Spy Versus Spy with Erik Prince

/139 Comments/in /by

SpyVSpyDangerIntrigueStupidity_AProhias_300pxhIt’s best to start reading the big Vanity Fair Erik Prince piece from this paragraph.

Prince blames Democrats in Congress for the leaks and maintains that there is a double standard at play. “The left complained about how [C.I.A. operative] Valerie Plame’s identity was compromised for political reasons. A special prosecutor [was even] appointed. Well, what happened to me was worse. People acting for political reasons disclosed not only the existence of a very sensitive program but my name along with it.” As in the Plame case, though, the leaks prompted C.I.A. attorneys to send a referral to the Justice Department, requesting that a criminal investigation be undertaken to identify those responsible for providing highly classified information to the media.

I say that not because we’ve got a few Plame experts hereabouts. And not because that revelation–that the CIA referred the stories on Blackwater to the DOJ for criminal investigation–is news to me, at least, though I think it very significant news.

But because of the premise.

Erik Prince complains that Blackwater’s role in the assassination and drone programs was leaked, just as Plame’s identity was leaked. And it’s worse, Prince says. Not because the kinds of operations he was involved in were leaked (on that level, it is worse; it took years before any details of Plame’s identity in preventing Iranian proliferation came out, not least because Cheney didn’t want that out). But because his “name along with it” was revealed.

As if the entire country didn’t already know that Erik Prince–who has testified to Congress as the head of Blackwater–is the head of Blackwater.

(I should say, “was,” since Prince claims he is “through” with Blackwater.)

Yet, in the same article where Prince complains that he, personally, has been outed, here are the things that he, personally, reveals.

  • He was tasked by the CIA to create a “small, focused capability”
  • The CIA’s original assassination squad trained at his personal estate outside of DC
  • Prince integrated third-party nationals into the assassination squad who did not know of the CIA connection
  • He (personally) and a team of foreign nationals targeted someone in 2008
  • He did the targeting on al-Qaeda middleman Abu Ghadiyah in Syria

It even reveals some of Prince’s operational tactics–such as flying coach, or switching vehicles shortly after arriving at a destination.

Prince doesn’t seem all that bugged, when you take a step back, about the details of this program being leaked.

Read more →

The Irony of Tora Bora

/182 Comments/in , /by

Picture 160Understand that–for better or worse–the new report released by John Kerry on how Osama bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora is a designed to be a political document. It offers the following “irony” to the chattering classes the weekend before Obama announces his new Afghanistan strategy,

Ironically, one of the guiding principles of the Afghan model was to avoid immersing the United States in a protracted insurgency by sending in too many troops and stirring up anti-American sentiment. In the end, the unwillingness to bend the operational plan to deploy the troops required to take advantage of solid intelligence and unique circumstances to kill or capture bin Laden paved the way for exactly what we had hoped to avoid—a protracted insurgency that has cost more lives than anyone estimates would have been lost in a full-blown assault on Tora Bora. Further, the dangerous contagion of rising violence and instability in Afghanistan has spread to Pakistan, a nuclear-armed ally of the United States which is now wracked by deadly terrorist bombings as it conducts its own costly military campaign against a domestic, Taliban-related insurgency.

The report relies on just a few interviews, but mostly on existing histories (including a Special Ops Command history included as an appendix) and even an extended column from Michael O’Hanlon (also included as an appendix)–not exactly the kind of guy I’m thrilled to see at the center of a taxpayer funded report. I view the report as the logical endpoint of Kerry’s decision to hire journalist Douglas Frantz (whose biography of AQ Khan is cited once) to head investigations.

Which is not to say the research isn’t valid. Rather, that the timing and format of the report seems designed to emphasize the irony, noted above, and other little ironies such as the way our desire to get the corrupt Hamid Karzai installed as leader of Afghanistan affected our willingness to commit troops at Tora Bora.

[Franks’ second-in-command during the war, General Michael DeLong] amplified the reasons for not sending American troops after bin Laden. ‘‘The real reason we didn’t go in with U.S. troops was that we hadn’t had the election yet,’’ he said in the staff interview, a reference to the installation of Hamid Karzai as the interim leader of Afghanistan. ‘‘We didn’t want to have U.S. forces fighting before Karzai was in power. We wanted to create a stable country and that was more important than going after bin Laden at the time.’’

And the conclusion (less well supported by the facts presented in the report) that the same unwillingness to commit troops to Afghanistan in 2001 led to Mullah Omar’s escape.

