Domestic Taps Smoking Gun? WorldCom Routed US-to-US Calls Through Canada!

[Dunvegan]

Smoking gun alert:

There is an easy way to circumvent the strict "no eavesdropping on US-to-US calls" Bush referenced: secretly route any snooped calls through another country.

It is a method that has already been used and documented in court, by WorldCom, and brought up by AT&T in WorldCom's bankruptcy filing: Route the domestic calls through a second country.

AT&T brought the accusation in 2003 that WorldCom routed US-to-US calls through Canada.

Furthermore, in the AT&T suit against WorldCom, AT&T specifically cites the case of a Democratic Congressman's US-to-US calls being so routed through Canada.

I'm going to post this AT&T press release in it's entirety as press releases from corporations are issued expressly for release and reprint, unlike copyrighted news stories and other such written materials.

For Release Wednesday, August 6, 2003
AT&T Replies To WorldCom's Bankruptcy Court Response

NEW YORK -- In a filing today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, AT&T said MCI/WorldCom's court filing earlier this week admits to the deception and fraud that AT&T had alleged in its objections to MCI/WorldCom's Plan of Reorganization for emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

AT&T's filing argued that MCI/WorldCom's response of Monday, August 4, purposely avoided addressing the point of AT&T's fraud allegations that the intent of the rerouting of calls was to deceive and defraud AT&T into paying termination fees for the calls.

MCI/WorldCom sought to justify the fraud scheme as legitimate "least cost routing," but AT&T said: "'Least cost routing' involves availing oneself of the lowest access charge available from the terminating carrier, i.e., shopping for the lowest charges from the terminating carrier. That is different in kind from deceptively causing another carrier to pay that terminating access charge," AT&T said.

"We're talking about the difference between shopping for bargains and shopping with somebody else's credit card. The latter is clearly a crime that people can go to jail for," AT&T Chief Counsel James Cicconi said in commenting on AT&T's request for the Bankruptcy Court's permission to seek damages it has suffered as a result of the fraud.

AT&T's filing today also cited additional instances of domestic U.S. Government telephone calls that were routed through Canada for completion, including calls for the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy. On July 28, AT&T cited domestic calling traffic of several U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of State and the Postal Service, as part of the scheme to defraud AT&T and its shareowners.

Further, the AT&T filing included examples of in-state calls between the Wisconsin district offices of U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc.). The offices are pre-subscribed to MCI/WorldCom for long-distance calling, but calls between the offices were routed over AT&T's network after being diverted through Canada.

AT&T's filing today said MCI/WorldCom achieved the deception by:

* Separating out only the calls to the most expensive independent telephone companies, thus reducing the likelihood that the scheme would be discovered;

* Routing the calls through three intermediaries, thus hiding the fact that the calls were MCI/WorldCom's customers;

* Routing the calls through a foreign country, thus further concealing the source and setting up the next step; and

* Taking advantage of the knowledge that upon delivery to AT&T's network, MCI/WorldCom's "customer traffic commingled with literally trillions of minutes of calls on the AT&T network each year."

"Debtors (MCI/WorldCom) were well aware that even if AT&T had known to look, AT&T could not have easily detected Debtors' high-cost calls. Indeed, even after law enforcement notified AT&T of Debtors' fraudulent diversion scheme, it took AT&T weeks to locate the diversions in the ocean of data that AT&T's network generates," AT&T said in its filing today.

Elsewhere in its filing, AT&T said that MCI/WorldCom's description of its actions in admitting diverting traffic through Canada misstate the nature of the scheme. Yet, AT&T said, the admissions MCI/WorldCom made in its filing fall under the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's Pattern Jury Instruction for Mail and Wire Fraud, which state in part: "A scheme to defraud is a scheme that is intended to deceive or cheat another and to … cause the loss of money or property to another."

In seeking to justify its fraudulent actions by disclosing that detailed call-routing information traveled along with the voice telephone calls, MCI/WorldCom failed to show it wasn't violating the law, AT&T said.

" … The mere fact that there is disclosure during the course of the scam does not eradicate the swindle," AT&T said. "So too, the mere fact that a carrier discloses call detail as part of a scheme to deceive or an artful stratagem does not in itself eliminate the deception."

AT&T also denied MCI/WorldCom's assertions that it had participated in shifting its costs to another carrier, saying that the instances MCI/WorldCom cited in its filing were not fraudulent activities and that the facts underlying the assertions were either wholly distinguishable from the "Canadian Gateway" scheme or irrelevant to it. (--End AT&T Press Release--)

If the Bush administration wanted to play with semantics and say they haven't snooped on any US-to-US calls (although it's becoming apparent that they have done so in some cases) the simple way would be to bulk route US-to-US calls through a third country (in this case Canada) then call that an "international intercept."

No wonder * went with the "we don't intercept domestic-to-domestic calls." Routing such calls outside of the country between end-points would mean that a simple domestic-only call suddenly becomes an international call (and all this without any knowledge of the caller or callee.)

(Edited to add link to AT&T press release: http://www.att.com/news/2003/08/06-12038)

[LaurenG]

1. "we don't intercept domestic-to-domestic calls."

Is still a lie. How far will these criminals sink? If hell were a place you could see I'd say they've sunk below hell. May the powers that be IMPEACH and arrest them all.

