Monthly Archives: June 2016

Brazil/Olympics Under Islamic State Threat

Posted on by

Brazil threat

 

TRAC: South America has not historically been considered a high priority target for Islamic State for reasons ranging from practical to ideological. It has instead been used for remote finance and small-scale recruitment operations by Shia groups and IS’ predecessor, al-Qaeda. It would appear, however, that Islamic State has recognized that political and economic turmoil in countries like Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico have presented opportunity in the Western Hemisphere.

A sample of recent activity documented by TRAC includes:

Image: A map of the particularly vulnerable border region referred to as the Triple Frontier.

All of this activity, combined with the backdrop of border insecurity at the Triple Frontier, IS recruitment in Mexico, and an active cell in São Paulo present terrorists with copious soft targets in South America, highlighted by the 2016 Olympics.

*****

Threat Assessment

Based on the information currently available, the threat of an IS-directed attack on the Olympics remains low, though the possibility of an IS-inspired small scale assault always looms. Preventing such an attack will rely on security arrangements at the venue, hotels, and transportation facilities where crime has already been listed as a high risk concern.

Never a High Priority Target

South America has not historically been considered a high priority target for Islamic State or other Sunni jihadist groups for many reasons, ranging from the practical to the ideological. Unlike many European nations, some of whom have a long history of interests in in the Middle East, South American countries are not typically viewed by Sunni militants as potent allies of the US. Instead, Brazil (among others) has served as a place to base remote finance and small-scale recruitment operations.

Outside Historical Caliphate Lands

Central and South America are not part of the lands claimed by historic Islamic conquest and thus fall outside the scope of Islamic State’s ideological priority of extending the Caliphate to the lands that at one time or another were considered belonging to the Umma. (Even the world maps created for Islamic State propaganda don’t bother to identify South America.)

New Focus on Portuguese & Spanish Speakers

This de-emphasis of targets south of the US may be coming to an end, however, on the part of Islamic State. ISIS has recognized the importance of shifting focus from its loses and struggles to new frontiers and opening linguistic doors to recruitment candidates. Following the 11/13 Paris Attacks a tweet attributed to Maxime Hauchard named Brazil as “our next target,” although TRAC has not been able to find a primary source record of this threat. In Spring 2016, Dabiq announced ISIS’ desire to proselytize Mayas with an “anti-colonial” message. Additionally, the approaching 2016 Olympics present an opportunity for Islamic State focus its narrative in a South American nation where it has already seen some support: Brazil.

Images: Jihadi Jean Luc identified as Steve Duarte. A Luxemburger of Portuguese descent, Duarte was featured in major Islamic State video release as a French-Speaking executioner.  In the video he refers to Andalusia and its Muslim cities, threatening Spain.  For More on (Video) Islamic State : Filtering Apostates – Five Simultaneous Executions Featuring French Speaking Executioner Wilayat Nineveh

Political Context

  • In the final week of February 2016, Brazil’s legislature approved a controversial anti-terrorism law after months of debate.
  • President Rousseff signed to enact the law in the final week of March 2016.
  • Allows for sentences of 12-30 years.
  • Opponents consider it a tool for restraining and silencing Brazil’s political dissident movements.
  • With Brazil’s corruption rankings plummeting and successful Olympics on the line, there is reason to believe some in power seek to silence opposition groups.
  • The law’s advocates, however, seek not only to avoid sanction but to have additional tools ready to combat global jihad.
  • Specific wording: “the practice by one or more individuals of acts for the reason of xenophobia, discrimination or prejudice of race, color, ethnic group or religion with the aim to generate social or generalized terror, endangering people, assets, the public peace or safety.”
  • Israeli officials heralded the law citing years of exploitation of Brazil by Iran and Iranian proxy Hezbollah

Recruitment of Portuguese Speakers

Islamic State Messaging

On 03 June 2016 Telegram IS affiliated channel “Online Dawah Operations” shared a general post in English calling for Spanish and Portuguese speakers:

Reads: “Dear brothers and sisters, we are in need of brothers and sisters who can speak either Portuguese or Spanish to help us on our project in’shaa Allah. If you speak one of those languages and you are willing to join our translation team please Wickr me: ismailbrazili.”

