Good Morning!
Photo by: joanneleon. July, 2013.
Photo by: joanneleon. July, 2013.
Photo by: joanneleon. July, 2013.
Tunes
Grateful Dead - Sugar Magnolia
News & Opinion
Elise Jordan, Michael Hastings' widow was on Piers Morgan in the first interview she has given since his death. She says that her gut tells her that it was just a tragic accident. She also says that his profile article on John Brennan will be published soon, within weeks. I read elsewhere that Hastings was writing a book on Brennan and that Jordan was going to finish writing it. So it's unclear how much of this Rolling Stone article was written by Hastings and how much of it was written by Jordan.
Michael Hastings' Widow Finally Speaks on Piers Morgan
Michigan's Rep. Justin Amash had some very interesting things to say on Twitter yesterday. Below are some selected messages, in chronological order. Remember, the president, the DoJ officials, the NSA director Alexander, various senators and members of Congress have been repeating, over and over, that these surveillance programs were approved by all three branches of the government and that Congress oversaw them. In fact, some have gone as far as to imply that if members of the House didn't know about these things then they just weren't doing their jobs because the classified information was available to them if they took advantage of the special briefings and opportunities to view documents in a secure location.
So now Amash reveals that things are not quite the way they are being presented. Members of the Intelligence committee don't help their colleagues understand what they are being briefed about and don't offer up the significant information and members of Congress only get that if they know which questions to ask. And in a recent briefing, the didn't get a lot of notice or it wasn't very well communicated (I think that's what he is saying) and then the opportunity to get this classified info was only for a three hour window. And even if all members of Congress are authorized to get this briefing, they can't discuss it with each other and one member cannot fill in another member who wasn't able to attend. I do hope that Amash and others keep telling the public about things like this because if his depiction of the situation is the accurate one, then there are quite a few people out there seriously misrepresenting what is going on with oversight and briefings (even more so than we suspected, I would say).
There is some interesting bipartisanship, or really nonpartisanship going on and it's visible on Twitter. Of course our apologist friends would say that having anything decent to say about a right-wing Congressman on one issue means that the far right and the far left ends of the parties are becoming so similar that the political spectrum is curving around and the two ends now meet. That's absurd, of course, and the political spectrum is a line, not a curve. It's a line, where members are considered "far right" or "far left" not always because of their positions on things but sometimes because they are less bogged own by that huge and growing, corrupt swamp in the middle of the spectrum, on many issues. I just read yesterday that the best predictor of how a House member would vote on the Amash-Conyers amendment was the amount of cash they received from the military-intelligence-industrial complex, not party affiliation.
This article by Greenwald was posted yesterday but let's look at it again. On another related topic. I'm grateful to Senators Wyden and Udall for persistently trying to inform the public that something was amiss with the NSA programs. But I'm starting to get frustrated with the fact that both of them are making a lot of political hay about the subject and considering themselves heroes now that they can speak more freely due to Snowden's document leaks. But when asked if he is a traitor or a hero, neither senator will defend Snowden. And at this point, I can't help but think of the courage of Sen. Gravel and the Pentagon Papers. Wyden and Udall, if they disclosed some key things on the Senate floor, would have immunity. Wyden says he'd be breaking the law if he disclosed things but again, he has immunity regarding things said in the course of Senate business. Snowden has no immunity and has given up a lot. Can't Wyden stick his neck out a little? I think it's time for him to step up. If he wants to take the credit, and he largely does, which is evident when you hear him speak, then he needs to take a little risk. And exactly how risky would it be at this point? He's got more cover than ever and the moment is now.
Members of Congress denied access to basic information about NSA
Documents provided by two House members demonstrate how they are blocked from exercising any oversight over domestic surveillance
Denial of access for members of Congress to basic information about the NSA and the FISC appears to be common. Justin Amash, the GOP representative who, along with Democratic Rep. John Conyers, co-sponsored the amendment to ban the NSA's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, told CNN on July 31: "I, as a member of Congress, can't get access to the court opinions. I have to beg for access, and I'm denied it if I - if I make that request."
[...]
In early July, Grayson had staffers distribute to House members several slides published by the Guardian about NSA programs as part of Grayson's efforts to trigger debate in Congress. But, according to one staff member, Grayson's office was quickly told by the House Intelligence Committee that those slides were still classified, despite having been published and discussed in the media, and directed Grayson to cease distribution or discussion of those materials in the House, warning that he could face sanctions if he continued.