[Joanne98]

2. This is a GREAT CATCH! Good work! K&R!

[Dunvegan]

3. More on US-Canada-US Call Routing...

AT&T Fires Back at MCI/WorldCom Regarding Fraud Charges

http://www.convergedigest.com/Bandwidth/newnetworksarticle.asp?ID=8345

AT&T fired back at MCI/WorldCom regarding the ongoing saga of call-termination fraud and MCI's pending emergence from bankruptcy protection. In a public statement and in a filing with the U.S. bankruptcy court, AT&T said the that MCI/WorldCom's response of Monday, 04-Aug-03, purposely avoided addressing the charge that AT&T had been duped into paying termination fees that should have been paid by WorldCom. While acknowledging that least cost routing is the common practice of shopping for the lowest access charge available from the terminating carrier, AT&T alleges that MCI deceptively caused it (AT&T) to pay that terminating access charge. "We're talking about the difference between shopping for bargains and shopping with somebody else's credit card. The latter is clearly a crime that people can go to jail for," said AT&T Chief Counsel James Cicconi.

AT&T's filing today also cited additional instances of domestic U.S. Government telephone calls that were routed through Canada for completion, including calls for the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy.

Further, the AT&T filing included examples of in-state calls between the Wisconsin district offices of U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin.). AT&T alleges that these offices are pre-subscribed to MCI/WorldCom for long-distance calling, but calls between the offices were routed over AT&T's network after being diverted through Canada.

Elsewhere in its filing, AT&T outlined the elaborate steps taken by MCI/WorldCom to disguise the fraud.

[leveymg]

26. Wisconsin is right next door to Canada, you know.

Someone would have to show that this is somehow more unusual than my call from Northern Virginia to DC being routed through Maryland. Unless this is abnormal, its not really evidence of an Echelon-style surveillance ploy.

[In Truth We Trust]

4. Nominate to disseminate!

[wicket]

13. And another

:kick:

[Dunvegan]

5. The WorldCom US-Int'l Call Routing-Widespread and Labeled Racketeering

AT&T and WorldCom settle racketeering dispute

OUT-LAW News, 25/02/2004

AT&T has settled its dispute with US rival WorldCom. AT&T sued the beleaguered telco last year, accusing it of racketeering and fraud over the alleged improper rerouting of telephone calls. WorldCom, soon to be known as MCI, has always denied the charges.

-snip-

In August 2003, a deal was approved between the company and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)...But one month later, AT&T filed a suit accusing WorldCom of diverting US telephone calls to Canada in order to avoid having to pay connection fees to rival networks, while hiding the origin of the call.

The legitimate version of this practice is known as 'least cost routing', and means that the company uses the most efficient network available to route calls. So, for example, if some networks are less busy at certain times, then these will be used in preference to busy ones. It is when the origin of the rerouted call is hidden that the practice can be unlawful. And the allegation was that when WorldCom transmitted calls through intermediaries it stripped software codes to disguise the origin of the calls.

The lawsuit accused WorldCom and another telecoms company called Onvoy of orchestrating a scheme called the "Canadian Gateway Project". This scheme allegedly involved working with other telcos to reroute WorldCom customers' domestic phone calls through Canada. This practice caused AT&T to pay hefty termination fees for terminating calls to high-cost independent telephone companies in the US, such as Verizon. For good measure, the lawsuit also alleged fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, racketeering conspiracy and substantive racketeering through a pattern of multiple acts of mail fraud and wire fraud.

(Edited to provide link: http://www.out-law.com/page-4322)

[Joanne98]

6. The Carlyle Group is connected to Qwest..........

The Axis of Corporate Evil!
http://www.hereinreality.com/news/axis.html

15. The Carlyle Group is connected to Qwest through it's investment and partnership with a company called Citynet. Qwest Communications supplied bandwidth for Citynet as the company rose to become West Virginia's largest internet service provider.
State's Largest Internet Company Sees Bright Future Ahead
Inside Citynet July, 20

Look who bought Global Crossing....

Li Ka-shing: New Ruler of the Information Superhighway
Global Crossing, Enron's evil twin, is about to be "rescued" by a Chinese billionaire with ties to the People's Liberation Army.
Why not? He already controls the Panama Canal. Will it threaten national security to have a Chinese company controlling the fiber-optic network our defense department uses to communicate and store data?

Same link as above.........

[Burried News]

33. Li Kaishing used Richard Perle and Trireme for some of his deals.

He is also linked to the Chinese Triads and the old Green Gang which was a sponsor of Chiang Kai Shek.
Good source: Lords of the Rim by Sterling Seagrave
http://www.bowstring.net/lords_of_the_rim.htm

[Dunvegan]

7. AT&T Itself Did International Call Routing...How Common is this Practice?

http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y99/feb99/25e1.htm

AT&T: Calls will go through
Carrier says lines to Cuba available

Juan O. Tamayo, Herald Staff Writer
Published Thursday, February 25, 1999, in the Miami Herald

AT&T said Tuesday it had found a way to ensure that U.S. telephone calls to Cuba would be ``minimally affected'' even if Havana carried out its threat to halt most such calls.

But AT&T spokesman Gustavo Alfonso said the company, the single largest U.S. carrier to Cuba, had ``managed a breakthrough'' on Wednesday that would ensure alternate routes for U.S. telephone calls to the island.

Alfonso declined to comment on the breakthrough, but industry experts said AT&T would probably be routing its customers' calls through third countries such as Canada, Mexico and even Italy.

[Dunvegan]

8. Kerry Campaign Calls Went Through Canadian Call Center

One of the Kerry campaign's call centers was found to be "out-of-country" in Canada. This would have made all the Kerry campaign's calls to voters via that Canadian call center "international" calls:

From Mother Jones:

http://www.mojones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/03/02_501.html

Karen Tumulty of Time magazine writes that, whatever the economics, the politics of the issue are treacherous:

Outsourcing is the ultimate nightmare issue for the White House, because it's a problem that every voter understands. It's extraordinarily difficult to solve—and impossible to solve in the short run," says Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who was also Bill Clinton's chief domestic-policy adviser. And while Bush can blame many of the economy's woes on the vicissitudes of war, terrorism and corporate scandals, outsourcing is one problem that won't go away when those do.

