CEO Who Resisted NSA Spying Out Of Prison, Vindicated By Snowden

[zeemike]

And I bet few of us know about it...

[2banon]

1. I wasn't aware of this.. thanks for bringing it to my attention. n/t

[zeemike]

2. I wasn't either.

And that is why I thought it important to post.

[2banon]

10. +1

[cprise]

68. Interview: Thomas Drake, pre-Snowden NSA whistleblower

It explains a lot about the choices Snowden made, and Snowden's lawyer is there, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017186244

[PeoViejo]

3. That's the way it works.

It's 'our' way or the by-way.

[Demeter]

4. I wish I could rec this a thousand times. I wish I were that sure that he was blameless

I fully believe the NSA was out to get him...and did. But was he pure as driven snow?



And even if he wasn't, was it a fair trial? Doesn't sound like it.



Now, who was in charge when this man went to prison? Indicted in 2005, Sentenced in 2007...

And who let this travesty of "justice" stand?

the wikipedia entry is not flattering to any of the parties...not even him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

[Mbrow]

5. K & R

[20score]

7. Don't break your arm congratulating your conformist / authoritarian self just

yet.

Even if the US attorney was correct in his self-serving statement, it in no way diminishes the truth of the video.

I swear there is something mentally wrong about anyone who would justify ubiquitous spying. It's not healthy.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

12. Firebagger/Naterite logic: Being against crooked CEOs = conformist/authoritarian

As nation of laws, we need police to both "spy" on people's driving habits and "spy" on who suspected foreign terrorists are being contacted by. None of this activity is remotely illegal or unconstitutional, regardless of whether they're American or not.

And further, I have no idea why anyone who signs up for Facebook, uses google, tweets their breakfast choices, and all other trivialities of their inane life, somehow gets their panties in a twist over the U.S. having good intelligence about real dangers. Lack of good intelligence is partly what leads to war. You'd think that would count for something.

But no, not in the topsy-turvey world of "so extremist left-wing, they're extremist right-wing". Anarchists of any flavor are just anarchists.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[20score]

15. I see, "Reality Based Community" is meant ironically.

[hueymahl]

33. So True

Who knew CD was an Ironic Hipster? "Reality Based Community" I get it now!!! How I missed the irony before, I will never know.

[Jamaal510]

21. This.

"And further, I have no idea why anyone who signs up for Facebook, uses google, tweets their breakfast choices, and all other trivialities of their inane life, somehow gets their panties in a twist over the U.S. having good intelligence about real dangers. Lack of good intelligence is partly what leads to war. You'd think that would count for something."

[reACTIONary]

24. I agree...

... spying on other countries and keeping our capabilities, strategies and intentions secrete is the way we ensure that we are treated justly and to advance their vision of justice in the world at large.

The irony of the extremist "anarchists" is that nation states actually do exist in a state of anarchy with respect to one another, and thus must take the measures that they complain about. That's the reality.

[20score]

28. Holy shit! Were you asleep during the Bush Administration?

You people are now such believers in the status-quo that you're regurgitating Bush talking points to justify the Iraq War?

I never liked authoritarians and never will, but you always manage to find a shovel when you're in a hole. And that is amazing, even if it's twisted.

[rhett o rick]

44. Are you calling other DU posters, "Firebaggers and Naderites?" Is this whining?

You are supporting the Bush administrations decision to punish the only phone company that didnt follow Bush's illegal spying on Americans. You admit to being conservative and now you disparage those that object to George Bush's illegal spying on Americans.

[JDPriestly]

49. Nacchio's experience answers your question.

It isn't that we Americans are so secretive. At 70, I have very little to hide, and most of that very little is known to my doctor, my family and my friends and of no interest to the NSA or anyone else.

But, we have this document called the Constitution of the United States. It bars the government from passing any law (or acting in the absence of a law) that would deprive us of our very natural rights, those we are born with like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, a fair trial, etc. They are all written down in the covenant that forms the basis of our country -- again, it's called the Constitution of the United States. The NSA is not respecting our rights under that document. It does not request a warrant based on probable cause before it searches our persons, houses, papers, and effects. And its search of our persons, houses, papers, and effects is unreasonable because its search encompasses nearly everything that relates to our persons, houses, papers and effects. Don't bring up the Smith v. Maryland case. That was handed down in the late 1970s and did not pertain to a world in which we do everything from break up with our boyfriends to join organizations to sign petitions, to find boyfriends (not at my age, but well), to discuss what we had for breakfast this morning, to pay our bills, to communicate with our doctors, to buy and borrow books and clothing. . . . all the things that we used to do in our houses, all the papers we used to keep in hard copy. In short, if the Fourth Amendment does not apply to electronic media, its' meaning and purpose are eviscerated. And the NSA has obviously violated it.

