Bush-Cheney began illegal NSA spying before 9/11, says telcom CEO

[Melinda]

Contradicting a statement by ex-vice president Dick Cheney on Sunday that warrantless domestic surveillance might have prevented 9/11, 2007 court records indicate that the Bush-Cheney administration began such surveillance at least 7 months prior to 9/11.

The Bush administration bypassed the law requiring such actions to be authorized by FISA court warrants, the body set up in the Seventies to oversee Executive Branch spying powers after abuses by Richard Nixon. Former QWest CEO John Nacchios said that at a meeting with the NSA on February 27, 2001, he and other QWest officials declined to participate. AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth all agreed to shunt customer communications records to an NSA database.

In 2007 the Denver Post reported:

""Nacchio suggested that the NSA sought phone, Internet and other customer records from Qwest in early 2001. When he refused to hand over the information, the agency retaliated by not granting lucrative contracts to the Denver-based company, he claimed.""

Other sources corroborate the former CEO's allegations, which were made in the course of his legal defense against insider trading charges. Both Slate.com and National Journal have published reports in which sources are quoted which support the former CEO's claims.

digitaljournal.com

Limited in what I can post, the article is a must read. On Sunday, Cheney claimed that if he'd had the ability to spy pre 9/11, his admin could have stopped the attack. Really? According to this mans testimony, Bush*Co had been spying for some 7 months previously.... Really. The article goes on to state that despite the FBI having the data NSA has been collecting on us all, the Boston terrorism wasn't stopped. And it wasn't.

If this mans testimony is true, the DOJ should investigate, hell a Federal Grand Jury needs to convene. Why do we need our govt to collect our data IF said collection does NOT keep us safe? Those calling for the head of Snowden should be front and center demanding Bush and Cheney be prosecuted for violating their oath of office and illegal actions. And that's my 2 cents.

[Octafish]

1. Nacchio was the one Telco CEO who said, 'No' to domestic spying.

So. He ended up in the federal pen on "insider trading" charges.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3052915

Nice people, that secret government. Always looking out for Amerika.

[Melinda]

4. And people wonder why Snowden didn't stick around. JC, Octafish, JC.

"Land of the Free" indeed. It's past time the curtain was pulled back and OZ exposed. How can we do this? What can WE do?

I'm just a lowly proletariat - my vote but one of millions. I haven't the ability nor the means to affect change on a national level. This all makes me physically ill.

[Coyotl]

10. Lots of background here = Deja DU:

Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2051298

L. Coyote ... Oct-15-07
2. NY TIMES: Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11

Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11 -
By SCOTT SHANE - Oct 14, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company’s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, .....

The filings were made as Mr. Nacchio fought charges of insider trading. He was ultimately convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading and has been sentenced to six years in prison. He remains free while appealing the conviction.

Mr. Nacchio said last year that he had refused an N.S.A. request for customers’ call records in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, as the agency initiated domestic surveillance and data mining programs to monitor Al Qaeda communications.

But the documents unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Denver, first reported in The Rocky Mountain News on Thursday, claim for the first time that pressure on the company to participate in activities it saw as improper came as early as February, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks.

...............

[Melinda]

19. Thanks Coyotl, I missed this back then... all this time later and nothing. We are pawns.

The PTB are entrenched - all the same. There is no hope, there will be no change.

[Coyotl]

20. Actually there was a big change, after we caught them and this was made public knowledge

right here on DU!

The big change is called Retroactive Immunity and, No, I did not need to flee to Hong Kong

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Not sure we ever got to the bottom of "able danger"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

[Melinda]

5. And "We" never will.

The PTB have made certain of it.

[Blue State Bandit]

12. En-Able Danger

[allin99]

3. the other thing i don't understand about the gov't apologists is...

no matter how safe and secure they feel with obama at the healm, a dem is not always going to be the CIC. So if the ability of the surveillance state is not significantly rolled back, if we're left in the dark b/c we trust the gov't all the sudden, if massive civilian data is continuing to be amassed and stored, we're fucked as soon as another Bush comes into power, if indeed it's only the R's that could POSSIBLY infringe on our right to privacy.

