CIA Accused Of Spying On Senate Intelligence Committee Staffers

from the biting-the-hand-that-oversees-you dept

While at times, it's appeared that the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Dianne Feinstein, serves more to prop up the intelligence community than to handle oversight, it has actually clashed quite a bit with the CIA. We've discussed a few times how the Committee has been pushing to release a supposedly devastating 6,000 page report about the CIA's torture program, which cost taxpayers an equally astounding $40 million to produce. However, the CIA has been fighting hard to block the release of the report, arguing that it misrepresents the CIA's actions.

However, things are getting even more bizarre, as the NY Times is reporting that the CIA is now accused of spying on the Intelligence Committee and its staffers in its attempt to keep that report from being released.

The details are still a little cloudy, but in December, Senator Mark Udall revealed that the Senate Intelligence Committee had come across an internal CIA study that apparently corroborated the information that is in the big Senate report -- and which directly contradicted claims by the CIA to the Committee about how the report was inaccurate -- suggesting that, on top of everything else, the CIA lied to the Intelligence Committee. Udall quizzed CIA boss John Brennan about that internal report. And according to the NY Times, it appears that CIA folks freaked out that the Intelligence Committee somehow got access to that internal study, and responded the way the CIA knows best: by starting to spy on Intelligence Committee staffers:

The agency’s inspector general began the inquiry partly as a response to complaints from members of Congress that C.I.A. employees were improperly monitoring the work of staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to government officials with knowledge of the investigation.

The committee has spent several years working on a voluminous report about the detention and interrogation program, and according to one official interviewed in recent days, C.I.A. officers went as far as gaining access to computer networks used by the committee to carry out its investigation.

On Tuesday, Udall sent a strongly worded letter to President Obama, pushing for the declassification and release of the big 6,300 page report, but also that internal CIA study, which would highlight how the CIA lied. On top of that, he made an oblique reference to this spying activity by the CIA:

As you are aware, the CIA has recently taken unprecedented action against the Committee in relation to the internal CIA review, and I find these actions to be incredibly troubling for the Committee's oversight responsibilities and for our democracy. It is essential that the Committee be able to do its oversight work -- consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers -- without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it is today.

In many ways, the idea that the CIA is directly spying on the Senate Committee charged with its own oversight is a bigger potential scandal than many of the Snowden NSA revelations so far. Even more importantly, it may finally lead to Congress taking action against an out-of-control intelligence community.

Filed Under: cia, dianne feinstein, john brennan, mark udall, senate intelligence committee, spying, torture

Administration Officials Perform Some Very Public Handwringing Over Extrajudicial Drone Killing

from the the-eternal-martyrdom-of-the-executive-branch dept

The administration has sort of painted itself into a corner with its new rules on drone strikes. It's apparently seeking to take out a US citizen who has joined al-Qaeda and is "actively plotting" against the US. Multiple issues have arisen, thanks to Obama's better-late-than-never drone guidelines, which were issued last year to appease the many countries perturbed by the US government's increasing reliance on drones to take out suspected terrorists.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Oddly, the DOJ hasn't completed its case against the targeted American, despite officials (anonymous ones) claiming the man is a "facilitator" who has been "directly responsible" for attacks on Americans overseas. Flimsier cases have floated entire prosecutions (including many, many of the FBI's homegrown terrorists). It must be the potential stripping of due process (no matter how meaningless that process has been in practice) holding the US back.

It may not even need a case. It may just need to offer sufficient justification for carrying out a death sentence without due process. That's the sort of thing Rep. Mike Rogers seems to think the US should be doing anyway. His unwavering belief that the US is a country constantly besieged by attackers leaves no room for constitutional nuances like due process. This, along with "transparency" is referred to by Rogers as "red tape."

Even as the "case" is being built, there are other concerns. As we just covered recently, the NSA aids in tracking down strike targets, but it's doing so using (no big deal, it's just) metadata, some of which is less than precise. Those who think they are targets are swapping SIM cards around as quickly as possible to thwart geolocation tracking, which ultimately means the target being killed may not be the person the NSA thinks he/she is.

