Attorney General Pulls the Immunity Trigger, But Denies 'Dragnet' Surveillance

[sabra]

Source: WIRED News

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Saturday denied that the Bush administration -- in conjunction with the nation's telecommunication companies -- devised a "dragnet" electronic surveillance program that funneled Americans' communications to the National Security Agency without court warrants.

But the attorney general also insisted that defending his claim in court would harm national security.

"Specific information demonstrating that the alleged dragnet has not occurred cannot be disclosed on the public record without causing exceptional harm to national security," Mukasey wrote in a federal court filing in San Francisco. "However, because there was no such alleged content-dragnet, no provider participated in that alleged activity."

It was the first time Mukasey, as the nation's top law enforcement official, or the government provided an emphatic and wholesale denial of allegations contained in lawsuits accusing the Bush administration of widescale domestic spying in the years following the 2001 terror attacks.

Despite the denial, contained in a court filing (.pdf) made public Saturday, Mukasey asked a federal judge to grant immunity to the nation's telecommunications companies accused of assisting with the alleged surveillance dragnet. It is the first time the government has invoked the immunity legislation Congress approved July 9, which was signed by President Bush the next day.



Read more: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/mukasey-denies.html

[Solly Mack]

1. What the fuck can I say?

What hasn't been said already?

Call'em liars? hypocrites? criminals?

Talk about the rule of law?

Seems the only rule of law is this: anything Bush/Cheney does is legal.

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Talk about the rule of law? That's the only thing you can do: talk about it.

[Mnemosyne]

2. They started the illegal domestic spying in Feb. 2001 for fuck's sake! And you know

Mukasey knows this. Why is this still ignored by the Judiciary Committee?

Just a rhetorical question anymore anyway.

[AndyTiedye]

3. Because the BLACKMAIL Started in March 2001

[cstanleytech]

5. Feb, 2001, really? NT

[katandmoon]

4. I still want to know WTF Obama betrayed us by voting for telecom immunity.

[amdezurik]

6. so... he can't tell us what they say

they did not do because it would show what they really did?

[VP505]

7. It simply does NOT compute

to say that nothing illegal took place meaning NO surveillance was conducted without a warrant when we all watched them (Booo$hCo) fight tooth and nail to get that immunity for the Telecoms.Why would they need immunity if nothing illegal happened. Mukasey saying that "defending his claim in court would harm national security" is pure unadulterated bullsh**, the reason he doesn't want to appear in court is that he knows that whatever he would say would be exposed for what it is, lies.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. Congress voted for immunity because they are being blackmailed by wiretap info gained over the

last 7 years. They have all become Bush/Cheney poodles.

[boomerbust]

10. They also put a dragnet

On trillions of dollars of the US treasury

[Imagevision]

11. Mukasey, Bush puppet...

[Supersedeas]

16. the bar to Justice is high, very high in the Mukasey era of selective justice

[UpInArms]

12. One word for Mukasey

LIAR!

[fascisthunter]

13. Mukasey supports Dictatorship

he supports the idea that anything Bush does is ok, but we the people have no rights to oppose what he does.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. I like it - Your Honor, I wan't speeding ...

... but to prove it, I'd have to damage national security. So be a good American, Your Honor, and just tear up that ticket.

It should work, right?

:hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. You don't have to even show up at court..

Subpoenas are dead.