[chimpymustgo]

7. Such a great post. If Obama is the man his apologists say, then he must END the surveillance state!

Who knows who will be next to sit in the Oval Office? This will only get worse (and it's already heinous).

[Catherina]

6. The NSA whistleblowers said the same thing. But don't you worry, civil liberties guaranteed

“I put the program in place to protect the country and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed,” - some people's new hero. George W. Bush


Rec'd

[johnnyreb]

8. Surveillance is key to successful sneak attacks

2008 DU thread:

"the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3497613

[Laelth]

9. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[chimpymustgo]

11. K&R - more exposure for those who think they can trust their govt. Snowden is NOT the enemy.

[wildbilln864]

13. Remember Qwest communications?

They refused the Bush admin IIRC!
k & r.

[Melinda]

18. Yes, QWest CEO John Nacchios is the one mentioned in the OP; see Post #1 too.

It appears SOMEONE made sure he went to Federal Prison as well. I don't know the back story, but I'm betting Octafish does. Thanks for the K&R.

[Cleita]

14. Yes, Bush/Cheney should be in the crosshairs for investigation in this matter.

Also, the agencies who allowed Snowden to be vetted and hired by private companies, who have no business in our business, should also have to answer for their actions. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Melinda]

17. Huge head nod here. TY Cleita n/t

[Cheap_Trick]

15. Snowden didn't mind it when Bush spied on us.

And he thought that whistleblowers should be "shot in the balls".

[Melinda]

16. Have you always been intransigent?

Or have you changed positions on issues throughout your lifetime? Have your values evolved? Progressed? Changed? Is change bad? Is progress bad?

"Be not so bigoted to any custom as to worship it at the expense of truth." - Johann Georg Von Zimmermann

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

I look forward to your answers, TIA.

[Cheap_Trick]

21. I have every right to have doubts

about Snowden's "evolution". You think he's evolved, I think he's an opportunistic Paulite gun nut. Sorry you're upset that I don't worship at the altar of Snowden. Guess that's something you'll just have to learn to deal with. It's not"intransigence" it's just not agreeing with you.

[Melinda]

23. Of course you have every right to your beliefs. However "worship at altar of Snowden"? - Say what?

#1 - I'm not in the least bit upset and I don't understand assumption(s) about anything I wrote, nor was I disingenuous with you or rude in any way. And of course you have every right to question Snowden or Joe Blow for that matter - I never said you don't, I've not inferred you shouldn't.

#2 - I asked a question about your character and person - not Snowden's. You were the one who referenced Snowden's change which logically leads one to ponder the question of intransigence in humankind. It follows that I wondered if you hold intransigent positions in your life, and if you've always done so, and you respond with smarm? "worship at altar of Snowden". Really? Is it because you don't understand what intransigence means? I often read words and need look up their definition, and I think most others do as well. It's part of learning.

#3 - "intransigence defined - "characterized by refusal to compromise or to abandon an extreme position or attitude : uncompromising <intransigent in their opposition> <an intransigent attitude>; impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, reason; "he is adamant in his refusal to change his mind"; "Cynthia was inexorable; she would have none of him"- W.Churchill; "an intransigent conservative opposed to every liberal tendency"

#4 - Why be rude to me? Was I rude to you?

#5 - I tell you this sincerely... I come to DU to learn; to exchange dialogue and attempt to understand those whose opinions and beliefs differ from mine - I never look for nor expect agreement in discussion. I engage respectfully and with kindness, and I am gobsmacked when I am treated rudely.

And so please, please, don't respond to this post if you can't show a modicum of geniality and reasonableness with me, okay? I don't deserve to be treated bad, nor do you, nor do any of us.

Thank you.

[WillyT]

22. K & R !!!

[noise]

24. Investigations into the two terrorists in San Diego

were obstructed BEFORE 9/11. No Stasi-like program would have prevented 9/11 because there were officials in the US government who obstructed the investigations.

Why would some US officials obstruct al Qaeda investigations in a time when "the system was blinking red?" I don't know because no 9/11 investigative panels ever got the public a credible answer.