Telling the 'approved' story

coderman coderman at gmail.com
Thu Mar 9 22:08:10 PST 2006


i'd be laughing a lot harder were this not so disturbing; though still
the funniest thing i've read this month:

---cut---

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/telling_the_approved_story.html

 Telling the 'approved' story
March 7, 2006 01:12 AM / The Rant .

By DOUG THOMPSON

On an unspecified day last week an employee of a federal agency that
cannot be revealed delivered a document that cannot be identified to a
company that cannot be named seeking information that cannot be
discussed.

The aforementioned federal agent left the unidentified document with
an employee of the unnamed company. That employee then called the
owner, who must remain anonymous, to inform him that the document that
could not be identified sought information that could not be
discussed. The owner who must remain anonymous instructed the employee
to deliver the unidentified document to a lawyer whose name is
protected by attorney-client privilege.

The lawyer whose name is protected by attorney-client privilege
examined the unidentified document and then reviewed the information
that could not be discussed with the owner who must remain anonymous.

With the approval of the owner who must remain anonymous, the lawyer
whose name is protected by attorney-client privilege contacted a U.S.
attorney who demanded that his identity be concealed.

The U.S. attorney who demanded that his identity be concealed then
claimed the owner who must remain anonymous violated a law that could
not be disclosed and faced arrest for charges that could not be
specified because he had referred to the document that cannot be
identified in an article for a certain, but unnamed, web site.

The lawyer whose name is protected by attorney-client privilege argued
that his client could not be charged under the undisclosed law because
he had been acting as a journalist at the time of the alleged
publication and not as the owner of the company that cannot be named.
He had, in fact, learned of the existence of the document that cannot
be identified from a third-party, who was not named, and was not aware
of its exact contents because he had not seen or read the document
and, therefore, was not aware of the exact contents that cannot be
discussed.

The U.S. attorney who demanded his identity be concealed consulted
with others who names are classified and concluded that the owner who
must remain anonymous walked a fine line between legal and illegal and
would not face arrest for violating a law that could not be disclosed
on charges that could not be specified.

So walking this fine line of justice allowed the owner who must remain
anonymous to avoid confinement at an institution at an unknown
location for an unspecified length of time.

In exchange for his freedom, the owner who must remain anonymous
agreed to write a "clarification" of what happened, following the
guidelines for publication laid down by the Bush administration.

Which is what you just read.

---end-cut---

the piece which cannot be mentioned because it named the letter which
must remain secret is here:
  http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/03/bush_declares_war_on_freedom_o.html





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list