It has been widely noted that the supremely rubber-stamping FISA court constitutes NSA "oversight" in name only, and that the Intelligence Committees are captured by the agency and constrained to act even if they were inclined to. Whatever else is true, members of Congress in general clearly know next to nothing about the NSA and the FISA court beyond what they read in the media, and those who try to rectify that are being actively blocked from finding out.
Greenwald: Is U.S. Exaggerating Threat to Embassies to Silence Critics of NSA Domestic Surveillance?
Greenwald explains, "Here we are in the midst of one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we’ve had in a very long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly, an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates around the world. ... The controversy is over the fact that they are sweeping up billions and billions of emails and telephone calls every single day from people around the world and in the United States who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism." Greenwald also discusses the NSA’s XKeyscore Internet tracking program, Reuters’ report on the Drug Enforcement Agency spying on Americans, and the conviction of Army whistleblower Bradley Manning.
I was kind of shocked to see this intro to the article below on Twitter from the official account of the WaPo. I guess that some reporters and news editors at the WaPo have ignored the sickening op-ed written by their editorial board some weeks ago saying that the media should stop printing articles on leaked materials about the NSA. Or maybe the prospect of new ownership is giving them some fortitude? I assumed that the new owner, an Amazon exec, was a wingnut. But I saw something on Twitter saying that OpenSecrets revealed that he gave some money to Jill Stein in 2012, which seemed kind of odd. So who is this new WaPo owner? What is he like and how will he run the organization?
The NSA is giving your phone records to the DEA. And the DEA is covering it up.
A day after we learned of a draining turf battle between the NSA and other law enforcement agencies over bulk surveillance data, it now appears that those same agencies are working together to cover up when those data get shared.
[...]
There’s another reason the DEA would rather not admit the involvement of NSA data in its investigations: It might lead to a constitutional challenge to the very law that gave rise to the evidence.
Earlier this year, a federal court said that if law enforcement agencies wanted to use NSA information in court, they had to say so beforehand and give the defendant a chance to contest the legality of the surveillance. Lawyers for Adel Daoud, who was arrested in a federal sting operation and charged with trying to detonate a bomb, suspect that Daoud was identified using NSA information but was never told.
So the author of that article above, Brian Fung, does us a service because he gets right to the heart of the matter and points out the two most significant things about DEA-SOD revelations. First he notes that just one day before, we got another article saying that the NSA was stingy with their data even though other agencies are always clamoring for it, which paints a certain picture of NSA as a responsible player. Then just one day later we get this news about wide sharing of NSA intel on Americans. So is Brian Fung telling us that the other article was propaganda? If so, make a mental note of the people who put out that message. But even more important is what is hinted at in the title. This is the thing to grab onto in this situation. They find their suspects doing "sneak and peek" activities without a warrant. Then when they find evidence of crimes, they go back and get the warrants on the people they've now unconstitutionally searched, and they create an audit trail of their investigation, a fake trail. Now if the DEA-SOD, and perhaps the DoJ, were doing these investigations legally and constitutionally, why would they have to go back and fake their steps in the investigation for the courts? Well because they're breaking the law and their oaths to uphold the Constitution, that's the obvious explanation. And the NSA is right there along with them.
To substantiate my argument that Mr. Fung has done a service by zeroing in on those things in his article, here is a post by bmaz over at emptywheel telling us that this data sharing thing is not news, even though, judging by the shock, most Americans didn't realize it. And when you think about it, it was probably always framed as being applied to drug cartel "kingpins" before and Americans just never thought it could happen to them. But that's all changed now and people are listening to information about surveillance with a new set of ears, so to speak.
About the Reuters DEA Special Operations Division Story
DEA’s Special Ops Division is neither new nor secret in the least [...] As the war on drugs went nuclear, the DEA devised what they termed the “Kingpin Strategy”
[...]
However, what IS being covered up, and what really is the substance of the body of the Reuter’s article, is the practice of “parallel construction” of cases [...] It is the “clean teaming” of criminal prosecutions. And it is a direct and tangible fraud upon defendants, the courts, Due Process and several other important Constitutional concepts.
A helpful reminder from emptywheel on that DEA/NSA thing:
I don't want to get wrapped up in the whistleblower vs. traitor thing too much or make it about the person not the programs, but in all honesty, it really is a huge issue for a lot of reasons that we all know. But I'm bringing it up here to make the point that if a Republican Congressman, who has a hell of a lot less political security than Senator Wyden, can come right out and say Snowden is a whistleblower, and not hedge, why can't Wyden do that? Yes, I'm on his case today. He's been out there blowing his own horn for two months now. Time to step up and get more of a spine, Sen. Wyden. You're in the perfect position. At least define this as protected whistleblowing activity, and also spill a bit more on the Senate floor. Start by telling us more about the time the FISA courty found an NSA program to be illegal and unconstitutional. The FISA court is willing to declassify that decision but the most transparent administration in history won't.
