Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Fitzgerald: NYT revealed ongoing DoJ raid

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald gave an interview to his high school alma mater. [Link Backup ] Fitzgerald suggested early Feb 2006 he was aware of a trial involving leaks from DoJ to the NYT involving a raid on a charity.

This caught my eye and I thought I'd share the issues and questions.

* * *

The NSA and DoJ are providing illegally obtained information to criminals, who then use it for their own objectives. These criminals work in the White House.

* * *

Let's consider a scenario. It involves the revelations of White House criminal activity. If a competing newspaper like the NYT found out who leaked information about the illegal detention centers in Eastern Europe to the WaPo, is there anything stopping them from providing this information back to the FBI, to retaliate against those discussing White House criminal activity?

Clearly not, rather there's an incentive for the NYT to provide the information. Not only do they retaliate against a competing media outlet; but they would also tell the public, "You have to work with us, or we're going to work against you. Sounds alot like what Jared Paul Stern might do.

Makes one wonder who the media is really trying to serve, and who they'll retaliate against in the name of "a free an open society." Apparently, their idea of a "free society" is one where they can put themselves before the public; and apparently cooperate with illegal White House activity.

* * *

But it goes both ways. It's well within the scope of possibility the White House uses it's media sources as a means to retaliate against those who are discussing the White House war crimes, abuse of power, and the impeachable offenses.

The obvious example is Judith Miller, Libby, and the issue of Plame. But it also appears the cooperation is deeper and more widespread. Namely, it appears as though the pattern of White House manipulation of the media -- and reliance on NYT loyalty to the forces of evil and lawlessness -- is something the public should be aware.

Namely, to what extent is the media asking the public to "have a good impression of the myth of an open media" all the while the media is actually cooperating with those forces that put the Constitution at risk. It's all fun and games when the media chooses to side itself with power; but look who's whining the first minute the government cracks down on the media. Yes, they want it both ways, despite their betrayal of the public.

The American media should be looked at as a tool of the war criminals in the White House. The American media is willing to side with criminals, and permit its integrity to be compromised. At the same time, it would ask the public to forgive the media. This is outrageous.

The way forward is to treat the media as no better or worse than the war criminals in the White House. It was the media that prattled the non-sense over Sept 2001 and Iraq WMD. Today, we find out both are shams. Where was the media when we needed the truth? They simply beat the drums of war, and have proven they're not willing to ask the right questions. They are more interested in "getting along" with war criminals than ensuring the rule of law prevails.

The NYT and other open media that have cooperated with these war criminals deserve no respect and should be treated as war criminals: They openly cooperate with illegal operations, and expose sensitive operations. Yes, the issues of treason arise, especially when we find out the White House relied on the NYT standing to manipulate the public and Congress to support an illegal war.

Who will report on the open media, and ensure the White House is not using the media for political gain?

* * *

Speaking of media shills, war criminals, and hypocrisy, former Rush Limbaugh guest-host Tony Snow of Fox has openly challenged the President. Now the RNC and White House want a "fresh start" with Snow's new face.

Links: Snow quotes; Snow quotes; Bush and Snow on defensive

To that I say, "Baloney." We have the same war criminals in the White House. If Snow wants to align himself with that criminal enterprise, then Snow has freely chosen to align himself with war criminals. That is called a conspiracy.

Some say, "But he's got medical problems." All the more reason to after him -- he's asking us to "back off" at the very time the additional information is surfacing about Eastern Europe. Why show sympathy for those who align themselves with war crimes? Long after Snow is gone, we'll still have a Constitution. It's our job to protect it, and if it means asking Snow more pointed questions, then let's do that. He shall not enjoy his choice to freely align himself with criminals.

The media apologists and RNC aren't going to get a "fresh start." Bluntly, their calls for the public to be "open minded" about Snow are crocodile tears. Please, the White House hasn't given us an open mind, nor is the White House "open minded" when it comes to national security -- they are closed minded when it comes to the law, and accountability .There's no the public be "open minded" with war criminals. Rather, they're just asking the public to let the camel's nose under the tent. Tot that I say, Snow's honeymoon is over. He needs to be held to account for his hypocrisy, and made the issue.

* * *

Let's get back to the Fitzgerald interview. There was something that caught my eye, which I've included at the end. When I read the comment, it struck me: There's something you may want to look at. I couldn't help but think back to the charities which Sibel Edmonds was aware and discussed.

In this case, someone inside DoJ leaked to the NYT information about a raid involving a charity.