The same shortage of U.S. troops allowed Mullah Mohammed Omar and other Taliban leaders to escape. A semi-literate leader who fled Kandahar on a motorbike, Mullah Omar has re-emerged at the helm of the Taliban-led insurgency, which has grown more sophisticated and lethal in recent years and now controls swaths of Afghanistan. The Taliban, which is aligned with a loose network of other militant groups and maintains ties to Al Qaeda, has established shadow governments in many of Afghanistan’s provinces and is capable of mounting increasingly complex attacks on American and NATO forces. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who helped develop the Obama administration’s Afghan policy, recently referred to the mullah’s return to power ‘‘one of the most remarkable military comebacks in modern history.’’

All these ironies, delivered just in time to play into the debate that will intensify next week.

Where Does Blackwater Play in the CIA-DNI Conflict?

/67 Comments/in /by

By now you’ve probably read Jeremy Scahill’s latest, which moves forward the story of Blackwater thugs being deployed with the JSOC in Pakistan. It confirms what Sy Hersh reported last year–that these covert actions were (and may still be) eluding Congressional oversight, that Dick Cheney directed their activities directly.

But I’d like to focus on the picture Scahill draws of the competing lines of authority in Pakistan and put it in the context of the recently-solved turf war between Leon Panetta and Dennis Blair. Scahill explains that, since both JSOC and CIA are doing drone strikes in Pakistan (and Blackwater is assisting both) but JSOC’s have remained secret until now, CIA often gets the blame for Blackwater’s mistakes.

The military intelligence source says that the drone strike that reportedly killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, his wife and his bodyguards in Waziristan in August was a CIA strike, but that many others attributed in media reports to the CIA are actually JSOC strikes. “Some of these strikes are attributed to OGA [Other Government Agency, intelligence parlance for the CIA], but in reality it’s JSOC and their parallel program of UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] because they also have access to UAVs. So when you see some of these hits, especially the ones with high civilian casualties, those are almost always JSOC strikes.” The Pentagon has stated bluntly, “There are no US military strike operations being conducted in Pakistan.”

The military intelligence source also confirmed that Blackwater continues to work for the CIA on its drone bombing program in Pakistan, as previously reported in the New York Times, but added that Blackwater is working on JSOC’s drone bombings as well. “It’s Blackwater running the program for both CIA and JSOC,” said the source. When civilians are killed, “people go, ‘Oh, it’s the CIA doing crazy shit again unchecked.’ Well, at least 50 percent of the time, that’s JSOC [hitting] somebody they’ve identified through HUMINT [human intelligence] or they’ve culled the intelligence themselves or it’s been shared with them and they take that person out and that’s how it works.”

The military intelligence source says that the CIA operations are subject to Congressional oversight, unlike the parallel JSOC bombings.

I’m particularly focused on these competing lines of authorities in Pakistan because of one aspect to the turf war between Leon Panetta and Dennis Blair. Read more →

Obama Holding Off on Declassification Order Bush Made

/43 Comments/in , /by

Steven Aftergood reports that a looming December 31, 2009 declassification deadline–imposed by Bush’s Executive Order on classification–presents a big dilemma for the Obama White House. Obama’s been preaching openness. Yet Bush’s EO says that documents that involve multiple agency classification interests will automatically be declassified at the end of the year. And the agencies that haven’t gotten around to reviewing some documents that fall under the EO are balking. And so Obama’s trying to push through a new EO quickly.

Development of a new executive order on classification of national security information is now proceeding at an accelerated pace in order to preempt a deadline that would require the declassification of millions of pages of historical records next month.

A revised draft executive order was circulated to executive branch agencies by the Office of Management and Budget on November 16, with agency comments due back today, November 23.  A final order is likely to be issued by the end of this year.

There is an incentive to complete the development of the executive order before December 31, 2009 because of a deadline for declassification of historical records that falls on that date.  Under the current Bush executive order, classified records that are at least 25 years old and that have been referred from one agency to another because they involve multiple agency interests are supposed to be automatically declassified at the end of this year.  (See E.O. 13292, section 3.3(e)(3)).

But in order to meet this December deadline, several agencies would have to forgo a review of the affected historical records, which they are unwilling to do.  And so it seems they will simply be excused from compliance.  But in order to modify the deadline in the Bush order, it will be necessary to issue another executive order.  If the comprehensive new Obama order on classification policy (which would assign processing of such records to a National Declassification Center that does not yet exist) is not ready for release by December 31, then another stand-alone order would have to be issued, canceling or extending the looming deadline.  And officials are reluctant to issue such an order since they say it would be awkward for the avowedly pro-openness Obama Administration to relax or annul a declassification requirement that was imposed by the ultra-secret Bush Administration.

The dilemma illustrates the big problem with EOs. Even putting aside the way that some Administrations have just pixie dusted their own EOs (indeed, the Bush EO in question is the one he used to claim, four years after the fact, that Cheney didn’t have to follow the rules on classification and declassification that agencies had to), they’re simply pieces of paper that the next Administration can and will rewrite.