Islamic State Nashir channel in Portuguese appeared on Telegram 29 May 2016:

Five days before Islamic State member Ismail Brazili called for Portuguese speakers on a general Telegram channel, a Nashir Portuguese channel appeared on Telegram. It was created 29 May 2016 but did not make its first post until 02 June 2016.  Though the posts are merely reprints of the main Nashir Arabic Channel,  its important to recognize the out-reach to get news from IS controlled areas and IS Wilayats to Portuguese speakers.

Important Hashtags

Islamic State relies on hashtags to spread news on both Telegram and Twitter.  In almost all the Portuguese Telegram posts the following hashtags are used to spread the propaganda:

#ReportagemFotográfica
#EstadoIslâmico
#CalifadoPT

Plus the hashtag of the specific Wilayat that is being propagated.

Examples of Portuguese claims of credit

Posted 19 June 2016

Posted 20 June 2016

Posed 08 June 2016

The red over blue claims of credit (as well as light blue over darker blue) are very typical of traditional Islamic State claims, however the Portuguese are slightly different:  the Wilayat appears to the left (opposed to the right) and each are marked “Urgente” which the Islamic State does not print on the claims of credit in Arabic or other languages.

Former GITMO detainee latest Lebanese immigrant to raise alarm in Brazil

The announcement that former Guantanamo detainee Jihad Ahmed Mustafa Dhiab may have legally traveled to Brazil has recently recast Brazil into the spotlight for concerns of jihadist activity. After being transferred to Uruguay in December 2014, Dhiab — whose mother is Argentine –reportedly attempted to travel legally to Brazil, but was denied entrance, according to the statement of an official in Uruguay. Contrary to these reports, another official responsible for working with the Uruguay resettlement, Christian Mirza, said Dhiab traveled legally first to Argentina (in 2015) and then to Brazil, but that his whereabouts are unknown. Dhiab also apparently walks with crutches as a result of poor health, making an undocumented, illegal border crossing more difficult, but not impossible with assistance. On the other hand, Uruguay did not agree to the US request to retain for two years the six resettled detainees.

 Jihad Ahmed Mustafa Dhiab.

Dhiab is not the fist Lebanese Sunni to make headlines in Brazil. A suspected ISIS-finance cell associated with an Egyptian jihadist in São Paulo has been profiled by TRAC and is available here:

Islamic State Brazil : São Paulo Cell — (Islamic State / ISIS) — CELL PROFILE

In an operation called Menzad, 18 search warrants were issued to halt the Alameddine family’s fraudulent activity in money transfers suspected of supporting ISIS. It included the arrest of Egyptian Hesham Eltrabily, accused by Egypt of involvement in the 1997 Luxor Massacre.

Khaled Hussein Ali is yet another Lebanese transplant to Brazil of great concern in light of Islamic State’s growing influence. Although his affiliation with Al Qaeda reaches high into the organization, it is likely that his role in spreading propaganda and operating internet cafes in Vila Matilde has created fallow ground for Islamic State’s message in São Paulo and beyond.

Border Security and Soft Targets Concern

Border security has long been problematic for Brazil and its neighbors dealing with drug trafficking and militias. Additionally, the Rio Olympics present copious soft target opportunities for jihadist and other groups. Below are a map of the particularly vulnerable border region referred to as the Triple Frontier:

This area is relatively under-policed and concerns are that exploitation by Sunni jihadists would create fall-out with the Shia community, whose large mosques dot the Brazilian border facing Paraguay.

WH: Ben Rhodes is to Iran Deal ~ Valerie Jarrett is to Gun Control

Posted on by

Ban the AR-15….heh….right Val Gal…. This is a White House full of ahem….experts that think AR stands for Automatic Rifle…sheesh…The Federal ‘Assault’ Weapons ban happened in 1994.

   

Valerie Jarrett’s war on guns

By

Politico: Valerie Jarrett is increasingly asserting control of the administration’s campaign to curtail gun violence — and she’s not afraid of burning White House bridges with firearm manufacturers as she does it.