But moving beyond Rogers' histrionics and the NSA's haystacks, these statements by anonymous government officials don't look like much more than further appeasement. Rules were put in place to make other countries happier and this very public hand wringing looks for all the world like the administration stage-whispering "See how very complicated this is, and how restrained we're being in response." Admittedly, stagecraft is a large part of politics, but this particular incident is notable for its overacting.

The government has killed four Americans with drone strikes since 2009, so this open-air discussion has less to do with concerns about following proper steps than it does with letting unhappy foreign nations know how seriously we're suddenly taking our targeted killing responsibilities. The limitations on drone strikes were a long time coming, and it has taken a sustained uproar over several years to get them implemented. The last time the administration spent any time considering the implications of its hands-off approach to extrajudicial killing was towards the end of Obama's first term in 2012, when there was the momentary concern that The Bad Guys (the other party) might have the same unfettered access and authority.

As much as the unnamed American might be deserving of punishment for his attacks on Americans, the administration should stick to its self-imposed rules and follow the processes it implemented. And the least it could do is follow the rules without carrying on in public, trying to conjure up some sort of sympathy for the difficult decisions it faces.

Filed Under: barack obama, cia, doj, drones, targeting, us citizens, white house officials

New Whistleblower Reveals NSA Picking Drone Targets Based On Bad Data: 'Death By Unreliable Metadata'

from the but-it's-just-metadata dept

Late last night, the new publication from Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill launched. It's called The Intercept, and I imagine that it's going to be a must-follow for a variety of reasons. Its first major article digs deep into the NSA's role in killing people with drones (often innocent people) based on questionable metadata. Remember how NSA defenders kept insisting that "it's just metadata" as if that was no big deal? Well, what about when that metadata is being used to kill people?

Just last week, we wrote about Rep. Mike Rogers complaining about new "red tape" that was making it more difficult to indiscriminately kill people with drones. That "red tape" is actually just a new set of guidelines designed to try to prevent more killing of innocent people with drones. This new report highlights how the US government's infatuation with drones, combined with the NSA's obsessive collection of metadata, means that drones are frequently used to kill people based on very little evidence that the people being killed are actually terrorist threats.

One noteworthy point about this article: it relies on two new sources, one named, one kept secret, backed up by Snowden documents. That is, it appears that at least one other source (in this case, a recent member of JSOC’s High Value Targeting task force -- the group that's in charge of figuring out who to capture and kill) has come forward to Greenwald and others, calling foul on what the US government is doing. This person was privy to how targets are selected, and it's pretty scary how little info they're going on. The fact that the NSA was heavily involved in picking targets was revealed a while back, but this person explains how much those choosing targets rely on bad metadata from the NSA to kill people -- often revealed later to be totally innocent.

In one tactic, the NSA “geolocates” the SIM card or handset of a suspected terrorist’s mobile phone, enabling the CIA and U.S. military to conduct night raids and drone strikes to kill or capture the individual in possession of the device.

The former JSOC drone operator is adamant that the technology has been responsible for taking out terrorists and networks of people facilitating improvised explosive device attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But he also states that innocent people have “absolutely” been killed as a result of the NSA’s increasing reliance on the surveillance tactic.

One problem, he explains, is that targets are increasingly aware of the NSA’s reliance on geolocating, and have moved to thwart the tactic. Some have as many as 16 different SIM cards associated with their identity within the High Value Target system. Others, unaware that their mobile phone is being targeted, lend their phone, with the SIM card in it, to friends, children, spouses and family members.

Some top Taliban leaders, knowing of the NSA’s targeting method, have purposely and randomly distributed SIM cards among their units in order to elude their trackers. “They would do things like go to meetings, take all their SIM cards out, put them in a bag, mix them up, and everybody gets a different SIM card when they leave,” the former drone operator says. “That’s how they confuse us.”

The guy also points out that the metadata is often somewhat questionable in itself:

What’s more, he adds, the NSA often locates drone targets by analyzing the activity of a SIM card, rather than the actual content of the calls. Based on his experience, he has come to believe that the drone program amounts to little more than death by unreliable metadata.

“People get hung up that there’s a targeted list of people,” he says. “It’s really like we’re targeting a cell phone. We’re not going after people – we’re going after their phones, in the hopes that the person on the other end of that missile is the bad guy.”

