it was, after all, only a matter
of time, before the explosive
allegations in nacchio’s appeal
garnered real congressional attention. . .
[UPDATES here. . .]
and now, we’ll certainly learn more
about joe nacchio’s veracity. . .
this one is a powder-keg — if cheney and
bush were ignoring the well-settled con-
stitutional law on surveillance (specifically
re-invigorated as a result of nixon’s watergate
abuses — and then codified, in FISA) BEFORE
the terrible attacks of 9/11/01 — then,
literally everything these two
did in the last six years has been under
entirely-false pretenses. . .
sheesh — this one is beginning to
smell worse than watergate,
and iran-contra, combined. . .
we’ll keep you up to date, as the documents
from nacchio’s appeal dribble out — the next
batch should appear on the evening of october 17.
stay tuned, and read chairman conyers’ letter:
October 15, 2007
The Honorable Michael “Mike” McConnell
Director of National Intelligence
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511
Honorable Ken Wainstein
Asst. Attorney General for National Security
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Director McConnell and Mr. Wainstein:
I am writing because of disturbing revelations over the past several days about warrantless Administration surveillance activities that allegedly occurred months before 9/11, and about claims that a company that did not participate in potentially unlawful surveillance activities may have been subject to retaliation by the Administration, including federal prosecution. According to news reports and papers filed with a federal court in Denver, as early as February, 2001, the NSA asked Qwest Communications and other telecommunications companies for some form of warrantless access to records concerning Americans’ private communications. Although the precise nature and scope of the intercepted communications has not been revealed, one report suggests that it may have involved “monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information.” S. Shane, “Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11,” New York Times (Oct. 14, 2007). Although Qwest apparently refused the request, which a former Qwest executive claims led to retaliation against him and his company, it is unknown what access to confidential customer information was provided by other telecommunications companies.
I appreciated your testimony several weeks ago on behalf of the Administration in connection with proposed improvements to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It is crucial, however, that Congress be fully informed of all the Administration’s surveillance activities involving telecommunications companies, particularly in light of the Administration’s request that retroactive immunity from liability be provided to these companies and Administration officials. Accordingly, I ask that you provide the Committee with an immediate briefing on the facts behind these recent revelations, and that you then provide us with any documents concerning the nature and scope of these pre-9/11 activities and the legal basis for conducting them.
Please contact the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515 (Tel: 202-225-3951 Fax: 202-225-7680) as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.