Which is why Congress really needs to push through some laws on classification policy (starting with State Secrets), to prevent the executive branch from just using classification policy to accrue more power and/or evade oversight. And so that we, as citizens, can begin to scrutinize what Ronnie Reagan did in our name.

Studs Terkel, Terrorist

/22 Comments/in /by

Studs TerkelNo, I’m not really claiming that Studs Terkel was a terrorist.

But, after reading his FBI file, you get a renewed sense of what the FBI’s files on Muslims and DOD’s files on peace activists must look like. It’s worth a gander, if only for a reminder of how paranoid–and susceptible to fear-mongerers–our country gets when we begin to profile our citizens because of alleged associations. Among Terkel’s suspicious ties include the National Lawyers Guild and Jewish women’s organizations.

The CUNY NYC NewsService FOIAed Turkel’s file after he passed away last year. Though the FBI just turned over 147 of 269 pages of his file.

The NewsService piece also reminds of Terkel’s NYT op-ed written during the debate about amending FISA in 2007.

In 1978, with broad public support, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which placed national security investigations, including wiretapping, under a system of warrants approved by a special court. The law was not perfect, but as a result of its enactment and a series of subsequent federal laws, a generation of Americans has come to adulthood protected by a legal structure and a social compact making clear that government will not engage in unbridled, dragnet seizure of electronic communications.

The Bush administration, however, tore apart that carefully devised legal structure and social compact. To make matters worse, after its intrusive programs were exposed, the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed a bill that legitimized blanket wiretapping without individual warrants. The legislation directly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, requiring the government to obtain a warrant before reading the e-mail messages or listening to the telephone calls of its citizens, and to state with particularity where it intends to search and what it expects to find.

Compounding these wrongs, Congress is moving in a haphazard fashion to provide a “get out of jail free card” to the telephone companies that violated the rights of their subscribers. Some in Congress argue that this law-breaking is forgivable because it was done to help the government in a time of crisis. But it’s impossible for Congress to know the motivations of these companies or to know how the government will use the private information it received from them.

As we continue to wade through the EFF document dump of that legislative battle and engage on the current battle over PATRIOT, it’s worth listening to Studs Terkel once again.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/48434860@N00/ / CC BY-ND 2.0

AG Holder Oversight Hearing, Two

/17 Comments/in , , /by

You can follow along on the Committee stream or CSPAN3.

Durbin: No complaints that Bush decided to try Moussaoui in Article III Court. Can you tell me what distinction might be.

Holder: Learned a lot from Moussaui trial. Determinations made about best forum for particular case. Best interest of American people.

Durbin: Mukasey: I was in awe of our system. We are a nation of law.

Durbin probably shouldn’t be arguing that Moussaoui was 20th hijacker, so long as al-Qahtani is unresolved.

Durbin: SCOTUS decisions in Hamdan and Congress, to come into conformance with requirements. Only 3 successfully tried in military tribunals. Are you not also aware of procedure that some will challenge this new decision.

Holder: Distinct possibility. That is something we will not have to deal with in bringing KSM in NYC. Question of legitimacy not a problem at all.

Durbin: Very close parallel. MCs have procedures not ruled upon by SCOTUS. I think those are things that should be made part of this record.

Durbin: Thompson IL which would be Gitmo North. New perimeter fence, if indeed most secured facility in America. Never had escape from SuperMax. 35 terrorists in IL.

Cornyn: [Has no voice, apologizes] Do you acknowledge legitimacy of MCs?

Holder: Absolutely. Legitimized them.

Cornyn: So your decision to try in Article III not compelled by any law.

Holder: Judgment, discretion, experience, interaction with Sec Def, all of that went into determination.

Cornyn: Does POTUS agree?

Holder: Have not had direct conversation with him, but consistent with his acrhives speech.

Cornyn: Miranda rights on battlefield?

Holder: misreporting. A very small number have been read miranda warnings after military lawyers, civ lawyers, some reason to give mirandas.

Cornyn: You support miranda rights to some suspected terrorists.

Holder: I defer to people in field. It gives us another option.

Cornyn: Should KSM have been read miaranda.

Holder; There’s no need, we don’t need his statements.

Cornyn: It’ll be a judge at trial or appellate level.

Holder: Yup. Confident that way in which this will be structured, needful miranda warnings, there is no need.

Cornyn: He did ask for lawyer, when he was detained.

Holder: I do remember that.

Cornyn: He’s getting his wish.

[WTF are they so worried about him getting THIS wish, but so pissed that Holder is not allowing him to get his wish to be martyred.]

Cornyn: Risks of KSM not being prosecuted bc didn’t get his rights.

Holder: No one can say with certainty. As I look at facts, detention of him. Evidence. I’m very confident that miranda issues not going to be part.

Cornyn: You won’t make that decision. Isn’t it the fact that you won’t make decision on miranda.

Holder: I hope that judge takes into account very real need for security.