Even before the latest massacre in Orlando, it was Jarrett who used her influence with President Barack Obama to resurrect the push for new regulations, gun control advocates say. But since that shooting, she’s employed a more aggressive strategy than did Vice President Joe Biden, whose consensus-building efforts failed to produce new laws three years ago.

Take a recent White House bid to collaborate with weapons manufactures on so-called “smart guns,” which make it impossible for anyone other than an authorized user to fire a weapon — and should be fertile ground for a relatively non-controversial compromise.

But after 30 industry executives refused to show up for a meeting last Friday, Jarrett decided to mobilize nearly 200,000 supporters behind a new assault weapons ban, which industry vehemently opposes and would take a bestseller off the shelves. While it didn’t slam the door on further negotiations, it’s the kind of move that would make any future talks much more difficult.

With Biden dispatched in search of a cure for cancer, and Obama demanding an end to the bloodshed, Jarrett — Obama’s closest friend and conscience in the West Wing — is not just focused on measures like background checks that are much easier to sell to Congress, at least compared to an assault weapons ban. Instead, Jarrett is executing Obama’s call to “politicize” the issue during his last year in office and crank up the pressure on reluctant lawmakers.

“Please keep making your voices heard. Raise them over and over and over and over and over again,” Jarrett said on Monday in an unusual conference call, which was intended for the people who signed a “We the People” petition to ban the AR-15, but was broadcast live on YouTube for anyone to listen.

“I’ve had people say to me, ‘Well I enjoy gong to the firing range and using the assault weapons,’” Jarrett said. “But the pleasure derived from that compared to the horrendous damage that it can do, we believe that the damage warrants banning assault weapons.”

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, which involved a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle, both Obama and Biden have made clear that, as Biden put it in his written response to the AR-15 petition, assault weapons “should be banned from civilian ownership.” But Biden focused his message to Congress on passing the background check and terror watch list bills that failed in the Senate on Monday.

Jarrett went further: “There’s no reason why Congress could not reauthorize legislation that would call for that ban.” And stoking support for the assault weapons ban with activists will likely intensify the political fight ahead of the 2016 elections.

Previously, Obama put Biden in charge of crafting the administration’s response to the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, and the vice president still serves a prominent role as sympathizer-in-chief. But since his effort ran aground, gun control advocates say, it’s been Jarrett who’s pushed for action over the last year despite congressional gridlock.

“As the months went by and ideas were discussed and priorities came and went, she was a constant source of influence in the building making sure that the process was moving forward,” said Peter Ambler, director at Americans for Responsible Solutions. When the group’s co-founders, former Rep. Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, proposed new executive actions during a January 2015 meeting with Obama and Jarrett in Phoenix, Ambler recalled, the president turned to his senior adviser to make them happen. He announced new directives to expand background checks a year later.

“I don’t think that there is an individual at the White House except for the president who can claim more responsibility for the successes of the executive actions than Valerie Jarrett,” Ambler said.

Biden isn’t completely out of the picture, though he’s increasingly turned his attention to his “Cancer Moonshot.” As the architect of the now-expired 1994 assault weapons ban and original background check bill, he’s got substantial credibility with activists, especially those driven by grief.

“I refuse to give up, we refuse to give up,” Biden said on Wednesday at a Washington fundraiser for Sandy Hook Promise, a gun violence prevention group founded by parents of the first-graders gunned down at the elementary school.

“It took me seven years to get the first ban put in place,” said Biden, who had argued that the administration should prioritize guns even before the Newtown shooting. “We should not stop.”

But as the audience waited for Biden to come to the podium, Jarrett was in the back of the room, deep in conversation, as her top aides — Paulette Aniskoff, Bess Evans and Yohannes Abraham — circulated through the crowd. It was those aides, in Jarrett’s Office of Public Engagement, who have gradually taken on the bulk of the gun portfolio over the past three years, even as they continue to collaborate with Biden’s staff.

The portfolio has been something of an orphan in the Obama administration, with no obvious point person, particularly after the legislation Biden was working on failed in April 2013, and Bruce Reed, who had run an exhaustive series of outreach and strategy sessions with gun control advocates in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, stepped down as Biden’s chief of staff in late 2013.

