Killer Drones Coming To America!

/71 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Like all new fads that start overseas and eventually make their way here to the US as the next “new thing”, drones are on their way to our friendly skies. From AP via Google News:

Unmanned aircraft have proved their usefulness and reliability in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the pressure’s on to allow them in the skies over the United States.

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asked to issue flying rights for a range of pilotless planes to carry out civilian and law-enforcement functions but has been hesitant to act. Officials are worried that they might plow into airliners, cargo planes and corporate jets that zoom around at high altitudes, or helicopters and hot air balloons that fly as low as a few hundred feet off the ground.

On top of that, these pilotless aircraft come in a variety of sizes. Some are as big as a small airliner, others the size of a backpack. The tiniest are small enough to fly through a house window.

Exciting! Cops want to use them to catch speeders, monitor traffic and track suspects (that is pretty much all of us). Border Patrol and Sheriff Joe Arpaio want to use them to chase down the brown (skinned that is). Fed Ex wants them so they don’t have to actually pay pilots. And the NSA wants them to spy on “suspicious” people (like the writers on this blog). Hey, it’s all good; what’s the loss of a little privacy when it comes to protecting America?

There is a tremendous pressure and need to fly unmanned aircraft in (civilian) airspace,” Hank Krakowski, FAA’s head of air traffic operations, told European aviation officials recently. “We are having constant conversations and discussions, particularly with the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to figure out how we can do this safely with all these different sizes of vehicles.

Excellent! Because I will feel a lot better when the DOD and DHS have the “civilian airspace” saturated with their freaking drones; won’t you? Of course you will. And we are on the way there too. From Government Executive:

The Homeland Security Department expanded the use of unmanned drones along the U.S.-Mexico border this week, flying for the first time this sort of advanced technology in west Texas.

The Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle is providing support to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to help interdict drug smugglers and detect people trying to enter the United States illegally, key lawmakers said.

Texas lawmakers have been clamoring for years to have an unmanned drone assist in border security operations, but the move had been delayed by bureaucratic wrangling between DHS and the Federal Aviation Administration. Drone flights along the Southwest border had been limited to regions in Arizona and New Mexico.
……
By putting eyes in the sky along the Rio Grande, we will gather real-time intelligence on the ground to augment the good work of federal, state and local law enforcement….

Well, so drones are here among us, at least those of us near the Mexican border; and they are here to stay. Government drones are going to be ever more pervasive and ubiquitous throughout the entirety of the country if the law and order types in the federal, state and local governments have anything to say about it. And they will have their say; count on it. Swell, eh?

So, with all of the Afghani, Pakistani and Iraqi wedding parties that have been taken out by US Predator drone strikes, how long before they hit one of our precious wedding celebrations right here in the homeland of the good old “real America”? What will the NeoCon wingnuts say when it hits their own chosen ones?

[Incredibly awesome graphic by the one and only Darkblack. If you are not familiar with his work, or have not seen it lately, please go peruse the masterpieces at his homebase. Seriously good artwork and incredible music there.]

The Inexplicable Timing of Dennis Blair’s Ouster

/48 Comments/in , /by

I’m thoroughly unsurprised by the news of Dennis Blair’s ouster. After all, it’s an impossible job that appears to serve one purpose: to provide a deck chair you can rearrange every two years as a scapegoat for our continuing inability to detect terrorists even with all the surveillance toys we’ve got.

(Actually, if you’re Michael McConnell, it serves a second, more personal, purpose: giving you means to privatize intelligence for the benefit of your once and future employers.)

But I’ve got a few questions after I read the following on Twitter:

Chuck Todd: MT @SavannahGuthrie POTUS asked for Blair’s resignation; Blair appealed to Chief of Staff to make a rebuttal — an offer that went nowhere.

Major Garrett: + Feinstein: “I look forward to working with the President as he identifies his nominee.” Feinstein Cmte rpt final straw for Blair

That is, if you believe the tweets of the White House Press Corps, Blair was ousted by Obama (thoroughly unsurprising news) in response to the SSCI report on the Undie Bomber.

Now, that someone would be canned in response to the SSCI report is also thoroughly unsurprising. It’s a damning report, showing we’ve made little progress since 9/11. Now, several people–like Marc Ambinder and Jeff Stein–seem to think National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter should be the one canned over this report (and that’s even before you consider that Leiter went on vacation right after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempted attack). Whoever gets canned, though, I’m actually a bit pleased that someone will be held responsible for some pretty big failures.

So I understand all that.

It’s the timing I don’t understand. As Ambinder reported earlier this week, this report is not new. It’s just new to us. The White House has had this report for two months.

