Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. And he feels ‘vindicated’ by Snowden leaks... [View all]OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)89. Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11
Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html?_r=2&ex=1350014400&en=d79ceb4f4ce279b1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&
The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companys lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings. The executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, also asserts in the filings that the agency retaliated by depriving Qwest of lucrative outsourcing contracts.
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. The significance of the claim is hard to assess, because the court documents are heavily redacted and N.S.A. officials will not comment on the agencys secret surveillance programs. Other government officials have said that the agencys eavesdropping without warrants began only after Sept. 11, 2001, under an order from President Bush. But the court filings in Mr. Nacchios case illustrate what is well known inside the telecommunications industry but little appreciated by the public: that the N.S.A. has for some time worked closely with phone companies, whose networks carry the telephone and Internet traffic the agency seeks out for intercept.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/business/14qwest.html?_r=2&ex=1350014400&en=d79ceb4f4ce279b1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&
The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companys lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, nearly seven months before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the former head of the company contends in newly unsealed court filings. The executive, Joseph P. Nacchio, also asserts in the filings that the agency retaliated by depriving Qwest of lucrative outsourcing contracts.
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. The significance of the claim is hard to assess, because the court documents are heavily redacted and N.S.A. officials will not comment on the agencys secret surveillance programs. Other government officials have said that the agencys eavesdropping without warrants began only after Sept. 11, 2001, under an order from President Bush. But the court filings in Mr. Nacchios case illustrate what is well known inside the telecommunications industry but little appreciated by the public: that the N.S.A. has for some time worked closely with phone companies, whose networks carry the telephone and Internet traffic the agency seeks out for intercept.
Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
http://harpers.org/blog/2007/10/qwest-another-political-prosecution/
Lets put this in sharper focus. Nacchio discovered that the NSA was engaged in a project to gather warrantless surveillance data on millions of Americans. He took advice of counsel. His lawyers told him, correctly, that this was illegal. They probably also warned him that if Qwest participated in the program, it would be committing a felony. So Nacchio said, no, sorry, I cant work with you on this. But I can help if you want to change the law. And the reaction of the NSA? It was, apparently, to cut Qwest out of a series of contract awards by way of retaliation. (If that charge sticks, it would probably be yet another felony.) And the second reaction? To try to build a criminal case against Nacchio as a means of retaliation against him. (And if that charge sticks, it would probably be yet a third felonyon the part of the Government officials who did it). We are seeing the Government engaging in a sweeping pattern of criminal dealings, and ultimately, one of the biggest crimes of all, abusing the criminal justice process to strike out at an individual who refused to play their crooked game. Oh, and by the way: who was heading the NSA when all of this transpired? Michael Hayden, the man who now runs the CIA, and is busily dismantling the CIA Inspector Generals office because it has apparently raised questions about potentially criminal conduct on his watch there, too.
Shane also explains why Nacchios role was so important and why his decision to hold out caused the Bush Administration such distress:
At the same meeting, N.S.A. officials made an additional proposal, whose exact nature is not made clear in the censored documents. The court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting, one of the documents states. Another passage says: The court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.
Another document, a transcript of an interview that the F.B.I. conducted with Mr. Payne in 2006, stated that the N.S.A. pressed its request for months afterward. Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do, Mr. Payne told the F.B.I. Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally. Mr. Payne declined to comment.
In support of Mr. Nacchios accusations, his lawyers quoted from one of several lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies, accusing them of violating their customers privacy. That lawsuit, filed last year against several companies, asserts that seven months before the Sept. 11 attacks, at about the time of Mr. Nacchios meeting at the N.S.A., another phone company, AT&T, began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the N.S.A. The lawsuit contends that the center would give the N.S.A. direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to phone call information and Internet traffic on AT&Ts network.
http://harpers.org/blog/2007/10/qwest-another-political-prosecution/
Lets put this in sharper focus. Nacchio discovered that the NSA was engaged in a project to gather warrantless surveillance data on millions of Americans. He took advice of counsel. His lawyers told him, correctly, that this was illegal. They probably also warned him that if Qwest participated in the program, it would be committing a felony. So Nacchio said, no, sorry, I cant work with you on this. But I can help if you want to change the law. And the reaction of the NSA? It was, apparently, to cut Qwest out of a series of contract awards by way of retaliation. (If that charge sticks, it would probably be yet another felony.) And the second reaction? To try to build a criminal case against Nacchio as a means of retaliation against him. (And if that charge sticks, it would probably be yet a third felonyon the part of the Government officials who did it). We are seeing the Government engaging in a sweeping pattern of criminal dealings, and ultimately, one of the biggest crimes of all, abusing the criminal justice process to strike out at an individual who refused to play their crooked game. Oh, and by the way: who was heading the NSA when all of this transpired? Michael Hayden, the man who now runs the CIA, and is busily dismantling the CIA Inspector Generals office because it has apparently raised questions about potentially criminal conduct on his watch there, too.
Shane also explains why Nacchios role was so important and why his decision to hold out caused the Bush Administration such distress:
At the same meeting, N.S.A. officials made an additional proposal, whose exact nature is not made clear in the censored documents. The court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting, one of the documents states. Another passage says: The court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.