Jarrett brought it back into the West Wing — and out to the statehouses, advocates said, by making it a priority for the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. In May, for example, Jarrett presided over a White House strategy session on enacting local laws to expand background checks and promote gun safety technology with elected officials from 48 states.

In his search for progress after Newtown, Biden and his staff famously met with, as he put it, “every possible stakeholder in this debate; 229 separate groups,” in just a few months. They settled on expanding background checks, a measure that’s hovered above 80 percent public approval since 2013. The bill failed in the Senate then, and an updated version failed on Monday, 56 to 44.

Meeting with ‘stakeholders’ is also a raison d’etre of Jarrett’s office.

“Part of the Valerie Jarrett portfolio is working with the many constituencies that have a stake in the issues that matter most, and one of those has become the family members of victims of shootings,” said Arkadi Gerney, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who works on gun policy.

Jarrett herself is in that category: she’s recounted how her grandfather was killed with his own gun when burglars broke into his office.

She was trying the outreach approach before a gunman killed 49 people in Orlando, when her focus was on smart guns. The administration is working to get buy-in from police for the technology, in hopes of creating a new market; earlier this month, the Department of Justice hosted law enforcement officials to talk about how smart guns might work for their departments.

Manufacturers have expressed some openness to smart guns — they could be a whole new sales category, after all — but they fear any sort of government mandate, as well as backlash from gun rights groups.

So weeks before the Orlando shooting, Jarrett and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough invited executives from about 30 gun-makers to the White House. They declined, according to an industry executive, because they perceived the invitation as “disingenuous.”

Jarrett lashed out at the gun lobby in her call.

“The NRA over the past seven and a half years has never been willing to come to the table and work with us,” she said. (Incidentally, both the industry and the NRA met with Biden and his staff in 2013, but there was no detente.)

And there’s some appetite for action on the Democratic side of the campaign trail: Hillary Clinton wants to take “weapons of war” off the streets.

But despite Jarrett’s call to resurrect a bill banning assault weapons, there’s little appetite for it in Congress. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wrote the White House’s preferred version in 2013, hasn’t even decided to reintroduce it.

 

 

 

 

Exemptions and Waivers Rubber Stamped in DC

Posted on by

Anyone remember Richard Windsor…ooops Lisa Jackson at the EPA? By the way, lil miss Lisa is a Board member of the Clinton Foundation.

New Homeland Security Records Reveal Top Officials Were Exempted from Strict Ban Placed on Web-Based Personal Email Accounts Despite Heightened Security Concerns

Jeh Johnson granted special waiver on first day of official ban.
Practice Continued Even After Clinton Email Revelations.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it obtained 693 pages of Department of Homeland Security records revealing that Secretary Jeh Johnson and 28 other agency officials used government computers to access personal web-based email accounts despite an agency-wide ban due to heightened security concerns.  The documents also reveal that Homeland Security officials misled Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) when Perry specifically asked whether personal accounts were being used for official government business.

The records were obtained in response to a February 2016 court order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia following a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:15-cv-01772)).

The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed in October 2015 after the Department of Homeland Security failed to comply with a July 2015 FOIA request seeking the following:

  • All requests (in any form) submitted by senior DHS officials for waivers to use personal Web-based email accounts on government-owned computers.
  • Copies of all waivers granted to senior DHS officials to use personal Web-based email accounts on government-owned computers.

Judicial Watch sought the documents following a Bloomberg News report revealing that 29 high-level Homeland Security officials, including Johnson, obtained exemptions from a February 2014 agency-wide ban on the use of web-based email systems due to increased security concerns.  The waivers were granted despite security officials’ warning of the risks of malicious attacks and data exfiltration from webmail use.

Included among the records is a February 19, 2014 memorandum from security officials at the Department of Homeland Security strongly warning: “According to the Office of the Chief Information Officer, access to webmail using DHS networks is responsible for almost half of all attempts to compromise DHS network security.”  The memo explains that webmail use resulted in 14 Trojan-Horse attacks in August 2013 and 25 attacks in December 2013 on Homeland Security computer networks.

