Reply #21: a couple more snippets [View All]

[librechik]

This is not necessarily true: <}Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program.">

The "other programs" could be things _far too scary_ to contempate. Recall, this Preident is linked with war crimes: It means nothing for him to set up camps, and make people disappear. "all for the cause. . ."

Put the burden on the President: Prove those internment camps you've built aren't being used; and that the prisoners aren't out "exercising" when the Auditors arrive.
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:17 PM

I don't personally think the fact that they are or are not referring to "this" or "that" or "TSP" or "Not TSP" is the issue: The fact is that there isn't a consistent story, raising the question: What other activity is occurring that may be an NSA-related function, but has been organized to fall _outside_ FISA oversight, but is still illegal under the Constitution:
- Roving bands of contractors harassing US citizens;
- Temporary detention centers to detain US citizens without warrant or trial;
- Use of tax information by JTTF to compel US citizens to explain things that the agents are not able to determine through NSA intercepts
- Groups whose sole function is to fill in the gaps in the NSA intercepts, and provide some meat to explain what is going on with something that is unusual, but they don't want the court to know they're looking at . . . again.

Recall, the RNC has deleted/destroyed e-mail. If this "other program" were "OK," how does the RNC explain the failure to retain detain related to an ongoing "OK" activity?
The question goes back to DOJ, OLC, and outside counsel: < "When you learned of the "other programs" involved with this intelligence activity, did you fear that the information in the RNC accounts would be disclosed; or was there something you learned from the EU -- and CIA visits with the EU -- which prompted the evidence destruction related to rendition, FISA< prisoner abuse, and other things OLC apparently "all agreed" -- in a perverse Yoo-like fashion -- was "lawful". . . (never mind Geneva, FISA< or The Constitutional requirements)." >

Sounds like a law firm which was auditing a company related to various NSA programs and prisoner transfers should have detected this chance of fraud, and internal control problems. Or is a law firm saying, despite attestations to the SEC on those financial statements, that they had "no idea" what was going on, despite counsel's awareness of the activity -- as evidenced by their meeting with the DoD General Counsel's staff on these very issues?
Posted by:
Date: July 27, 2007 6:32 PM