But even as the Democrats denounce the phenomenon, the proposals they offer do little more than attack it at the margins. Kerry calls for a study to examine the problem and possible solutions. He would discourage outsourcing federal contracts and would require employees from outsourced call centers to identify their location so that consumers can respond to that information as they see fit. (His own campaign was embarrassed by a firm it had hired that was routing calls to Wisconsin voters through Canada.) North Carolina Senator John Edwards would also try a combination of browbeating and suasion: he would create a new Office for Corporate Responsibility at the Commerce Department to encourage companies to keep jobs here rather than outsourcing them.

[Joanne98]

9. BINGO!

[karynnj]

18. This is different - What AT&T was doing was

routing US - Cuba calls as US - (3rd company) - Cuba calls to lose the US identifier to let Americans get their call through.

What World-com did was to route US - US calls as US - Canada - US calls. Part of the reason had to do with the method for reinmbursing foreign carriers for their part of an international call. It's complicated - but it caused AT&T to pay part of the cost which they would not have paid if it was a us-us call.

[Dunvegan]

23. Good information...thank you.

Still leaves us with an exposure though...however a domestic call becomes routed outside the US and back in, it could theoretically become a "fair game" international call according to Bushco.

Not saying that the administration is organized enough to exploit this end-around...but it exists, and US-to-US domestic calls that are routed out of the country do qualify under the Preznit's definition as "international calls."

[TheBaldyMan]

21. Menwith Hill (UK) routinely monitors all transatlanic calls

and has been doing this for years. As the UK has a few major upload sites for transatlantic traffic (data as well as voice) it channels a lot of european communications as well. IIRC about 80% of EU traffic to the americas is diverted through Menwith Hill before transmission.

[Dunvegan]

10. Let's not forget Voice Over IP (VoIP) which can use Int'l routers

Since I work in infosec, I have to wonder about Voice over IP phones that use the Internet (and hops between routers, even international routers) to forward phone calls.

This is a relatively new to widely-implement technology...but it could make international routing on the fly of domestic phone calls dead easy.

VoIP might be the newest and easiest way to route a call one router hop out of the country, and then call the call "fair game" as an international call.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/25/e164_info_voip_peering_service/

VoIP carriers launch international peering network
Kick off with 100m numbers
By Monika Ermert
Published Friday 25th February 2005 09:50 GMT

Internet calls to landlines could get even cheaper, following yesterday's launch of an international peering network of VoIP providers. Fourteen companies have signed up to the free-of-charge interconnection service including Callme.se (Sweden), e-fon.ch (Switzerland), Magrathea Telecommunications (Great Britain), Musimi.dk (Denmark), MS Networks (Luxembourg), sipgate (Austria, Germany, Great Britain) and SIPphone (USA).


So far, 100 million phone numbers have been registered in the database from 160,000 different dialing prefixes in eight countries. Talks with more VoIP providers are under way, Thilo Salmon, founder of e164.info, said.

Member companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that ensures the non-profit character of the venture and which makes clear that the members disclose bilateral agreements about how the want to charge for the interconnection. "Some members have announced that they will interconnect with every provider without charge," Salmon said.

How much customers benefit from the better peering arrangement also depends on each provider in the network. According to Michael Robertson, SIPphone CEO, the system will simplify interconnection between VoIP providers around the globe and that it will hasten the advent of free calls, the inevitable result of VoIP, he says.

[Dunvegan]

11. With both traditional switching int'l routing and VoIP routing...

...you could probably make ANY domestic call an international call.

There goes the all the domestic calling protections completely...that is, if international calls can be labeled "fair game" and any domestic call can be secretly transformed into an international call.

[Joanne98]

12. CityNet using sewer robots to connect fiber to buildings...

CityNet Telecommunications Inc. (www.citynettelecom.com) raised in April $275 million in equity and debt financing to fund its last-mile broadband network rings in first- and second-tier markets.

The investments allow the Maryland-based wholesaler to develop rings in the cities where it has negotiating agreements to lay fiber optic cable, according to Deb Hoopes, CFO of CityNet.

She says the company would seek additional funds if it were to promote a more aggressive or expansive development plan.

The dark fiber supplier, which had not signed an official distribution agreement with a carrier as of early April, also raised $100 million in equity last year. The most recent investments represented $175 million in equity and $100 million in debt financing. The loans are repayable over six years, Hoopes says.

The new investors include The Carlyle Group (www.thecarlylegroup.com), Berkshire Partners LLC (www.berkshirepartners.com), Trimaran Capital Partners, Great Hill Partners LLC (www.greathillpartners.com) and Fay Richwhite and Co. Ltd.

In April 2000, Telecom Partners L.P. (www.telecompartners.com), Crescendo Ventures Inc. (www.crescendoventures.com) and CIBC Capital Partners invested in CityNet.

A telecom business with a unique strategy to provision the last mile, CityNet sewer system robots connect fiber directly to commercial buildings. The rings are connected to aggregation points, such as a CO or carrier hotel. CityNet has 24-year agreements with city officials to lay fiber optic rings and lease fiber to carriers in Albuquerque, N.M., Indianapolis, Omaha, Neb., and an unnamed European city.

It is also negotiating in Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Dallas; St. Paul, Minn.; Washington, D.C.; and Dublin, Ireland.

http://www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/161bnews2.html

[Dunvegan]

14. Interesting, Joanne...Last mile dark fiber...

...that's the cut-out between the telco CO (central office) and all of all phones and home and small office Internet connections.