As a result, in the same memo, Department of Homeland Security officials imposed a total ban on employee use of web-based email systems:

New restrictions are being implemented that will no longer allow employee access to personal webmail sites from government computers [Emphasis added].  This action is being taken to strengthen cybersecurity and enhance protection of the Department’s computer networks.  Effective tonight, access to webmail sites like AOL, Hotmail, Comcast, Gmail, Yahoo, and other email services will be prohibited.

The records reveal that despite this strict prohibition, Johnson was given an exemption from the ban on the first day of its implementation simply because he liked to check his personal email from the office everyday.  In an April 7, 2014 email, DHS Deputy Director for Scheduling and Protocol Mary Ellen Brown wrote to DHS Chief of Staff for the Under Secretary for Management Vincent Micone: “Hi Vince – I wanted to flag that S1 [Secretary Johnson] accesses his [redacted] account every day and I didn’t know if we could add his computer to the waiver list? Let us know at your convenience. Thanks! ME”

Micone responds several minutes later: “ME, This will be done… no problem. Thanks, Vince”

The documents also reveal that on April 29, 2014, Connie LaRossa, then- director of legislative affairs for Homeland Security, was granted a waiver to use her web-based email account for official government business. The justification LaRossa used for requesting access to Yahoo email was that some congressional staffers wanted to send her “political information” that they “do not want to transmit via government mail.”

Despite LaRossa’s waiver, in an April 7, 2014, seems to contradict answers prepared Rep. Scott Perry in response to his query about the use of personal email accounts for official business, Homeland Security explicitly denied it was being done. In one question, Rep. Perry asked: “Are DHS officials permitted to maintain private email accounts that are used to conduct official business? If so, who and under what circumstances?”

Homeland Security officially responded: “To date, no requests have been approved to use a private email account for official business.”

Others Homeland Security officials included among those receiving waivers permitting them to use personal, web-based email on government computers despite the official ban included:

ANMS2 [Alejandro N. Mayorkas, deputy secretary]
Bunnell, Stevan E. [general counsel]
Chavez, Richard [director of the Office of Operations Coordination]
Gottfried, Jordan [Chief of Staff]
JCJ [Jeh Charles Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security]
Kronisch, Matthew [associate general counsel (Intelligence)]
Marrone, Christian [chief of staff]
Meyer, Jonathan [deputy general counsel]
Rosen, Paul [deputy chief of staff]
Shahoulian, David [deputy general counsel]
Silvers, Robert [deputy chief of staff]
Taylor, Francis X [undersecretary for intelligence and analysis]
Veitch, Alenandra [acting deputy assistant secretary]
Waters, Erin [director of strategic communication]

The use of personal email accounts on Homeland Security computers continued for more than a year after the official ban was put in place in April 2014, until July 2015 – over four months after revelations about Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices.  In a July 20, 2015 email, Luke McCormack, then-Chief Information Officer of the Justice Department, ordered Jeanne Etzel, Executive Director of Homeland Security’s Next Generation Program, to “pull down” the personal “webmail” email accounts of the 29 Department of Homeland Security executives previously approved to use personal email accounts, except for that of Secretary Jeh Johnson [“S1”].

McCormack ordered this at the “DUSM’s direction.” (Deputy Undersecretary for Management, Charles Fulghum.)  This order came the same day a Bloomberg story was published regarding Homeland Security officials’ “bending the rules” on personal email use on government computers.  The next day, Secretary Johnson’s webmail access also was blocked.

“Jeh Johnson and top officials at Homeland Security put the nation’s security at risk by using personal email despite significant security issues,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “And we know now security rules were bent and broken to allow many these top Homeland officials to use ‘personal’ emails to conduct government business.  This new Obama administration email scandal is just getting started.  If the waivers were appropriate, then they wouldn’t have been dropped like a hot potato as soon as they were discovered by the media.”

Loretta Lynch Fully Opposes Obama on Gitmo

Posted on by

Say it isn’t so…pigs flying? Video calls between soccer or basketball games?

The Obama White House has a habit of altering assessments and reports especially noted by the CENTCOM scandal. The Obama regime also did the same with the assessment profiles of those forcibly released to other countries in an effort to close Gitmo. One such country that was betrayed by the Obama administration was Ghana. 