Cornyn: If judge orders KSM to be released?

Holder: Hard to imagine set of circumstances if he were acquitted he would be released into US. Other things we have capacity to do.

Cornyn: You can’t hold someone indefinitely.

Holder: You can certainly hold people in matters pending.

Leahy: Might say only half-facetiously a lot of people in NY might like him to be released on streets of NY, he might not want to be released.

Cardin: Confidence in trial of this terrorist. Advantages of trying terrorist in Article III. Established process, used before. Credibility of our system. Our ability to showcase using American values. A lot of positive reasons to use Article III courts. Particularly the history of ignoring our own laws. F-up on Kohl’s point. Closing of Gitmo. Feingold’s point, informed decisions to classify.

Cardin: Cybersecurity. May be able to prevent 80% of attacks. We have to do better than that. HOw high a priority on this issue.

Holder: Need help of Congress. Have to be partners dealing with 21st century issue.

Cardin: Section on civil rights. Applauding you to continue to make civil rights priority. Voting rights, military personnel on absentee ballots, native americans, redistricting. To protect AMerican rights of voting.

Coburn: Letter about OKs freedmen.

Coburn: Terrorists serving lengthy sentences. HOw many picked up in Afghanistan. How many interrogated by CIA.

Holder: Will answer those questions.

Coburn: Recovery board. Submitted reports that were fraudulent. Plan to prosecute that fraudulent behavior?

Holder: Yes, one of the things we mentioned yesterday, misuse of recovery act funds. Fraud connected to it. partners at Treas and SEC, that is one of the priority areas.

Coburn; Going to be big. Over $50 billion. At least oversight. Hate crimes issue. Murder of some of recruiters in AR. Have you given any thougths, especially in light of Ft. Hood.

Holder: Hate crimes bill says such actions are potential hate crimes. Mandatory min Sessions introduced. Deals with set of facts you’re talking about.

Coburn: VRA. Kingston NC. In fact, in NC, only 9/550 localities hold election on partisan basis. 7/9 minority voted to eliminate, Civil Rights reversed. Would like to hear comments about that. How you justify reversing that, when majority think it’s prudent.

Holder: Written response.

Coburn: Really concerned. Drug abuse. Significant power of marijuana use to lead to other drug use. Federal crime to use or distribute it. Did you personally approve. Dramatic break?

Holder: it’s a break, logical break, given limited resources, the use of marijana in way state laws prescribes, for medical purposes, directive indicated that we are not blind, to extent people using to do things not consistent for state law, the federal law is still there. A number of factors that are set out. Mexican cartels make most of their money from importation of marijana into US.

Coburn: 95% of people in CA who have license for marijyana don’t have a real illness, they have a desire to smoke marijuana.

Coburn: #1 risk for our kids not obesity, it’s use of marijuana.

Whitehouse: Klobuchar was here first.

[What a gentleman]

Klobuchar. Thank you Sen Whitehouse. You mentioned tragedy at Ft. Hood. One of several Senators who went to memorial service. Waiting in line for physical ready to deploy. Family huddled next to that picture. Interested in thorough investigation, get results not only for strong prosecution. Make sure doesn’t happen again.

Holder: Obama unquivocal direction to find out what happened.

Klobuchar: Bread and butter. So many questions understandably about trial. Diligent citizens caught Moussaoui. First of all, focus on security. Mayor and police chief. Interested in getting these guys. Conviction rate is 90%.

Holder: 94%

Klobuchar: NY

Holder: Lawyers from EDVA and SDNY. NY has tried these cases before. Hardened detention facility. Means by which person can go from jail to court house. Marshalls service report.

Holder: Medicaid fraud. People who were once engaged in drug dealing, moving into this area, safer and easier. Determined to put an end to that. Sebelius and I giving particular attention. Already announced arrests in variety of cities.

Franken: Pick up on rape kit matter that both Chair and Klobuchar brought up. Important to realize, pro law enforcement. Protects innocents, brings victims closure. What’s gone wrong with this?

Holder: Don’t know why it has not worked.

Franken: 5% of world’s pop and 25% prisoners. So many drug problems and mental health. We’re essentially sending kids who are in possession of drugs, sending them to crime school. 2/3 come back within 3 years. More than a third of MN have drug courts. Offenderse in drug courts 10X more likely to continue treatment.

Holder: Supported with budgets. Support data driven analysis (recidivism v treatment). On this basis will be formulating policy.

Franken: Might I suggest increase of drug rehab in prison. Lot of people who should be in prison. It’d be nice if while in there they got treatment. One thing on health care fraud. I’d like to see those people in prison. Those folks might belong there more than people that are simply addicted to drugs. Trafficking in women. Trafficking of native american women, and international trafficking, trafficked into this country. Because some of these cases are sent to ICE, have a disincentive to report these crimes. That’s something that needs to be looked at.

