Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:
The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.
Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Sheer Arrogance -- Congresswoman takes cell phone call during question from cancer surivor
The best part of the town hall meeting hoopla's is going to be that the people are waking up to the absolutely sheer arrogance and elitism our representatives have above us. When this is all over, every one of them deserves to be voted out of office.
CIA Report Leaves Much To The Imagination
The Justice Department this week released a report laying out the CIA's treatment of detainees under interrogation. The report included excruciating details about mock executions, threats to detainees' families and unauthorized chokeholds.
While it offers up the largest public disclosure of CIA methods and tactics since the Iran-Contra hearings, the report leaves a lot to the imagination. Some 36 pages were partially redacted, and another 30 were completely blacked out. Some people are asking whether those missing sections could be covering up abuses the public hasn't even heard about yet.
"I have not read the unclassified version of the inspector general report — that is why I am able to speak with you," says John Radsan, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law who was a lawyer in the CIA's general counsel's office during the Bush administration. "We've had a lot of detail. I don't think there are any other abuses there."
Others, both inside and outside the agency, agree. But one could hardly be blamed for being a little suspicious. The same report was released in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information request in 2007. At that time, barely a sentence was left unredacted. Radsan says that's because the Bush administration at the time had only just acknowledged the existence of the secret prisons where the interrogations took place.
"These are close calls about what can be revealed to the American people for transparency and accountability but at the same time what needs to be protected to do intelligence work," Radsan says.
Things that are generally redacted are names, locations, sensitive techniques and sources.
"I don't know what are under those black marks, but I suspect it's the normal thing the CIA doesn't like to get out," says Robert Baer, a former CIA operative who is often critical of the agency. "If they use any sort of technical language as well, that is special to the CIA — like cryptonyms for facilities — they always blank those out."
(Cryptonym is actually a word in the dictionary. It means a secret name.)
Baer says any of the CIA's cover stories would also be kept secret. "There are some accusations they actually posed as Saudis in some of these interrogations," he says. "Now, pretending you work for Saudi intelligence is a no-no they can't make public. Or if your cover was Department of Agriculture."
Also on the cutting room floor would be details related to any ongoing investigations. So, if the Justice Department intended to look into the death of a particular detainee, for example, details on that would likely be redacted.
The people who make these censoring decisions are called information review officers, or IROs. They tend to be case officers who have some experience in the clandestine service, or CIA retirees.
"The IRO I worked with had been there a number of years, and I thought that he was a straight shooter and he called them the way that he saw them," Radsan says. "At the end of the day, he is supposed to protect the secrets at the CIA and its other forces, these other actors, who need to pry out the secrets to find the appropriate balance."
Among the secrets: photographs taken of detainees while in U.S. custody. After a court order compelled the release of the photos, the Obama administration refused and appealed to the Supreme Court.
While it offers up the largest public disclosure of CIA methods and tactics since the Iran-Contra hearings, the report leaves a lot to the imagination. Some 36 pages were partially redacted, and another 30 were completely blacked out. Some people are asking whether those missing sections could be covering up abuses the public hasn't even heard about yet.
"I have not read the unclassified version of the inspector general report — that is why I am able to speak with you," says John Radsan, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law who was a lawyer in the CIA's general counsel's office during the Bush administration. "We've had a lot of detail. I don't think there are any other abuses there."
Others, both inside and outside the agency, agree. But one could hardly be blamed for being a little suspicious. The same report was released in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information request in 2007. At that time, barely a sentence was left unredacted. Radsan says that's because the Bush administration at the time had only just acknowledged the existence of the secret prisons where the interrogations took place.
"These are close calls about what can be revealed to the American people for transparency and accountability but at the same time what needs to be protected to do intelligence work," Radsan says.
Things that are generally redacted are names, locations, sensitive techniques and sources.
"I don't know what are under those black marks, but I suspect it's the normal thing the CIA doesn't like to get out," says Robert Baer, a former CIA operative who is often critical of the agency. "If they use any sort of technical language as well, that is special to the CIA — like cryptonyms for facilities — they always blank those out."
(Cryptonym is actually a word in the dictionary. It means a secret name.)
Baer says any of the CIA's cover stories would also be kept secret. "There are some accusations they actually posed as Saudis in some of these interrogations," he says. "Now, pretending you work for Saudi intelligence is a no-no they can't make public. Or if your cover was Department of Agriculture."
Also on the cutting room floor would be details related to any ongoing investigations. So, if the Justice Department intended to look into the death of a particular detainee, for example, details on that would likely be redacted.
The people who make these censoring decisions are called information review officers, or IROs. They tend to be case officers who have some experience in the clandestine service, or CIA retirees.
"The IRO I worked with had been there a number of years, and I thought that he was a straight shooter and he called them the way that he saw them," Radsan says. "At the end of the day, he is supposed to protect the secrets at the CIA and its other forces, these other actors, who need to pry out the secrets to find the appropriate balance."
Among the secrets: photographs taken of detainees while in U.S. custody. After a court order compelled the release of the photos, the Obama administration refused and appealed to the Supreme Court.
CINDY SHEEHAN TAKES TO MARTHA'S VINEYARD TO PROTEST OBAMA'S WAR...
After spending weeks dogging George W. Bush's presidential vacations, anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is now trying to make life uncomfortable for President Barack Obama.
Sheehan used to pitch a peace camp near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, becoming a symbol of the anti-war movement after her son Casey died in action in Iraq.
On Thursday, she and a band of anti-war protesters turned up outside the media center used by journalists covering Obama's vacation on the well-heeled east coast resort island of Martha's Vineyard.
"The reason I am here is because ... even though the facade has changed in Washington DC, the policies are still the same," Sheehan told a handful of journalists, against a backdrop of her "Camp Casey" banner.
She told US peace activists to wake up and protest Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and complained that despite the president's anti-war stance, US troops remained in Iraq.
"We have to realize, it is not the president who is power, it is not the party that is in power it is the system that stays the same, no matter who is in charge."
"We are here to make the wars unpopular again," she said.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Lynching of Cynthia McKinney urged by ‘journalist’ trained and paid by FBI
Hal Turner called her ‘a violent, black, racist, bitch’ whose lynching would teach other Blacks that ‘white people are tired of your bullshit, behave or die’
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney sent an email around on Sunday in which she wrote:
“[I]t has just now come to my attention that a ‘journalist’ who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll?”
“Hate blogger” Hal Turner’s lawyer said last week, and prosecutors agreed, that Turner was “trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative” and “worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and was taught by the agency ‘what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line.’”
Turner is being charged with making death threats against Connecticut legislators and Illinois judges and is apparently going to claim that his actions were legal because he did the same sort of thing when employed by the FBI. In an Associated Press story published Aug. 18, Katie Nelson writes:
“Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
“‘But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever,’ [his lawyer] said.”
This story has also been written up by Wired and by The Southern Poverty Law Center, but without the McKinney angle.
McKinney wrote in her email: “Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time!” And apparently the threat against McKinney was made when Turner admits to having been on the FBI payroll.
John Judge, who worked for McKinney, writes of Turner:
“This is the guy who announced a program topic suggesting that Cynthia McKinney be lynched on her way to the polls to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address on the website. He asked how she would look swinging at the end of a rope and what message it would send to other ‘uppity’ Blacks. I called NJ Homeland Security and FBI at the time …. The FBI agent I spoke to said, ‘We know all about Mr. Turner.’ Looks like they did.”
While Turner’s website is down, another website [AssataShakur.org] has what it claims was posted on Turner’s:
“LYNCHING CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: SHOULD IT BE DONE BEFORE HER JULY 18 PRIMARY ELECTION?
“Tune-in to ‘The Hal Turner Show’ this Wednesday evening from 9:00-11:00 PM eastern US time as we talk about this topic!
