Reply #196: Anonymous obviously has worked for NSA , DIA , DHS or a contractor

[leveymg]

But, ultimately, he's just ranting, and doesn't know anything more than the rest of us. This is no deep throat - I'd say, a disgruntled NSA contract employee who's worked on DoD programs in the past, but with no immediate knowledge of the "Program X" surveillance Gonzalez and Mueller are apparently referring to. This part convinces me of that:

There's another way of looking at this <"that program was not something that was legally controversial.">
D. "This program" is different from "that program" which has been hidden in another budget, unrelated to the NSA or NSC:
E. DoD _is_ allowed to do things overseas, and contractors have been assigned -- working for those _overseas_ entities -- in the US.
F. The data that is managed is channelled, but the contractors have no idea who it is they are monitoring: All they see is the raw data; someone else then recombines the data if there is a problem.
G. If we find a problem in the data, we then use the data we've collected to justify the warrant; if we can't get one, we self-issue one, and get the AG to certify it as being OK> Never mind that Qwest objected.
<"that program was not something that was legally controversial."> could also mean:
H. Legal counsel assigned to our units have been told to keep their comments to themselves
I. All contracts supporting this activity are -- by definition -- "legal contracts"; (just don't talk about whether they support a lawful or unlawful objective. Far too scary to contemplate!)
J. "not controversial" could mean all the legal views that opposed it were ignored; and the remaining opinions were in "full support".
K. The legal counsel who knew of the Constitutional violations were sent to Guantanamo, threatened with nasty things: "To the washroom, counsellor! No gloves for you."
L. Legal counsel who remained quiet were promised a "good rating" by "the decider" in their upcoming DOJ ranking list -- the names given to the Senate for Federal Benches.

"not legally controversial" could mean all case law showing it was illegal was ignored; or selectively rewritten, as Addington well did with the Iran-Contra minority report.

<"that program was not something that was legally controversial."> could mean: other programs were contentious; but since AG Gonzalez is on the pig-spit this week, we need to pretend we are concerned, even though we are not.
The people who said this was "no problem" and were not saying tat it was lawful, just that it wouldn't be a problem to find a judge who they could bribe to not take action.

"not legally controversial" does not mean that it was legal; only that the in "someone's mind" (God knows where) their idea of "controversial" is a different definition which does not use controversy. Maybe legal counsel who opposed were _not_ using spears with _poison_ tips, so the spin misters said, "See not controversial, if they ere really upset they would have had nasty poison, the kind that makes Ebola look like a fuzzy kitten." The infamy! How dare they!


Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------