The SSCI gave its report to the White House and the intelligence agencies two months ago, and an official told me last night that the the IC had made progress implementing many of its regulations. The new budget contains more authority for the DNI to make technical decisions more quickly, which should help with the database issues. A DNI official said that Blair “accepted” blame and is making necessary changes.

If the White House were going to fire Blair in response to the report, why didn’t he get fired two months ago? Why let him start fixing thing (you know, shifting his deck chair), and then fire him?

Or did Rahm and Obama hold off on firing him until this report was declassified so he could serve as a very public scapegoat shortly after its release?

How the Government Explains Uninterrupted Access to Faisal Shahzad

/24 Comments/in , /by

Close to midnight on May 3, authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad for attempting to bomb Times Square.

Over the following two weeks, the authorities questioned Shahzad, even as Pakistani intelligence detained Shahzad’s family members. The government told the press that Shahzad had waived his right to be charged in court and (though no one focused on this) a lawyer. Finally, on May 18, Shahzad appeared in Court and got a lawyer.

It turns out that on May 12, nine days after Shahzad was arrested, the US Attorney’s office wrote a letter–which they requested remain sealed–to the Court, explaining Shahzad’s status. Yesterday, they wrote a second letter asking that a redacted version of the first one be docketed.

The May 12 letter explains that each day that he was held, Shahzad waived his rights.

On May 4, 2010, subsequent to his arrest, the defendant, without counsel, knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and executed a written waiver of speedy presentment. On each day since his arrest, the defendant has been re-advised of his Miranda rights and his right to speedy presentment, and on each day through and including the date of this letter he has executed a new written waiver of rights.

Note the focus here–not on his waiver to a lawyer, per se, but Miranda rights and the right to appear in court more generally. All of which, of course, contribute to forgoing a lawyer.

Which is why the two redactions in the letter are of interest, as at least one appears to pertain to the government’s uninterrupted access to him.

Since his arrest, the defendant has been questioned–and continues to be questioned–by federal agents on a number of sensitive national security and law enforcement matters for the purpose of preventing future attacks, identifying associates of the defendant and possible facilitators of the attempted attack, as well as gathering other actionable intelligence.  [half paragraph redacted]

Federal law enforcement agents are vigorously and expeditiously pursuing leads relating to this and other information provided by the defendant, a process which has required the participation of hundreds of agents in different cities working around the clock since the defendant’s arrest. Uninterrupted access to the defendant has been, and continues to be, critical to this process, which requires, among other things, an ability to promptly verify with him the accuracy of information developed in the investigation. [2 lines redacted] In short uninterrupted access has been, and continues to be, extremely beneficial, if not essential, to the investigation. [my emphasis]

The letter says nothing about what changed all this earlier this week. Nor does the May 19 letter explain whether the process (and the uninterrupted access) remained the same between May 12 and May 18. And neither letter includes Shahzad’s daily waivers.

But what the May 12 letter does suggest, at the very least, is that one reason the government was happy that Shahzad had waived his rights (and, presumably, the reason they’ve suddenly embraced the idea of “modernizing” Miranda) is that they wanted to have 24/7 access to Shahzad.

Sort of makes you wonder how much sleep Shahzad got during the two weeks he was available 24/7 and didn’t have a lawyer.

Faisal Shahzad Gets a Lawyer

/23 Comments/in /by

Faisal Shahzad rather suddenly got arraigned and got a lawyer yesterday. Josh Gerstein noted that the arraignment happened on the 15th day since Shahzad’s arrest–the lower range of time the Obama Administration has floated for its changes to Miranda. But the LAT reports that Shahzad decided he no longer wanted to be questioned by interrogators.

Shahzad did not enter a plea. But he spoke briefly during the 10-minute appearance with his attorney, public defender Julia Gatto, in the courtroom. He reportedly asked earlier in the day for an attorney and said he no longer wished to speak with interrogators, a decision that prompted the court arraignment.

There’s no reporting on it, but I do wonder whether this docket item is related:

ORDER FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION FORM as to Faisal Shahzad. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 5/18/2010)(gq).

(Shahzad’s lawyer didn’t mention medical attention in the court appearance, as far as I can tell, though she did request that he start receiving Halal food.)

In a separate story, the LAT reported that Pakistan has arrested an Army major in connection with Shahzad’s attack.

Investigators have arrested a Pakistani army major linked to the prime suspect in the botched attempt to bomb New York City’s Times Square early this month, Pakistani law enforcement sources said Tuesday.

The major’s involvement with suspect Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to fly to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, remains unclear. Law enforcement sources said the major had met Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, in Islamabad, the capital, and was in cellphone contact with him.

