More Inauspiciousness: Your Rent-a-Sheikh Gets Killed

As many of you have pointed out, the guy I called Bush’s Rent-a-Thuggish-Sheikh last week died in a bomb blast today.

The leader of local Sunni tribes in Iraqwho have joined American and Iraqi forces in fighting extremist Sunnimilitants was killed by a bomb today, Iraqi police officials said,potentially undermining what has become a new thrust of United Statespolicy in the country.

[snip]

It could be a significant setback for American efforts to work more closely with local tribes against Al Qaeda.Recently the council had begun to reach out to other tribes to bringthem into closer cooperation with the American and Iraqi government,and had met recently with southern Shia leaders.Authorities imposed astate of emergency in Anbar Province following his assassination,police officials said. At least one other person escorting him was alsokilled in the explosion.

So Bush’s big debut for Magical September just got further clouded. First the oil compromise collapses on the eve of his presentation. And now the guy Bush was parading around last week as the symbol of great promise in Anbar just got blown to bits. But don’t worry. I’m sure Bush won’t … um … dwell on these depressing details.

Mark Lynch has more on the meaning of Risha’s death, including the speculation that Risha was not killed by Al Qaeda.

Share this entry

If the UC Regents Are So Susceptible to Political Pressure…

Then perhaps they could be persuaded to fire unitary laughingstock John Yoo?

Normally, I find it inappropriate to engage the David Horowitzes of the world on their McCarthyist ground. But if the UC system is comfortable rescinding an offer they’ve made to Edwin Chemerinsky, then it seems fair to ask them to fire the lawyer who has elicited–by far–the most controversy in recent years (and that’s coming from someone who lives in Jeffrey Fieger‘s state)–John Yoo.

After all, Jack Goldsmith makes it pretty clear in his book. John Yoo’s opinions–which served as the basis for the dismantling of significant parts of our Constitution–were, um, "flimsy." And that’s coming from a fellow conservative.

Chemerinsky may be liberal, but he’s not a "flimsy" liberal. You’d think a strong law school like Boalt Hall would be embarrassed about having Professor Flimsy Yoo floating around its halls; if they want to employ a lawyer who shredded the Constitution, they could at least look for one whose opinions were rigorous.

So perhaps the UC Regents, having set this precedent, might use the precedent to rid the UC system of its biggest embarrassment, Flimsy Yoo.

Share this entry

Banana Republic

The Sentencing Memorandum the government filed in the Chiquita case reveals something rather interesting. Chiquita was an equal opportunity terrorist supporter. You see, from 1989 to 1997, Chiquita paid protection money to FARC and ELN, left wing terrorist groups. Then, after FARC and FLN were declared terrorist groups in 1997, Chiquita switched sides, paying protection money to right wing terrorist group AUC instead. Of course, Chiquita got in trouble because, in 2001, after the US declared AUC a terrorist organization, Chiquita kept right on paying their protection money, presumably having no other side to flip to. I guess it’s nice not to be bound by ideology in your support of terrorist organizations.

In spite of funding the AUC long after Chiquita became aware they were breaking the law, the government is recommending that Chiquita be able to keep half of its profits from doing business under the protection of a terrorist organization. They’re recommending a fine of half their profits, when the maximum fine was twice their profits for the period.

We knew that that was the government’s recommendation for a fine. What is new, though, is that the government has decided not to indict the well-connected Republican lawyer Roderick Hills for Read more

Share this entry

Is There Any Indication This Isn’t the Fault of OVP?

Via Secrecy News, I see that DCI Michael Hayden is lecturing the press on its obligations in the GWOT.

Theduty of a free press is to report the facts as they are found. By sticking tothat principle, journalists accomplish a great deal in exposing al-Qa’ida andits adherents for what they are.

Justas they report on the terrorists, it’s the job of journalists to report on the howthe war against terrorism is being fought. And when their spotlight is cast onintelligence activities, sound judgment and a thorough understanding of all theequities at play are critically important. Revelations of sources andmethods—and an impulse to drag anything CIA does to the darkest corner of theroom—can make it very difficult for us to do our vital work.

Whenour operations are exposed—legal, authorized operations overseen by Congress—itreduces the space and damages the tools we use to protect Americans. After thepress reported how banking records on the international SWIFT network could bemonitored, I read a claim that this leak—and I quote—“bears no resemblance tosecurity breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearlycompromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.”

Idisagree. In a war that largely depends on our success in collectingintelligence on the enemy, publishing information on our sources and Read more

Share this entry

DNI McConnell: Not Fighting Them Over There, So We Can Wiretap You Here

This is our Director of National Intelligence, talking about the threat of Al Qaeda growing stronger in an area nominally controlled by our ally Pakistan:

After the 31st of May we were in extremis becausenow we have significantly less capability. And meantime, the community,before I came back, had been working on a National IntelligenceEstimate on terrorist threat to the homeland. And the key elements ofthe terrorist threat to the homeland, there were four key elements, aresilient determined adversary with senior leadership willing to diefor the cause, requiring a place to train and develop, think of it assafe haven, they had discovered that in the border area betweenPakistan and Afghanistan. Now the Pakistani government is pushing andpressing and attempting to do something about it, but by and large theyhave areas of safe haven. So leadership that can adapt, safe haven,intermediate leadership, these are think of them as trainers,facilitators, operational control guys. And the fourth part isrecruits. They have them, they’ve taken them. This area is referred toas the FATA, federally administered tribal areas, they have therecruits and now the objective is to get them into the United Statesfor mass casualties to conduct terrorist operations to achieve masscasualties. All of those four Read more

Share this entry

“It’s entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false”

cboldt linked to Wired’s liveblog from the warrantless wiretap Appeals hearing that took place today in San Francisco. Go read it. It may make you cry. Repeatedly, the government lawyers appeal to arguments outside all human cognition to defend their wiretap program.