A telco's carrier signal originates from a their CO, their Central Office, and dissipates over distance, much like the radio signal from your favorite AM radio station starts to deteriorate the further you drive out of town. The maximum distance that you can be from the Telco's Central Office is 15000feet (which is just under 3 miles).

Last mile carriers run the copper or fiber which is costly between the telco and you, yet the telco still profits from as being the signal carrier.

Running the fibre or copper doesn't necessarly hand you the keys to switching...but I'd have to look into it a little more to know what latitude last mile companies do have.

[Joanne98]

16. Read the last paragraph CityNet got DC....YIKES!

[Joanne98]

15. Dirty Birds that drink from the Carlyle cesspool............

Long series of articles a chronology of Carlyle transations...
and they did get the DC contract. They got Washington DC bugged..
THE WHOLE TOWN....


http://www.the-catbird-seat.net/CarlyleGroup.htm

[Joanne98]

17. More yikes.........

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2520A1.txt

I don't know what this is but it looks like a nightmare.. It happened on June 24th 2004....

TO:
Application for consent to assign certain assets used in the provision of international services, primarily customer pre- subscriptions in
Hawaii and accounts receivable related to those customers, from Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance
(Verizon Long Distance) to Verizon AssetCo. Upon consummation of the proposed transaction, Verizon AssetCo will be a
wholly- owned subsidiary of Paradise MergerSub, Inc., a holding company wholly owned by investment funds associated with The
Carlyle Group. Verizon Long Distance will retain its international section 214 authorizations to provide facilities- based and resale
services. See e. g., File Nos. ITC- 214- 19960312- 00107; ITC- 214- 19960812- 00377; ITC- 214- 19971223- 00813;
ITC- 214- 20020422- 00209. Grant of the captioned assignment application shall constitute Commission authorization of the proposed
assignment of assets; and the assignee may provide the same services on the same routes as permitted under the assignor's section 214
authorizations cited above, and the assignee may provide such service to any customers it may obtain in the ordinary course of
business. This authorization is without prejudice to the Commission's action on any other related pending application( s).


Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


Verizon AssetCo, Inc.
Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. d/ b/ a Verizon Long Distance


Assignment


Page 4 of 10
4
Verizon AssetCo, Inc. ITC- ASG- 20040630- 00256 E
Date of Action: 08/ 06/ 2004


TO:
Application for consent to assign certain assets used in the provision of international services, primarily customer pre- subscriptions in
Hawaii and accounts receivable related to those customers, from Verizon Select Services Inc. (VSSI) to Verizon AssetCo. Upon
consummation of the proposed transaction, Verizon AssetCo will be a wholly- owned subsidiary of Paradise MergerSub, Inc., a holding
company wholly owned by investment funds associated with The Carlyle Group. VSSI will retain its international section 214
authorizations to provide international facilities- based and resale services. See e. g., File Nos. ITC- 214- 19991104- 00684;
ITC- 214- 20020422- 00210. Grant of the captioned assignment application shall constitute Commission authorization of the proposed
assignment of assets; and the assignee may provide the same services on the same routes as permitted under the assignor's section 214
authorizations cited above, and the assignee may provide such service to any customers it may obtain in the ordinary course of
business. This authorization is without prejudice to the Commission's action on any other related pending application( s).


Verizon Select Services Inc.
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


Verizon AssetCo, Inc.
Verizon Select Services, Inc.


Assignment


Buckeye TeleSystem, Inc. ITC- ASG- 20040715- 00316 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed July 15, 2004, of the pro forma assignment of the international section 214 authorization
(ITC- 214- 19981117- 00803) held by Toledo Area Telecommunications Services, Inc. to Buckeye Telesystem, Inc., effective July 1,
2004.


Toledo Area Telecommunications Services, Inc
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


Buckeye TeleSystem, Inc.
Toledo Area Telecommunications Services, Inc.


Assignment


RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC. ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00309 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization (ITC- 97- 425)
held by RCN Telecom Services, Inc., from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation, as Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27, 2004.


RCN CORPORATION


Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC.


Transfer of Control


RCN Telecom Services of Washington D. C., Inc. ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00310 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization
(ITC- 214- 19970723- 00430) held by RCN Telecom Services of Washington, D. C., Inc., from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation,
as Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27, 2004.


RCN CORPORATION
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
RCN Telecom Services of Washington D. C., Inc.


Transfer of Control


Page 5 of 10
5
RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00311 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization
(ITC- 214- 19961004- 00490) held by RCN Telecom Services of Massachusetts, Inc., from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation, as
Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27, 2004.


RCN CORPORATION
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.


Transfer of Control


RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA, INC. ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00312 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization
(ITC- 214- 19970707- 00384) held by RCN Telecom Services of Philadelphia, Inc., from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation, as
Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27, 2004.


RCN CORPORATION
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF PHILADELPHIA, INC.


Transfer of Control


RCN BecoCom, LLC ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00313 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization (ITC- 97- 661)
held by RCN- BecoCom, LLC, from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation, as Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27, 2004.


RCN CORPORATION


Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
RCN BecoCom, LLC


Transfer of Control


RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, LLC ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00314 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization
(ITC- ASG- 20030124- 00088) held by RCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC, from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation, as
Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27, 2004.


RCN CORPORATION
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, LLC


Transfer of Control


STARPOWER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC ITC- T/ C- 20040624- 00315 P
Date of Action: 08/ 11/ 2004


TO:
Notification filed June 24, 2004, of the pro forma transfer of control of the international section 214 authorization (ITC- 98- 065)
held by Starpower Communications, LLC, from RCN Corporation to RCN Corporation, as Debtor- in- Possession effective May 27,
2004.