Holder: Paying particular attention to plight of women on reservations. If you look at levels of violence that young girls and women subjected to. Simply unacceptable. President followed up on. Intl trafficking something we need to look at as well, to extent that that prevents enforcement in trafficking.

Whitehouse: React to two things. One is, inadvertantly disparaing tone about federal prosecutors. I hope itis inadvertant, having had some experience in that world, I’m extremely proud, I’ve had prosecutors go to court in body armor, have to explain why security system bc of threats. They are among the best lawyers in our country. I didn’t like the tone I was detecting. One in favor of prosecutorial independence. To extent that you get criticized that your decision is unpopular, the implication is taht prosecutors should seek to make decisions that meet with popualr opinoin, popular opinion a very dangerous bellweather. It gets worse when you move from popular opinion to legislative opinion. Very significant reasons why I as prosecutor didn’t want to hear from legislators. Very good reasons why isolated from these opinions. Nobody should not react that a prosecutor should not listen to threats. A prosecutor should not make decision on legislative opinion, TO make it worse is to make prosecutorial decisoin by talk show opinion. Want to stand by principles that have worked for hundreds of years. People like us–Senator–have no business attempting to influence prosecutors decision. In article III courts, tens of thousands. Everything leaves trail of precedent. MCs still have unreliability. Either new territory, or modeling on Article III,so you might as well be in Article III court.

Holder: Thank you for support in favor of career people.  To extent that anyone has any question about determination of people in DOJ. These people are among best of best. No question KSM will try to exploit same way he did MCs. Could be in other places making a lot more money, do it quite well. MCs much better than they were. A legitimate place in which we can try some of these defendants. No question that in terms of experience Article III have experience.

Whitehouse: 3 Qs for record. Drug enforcement, e-prescribing. Timing on that determination? People in bankruptcy, harshly treated under law, new trustee? When is OPR going to put out its report in OLC?

Holder: The report is completed. Being reviewed now, last stages,  a career prosecutor has to review report. At end of month report should be issued. Longer than anticipated bc of the amount of time we gave to lawyers representing subjects of report. Had to react those those responses. Report is complete being reviewed by last person.

Specter: I love Judy Miller!!

Specter: We are working hard to craft health care bill. Medicare and Medicaid fraud enormously consequential. So many cases result in fines. Adds to cost of doing business. Jail sentences are deterrent. Would you submit to committee an act to plan to see to it that there are jail sentences as matter of active govt policy.

Specter: Two-pronged approach to violent crime.

Specter: Distinction between trying people in Article III and MCs. Preliminarily support Whitehouse comment. As I take a look at protocol. As you look at interest, very similar, Yemen as opposed to NYC not all taht important. Article III courts quite a testimony to our criminal justice system. What standards to try terrorist in one place rather than other.

Holder: Evidentiary questions, location can be a problem.

Specter: less evidence than necessary.

Holder: Admissibility. If there are probs in one forum than another.

Specter: Can you give me an example.

Holder; The kind of interrogation might lead you to want to use  one forum as opposed to another. Might be questions of techniques, one forum might be more hospitable than another. No one should read into that. We will not use evidence derived from torture. Possibility that some techniques better received in one forum.

Leahy AG Holder’s fourth appearance. Republicans more rounds. American public, having been told that terrorists will gain access to classified material. Some of those same protections adopted into MCs. Concerns I have that MCs have repeatedly been overturned by SCOTUS. Federal courts have 200 years of precedent.

Kyl: Media shield discussion. Indicated address at more length. Did you ask Gates about shield law?

Holder: Conversation, but not lengthy one.

Kyl: Gates opposed

Holder: Previous bill.

Kyl: Propose we talk to people who expressed opinion. Did you talk to Mueller?

Holder: Different opinion wrt prior leg.

Kyl: Expressed as recently as September opinion still the same. Fitz recommended that law would include other provision, only if govt prevailed would info be turned over. Would you be open to provision like that. That clearly is one that both you and I and Fitz think is reasonable.

Holder: Bill as it exists is compromise

Kyl: Compromise between journalists, you and Democrats.

Holder: Graham cosponsor.

Kyl: none of us opposed.

Holder: Views letter: satisfactory to use in law enforcement.

Kyl: Did not comment on new absolute privilege. On privilege extending to protect those who violate federal law by leaking info. That act of leaking would be subject to privilege. Letter did not express itself.

Holder: I didn’t see absolute privilege to leak.

Holder: I didn’t mean to be flip about turning over names of previous conflicts. I don’t know if ethical concerns wrt atty client privilege. I didn’t mean to say I was not taking seriously.

Kyl: I suspect you and Grassley will have more conversations.

Cornyn: Fup on question that Specter asked about evidence in deciding which forum. Is it your position that it’ll be easier to get evidence of guilt in Article III court than it would be in MC.