“Cynthia McKinney is a violent, black, racist, bitch whose official re-election campaign web site calls white people ‘crackers’. As such, on this Wednesday evening’s show I will ask the question ‘Given the prevalence of black crime in America, would it serve the public good to LYNCH Congresswoman McKinney within the next few weeks, while she’s on the campaign trail, so as to send an unmistakable message to other blacks: white people are tired of your bullshit, behave or die.”
Now, I realize that this sounds like ordinary civil discourse in tea-partied America, and yet it’s fairly easy to imagine altering it in ways that would have “crossed the line.” For example, Turner might have targeted a Republican, or a Democrat in good standing, or a white person. Surely that would have crossed some line.
This story first appeared Aug. 24 on Let’s Try Democracy: Writings by David Swanson.
Cynthia McKinney’s Aug. 23 email about the Hal Turner/FBI call for her lynching
Following is the entire email sent by former Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and received by the SF Bay View on Aug. 23, 2009. She begins by referring to her current five-day fundraising tour for the San Francisco Bay View, “Cynthia McKinney’s Gaza Solidarity Triumph Tour”:
“Friends,
“I am in the Bay Area and rocking with the San Francisco Bay View newspaper. But something quite insidious is happening and I think you should know immediately how it involves my friends and me.
“Hot on the heels of my learning that the Georgia Green Party might have been described by the U.S. Government as a ‘terrorist organization,’ it has just now come to my attention that a ‘journalist’ who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll? Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time! I wonder why. To whom can I or any other innocent citizen turn when the government, itself, is the instigator?
“John Judge, my Congressional staffer, is the one who reported the threat. Here is what John just wrote, along with the article that reports that Turner was on the FBI payroll at the time the threat was made against me, according to Turner’s attorney. See the green highlights below:
“John Judge wrote:
‘This is the guy who announced a program topic suggesting that Cynthia McKinney be lynched on her way to the polls to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address on the website. He asked how she would look swinging at the end of a rope and what message it would send to other “uppity” Blacks. I called NJ Homeland Security and FBI at the time since he related it as a death threat. The FBI agent I spoke to said, “We know all about Mr. Turner.” Looks like they did. Now they say he was trained as an agent provocateur by the FBI to get others to participate in illegal acts. As Jim Garrison says in the movie “JFK” after interviewing Clay Shaw, “I think we got one.” Here is an excerpt. – JJ”
[From the Associated Press story reprinted in full below:] “Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
“’But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever,’ Orozco said.”
[From Wikipedia:] “Harold Charles ‘Hal’ Turner is an American white nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. He was arrested in June 2009 over alleged threats to politicians, and is currently jailed without bail. Prior to Turner’s arrest his program, The Hal Turner Show, was a webcast from his home once a week, and it depended on listener donations.
“Turner promotes antisemitism (including the rounding up and killing of Jews), he opposes the existence of the state of Israel and he denies the Holocaust.
“According to the Associated Press, Hal Turner has exposed through his attorney that he worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and ‘his job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest.’
Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney sent an email around on Sunday in which she wrote:
“[I]t has just now come to my attention that a ‘journalist’ who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll?”
“Hate blogger” Hal Turner’s lawyer said last week, and prosecutors agreed, that Turner was “trained by the FBI on how to be deliberately provocative” and “worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and was taught by the agency ‘what he could say that wouldn’t be crossing the line.’”
Turner is being charged with making death threats against Connecticut legislators and Illinois judges and is apparently going to claim that his actions were legal because he did the same sort of thing when employed by the FBI. In an Associated Press story published Aug. 18, Katie Nelson writes:
“Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
“‘But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever,’ [his lawyer] said.”
This story has also been written up by Wired and by The Southern Poverty Law Center, but without the McKinney angle.
McKinney wrote in her email: “Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time!” And apparently the threat against McKinney was made when Turner admits to having been on the FBI payroll.
John Judge, who worked for McKinney, writes of Turner:
“This is the guy who announced a program topic suggesting that Cynthia McKinney be lynched on her way to the polls to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address on the website. He asked how she would look swinging at the end of a rope and what message it would send to other ‘uppity’ Blacks. I called NJ Homeland Security and FBI at the time …. The FBI agent I spoke to said, ‘We know all about Mr. Turner.’ Looks like they did.”
While Turner’s website is down, another website [AssataShakur.org] has what it claims was posted on Turner’s:
“LYNCHING CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: SHOULD IT BE DONE BEFORE HER JULY 18 PRIMARY ELECTION?
“Tune-in to ‘The Hal Turner Show’ this Wednesday evening from 9:00-11:00 PM eastern US time as we talk about this topic!
“Cynthia McKinney is a violent, black, racist, bitch whose official re-election campaign web site calls white people ‘crackers’. As such, on this Wednesday evening’s show I will ask the question ‘Given the prevalence of black crime in America, would it serve the public good to LYNCH Congresswoman McKinney within the next few weeks, while she’s on the campaign trail, so as to send an unmistakable message to other blacks: white people are tired of your bullshit, behave or die.”
Now, I realize that this sounds like ordinary civil discourse in tea-partied America, and yet it’s fairly easy to imagine altering it in ways that would have “crossed the line.” For example, Turner might have targeted a Republican, or a Democrat in good standing, or a white person. Surely that would have crossed some line.
This story first appeared Aug. 24 on Let’s Try Democracy: Writings by David Swanson.
Cynthia McKinney’s Aug. 23 email about the Hal Turner/FBI call for her lynching
Following is the entire email sent by former Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney and received by the SF Bay View on Aug. 23, 2009. She begins by referring to her current five-day fundraising tour for the San Francisco Bay View, “Cynthia McKinney’s Gaza Solidarity Triumph Tour”:
“Friends,
“I am in the Bay Area and rocking with the San Francisco Bay View newspaper. But something quite insidious is happening and I think you should know immediately how it involves my friends and me.
“Hot on the heels of my learning that the Georgia Green Party might have been described by the U.S. Government as a ‘terrorist organization,’ it has just now come to my attention that a ‘journalist’ who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll? Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time! I wonder why. To whom can I or any other innocent citizen turn when the government, itself, is the instigator?
“John Judge, my Congressional staffer, is the one who reported the threat. Here is what John just wrote, along with the article that reports that Turner was on the FBI payroll at the time the threat was made against me, according to Turner’s attorney. See the green highlights below:
“John Judge wrote:
‘This is the guy who announced a program topic suggesting that Cynthia McKinney be lynched on her way to the polls to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address on the website. He asked how she would look swinging at the end of a rope and what message it would send to other “uppity” Blacks. I called NJ Homeland Security and FBI at the time since he related it as a death threat. The FBI agent I spoke to said, “We know all about Mr. Turner.” Looks like they did. Now they say he was trained as an agent provocateur by the FBI to get others to participate in illegal acts. As Jim Garrison says in the movie “JFK” after interviewing Clay Shaw, “I think we got one.” Here is an excerpt. – JJ”
[From the Associated Press story reprinted in full below:] “Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
“’But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever,’ Orozco said.”
[From Wikipedia:] “Harold Charles ‘Hal’ Turner is an American white nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. He was arrested in June 2009 over alleged threats to politicians, and is currently jailed without bail. Prior to Turner’s arrest his program, The Hal Turner Show, was a webcast from his home once a week, and it depended on listener donations.
“Turner promotes antisemitism (including the rounding up and killing of Jews), he opposes the existence of the state of Israel and he denies the Holocaust.
“According to the Associated Press, Hal Turner has exposed through his attorney that he worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an ‘agent provocateur’ and ‘his job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest.’
ACLU Sues DHS over Laptop Searches
The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday sued the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to uncover documents related to laptop searches at the border.
"The ACLU believes that suspicionless searches of laptops violate the First and Fourth Amendments," the group wrote in the suit, filed in a New York District Court.