RCN CORPORATION
Grant of Authority
FROM:
Current Licensee:


RCN CORPORATION, DEBTOR- IN- POSSESSION
STARPOWER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC


Transfer of Control


Page 6 of 10
6
INFORMATIVE
ITC- 214- 19970415- 00212 VarTec Solutions, Inc.


By letter dated July 21, 2004, eMeritus Communications, Inc. has changed its name to VarTec Solutions, Inc.


Page 7 of 10
7
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL SECTION 214 AUTHORIZATIONS
(1) These authorizations are subject to the Exclusion List for International Section 214 Authorizations, which identifies restrictions on providing service to particular countries or using particular facilities. The most recent Exclusion List is
attached to this Public Notice. The list applies to all U. S. international carriers, including those that have previously received global or limited global Section 214 authority, whether by streamlined grant or specific written order. Carriers are
advised that the attached Exclusion List is subject to amendment at any time pursuant to the procedures set forth in Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, IB Docket No. 95- 118, 11 FCC
Rcd 12884 (1996), para. 18. A copy of the current Exclusion List will be maintained in the FCC Reference and Information Center and will be available at http:// www. fcc. gov/ ib/ td/ pf/ exclusionlist. html. It also will be attached to each Public Notice
that grants international Section 214 authority.
(2) The export of telecommunications services and related payments to countries that are subject to economic sanctions may be restricted. For information concerning current restrictions, call the Office of Foreign Assets Control, U. S.
Department of the Treasury, (202) 622- 2520.
(3) Carriers shall comply with the requirements of Section 63.11 of the Commission's rules, which requires notification by, and in certain circumstances prior notification by, U. S. carriers acquiring an affiliation with foreign carriers. A carrier that
acquires an affiliation with a foreign carrier will be subject to possible reclassification as a dominant carrier on an affiliated route pursuant to the provisions of Section 63.10 of the rules. The Commission recently amended Section 63.11 of the
rules in its Order on Reconsideration in IB Docket No. 97- 142, 15 FCC Rcd 18158 (2000).
(4) Carriers shall comply with the Commission's International Settlements Policy and associated filing requirements contained in Sections 43.51 and 64.1001 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 43.51, 64.1001. The Commission modified
these requirements most recently in 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review, Policy and Rules Concerning the International, Interexchange Marketplace, FCC 01- 93, released, March 20, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 16874 (Mar. 28, 2001). See also 1998
Biennial Regulatory Review - Reform of the International Settlements Policy and Associated Filing Requirements, IB Docket Nos. 98- 148, 95- 22, CC Docket No. 90- 337 (Phase II), FCC 99- 73 (rel. May 6, 1999). In addition, any carrier
interconnecting private lines to the U. S. public switched network at its switch, including any switch in which the carrier obtains capacity either through lease or otherwise, shall file annually with the Chief, International Bureau, a certified
statement containing, on a country- specific basis, the number and type (e. g., 64 kbps circuits) of private lines interconnected in such manner. The Commission will treat the country of origin information as confidential. Carriers need
not file their contracts for interconnection unless the Commission specifically requests. Carriers shall file their annual report on February 1 (covering international private lines interconnected during the preceding January 1 to December 31
period) of each year. International private lines to countries for which the Commission has authorized the provision of switched basic services over private lines at any time during a particular reporting period are exempt from this
requirement. See 47 C. F. R. § 43.51( d).
(5) Carriers authorized to provide private line service either on a facilities or resale basis are limited to the provision of such private line service only between the United States and those foreign points covered by their referenced
applications for Section 214 authority. In addition, the carriers may not -- and their tariffs must state that their customers may not -- connect their private lines to the public switched network at either the U. S. or foreign end, or both, for the
provision of international switched basic services, unless the Commission has authorized the provision of switched services over private lines to the particular country at the foreign end of the private line or the carrier is exchanging
switched traffic with a foreign carrier that the Commission has determined lacks market power in the country at the foreign end of the private line. See 47 C. F. R. §§ 63.16, 63.22( e), 63.23( d). A foreign carrier lacks market power for purposes of this
rule if it does not appear on the Commission list of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the presumption that they lack market power in particular foreign points. This list is available at
http:// www. fcc. gov/ Bureaus/ International/ Public_ Notices/ 1999/ da990809. txt. See generally 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Reform of the International Settlements Policy and Associated Filing Requirements, IB Docket Nos. 98- 148,
95- 22, CC Docket No. 90- 337 (Phase II), FCC 99- 73 (rel. May 6, 1999), paras. 12- 15, 102- 109.
(6) The Commission has authorized the provision of switched basic services via facilities- based or resold private lines between the United States and the following foreign points: Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom,
Australia, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Spain, Finland, Israel, Singapore, Netherlands Antilles, Poland, Argentina, United Arab
Emirates, Macau, Hungary, Philippines, Greece, Uruguay, Brunei, Trinidad & Tobago, Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Botswana, Costa Rica, South Africa, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent, Antigua, Malaysia,
Thailand, Belize, Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela, Bahrain, South Korea, Portugal, Cyprus, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Kuwait, Jordan, Paraguay, Croatia, Egypt, Zambia, Ecuador, Barbados, Colombia, Chile, El
Salvador, Taiwan, Nicaragua, Turkey, Peru, Morocco, Ghana, Bolivia, Guyana, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Nigeria, Page 8 of 10
8
Salvador, Taiwan, Nicaragua, Turkey, Peru, Morocco, Ghana, Bolivia, Guyana, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Tunisia, Qatar, Oman, Mauritius, New Caledonia, Guniea, Suriname, and Fiji Islands.
(7) Carriers may engage in "switched hubbing" to countries for which the Commission has not authorized the provision of switched basic services over private lines consistent with Section 63.17( b) of the rules.
(8) Carriers may provide U. S. inbound or outbound switched basic service via their authorized private lines extending between or among the United States, Sweden, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, The Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Italy, Ireland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Spain, Finland, Israel, Singapore, Netherlands Antilles, Poland, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, Macau,
Hungary, Philippines, Greece, Uruguay, Brunei, Trinidad & Tobago, Czech Republic, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Botswana, Costa Rica, South Africa, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent, Antigua, Malaysia, Thailand, Belize,
Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela, Bahrain, South Korea, Portugal, Cyprus, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Kuwait, Jordan, Paraguay, Croatia, Egypt, Zambia, Ecuador, Barbados, Colombia, Chile, El Salvador, Taiwan,
Nicaragua, Turkey, Peru, Morocco, Ghana, Bolivia, Guyana, Mongolia, Zimbabwe, Gambia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Tunisia, Qatar, Oman, Mauritius, and New Caledonia, Guniea, Suriname, and Fiji Islands.