A few questions:

  • Who inside the DoJ has loyalty to other than the rule of law;

  • Why is information being leaked to a newspaper;

  • Where else was the information passed;

  • What conditions led to the NYT having this kind of access, and the attitude of, "We can notify the target and nobody will find out."

  • To what extent is this "open communication from DoJ to outside entities" compromising ongoing investigations related to Plame, Libby, and other events; and

  • How closely is the White House to DoJ, the NYT, and other sources so that it can compromise, thwart, and otherwise corrupt DoJ investigations into White House violations of the law.

  • How does this leaking by DoJ fit in with what the Senate is or is not doing about leaks?

    I'm left with the following impressions:

  • 1. The White House ultimately benefits from the leaks from the DoJ

  • 2. It would appear that the open media, and in this case the NYT has no problem providing information to a target of a criminal investigation; it is not a stretch to believe that the NYT or other media -- who did not benefit from the revelations on the Eastern European torture -- were the ones who compromised the WaPO sources and provided this information back to DoJ sources.

  • 3. The White House could very well have political allies inside DoJ who are more loyal to the White House and RNC. It is well known there are political supporters inside the DoJ legislative liaison who have outside relationships with private contractors.

  • 4. It is striking that there's alot of attention on the leaker from DoJ, but -- apparently -- little broader review of the deceptions over 9-11. Namely, someone inside DoJ knew in advance there were explosives and "the buildings weren't supposed to fall down," indicating they weren't told the full scope of the story of what was going to happen in Sept 2001. It remains to be understood who inside DoJ is providing information to DoD and the contractors who organized the 9-11 effort on the questions related to timing, planning, and who was actively working on the events in July and August 2001. This information would have been captured by NSA.

    * * *

    In "Alum Takes on the White House: Exclusive with Patrick J. Fitzgerald"
    Joseph Santo, '06 writes a revealing anecdote of a DOJ leak to the open media:

    On the morning of February 13, the date of our interview, Fitzgerald watched a colleague argue a case concerning an individual who took the law into his own hands. This was a different case involving The New York Times and a leak. Fitzgerald said, “the government was about to raid a charity that was suspected of being involved in terrorist financing.” However, before the search took place, “the charity had received a call from The New York Times indicating that action was forthcoming.”

    The case argued by Fitzgerald’s colleague actually involved “two different charities that were searched twice,” according to Fitzgerald. “The government is concerned about who compromised the search [by revealing it] to The New York Times, who then passed it onto the charity.”

    In this case, someone in the government took the law into their own hands, leaking information about a search to The New York Times. Since The New York Times informed the suspect charities, the investigative raid of the government was interrupted.

    * * *

    Let's take a step back and focus on what we know: The NYT was involved in leaking information; and they received a tip from someone inside DOJ that something was going to happen.

    Now, contrast this with the other situations:

  • A. Charities: An Attorney in Oregon is having his office gone through Thomas Nelson

  • B. NSA intercepts: The 4th Circuit just sent back a case saying the NSA intercepts need to be reviewed [ Click ]

  • C. Errors: DoJ at trial admits to illegal intercepts of attorney-client conversations involving a charity. [See: al-Buthe Click ]

  • C. Pressure: People who didn't really do anything, are being convicted of crimes; we find out that someone was putting pressure on the defendant, and that the jury had been pressured for a conviction [ Case of Hemant Lakhani Click ]

    * * *

    At the same time, there are some strange questions about the Al Timini situation.

    Look at the questions closely. Do you see the pattern: How things appear to be happening without there being direct communications. IT looks as though the NSA was providing the DoJ informant with information that had not yet been communicated to the other parties, and this explains why things quickly developed, yet there is no record of actual coordination.

    The issue is:

  • A. Which DoJ informant inside the charity was relying on NSA information; and

  • B. How was this information used by the DoJ informant to violate the law, organize adverse outcomes, and then pin the result on the person who simply was in the area?

  • C. Are the informants working for DoJ using this illegally obtained NSA information to run criminal operations outside what is reasonable?

  • D. How many DoJ informants inside public corporations, governments, and other entities know that the information they're being provided -- to support their undercover support of DoJ -- is based on illegally obtained information?

    It looks as though the NSA-DoJ-information-link and the flow of illegally obtained information to the DoJ informants are spiraling out of control.

    * * *

    Consider what we now know:

  • 1. The NSA was intercepting things before Sept 2001; and using a NARUS STA 6400-like system at least 23 location to monitor information;

  • 2. The DoJ has a leak to the NYT over issues of charities. . .

    The issue is: It looks like the NSA is providing information to people who are set-up, and railroaded into things they would not normally do unless the NSA had information it had illegal obtained

    So why is someone inside the DOJ -- who is supposedly leaking this information, and likely well knows about the NSA system -- being stupid enough to reveal the information?

