Interview with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell
Schneier is reporting that Mike McConnell, U.S. National Intelligence Director, recently gave an interesting interview to the El Paso Times. "I don't think he's ever been so candid before. For example, he admitted that the nation's telcos assisted the NSA in their massive eavesdropping efforts. We already knew this, of course, but the government has steadfastly maintained that either confirming or denying this would compromise national security."
Dupe.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
See Wikipedia: Enemy of the State if you haven't seen it (good film). Although, the NSA murder a senator in that case (not a congressman) who refuses to vote for increased warrantless surveillance.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Not a sworn statement. Unless it gets put in an affidavit or elicited at deposition (or trial) it's irrelevant. Many public statements have been made, but there's no accounting for the veracity of them unless they're sworn according to the legal standard. The 9th Cir. Court of Appeals specifically said this at the AT&T (EFF) class action hearing on the Govts. motion to dismiss a couple of weeks ago.
5 986882573380083A50C/$file/06-17132.wma?openelement
0 07.08.16
Transcript here
www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/media.nsf/D654A11D7A67
Video here
http://www.archive.org/details/gov.courts.ca9.2
EFF here.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005408.php
You have a few factual problems with your statement. Fist, the FISA court (not courts seeing how there is only one) hasn't told Bush this was illegal. The only court to do so had their ruling over turned and that isn't getting into the fact of accusations of conflict in interest that could have influence the overturned ruling.
Now the judges of the secrete "FISA court" have expressed their outrage but none of them have put it into a ruling or anything legal. I also don't see this as anyone with their backs against the wall. It is just another round of going on the offense. Unfortunately, for this administration, it seems like that is something new so I can understand your misinterpreting it.
Greenwald comments: "McConnell's ties to these companies are so deep and numerous that it really rises to the level of conflict of interest for him to demand -- on national security grounds, no less -- that they be granted full immunity from liability for past illegal acts. He is, in essence, demanding immunity for vast numbers of his former partners, clients, associates and scores of business interests in which he had, if not still has, a substantial stake. This conflict is glaring and extreme, but Democrats said nothing about it when granting prospective immunity to this industry at his insistence. Thus far, they have also said nothing in the face of McConnell's demands that this immunity now be made retroactive as well."