, and among those candidates’ spreadsheets the one with the least dominating bottom line was Qw, though in certain subregions of the global telco landscape Qw was better than it could be in strictly domestic defense bids, e.g., as a commenter said earlier, in Latin America, and central Europe during the timeframe of the ostensible insider trading. I found a notice of an amicus filing today by <a href="http://www.wlf.org/upload/101807PK.pdf">that</a> outfit, as well. Footnote*2: Greenberg Traurig is the firm of the <a href="http://www.gtlaw.com/people/print.aspx?id=7875">prosecutor</a>, another name from past whitehouse politics. Admittedly, I have yet to be current with this case, but I noticed another possibly interesting Footnote*3, viz., one early case was brought by plaintiff <a href="http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20088.htm">SEC</a>; I am trying to remember when precisely CCox won that post’s appointment process. Another factor in whether the suit was brought against a get-shorty JNacc could be, going wayback, MPowell’s tenure’s having spanned the early period when the infractions were occurring but then MPowell’s having left that oversight commissionFCC helm before the GJ process completed; or so go my approximations of the multithreaded history involved here. Incidentally, defendant’s firm’s website is slightly differently named from the way the firm members email return addresses are drawn; the barebone website is <a href="http://www.sgk-law.com/index.jsp">there</a>.</p> I would look at the USTA record for the timeframe during which Qw’s ceo is accused of insider trading. I sense an in-crowd flinging of elbows the ref is blocked from seeing here. JNacc is going to employ the CIFA dot process because it is available, naturlich. Also similar in JNacc’s argument is the white house use of the press as a source after planting a story with a chosen acolyte; at least, my particular stretch on this argument among titans would have it that way (comparing Judy’s role in a separate matter and the political strategist managing these affairs for Bush at the time): namely, it is a small club which comprises the likeliest bidders on defense telecoms, and among those candidates’ spreadsheets the one with the least dominating bottom line was Qw, though in certain subregions of the global telco landscape Qw was better than it could be in strictly domestic defense bids, e.g., as a commenter said earlier, in Latin America, and central Europe during the timeframe of the ostensible insider trading. I found a notice of an amicus filing today by that outfit, as well. Footnote*2: Greenberg Traurig is the firm of the prosecutor, another name from past whitehouse politics. Admittedly, I have yet to be current with this case, but I noticed another possibly interesting Footnote*3, viz., one early case was brought by plaintiff SEC; I am trying to remember when precisely CCox won that post’s appointment process. Another factor in whether the suit was brought against a get-shorty JNacc could be, going wayback, MPowell’s tenure’s having spanned the early period when the infractions were occurring but then MPowell’s having left that oversight commissionFCC helm before the GJ process completed; or so go my approximations of the multithreaded history involved here. Incidentally, defendant’s firm’s website is slightly differently named from the way the firm members email return addresses are drawn; the barebone website is there.

]]> By: Anonymous http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1924 Anonymous Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:00:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1924 <p>sorry. i forgot to mention<br />that payne, on the very same<br />page — at the end of the third <br />paragraph from the bottom (counting<br />redacted paragraphs as paragraphs) — was<br />quoted as saying that â€<i>a record of the <br />meeting would have been made.</i>â€</p> <p>he plainly means â€by the agency.â€</p> <p>why is it that the government hasn’t<br />made that record available? why?</p> <p>because it very likely indicates<br />the subject to be: groundbreaker <br />â€howdy†meeting with CEO. . .</p> <p>p e a c e</p> sorry. i forgot to mention
that payne, on the very same
page — at the end of the third
paragraph from the bottom (counting
redacted paragraphs as paragraphs) — was
quoted as saying that â€a record of the
meeting would have been made.â€

he plainly means â€by the agency.â€

why is it that the government hasn’t
made that record available? why?

because it very likely indicates
the subject to be: groundbreaker
â€howdy†meeting with CEO. . .

p e a c e

]]> By: Anonymous http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1923 Anonymous Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:51:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1923 <p><i>â€. . .As this citation further makes clear, Mr. Payne describes this meeting as a â€howdy call†not a meeting to discuss Groundbreaker. . .â€</i></p> <p>that is plainly the government’s<br />version of it — however. . .<br />it is my opinion that these two <br />are not mutually-exclusive: just<br />because this was apparently, one<br />of the last â€eyeball-check†meetings<br />before qwest was to undertake â€im-<br />portant, substantial, secret workâ€,<br />does NOT, in any way, refute the<br />nacchio central claim — that this<br />WAS already about groundbreaker.</p> <p>EW — i do think you are dead to rights<br />about this being a shiny object — but<br />i also think mr. nacchio will go to<br />jail, anyway. what remains to be<br />seen is whether leahy, conyers, waxman<br />(and others) will ever get to see the still-<br />blacked-out portions — and whether,<br />in fact, a program was being bid-out<br />[by the government] for â€built-inâ€<br />warrantless wiretapping and surveillance<br />[via metadata searches, among other <br />means], as early as spring of 2001.</p> <p>just my 0.02.</p> <p>ps: the filed-page <a href="http://indictdickcheney.blogspot.com/2007/10/governments-first-unsealed-answer-to.html">EW refers to, above, may be<br />viewed in its entirety as a standalone<br />jpeg right here</a>.</p> <p>p e a c e</p> â€. . .As this citation further makes clear, Mr. Payne describes this meeting as a â€howdy call†not a meeting to discuss Groundbreaker. . .â€

that is plainly the government’s
version of it — however. . .
it is my opinion that these two
are not mutually-exclusive: just
because this was apparently, one
of the last â€eyeball-check†meetings
before qwest was to undertake â€im-
portant, substantial, secret workâ€,
does NOT, in any way, refute the
nacchio central claim — that this
WAS already about groundbreaker.

EW — i do think you are dead to rights
about this being a shiny object — but
i also think mr. nacchio will go to
jail, anyway. what remains to be
seen is whether leahy, conyers, waxman
(and others) will ever get to see the still-
blacked-out portions — and whether,
in fact, a program was being bid-out
[by the government] for â€built-inâ€
warrantless wiretapping and surveillance
[via metadata searches, among other
means], as early as spring of 2001.

just my 0.02.

ps: the filed-page EW refers to, above, may be
viewed in its entirety as a standalone
jpeg right here.

p e a c e

]]> By: William Ockham http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1922 William Ockham Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:47:00 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/10/23/update-on-the-governments-response-to-nacchio/#comment-1922 <p>The key new information in this document is the first line on page 3:</p> <p>Mr. Nacchio’s refusal to allow [REDACTION] resulted in reprisal by NSA…</p> <p>There is really only one thing that can reasonably follow â€allow†and that is some form of unfettered access to Qwest’s network. This is as close as we’ll get to proof that the wiretapping started before 9/11.</p> The key new information in this document is the first line on page 3:

Mr. Nacchio’s refusal to allow [REDACTION] resulted in reprisal by NSA…

There is really only one thing that can reasonably follow â€allow†and that is some form of unfettered access to Qwest’s network. This is as close as we’ll get to proof that the wiretapping started before 9/11.

]]>