Impeach John Kerry over Allegiance to Iran

Incredible…..John Kerry with the Obama administration’s approval proves more loyalty to Iran than to the United States. It is no longer deniable that Iran’s best partner is John Kerry with Barack Obama’s approval. It is all about the waiver, meaning agreements, treaties and accords have no teeth, the pen is mighty when waivers unwind objectives and our own Congress.

In part from Politico: “Has anybody in the West been targeted by any Iranian national, anybody of Iranian origin, or anyone traveling to Iran?” Zarif asked. “Whereas many people have been targeted by the nationals of your allies, people visiting your allies, and people transiting the territory of, again, your allies. So you’re looking at the wrong address.”

Zarif mentioned the 9/11 attacks, as well as the recent San Bernardino and Paris attacks. His remarks were veiled references to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, whose citizens have been implicated in those and other lethal strikes. Neither nation is singled out in the new visa law.

Despite Kerry’s letter, the National Iranian American Council remained wary of the visa law. “It remains unclear how these steps will ensure that dual citizens are not discriminated against solely on the basis of their nationality,” the group said Sunday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/iran-visa-waivers-kerry-nuclear-deal-217014#ixzz3v93uDvMt

Iran Nuclear Deal Restricts U.S. More Than Congress Knew

By &

Members of Congress knew the Iran nuclear deal came with strings attached. They just didn’t know how many.

When the administration presented the agreement to Congress, lawmakers were told that new sanctions on Iran would violate the deal. Now the administration is trying to sidestep a recently passed provision to tighten rules on visas for those who have visited Iran.

Since the accord was struck last summer, the U.S. emphasis on complying with its end of the deal has publicly eclipsed its efforts to pressure Iran. In that time, Iranian authorities have detained two American dual nationals and sentenced a third on what most observers say are trumped up espionage charges. Iran’s military has conducted two missile tests, one of which the U.N. said violated sanctions, and engaged in a new offensive with Russia in Syria to shore up the country’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad.

In the latest example of the U.S. effort to reassure Iran, the State Department is scrambling to confirm to Iran that it won’t enforce new rules that would increase screening of Europeans who have visited Iran and plan to come to America. There is concern the new visa waiver provisions, included in the omnibus budget Congress passed last week, would hinder business people seeking to open up new ventures in Iran once sanctions are lifted.

U.S. officials confirmed over the weekend that Secretary of State John Kerry sent his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, a letter promising to use executive powers to waive the new restrictions on those who have visited Iran but are citizens of countries in the Visa Waiver Program. These officials also told us that they have told Iranian diplomats that, because they are not specific to Iran, the new visa waiver provisions do not violate the detailed sequence of steps Iran and other countries committed to taking as part of the agreement. Even so, the State Department is promising to sidestep the new rule.

At issue is a provision that would require travelers who visit certain countries — including Iran, Sudan, Syria and Iraq — to apply at a U.S. Embassy for a visa before coming to the U.S., even if they are from a country for which such visas would normally be waived.

House staffers who spoke with us say Iran was included for good reason, because it remains on the U.S. list of state of sponsors of terrorism for its open support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The White House did not object until the Iranian government told the administration last week that the bill would violate the nuclear agreement, according to correspondence on these negotiations shared with us.

Since 2013, when the open negotiations with Iran began, the Obama administration has repeatedly told Congress that additional sanctions on the Islamic Republic would wreck negotiations. The resulting agreement obligates the West to lift sanctions in exchange for more transparency and limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran and the White House seem to be interpreting “lift sanctions” more broadly than others expected.

“If the United States Congress cannot implement a more secure visa procedure for those who travel to state sponsors of terrorism like Iran, then the Iran deal ties the hands of lawmakers to a greater extent than even deal critics feared,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an expert in Iran sanctions, told us.

Over the weekend, Zarif said in an interview with al-Monitor that Iran’s inclusion on the list might violate the agreement. Zarif called the new restrictions “absurd” because no one connected to Iran was involved in the attacks in San Bernardino and Paris. He also said the provision “sends a very bad signal to the Iranians that the U.S. is bent on hostile policy toward Iran, no matter what.”

The issue is particularly sensitive for the State Department because Iran has yet to implement its side of the deal: The new transparency and limitations on the nuclear program are to begin in the coming weeks. State Department officials have said they fear more hardline elements of the regime in Tehran are trying to scuttle the deal for political advantage over President Hassan Rouhani, whose administration negotiated the accord.

In February, Iran will have parliamentary elections and elections for the powerful assembly of experts, the committee of clerics that would choose the next supreme leader of Iran after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies. If anti-deal elements win those elections, the future of the nuclear deal will be dim.

These factors explain why Kerry has been willing to overlook Iran’s own provocations while trying to mitigate what Iran sees as provocations from the U.S. Congress. They also explain why Iran seems so intent to provoke the U.S. at the moment it’s supposed to implement the deal to which it just agreed.

