The Magic Lawyering Behind Stellar Wind

The NSA IG Report on Stellar Wind reveals this about the legal review behind the dragnet of Americans. (PDF 156)

After having received the Authorization on 4 October 2001, General Hayden asked NSA General Counsel Robert Deitz if it was lawful. Mr. Deitz said that General Hayden understood that the Attorney General had already certified its legality by signing the Authorization, but General Hayden wanted Mr. Deitz’s view. Mr. Dietz said that on 5 October he told General Hayden that he believed the Authorization to be lawful. He added that he emphasized to General Hayden that if this issue were before the Supreme Court, it would like rule, although not unanimously, that the Authorization was legal.

On 5 October 2001, the General Counsel consulted with the Associate General Counsel for Operations at his home by secure telephone. The Associate General Counsel for Operations was responsible for all legal matters related to NSA SIGINT activities. According to the General Counsel, he had not yet been authorized to tell the Associate General Counsel about the PSP, so he “talked around” it and did not divulge details. The Associate General Counsel was given enough information to assess the lawfulness of the concept described, but records show he was not officially cleared for the PSP until 11 October 2001. On Tuesday, 9 October, he told Mr. Dietz that he believed the Authorization was lawful and he began planning for its implementation.

 

image_print
10 replies
  1. bloopie2 says:

    The lawyers sit down and say, “This is what the client wants to do – can we justify it?” You read and you think and you talk and you write and eventually a somehow supportable legal position jells and you put it on paper and you tell the client “Yes, you can do that, there is some risk but ultimately we believe you would prevail (caveat – that might not happen etc.)”. That’s how the lawyers work. Ain’t it grand?

    • bloopie2 says:

      Don’t get me wrong — it’s a good thing, it really is. Just ask any criminal defense lawyer. You work through the facts and you come up with Something, Anything. And you present it as your defense/position. and you hope the jury buys it. And if the jury buys it, you win, and you are golden, and the system has worked, and it’s Justice! Matters not if your client is innocent or guilty. Really, that’s how it works. Ask any criminal defense lawyer.

      • wallace says:

        quote”Ask any criminal defense lawyer.”unquote

        Hahahahahahahahaha! You nailed it. That’s what the EVERY attorney in the USG is. A CRIMINAL defense lawyer.

        • bloopie2 says:

          I respectfully disagree with your implication that every defense lawyer is CRIMINAL. Plenty of innocent people are railroaded by prosecutors, and they need and deserve defense lawyers. So also the guilty ones, who need to work the system so that they aren’t thrown in prison forever like some people would want. Would you want a defense lawyer to work for you, if the Feds came and took you away?

          • wallace says:

            quote”I respectfully disagree with your implication that every defense lawyer is CRIMINAL.”unquote

            No no no! You misunderstood. What I meant was..all attorneys who represent the US government are defending a CRIMINAL. THAT was the point of quoting you. In Petraeus’ case..the US prosecutor was actually acting as HIS criminal defense attorney.

            However, I still believe in the difference between a lawyer and a catfish. :)

  2. wallace says:

    quote”He added that he emphasized to General Hayden that if this issue were before the Supreme Court, it would like rule, although not unanimously, that the Authorization was legal.”unquote

    Living proof the SCOTUS are bought and paid for. In secret of course.

    What a grand country. Rule of law and all that. Youbetcha. Grand.

    sheeezuschrist.. excuse me..i think I’m gonna puke.

  3. wallace says:

    Speaking of magical lawyering….

    quote”Just ask any criminal defense lawyer. You work through the facts and you come up with Something, Anything. And you present it as your defense/position. and you hope the jury buys it.”unquote

    Youbetcha..especially if your criminal defense lawyer is the prosecutor.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/03/petraeus-pleads-guilty-to-misdemeanor-charge-in-plea-agreement-over-claims/

    fuck. bartender… a bottle of that Michigan cult beer.. TwoRollingEyes …oh..and
    a DoubleFacePalm chaser.

  4. wallace says:

    ps…let me clarify something. I absolutely believe some people in the US government are criminals..and some are even war criminals. So those US attorneys, who represent the US government in proceedings when the USG is a “defendant”, are defending a criminal. Period. Trouble is..no one in the government is held accountable. EVEH!

    As for Petraeus…it was Eric Holder who decided what Petraeus was ultimately charged with, which was a monumental fraud. Notwithstanding rubbing the TWO TIERED IN-Justice system in the faces of previous whistleblowers who’ve been prosecuted, and the country at large, he also rubbed his OWN level of ethics in our faces. Which is exactly fucking zero. The prosecutor simply carried out Holder’s orders. All I know is this will go down in history as living proof the “rule of law” is a fucking myth.

  5. Badtux says:

    Contrary to what was inferred above, this is *not* how a corporate lawyer is supposed to act if his bosses come to him and ask if a particular scheme is legal. Here’s how it works in the companies I’ve been involved with. Some department head comes to the corporate legal department and says, “We want to do this, is it legal?” And the corporate legal department spends about 20 pages of verbiage (note – double spaced and wide margined, so maybe 5 real pages) on all the laws and court cases involved, all of which summarize to one word, “No.” If the department head is any good he asks, “What would make it legal?” At which point a discussion ensues about modifications to the plan that might make it defensible in court, but the answer from corporate legal *still* remains “No, it’s not legal, but we might be able to defend it in court if you do this, this, and this.” But that last is their final word. If the department head goes ahead and does what he wants, it’s against their advice. Which happens far more often than you’d think, since Legal has a reputation for being stricter about the law than regulators are nowadays…

    Now, yes, if Legal is involved in something that the company is being prosecuted or sued about, they have a duty to use any defense that might get their client off. But that’s a different case altogether from, “We’re thinking of doing this thing, is it legal?”, which was the question that had government lawyers tying themselves into knots trying to say “Yes” when every law on the books plus the 4th Amendment to the Constitution clearly said “No.”

    • wallace says:

      quote”Now, yes, if Legal is involved in something that the company is being prosecuted or sued about, they have a duty to use any defense that might get their client off. But that’s a different case altogether from, “We’re thinking of doing this thing, is it legal?”, which was the question that had government lawyers tying themselves into knots trying to say “Yes” when every law on the books plus the 4th Amendment to the Constitution clearly said “No.”unquote

      Thank you. My question is this. Why would a government lawyer, knowing something was illegal, tie themselves into knots to say “Yes, it’s legal”? My guess is they sold their soul for a career.

Comments are closed.