Comments on: “It Smells Like a Cover-Up”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:20:10 +0000

Also, more from AP, Bennett is indeed hitting back on behalf of Rodriguez, specifically against Goss. So far it looks mostly like competing non-denial denials, but the sheer fact that Bennett is drawing attention to Goss’ role should mean that it will be less easy for Goss’ team to continue feeding the press a very favorable series of lines on Goss’ behalf anonymously - or at least it has seemed that’s what’s happening. They try and succeed again in the AP story, but if Bennett pushes the line that Goss was complicit, it will be increasingly difficult, presumably, for “former intelligence officials familiar with Goss’ view” or whatever to simply say whatever they want and get it in the paper uncontested.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:12:26 +0000

Some forward motion on one of the fronts, ACLU’s effort to get info on the tapes. Basically, the judge is not going for the operational v. investigative files nonsense. Key bit:

Judge Hellerstein said the mere fact that the tapes had been watched as part of the internal review meant that they were part of an investigation and, thus, subject to a freedom of information request.

And this is good:

In fact the judge had stern words for a government lawyer, Peter M. Skinner, who argued that because the C.I.A had searched the investigative files, even though officials found nothing related to the tapes, it had fulfilled its obligations to the A.C.L.U.

Judge Hellerstein raised the possibility that C.I.A. officials had intentionally not placed the tapes in the investigative files so as to avoid a freedom of information request.

“It seems to me that you were gulled,” he told Mr. Skinner, “and that the court was gulled.”

By: JohnForde

JohnForde — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:59:20 +0000

Radio Free Will this is reeeeally good analysis. Keep it coming.

By: JohnForde

JohnForde — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:58:34 +0000

Yes BSL, we still love you.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:36:31 +0000

Don’t doubt any of that one bit. And my point is that telcos, and just as importantly, if not more so, their legal departments, have been working on these issues with every law enforcement agency in the world, from the NSA down to the local constable since they started business with soup cans and a string. 9/11 and Bush were not their first time to the rodeo. They are protected, are not in any financial peril to speak of (and if they are they deserve it) and the well being of the telcos has nothing to do with the immunity push. It is about cover for Bush and the Administration. Period.

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:19:21 +0000

I meant to mention…early pixie dust?

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:18:08 +0000

oops I hit enter before the last sentence.

EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, for those of you watching.

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:16:37 +0000

A little background; hopefully without being disappeared:

In 1981 (PCs birthday) I was working on technology for the NSA that allowed them to read DIGITAL communications on wires from a distance. This was before the IBM PC was even released! (We had one apart 6 months before their release). I was working on protecting OUR equipment from being read the same way.

“Up to the ‘Z’ in Alzheimer’s” Ronny pissed the NSA off by releasing a copy of a Telex intercepted from the Libyan embassy as a justification for bombing Libya. It seems the only way that could have bee intercepted is using our technology. TEMPEST is the unclassified acronym (yes it stands for something that is still classified). I just talked to a guy a few months ago that told me he watched it being used recently in Iraq, that’s why I am parsing.

EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,

By: phred

phred — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:11:08 +0000

Thanks for that link to Greenwald, Neil. Time for the Dem Pres. Hopefuls to put up or shut up.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:56:52 +0000

Heh. Goes on everywhere.