The LAT doesn’t say when the arrest happened, but it coincides with a sudden visit by Leon Panetta and National Security Advisor to Pakistan.

Obama’s National Security Advisor Jim Jones and CIA Director Leon Panetta have arrived in Pakistan, and unusually, given security concerns, the White House is ackowledging their travel while they are on the ground.

“In light of the failed Times Square terrorist attack and other terrorist attacks that trace to the border region, we believe that it is time to redouble our efforts with our allies in Pakistan to close this safe haven and create an environment where we and the Pakistani people can lead safe and productive lives,” National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer, accompanying them, explained the trip.

[snip]

Jones’ trip seemed to come about at short notice. He had been due to speak tonight at a conference in Washington, but the group announced yesterday that it had been informed he had to travel.

Also yesterday, the John Brennan stated that the High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) had been involved in Shahzad’s interrogation, which may be a response to Mark Hosenball’s reporting that the HIG had only a limited role in Shahzad’s interrogation. Read more →

Nine Years after 9/11, Intelligence Community Still Missing Threats to US

/5 Comments/in /by

The Senate Intelligence Committee has just released the Executive Summary of its report on the intelligence failures leading up to the Underwear Bomber’s attempted bombing on a plane landing in Detroit. I’ll have a bit more to say in a bit. But I wanted to focus on point 14, which feels an awful lot like that famous August 6, 2001 memo.

Intelligence Analysts Were Primarily Focused on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) Threats to U.S. Interests in Yemen, Rather than on Potential AQAP Threats to the U.S. Homeland.

Analysts’ competing priorities contributed to the failure of the Intelligence Community to identify Abdulmutallab as a potential threat. Prior to the 12/25 plot, counterterrorism analysts at NCTC, CIA, and NSA were focused on the threat of terrorist attacks in Yemen, but were not focused on the possibility of AQAP attacks against the U.S. homeland. These other priorities contributed to the failure of analysts to recognize and collate the several pieces of intelligence reporting that mentioned Abdulmutallab.

Nine years and how many billions later, and we still haven’t figured out that terrorists might want to hit us in the United States?

Pakistani “Cooperation” on Faisal Shahzad

/33 Comments/in /by

Mark Hosenball has a post elaborating on something reported elsewhere–that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) is only marginally involved in Faisal Shahzad’s interrogation. Given a point I tried to make here–namely, that one of the first things that happened after Shahzad’s arrest and seemingly in conjunction with him waiving a number of his rights, Pakistan detained at least one of his friends and his father-in-law (and potentially his father)–I’m particularly interested in how Hosenball describes Pakistan’s “cooperation” on this case.

Two of the officials also said that the HIG is playing little to no role in the questioning of multiple presumed associates of Shahzad who were detained by authorities in Pakistan following the failed Times Square attack. The main reason that HIG personnel are not more involved in questioning potential witnesses and suspects picked up in Pakistan, the officials said, is because Pakistani authorities have declined to invite HIG personnel into their country to participate in the interrogations.

[snip]

Another of the officials said that in any case, given the fact that Shahzad began cooperating with U.S. authorities literally minutes after Homeland Security officers took him off a flight from New York’s JFK Airport to Dubai on May 3, the need for ultrasophisticated interrogation expertise, like the kind of expertise HIG is supposed to offer, is not necessarily warranted in Shahzad’s case. As for witnesses or suspects picked up in Pakistan in connection with the Shahzad investigation, the official said, Pakistani authorities are doing most of the questioning themselves, though both Pakistani and U.S. officials say that the two governments are generously sharing information with each other.

Now, Hosenball places HIG’s non-involvement in the Pakistani interrogations (if that’s what they are) in this case within the context of earlier Pakistani disinterest in inviting HIG to the country. But look at a few of these details:

May 3, just before midnight: Shahzad arrested

May 4: US Ambassador Anne Patterson asks for Pakistani cooperation in case

May 5: Shahzad’s friend and father-in-law detained; police guard father’s house

May 6: Shahzad’s father in protective custody

May 7: In interview taped for May 9 60 Minutes, Hillary Clinton warns of “severe consequences … [if] an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful”

May 9: FBI seeks access to Shahzad’s father, retired Air Vice Marshall Baharul Haq

The appearance from this timeline is that, at a time when public reports said Shahzad was claiming, implausibly, that he acted alone, Pakistan rounded up Shahzad’s family members and a friend (though they appear to have described the detention of Shahzad’s father differently from how they described the detention of Shahzad’s father-in-law). Pakistan appears to have done this in response to a request from Ambassador Patterson. So Pakistan was certainly cooperative with the US, to the extent that it detained family members with no clear ties to the attempted attack.

