via Next Hurrah, via First Draft, via Burlington Free Press:

Firm with overses clients says feds are bugging phones, computers

Published: Thursday, October 11, 2007

By WILSON RING

Associated Press Writer

MONTPELIER — A law firm that represents clients at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan is warning its Vermont clients that it believes the federal government has been monitoring its phones and computer system.

In a letter sent to clients of the St. Johnsbury firm of Gensburg, Atwell & Broderick, the three attorneys said they can’t guarantee their communications were confidential.

“Although our investigation is not complete, we are quite confident that it is the United States government that has been doing the phone tapping and computer hacking,” said the letter, dated Oct. 2.

The attorney for Robert Gensburg, David Sleigh of St. Johnsbury, said Thursday it could turn out there is an innocent, non-governmental reason for the problems with the telephone and the firm’s office computer system.

“Bob is an incredibly cautious and deliberate guy,” Sleigh said. “We don’t want to make allegations that are not supportable. We do have hard evidence that his phone was compromised and his computer was comprised.”

U.S. Attorney Thomas D. Anderson, the federal government’s top law enforcement official in Vermont, did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Thursday. Verizon has consistently refused to comment on whether it is or is not involved with national security issues, spokeswoman Beth Fastiggi said Thursday.

A Verizon Vermont technician who investigated problems with Gensburg’s phone last month found crossed lines, but didn’t explain what caused the problem, Sleigh said. A forensic examination of Gensburg’s computer found an application that disabled all security software and would have given someone access to all information on the computer, Sleigh said.

“We’ve been told by our expert that nothing on their machines are confidential,” Sleigh said. “We are continuing to see who, what, when and how this infection was installed on my client’s computer.”

Sleigh said it could be a routine infection introduced into the machine by e-mail.

“Given the phone situation, a number of another anomalies we’ve observed over time... we think we have legitimate cause for concern,” Sleigh said.

Gensburg represents a client in Afghanistan as well as one of the prisoners held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay.

Sleigh said that under current federal law, he felt the U.S. Government could argue it was entitled to tap Gensburg’s phone and computer without a warrant.

This summer, Congress passed a surveillance law that allows the government to eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even when the communications flow through the U.S. communications network — or if an American is on one end of the conversation — so long as that person is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.

The Bush administration said this was necessary because technological advances in communications had put U.S. officials at a disadvantage.

Congress is now considering a bill to extend that law.

Last month, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Gensburg complained to the Vermont Public Service Board, which oversees utilities in the state, about the alleged monitoring of Gensburg’s phone lines.

The Public Service Board is trying to decide whether to investigate if Verizon Vermont and AT&T gave the federal government access to Vermont residents’ phone records as part of an anti-terrorist surveillance program.

Sleigh said that to the best of his knowledge, none of the firm’s clients have expressed concern that their legal communications could have been overheard.

Sleigh said the computer expert was trying to determine if any information on the computer was viewed by someone not entitled to it, but that Gensburg couldn’t unplug his machine.

“To practice law in this time, you can’t just go off-line,” Sleigh said.

Could not agree more. We are surrendering the rule of law. The comparison with the Libby commutation is apt, but I'd like to add an observation there. Executive meddling did not overturn Libby's felony--it simply commuted the penalty (as I understand it). He remains a convicted felon.

In contrast, this current effort is much, much worse, in that it is not simply the executive, but now two branches of our government currently at work here. Further, it is not a commutation, but wholesale laundering of multiple felonies by multiple corporations, likely involving hundreds of lawbreakers.

The back door that Libby snaked his way through has now become a drive-through lane.

"Can we Libby-ize that for you?

GG:

I hate off-the-record discussions precisely for that reason but sometimes they are necessary to get potentially valuable information.

a dangerous and slippery slope, down which many good journalists have gone.

I agree with you, and your comment is repeated endlessly and truthfully across left-blogistan. Greenwald himself is one of its primary proponents I think. The idea that Tim Russert automatically places calls or conversations off-record is a prime example that is cited regarding the ills of access-journalism. There are many other examples--because that form of "reporting" has become the norm.

This is strictly my speculation, but one reason that journalists may become trapped in excessive and unhealthy access-journalism is that they are so fascinated by how government and politics works that they lose perspective/context. They are students and scholars of the beltway and how it works. The greater their access to it, the better they can understand its workings. That understanding can lead to good things, or it can (and has) become an end in and of itself. The question then becomes (again, imo)--where is the balance? As Greenwald said earlier in comments, he hates "off record" work, but also acknowleges that a certain amount of it is essential.