You would think that someone like Rep. Rogers would be happy that we were trying to improve our targeting and to stop killing innocent people, but apparently making sure the people we target are actually guilty is just too much "red tape." But it hasn't stopped these killings. The source in the article notes that the "overwhelming majority" of the strikes they're doing these days are based almost entirely on the NSA's signals intelligence.

The report also reveals that the NSA has a program in which the drone itself has what's basically its own phone cell attached to the drone, in order to better target a particular phone (note: not person, but phone) when dropping a bomb. The report also reveals another program, this one from the CIA, called SHENANIGANS (really), that maps out WiFi networks from the sky and tries to suck up any data it can. When this program was used in Yemen, the mission was called (again, no joke) VICTORYDANCE.

There's a lot more in the article, which is well worth reading. It's good to see more sources who are uncomfortable with what the NSA, CIA and others are doing getting in touch with Greenwald and others. It's also worth noting that this guy claims he tried to raise these issues through the "proper channels" and was rebuffed.

Filed Under: cia, drones, glenn greenwald, jsoc, metadata, nsa, targeting, the intercept

Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People

from the how-is-this-man-in-power? dept

It appears that Rep. Mike Rogers -- beyond his crazy conspiracy theories that the US should prosecute journalists and that Ed Snowden must be a Russian spy -- is also so supportive of his buddies in the intelligence community that he's upset that they have to actually be careful to try to not indiscriminately kill innocent civilians with drones. As you may recall, last year, President Obama put in place some (fairly weak) guidelines for how drones could be used -- guidelines that the intelligence community has been resisting, because they had "acquired a taste" for killing people with drones. Prior to that, there were basically no rules at all, and they were used in very questionable circumstances.

All of this has apparently infuriated Rogers, who is insisting that by having some basic guidelines on how drones are used means that we're all going to die. It's a typical insane war-mongerer's cry: if you don't give me and my friends total power, then you will be less safe. And Rogers plays the stereotypical role exactly:

“The President’s May 2013 policy changes for U.S. targeted strikes are an utter and complete failure and they leave Americans’ lives at risk,” Rogers said at the outset of a hearing on global threats to U.S. security.

“Individuals who would have previously been removed from the battlefield by U.S. counterterrorism operations for attacking or plotting against U.S. interests remain free because of self-imposed red tape. While we are busy pondering more ‘transparency,’ our intelligence professionals are left paralyzed because of totally incoherent policy guidance,” the Michigan Republican added.

Rogers also complained about President Obama's speeches on the matter, in which he dared to suggest that the US should only use drones when there was "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set." According to Rogers, that position -- of trying to not kill innocent civilians -- is just "political expediency."

“That is not leadership,” Rogers declared. “We are in a fight, and our policy should be dictated by what best protects America, and not what is politically expedient.”

Of course, even with the new policies in place, there's been plenty of coverage of the fact that a US drone strike took out a wedding party in Yemen -- so apparently the "red tape" didn't stop that sort of indiscriminate killing of innocent people.

Frankly, it's kind of scary that someone in power -- especially the guy who's supposed to be in charge of oversight for the intelligence community -- appears to be spitting mad that the people he's supposed to keep in line have to actually justify extrajudicial killing of people via drones.

Of course, this is the same guy who claims that if you don't know your privacy is being violated, then it isn't being violated -- so by extension, I guess we can assume that if you don't know you were killed indiscriminately by a drone, it doesn't count. Right?

Filed Under: barack obama, cia, drone policies, drones, mike rogers, red tape, war monger

Wyden And Udall Hint Strongly At CIA Hacking Into Americans' Computers

from the pay-attention dept

By this point, it should be clear that when Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall ask questions to senior intelligence community officials in open hearings, it's not because they don't know the answers, but because they do, and they have information that they think should be public. Remember, of course, that, years ago, Wyden and Udall were clearly hinting at what Ed Snowden eventually revealed. So, during yesterday's hearing during which leaders from the intelligence community tried to pull their usual "be scared American people!" schtick, Wyden's and Udall's questions point to some potential mischief by the CIA. Both asked questions of CIA boss John Brennan concerning the legality of certain actions. It is unlikely that they did this because they were just curious. Wyden kicked it off by asking if the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) applied to the CIA:

Wyden: Does the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act apply to the CIA?

