|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
I don't see a reason for a 4-administration senior anti-terrorism expert to lie, do you?
|
Quote:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
<h3>Main Entry: 3 lie</h3>
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
This was disclosed a year ago. If it is true, Richard Clarke's opinion concerning the Patriotic act would be irrelevant...no?
|
Quote:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/irrelevant
<h3>irrelevant</h3>
One entry found for irrelevant.
Main Entry: ir·rel·e·vant
Pronunciation: -v&nt
Function: adjective
: not relevant : INAPPLICABLE <that statement is irrelevant to your argument>
- ir·rel·e·vant·ly adverb
|
Quote:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judge_...inst_0619.html
Judge gives go-ahead to lawsuit against Bush's bank transfer spying program
Michael Roston
Published: Tuesday June 19, 2007
....."I don't think any corporate entity should be given a blank check to spy on Americans whether it's their telephone conversations or their financial transactions," said Steven Schwarz, the lead attorney for the case's two plaintiffs, in a Tuesday morning phone call with RAW STORY. "Maybe that's how they do it in other countries, but we have one set of rules, and nobody gets carte blanche to shred the Constitution.".......
...........Schwarz explained to RAW STORY why the action undertaken by SWIFT in assisting the government's program allowed an alarming fishing expedition to take place.
"You can think of SWIFT as gatekeeper, like if they have the keys to a warehouse," he said. "The government wants to get in and take a lot of specific items in there. SWIFT says 'Sorry, it's too hard to show you around, and give you this or that, why don't you just take a look around and take whatever you want.'"
James F. Holderman, the Chief Judge in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois, agreed with Schwarz's argument that SWIFT appeared to have carried out an overbroad surrender of information to the US government.
"Unfettered government access to the bank records of private citizens [is] constitutionally problematic," the judge wrote in his decision, in which he allowed two of the four complaints to continue to be considered.
The banking cooperative defended itself in a statement released to Bloomberg News last week.
"SWIFT complies with lawful obligations in the countries where it operates and will vigorously defend itself against the plaintiffs' remaining allegations," said a spokesman in the article written by Andrew Harris.
Another attorney working on the case, Carl Mayer, warned that the banking consortium has great deal at stake in the case.
"SWIFT faces billions in damages after this week’s ruling," he said in a statement released to the press by the plaintiffs. "Federal bank privacy laws provide for $100 in damages for each illegal disclosure of customer records."
While agreeing that the government's financial spying program was most alarming to large, offshore institutional investors, Schwarz argued that his plaintiffs were not billionaires and all Americans should be worried about the financial privacy implications of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
"Our plaintiffs are average Americans with checking accounts and credit cards," he said of Ian Walker and Stephen Kruse, who were named in the suit. "We're alleging that basic routine transactions were vacuumed up in a big data mining program. Some people may be fine with it because they think it may help catch a terrorist, but I think just as many people are uncomfortable with having their records sifted through in that manner."
Judge Holderman approved a 'change of venue' request by SWIFT to move the case to the federal district court in Virginia. If Schwarz's case holds up in the new district court, which is known for being more conservative and pro-government in its orientation, he said he'll begin his discovery process about three months from now.
|
Maybe with SWIFT's change of venue maneuver....to Virginia from Illinois....the 4th district Judge, David Sentelle, who powerclown accuses of being "partisan" against Scooter Libby, can do what he did with the White Water special prosecutor....he can "fix" the SWIFT lawsuit....by inserting a Reagan or Bush appointed trial judge to kill the lawsuit......
Quote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a49P_ZkNRadY
SWIFT, Belgian Banking Cooperative, Must Face Lawsuit (Update1)
By Andrew Harris
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- SWIFT, the Belgium-based banking cooperative that has aided U.S. government efforts to trace terrorist financing, must defend a lawsuit accusing it of violating the privacy rights of Americans, a judge ruled.
SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, is an industry-owned group that enables more than 8,000 banks and financial institutions in more than 200 countries to trade information and process transactions, according to the group's Web site.
U.S. District Judge James Holderman in Chicago said the complaint brought by two bank customers contained sufficient allegations to support a claim that SWIFT violated the U.S. Right to Financial Privacy Act, a law limiting the government's right to view bank customer records.
``The SWIFT program is another example of reckless disregard for the Constitution and values that make us who we are as a nation,'' plaintiff's lawyer Steven Schwarz said in a telephone interview today.
``SWIFT complies with lawful obligations in the countries where it operates and will vigorously defend itself against the plaintiffs' remaining allegations,'' spokesman Euan Sellar said in an e-mailed statement. SWIFT is based in La Hulpe, Belgium.
The suit was filed last June, after the New York Times reported SWIFT's cooperation with the U.S. government.
In response to that article, SWIFT issued a press release stating it had ``a longstanding history'' of cooperating with national and international agencies ``in their efforts to prevent misuse of the financial system.''
Search and Seizure
``Our members support this policy,'' SWIFT said in the release. SWIFT turned over transaction data in response to a subpoena from the U.S. Treasury Department, after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to the release.
Under the federal Right to Privacy Act, violations are subject to fines of $100 per occurrence, Schwarz said. Though the suit names two plaintiffs, Ian Walker, 36, of Washington, and Stephen Kruse, 37, of Chicago, Schwarz said he intends to seek class-action status.
Total damages could exceed $1 billion if the suit is successful, Schwarz said.
Holderman's ruling was issued June 12. The judge dismissed claims that SWIFT's disclosures violated Constitutional free speech guarantees or Illinois consumer fraud laws. He allowed the suit to go forward on the privacy claim and the accusation that SWIFT violated the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment, barring unlawful search and seizure.
The judge issued a separate order granting SWIFT's request to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In court papers, the cooperative told Holderman its principal U.S. facility is in northern Virginia.
The case is Walker v. Swift SCRL, 06cv3447, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Chicago).
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris at the federal courthouse in Chicago at xxxxxxxxx@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: <h3>June 15, 2007 17:02 EDT</h3>
|
|