In July 2008, the Customs and Border Protection agency within DHS published formal guidelines for laptop border searches that gave CBP officials permission to search laptops and electronic devices at the border. Court cases on the topic have generally found that citizens should have diminished expectations of privacy when re-entering the country because the U.S. has a right to protect itself and control what crosses its borders.
Critics of the policy claim that laptop searches are an invasion of privacy – a personal computer holds a lot more information than a suitcase full of clothes or briefcase full of paperwork. What's to stop CBP from copying the contents of your computer and keeping it on file indefinitely, they have argued
As a result, the ACLU wants to know exactly what types of data the government has collected. The organization first filed a Freedom of Information request in June 2009, but after some back and forth between the ACLU and DHS, the ACLU said that it had "exhausted the applicable administrative remedies" and that "DHS and its components have wrongfully withheld the requested records from the ACLU."
The ACLU wants DHS to hand over the documents, waive any fees associated with document recovery, and pay the organization's costs and attorneys' fees.
"Traveling with a laptop shouldn't mean the government gets a free pass to rifle through your personal papers," Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group, said in a statement. "This sort of broad and invasive search is exactly what the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches are designed to prevent."
The issue is currently under debate in Congress as well. Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill in January that would impose stricter rules on border laptop searches. Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, introduced similar legislation in September 2008, and said recently that he plans to re-introduce that bill.
"The ACLU intends to participate in ongoing debates over the pending congressional legislation," the ACLU said in its suit.
In May 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told Feingold and the Senate Commerce Committee that the department was in the process of reviewing its laptop search policy, but could not provide an exact date on when the revamped policy would be ready.
"The ACLU believes that suspicionless searches of laptops violate the First and Fourth Amendments," the group wrote in the suit, filed in a New York District Court.
In July 2008, the Customs and Border Protection agency within DHS published formal guidelines for laptop border searches that gave CBP officials permission to search laptops and electronic devices at the border. Court cases on the topic have generally found that citizens should have diminished expectations of privacy when re-entering the country because the U.S. has a right to protect itself and control what crosses its borders.
Critics of the policy claim that laptop searches are an invasion of privacy – a personal computer holds a lot more information than a suitcase full of clothes or briefcase full of paperwork. What's to stop CBP from copying the contents of your computer and keeping it on file indefinitely, they have argued
As a result, the ACLU wants to know exactly what types of data the government has collected. The organization first filed a Freedom of Information request in June 2009, but after some back and forth between the ACLU and DHS, the ACLU said that it had "exhausted the applicable administrative remedies" and that "DHS and its components have wrongfully withheld the requested records from the ACLU."
The ACLU wants DHS to hand over the documents, waive any fees associated with document recovery, and pay the organization's costs and attorneys' fees.
"Traveling with a laptop shouldn't mean the government gets a free pass to rifle through your personal papers," Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group, said in a statement. "This sort of broad and invasive search is exactly what the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches are designed to prevent."
The issue is currently under debate in Congress as well. Rep. Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill in January that would impose stricter rules on border laptop searches. Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, introduced similar legislation in September 2008, and said recently that he plans to re-introduce that bill.
"The ACLU intends to participate in ongoing debates over the pending congressional legislation," the ACLU said in its suit.
In May 2009, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told Feingold and the Senate Commerce Committee that the department was in the process of reviewing its laptop search policy, but could not provide an exact date on when the revamped policy would be ready.
Mohammed Jawad: 'I was 12 when I was arrested and sent to Guantanamo'
Sitting cross-legged on the cushioned floor of a family friend’s house, Mohammed Jawad furrowed his brow and fidgeted nervously as he struggled to explain his extraordinary ordeal over the past seven years.
In December 2002, when he says he was only 12, he was arrested on suspicion of throwing a grenade into a Jeep carrying US special forces soldiers through Kabul, wounding two of them and an interpreter. He was taken first to an airbase north of Kabul, then to the US prison in Guantánamo Bay, where he remained until his release a few days ago after a ruling by a US judge that his confession had been obtained by force.
One of the youngest and most controversial prisoners in Guantánamo, Mr Jawad is now finally a free man after being flown back to Kabul on Monday and reunited with his family and friends.
But after seven years in custody — six of them in Guantánamo — he faces a long struggle to pick up the pieces of his lost childhood and teenage years, and to build a future for himself in a country still at war with the Taleban.
“This is one of the happiest moments in my life — to be back in Afghanistan after all this time,” he told The Times.
“I hadn’t done anything — they took me for nothing. All I could do was hope that one day I’d be free and back home in Afghanistan with my mother.”
When he was reunited with her, she refused initially to believe he was her son because he had changed so much, and fainted in a fit of hysterics, according to a family friend. Only when she came round and checked for a distinctive bump on the back of his head, did she embrace him as her offspring, said Sher Khan Jalalkhil, a close friend of Mr Jawad’s father.
Mr Jawad is not the first Afghan prisoner to be released from the Guantánamo prison. But he is believed to be the youngest — although the Pentagon says that bone scans indicated that he was 18 when sent to Guantánamo in 2003.
He has thus become a cause célèbre for human rights activists ... and something of a celebrity in Afghanistan. President Karzai even offered to give him a house in Kabul when he met him on Monday night. The Defence Minister, Abdul Rakhim Wardak, offered to pay for him to study overseas.
When Mr Jawad was arrested, he was living with his mother in Kabul — his father having been killed fighting the Soviets in the 1980s.
“We searched for him for nine months,” said Mr Jalalkhil. “We didn’t know if he had been killed, or kidnapped, or got lost. His mother went crazy.” Finally, a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross visited their house to show them documents proving that Mr Jawad was in Guantánamo.
They were relieved at first to hear he was alive, but then they started to hear reports about conditions there.
Since returning, Mr Jawad has accused his captors of torturing prisoners, depriving them of food and sleep, and insulting Islam and the Koran.
He has described having his hands bound and stretched behind his back, and being forced to eat by bending over and putting his mouth into a plate of food.
Yesterday he was reluctant to go into details, saying that he would describe everything in full at a press conference in Kabul today. “It was a jail and I wasn’t happy there — I didn’t feel very good,” he said, shrugging his shoulders. “They threatened me a little. I will tell all of this tomorrow.” Human rights activists say that he was moved around often, and in one seven-day period was subjected to 152 episodes of mistreatment.
Eric Montalzo, his lawyer, says that he was treated like an adult despite his young age. “He has been in a cage for seven years. So it’s very difficult for him,” Mr Montalzo said. “He is a fragile human being and we need to protect him and his interests.”
Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that there should be compensation for prisoners such as Mr Jawad, and no immunity from prosecution for the torture of terror suspects.
Some human rights activists accept the Pentagon’s assertion that Mr Jawad was 16 or 17 when arrested. But they also say that it could take years for him to recover from the trauma of being detained in such a way for so many of his formative years.
Mr Jawad, meanwhile, is making plans to resume his studies — first in Afghanistan, then maybe overseas — and train to become a doctor.
Asked if he would consider studying in the United States, he hesitated and looked to the assembled elders for advice, before answering: “I have not made any plans yet.” As the interview began, the elders had asked him teasingly whether he learnt English in Guantánamo. He said no and spoke only in his native Pashto during the interview.
But when thanked at the end, he smiled shyly and said, with only a slight accent: “No problem.”
Japanese, Koreans gain most from cash for clunkers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Japanese and South Korean automakers registered the biggest market share gains in the U.S. government's "cash for clunkers" program that ended this week with bankruptcy related inventory shortages hurting General Motors Co GM.UL and Chrysler.
Now of coarse... I have only ever purchased "Japanese" autos due to their reliability. I believe in giving my business to companies that are deserving of it and whom are making productive business choices. The only "American" manufacturer I would consider would be Ford, and only newly in recent years. Their reliability has greatly improved in auto build as well as company direction.