Russia Committing War Crimes

Russia may have committed war crimes in Syria: Amnesty #SyriaWarThe London-based rights group says it ‘is crucial that suspected violations are independently and impartially investigated’

Amnesty International says three months of Russian air raids have killed hundreds of civilians in Syria, many in targeted attacks that could constitute war crimes.The rights group said on Wednesday that there was evidence Russia had lied to cover up attacks on a field hospital and a mosque, and was using internationally banned cluster bombs in civilian areas.Some attacks “appear to have directly attacked civilians or civilian objects by striking residential areas with no evident military target and even medical facilities”, said Amnesty’s Middle East director Philip Luther.”Such attacks may amount to war crimes,” he said, adding that it “is crucial that suspected violations are independently and impartially investigated”.

The report focuses on attacks in Homs, Idlib and Aleppo provinces between September and November, which killed at least 200 civilians and around a dozen fighters, the group said.Amnesty noted that Russian authorities “have claimed that their armed forces are only striking ‘terrorist’ targets. After some attacks, they have responded to reports of civilian deaths, by denying they killed civilians; after others, they have simply stayed silent.”In one of the deadliest incidents, Amnesty said three missiles were fired at a busy market in the Idlib locality of Ariha, killing 49 civilians.Local media activist Mohammed Qurabi al-Ghazal quoted as saying: “In just a few moments, people were screaming, the smell of burning was in the air and there was just chaos.”In another suspected Russian attack, at least 46 civilians, including 32 children and 11 women sheltering in the basement of a residential building, were killed in October in Ghantu, Homs, Amnesty said.Video footage showed “no evidence of a military presence”, and weapons experts said the nature of the destruction “indicated possible use of fuel-air explosives, a type of weapon particularly prone to indiscriminate effects when used in the vicinity of civilians”.

On Tuesday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Russian air strikes had killed 2,132 people since the campaign began at the end of September, including 710 civilians.The Syrian conflict has killed more than 250,000 people and forced millions to flee their homes since it broke out in March 2011.

Back in October:

Russia Condemned For Bombing Civilians In Syria

A coalition of countries has condemned Russia for killing civilians and not targeting Islamic State (IS) forces in its deadly bombing raids on Syria.

The UK, US, France, Germany, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey voiced “deep concern” over Moscow’s actions as Russian jets carried out a third day of airstrikes in the war-torn country.

They said in a statement they are especially concerned about “attacks by the Russian Air Force on Hama, Homs and Idlib since yesterday (Thursday) which led to civilian casualties and did not target Daesh (IS).

“These military actions constitute a further escalation and will only fuel more extremism and radicalisation.

“We call on the Russian Federation to immediately cease its attacks on the Syrian opposition and civilians and to focus its efforts on fighting ISIL (IS).”

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s jets appear to be targeting rebel groups trying to topple his ally Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

They reportedly hit a camp operated by a rebel group trained by American CIA agents.

However, Russia says its Sukhoi-34 jets are attacking IS forces, and destroyed a command centre and training camp used to prepare “terrorists”.

Moscow says it has carried out 18 attacks in Syria since Thursday night, with 12 of them hitting IS targets.

The Kremlin has denied reports that its strikes have killed at least 36 civilians, including five children.

:: Why Is Putin Joining The Syrian Conflict?

The US-led coalition criticised Russia as Mr Putin held talks with French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris to try to overcome differences on whether Mr Assad should stay in power.

The Syrian President is Russia’s main ally in the Middle East, while Western leaders are firmly opposed to his rule.

Mr Hollande told Mr Putin that Russian airstrikes must be confined to targeting IS militants.

And Mrs Merkel added the leaders “said very clearly that Daesh (IS) was the enemy that we needed to fight”.

Mr Putin left the Paris meeting without comment and did not appear alongside the French and German leaders.

Russia’s raids have triggered discussions in the Pentagon about whether America should use military force to protect US-trained and equipped rebels if they are bombed by Moscow.

US President Barack Obama said: “An attempt by Russia and Iran to prop up Assad and try to pacify the population is just going to get them stuck in a quagmire and it won’t work.”

He said Russia is also failing to differentiate between IS and more moderate insurgents in Syria.

“From their perspective, they’re all terrorists. And that’s a recipe for disaster,” said Mr Obama.

Meanwhile, the United Nations said it had been forced to suspend planned humanitarian operations in Syria, including evacuating the wounded, due to a “surge of military activity”.

Tashfeen Malik’s Visa Application Clues to Jihad

The trained Jihad widow by al Qaeda?

In part from BusinessInsider:

Malik, who was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia for part of her life, moved to the US after meeting Farook first online and then in person when he traveled to Mecca for a religious pilgrimage in 2013. Farook was born in the US.