Republican Congressman Amash calls Snowden whistleblower, not traitor
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Sunday called former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a whistleblower, not a traitor, and said that members of Congress would have been left in the dark about the NSA’s spy tactics if it weren’t for the information leaks.
[...]
“Without his doing what he did, members of Congress would not have really known about [those programs],” Amash said. “Members of Congress were not really aware on the whole about what these programs were being used for and the extent to which they were being used. Members of the intelligence committee were told, but rank-and-file members really didn’t have the information.”
[...]
“Yes,” Amash said. “As I said, he may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic, that we’d find dangerous… we’ll find those facts out over time. But as far as Congress is concerned, sure, he’s a whistleblower. He told us what we need to know.”
Public-private partnerships are a key goal of this White House.
The Public-Private Surveillance Partnership
There are two types of laws in the U.S., each designed to constrain a different type of power: constitutional law, which places limitations on government, and regulatory law, which constrains corporations. Historically, these two areas have largely remained separate, but today each group has learned how to use the other’s laws to bypass their own restrictions. The government uses corporations to get around its limits, and corporations use the government to get around their limits.
This partnership manifests itself in various ways. The government uses corporations to circumvent its prohibitions against eavesdropping domestically on its citizens. Corporations rely on the government to ensure that they have unfettered use of the data they collect.
Der Spiegel International. This is very harsh, but not at all unfair, in my opinion. I wonder if German, and perhaps other European countries, are just now realizing how extensively Pres. Obama has used the Espionage Act and other brutal tactics to shut down whistleblowers and to try to characterize them as traitors and criminals.
The Manning Verdict: Obama's Defining Injustice
By using the Espionage Act to punish Bradley Manning, the Obama administration has shown how far it will go to intimidate leakers. His sentencing is a stain on the president's legacy and on America's global reputation.
A Commentary By Hans Hoyng
That punishment could now be a 136-year prison sentence. Prosecutors have brought in the big guns -- and invoked the Espionage Act, which was passed in 1917 in reaction to fears of German spies and saboteurs.
It is political despotism to use this act in a trial that has to do with neither espionage nor sabotage. It means the defense can no longer argue that the defendant harmed no one, that he acted in the public interest. It deprives Manning of the only basis to justify his actions and the opportunity to avoid a guilty verdict.
[...]
The Manning trial isn't the first instance in which the United States under President Barack Obama has demonstrated its willingness to do everything it takes to prevent the spread of unwelcome truths. Former President Richard Nixon tried to use the Espionage Act to put the leaker of the Pentagon Papers -- about the planning of the Vietnam War -- behind bars. With a guilty verdict against Manning, Obama has now prevailed where Nixon failed.
This injustice -- more than his withdrawal from two wars, and more than his largely futile struggle to make the United States into a more socially equitable country -- will define Obama's presidency in the long term.
Kevin Gosztola from the Manning sentencing hearing on Monday. The State Dept. never even completed a damage assessment report re: the cables that Manning released. Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy (I don't think there is any relation to the Kennedy family) testified in the sentencing hearing yesterday. He's an interesting
character. He was involved with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq as a Chief of Staff. He was a member of the cabinet for Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. Less than a month ago, he was accused of killing an investigation of the ambassador to Belgium. An inspector general report claimed that the ambassador was ditching his security detail and seeking prostitutes, including child prostitutes. Now Kennedy is under investigation for killing that investigation, according to Jay Carney. A new ambassador to Belgium has been appointed. And he was the point man running the Operations Center on the night of the Benghazi attack, 9/11/12, overseeing the rescue. But Manning is in jail and Kennedy is testifying for the prosecution.
The State Department & the ‘Chilling Effect’ Caused by Bradley Manning’s Release of Diplomatic Cables
The greatest purported damage caused by WikiLeaks’ disclosure of over two hundred and fifty thousand United States Embassy cables has been the “chilling effect” the release caused, according to witnesses from the State Department who have testified in the sentencing phase of Pfc. Bradley Manning’s trial.
[...]
Military judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, asked Kennedy about this “chilling effect” and how frequently it had been felt. Kennedy told her it was a “relatively small number of people actually expressing it, but more of our colleagues have a sense that dialogue” is not “as full as it was before.” There’s a feeling diplomats are “not getting the kind of exchanges they had before WikiLeaks.”
[...]