However, It is absolutely insane that the next evolution of the auto bailout has been to mostly benefit foreign auto makers. Their should have been specifications that the rebate only be applied to autos which were mostly constructed at plants within the USA. That still leaves plenty of Japanese, Korean, European as well as US beneficiaries, while providing a boost to US jobs.
Yet again, we are helping the move of manufacturing jobs abroad. What a surprise.
But lets get a little further into the viability of this Cash for Clunkers program and how worth while of an expense it actually was. What about all the low income families that would have purchased the perfectly usable autos that were to be traded in normally and instead were diverted to the scrap metal heap? How is this program benefiting those people who need help the most?
This latest POS move is little more then yet an additional bailout to the auto industry by our new administration.
Now of coarse... I have only ever purchased "Japanese" autos due to their reliability. I believe in giving my business to companies that are deserving of it and whom are making productive business choices. The only "American" manufacturer I would consider would be Ford, and only newly in recent years. Their reliability has greatly improved in auto build as well as company direction.
However, It is absolutely insane that the next evolution of the auto bailout has been to mostly benefit foreign auto makers. Their should have been specifications that the rebate only be applied to autos which were mostly constructed at plants within the USA. That still leaves plenty of Japanese, Korean, European as well as US beneficiaries, while providing a boost to US jobs.
Yet again, we are helping the move of manufacturing jobs abroad. What a surprise.
But lets get a little further into the viability of this Cash for Clunkers program and how worth while of an expense it actually was. What about all the low income families that would have purchased the perfectly usable autos that were to be traded in normally and instead were diverted to the scrap metal heap? How is this program benefiting those people who need help the most?
This latest POS move is little more then yet an additional bailout to the auto industry by our new administration.
Files prove Pentagon is profiling reporters
WASHINGTON — Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
One reporter on the staff of one of America’s pre-eminent newspapers is rated in a Pentagon report as “neutral to positive” in his coverage of the U.S. military. Any negative stories he writes “could possibly be neutralized” by feeding him mitigating quotes from military officials.
Another reporter, from a TV station, provides coverage from a “subjective angle,” according to his Pentagon profile. Steering him toward covering “the positive work of a successful operation” could “result in favorable coverage.”
The new revelations of the Pentagon’s attempts to shape war coverage come as senior Defense Department officials are acknowledging increasing concern over recent opinion polls showing declining popular American support for the Afghan war.
“The purpose of this memo is to provide an assessment of [a reporter from a major U.S. newspaper] … in order to gauge the expected sentiment of his work while on an embed mission in Afghanistan,” reads the preamble to one of the reporter profiles prepared for the Pentagon by The Rendon Group, a controversial Washington-based public relations firm.
Stars and Stripes reported on Monday that the Pentagon was screening reporters embedding with U.S. forces to determine whether their past coverage had portrayed the military in a positive light. The story included denials by U.S. military officials that they were using the reporters’ profiles to determine whether to approve embed requests.
In the wake of that story, officials of both the Defense Department and Rendon went further, denying that the rating system exists.
“They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. “I can tell you that the way in which the Department of Defense evaluates an article is its accuracy. It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.”
In a statement e-mailed to Stars and Stripes, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, director of communications for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, wrote: “To imply journalists embedded with our forces only serve to highlight positive aspects of our mission slights the professional journalists who regularly embed with our forces and report what they experience, both good and bad.”
The Rendon Group declared in a statement that “the information and analysis we generate is developed … not by ranking of reporters.”
But the Rendon profiles reviewed by Stars and Stripes prove otherwise. One of the profiles evaluates work published as recently as May, indicating that the rating practice did not in fact cease last October as Whitman stated.
And the explicit suggestions contained in the Rendon profiles detailing how best to manipulate reporters’ coverage during their embeds directly contradict the Pentagon’s stated policies governing the embed process.
“These ground rules recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” reads the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters in Iraq.
Several professional journalists’ groups as well as media ethicists criticized the Pentagon’s attempts to rate and manipulate reporters. And at least one military official with knowledge of the profiling system has also begun to raise objections.
“It’s troubling that the military is contracting a private PR firm, paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars, to profile individual reporters,” said one servicemember who declined to be identified for fear of official retribution. “It shows utter contempt for the Constitution, which we in the service pledge our lives to defend.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
One reporter on the staff of one of America’s pre-eminent newspapers is rated in a Pentagon report as “neutral to positive” in his coverage of the U.S. military. Any negative stories he writes “could possibly be neutralized” by feeding him mitigating quotes from military officials.
Another reporter, from a TV station, provides coverage from a “subjective angle,” according to his Pentagon profile. Steering him toward covering “the positive work of a successful operation” could “result in favorable coverage.”
The new revelations of the Pentagon’s attempts to shape war coverage come as senior Defense Department officials are acknowledging increasing concern over recent opinion polls showing declining popular American support for the Afghan war.
“The purpose of this memo is to provide an assessment of [a reporter from a major U.S. newspaper] … in order to gauge the expected sentiment of his work while on an embed mission in Afghanistan,” reads the preamble to one of the reporter profiles prepared for the Pentagon by The Rendon Group, a controversial Washington-based public relations firm.
Stars and Stripes reported on Monday that the Pentagon was screening reporters embedding with U.S. forces to determine whether their past coverage had portrayed the military in a positive light. The story included denials by U.S. military officials that they were using the reporters’ profiles to determine whether to approve embed requests.
In the wake of that story, officials of both the Defense Department and Rendon went further, denying that the rating system exists.
“They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. “I can tell you that the way in which the Department of Defense evaluates an article is its accuracy. It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.”
In a statement e-mailed to Stars and Stripes, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, director of communications for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, wrote: “To imply journalists embedded with our forces only serve to highlight positive aspects of our mission slights the professional journalists who regularly embed with our forces and report what they experience, both good and bad.”
The Rendon Group declared in a statement that “the information and analysis we generate is developed … not by ranking of reporters.”
But the Rendon profiles reviewed by Stars and Stripes prove otherwise. One of the profiles evaluates work published as recently as May, indicating that the rating practice did not in fact cease last October as Whitman stated.
And the explicit suggestions contained in the Rendon profiles detailing how best to manipulate reporters’ coverage during their embeds directly contradict the Pentagon’s stated policies governing the embed process.
“These ground rules recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” reads the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters in Iraq.
Several professional journalists’ groups as well as media ethicists criticized the Pentagon’s attempts to rate and manipulate reporters. And at least one military official with knowledge of the profiling system has also begun to raise objections.
“It’s troubling that the military is contracting a private PR firm, paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars, to profile individual reporters,” said one servicemember who declined to be identified for fear of official retribution. “It shows utter contempt for the Constitution, which we in the service pledge our lives to defend.”
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
CIA Documents: 'Black Sites,' White Noise And Intel
The Justice Department released a set of documents Monday night, including many legal opinions related to the CIA's interrogation and detention program.
Most of the attention was focused on the 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general, but the other documents provide new windows into the details of the CIA's now-shuttered network of secret prisons overseas, as well as its treatment of al-Qaida detainees. They also describe how the interrogation program evolved after the inspector general report revealed a series of alleged abuses.
Here are some notable excerpts from the new documents:
The Detainee Experience
A 2004 document prepared by the CIA offers a stark account of the typical treatment of a high-value al-Qaida detainee. It began with the initial rendition, where the prisoner was flown to a secret CIA prison, called a "Black Site" in the document. "During the flight, the detainee is securely shackled and is deprived of sight and sound through the use of blindfolds, earmuffs, and hoods," the document says. After an initial interview, unless the suspect was unusually cooperative, he was taken to a cell, stripped naked, fitted with a diaper and shackled vertically as part of the sleep deprivation process. Officials also described a typical interrogation session as interrogators moved through a series of increasingly harsh techniques, including facial slaps and cramped confinement, if they thought the detainee was withholding information. These techniques were often combined to increase their effectiveness.
