Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

NSA buŸllshitt: Refusing to Return Whistleblowers' Computers

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 2   Supported 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H2 1/18/12

opednews.com

NSA buYllshitt: Refusing to Return Whistleblowers' Computers

  By Jesselyn Radack  for DailyKos Diaries

In a response to a lawsuit filed by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe,  Thomas Drake , Bill Binney, and Edward Loomis, and former congressional staffer Diane Roark, NSA incredibly claims that there is classified information on Wiebe's computer,   reports  Josh Gerstein of Politico .

The whistleblowers filed the suit in November seeking property seized in the retaliatory criminal investigation, which targeted four complainants to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG), Binney, Wiebe, Roark, and Loomis, and key DoD IG witness, Drake, and resulted in the Justice Department's spectacularly failed    Espionage Act case against Drake.  

You'd think after the malicious classification chicanery in the Drake case, the Justice Department and NSA would have learned their lesson. Obviously, if the unreturned property contained such damning information, the Justice Department would have used it against Drake at trial, since most of the "evidence" the government tried to introduce against him was deemed to be unclassified can caused their case to crumble.

The fact that NSA's Signals Intelligence Directorate Deputy now claims that two documents contain information that is "currently and properly" classified at an uber-secret level suggests that these documents were only deemed so after a "forced classification review" of the seized items, just as had been done to Thomas Drake--about which Bush's former classification czar (J. William Leonard) said he had never seen a "more deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document."

A couple of points on the government's secrecy-abusing response:

(1)   The FBI seized these computers in 2007 - over four years ago   - as part of the years-long, millions-spent but completely fruitless hunt for the sources of the Pulitzer Prize-winning   New York Times   article that exposed NSA's constitutionally-dubious warrantless wiretapping program. Now the government claims it needs   more time   to analyze two hard drives:  

Because of the size of emerging technologies in digital storage media, analysis of oftentimes an arduous process . . .

and

Given the volume of the hard disk drives, and the time it will take to perform a complete review to separate classified from unclassified information, a time consuming process is expected.

Is this part of NSA's fear-mongering rhetoric?? Because it scares the heck out of me that over four years is not enough time for the country's most powerful data collection agency to analyze two hard drives. Supposedly it's an "arduous process." (No wonder NSA needs to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on storage facilities.)

(2) How does the government propose the Court handle the apparently-infinite time needed to go through two hard drive seized in 2007? By putting the case in the hands of a magistrate instead of federal Judge Richard D. Bennett. It is no surprise NSA would prefer Judge Bennett not handle the case involving an unjustifiable government delay and outlandish secrecy claims. Judge Bennett is wise to NSA's hysterical, unfounded cries of secrecy having presided over the failed case against Drake, and Bennett  lambasted the Justice Department for the 2 1/2 year delay between the 2007 raid on Drake's home and 2010 indictment saying such an "unconscionable" delay "did not past the smell test," and comparing it to British abuses of colonial Americans. 

For his part, Wiebe was skeptical about the government's newest secrecy assertions, telling Politico ,

"I am dismayed to hear the government thinks there is classified information on either or both of my two computers.  Frankly, I wouldn't put classified information on my computers.  After 32 plus years in the business, you don't do that sort of thing, and -- again frankly speaking -- I could not conceive of a need to ever do so . . ."

Weibe's skepticism is justifiable. In February 2010, the government gave both him and Bill Binney immunity from criminal prosecution. (Drake, Binney and Wiebe are clients of my organization, the Government Accountability Project ).

In the words of Bush classification czar Bill Leonard:

Next Page  1  |  2

 

articles reprinted from Dailykos.com
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Rush Limbaugh's Sponsor List

Comcast favors Fox News, charges $204 more for MSNBC package. ACTION NEEDED

Ron Paul takes lead In Iowa, Newt Gingrich falls off cliff

Busted: Scott Walker fell for Prankster posing as David Koch

The Bundy Ranch flashpoint, one Nevadan's perspective

Meet Foster Friess, Billionaire who Bought Iowa for Santorum

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
A secret is:Anything you prefer to LIE about.Accor... by Arend Rietkerk on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:50:56 PM