Which is why the FBI request to have direct access to Shahzad’s father is so interesting–and Clinton’s oblique threat about ties between Pakistan and attacks like this. The appearance–and again, this is just appearances–is that the US is intent on getting access one way or another to Baharul Haq, regardless of whether or not HIG gets that access.

Mind you, there are no conclusions to draw from all this. But it seems that the issue with Pakistan may not just be a dislike of HIG.

Faisal Shahzad’s “Waiver” of His Rights

/31 Comments/in /by

Faisal Shahzad was arrested just before midnight on May 3.

On May 5, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported that one of Shahzad’s friends and his father-in-law, Iftikhar Mian (elsewhere named as Mohammad Asif Mian), had been detained by Pakistani intelligence. The same report describes a meeting that took place on May 4, at which Pakistani authorities promised US Ambassador Anne Patterson full cooperation with the investigation. Also on May 5, the AP took a photograph (published in a May 6 Time article) showing a policeman apparently standing guard in front of Shahzad’s father’s house. Later the same day, less than 48 hours after Shahzad’s arrest CBS reported (apparently for a second time, given the title and the picture referring to an arraignment expected but postponed the day before) that Shahzad’s arraignment had been delayed. On May 6, a blog reported that Faisal’s father, retired air force officer Baharul Haq, was taken into “protective custody” by Pakistani officials.

On May 9, Dawn reported that the FBI was seeking access to Shahzad’s father.

On May 11, Dianne Feinstein confirmed that Shahzad had waived his right to speedy arraignment.

On May 14, Pakistan’s Interior Minister stated that there had been no formal arrests in Pakistan related to the Shahzad case.

In all of this reporting, there has been no solid reporting as to the status or location of Shahzad’s wife, American citizen Huma Mian, or his kids, at least one of whom is also US-born (though some reports had her staying at Shahzad’s father’s house).

I raise all this to point out that at a time when it still wasn’t clear whether or not Shahzad would “waive” his rights to appear in court and–apparently–have a lawyer, Pakistani authorities had already detained at least Shahzad’s friend and father-in-law, potentially his father, and might well have police guard on the house at which his wife remained (though, as I pointed out, we have no real clarity as to Huma Mian’s location). All of this presumably occurred in response to the US request for help on May 4, just hours after Shahzad was arrested. And, in that same period of time, Shahzad rather curiously waived not just his right to an arraignment, but possibly also his right to an attorney.

Read more →

Does the Right to a Lawyer Disappear with Miranda?

/41 Comments/in /by

Charlie Savage has a story explaining what the Administration means when it says it wants to “modernize” Miranda warnings. As he explains, it’s not just or even primarily Miranda warnings that are the problem (according to the Administration), but rather the requirement that a person arrested without a warrant be brought to court promptly.

President Obama’s legal advisers are considering asking Congress to allow the government to detain terrorism suspects longer after their arrests before presenting them to a judge for an initial hearing, according to administration officials familiar with the discussions.

If approved, the idea to delay hearings would be attached to broader legislation to allow interrogators to withhold Miranda warnings from terrorism suspects for lengthy periods, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proposed last week.

The goal of both measures would be to open a window of time after an arrest in which interrogators could question a terrorism suspect without an interruption that might cause the prisoner to stop talking.

But there are two things missing from Savage’s article (and I don’t think it’s through any fault of his). First, an explanation of what the problem is.

I mean, even the Republicans haven’t been complaining about alleged terrorists appearing in court less than 48 hours after they were captured. And there are no allegations that–say–Najibullah Zazi or Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab stopped talking because they got trotted out before a judge shortly after they were captured. And as far as Faisal Shahzad? As Savage points out, he reportedly waived his right to arraignment.

Officials have said that Mr. Shahzad waived those rights, as well as his right to a quick initial hearing before a judge, and has continued cooperating with interrogators. But, worried that suspects in future cases may not do likewise, or that law enforcement officials will be confused about the rules, the administration has decided to push for changes.

In other words, Shahzad is–like the other recent terrorist suspects mentioned–evidence that this may not be necessary! (Note, reporters took notice of the delay in Shahzad’s arraignment–see here and here, for example.)

Then there’s the second thing missing from this discussion. Is anyone wondering where the discussion of the right to an attorney is? Who is Shahzad’s attorney?

The way it works, bmaz tells me, is you’re arrested and you’re brought before the judge (either to be charged or arraigned) and if you don’t have a lawyer, the judge makes sure you have one.

And as of right now, PACER doesn’t list an attorney for Shahzad.

