"And in May 2006, a lawsuit [PDF] filed against Verizon for allegedly turning over call records to the NSA alleged that AT&T began building a spying facility for the NSA just days after President Bush was inaugurated.Not only did Qwest speak about the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project (as per mention in the WaPo article), but so did AT&T and Verizon -- as above -- and as revealed further in this Wired article.'The project was described in the ATT sales division documents as calling for the construction of a facility to store and retain data gathered by the NSA from its domestic and foreign intelligence operations but was to be in actuality a duplicate ATT Network Operations Center for the use and possession of the NSA that would give the NSA direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to all call information and internet and digital traffic on ATT's long distance network. [...]
The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.
An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.' [more]"
"The Bush administration is desperately trying to get immunity for the telecom companies inserted into the next wiretapping bill. But let me ask a simple question - why would the telecom companies need immunity if they didn't break the law?posted by ericb at 1:57 PM on October 13, 2007 [11 favorites]
I'm not trying to be clever here. I'm asking a literal question. Isn't this an obvious admission that the administration did ask the large telecommunication companies to break the law for them? And if they did, why on God's green earth should we give them immunity without investigating what they did? In fact, shouldn't somebody be looking into doing the opposite - enforcing the law?
Has enforcing US law become so quaint and obsolete that when someone pretty much admits they broke the law and asks in essence for a preemptive pardon, no one looks into it? Do we have a Justice Department anymore? Isn't it comical that these guys ran on the 'rule of law' and restoring dignity back into the White House?
Here's another ironic twist. We are all supposed to go along with warrantless wiretapping because 'you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong.' If I had a nickel for every time a conservative said that to me, I'd have at least $37.50. So, let me throw it back at them: If the telecom companies didn't do anything wrong, they don't have anything to worry about. Right? So, why would they need immunity from US law?
...how about we don't give immunity for breaking the law? How about we prosecute it instead?
There were top level people inside the Justice Department and the CIA who quit over how illegal the warrantless wiretapping, the torture memos and the detainee detention programs were and are. They are all described as hardliners or conservative stalwarts. How about we ask these people why they think these programs are so illegal? How about we listen to them and change the programs back so that they are legal again instead of encouraging further law breaking? I know, very radical.
President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that doesn't have an immunity clause. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you, Mr. 29%. Why would anyone listen to the most unpopular president of all time?"
« Older Virginie, by kek... | The man who knew too much.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
More to the story, indeed. I hope the truth, whatever that may be, does eventually come out.
posted by malaprohibita at 12:18 PM on October 13, 2007