Conditions In The CIA's Secret Overseas Prisons
A 2006 Justice Department memo offers surprisingly specific descriptions of the standards at the CIA's overseas prisons. "The CIA plays white noise in the walkways of the detention facilities to prevent detainees from being able to communicate with each other while they are being moved within the facilities," the memo says, offering decibel readings from inside the cells and in the halls. The cells were lighted 24 hours a day (by two 17-watt T-8 fluorescent bulbs — "about the same brightness as an office.") Some of the more cooperative detainees were given eyeshades to help them sleep. Steven Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, wrote in the memo that these measures were legal because they were designed not to punish prisoners, but instead for the security of CIA personnel. He added that while courts had found some of the measures illegal in certain circumstances, they should be permitted in the CIA prisons. "Because the CIA detains only the extremely dangerous individuals whom it has determined to pose serious threats to the United States or to be planning terrorist attacks ... its interest in being able to observe its detainees at all times is considerably greater, in most circumstances, than the need to keep a pretrial detainee under constant surveillance in a U.S. prison or jail."
Interrogations After 2006
After the CIA emptied its secret prisons in September 2006 and sent the remaining detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it asked for Justice Department guidance on resuming an interrogation program. CIA officials were seeking permission to use a reduced number of interrogation techniques, omitting the most controversial ones, including waterboarding. They proposed using measures like facial slaps and sleep deprivation, which they said were "the most indispensable to the effectiveness of the interrogation program." In his reply on July 20, 2007, Steven Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, wrote that the Justice Department agreed the CIA's proposal did not violate any of the new U.S. laws barring mistreatment of detainees. For example, he found that the CIA program does not meet the definition of "cruel treatment" or "outrages upon personal dignity" as laid out in the Geneva Conventions. He also noted that the program was carefully limited. From March 2002 through 2006, the CIA held only 98 detainees, 30 of whom had been subjected to so-called enhanced techniques.
Were The Interrogations Effective?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney asked the CIA to declassify two memos that he said showed that the interrogation program produced vital intelligence. One is a 2005 CIA report that says detainee reporting was "pivotal" in the war against al-Qaida. While there are many problems with detainee accounts, the CIA says interrogations produced information that helped lead to the capture of additional terrorist suspects, helped to thwart terrorist plots, and built a more complete portrait of how the al-Qaida network functioned. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, "provided information that set the stage for the detention of Hambali," the leader of Jemaah Islamiya, a large Indonesian affiliate of al-Qaida. The report claimed that detainee interrogations also helped lead to the arrest of Jose Padilla, who originally was accused of planning to set off a radioactive device, but was convicted only on charges of supporting terrorism. The report does not, however, make any distinction between information obtained through conventional interrogations and that extracted using harsh techniques like waterboarding.
Most of the attention was focused on the 2004 report by the CIA's inspector general, but the other documents provide new windows into the details of the CIA's now-shuttered network of secret prisons overseas, as well as its treatment of al-Qaida detainees. They also describe how the interrogation program evolved after the inspector general report revealed a series of alleged abuses.
Here are some notable excerpts from the new documents:
The Detainee Experience
A 2004 document prepared by the CIA offers a stark account of the typical treatment of a high-value al-Qaida detainee. It began with the initial rendition, where the prisoner was flown to a secret CIA prison, called a "Black Site" in the document. "During the flight, the detainee is securely shackled and is deprived of sight and sound through the use of blindfolds, earmuffs, and hoods," the document says. After an initial interview, unless the suspect was unusually cooperative, he was taken to a cell, stripped naked, fitted with a diaper and shackled vertically as part of the sleep deprivation process. Officials also described a typical interrogation session as interrogators moved through a series of increasingly harsh techniques, including facial slaps and cramped confinement, if they thought the detainee was withholding information. These techniques were often combined to increase their effectiveness.
Conditions In The CIA's Secret Overseas Prisons
A 2006 Justice Department memo offers surprisingly specific descriptions of the standards at the CIA's overseas prisons. "The CIA plays white noise in the walkways of the detention facilities to prevent detainees from being able to communicate with each other while they are being moved within the facilities," the memo says, offering decibel readings from inside the cells and in the halls. The cells were lighted 24 hours a day (by two 17-watt T-8 fluorescent bulbs — "about the same brightness as an office.") Some of the more cooperative detainees were given eyeshades to help them sleep. Steven Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, wrote in the memo that these measures were legal because they were designed not to punish prisoners, but instead for the security of CIA personnel. He added that while courts had found some of the measures illegal in certain circumstances, they should be permitted in the CIA prisons. "Because the CIA detains only the extremely dangerous individuals whom it has determined to pose serious threats to the United States or to be planning terrorist attacks ... its interest in being able to observe its detainees at all times is considerably greater, in most circumstances, than the need to keep a pretrial detainee under constant surveillance in a U.S. prison or jail."
Interrogations After 2006
After the CIA emptied its secret prisons in September 2006 and sent the remaining detainees to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it asked for Justice Department guidance on resuming an interrogation program. CIA officials were seeking permission to use a reduced number of interrogation techniques, omitting the most controversial ones, including waterboarding. They proposed using measures like facial slaps and sleep deprivation, which they said were "the most indispensable to the effectiveness of the interrogation program." In his reply on July 20, 2007, Steven Bradbury, the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, wrote that the Justice Department agreed the CIA's proposal did not violate any of the new U.S. laws barring mistreatment of detainees. For example, he found that the CIA program does not meet the definition of "cruel treatment" or "outrages upon personal dignity" as laid out in the Geneva Conventions. He also noted that the program was carefully limited. From March 2002 through 2006, the CIA held only 98 detainees, 30 of whom had been subjected to so-called enhanced techniques.
Were The Interrogations Effective?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney asked the CIA to declassify two memos that he said showed that the interrogation program produced vital intelligence. One is a 2005 CIA report that says detainee reporting was "pivotal" in the war against al-Qaida. While there are many problems with detainee accounts, the CIA says interrogations produced information that helped lead to the capture of additional terrorist suspects, helped to thwart terrorist plots, and built a more complete portrait of how the al-Qaida network functioned. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, for example, "provided information that set the stage for the detention of Hambali," the leader of Jemaah Islamiya, a large Indonesian affiliate of al-Qaida. The report claimed that detainee interrogations also helped lead to the arrest of Jose Padilla, who originally was accused of planning to set off a radioactive device, but was convicted only on charges of supporting terrorism. The report does not, however, make any distinction between information obtained through conventional interrogations and that extracted using harsh techniques like waterboarding.
Deaths, Missing Detainees Still Blacked Out in New CIA Report
Inspector General Reportedly Discovered Three Died, Many Unaccounted For by CIA
Click here for video report
The CIA and the Obama Administration continue to keep secret some of the most shocking allegations involving the spy agency's interrogation program: three deaths and several other detainees whose whereabouts could not be determined, according to a former senior intelligence official who has read the full, unredacted version.
Of the 109 pages in the 2004 report, 36 were completely blacked out in the version made public Monday, and another 30 were substantially redacted for "national security" reasons.
The blacked-out portions hide the Inspector General's findings on the circumstances that led to the deaths of at least three of the detainees in the CIA's program, the official said. Two of the men reportedly died in CIA in Iraq and the third died in Afghanistan.
The Inspector General's findings about a fourth death involving a prisoner in Afghanistan were made public in the report. A CIA contract employee was convicted of assault in that case and is now in prison.
Click here for video report
The CIA and the Obama Administration continue to keep secret some of the most shocking allegations involving the spy agency's interrogation program: three deaths and several other detainees whose whereabouts could not be determined, according to a former senior intelligence official who has read the full, unredacted version.
Of the 109 pages in the 2004 report, 36 were completely blacked out in the version made public Monday, and another 30 were substantially redacted for "national security" reasons.