What is mind boggling is whether we should trust our President or the external people who are proving him wrong. According to US pundits, the said description as given by our leaders isn’t true for either of the men. Bin Atef in particular is a cause of concern. Long before his transfer, the intelligence analysts at Joint Task Force Guantanamo assessed him as a ‘high risk’ and ‘likely to pose a threat to the US, its interest and allies’. Atef is actually a fighter in Usama bin Laden’s former 55th Arab Brigade and an admitted member of the Taliban.

This is in sharp contrast to the claim by Mahama, who portrays the deal as an act of humanitarian assistance, likening the Yemeni men to non-threatening refugees who have been cleared of any involvement in terrorist activities. More here.

Those former detainees released to Uruguay were to be managed and controlled by the government under the Memorandum of Understanding and release. Well, at least one has fled, allegedly to Brazil.

Exclusive: Justice Department opposes new Obama proposal on Guantanamo

Reuters: President Barack Obama is again facing dissent from within his administration – this time from Attorney General Loretta Lynch – over his plans to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison, according to senior administration officials.

Lynch, a former federal prosecutor whom Obama appointed to head the Justice Department two years ago, is opposing a White House-backed proposal that would allow Guantanamo Bay prisoners to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court by videoconference, the officials said.

Over the past three months, Lynch has twice intervened to block administration proposals on the issue, objecting that they would violate longstanding rules of criminal-justice procedure.

In the first case, her last-minute opposition derailed a White House-initiated legislative proposal to allow video guilty pleas after nearly two months of interagency negotiations and law drafting. In the second case, Lynch blocked the administration from publicly supporting a Senate proposal to legalize video guilty pleas.

“It’s been a fierce interagency tussle,” said a senior Obama administration official, who supports the proposal and asked not to be identified.

White House officials confirmed that President Obama supports the proposal. But the president declined to overrule objections from Lynch, the administration’s top law-enforcement official.

“There were some frustrations,” said a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The top lawyer in the land has weighed in, and that was the DOJ’s purview to do that.”

If enacted into law, the Obama-backed plan would allow detained terrorism suspects who plead guilty to serve their sentences in a third-country prison, without setting foot on U.S. soil. The plan would thus sidestep a Congressional ban on transferring detainees to the United States, which has left dozens of prisoners in long-term judicial limbo in Guantanamo, the American military enclave in Cuba.

Obama has vowed to close the prison on his watch. But while he has overseen the release of some 160 men from the prison, the facility still holds 80 detainees.

The video plea plan has broad backing within the administration, including from senior State Department and Pentagon officials. A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment.

The most enthusiastic backers of the plan have been defense lawyers representing up to a dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees who are eager to extricate their clients from seemingly indefinite detention.

Republicans in Congress have opposed the president’s plans to empty the prison, on the grounds that many of the detainees are highly dangerous. But there is some bipartisan support for the proposal as well, a rarity in the Guantanamo debate.

Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican voice on defense and national security issues, said Graham was “intrigued” by the proposal.

While support from a Republican senator would by no means guarantee the votes needed to pass, it does give the proposal a better chance than schemes that would transfer detainees from the Cuban enclave to the United States.

Obama views the video feed proposal as a meaningful step toward closing the facility and making good on one of his earliest pledges as president, administration officials said.

 

Of the 80 prisoners remaining in Guantanamo, roughly 30 have been approved for transfer to third countries by an interagency review board. Most of those 30 men are expected to be released from Guantanamo in coming weeks, according to administration officials.

The officials said they think that as many as 10 more prisoners could be added to the approved-for-transfer list by the review board. Finally, another 10 detainees are standing trial in military commissions.

That leaves roughly 30 detainees whom the government deems too dangerous to release but unlikely to be successfully prosecuted in court. As a result, those men would likely have to be transferred to detention in the United States if the prison were closed.

Administration officials say that allowing video feeds could reduce that number to somewhere between 10 and 20. The administration believes that with such a small number of prisoners requiring transfer to the United States, it would be easier to win support for closing the facility, which is run by a staff of 2,000 military personnel.

“This is the group that gives the president the most heartburn,” said the senior administration official.

Lynch and her deputies at the Justice Department argued that the laws of criminal procedure do not allow defendants to plead guilty remotely by videoconference.