"Was a warrant obtained in this case?" Judge Pregerson asks.

"That gets into matters that were protected by state secrets," Garre replies.

Judge McKeown asks whether the government standsby President Bush’s statements that purely-domestic communications,where both parties are in the United States, are not being monitoredwithout warrants.

"Does the government stand behind that statement," McKeown asks.

Garre: "Yes, your honor."

But Garre says the government would not be willing to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect for the court record.

[snip]

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that the room is central to their case andthat they don’t know what is going on in that room," says Garre."Something else could be going on in that room. Just to pick one, itcould be FISA court surveillance in that room."

Not that he’s saying that there is FISA court surveillanceconducted in the secret room. Just that there could be. Who knows? Presumably, Garre does. But he’s not saying.

[snip]

Al-Haramain Foundation attorneys, he points out, "think or believe or claim they were Read more

Share this entry

Behavior Detection

There are two things that "always" happen to me when I fly to DC. I "always" (often, rather) sit next to MI’s Republican Congressmen in First Class. And I "always" (almost always, probably) get pulled into secondary when I’m flying out of Reagan National Airport. I know why the latter occurs: my driver’s license says, "Margaret" while my Northwest frequent flier number is under the name "Marcy," so they have to pull me into secondary to quiz me about my family’s weird nicknaming habits.

But the day after the Libby sentencing, I got the full-fledged treatment, including what I believe to be behavior detection.

Specially trained security personnel are watching body language andfacial cues of passengers for signs of bad intentions. The watchercould be the attendant who hands you the tray for your laptop or theone standing behind the ticket-checker. Or the one next to the curbsidebaggage attendant.

They’recalled Behavior Detection Officers, and they’re part of several recentsecurity upgrades, Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawleytold an aviation industry group in Washington last month. He describedthem as "a wonderful tool to be able to identify and do risk managementprior to somebody coming into the airport or approaching the crowdedcheckpoint."

[snip]

At the heart of the new Read more

Share this entry

Photographs

If you haven’t already, go read Jane Mayer’s article on our methods of torture. The short version: we’re using psychological methods to impose "learned helplessness" and dependency, and as a result, we’re getting some intelligence, a whole lot of garbage, and we’re turning our own interrogators into moral zombies.

I wanted to focus on one aspect of the calculated humiliation she describes:

A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the “takeout”of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, duringwhich a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded,sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported byplane to a secret location.

[snip]

The interrogation became a process not just of getting information butof utterly subordinating the detainee through humiliation.” The formerC.I.A. officer confirmed that the agency frequently photographed theprisoners naked, “because it’s demoralizing.” The person involved inthe Council of Europe inquiry said that photos were also part of theC.I.A.’s quality-control process. They were passed back to caseofficers for review. [my emphasis]

Part of the very calculating treatment we give these detainees is photographing them, both to humiliate them and for "quality-control." (Quality control of what? Is this like glorified meat inspection?)

I wanted to call attention to these passages because of the dust-up Read more

Share this entry

Well, Of Course

Holden asks:

They’re just thinking of this now?

U.S.military intelligence officials are urgently assessing how securePakistan’s nuclear weapons would be in the event President Gen. PervezMusharraf were replaced as the nation’s leader, CNN has learned.

Key questions in the assessment include who would control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons after a shift in power.

[snip]

The United States has full knowledge about the location of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, according to the U.S. assessment.

Butthe key questions, officials say, are what would happen and who wouldcontrol the weapons in the hours after any change in government in caseMusharraf were killed or overthrown.

Musharraf controls theloyalty of the commanders and senior officials in charge of the nuclearprogram, but those loyalties could shift at any point, officials say.

TheUnited States is not certain who might start controlling nuclear launchcodes and weapons if that shift in power were to happen.

There isalso a growing understanding according to the U.S. analysis thatMusharraf’s control over the military remains limited to certain topcommanders and units, raising worries about whether he can maintaincontrol over the long term.

Well, of course, Holden. They’ve been otherwise occupied. Up until the end of June, after all, they were very busy looking for Iraq’s WMDs.

Though, for a less snarky look at this issue, Arms Control Wonk discusses the difference between knowing where the nukes are and what will happen to them if anything should happen to Musharraf.

Share this entry

Globalization and Terror and More Obstruction at DOJ

Kudos to Congressman Bill Delahunt. He seems to be on a lonely crusade to get the US Government to treat all kinds of terrorism the same. He has been criticizing DOJ for its sloppy treatment of the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles; DOJ botched its case of immigration violations and Posada effectively went free. And now Delahunt’s leading a small group of Congressman pressuring DOJ to crack down on US corporate support of Columbian terrorist groups. The LAT provides two articles today on the reasons for concern. The first article outlines DOJ’s obstruction and conflicts of interest on the Chiquita case; the second describes the other US companies alleged to be supporting terror in Columbia.

Chiquita and DOJ

Given all the stories about the conflicts of interest in the Bush DOJ, the Chiquita story is real cause for concern. Chiquita just settled with DOJ, agreeing to pay a $25 million fine over five years–not exactly a punishment that will dent its profits. Yet Chiquita first admitted paying off terrorists in 2000, and DOJ prosecutors were trying to bring charges in 2004. So how did Chiquita get off with a fine three years later? Well, political appointee David Nahmias (who is now the USA in Atlanta–though he was approved via the quaint Senate approval channel) intervened:

Share this entry