The blacked-out portions hide the Inspector General's findings on the circumstances that led to the deaths of at least three of the detainees in the CIA's program, the official said. Two of the men reportedly died in CIA in Iraq and the third died in Afghanistan.
The Inspector General's findings about a fourth death involving a prisoner in Afghanistan were made public in the report. A CIA contract employee was convicted of assault in that case and is now in prison.
Clinton Fundraiser Charged in CITIGROUP Fraud...
The U.S. attorney in New York on Tuesday charged a New York investor and major Democratic fund-raiser with a $74 million scheme to defraud Citigroup.
Hassan Nemazee, 59, was charged with one count of bank fraud, and faces up to 30 years in prison plus a fine. His lawyer Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Nemazee was a national finance chair of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and a supporter of John Kerry's run for the White House in 2004.
He typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Charles Schumer, and sits on the board of the Iranian American Political Action Committee.
Bill Clinton, when he was president, nominated Nemazee to be U.S. ambassador to Argentina.
Prosecutors said Nemazee, the chairman and chief executive of Nemazee Capital, sought to induce Citigroup's [C 4.75 -0.07 (-1.45%) ] banking unit to lend up to $74 million based on fraudulent and forged documents suggesting that he had hundreds of millions of dollars of accounts available as collateral.
They said Nemazee also provided Citigroup with fake references so that when the bank would try to confirm details about his accounts, it would actually be contacting him. The scheme lasted from December 2006 to this month, the prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said federal agents stopped him Sunday at Newark Liberty International Airport as he prepared to board a flight to Rome, and that he repaid a more than $74 million loan to Citigroup the following day.
Nemazee has homes in Manhattan and the suburb of Katonah, New York, prosecutors said.
According to its Web site, Nemazee Capital is a private equity firm that was founded in 1987 and specializes in financial services. It said its acquisitions have included Carret Asset Management, a privately held firm founded by legendary investor Philip Carret, and part of what is now Brean Murray Carret & Co, a small investment bank.
Brean did not immediately return a request for a comment. Citigroup spokeswoman Shannon Bell said the bank is working with authorities on the matter.
Hassan Nemazee, 59, was charged with one count of bank fraud, and faces up to 30 years in prison plus a fine. His lawyer Marc Mukasey, a former federal prosecutor, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Nemazee was a national finance chair of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and a supporter of John Kerry's run for the White House in 2004.
He typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Charles Schumer, and sits on the board of the Iranian American Political Action Committee.
Bill Clinton, when he was president, nominated Nemazee to be U.S. ambassador to Argentina.
Prosecutors said Nemazee, the chairman and chief executive of Nemazee Capital, sought to induce Citigroup's [C 4.75 -0.07 (-1.45%) ] banking unit to lend up to $74 million based on fraudulent and forged documents suggesting that he had hundreds of millions of dollars of accounts available as collateral.
They said Nemazee also provided Citigroup with fake references so that when the bank would try to confirm details about his accounts, it would actually be contacting him. The scheme lasted from December 2006 to this month, the prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said federal agents stopped him Sunday at Newark Liberty International Airport as he prepared to board a flight to Rome, and that he repaid a more than $74 million loan to Citigroup the following day.
Nemazee has homes in Manhattan and the suburb of Katonah, New York, prosecutors said.
According to its Web site, Nemazee Capital is a private equity firm that was founded in 1987 and specializes in financial services. It said its acquisitions have included Carret Asset Management, a privately held firm founded by legendary investor Philip Carret, and part of what is now Brean Murray Carret & Co, a small investment bank.
Brean did not immediately return a request for a comment. Citigroup spokeswoman Shannon Bell said the bank is working with authorities on the matter.
Is someone in the Presidents Posse spreading Pig Flu?
26-year-old from Martha's Vineyard is dead of H1N1 influenza
A 26-year old Martha's Vineyard resident who died August 14 is the first confirmed H1N1-related death on the Island, and the 11th death in Massachusetts, according to state public health officials.
The man, Elton Barbosa of Oak Bluffs, died at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston after he was transported off the Island earlier last week. He was a native of Brazil and worked on the Island as a painter, according to several acquaintances.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) confirmed the H1N1-related death on Monday...
Mexican Archaeologist dies of Swine Flu after shaking hands with President Obama
A man who shook Barack Obama's hand in Mexico died the next week from symptoms similar to those of swine flu.
The White House insisted the President's health was not in any danger, but he was said to be taking the threat of an epidemic 'very seriously'.
Is it really just a coincidence that people are popping off along his travels?
A 26-year old Martha's Vineyard resident who died August 14 is the first confirmed H1N1-related death on the Island, and the 11th death in Massachusetts, according to state public health officials.
The man, Elton Barbosa of Oak Bluffs, died at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston after he was transported off the Island earlier last week. He was a native of Brazil and worked on the Island as a painter, according to several acquaintances.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) confirmed the H1N1-related death on Monday...
Mexican Archaeologist dies of Swine Flu after shaking hands with President Obama
A man who shook Barack Obama's hand in Mexico died the next week from symptoms similar to those of swine flu.
The White House insisted the President's health was not in any danger, but he was said to be taking the threat of an epidemic 'very seriously'.
Is it really just a coincidence that people are popping off along his travels?
Court Orders Federal Reserve to Disclose Emergency Loan Details
(Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions.
The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.
“The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it makes,” said Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. “It’s one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the dark.”
The judge said the central bank “improperly withheld agency records” by “conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed a request under the information act. She gave the Fed five days to turn over documents it told the reporters it located, including 231 pages of reports, and said it must look for more at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which runs most of the loan programs.
‘Involuntary Investor’
The central bank “essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed,” Preska wrote. “Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the Board’s burden” of proof.
David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman who said the board’s staff was reviewing the 47-page ruling, declined to comment on whether the central bank would appeal.
Bloomberg said in the suit that U.S. taxpayers need to know the terms of Fed lending because the public became an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks as the financial crisis deepened and the government began shoring up companies with capital injections and loans. Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. are among those who have said they accepted Fed loans.
‘Public Interest’
“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”
The Fed’s balance sheet about doubled after lending standards were relaxed in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on Sept. 15, 2008. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as it continued to buy mortgage-backed securities under a program allowing the central bank to purchase non-government securities for the first time.
The U.S. House may vote as soon as next month on a bill to require the Fed to submit to audits by the Government Accountability Office, said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the Financial Services Committee.
‘Wake-Up Call’
The judge’s ruling “is strikingly good news,” Garrett said. “This is what the American people have been asking for.”
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, didn’t seek money damages.
“The public deserves to know what’s being done with the money,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “This ought to be a wake-up call for the public that they need to be far more educated about this.”
The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the central bank yesterday, rejecting the argument that loan records aren’t covered by the law because their disclosure would harm borrowers’ competitive positions.
The Fed has refused to name the financial firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or the assets put up as collateral under 11 programs, most put in place during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, saying that doing so might set off a run by depositors and unsettle shareholders. Bloomberg LP, the New York-based company majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued on Nov. 7 on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit.
“The Federal Reserve has to be accountable for the decisions that it makes,” said Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, after Preska’s ruling. “It’s one thing to say that the Federal Reserve is an independent institution. It’s another thing to say that it can keep us all in the dark.”
The judge said the central bank “improperly withheld agency records” by “conducting an inadequate search” after Bloomberg News reporters filed a request under the information act. She gave the Fed five days to turn over documents it told the reporters it located, including 231 pages of reports, and said it must look for more at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which runs most of the loan programs.
‘Involuntary Investor’
The central bank “essentially speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed,” Preska wrote. “Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the Board’s burden” of proof.
David Skidmore, a Fed spokesman who said the board’s staff was reviewing the 47-page ruling, declined to comment on whether the central bank would appeal.