(9) Carriers shall comply with the "No Special Concessions" rule, Section 63.14, 47 C. F. R. § 63.14.
(10) Carriers regulated as dominant for the provision of a particular communications service on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation under Section 63.10 of the rules shall file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of
the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 203, and Part 61 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C. F. R. Part 61. Except as specified in Section 20.15 with respect to commercial mobile radio service providers, carriers regulated as
non- dominant, as defined in Section 61.3, and providing detariffed international services pursuant to Section 61.19 must comply with all applicable public disclosure and maintenance of information requirements in Sections 42.10 and 42.11.
These non- dominant carriers may continue filing new or revised international tariffs for mass market services until January 28, 2002, when all tariffs, with limited exceptions, must be cancelled. Carriers may not file any new or revised
contract tariffs or tariffs for other long- term international service arrangements. See 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review, Policy and Rules Concerning the International, Interexchange Marketplace, FCC 01- 93, released March 20, 2001, 66 Fed.
Reg. 16874 (Mar. 28, 2001).
(11) Carriers shall file the annual reports of overseas telecommunications traffic required by Section 43.61( a). Carriers shall also file the quarterly reports required by Section 43.61 in the circumstances specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that
Section.
(12) Carriers shall file annual reports of circuit status and/ or circuit additions in accordance with the requirements set forth in Rules for Filing of International Circuit Status Reports, CC Docket No. 93- 157, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 8605
(1995). See 47 C. F. R. §§ 43.82, 63.23( e). These requirements apply to facilities- based carriers and private line resellers, respectively. See also: http: www. fcc. gov/ ib/ pd/ pf/ csmanual. html


(13) Carriers should consult Section 63.19 of the rules when contemplating a discontinuance, reduction or impairment of service. Further, the grant of these applications shall not be construed to include authorization for the transmission of
money in connection with the services the applicants have been given authority to provide. The transmission of money is not considered to be a common carrier service.


(14) If any carrier is reselling service obtained pursuant to a contract with another carrier, the services obtained by contract shall be made generally available by the underlying carrier to similarly situated customers at the same terms,
conditions and rates. 47 U. S. C. § 203.
(15) To the extent the applicant is, or is affiliated with, an incumbent independent local exchange carrier, as those terms are defined in Section 64.1902 of the rules, it shall provide the authorized services in compliance with the requirements of
Section 64.1903. See Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local Exchange Area and Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Second Report and Order in
CC Docket No. 96- 149 and Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96- 61, 12 FCC Rcd 15756, recon., 12 FCC Rcd 8730 (1997), Order, 13 FCC Rcd 6427 (Com. Car. Bur. 1998), further recon., FCC 99- 103 (rel. June 30, 1999).


(16) Except as otherwise ordered by the Commission, a carrier authorized here to provide facilities- based service that (i) is classified as dominant under Section 63.10 of the rules for the provision of such service on a particular route and (ii) is
affiliated with a carrier that collects settlement payments for terminating U. S. international switched traffic at the foreign end of that route may not provide facilities- based service on that route unless the current rates the affiliate charges U. S.
international carrier to terminate traffic are at or below the Commission's relevant benchmark adopted in International Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 96- 261, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19806 (1997). See also Report and Order on
Page 9 of 10
9
Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 96- 261, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 19806 (1997). See also Report and Order on Reconsideration and Order Lifting Stay in IB Docket No. 96- 261, FCC 99- 124 (rel. June 11, 1999). For the purposes of this
rule, "affiliation" and "foreign carrier" are defined in Section 63.09.
Petitions for reconsideration under Section 1.106 or applications for review under Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules in regard to the grant of any of these applications may be filed within thirty days of this public notice (see Section
1.4( b)( 2)).
For additional information, please contact the FCC Reference and Information Center, Room CY- A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, D. C. 20554,


Exclusion List for International Section 214 Authorizations
-- Last Modified December 22, 1999 --


The following is a list of countries and facilities not covered by grant of global Section 214 authority under Section 63.18( e)( 1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 63.18( e)( 1). In addition, the facilities listed shall not be used by U. S.
carriers authorized under Section 63.18 of the Commission's Rules unless the carrier's Section 214 authorization specifically lists the facility. Carriers desiring to serve countries or use facilities listed as excluded hereon shall file a
separate Section 214 application pursuant to Section 63.18( e)( 4) of the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 C. F. R. § 63.22.


Countries:
Cuba (Applications for service to Cuba shall comply with the separate filing requirements of the Commission's Public Notice Report No. I- 6831, dated July 27, 1993, "FCC to Accept Applications for Service to Cuba.")