But then we go on to other amendments. The NSA spying on Americans without probable call also eviscerates virtually every one of them. In fact, that good old Third Amendment, the one about quartering troops in houses (Remember: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.) I understand that the day will soon be here if it isn't already when through the camera on your computer (the one you use to Skype), the government will be able to intrude into your very home. Might as well have the entire NSA army housed in your living room or wherever you keep your computer.

Worst of all, your right to a fair trial can be compromised by the NSA and indeed by the entire concept of secret courts and secret evidence.

Horrors! The NSA surveillance is the obliteration of our Bill of Rights. And don't tell me it is just metadata. I know what can be done with a list of phone numbers. I used to work at the phone company and later had a job in which I sometimes reviewed phone numbers for legal purposes and with the knowledge of the person whose phone numbers I was reviewing.

It's one thing when a private company takes your computer information for strictly private purposes -- like locating you as a potential customer. That private company does not have the ability to dream up some sort of criminal charge against you and then claim that, for reasons of national security, it doesn't have to produce the evidence you have to exonerate yourself.

And that is precisely what Nacchio claims happened to him. Watch the video at # 13 below. I don't know whether his viewpoint is "correct or true" or not. None of us can know because too much of the relevant evidence was apparently excluded from the trial on national security grounds.

The Redcoats could never have thought of such a horrible violation of people's rights. What did our ancestors fight the American Revolution for if not to eliminate the possibility that an American government would ever adopt the heavy-handed methods that the NSA is using today?

Don't brush the complaints about the spying off so easily.

As for the legitimate and important pursuit of terrorists and the acquisition of foreign intelligence, the NSA could do all that quite well without violating our Constitution. And it should.

I will tell you as one who lived in Europe on the edge of Eastern Europe at the relevant time, if the information Americans were getting about the Soviet menace in the late '70s and early '80s was coming from the CIA, they had it totally wrong and any person including any CIA agent living where I was in Europe would have known it. The Soviet Union was dying long before 1989 -- long before 1989. Hungary and Austria had a trade agreement that permitted free travel between the two countires well before 1989.

Once the Hungarian-Austrian border was open, the finale on the Soviet Union was a pretty sure thing. If the CIA did not see that coming, it's because they weren't looking.

[zeemike]

14. Some people just don't believe it is wrong

to void constitutional rights...if the government wants to.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

18. I believe it's wrong to break the law, as this asshat did...

No one voided his rights, aside from himself.

[zeemike]

20. But not wrong for the government to break the law

By spying on us?...that is my point...and we have evidence that they did that and more including torture which is against the Geneva convention.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. I was and still am very much against the warrantless wiretapping

that occurred under Shrub. I'm also very much against torture.

I'm also against corrupt CEOs who participate in insider trading. I remember when this all happened. Most of DU sided AGAINST this guy and didn't believe his claims. I remember many employees of Qwest who were quite upset with what this guy did to the company (when the stocks suddenly went down, after he cashed out, there were a LOT of working Americans who were laid off).

This is an example of confirmation bias. This guy, a despicable piece of shit, committed crimes. Then, when he was arrested for said crimes (after a long investigation), he cries foul and blames the NSA. So, those biased AGAINST the NSA tend to believe that there was a conspiracy to take him down. The only "proof" he has is his words. And the words of a criminal mean fuck all.

[truedelphi]

23. Time Magazine is to Truth in about the same proportion that

Soviet news rag Pravda was.

If Time is your source of news, I can't say there are many areas where you and I would agree.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Let me see . . .

You are basing you assertion that Nacchio is crooked by citing a conviction engineered by the Bush Administration Justice Department that happened after he refused to allow the NSA to get information about his customers for nefarious purposes.

Remember, please, that the Bushies played hardball, didn't play fair and, for them, the Constitution was just a piece of paper -- as in toilet paper. This was a Justice Department that fired US Attorneys who did not pursue trumped up charges against Democrats and kept on those that did. It was that Justice Department that engineered the railroading of Don Siegelman. That's only the most high profile case of many.