Holder; I’m not sure I view it that way as opposed to what evidence would be used, as opposed to how Military prosecutors would prosecute case.

Cornyn: you wouldn’t try case where it’d be harder to get conviction.

Cornyn: Marshall’s report on all venues. Judge could transfer. What other venues?

Holder: Two districts: SDNY and EDVA.

Cornyn: Those are the only two.  When detainees come to US, immigration status?

Holder: Not immigration expert. Confident that given they would be here under supervision of being charged in federal court, we would be able to detain them, as we would be able to anyone charged with such serious.

Cornyn: Any claim of asylum bc of CAT?

Cornyn: Not immigration expert. One can be paroled solely for this purpose. Can’t imagine situation in which paroled into US.

Cornyn: Your position will not be conferred rights they did not have.

Holder: My expertise more on DOJ side, we can detain them and prevent them from walking streets of US.

Cornyn: Will you look into it, whether if detainee claims immigration status by virtue of presence, will allow them to get administration proceedings.

Cornyn: If detainees is acquitted. What basis you could detain?

Holder: Initial determination for detention of, would last beyond mistrial. Trial, hung jury, I suppose defense could move to have bail changed. It’s hard to imagine a judge would change status between time of hung jury and next trial.

Cornyn: You cannot indefinitely detain someone. Are you concerned that judge may say you’ve made an election to try as criminal and you’re bound by that, and you cannot revert to law of war.

Holder: No, I’m not. Under congressional provisions, and laws of war, we have ability–cannot indefinitely detain–but can detain for lawful reasons. I think very unlikely.

Cornyn: I hope you’re right.

Klobuchar: Would never want to muzzle Graham.

Graham: I wish more people felt that way. Preventative detention. America’s not a better place for letting them go.

Holder: Agree in general. Pursuant to laws of war. Dialing into due process. I think we should involve Congress in crafting law of war detention appropriately.

Graham: These are not easy decisions. Preventative detention only known in military law. Any theory in civlian law.Speedy trial rights.

Holder: Can detain someone that there’s going to be trial.

Graham: under military law can detain if in fact part of military force. My problem with what we’re doing. In Afghanistan if we capture an AQ member. Under your rationale, decision of criminal or MC, would not be known at point of capture.

Holder: these determinations have been made now, and have been made.

Graham: No one ever envisioned that terrorist captured on battlefield would end up in civilian court. Look forward on what we can do on preventative detention.

Sessions: I would just say Mr AG. If a police officer stops someone and gun in holster. I can’t imagine someone captured on battlefield, not being considered custody. Eventually he conceded. Intelligence way to go foward.

Holder: we have a great deal of flexibility. Do not think MCs illegitimate forum. Presumption of Article III.

Sessions: If presumption is cases tried in civilian courts, don’t know why soldier isn’t instructed to give miranda. Hostility by president toward MCs. For example soon after taking office suspended MCs and issued order suspending MCs.

Holder: That doesn’t indicate hostility toward MCs rather than desire to perfect them.

Sessions. SCOTUS raised some concerns. Congress did some things that make it clear to me that for these, reliable hearsay, don’t have to bring people off the battlefield. You have to have real high reason to do that in normal civilian trial. MCs go on the record in camera, protect sources and methods. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. General Mukasey has expressed concerns. Your predecessor. NYC focus for mischief in form of murder. I don’t think that’s irresponsible.

Holder: Do believe can protect sources and methods in Article III courts. Great respect for Mukasey. I think great AG. Only thing he didnt’ have at Dept was gift of time. But I disagree with him about NY. NY is a target for AQ. I’m not at all certain that bringing of these trials makes it greater risk. One of the things I read was WSJ article Mukasey wrote, and asking people to respond to things he wrote.

Klobuchar: Asked about evidence, miranda. Could you go through notion that that’s one of considerations.

Holder: One of things we look at is the admissibility issue. Where can we get admitted evidence needed to be most successful. People in field have been making determinations for some time. Thousands who have come into custody. Only small number have been given mirandas.

Klobuchar: Evidence you couldn’t share with us. Could you expand on that.

Holder: There is really, from my perspective, very compelling evidence that will not be revealed until trial setting or pre-trial setting. At some point, AUSA will reveal evidence that I’m talking about, compelling, not tainted, will prove to be decisive in this case.

Klobuchar: Unified in wanting to give tools to give your work. Morale in DOJ.

Holder; Make people believe in mission, some of things identified in IG reports, that’s not the way this department will be run. I served as line atty in DOJ under Republican and Democratic Ag, that’s what I tried to reassure them. Only expected to do job, No litmus test. Confirmation of remaining AAGs.

Dawn Johnsen!!!

Klobuchar: Done before thanksgiving?

Holder: Tomorrow;

Klobuchar: Six pending before this committee.