Bloomberg said in the suit that U.S. taxpayers need to know the terms of Fed lending because the public became an “involuntary investor” in the nation’s banks as the financial crisis deepened and the government began shoring up companies with capital injections and loans. Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. are among those who have said they accepted Fed loans.
‘Public Interest’
“When an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars were lent to financial institutions in unprecedented ways and the Federal Reserve refused to make public any of the details of its extraordinary lending, Bloomberg News asked the court why U.S. citizens don’t have the right to know,” said Matthew Winkler, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News. “We’re gratified the court is defending the public’s right to know what is being done in the public interest.”
The Fed’s balance sheet about doubled after lending standards were relaxed in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on Sept. 15, 2008. For the week ended Aug. 19, Fed assets rose 2.3 percent to $2.06 trillion as it continued to buy mortgage-backed securities under a program allowing the central bank to purchase non-government securities for the first time.
The U.S. House may vote as soon as next month on a bill to require the Fed to submit to audits by the Government Accountability Office, said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican on the Financial Services Committee.
‘Wake-Up Call’
The judge’s ruling “is strikingly good news,” Garrett said. “This is what the American people have been asking for.”
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg suit, filed in New York, didn’t seek money damages.
“The public deserves to know what’s being done with the money,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “This ought to be a wake-up call for the public that they need to be far more educated about this.”
The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Obama breaks vacation, keeps Bernanke at Fed
President Barack Obama announced Tuesday he wants to keep Ben Bernanke on as Fed chairman, saying he shepherded America through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
"Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom; with bold action and out-of-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic freefall," said Obama, with Bernanke standing by his side. "Almost none of the decisions he or any of us made have been easy."
Obama made the announcement while on vacation on the island of Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts after aides said initially that the president intended a news-free week there. Both he and Bernanke sported the open-collar look.
Bernanke, 55, is credited with turning the economy away from its deepest and longest recession since the 1930s. Now he faces the challenge of meeting White House expectations to chart the full economic recovery considered critical to Obama's legacy.
In sticking with a Republican for the nation's top banker, the Democratic president was aiming for stability at a time of continuing, though easing, crisis. The move was designed to reassure the U.S. financial sector as well as foreign central banks that the Obama administration isn't changing course on its largely well-received approaches to the financial meltdown and overall monetary policy.
The announcement also came nearly concurrently with a piece of bad economic news. Obama interrupted his vacation to telegraph his decision just ahead of a White House report that gave more bleak assessments of the nation's deficit picture.
Figures released by the White House budget office on Monday foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, $2 trillion more than the administration estimated in May. Moreover, the figures show the public debt doubling by 2019 and reaching three quarters the size of the entire national economy. Also Monday, analysts with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a cumulative $7 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, more in line with the administration's May estimate.
The White House said Obama decided on the last-minute schedule addition to help "put him more in `vacation mode.""There's been a lot of speculation out there, and the president wanted to put it to rest," Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters as the presidential entourage headed from the site of the announcement to a golf course.
Bernanke's early tenure was as complicated as the crisis facing the banks he sought to save.
The Fed chairman's successful, although unconventional, strategy to move the economy away from recession, unlock frozen credit and stabilize spiraling financial markets depended in large part on creating radical and unprecedented lending programs. But he's not without his detractors, and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Connecticut's Chris Dodd, immediately warned of a thorough hearing before Bernanke would be confirmed for a second four-year term.
With such controversy surrounding some of his decisions, Bernanke's fate had been the subject of speculation for months.
Many on Wall Street and in academic circles had viewed Bernanke as the best choice to tackle continued high unemployment, fight off any threat of inflation and take on the next set of risky, difficult decisions.
Announcing his decision to bypass prominent Democratic economic figures for the job, Obama had nothing but praise for Bernanke.
The president also put in a plug for his own administration's actions to stabilize the financial system, restructure the auto industry and approve $787 billion in stimulus spending.
Appearing in makeshift press workspace on the island, Bernanke said that if confirmed by the Senate, he'd work to provide "a strong foundation for growth and stability" in the economy.
"The Federal Reserve, like other economic policy makers, has been challenged by the unprecedented events of the past few years," Bernanke said. "We have been bold or deliberate as circumstances demanded, but our objective remains constant: to restore a more stable financial and economic environment in which opportunity can again flourish and in which Americans hard work and creativity can receive their proper rewards."
The economy is emerging from recession and is poised for growth. However, it will be slow-going and the unemployment rate, now at 9.4 percent, is likely to top 10 percent this year before it starts going down.
For Obama, there was little political downside in choosing to nominate Bernanke. The move displays bipartisanship and a steady, unchanging hand on the economic tiller. Fully occupied with an attempted health care overhaul, Obama's team could little afford the distraction of changing the head of the Fed.
Bernanke was appointed Fed chairman by President George W. Bush and sworn in Feb. 1, 2006, following Alan Greenspan's 18-year tenure.
"Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom; with bold action and out-of-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic freefall," said Obama, with Bernanke standing by his side. "Almost none of the decisions he or any of us made have been easy."
Obama made the announcement while on vacation on the island of Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts after aides said initially that the president intended a news-free week there. Both he and Bernanke sported the open-collar look.
Bernanke, 55, is credited with turning the economy away from its deepest and longest recession since the 1930s. Now he faces the challenge of meeting White House expectations to chart the full economic recovery considered critical to Obama's legacy.
In sticking with a Republican for the nation's top banker, the Democratic president was aiming for stability at a time of continuing, though easing, crisis. The move was designed to reassure the U.S. financial sector as well as foreign central banks that the Obama administration isn't changing course on its largely well-received approaches to the financial meltdown and overall monetary policy.
The announcement also came nearly concurrently with a piece of bad economic news. Obama interrupted his vacation to telegraph his decision just ahead of a White House report that gave more bleak assessments of the nation's deficit picture.
Figures released by the White House budget office on Monday foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, $2 trillion more than the administration estimated in May. Moreover, the figures show the public debt doubling by 2019 and reaching three quarters the size of the entire national economy. Also Monday, analysts with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a cumulative $7 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, more in line with the administration's May estimate.
The White House said Obama decided on the last-minute schedule addition to help "put him more in `vacation mode.""There's been a lot of speculation out there, and the president wanted to put it to rest," Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters as the presidential entourage headed from the site of the announcement to a golf course.
Bernanke's early tenure was as complicated as the crisis facing the banks he sought to save.
The Fed chairman's successful, although unconventional, strategy to move the economy away from recession, unlock frozen credit and stabilize spiraling financial markets depended in large part on creating radical and unprecedented lending programs. But he's not without his detractors, and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Connecticut's Chris Dodd, immediately warned of a thorough hearing before Bernanke would be confirmed for a second four-year term.
With such controversy surrounding some of his decisions, Bernanke's fate had been the subject of speculation for months.
Many on Wall Street and in academic circles had viewed Bernanke as the best choice to tackle continued high unemployment, fight off any threat of inflation and take on the next set of risky, difficult decisions.
Announcing his decision to bypass prominent Democratic economic figures for the job, Obama had nothing but praise for Bernanke.
The president also put in a plug for his own administration's actions to stabilize the financial system, restructure the auto industry and approve $787 billion in stimulus spending.
Appearing in makeshift press workspace on the island, Bernanke said that if confirmed by the Senate, he'd work to provide "a strong foundation for growth and stability" in the economy.
"The Federal Reserve, like other economic policy makers, has been challenged by the unprecedented events of the past few years," Bernanke said. "We have been bold or deliberate as circumstances demanded, but our objective remains constant: to restore a more stable financial and economic environment in which opportunity can again flourish and in which Americans hard work and creativity can receive their proper rewards."
The economy is emerging from recession and is poised for growth. However, it will be slow-going and the unemployment rate, now at 9.4 percent, is likely to top 10 percent this year before it starts going down.