Malik was allowed to enter the US on a K-1 “fiance” visa. That program is now under more scrutiny, with the US government considering stronger screening measures for applicants. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the issuance of Malik’s visa by Homeland Security officials.

Her application lists addresses in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, including in Punjab Province and Riyadh, where Malik has lived in the past five years.

Farook also wrote the following “intention to marry” statement as part of Malik’s visa application. In the statement, signed on January 20, 2014, Farook wrote that he and Malik “intend to marry within the first month of her arriving in the US.”

Syed Rizwan Farook marriage statementHouse Judiciary Committee

A stamp on the document shows that Malik was admitted into the US on July 27, 2014.

Malik and Farook had both reportedly been radicalized before they met.

FBI Director James Comey said at a US Senate hearing earlier this month that they discussed jihad and martyrdom before they discussed Malik coming to the US to marry Farook.

And a friend of Farook, who has since been arrested, allegedly told authorities after the attacks that he was planning other attacks with Farook in 2011 and 2012.

Malik also reportedly posted a message on Facebook pledging allegiance to the leader of the terrorist group ISIS — aka the Islamic State, ISIL, and Daesh — while the San Bernardino attack was ongoing. She and Farook died in a shootout with police later that day.

Here’s the full visa application:

Tashfeen Malik Visa Application

 

Saudi Led Coalition vs. Islamic States, Big Questions

Audio interviews of attitudes of the newly announced Saudi coalition against Islamic State and terrorism in the region.

BBC: Saudi Arabia is part of the US-led coalition against IS and is also leading a military intervention in Yemen against Shia Houthi rebels.
The list of 34 members: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Palestinians, Qatar, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
A joint operations centre is to be established in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, state media reported.
Countries from Asia, Africa and the Arab world are involved in the alliance but Saudi Arabia’s main regional rival Iran is not.
It comes amid international pressure for Gulf Arab states to do more in the fight against so-called Islamic State.
Saudi Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman said the new alliance would co-ordinate efforts against extremists in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.
Neither Iraq nor Syria, whose governments are close to Shia-ruled Iran, are in the coalition, nor is Afghanistan.


Two things stand out immediately about this new Saudi-based Islamic Coalition.
The Shia-majority nations of Iran and Iraq are noticeably absent, as is their ally Syria.
It is far from clear how, in practice, the coalition would conduct counter-terrorism operations in IS-plagued Iraq and Syria without the agreement of those governments.
Secondly, there is the question of the exact definition of terrorism. The Saudi authorities’ interpretation of it extends far beyond the violent actions of armed insurgents.
Recent legislation has branded peaceful opposition activists and reformers, whether online or in the street, as suspected “terrorists” and a security risk to the state.

***

CBC: Saudi Arabia’s defence minister gave a rare press conference on Tuesday to announce a new military coalition of 34 Muslim countries, led by Saudi Arabia, to fight terrorism in the region. The coalition includes a broad range of countries including the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt and Sudan.

The announcement was welcomed by some, and met with skepticism by others, given that Saudi Arabia has long been accused of turning a blind eye to support for terrorism coming from inside its own borders.

By Wednesday, several of the countries involved, including Pakistan and Malaysia, expressed confusion at having been named as members of a military coalition, and began distancing themselves from the commitment.

Aya Batrawy reports on the Arabian Peninsula for the Associated Press. She was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

David A. Weinberg is skeptical of Saudi Arabia’s new military coalition. He is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies in Washington.

For a sense of how the American government might be thinking, we were joined by James B. Smith. He was the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 2009 to 2013. He’s now the president of the policy consulting firm C and M International in Washington.

We did make multiple requests for comment from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Canada, but we did not receive a response. The Saudi embassy to the United States declined our request for an interview.

FBI Prevented from Using Open Source?

‘ISIS Supporters’ Twitter Accounts Traced To UK Government Department’: Report

NDTV: London:  Hackers in Britain have claimed that a number of ISIS supporters’ social media accounts are being run from internet addresses linked to the UK government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

A group of four young computer experts, who call themselves VandaSec, have unearthed evidence indicating that at least three ISIS-supporting accounts can be traced back to the DWP’s London offices, the ‘Daily Mirror’ reported.

Every computer and mobile phone logs onto the internet using an IP address, which is a type of identification number. The hacking collective showed the newspaper details of the IP addresses used by three separate so-called “digital jihadis” to access Twitter accounts, which were then used to carry out online recruitment and propaganda campaigns.

At first glance, the IP addresses seem to be based in Saudi Arabia, but upon further inspection using specialist tools they appeared to link back to the DWP.

The newspaper learned that the British government had sold on a large number of IP addresses to two Saudi Arabian firms.

After the sale completed in October of this year, they were used by extremists to spread their message of hate.

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “The government owns millions of unused IP addresses which we are selling to get a good return for hardworking taxpayers.