I resent your characterization of "Firebaggers" hating CEOs indiscriminately "unless those CEOs are crooks." I suppose you think Pretty Boy Lloyd and Legs Dimon are upright, outstanding citizens. I suppose you think Dave and Charlie Koch are positive influences on American politics. When I talk about CEOs, I'm usually taking about the Wall Street Bankers who crashed the world economy, were bailed out by the taxpayers and haven't changed the way they do business or right wing billionaires who want to destroy American democracy. That covers a quite a few more people than the aforementioned, but they are giving all business people, even honest ones, a bad name. If we can bring capitalism back to a state where it is regulated to prevent capitalists from abusing to their employees, polluting the environment, defrauding their customers or buying the people's representatives in state or federal governments, then I'll be very happy. Our problem is simply that we do not have a functioning economic system of any kind. If you want to know what an unregulated free market looks like, ask the kid on the corner dealing dope or his customers about it.

Perhaps Nacchio really belongs in the slammer, but I wouldn't take the result of a case of a man who crossed the Bushies and was prosecuted by a Bush-appointed US Attorney who survived the Frat Boy's mid-term purge at face value. Anyone who would has no claim to being a member of any reality based community.

[JDPriestly]

37. Have you watched the interview by Bartolucci with Naccio? Post 13.

You may change your mind.

The courts and the US government violated the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution in his trials.

He was tried in part in a secret court trial and not given the right to compulsory appearances by witnesses for his defense.

He explains why his co-workers did not understand that he had not done insider trading and provides evidence which, if true, would prove that he did not do insider trading.

There is no defense for the NSA's overreaching and our government's current outrageous violations of the Constitution. A defendant is entitled to the compulsory appearance of witnesses. And secret trials are the tools of tyrants, not of constitutional governments.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

39. Hi JD. I'm willing to give anyone a shot if the facts bear it out, but flat out, this doesn't do it

The issue is that the insider trading he did happened before the DOD contract came up. Not only that, but Quest actually got a good chunk of the business anyway through a subsidiary, after they initially didn't bid on it at all.

Nacchio's claims of exoneration are complete bull.

Former Joe Nacchio lieutenant disputes ex-Qwest CEO’s claim of NSA retaliation

James F.X. Payne joined Qwest in August 1999 – near the height of Nacchio’s five-year tenure – and worked directly with Nacchio on government contracts as senior vice president of the company’s Government Systems Division.

During the Fox interview, Nacchio referenced a meeting at the headquarters of the National Security Agency in February 2001 in which he expected to learn about the fate of a lucrative contract. At the end of the meeting, he said, the government made a “peculiar” request that he thought wasn’t legal.

“The reason I was invited into that meeting – the reason the CEO shows up – is because you’re at the contract phase, the people want to look across the table at you and know that if they need something, ‘will you be there for them?’” Nacchio said. “I expected, going into the meeting, that we were going to win a $50 to $150 to $200 million contract. I did not learn we did not win that contract until June 2001.”

The timing is key because Nacchio’s illegal stock sales occurred in early 2001.
...
“Joe was only at the NSA once in his years at Qwest. I escorted him there and was with him at all times during that one meeting. To my knowledge that is the sum total of his engagement with that agency,” Payne said. “Further, the contract that he cited that was denied Qwest in retaliation for lack of cooperation was never bid by Qwest. It was the subject of intense inquiry by the government in preparation for the trial. Ironically, even though Qwest did not bid as a prime on that contract, we did bid as a subcontractor to a prime and that team did win.”

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[rhett o rick]

45. In other words you side with George Bush. nm

[JDPriestly]

50. So why did the government claim that evidence should be excluded from the trial due to

national security concerns. That fact does not jive with the story you quote.

[DeSwiss]

8. ''Obama's NSA.''

- In the ''old days'' we used to give full accreditation........

K&R

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. Happened under Bush...

Oh, and the guy's ACTUALLY a crook who deserved to spend time in prison.

[JDPriestly]

38. Watch his interview with Maria Bartolucci (hope I got the name right) in Post # 13.

You may change your mind. He seems like a great guy.

The NSA apparently managed to hoodwink a lot of people into believing their claim that he was a crook. He explains why his trading is not evidence of insider trading. He was tried in a secret court and denied the constitutional (Sixth Amendment) right to compulsory appearance of witnesses and compulsory right to prevent the evidence exonerating him.

We will never know whether he deserved to spend time in prison, but I would bet he did not.