Sessions: 9/11 victims. When word of letter got out 3000 firefighters joined us to add their names.

Holder: A lot of people opposed. All I can do is look at the evidence, look at the law, and make best decision possible and I hope people understand that.

Klobuchar: Thank for respect from those in gallery, I know you don’t all agree with all decisions here, but thank you for the respect. Holder, we all hope you put best people on case, that they get penalties.

AG Holder Oversight Hearing

/27 Comments/in , /by

You can follow along on the Committee stream or CSPAN3.

Leahy: Using full range of authorities to fight extremists [must be an attack against Crazy Pete]. After nearly 8 years of delay, may finally be moving forward to bring to justice the perpetrators. Great faith in prosecutors, judges, juries, and American people. They committed murder and we will prosecute them. America’s response is not to cower in fear.[I wonder if he’s thinking of GoFuckYerSelf Cheney?] Those responsible for attack on USS Cole, MC, Nidal Hasan, military courtmartial. Written to John Brennan, asked him to provide internal investigation, both interim classified, Both Sessions and I should be informed. Have spoken with Mueller. Me and Feinstein were briefed on status of investigation. Try not to do in reckless fashion so as not to interfere with military prosecution.

[Note, that that clarifies who was in that briefing: Gang of Eight, plus the Judiciary Chairs. Presumably Crazy Pete was there and Holy Joe was not.]

Leahy: Financial Fraud Task Force.

Sessions: We don’t agree on KSM and 9/11. [Presumably in NYC, but he didn’t say it.] You asked for this job. David Beamer, FL, and Alice Hoagland from CA. Lost sons on Flight 93. Lisa Dolan lost her husband at the Pentagon. Debra Burlingame lost brother, pilot. Tim Brown from NYFD. A privilege to have each of you with us today. Blah blah blah blah blah. Policies taking place under new Admin, I fear that is not the case. Admin continuing to delay to provide clear leadership to men in Afghanistan, investigation of CIA officers, cut a deal on media shield legislation to protect indivs to leak classified info to mass media, concede to weakening of PATRIOT, decline to provide basic information about Ft. Hood, and now announced they will bring KSM back to Manhattan. These policies signal to our people and to inter-nat-shun-all community. Return to pre-9/11 mentality. Al Qaeda doesn’t agree. KSM in NY, departs from long-standing policy that these should be treated under the rules for law. He’s alleged not to be a common criminal. Correct way to try him is by military tribunal. MC and civilian courts have different functions. US Court system not designed to try unlawful enemy combatants. These are people we are at war with. We are dropping bombs on them every day, attacking they lairs. [anyone wonder whether Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has a woody?] They are first a prisoner of war, once they’re captured. [oops–that’s got to be a mistake, all of a sudden admitting that KSM is POW] Ex Part-ay Qweer-in. Our enemies and friends must ask themselves whether they’re still serious about this effort.

Leahy: Delighted to hear someone from AL quote approvingly Ulysses S Grant and Abraham Lincoln. The world has come full circle.

Sessions: Well, and they were winners, too.

Read more →

Crazy Pete Hoekstra Writes a Letter (Again)

/22 Comments/in /by

Given the news that the National Security Council (aka John Brennan) had decided to brief only leaders (of both houses of Congress, plus “appropriate” committees) on the Nidal Hasan investigation, I decided to check to see how Crazy Pete responded.

Google News suggests he hasn’t–yet–run to the press bitching about the briefings. Instead, Crazy Pete and his fellow Republicans have sent Nancy Pelosi a letter demanding a quick investigation into Nidal Hasan.

Now, the letter is interesting on a number of accounts–starting with the fact that it’s not designed to accomplish anything aside from grand-standing. Think Congress needs to conduct an inquiry into Nidal Hasan? Fine, go to the relevant Chair–like, maybe, the Chair of the committee in question, Silvestre Reyes–and talk about who to accomplish an investigation. But you don’t just write the Speaker and ask her to have Congress (all of Congress? Really?) conduct an investigation–unless your sole goal is grand-standing.

But I’m also interested in the language Crazy Pete uses to grand-stand.

As Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we believe that even the limited information made available to date–both classified and unclassified–strongly indicates that the circumstances surrounding the shootings at Fort Hood require immediate and thorough investigation.

The records appears to establish significant intelligence and intelligence sharing failures that must be reviewed and addressed immediately to ensure that the American people receive the fullest protection against potential attacks. We strongly disagree with the suggestion that Congress should abdicate its Constitutional oversight and fact-finding responsibilities in this regard. Extensive precedent has established that oversight in no way interferes with concurrent criminal prosecution–particularly where, as here, prosecutors have no responsibility for the even more critical task of ensuring the effectiveness of our intelligence community. The future security of over 300 million Americans is far more pressing than after-the-fact investigation of one man.