So, why won’t the State Department complete a State Department damage assessment report on the leaks? Coombs wondered if it could be because the State Department might look bad. The department might find that there was not any damage occurring and it would conflict with what the department had hoped to find.
[...]
Van Buren said it would not be surprising if Kennedy was covering up for the State Department. He suggested that everyone at the State Department owes Pat Kennedy, is afraid of Pat Kennedy or needs Pat Kennedy. He is one of the key people in allotting resources for the State Department and nobody wants to piss him off. He also can order investigations, indicate what should be looked for and can squash such investigations if he doesn’t think people should continue certain investigations.
Just for kicks, a trip down memory lane about the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq and some things that they did... Patrick Kennedy (State Dept. witness referenced above) was part of the CPA, a transitional government immediately after the invasion, and they had full executive, legislative and judicial control over Iraq for a little bit more than a year, and they worked quickly. If we overthrow Assad, would there be a CPA installed there too, and would they quickly privatize and radically alter Syria's economy? Not that this would be one of the main reasons for doing so, mind you... [cough]. Did that transitional govt. we helped put in place in Libya do things like that? I wonder how much of their oil is still controlled by the Libyan state.
Oh, and the CPA, those are the guys who arranged for "$12 billion of cash had been delivered by C-130 planes on shrinkwrapped pallets of $100 bills."
Coalition Provisional Authority - Privatization of Iraq's economy
Prior to US occupation, Iraq had a centrally planned economy. Among other things, it prohibited foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses, ran most large industries as state-owned enterprises, and imposed large tariffs to keep out foreign goods.[4] After the U.S. military came in and took over Iraq, the CPA quickly began issuing many binding orders privatizing Iraq's economy and opening it up to foreign investment. CPA Order 39, entitled "Foreign Investment", provided that "A foreign investor shall be entitled to make foreign investments in Iraq on terms no less favorable than those applicable to an Iraqi investor," and that "[t]he amount of foreign participation in newly formed or existing business entities in Iraq shall not be limited...." Additionally, the foreign investor "shall be authorized to... transfer abroad without delay all funds associated with its foreign investment, including shares or profits and dividends...."
By this order, critics assert that the CPA drastically altered Iraq's economy, allowing virtually unlimited and unrestricted foreign investment and placing no limitations on the expatriation of profit. However, these policies were in accord with current international standards on foreign direct investment to which most of the developed world adheres.[5][6] The order concluded, "Where an international agreement to which Iraq is a party provides for more favorable terms with respect to foreign investors undertaking investment activities in Iraq, the more favorable terms under the international agreement shall apply."[7] According to critics, this order was designed to create as favorable an environment for foreign investors as possible, thereby allowing American and multinational corporations to dominate Iraq's economy.[citation needed] Critics further contend that the controversial policies are fundamentally anti-democratic in that it is not for the United States or any other country or coalition of countries to determine what trade laws Iraqis must live by, and that such rules can only be legitimate if passed initially by an elected Iraqi government free of foreign occupation and domination.[8] Others argue that the rules merely bring Iraq's economic law into conformity with modern norms of international trade, that the CPA should not be under any obligation to run Iraq as a totalitarian state simply because that's what its laws were like before the occupation, and that the previous government and its laws were not democratically legitimate since Saddam Hussein's government was not elected either.
CPA Order 17 granted all foreign contractors operating in Iraq immunity from "Iraqi legal process," effectively granting immunity from any kind of suit, civil or criminal, for actions the contractors engaged in within Iraq.[9] CPA Order 49 provided a tax cut for corporations operating within Iraq. It reduced the rate from a maximum of 40% to a maximum of 15% on income. Corporations working with the CPA were exempted from owing any tax.[10] CPA Order 12, amended by Order 54, suspended all tariffs, thus removing the advantage that domestic Iraqi producers had over foreign producers.[11][12] However, a 5% "reconstruction levy" on all imported goods was later reimposed to help finance Iraqi-initiated reconstruction projects.[13]
CNN has been doing some good reporting on the renewed interest in Benghazi, breaking the story that CIA officers involved are now being polygraphed monthly to make sure they are not leaking any information about it. But the special about it (airing tonight) is being hosted by Erin Burnett? That's really disappointing. So far, they seem to be focusing on the large CIA operation in Benghazi and perhaps the arms from Libya sent to Syria (while the US was claiming it was only providing humanitarian and non-arms aid) and they've not talked about JSOC and their night raids and assassinations on Libyan militia members. It remains to be seen if they will cover that and are simply saving the facts about the operations run out of the White House, American boots on the ground in Libya who didn't coordinate with anyone else, or whether they, like others, are going to continue to cover up that information revealed by SOFREP's Webb and Murphy but has received very little coverage in the media.
