And this has made me spend hours trying to figure out what the plan was for the FBI’s Investigative Services Division (ISD) before 9-11. My theory is that the gutting of existing avenues of intelligence gathering had begun before 9-11. (Tin foil hat says illegal wire taps of Mohammed Atta were in place, but the White House did not act on intelligence because they did not have a FISA warrant and did not want to reveal their NSA wiretapping program.)

The ISD was “on its last legs” in July 2001, according to “Frank,” an Intelligence Operations Specialist in the Radical Fundamentalist Unit of the FBI.

But later in the same FBI report it is stated that:
“ In the wake of September 11, the FBI concluded that analysts would be more effective if they were controlled by the operational divisions. ISD was abolished, and analysts were dispersed back to the divisions in which they originally served.”

(see http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32336.html#n_61_)

(In my defense, I’m just a scientist, so I probably put too much stock in a logic-based argument).

why is he still encarcerated?

why is there no blog swarm?

we have to do something

seigleman is the cog that will bring this administration down, he is the cog that will get rove charged, and he is a man in jail because he won an election

we have to do something

Mr. Nacchio also argues that the district court was wrong to prevent him from presenting certain classified information as evidence at trial. He claims that the evidence would have shown that he personally had reason to believe that Qwest’s economic prospects were much better than others realized. Thus, he says, this evidence should have been permitted both to show that he did not have material information and to negate scienter. We affirm the district court’s decision, because even if the classified information were presented and established what he said it would, it could not exonerate Mr. Nacchio as he claims.

Essentially, Mr. Nacchio argues that undisclosed positive information can be used as a defense to a charge of trading on undisclosed negative information. We disagree. If an insider has material information that he cannot disclose because it is confidential or proprietary, then he must abstain from trading. That is the lesson of In re Cady, Roberts & Co., Exchange Act Release No. 6,668, 40 S.E.C. 907, 911 (1961), later applied in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 848, 850 n.12 (2d Cir. 1968), and Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 226­-29 (1980). It is black-letter law that insiders must disclose their material information or else abstain.

It is true that in cases like Texas Gulf Sulphur, insiders were trading in bullish positions ahead of the disclosure of the company’s proprietary discovery, and thus their trading correlated with the inside information, while here Mr. Nacchio argues that his possession of classified information neutralizes his possession of other inside information. However, the general rule applies. If an insider trades on the basis of his perception of the net effect of two bits of material undisclosed information, he has violated the law in two respects, not none.

Mahoney may be Nacchio’s Robin Hood to the rescue. I wonder whether he’ll get to keep her for the duration.

Must hit the hay now- early to the office tomorrow.

http://www.lostdogcafe.com/index.htm

What’s St. Pat’s Day w/out a couple of reels by one of the best fiddlers around, Charlie Lennon-

Bonnie Kate
Smile for Sheila

Good night all.