    * * *

    The impression I'm getting is that the NSA and DoJ are trying to find an excuse to justify the illegal activity, going so far as to manufacture cases.

    It appears as though someone inside NSA or DoJ may be aware of the illegal intercepts, and tipping people off.

    The issue is: What is to be done when we have two sets of government officials breaking the laws.

  • 1. The NSA-DoJ crowd is violating the law and illegally gathering information;

  • 2. Personnel inside NSA-DoD-DoJ hear of the activity and tip off the media.

    Can the government credibly "go after" those who are reporting the illegal activity?

    This appears to be an issue that the courts are going to have to review. In the meantime, the NSA activity continues.

    * * *

    Getting back to Fitzgerald's comments, it's unclear whether the case he's referring to involves the Oregon Charities; is something connected with Sibel; or is an entirely different case.

    Either way, it gives us a small view of how DoJ operates: There are some inside DoJ who are trying to enforce the law; at the same time there are two other factions -- one inside NSA that is trying to report the illegal conduct; and a second faction that is using knowledge of this illegal conduct to retaliate against others for the following objectives:

  • 1. Payback for failing to provide "tips" to favored reporters;

  • 2. AN effort to carry favor with criminals in law enforcement;

    This is lawlessness and very similar to the Russian mafia days, where you're looking in a hall of mirrors, not quite sure whether the image you're seeing is of a good guy or a bad guy.

    * * *

    In America, it is clear that the non-sense is to bad, that people's judgment goes out the window. Rather, they look at honest desires to help as something else.

    This is what America is all about. Trust is down to zero; and when you meet someone honest, all the other players are trying to be the first to point the finger.

    How curious that this person says one thing; but does something quite different.

    That's an integrity issue. Kind of like when someone says one thing, but you find out the opposite.

    * * *

    Which way did it go: Did you give it to him; or did he give it to you?

    Your stories don't match.

    You will always have to lie to avoid facing the truth: You have no integrity.

    The smallest thing gave you away. And it will only get worse.

    You wished this.

    * * *

    We know that Sept 2001 was manufactured. There were explosives in the building. Just as NSA "should have" found the discussions in Lebanon over who was planning to assassination Hairari, so too does the NSA have no good story why it has nothing on the telephone conversations related to the team installing the explosives.

    What's happening is no different than what happened after the Reichstag burning in Germany: People rely on the myth to justify abuse.

    Today, the world is relying on the myth of 9-11 to justify their illegal conduct inside the NSA and DoJ. They are manufacturing cases, and making it less likely that America is the land of a reliable, stable place to do business. America is not serious about law and order. Nor is it serious about enforcing the laws. That is not a stable location for capital formation. Rather, America is more serous about asserting the myth of 9-11, going so far as to justify greater abuses of power and violations of more rights in order to prop up the myth. Congress assent to this delusion.

    The problem is that despite the President's well known crimes, American military personnel continue to wage illegal war based on this illusion. Now you know why a generation of Germans said nothing. They were fooled into supporting illegal activity; then they were in so deep they could not afford to speak out. This government is actively mobilizing powerful military forces to intimidate others to be silent. It remains to be seen how long it is before the American military personnel, spun up on the non=sense over 9-11, are manipulated to call American citizens the enemy. When this myth is embraced, American citizens can fully expect American combat forces to wage war on American citizens. The American military is already used illegally against Americans: The DoJ uses the American military on the raids in homes; and now they use the NSA to gather information to "justify" their abuse of power and violation of rights. It will not take much for the stupid American military personnel to embrace another myth. They will act without regard to the law or their oaths. Most of them know the war in Iraq is based on a lie, but they have a loyalty to their peers which is stronger than their loyalty to truth or the Constitution.

    We judge the likely White House manufactured scenario -- the pre-text the White House uses to wage war on American civilians -- is to create a scenario related to a perceived American citizen attack on isolated military units. The American media and national leadership will buy this myth, but you will find that nothing adds up. The facts will not matter. The White House will gladly use the military as a tool to destroy American citizens. It has no regard for decency, it is more consumed by power and its lust to avoid accountability.

    This White House has waged war on America. It has organized the Sept 2001 events. It refuses to cooperate with lawful inquiry. Three thousand were killed on 9-11; thousands more in Iraq. It means nothing to them to kill thousands of other American civilians.

    Not again. American war criminals in the White House, DoJ, and DoD have a problem. Americans can speak out. We have nothing to lose by speaking the truth. Especially when our hands are clean, and your stench reeks into the outer orbits.