[rhett o rick]

46. You are in poor company. George Bush thinks he is a crook also. He didnt fool you too? nm

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. Talk about strawmen...

Is your first name Baseless?

[nakocal]

11. This person is a crook who deserved prison for longer then he got

The conviction was not for not cooperating with the NSA. It was for massive corruption and almost destroying a company for greed. Snowden is a traitor. The republican created PATRIOT act created the problem with the NSA spying on Americans (which is WRONG). Snowden released more than that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. Facts aren't welcome here when talking about the NSA...

[zeemike]

17. This occurred BEFORE the patriot act.

So the problem was created before it...and Snowden is not a traitor.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. Partriot Act was passed in 2002...

He was arrested and convicted in 2007.

He CLAIMS that he refused to cooperate with the NSA in 2001 (he was replaced as CEO in 2002).

The problem here is that a convicted criminal is making claims that are contrary to the facts.

[zeemike]

22. It is not just his claim...

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say

By Andrew Harris - June 30, 2006 18:46 EDT

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

[rhett o rick]

47. So you are saying that you side with the Bush administration. nm

[Dr Hobbitstein]

53. On convicting this criminal?

Yes. I also agree with the Bush DOJ convictions of Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff.

Are we so partisan now that we can't agree with a criminal conviction with plenty of evidence just because the administration was Republican?

[JDPriestly]

51. The government should have honored Nacchio's request and allowed him to

compel witnesses and evidence in his trial. The national secrets exclusion makes everything the
Bush Justice Department says suspect.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

55. His first conviction was overturned...

He got a second trial with a new judge and the witness evidence he wanted.

[20score]

26. "Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." George Orwell

I may be wrong, but I believe most of those defending the indefensible, are beyond hope. They won't recognize their cognitive dissonance even after they change back to to their 2007 belief system when the government changes hands again in the future.

But I'm glad you're trying.

[reACTIONary]

25. +10, and...

...welcome to DU!

[cui bono]

27. What massive corruption? And part of why he went to jail was for almost destroying a company?

Citation please.

Also, Snowden is not a traitor. The NSA is STILL doing the same spying, expanded it actually, now. It is wrong, you are right about that. If Snowden hadn't leaked info no one would be talking about that. He is not a traitor. You can thank him for bringing what you rightly believe to be WRONG to light.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

42. He was CEO of Qwest Communications...

And his actions NEARLY put them under. Insider trading and inflating stock prices. About $3bil in fraud.

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

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

[rhett o rick]

48. Insider trading is what Bush accused him of. You seem to be on the wrong side of history here. nm

[Dr Hobbitstein]

56. What the fuck is your hardon for this guy?

Are Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff innocent, too? The Bush admin thought they were guilty, so following your (lack of) logic, they MUST be innocent because Bush.

I was wrong the first time. Your first name must be Empty.

[cui bono]

57. What is yours?

You really think they went after him because of alleged insider trading? Sure... they're so worried about that they prosecute people for that all the time.

They singled him out because he defied their demands to give up private info. For refusing to do something for which the other telco's had to get retroactive immunity. Who's the bad guy?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

60. Qwest was NEVER a clean company...

They were involved in a few issues under his lead. And yes, people DO get prosecuted for insider trading...

How in the fuck, on a progressive message board, is ANYONE defending a crooked CEO?

Why did he not mention a DAMN word about the NSA until AFTER the revelations about warrantless wiretapping were in the press (he cried foul in 2006/2007, and we knew about what was going on then)? He didn't say a thing until he was being tried in a court of law. He appealed the conviction, was given a retrial, and the original conviction was upheld. 2 judges, 2 juries.

Not everyone who yells "NSA BAD!" is a good guy. This is one such case.

Remember HE CLAIMS that he was approached by the NSA. He has ZERO proof, in fact ALL the proof stacks up against him.

[rhett o rick]

61. Disregarding your rudeness, I think he was set-up.

As far as Ken Lay and Madoff, my money is on that they crossed the Bush Crime Family in some manner.

Please, dont bother to respond unless you can curb your apparent need to be rude.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

64. Project much?

You threw THREE strawmen accusations at me, and I'm the rude one?

Keep your baseless, empty rhett o rick.

[rhett o rick]

65. It's just my opinion but I think you are in the wrong message board.

ps: I wont be responding to you. Too many decent posters here to waste my time.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

66. Longtime Democrats don't belong on Democratic Underground?

Noted.