Erin Burnett On CNN’s ‘Truth About Benghazi’ Special: ‘A Reminder That There Have Got To Be Answers’
On July 31, CNN broadcast a portion of a bombshell interview that reporter Arwa Damon conducted with Ahmed Abu Khattala, a person named as a suspect in the September 11, 2012, attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. On Tuesday August 6, CNN anchor Erin Burnett will host a special which features that full interview and a number of striking revelations about the situation on the ground in Benghazi nearly one year after the attack which took the lives of four American diplomatic and service personnel.
Jack Murphy of SOFREP published another article on Benghazi yesterday. They just went behind a paywall, but the intro to the article can be read. And he also said something on Twitter which I think is the main revelation of his SOFREP post, I would guess. And it's a big one. He claims that JSOC was on the ground in Benghazi either during or after the attack, and that it was JSOC who removed Chris Stevens' body. Up until now, think it was assumed that friendly Libyan militia did that because there was some video footage and testimony to that effect. Murphy says in this article that this key piece of information was not in the book, but does not say why. If this is true, and so far Webb/Murphy have not been wrong, and they were first, with CNN and other media finally figuring out that Benghazi was not just a bogus Issa scandal, but that Issa was focused on the wrong thing... if it's true, that's a huge revelation. This is a short excerpt from Murphy's article. I believe I'm going to buy a subscription at that site, though I'm a total misfit when you look at their regular readers, mostly former Special Ops and other veterans. After this excerpt, I'll show you what he said on Twitter.
America’s Assassination Program in Libya
Last week’s prison break in Benghazi is just the latest indicator that Libya, and Benghazi in particular, is sliding deeper into chaos and sectarian violence. Between the prison breaks, riots, bombings, and shootings, there is something else that has gone overlooked. [...] there is also another player on the scene. One that is keeping a much lower profile.
[...]
a Diplomatic Security Service member made several valiant attempts to go back into the fire to find him[...] Ty Woods then arrived at the annex with his Global Response Staff element and they fought off Ansar Al-Sharia, recovered the remains of Sean Smith, and saved the other Americans. But Stevens was nowhere to be found [...]
On August 1, Murphy said this after the CNN story broke:
I think this is the Arwa Damon's interview with Ahmed Abu Khattala (referenced in the article above, part of the CNN special to be aired tonight or a teaser for the special). Damon mentions in this clip that it has been 10 or 11 months since the Benghazi attack, which is why I think this is the right clip since next week it will have been 11 months since the attack. One thing I am wondering about is why this interview is news. I am sure that I recall this guy being interviewed at a hotel and saying that no one has questioned him, months ago. Maybe this is an old interview packaged together with new material, or maybe some other media organization interviewed him some months ago and asked the same question.
CNN's Arwa Damon segment, Benghazi
This Enbridge pipeline basically follows the path and parallels the Mississippi River, and also crosses it. Stories like this sometimes make me skeptical about some environmental groups. Is there any chance that Keystone is a distraction? I guess not. Maybe it's more likely that the activists realize they can't stop all of them and thought they had a chance with this KXL.
Map: Little-Known Pipeline Nearly as Big as Keystone Could Win Race to Gulf
The Enbridge pipeline, converted from natural gas, would carry tar sands crude like the Keystone XL but is expected to easily win regulatory approval.
A little-known pipeline could win the race to ship heavy Canadian crude oil from the Midwest to the U.S. Gulf Coast if it comes online as planned in 2015.
Called the Eastern Gulf Crude Access Pipeline Project, the 774-mile line would be capable of carrying almost as much oil as the Keystone XL, the controversial pipeline mired in its fifth year of federal review.
The Eastern Gulf would run from Patoka, Ill. to St. James, La., carrying oil from North Dakota's Bakken formation as well as Canadian oil sands crude. Both types of oil are creating a bottleneck in the Midwest, which doesn't have the refining or pipeline capacity to handle the large amounts of oil now being produced.
[...]
Although many environmental groups oppose any expansion of oil sands pipelines, the Eastern Gulf project has attracted little attention. In June, Energy Transfer held an open house for Illinois landowners, but members of local green groups couldn't identify anyone who attended the meeting. Energy Transfer spokeswoman Vicki Granado said about 80 people showed up for the event. The company currently has no plans to hold public meetings in Louisiana.
Action
Blog Posts and Tweets of Interest
The Evening Blues
More Tunes
Grateful Dead - Box of Rain