“We have sold a number of these addresses to telecoms companies both in the UK and internationally to allow their customers to connect to the internet. We think carefully about which companies we sell addresses to, but how their customers use this internet connection is beyond our control.”

The UK government has not revealed how much money it has made from the sale of IP addresses.

Now we have learned that DHS has an edit to not use social media or open source for reasons of profiling, which likely has handicapped the FBI from sourcing and connecting intelligence when it comes to cultivating data on would-be jihadists.

Jihadists are making their plans public. Why hasn’t the FBI caught on?

Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week we’re talking about Internet encryption. Need a primer? Catch up here.

WaPo: Rita Katz is the director of the SITE Intelligence Group and has spent nearly two decades tracking, studying and reporting on jihadists. She has testified before Congress and in terrorism trials, briefed the White House, and is the author of the book “Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America.”

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., FBI Director James Comey revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee that one of the two Islamic State-inspired shooters in the May 3 attack in Garland, Tex., “exchanged 109 messages with an overseas terrorist” the morning of the attack. He followed up by saying that the FBI was unable to read those messages. His implication? Better regulation of message-disguising encryption technology could have revealed the shooters’ plans earlier and could help prevent attacks.

However, regulation of encryption is unlikely to provide the government with the counterterrorism benefit it says it will.  Jihadists’ main tool for planning and executing attacks in recent years has been social media — to which the government has full access — not encrypted messaging. In addition, regulation of one messaging technology will lead to immediate adaptation and the creation of ways to circumvent it.

In recent years, smartphones and social media have enabled users from around the world to communicate easily, safely and free of charge. Programs facilitating such communications sprouted, and jihadists — the Islamic State in particular — quickly adopted them as their main means of communication. For over three years, Twitter has been the Islamic State’s most important platform. High-level operatives within the group have used Twitter’s unencrypted direct messaging to recruit, give instructions for donating and plan attacks. Jihadists even rely on Twitter to promote their channels on other platforms, such as Telegram, which supporters would otherwise have difficulty finding.

Jihadists’ presence on social media has also spread the Islamic State around the world, with people of all ages, sexes and ethnicities leaving their families and friends to join the group. Social media use has been linked to executed and attempted lone-wolf attacks in the United StatesCanadaAustraliaFranceDenmark and other Western nations.

The Garland, Tex., shooting — the only example Comey used  as an impetus to regulate encrypted technology — in fact makes the opposite point. Attacker Elton Simpson, who was under previous FBI terror-related investigations, used Twitter to openly follow and communicate with high-profile terrorists. His account was followed by prominent English-speaking Islamic State fighters and recruiters Abu Rahin Aziz and Junaid Hussain — both of whom for a long time were known to provide manuals on how to carry out lone-wolf attacks from Raqqa, Syria, before they were killed. Simpson also followed and communicated with Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, a known American jihadist in Somalia who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Relatedly, the incitement for the Texas shooting came from Hassan’s 31st Twitter account. Simpson, a friend and follower of Hassan, retweeted the call and later requested that Hassan send him a direct message. We at SITE, using only open-source information, reported on the call before the attack took place, and the FBI had a week to investigate the matter before the shooting. Though only nine Twitter users retweeted the call for attack, the FBI failed to prevent it.

The encrypted messages Comey mentioned before the Judiciary Committee were discovered by the FBI only after the attack took place, but Simpson’s open-source communication was available far in advance. There is in fact no evidence that this or any of these other lone-wolf attacks could have been prevented by regulation of encryption technology.

In stark contrast, a proper, targeted open-source investigation could have. Yet the FBI is reluctant to recognize open-source as an important — arguably the most important — tool to track jihadists online.

It’s also important to note that jihadists are very quick to adapt online. In the past year alone, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda fighters have moved quickly from WhatsApp to Kik, Wickr, Surespot, then to Telegram – all different encryption programs created to give smartphone users safe and free text messaging available across multiple devices.  Jihadists are constantly ranking, debating and explaining which of the services is the safest and most effective. Regulation of these programs will take jihadists next to no time to circumvent; the U.S. government would be the one taking years to catch up. And even if successful, they may be able to regulate companies based in the United States, but such programs would appear everywhere else, from Russia to India to China

SITE’s leadership and continued success do not stem from access to secret databases. Our research, investigations and reporting are based on open-source information — social media, forums, websites, blogs, IP addresses — which can be immensely powerful if used wisely. Government agencies, however, seem blind to this bountiful intelligence resource, and too often rely solely on classified documents and back-end access to websites.

Rather than try to create backdoors to encrypted communication services, or use the lack thereof as an excuse to intelligence failures, the U.S. government must first know how to utilize the mass amount of data it has been collecting and to improve its monitoring of jihadist activity online. A focused approach of this sort is much more likely to lead to success in the war on terrorism.