Even if Congress were to pass the law, Lynch and her aides have told the White House that federal judges may rule that such pleas are in effect involuntary, because Guantanamo detainees would not have the option of standing trial in a U.S. courtroom.

A defendant in federal court usually has the option to plead guilty or face a trial by jury. In the case of Guantanamo detainees, the only option they would likely face is to plead guilty or remain in indefinite detention.

“How would a judge assure himself that the plea is truly voluntary when if the plea is not entered, the alternative is you’re still in Gitmo?” said a person familiar with Lynch’s concerns about the proposal. “That’s the wrinkle.”

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, a 36-year-old Pakistani citizen, first proposed allowing Khan to plead guilty by videoconference in a legal memo submitted to the Department of Justice in November. In 2012, Khan confessed in military court to delivering $50,000 to Qaeda operatives who used it to carry out a truck bombing in Indonesia, and to plotting with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, on various planned strikes.

Senate investigators found internal CIA documents confirming that Khan’s CIA interrogators subjected him to forced rectal feedings. Khan’s lawyers say the experience amounted to rape. He was also water-boarded.

That treatment makes it difficult for the Department of Justice to successfully prosecute Khan in federal court, according to administration officials.

When White House officials learned that Khan and other detainees were ready to plead guilty to terrorism charges in federal court, they thought they had found a solution.

Efforts to try detainees, including Mohammed and other Sept. 11 suspects, in military tribunals at Guantanamo have bogged down over legal disputes. Only eight defendants have been fully prosecuted. Three verdicts have been overturned.

“The beauty of a guilty plea is you don’t need a trial,” said the senior administration official who supports the video plea proposal.

In February, senior Obama aides proposed pushing ahead with video guilty pleas at an interagency meeting at the White House on the closure of Guantanamo, according to officials briefed on the meeting.

Justice Department officials said they opposed video guilty pleas. Matthew Axelrod, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, said the proposal would violate laws of criminal procedure, according to the officials.

The meeting ended with an agreement to pursue new legislation allowing the guilty pleas, the officials said, which the Department of Justice supported.

One week later, President Obama rolled out his plan to close the prison in a nationally televised announcement from the Roosevelt Room. Obama’s plan included seeking “legislative changes … that might enable detainees who are interested in pleading guilty” in U.S. federal courts.

Administration officials spent much of the next two months drafting the new law. On a Friday afternoon in mid-April, White House staff emailed all the involved agencies with a final draft of the bill, according to the officials. The bill would be submitted to Congress the following Monday, the White House email said.

That weekend, Lynch intervened unexpectedly and said the Justice Department opposed the bill. The eleventh-hour move frustrated White House staff. Deciding again to not overrule Lynch, the White House shelved the bill.

In late May, White House officials found a sympathetic lawmaker who inserted language authorizing video pleas into the annual defense spending bill. The White House drafted a policy memo publicly supporting the proposal, which is known as a Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP.

Lynch opposed the idea, according to administration officials, sparking renewed tensions between the Justice Department and White House.

A SAP is the president’s public declaration on the substance of a bill, according to Samuel Kernell, a political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. Without one, it’s often more difficult to get lawmakers on the fence to vote the way the White House wants.

The White House again bowed to Lynch’s objections and declined to issue the SAP.

Doctors Being Slaughtered in Syria

Posted on by

Not only are good Syrian doctors hiding wounded patients, they are reaching out to other doctors globally for help. So, really, where are all the global human rights activists, where is their outrage?

   

In the past five years, the Syrian government has assassinated, bombed, and tortured to death almost seven hundred medical personnel, according to Physicians for Human Rights, an organization that documents attacks on medical care in war zones. (Non-state actors, including ISIS, have killed twenty-seven.) Recent headlines announced the death of the last pediatrician in Aleppo, the last cardiologist in Hama. A United Nations commission concluded that “government forces deliberately target medical personnel to gain military advantage,” denying treatment to wounded fighters and civilians “as a matter of policy.”