For Obama, there was little political downside in choosing to nominate Bernanke. The move displays bipartisanship and a steady, unchanging hand on the economic tiller. Fully occupied with an attempted health care overhaul, Obama's team could little afford the distraction of changing the head of the Fed.
Bernanke was appointed Fed chairman by President George W. Bush and sworn in Feb. 1, 2006, following Alan Greenspan's 18-year tenure.
Monday, August 24, 2009
The serfs have no property rights when the Queen is in town
MICHELLE Obama, like her husband, enjoys a good burger, but not as well done. The first lady brought daughters Malia and Sasha to former "Top Chef" contestant Spike Mendelsohn'sGood Stuff Eatery in DC for cheeseburgers, onion rings, fries, and milkshakes. "They got the burgers medium," says a spy. (President Obama was mildly ridiculed after ordering a burger medium-well in January.) "Three starving Secret Service guys were literally standing over the grill as Spike made the burgers, but didn't eat," our source adds. Fellow patrons had their cellphones temporarily confiscated to prevent pictures from being taken.
Confiscation of private property without a warrant? Who the hell does she think she is and why the hell would these people let them do that to them? Shouldnt the Presidency be an example for our countries basic values.
Confiscation of private property without a warrant? Who the hell does she think she is and why the hell would these people let them do that to them? Shouldnt the Presidency be an example for our countries basic values.
Report: CIA threatened detainee families
WASHINGTON (AP) - A newly declassified CIA report says interrogators threatened to kill the children of a Sept. 11 suspect.
The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, "We're going to kill your children."
Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him—though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.
The report, written in 2004, examined CIA treatment of terror detainees following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has been declassified as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—President Barack Obama has approved creation of a new, special terrorism-era interrogation unit to be supervised by the White House, a top aide said Monday, further distancing his administration from President George W. Bush's detainee policies.
The administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision. That decision aims to end years of fierce debate over how rough U.S. personnel can get with terror suspects in custody.
The new unit does not mean the CIA is now out of the interrogation business, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing Obama at Oak Bluffs, Mass.
Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group," and it said that it will be situated at the FBI headquarters in Washington.
The unit would be led by an FBI official, with a deputy director from somewhere in the government's vast intelligence apparatus, and members from across agencies. It will be directly supervised by the White House, but the senior administration officials insisted the unit's agency bosses will make operational decisions, not the White House.
The officials also said that in cases where terror suspects are transferred to other countries, the U.S. will work harder to ensure the suspect is not tortured.
Separately, Burton said that a recommendation now before Attorney General Eric Holder to reopen and pursue prisoner abuse cases is a decision solely for Holder to make without any intervention from the president.
The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would depart significantly from such work under the previous administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.
Obama campaigned vigorously against Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. Obama still believes "we should be looking forward, not backward," Burton said Monday.
Nonetheless, the spokesman added, Obama believes the attorney general should be fully independent from the White House and he has full faith in Holder to make the decision on whether to reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution. "He ultimately is going to make the decisions," Burton said of Holder.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intends "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said.
Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined within the agency for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee_ contractor David Passaro_ has ever been prosecuted for detainee abuse.
"The CIA has played a vital role in the work of the task force, and its substantive knowledge will be essential to interrogations going forward," agency spokesman George Little said Monday.
Obama campaigned vigorously against President George W. Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. But the issue now before Holder for consideration would have the new administration do precisely that: reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution.
The new interrogation unit will be known by the acronym HIG.
The administration was publicly confirming the new interrogation unit on the same day that the CIA inspector general was to unveil a report on Bush administration handling of suspects. Details were expected to show that highly questionable tactics were used.
Now, all such questioning will fall under the rules of the Army manual.
The manual, last updated in September 2006, authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases.
The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.
Subjecting prisoner abuse cases to a new review and possible prosecution could expose CIA employees and agency contractors to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Holder reportedly reacted with disgust when he first read accounts of prisoner abuse earlier this year in a classified version of the IG report. And the Justice report is said to reveal how interrogators conducted mock executions and threatened at least one man with a gun and a power drill. Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.
A federal judge has ordered the IG report made public Monday, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The accounts of the White House-supervised interrogation unit and the ethics recommendation to Holder were first reported, respectively, by The Washington Post and The New York Times.
The document, released Monday by the Justice Department, says one interrogator said a colleague had told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that if any other attacks happened in the United States, "We're going to kill your children."
Another interrogator allegedly tried to convince a different terror suspect detainee that his mother would be sexually assaulted in front of him—though the interrogator in question denied making such a threat.
The report, written in 2004, examined CIA treatment of terror detainees following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has been declassified as part of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP)—President Barack Obama has approved creation of a new, special terrorism-era interrogation unit to be supervised by the White House, a top aide said Monday, further distancing his administration from President George W. Bush's detainee policies.
The administration has also decided that all U.S. interrogators will follow the rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision. That decision aims to end years of fierce debate over how rough U.S. personnel can get with terror suspects in custody.
The new unit does not mean the CIA is now out of the interrogation business, deputy White House press secretary Bill Burton told reporters covering the vacationing Obama at Oak Bluffs, Mass.
Burton said the unit will include "all these different elements under one group," and it said that it will be situated at the FBI headquarters in Washington.
The unit would be led by an FBI official, with a deputy director from somewhere in the government's vast intelligence apparatus, and members from across agencies. It will be directly supervised by the White House, but the senior administration officials insisted the unit's agency bosses will make operational decisions, not the White House.
The officials also said that in cases where terror suspects are transferred to other countries, the U.S. will work harder to ensure the suspect is not tortured.
Separately, Burton said that a recommendation now before Attorney General Eric Holder to reopen and pursue prisoner abuse cases is a decision solely for Holder to make without any intervention from the president.
The structure of the new unit the White House is creating would depart significantly from such work under the previous administration, when the CIA had the lead and sometimes exclusive role in questioning al-Qaida suspects.
Obama campaigned vigorously against Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. Obama still believes "we should be looking forward, not backward," Burton said Monday.
Nonetheless, the spokesman added, Obama believes the attorney general should be fully independent from the White House and he has full faith in Holder to make the decision on whether to reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution. "He ultimately is going to make the decisions," Burton said of Holder.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intends "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said.
Panetta said some CIA officers have been disciplined within the agency for going beyond the methods approved for interrogations by the Bush-era Justice Department. Just one CIA employee_ contractor David Passaro_ has ever been prosecuted for detainee abuse.
"The CIA has played a vital role in the work of the task force, and its substantive knowledge will be essential to interrogations going forward," agency spokesman George Little said Monday.
Obama campaigned vigorously against President George W. Bush's interrogation policies in his successful run for the presidency. He has said more recently he didn't particularly favor prosecuting Bush administration officials in connection with instances of prisoner abuse. But the issue now before Holder for consideration would have the new administration do precisely that: reopen several such cases with an eye toward possible criminal prosecution.
The new interrogation unit will be known by the acronym HIG.
The administration was publicly confirming the new interrogation unit on the same day that the CIA inspector general was to unveil a report on Bush administration handling of suspects. Details were expected to show that highly questionable tactics were used.
Now, all such questioning will fall under the rules of the Army manual.
The manual, last updated in September 2006, authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases.
The manual prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, threatening them with military dogs, exposing them to extreme heat or cold, conducting mock executions, depriving them of food, water, or medical care, and waterboarding.
Subjecting prisoner abuse cases to a new review and possible prosecution could expose CIA employees and agency contractors to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Holder reportedly reacted with disgust when he first read accounts of prisoner abuse earlier this year in a classified version of the IG report. And the Justice report is said to reveal how interrogators conducted mock executions and threatened at least one man with a gun and a power drill. Threatening a prisoner with death violates U.S. anti-torture laws.
A federal judge has ordered the IG report made public Monday, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The accounts of the White House-supervised interrogation unit and the ethics recommendation to Holder were first reported, respectively, by The Washington Post and The New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