Brennan: I would have to look into what that act actually calls for and its applicability to CIA’s authorities. I’ll be happy to get back to you, Senator, on that.

Wyden: How long would that take?

Brennan: I’ll be happy to get back to you as soon as possible but certainly no longer than–

Wyden: A week?

Brennan: I think that I could get that back to you, yes.

Of course, we've written about the CFAA many times, and how the broadly (terribly) written law has been abused by law enforcement to go after all sorts of ordinary or reasonable computer activity. But Wyden is flipping this around in a slightly interesting way -- asking if the CFAA applies to the CIA. The answer, actually, is probably no, the CFAA doesn't apply to the CIA. If you look at 18 USC 1030(f) (which is part of the CFAA), it says:

This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

It seems likely that the eventual answer from Brennan to Wyden will basically point to this particular language. But that's not particularly important, as the intent of the question likely had little to do with actually looking at the scope of the CFAA, but rather hinting very strongly that the CIA is hacking into computers in a manner that would violate the CFAA if it wasn't being done by law enforcement.

This was then followed up soon after with a question from Udall, again to Brennan, asking a slightly different question about the CIA's legal authority, which Brennan doesn't actually answer, instead answering a different question that wasn't asked:

Udall: I want to be able to reassure the American people that the CIA and the Director understand the limits of its authorities. We are all aware of Executive Order 12333. That order prohibits the CIA from engaging in domestic spying and searches of US citizens within our borders. Can you assure the Committee that the CIA does not conduct such domestic spying and searches?

Brennan: I can assure the Committee that the CIA follows the letter and spirit of the law in terms of what CIA’s authorities are, in terms of its responsibilities to collect intelligence that will keep this country safe. Yes Senator, I do.

Got that? He was asked "do you spy on Americans?" and the answer was "we follow the law." Considering that Wyden and Udall have been among the leading folks pointing out that the intelligence community has regularly reinterpreted the laws in secret in order to broaden their claimed authority, that answer is hardly assuring. Instead, it sure sounds like the CIA admitting that, hell yes, they spy on Americans under their twisted interpretation of the law. Combine that with Wyden's question -- which may or may not be about the same issue, but the two have often coordinated on these issues -- and it certainly hints at the idea that the CIA is hacking into Americans' computers.

Over the last few months, much of the focus has been on the NSA, but it's important to remember that the CIA actually is bigger in terms of its budget, and remains incredibly powerful and secretive. Also, over the last decade or so there appears to be significant evidence of incredible abuse by the CIA. As we've noted a few times, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been sitting on a supposedly explosive report that cost $40 million to put together, detailing some horrific CIA abuses, which the CIA has been doing everything possible to stop from being released.

Given all this, how long will it be until we discover "explosive" revelations about the CIA that confirm what Wyden and Udall have been hinting at?

Filed Under: americans, cfaa, cia, eo 12333, executive order 12333, hacking, john brennan, mark udall, ron wyden, surveillance

Former CIA Boss, Task Force Member Says Even Though Metadata Collection Hasn't Been Useful, It Should Be Expanded

from the huh? dept

We've pointed out that one of the big surprises in the White House's task force proposals on NSA reform, was that the task force was pretty clear that the NSA had absolutely nothing to support the claims that the Section 215 (of the PATRIOT Act) bulk metadata collection had been even remotely helpful. Multiple members of the task force have discussed how shocked they were to find the lack of any "there" there. As we noted, law professor Geoffrey Stone expressed his shock to NBC:

“It was, ‘Huh, hello? What are we doing here?’” said Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, in an interview with NBC News. “The results were very thin.”

While Stone said the mass collection of telephone call records was a “logical program” from the NSA’s perspective, one question the White House panel was seeking to answer was whether it had actually stopped “any [terror attacks] that might have been really big.”

“We found none,” said Stone.

Meanwhile, Richard Clarke, former anti-terrorist czar to multiple presidents, expressed similar surprise in an interview with On The Media. When asked about that program, he noted that the task force had been given security clearance to go through all of the data and all of the cases where Section 215 data was used, and:

"we came to the conclusion it was not necessary in any case where it was used."