Facilities:
All non- U. S.- licensed satellite systems that are not on the Permitted Space Station List, maintained at http:// www. fcc. gov/ ib/ sd/ se/ permitted. html. See International Bureau Public Notice, DA 99- 2844 (rel. Dec. 17, 1999).


This list is subject to change by the Commission when the public interest requires. Before amending the list, the Commission will first issue a public notice giving affected parties the opportunity for comment and hearing on the
proposed changes. The Commission may then release an order amending the exclusion list. This list also is subject to change upon issuance of an
Executive Order. See Streamlining the Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements, IB Docket No. 95- 118, FCC 96- 79, 11 FCC Rcd 12,884, released March 13, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 15,724, April 9, 1996). A current version of this list
is maintained at http:// www. fcc. gov/ ib/ td/ pf/ telecomrules. html# exclusionlist.

[leveymg]

30. Note the countries not on this list: Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria

Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, India, Yemen, Turkmenistan. That's basically the Shanghai Pact Countries, the so-called Axis of Evil, and the Saudis - they're not on the network, and probably don't want to be.

It's likely that many, many of those countries on the network are, to some degree, spying on all the rest (and sharing the data with the NSA, CIA and others). The shared global telecom backbone facilitates that ongoing surveillance, which is being conducted to a growing extent by private companies that have their own foreign policies or are spook proprietaries (e.g., Carlyle, Global Crossing, Comverse Infosys). Likely, a really smart domestic political spying operation wouldn't use NSA at all, and would get its data from one of the foreign or privatized spy shops.

[Joanne98]

19. All they do is install and manage dark fiber networks....

Off Road
Meanwhile, other companies opt to avoid the battles with local jurisdictions altogether, and a number of new next- generation fiber companies now are willing to work with municipalities to deploy open access dark networks under terms set by a municipality. These companies do not offer any services. All they do is install and manage dark fiber networks.

CityNet Telecommunications Inc. (www.citynettelecom.com), which uses Swiss-made robots to string fiber in sewer pipes around the United States, is talking with several mayors' offices about installing cable in their plumbing.

The company already has contracts in Albuquerque, N.M.; Indianapolis; and Omaha, Neb.; the contracts include revenue-sharing components that pour cash into city coffers, and help with urban economic development by linking buildings in the city over a ubiquitous network.

http://www.xchangemag.com/articles/151front.html

[north houston dem]

20. kicked and recommended

[sniffa]

22. k to the r

good job.

[AzDar]

24. kick....n/t

:kick:

[StateSecrets]

25. NSA Veteran Comes Forward

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- December 21, 2005



Former NSA Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer Urges to be Heard by Congress Regarding Unlawful Conduct by NSA





Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and action officer, has sent the following two letters to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Mr. Tice intends to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA) and with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These acts involved the Director of the National Security Agency, the Deputies Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special Access Programs (SAP). SAP programs and operations are more commonly referred to as “black world” programs and operations. Mr. Tice was a technical intelligence specialist dealing almost exclusively with SAP programs and operations at both NSA and DIA.



Mr. Tice stated: “As a Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) officer it is continually drilled into us that the very first law chiseled in the SIGINT equivalent of the Ten Commandments (USSID-18) is that Thou shall not spy on American persons without a court order from FISA. This law is continually drilled into each NSA intelligence officer throughout his or her career. The very people that lead the National Security Agency have violated this holy edict of SIGINT." A pivotal question in this case is whether Americans were being spied on via a vacuum cleaner approach wherein vast amounts of information are sucked in. FISA warrants require a name of the target and would not cover such a mass approach. He also added: “In addition to knowing this fundamental commandment of not violating the civil rights of Americans, intelligence officers are required to take an oath to protect the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. It is with my oath as a US intelligence officer weighing heavy on my mind that I wish to report to congress acts that I believe are unlawful and unconstitutional. The freedom of the American people cannot be protected when our constitutional liberties are ignored and our nation has decayed into a police state.”



"These actions by the current administration are a compulsion to secrecy, an expansive view of presidential authority, and reluctance to answer to the people and Congress. Woodrow Wilson, himself no novice concerning secrecy, claimed that it is a 'fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety'. That is a presumption that we have been called upon to suspend in the name of national security, but with recent disclosures that suspended judgment appears to have been unwise. We urge the congress to hold hearings and let patriotic witnesses like Russ Tice testify,” stated Sibel Edmonds, the director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC).



Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition agrees with Mrs. Edmonds and stated further “I am glad to know that Mr. Tice takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He obviously knows that his obligation is not to this or any Administration but to our Republican form of government with its proper checks and balances and to protect the rights it was instituted to secure.” He continued “This is less about a particular Administration and more about the natural tendency for government to become destructive to the very ends it was created to fulfill. I hope that Congress takes it oversight responsibilities seriously and investigates Mr. Tice’s allegations in an open and non-partisan manner.”



Here is the letter by Mr. Tice, sent on Dec 18, 2005, to the Senate & House Intelligence Committee:





Dear Chairman Roberts,



Under the provisions of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), I intend to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency (NSA) and with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). These acts involve the Director of the National Security Agency, the Deputies Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, and the U.S. Secretary of Defense.

These probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts were conducted via very highly sensitive intelligence programs and operations known as Special Access Programs (SAP)s. I was a technical intelligence specialist dealing almost exclusively with SAP programs and operations at both NSA and DIA.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of these programs and operations, I will require assurances from your committee that the staffers and/or congressional members to participate retain the proper security clearances, and also have the appropriate SAP cleared facilities available for these discussions.

Please inform me when you require my appearance on Capitol Hill to conduct these discussions in relation to this ICWPA report.