Let’s return to the Miranda warning again:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

So I’m curious: the Administration wants to “modernize” Miranda. They want to postpone bringing alleged terrorists before a Court (though it’s not clear why). Are they, by delaying court appearances, trying to at the same time delay the time when alleged terrorists get assigned lawyers? Are they trying to dissuade alleged terrorists from having lawyers?

One final thing. The big example where–if you ask terrorism prosecutors–the requirements of due process have  been a problem, of late, was the Hutaree defendants. After getting public defenders, their lawyers challenged their detention without bail (which is under appeal). This big push to deprive alleged terrorists of due process–will it apply to domestic terrorists, with whom they’ve had such problems recently?

Eric Holder Visits HJC

/30 Comments/in /by

You can watch along at CSPAN3 or the Committee Stream. Republican talking point of the day seems to be that Obama’s Counterterrorism approach is to have incompetent terrorists.

Nadler wastes no time to pitch his State Secrets bill. Go Nadler! “Those rules [Obama’s state secrets compromise] still reserve unaccountable review to the executive.”

Lungren has concerns about changing Miranda, since it was required by the Constitution, but implies he wants people to be enemy combatants instead (though that’s a guess) which somehow wouldn’t be unconstitutional.

Conyers tweaks Darrell Issa that Jared Polis, who was just added to the committee (along with Ted Deutsch, Wexler’s replacement), has more patents than Issa does.

Issa calls for Special Prosecutor, I think to investigate Sestak’s claim that the White House tried to buy him off of running against Specter.

Anthony Weiner seems to support 9/11 trials in NYC–says it has the best prosecutors. He then complains about White House funding decisions. Says the COPS program (which provides funding for police) “is not just for towns that only have minor-league baseball teams.”

Maxine Waters complaining about review process for Comcast/NBC merger.

It’s pretty funny that there was almost never any discussion of counterterrorism oversight on HJC under Bush Admin, given how many fearmongers on the panel.

And, after everyone gets to make a statement, we get Holder’s opening statement.

WOOT! We’re back.

Bobby Scott asks about statute of limitations. Where death results, Holder says there is none.

Lamar Smith trying very very hard to get Holder to say radical Islam.

Holder: AZ law raises concerns about civil rights and preemption.

Maxine Waters asks about domestic terrorism. Holder actually says domestic terrorism before he says Islamic extremism in this hearing, much to GOP chagrin. Waters follows up on domestic terrorism.

Issa: Concerned that former Admiral in Navy and US Congressman. Will you appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. What could be more serious than that this White House has offered member of Congress high appointment for getting out of race.

The Flaming Hypocrisy Of US Terrorist Designation

/34 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

[Note Update Below]

On the fateful September 11, 15 men from Saudi Arabia, along with four others, perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Since that time, the United States has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in response with hundreds of thousands dead in the process. Saudi Arabia was not only never considered as an enemy, its citizens were spirited out of the country while US citizens were grounded.

Also since then a list longer than you can measure of countries and/or entities have been designated as global terrorists by the United States government. One of those so designated is al-Haramain of Oregon, who happens to be the root plaintiff in the critical litigation – pretty much the sole remaining substantial hope of challenging the incredible, illegal and unconstitutional executive power grabs by the Bush/Cheney Administration now hypocritically supported and adopted by the Obama Administration.

In spite of the fact there has never been any substantive link to terrorism, much less September 11, on the part of al-Haramain Oregon, the US government has steadfastly maintained it on the designated list. Now maybe al-Harmain was, and maybe it was not, even remotely involved in terrorism in any provable way; however the one irreducible fact is the US has never, despite repeated challenges, anted up any convincing factual support on the record for the allegation.

In fact, while al-Haramain Oregon is defunct and no longer exists in any form, the US has stood mute and even gone so far as to allow an US Federal Court to declare their wiretapping of al-Haramain’s attorneys, nearly a decade ago, patently illegal. All the while still maintaining the long defunct and non-existent charity on the specially designated terrorist list and so cocksure and adamant about it that the government has stated they cannot allow any judgment to be entered, much less settle, the al-Harmain litigation because they could not possibly think of a designated terrorist organization receiving one red cent from the US government.

Such is the seriousness of actions that could lead an entity to be designated a terrorist by the United States government. Well, except for the Saudis of course. And now, apparently, the Pakistani Taliban. From Mike Isikoff at Newsweek Declassified:

In light of evidence that the group known as the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attempted May 1 Times Square bombing, the Obama administration is “actively considering” designating it as a ”foreign terrorist organization” in the next few weeks —a move that would allow the U.S. government to freeze any assets belonging to the group and make it a federal crime Read more →