Throughout all of this, I'd been kind of curious to hear where task force panel member Michael Morell came down on all of this. He was the most suspect member of the task force, having been the acting director of the CIA until just a little while before the task force was put together. In other words, he was an ultimate intelligence community insider, and I kind of wondered if he had been a dissenting voice on some of this, overruled by the others.

Well, Morell is now speaking out, and while it's not clear if he was overruled, he is trying very, very hard to spin the proposals and findings over Section 215 into something very different, almost directly in contrast with the statements from Stone and Clarke. Specifically, he is arguing that even though the bulk data collection has been useless he's sure it could be useful in the future if allowed to continue. Actually, he goes beyond that, saying that what would be even more useful is if they added back bulk metadata collection around email, the program that had been stopped back in 2011, as even the NSA itself had admitted it had little to no value. But Morell supports them both, because he thinks that maybe it'll be helpful in the future.

"I would argue actually that the email data is probably more valuable than the telephony data," Morell told National Journal in a telephone interview. "You can bet that the last thing a smart terrorist is going to do right now is call someone in the United States."

Morell also said that while he agreed with the report's conclusion that the telephone data program, conducted under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, made "only a modest contribution to the nation's security" so far, it should be continued under the new safeguards recommended by the panel. "I would argue that what effectiveness we have seen to date is totally irrelevant to how effective it might be in the future," he said. "This program, 215, has the ability to stop the next 9/11, and if you added emails in there it would make it even more effective. Had it been in place in 2000 and 2001, I think that probably 9/11 would not have happened."

This is ridiculous on multiple levels. The idea that more data collection would have stopped 9/11 has already been thoroughly debunked by Michael German, who went through the 9/11 Commission report, showing that the intelligence community actually had already collected more than enough info to discover the plot -- they just failed to do anything with the information. And, in fact, that's a key part of the problem: adding more data to the pile actually makes it harder to understand that data. This is why it's silly for NSA defenders to keep talking about "needles and hay stacks." The point of the needle and the haystack is that the more hay you have, the harder it is to find the needle.

Furthermore, it takes some kind of logic to argue that a program that's been in existence for years, with not a single success to show for it, should be kept up (and expanded) just because it might be useful somehow in the future. Elsewhere, Morell faithfully repeated the NSA's other big talking point about how none of what it's doing is "spying on Americans."

“I think that is a perception that's somehow out there. It is not focused on any single American. It is not reading the content of your phone calls or my phone calls or anybody else's phone calls. It is focused on this metadata for one purpose only and that is to make sure that foreign terrorists aren't in contact with anybody in the United States,” said Michael Morell on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

While some people do think that (and, for what it's worth, it does appear that the NSA is collecting such content on many people, including Americans, through other programs), people are just as concerned about the metadata collection -- as has been clearly explained many times over. Besides, the report that Morell himself was a part of seems to indicate the quite reasonable concern that this data could be seriously abused.

It's interesting to see Morell try to spin his own report, but the words of his fellow panelists show what's really going on. Section 215 hasn't done anything useful. Morell's idea of expanding it and claiming it might do something useful in the future is based on nothing other than the general desire of the intelligence community, which Morell is a part of, to always suck up as much information as possible, no matter what the consequences or harm it may cause.

Filed Under: bulk metadata collection, cia, geoffrey stone, intelligence, michael morell, nsa, richard clarke, section 215, task force

Feds Focus Investigation On Who Leaked Report Implicating Ex-CIA Boss For Intelligence Leak... Rather Than On Initial Leak

from the high-court-low-court dept

We've discussed the whole "high court/low court" concept here a few times before -- in that those who are powerful play by one set of rules, while the rest of us have to play by a very different set of rules. Keep that in mind as you read the following.

A couple of years ago, then CIA boss Leon Panetta apparently revealed a bunch of classified information concerning the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound to filmmaker Mark Boal, who went on to write the screenplay for the film "Zero Dark Thirty." Boal was the lone guest without security clearance at a speech Panetta gave revealing a bunch of details, including the identity of the ground commander of the Navy SEAL unit that executed the raid. And others in the raiding party were at the event, sitting in the front row with name tags. Panetta's revealing of this info to Boal was revealed in a draft report by the Pentagon Inspector Generals' office. Also in that report was the information that the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Michael Vickers, had disclosed classified names to both Boal and Kathryn Bigelow, who directed the film.