In response, some doctors established secret medical units to treat people injured in the crackdown. One surgeon at Aleppo University Hospital adopted the code name Dr. White. Along with three colleagues, he identified and stocked safe houses where emergency operations could be performed. Dr. White also lectured at the university’s faculty of medicine; he suspected that seven of his most promising students shared his sympathies toward the nascent uprising. Another doctor, named Noor, recruited them to join the mission. In Arabic, noor means “light,” so the group called itself Light of Life.

At night, Noor and Dr. White gave the medical students lessons via Skype, concealing their faces and voices. The goal was to teach them the principles of emergency first aid, with an emphasis on halting the bleeding from gunshot wounds. During demonstrations, the students waited in cars and vans to shuttle injured protesters to the safe houses, then disappeared. “They had to leave the house before my arrival,” Dr. White told me during a recent Skype call from Aleppo. “They could not know who this man is.”

More here.

More than 700 doctors killed in Syria war: UN

Attacks on hospitals since Syria’s war broke out five years ago have left more than 700 doctors and medical workers dead, many of them in air strikes, UN investigators said Tuesday.

The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria also condemned horrific violations by jihadists and voiced concern that Al-Qaeda-affiliated militants may have recruited hundreds of children into their ranks.

Commission chief Paulo Pinheiro told the UN Human Rights Council that widespread, targeted aerial attacks on hospitals and clinics across Syria “have resulted in scores of civilian deaths, including much-needed medical workers.”

“More than 700 doctors and medical personnel have been killed in attacks on hospitals since the beginning of the conflict,” he said.

Pinheiro, who was presenting the commission’s latest report to the council, said attacks on medical facilities and the deaths of so many medical professionals had made access to health care in the violence-wracked country extremely difficult — and in some areas completely impossible.

– ‘Terrorised survivors’ –

“As civilian casualties mount, the number of medical facilities and staff decreases, limiting even further access to medical care,” he said.

Pinheiro also denounced frequent attacks on other infrastructure essential to civilian life, such as markets, schools and bakeries.

“With each attack, terrorised survivors are left more vulnerable,” he said, adding that “schools, hospitals, mosques, water stations … are all being turned into rubble.”

Since March 2011, Syria’s brutal conflict has left more than 280,000 people dead and forced half the population to flee their homes.

War broke out after President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a brutal crackdown against protesters demanding political change in Arab Spring-inspired protests.

It has since become a multi-front war between regime forces, jihadists and other groups with the civilian population caught in the crossfire.

Pinheiro said the commission was investigating allegations that the Al-Nusra Front “and other Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have recruited hundreds of children under 15 in Idlib” in northwestern Syria.

The brutality of Syria’s conflict is preventing millions of children from attending school, and activists have warned this is helping fuel jihadist recruitment drives.

Pinheiro also condemned violations committed by the Islamic State group.

In a report published last week, the commission warned that IS jihadists were continuing to commit genocide against the Yazidi minority in Iraq and Syria.

In 2014, IS jihadists massacred members of the Kurdish-speaking minority mainly based around Sinjar mountain in northern Iraq, forcing tens of thousands to flee, and captured thousands of girls and women.

– ‘Stop the genocide’ –

“As we speak, Yazidi women and girls are still sexually enslaved, subjected to brutal rapes and beatings. They are bought and sold in markets, passed from fighter to fighter like chattel, their dignity being ripped from them with each passing day,” Pinheiro said Tuesday.

“Boys are taken from their mother’s care and forced into ISIS training camps once they reach the age of seven,” he said, using another acronym for IS as he called on the international community to act “to stop the genocide.”

Vian Dakhil, a Yazidi member of the Iraqi parliament, also appealed for action.

“We need the (UN) Security Council to bring this … to the International Criminal Court” in the Hague, she told reporters on the sidelines of the Human Rights Council.

Dakhil said 3,200 Yazidi women and girls are still being held by IS, while around 1,000 boys under the age of 10 are being brainwashed and prepared for battle by the jihadists.

“This is still happening,” she said. “We need help.”

Around 400,000 Yazidis are still living in camps in northern Iraq, Dakhil said, adding that they still feared returning to Sinjar to rebuild their communities, since some of their Sunni Muslim neighbours had helped IS in its attacks.

“We need to rebuild peace … and trust,” she said. More from DailyMail.