Sure, there’s all that tedious Crazy Pete hallmarks, such as insinuating that Pelosi (or Reyes) made a suggestion–abdicating their Constitutional oversight role. There’s the way Crazy Pete ignores the obvious precedent of the Iran-Contra investigation, in which a Congressional investigation led partly by Richard Bruce Cheney ended up threatening the legal investigation into the matter.

And then there’s this sentence, which for the life of me I can’t understand at all.

The future security of over 300 million Americans is far more pressing than after-the-fact investigation of one man.

Is Crazy Pete saying that Congress, with almost no investigators, will somehow move more quickly than the Defense Department investigators? Is he suggesting that bringing Hasan to justice just isn’t that important? And how is investigating the very pressing issue of defending 300 million going to do any good, until they actual learn what happened with Hasan?

So, to answer my own question, Crazy Pete has gone in a matter of days from bitching about a delay in briefings to–at a time when briefings have actually been delayed–going silent on that point and instead demanding immediate investigations, not briefings.

Crazy Pete is weird.

Crazy Pete Hoekstra Is a Big Fat* Demogoging Liar

/37 Comments/in , /by

Since Crazy Pete is out demagoging the Fort Hood killings, I thought I would put together a list of his most notable lies to serve as a reminder to journalists that they ought to think twice before crediting anything Crazy Pete says. So here goes: six of Crazy Pete’s classic lies:

Nancy Pelosi lied when she said the CIA didn’t tell her they had waterboarded Abu Zubaydah

It was clear from the start that this was a lie, given that Porter Goss’ statements about the September 2002 briefing accorded perfectly with Pelosi’s assertions about that briefing. And when pressed, Goss refused to alter that statement even after Hoekstra’s attacks on Pelosi. But in a recent uncontroverted statement, the House Intelligence Committee confirmed that the CIA had lied to Pelosi (and Goss) in that first briefing.

Seven CIA Directors claimed Obama was hurting CIA morale with the investigation into torture

In an op-ed invoking the letter seven CIA Directors had sent, Crazy Pete (and John Shadegg) pretended to quote from the latter:

[The letter from the CIA Directors] noted the “distraction and devastating impact” that reopening an investigation into enhanced interrogation of al Qaeda suspects is having on “CIA morale, America’s counterterrorism efforts and our foreign intelligence partnerships.”

But they appear to have just made those quotes up out of thin air. In the grand scheme of Crazy Pete’s long catalog of lies, this partisan attack might not be that big–except that I’m stunned two sitting Congressmen would just make shit up and claim a bunch of retired Spooks-in-Chief had said them.

Eureka!!! WMD in Iraq!!!

Remember when Crazy Pete and Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum claimed that a few piles of canisters filled with now-inert chemical weapons were the WMDs we went to war to find?

Yeah.

I’d just leave it at that–but it bears mentioning that the pattern of the demagoging is the same as Crazy Pete is employing now: claiming that the intelligence community is not being forthcoming with secret information that Crazy Pete has been privy to, and if they only would reveal what they know, Crazy Pete would score political points. In other words, we’ve heard precisely the kinds of claims Crazy Pete is making now before–and in the past those claims proved to be bullshit.

CIA didn’t reveal those expired munitions because key CIA officials want to help Al Qaeda [update]

As Spencer notes below, shortly after Crazy Pete trumpeted his inert chemical find, he upped the ante, suggesting that certain people within the intelligence community want to help al Qaeda. Crazy Pete wouldn’t name those al Qaeda sympathizers, but thought it important to make the claim nevertheless, explaining it is simply naive to not make the claim, even if there is no evidence to substantiate it.

Al Qaeda will kill unemployed Michiganders if Gitmo prisoners move to Standish

In his efforts to scare the people of Standish, MI, out of hosting Gitmo’s prisoners, Crazy Pete claimed both that Al Qaeda would target the families of those working at Standish and that none of the jobs at Standish would go to locals–they would instead go to military personnel. Read more →

Is Crazy Pete Hoekstra Lying and Demagoging Again?

/75 Comments/in , /by

I know, I know, is Crazy Pete sending stern emails to intelligence agencies? Are his lips moving?

First, Crazy Pete rushed out to ABC to complain that the CIA and other intelligence agencies weren’t briefing the Intelligence Committees.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.

In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).

Hoekstra said he is “absolutely furious” that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan’s attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.

“This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies–not the CIA–have the lead,” CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. ” Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect.”

Then, Crazy Pete backed off that slightly–complaining that information he knew to be leaked to the press hadn’t been briefed to the full intelligence committees.

Hoekstra’s beef is not that the Obama Administration, including the CIA, haven’t released any information. Rather, he’s upset that only the Gang of Eight, not the full intelligence committees, have been briefed — and that the information released has been “limited.”

Read more →