When the "official" Inspector General report came out, the initial findings that both Panetta and Vickers had revealed classified information had been scrubbed. It doesn't blame either of them, even though the internal findings said they had, in fact, revealed that info. However, the draft report that implicated Panetta and Vickers was then leaked to reporters for newspaper giant McClatchy, as well as a non-profit, leading to Panetta and Vickers' actions being publicly reported.

So... guess what the government is angry about? Is it those top officials revealing classified information to filmmakers? Or... is it government insiders revealing to the press that those top officials revealed classified information? Yes, you already know the answer. No one seems interested in doing anything about Panetta or Vickers. Rather, the government is "aggressively" trying to go after whoever released the draft report -- even though the details in that report weren't classified.

More than two years after sensitive information about the Osama bin Laden raid was disclosed to Hollywood filmmakers, Pentagon and CIA investigations haven’t publicly held anyone accountable despite internal findings that the leakers were former CIA Director Leon Panetta and the Defense Department’s top intelligence official.

Instead, the Pentagon Inspector General’s Office is working to root out who might have disclosed the findings on Panetta and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers to a nonprofit watchdog group and to McClatchy.

The report notes that the Inspector General's office has been "grilling" a bunch of people, trying to dig out who revealed the draft report that named Panetta and Vickers.

The end result seems clear. If you're super high up in the political chain, you get the high court. Reveal classified info to filmmakers? No worries. Not only will you not be prosecuted or even lose your job, the inspectors will scrub your name from the report and, according to the article, the person in charge of the investigation will "slow roll" the eventual release of the report until you switch jobs.

But if you're just a worker bee and you leaked the unclassified draft report that names Panetta and Vickers? Well, you get the low court. A new investigation, including aggressive pursuit by the government, and interrogations of staffers to try to find out who leaked the report.

Filed Under: cia, defense department, leaks, leon panetta, michael vickers

CIA Still Trying To Block Release Of Senate's $40 Million 'Devastating' Report About CIA's Torture Program

from the it's-going-to-come-out-eventually dept

Back in October, we wrote about how the Senate Intelligence committee was sitting on an apparently devastating report about the CIA's torture program. The report apparently cost an astounding $40 million to put together (I still have trouble understanding how this is even possible...), but the CIA was fighting against ever having it released, arguing that it was inaccurate and painted them in an unfairly bad light. The report is so devastating that even Senator Dianne Feinstein, long seen as the intelligence community's leading apologist, has been at the forefront of arguing for its release.

Foreign Policy magazine is now reporting that, even as the CIA continues to fight against it, some sort of deal has been reached to release at least part of the report.

On Thursday night, Feinstein said the CIA and the Obama administration have agreed that portions of her committee's exhaustive, 6,000-page report should be shared with the public. News of the agreement follows an intense struggle between the CIA and lawmakers that will likely shape how history views one of the most controversial periods in the post-9/11 era, when the CIA used tactics that President Obama and others have condemned as torture in an attempt to elicit information about terrorism.

At a hearing concerning the nomination of Caroline Krass to become the next general counsel for the CIA, Senator Mark Udall demanded that the document be made public, and threatened to block the nomination until the document was released. Senator Feinstein also quizzed Krass about getting access to related documents, concerning the CIA's legal rationale for its torture program and drone strikes -- only to have Krass refuse to commit to providing those documents. According to the Reuters report Krass told the committee she "did not believe members of the Senate panel had the right to see" those documents.

While so much of the focus concerning the intelligence community has been on the NSA these past few months, there is a growing amount of evidence that the CIA is also completely out of control, and views itself as being beyond basic Congressional oversight. It is a reminder that reforms for fixing the intelligence community cannot and should not focus merely on correcting this program or that program, but on a true and comprehensive overhaul of the entire system.

And it should start with releasing this 6,300 page report that American taxpayers paid $40 million to produce.