Another document, a transcript of an interview that the F.B.I. conducted with Mr. Payne in 2006, stated that the N.S.A. pressed its request for months afterward. Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do, Mr. Payne told the F.B.I. Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally. Mr. Payne declined to comment.
In support of Mr. Nacchios accusations, his lawyers quoted from one of several lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies, accusing them of violating their customers privacy. That lawsuit, filed last year against several companies, asserts that seven months before the Sept. 11 attacks, at about the time of Mr. Nacchios meeting at the N.S.A., another phone company, AT&T, began development of a center for monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information for the exclusive use of the N.S.A. The lawsuit contends that the center would give the N.S.A. direct, unlimited, unrestricted and unfettered access to phone call information and Internet traffic on AT&Ts network.
Nacchio conviction overturned
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_8603419
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the guilty verdict in the criminal insider trading case of former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio and ordered a new trial before a different judge.
The 2-1 decision cited U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham's exclusion of expert testimony by Northwestern University law professor and private consultant Daniel Fischel.
Fischel was allowed to testify on Nacchio's behalf about the facts behind his stock sales, but was excluded from providing economic analysis.
"We conclude that on the record before him the district judge was wrong to prevent Professor Fischel from providing expert analysis, and that this error was not harmless," the majority decision from Judges Paul Kelly and Michael McConnell states. The judges also ruled that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a new trial without "violating the double jeopardy clause."
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_8603419
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the guilty verdict in the criminal insider trading case of former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio and ordered a new trial before a different judge.
The 2-1 decision cited U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham's exclusion of expert testimony by Northwestern University law professor and private consultant Daniel Fischel.
Fischel was allowed to testify on Nacchio's behalf about the facts behind his stock sales, but was excluded from providing economic analysis.
"We conclude that on the record before him the district judge was wrong to prevent Professor Fischel from providing expert analysis, and that this error was not harmless," the majority decision from Judges Paul Kelly and Michael McConnell states. The judges also ruled that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a new trial without "violating the double jeopardy clause."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A CEO who resisted NSA spying is out of prison. And he feels ‘vindicated’ by Snowden leaks... [View all]
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
OP
While I am impressed by his integrity, I am disapointed no other CEO followed his lead.
marble falls
Oct 2013
#2
Of course it was retaliation - they had to make an example of him to scare the others. nt
bananas
Oct 2013
#3
Because he committed securities fraud. You apparently think 1%ers should get away with
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#7
Other opinions are well-enough informed to impugn your motivation on this issue.
GliderGuider
Oct 2013
#56
People who claim the verdict is bogus have no credibility unless they review the key documentary
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#64
One wonders if that sentiment is applied consistently, and was given to Ken Lay in 2003.
LanternWaste
Oct 2013
#65
Well, I try to assume that every conviction has a non-0 probability of being wrongful.
GliderGuider
Oct 2013
#67
There's no reason to think he was targeted any more than Skilling and Lay were.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#77
The trial showed he lied his ass off repeatedly to investors while selling his own
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#87
You must've missed the part where the Gov refused Nacchio's defense even mentioning NSA...
Octafish
Oct 2013
#88
His defense was he thought the company would score some government contracts.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#92
Well, opposing Bush on the NSA in February 2001 doesn't give him a free pass on breaking the law nt
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#98
I've given you two chances to answer my earlier question, so I'll ask once more...
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
#90
For individuals, they should be held accountable under existing criminal and civil laws.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#93
Can't be part of the brigade, otherwise. "His narrative matches with the warrantless surveillance
villager
Oct 2013
#13
Nacchio also thought they'd get the same government contracts they'd gotten before. Plus, why *this*
villager
Oct 2013
#19
You mean the stuff the judge wouldn't allow brought to trial, so that actual jurors, and not
villager
Oct 2013
#24
Yes, interesting indeed that of all those crooks, he was the only one who warranted prosecution
villager
Oct 2013
#30
Except for all the others who got prosecuted at the same time like Skilling, Lay,
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#35
The CEO. Paid himself $500 million while running the company into the ground and lying
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#10
Even if your accusations are valid (which I'm not agreeing to), you haven't answered my question...
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
#39
Interesting that, given his verbosity here, geek tragedy still hasn't answered my question.
Indi Guy
Oct 2013
#62
Of course, jurors weren't allowed access to information that judge deemed "classified," so they
villager
Oct 2013
#20
Those contracts were never granted, and he never even tried to prove they were.
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#23
Could be. Or it could be that Nacchio thought he could use the illegal activities of the Bush
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#14
Odd that one of the only presumed crooks to get prosecuted was the one who stood up to the NSA?
villager
Oct 2013
#21
Care to list those who weren't prosecuted? A much much longer list, I assure you.
villager
Oct 2013
#26
Sure, those who were arrogant and reckless enough to leave a paper trail of
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#32
So you, geek tragedy, can confidently dismiss all the other observers quoted in the OP's article
villager
Oct 2013
#38
Do you think Nacchio was the only person indicted in 2005 for insider trading?
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#37
It is somewhat curious that Nacchio seems not to have mentioned the NSA matter
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#34
He didn't see fit to make it an issue until he thought he could use it for his defense
struggle4progress
Oct 2013
#43
The key 3 words: "...six months before...". Besides all else that reeks in this story,
silvershadow
Oct 2013
#42