FLE

Bush administration forced to turn over spying documents by Friday A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to divulge documents related to immunizing telecommunications companies from lawsuits, saying they illegally opened their networks to the National Security Agency. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco gave the Office of the Director of National Intelligence until November 30 (Friday) to turn over documents relating to conversations it had with Congress and telecommunications carriers about how to rewrite wiretapping laws. The Electronic Frontier Foundation had filed this case to seek faster processing of a Freedom of Information Act request it filed, which could help buttress its ongoing lawsuit against AT&T. There are approximately 250 pages of unclassified material and 65 pages of classified material, which would be redacted, that the administration has identified but said could not be turned over until December 31. Note that Illston's order doesn't deal with the NSA's wiretapping program itself (how it works, what companies are involved, whether there really is a secret room at AT&T's 611 Folsom Street location). Instead the documents relate only to conversations and communications about retroactive immunity for companies like AT&T that are accused of violating the law. Note also that if AT&T and other telecommunications companies followed the law, no retroactive immunity is necessary. Because AT&T and the Bush administration are supporting such a legal shield, you can draw your own conclusions about what's really going on....
Intel centers losing anti-terror focus Local intelligence-sharing centers set up after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have had their anti-terrorism mission diluted by a focus on run-of-the-mill street crime and hazards such as hurricanes, a government report concludes. Of the 43 "fusion centers" already established, only two focus exclusively on preventing terrorism, the Government Accountability Office found in a national survey obtained by The Associated Press. Center directors complain they were hampered by lack of guidance from Washington and were flooded by often redundant information from multiple computer systems. Administration officials defended the centers and said encompassing all sorts of crimes in the intelligence dragnet is the best way to catch terrorists. The original idea was to coordinate resources, expertise and information of intelligence agencies so the country could detect and prevent terrorist acts. The concept has been widely embraced, particularly by the Sept. 11 commission, and the federal government has provided $130 million to help get them off the ground. But until recently, there were no guidelines for setting up the centers and as a result, the information shared and how it is used vary. Centers in Kansas and Rhode Island are the only two focused solely on counterterrorism. Other centers concentrate on all crimes, including drugs and gangs....
Leahy: Bush Not Involved in Firings A Senate chairman acknowledged explicitly on Thursday that President Bush was not involved in the firings of U.S. attorneys last winter and therefore ruled illegal the president's executive privilege claims protecting his chief of staff, John Bolten, and former adviser Karl Rove. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy directed Bolten, Rove, former political director Sara Taylor and her deputy, J. Scott Jennings, to comply "immediately" with their subpoenas for documents and information about the White House's role in the firings of U.S. attorneys. "I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation," Leahy wrote. The ruling is a formality that clears the way for Leahy's panel to vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate....
TSA plan to gather more data protested A government proposal to start collecting birth dates and genders of people reserving airline flights is drawing protests from major airlines and travel agencies that say it would be invasive, confusing and "useless." The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) wants passengers to give the additional personal information — as well as their full names — so it can do more precise background checks that it says will result in fewer travelers being mistaken for terrorists. Travelers currently must provide only a last name and a first initial. Airlines say passengers will resist providing more details and that the process will be time-consuming. Asking a passenger's birth date and gender "would create a new level of complication for completing air reservations," United Airlines recently wrote to the TSA. "Seeking useless data carries an unacceptably high price tag." The Air Transport Association, a trade group of major U.S. airlines, the American Society of Travel Agents and Continental and Virgin airlines also opposed, in writing, the TSA asking for travelers' birth dates and genders. Opposition is not as strong for soliciting full names. TSA is seeking more personal information as part of a long-delayed plan to improve preflight background checks of the 700 million people who fly commercially each year in the USA....
Ramos, Compean charge 'overzealous' prosecution The appellant briefs filed on behalf of convicted Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean argue the case was "overzealously prosecuted by the government," thereby sending "a message to every law enforcement agent that if you shoot in the line of duty and cannot prove that you were justified in using deadly force – regardless of whether you were mistaken in your belief – you will be prosecuted and receive at least 10 years incarceration under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c), stacked on top of other sentences." WND previously reported 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) was written to increase the penalties when a violent criminal, such as a drug trafficker or a rapist, carries or uses a weapon during the commission of a crime. The appellants argue the law was never written to be applied to law enforcement officers who discharge their weapons within the scope of their official duties....