Filed Under: caroline kass, cia, dianne feinstein, drones, mark udall, torture

US Government Says CIA Black Site Prisoners' Memory Of Their Own Torture Is Classified And Cannot Be Revealed

from the are-they-serious? dept

I'd missed this story when it came out a few weeks ago, but thanks to Rob Hyndman for calling it to my attention. There was plenty of press around the fact that one of the guys being held by US forces in Guantanamo, and who faces trial as one of the co-conspirators for 9/11, supposedly sustained head injuries while being held by the CIA. But, that's just the tip of the iceberg of the story. Apparently Ammar al Baluchi, and some of the other prisoners are trying to argue that the US violated the UN Convention Against Torture with how they treated prisoners at the infamous black sites. But here's the crazy part: the US is arguing that the prisoners' own recollections of what was done to them cannot be used in court, because it would reveal classified information. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Yes, the US government is arguing that it can torture people (though, of course, it won't call it that), but if you try to call them on it via various courts, domestic or international, the very people who were tortured are not allowed to present evidence of their own torture, because it would reveal classified information. Classified information like how the CIA tortured people. Now, the people in this case may be very bad people, who really were involved in planning 9/11, and if that's true and proven as such, I have no problem with them being punished for their actions. But that doesn't excuse torturing them, no matter what some misguided authoritarians believe. And, furthermore, if the government is going to torture them, then they should at least have the balls to stand up in court and discuss what they did and why -- not telling the people they tortured that their own recollections of how they were tortured are considered classified material.

In the al Baluchi case, his lawyer has been using unclassified medical records to try to show that he was tortured, but remains barred from using anything beyond that.

Attorney James Connell invoked two of Baluchi’s unclassified Guantánamo medical records in a bid to argue that not everything the captives say about their treatment at the CIA’s overseas prison network from 2002 to 2006 constitutes national security secrets.

At issue is the 9/11 defense attorneys’ challenge of a military commissions protective order that, the defenders say, oblige the attorneys to make sure the prisoners don’t tell foreign courts or human rights groups their memories of what the CIA did to them during the years before they were brought here in 2006.

Another (military) lawyer representing some of the accused notes how ridiculous the situation is:

“You cannot use state secrets to classify the observations and experiences of someone who was exposed to torture,” said Army Maj. Jason Wright, Mohammed’s defense attorney, arguing that the U.S. government was using a classification regime to hide what the CIA did to the men in secret overseas prisons, out of reach of U.S. courts and the International Red Cross, from 2002 until 2006.

And yet that's exactly what the government is trying to do.

Filed Under: black sites, cia, classified, prisoners, terrorists

FBI And CIA Use Patriot Act's Bulk Data Collection To Get Money Transfer Data

from the of-course-they-do dept

You didn't think that the bulk collection of phone record information was the only set of records that the intelligence community collected in bulk under the PATRIOT Act, did you? Of course not. That provision says it can be used for "any tangible thing," and since that seems to include bulk data collection, money transfer info sure would be handy for the feds. Both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal are running fairly detailed stories about this bulk collection of money transfer data, which is managed by the FBI, but where the data is quickly shipped on to the CIA. They claim that they're focused on foreign-foreign transactions, but sometimes they'll collect Foreign-Domestic transfers as well.

The NY Times piece has a fun section describing all the little ways NSA and other intelligence officials have more or less let it slip that a program like this was going on -- but also quotes someone saying that there's at least one more type of bulk collection that hasn't been revealed yet (and it may be more than one). The WSJ article reveals that Congress only just found out about this program over the summer, even though it's been approved by the FISA Court for a while -- so the usual defenses from the NSA's best friends is inevitable: "it's all legal," they'll say. That said, the report also notes that some in Congress were quite worried.

Of course, some others, even those who worked in the government, find this whole thing problematic. The WSJ piece has a great quote from Timothy Edgar, who worked as a private lawyer for the NSA and the Director of National Intelligence, where he basically tells them that this information should be public:

"The public has a right to know about the broad outlines of how the government is collecting information on them," he said, noting that the FISA Court has noted the existence of other collection programs. "As a matter of basic good governance, the government should be more transparent about these kinds of collection programs."

Yeah, but the US isn't really big on "good governance," is it? In the end, this might not be surprising (and should have you wondering about what other data troves the US collects via Section 215), but it's still quite revealing. It also reminds us that the government is likely collecting a lot more that hasn't been revealed yet.

Filed Under: bulk collection, cia, fbi, money transfers, nsa, patriot act, section 215, surveillance
Companies: western union