Very Respectfully,





Russell D. Tice

Former Intelligence Officer, NSA





Tice, Russ; Former Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, Air Force, Naval Intelligence, DIA and NSA

Russ Tice worked technical intelligence issues as an all-source analyst, systems instructor, special programs expert, technical missions operations action officer, tasking agent, field intelligence on-site analyst and liaison, and advanced capabilities officer. Known as a stickler for technical detailed analysis and “by the book” on security regs. After returning from a temporary overseas assignment in 2001, he observed that a DIA coworker exhibited the classic signs of involvement in espionage. After quietly reporting this, his suspicion was quickly dismissed by DIA’s counterintelligence (CI) office. He continued to observe activity to suggest there was a problem and reported such. He returned to the National Security Agency and, busy with the Iraqi War, dropped the issue. When noting a report that FBI CI agents availed secrets to a China source for sex, he questioned the FBI’s competence. NSA retaliated by having him declared crazy, revoking his security clearance, and terminating his employment in May 2005.



About National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), founded in August 2004, is an independent and nonpartisan alliance of whistleblowers who have come forward to address our nation’s security weaknesses; to inform authorities of security vulnerabilities in our intelligence agencies, at nuclear power plants and weapon facilities, in airports, and at our nation’s borders and ports; to uncover government waste, fraud, abuse, and in some cases criminal conduct. The NSWBC is dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers through a variety of methods, including advocacy of governmental and legal reform, educating the public concerning whistleblowing activity, provision of comfort and fellowship to national security whistleblowers suffering retaliation and other harms, and working with other public interest organizations to affect goals defined in the NSWBC mission statement. For more on NSWBC visit www.nswbc.org



About Liberty Coalition

The Liberty Coalition works to help organize, support, and coordinate transpartisan public policy activities related to civil liberties and basic human rights. We work in conjunction with groups of partner organizations that are interested in preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy.

The Liberty Coalition is concerned about the threat to Americans' fundamental and inalienable rights. The Coalition is dedicated to upholding and protecting our basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In order to accomplish our task, we seek to protect those freedoms as articulated in the Bill of Rights. We base our concerns on the fundamental values and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, particularly the separation of powers and federalism, and Bill of Rights. These are also embodied in the 14th amendment, especially the due process and privileges and immunities clauses.

www.libertycoalition.net

[leveymg]

28. Thank you for this about Mr. Tice and the Liberty Coalition.

Very significant.:thumbsup:

I heard Russ speak on Capitol Hill this summer at the NSWC roll-out. His story is incredibly moving, as is that of many whistle-blowers. I hope their personal sacrifices are rewarded by reform of a corrupted system and prosecution of officials in this Administration who have tried to subvert the Constitution.

[Roland99]

31. That deserves its own thread!

Although, Sen. Roberts will just ignore the letter. He's ignored calls for the Phase II investigation for over a year, why would he start doing the right thing now?

[bloom]

27. kick...

:kick:

[myrna minx]

29. Worldcom...

http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/2002/07/09/bush/
The first sentence is about Harkin btw-

snip
What the president didn't mention -- perhaps because nobody asked -- was that his father's appointees and his own personal attorney were running the SEC when he was investigated. The agency's chairman was an ardent loyalist named Richard Breeden, who had served as a top domestic policy aide to George Herbert Walker Bush. (He is now the court-appointed overseer of WorldCom.) Its general counsel was James Doty, the lawyer who had handled the sale of the Texas Rangers baseball team to Dubya's syndicate only two years earlier.
snip

http://www.nypress.com/15/27/news&columns/wildjustice.cfm
By Alexander Cockburn


The Crooks in the White House

This is exciting. Will Dick Cheney keel over from his fifth heart attack before he becomes the first veep since Spiro Agnew to resign in the face of charges of financial crookery? Or will Bush fire him to divert attention from his own scummy past? n Over the weekend President Dumbo poked his head above the rubble of the WorldCom scandal and made a stand: "No violation of the public’s trust will be tolerated... Executives who commit fraud will face financial penalties and, when they are guilty of criminal wrongdoing, they will face jail time."

Sunday morning brought more ringing pledges to protect the public weal: "If anybody violates the law, we go after them," SEC chairman Harvey Pitt told Sam Donaldson on ABC’s This Week. In an earlier incarnation Pitt was one of the guys who successfully lobbied the SEC to make it easier for Arthur Andersen and the other big accounting firms to cook the books on behalf of Enron, MCI/WorldCom and others. Bush, flush with campaign contributions from Enron and MCI/WorldCom ($100,000 last summer), duly signaled his gratitude by putting Pitt in charge of the SEC, where he put the agency in snooze mode amid a ripening cloud of scandal involving the biggest names in corporate America.

snip

[leveymg]

32. Its the same cast of characters behind the Abramoff, Plamegate,

corporate looting scandals, and domestic spying. It's an invasion and colonization strategy that works this way:

PHASE I (prepare to seize power)
Raid and takeover key companies -- telecom, energy trading, defense contractors, auditing and accounting, law firms, banks;
bribe, blackmail and seize control of major political party;

PHASE II (post-takeover)
steamroll regulators, law enforcement and intelligence agencies;
manipulate world events to start conflicts in resource-rich areas;
terrorize and drive the population into debt;
loot the national treasury;

PHASE II: (divestiture)
Loot the companies acquired;
self-destruct the government;
foreclose;
sell off assets;
move capital to next acquisition target.

[dwahzon]

34. Damn...

what a thread.

Thanks to each who did some serious digging here. I've bookmarked it and I'll be back.

[Norquist Nemesis]

35. Been wondering about this!

Thank you!!!! This is EXACTLY what I was wondering, especially given the precise words coming from the Administration. It's not what they say as much as what they DON'T say.

[chat_noir]

36. K&R

:kick:

[xchrom]

37. kick