[7962]

13. Maria Bartiromo did a lengthy interview with him last week. Very interesting. Link:

[JDPriestly]

35. Thank you for posting this.

Have you started a new thread with this?

Sixth Amendment

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment

There aren't any ifs ands and buts about a public trial.

Also, the defendant is supposed to have "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."

Whether or not the NSA requests that Nacchio denied were legal we will never know because it is all "secret." But we do not that the Constitution makes no exception for secret trials or denial of the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant's favor based on national security. And here and in similar cases in which a defendant needs information sheltered by national security agencies, that compulsory process is denied. Over and over. And that violates the Constitution.

May I remind DUers that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Not the NSA. Not presidential decrees. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

(Sorry if this sounds condescending, but a lot of DUers seem either not to have read the Constitution or not to understand that is the supreme law along with treaties in the land.)

Looks to me like the NSA and our courts violated it in several serious ways in the Nacchio case.

A lot of DUers have ignored or even ridiculed my warnings that what the NSA has done and is doing endangers many, many of the constitutional rights we have. Among them is the right to a fair trial.

I hope I will see some posts from some of those people admitting that they have been wrong.

I have been accused of having my hair on fire. Actually, my hair is on my very calm head. The NSA is violating our Constitution in very serious ways.

As Nacchio said. This stuff started before 9/11. The terrorism threat is real. Always has been. But the Constitution is what makes our country great. And we have to respond to the terrorism threat WITHOUT VIOLATING OUR CONSTITUTION.

(Before terrorism there was the threat of Communism. There are always excuses for taking shortcuts and violating our rights.)

The NSA reform needs to be done properly. I seriously doubt that it will be. Lose a right. You lose it forever.

For my notes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1017&pid=185272

#13

[7962]

40. No, I didnt post it elsewhere; I didnt think about it till it was too late for "breaking news".

You make a lot of good points in your post. And you're right, once you give up a right its GONE. I dont think you're hairs on fire at all! A lot of people here are willing to look the other way on a lot of things because a Republican isnt the President, but they forget that whatever precedent Obama sets can also be used if a Republican DOES get back in the White House. Then everyone here will be raising holy hell about it!
And I am not one who thinks Snowden was right in what he did, either. No way should he have gone to China and Russia. And another problem I have is that early on he stated that he went through everything and wouldnt release anything that put anyone in any danger or hurt our intelligence. But he has done just that; compromising ongoing programs overseas that have nothing to do with spying on us here in the US.
But thats another thread!

[JDPriestly]

30. K&R. We DUErs knew about this a number of years ago. I remember this case clearly.

There were a number of posts about this on DU.

[zeemike]

31. I was here then but I missed it.

But glad some of you folks talked about it.

[WillyT]

32. K & R !!!

[20score]

34. I do remember this story as it happened. K&R.

This story would be a great indicator and metric to rate critical thinking and character.

How consistent one is in defending right and wrong? What arguments have changed with political leadership changes?

[Enthusiast]

36. "Before 911." This post should have hundreds of recommendations.

The Bush Administration should have been held accountable for these abuses (crime). But we chose to look forward.

This is one fucked up country.

[jakeXT]

58. The PNAC crowd just had to wait a couple months for their catalyzing event. /nt

[Enthusiast]

59. That 2000 "election" was a coup.

And they did not steal that election with good intentions.

They had big plans which included the massive Wall Street theft that they carried off without a hitch. First they robbed us in the Iraq War, then they robbed us through financial malfeasance (which continues today). I think Enron served as a model for these miscreants.

[rhett o rick]

62. I agree that there has been a "coup". I believe those that took control still have control. nm

[Enthusiast]

63. That's two of us. There are many more.

We can see that they are still in control. Look at the media for example. The fuckers have even taken over 60 Minutes, NPR and PBS. These are some evil MFers, brother.

[GoneFishin]

43. He told them to piss off. They had to make an example of him.

Anybody who can't connect the dots and realize that there is a reason why all of the other internet companies have allowed these fuckers to spy on their customers, risking grave damage to their brand and customer loyalty, is brain-dead.

Either that or they are just parroting talking points.

[Warpy]

52. I knew about him

His most shining moment was when he told Stupid and his gang of goons to go pound sand because he was not handing over private phone records without individual subpoenas.

Brave man.

Then they trumped up a bunch of really minor stuff and conflated it with terrible things he never did and packed him off to prison.

I am delighted he is free now. May the people who put him into prison take his place.

[cprise]

67. K&R