Senator McCaskill Leads Charge to Federalize Police

Due to the countless unrest and destruction in American cities in recent months, police departments across the country have been challenged to restore order. The ‘Occupier’ movement still exists today as well as concocted riots in towns like Ferguson, Seattle and Baltimore. Yet one component is missing from the growing threat conditions and must not be overlooked and that is ‘soft-targets’ as we have seen at the Boston bombing, Garland, Texas and even Moore, Oklahoma. Those locations experienced aggressions and death at the hands of militant Islamists and more are expected as told by James Comey, Director of the FBI.

Law enforcement and the FBI as well as the Department of Homeland Security do not broadcast their work and investigations into cases they have pending while we know without dispute militant terrorists currently in the country are plotting attacks including more destructive bombings which was the case with John Booker in Kansas.

So why would Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduce legislation that further weakens police and first responders to threats that include IED’s, trucks with laden explosives or soft targets that could be rigged with ambush conditions? Sure, there may be extreme cases where providing law enforcement with military gear may be over the top, previous cases often prove their value. Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell spoke this week on the never-ending threat of enemies such as al Qaeda still have the objective and ability to blow planes out of the sky or just as they land at a domestic airport.

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service)The Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest organization of law enforcement officers, is objecting to parts of Sen. Claire McCaskill’s bill coordinating federal programs on the use of surplus military equipment and other aid to local police departments.

McCaskill, D-Mo., introduced her bill last week as an answer to police “militarization” claims made in the response to unrest in Ferguson last summer after the shooting death of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Read more here.

The bill also would bar small police departments those with fewer than 10 sworn officers from purchasing more than one military tactical vehicle. Departments with fewer than 35 officers would not able to obtain federal funding for SWAT equipment unless they teamed up with other agencies to form regional SWAT teams. Hotlines would be set up to receive reports from the public on the misuse of funds and equipment, and police departments would have to publish their requests for grant funding for certain equipment, such as tactical vehicles, camouflage, flash bang grenades and weapons over a certain caliber.

Money would be set aside to fund body cameras, dashboard cameras, gun cameras, and to cover the costs of maintenance and storage of footage. And local law enforcement agencies would have to meet additional requirements for training and data collection in order to qualify for federal grants and equipment.

There is some reasonable debate that law enforcement has already been militarized by virtue of Federal money supporting police across the country. Money has power and dictates rules of engagement. On top of that, mayors and governors have the ability through their own executive orders to order up the National Guard to patrol streets in towns where riots and destruction such as Baltimore.

At issue as well is just what does the Department of Defense do with surplus equipment no longer of use in a war theater? If there is no will to have ground operations in locations across the globe to defeat enemies such as al Nusra, Islamic State, Boko Haram or al Qaeda and air power is the tactic of choice then where do MRAP’s go?

In cases beyond domestic terror conditions, what about an earthquake in Texas that may require dynamic use of some of this equipment, or an attack on a power plant that happened a couple of years ago in California? Minneapolis is a hotbed of Somalis that are inspired by Boko Haram and Islamic State, is the Mall of America the next Nairobi mall target that killed 68 people in 2013?

Islamic State has effectively recruited and inspired an unknown quantity of soldiers in America, do you know their future targets? Is law enforcement prepared for those threats? Are you prepared?

How DID Obama Corrupt ICE Procedures?

‘Immigration and Naturalization Services has/had been in effect since the 1950’s using a program called Secure Communities. (But not anymore)

Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE’s priorities. It uses an already-existing federal information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals who are arrested or booked into custody with the FBI to see if they have a criminal record. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable due to a criminal conviction, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and other factors – as well as those who have repeatedly violated immigration laws.

‘The Obama Administration’s announcement on November 20, 2014, that it is replacing the Secure Communities program with a new Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) may moot certain questions, since detainers are to be used differently with PEP than with Secure Communities.’

With little fanfare or media reporting, this termination of one program for the sake of another has proven to be a major threat to national security as directed by the Department of Homeland Security where detainers are solely at the discretion of conditions that no one understands including judges hearing cases. In short however, those being detained by ICE are the worst of the worst and time is against ICE due in part of a 48 hour detention limitation where all background investigation evidence must be attached. Sounds simple, but it is hardly simple or easy at all. Felons, not families, criminals not children, gangs not traffickers of narcotics. Even Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson signed a memo that this new White House operation failed.

Then there is a major question of which agency has custody of those detained. What? Does it really matter? Just the facts……

Some have also suggested that a federal regulation—which provides that law enforcement agencies receiving immigration detainers “shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours”—means that states and localities are required to hold aliens for ICE. Prior versions of Form I-247 may also have been construed as requiring compliance with detainers. However, in its recent decision in Galarza v. Szalczyk, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit rejected this view. Instead, it adopted the same interpretation of the regulation that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has advanced, construing it as prescribing the maximum period of any detention pursuant to a detainer, rather than mandating detention.

In addition, questions have been raised about who has custody of aliens subject to detainers, and whether the detainer practices of state, local, and/or federal governments impinge upon aliens’ constitutional rights. Answers to these questions may depend upon the facts and circumstances of particular cases. For example, courts have found that the filing of a detainer, in itself, does not result in an alien being in federal custody, although aliens could be found to be in federal custody if they are subject to final orders of removal. Similarly, holding an alien pursuant to a detainer when there is not probable cause to believe the alien is removable could be distinguished from holding an alien when there is probable cause, or when the alien is subject to a removal order.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) emphasized that it prioritized “criminal aliens,” those who posed a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators for removal through Secure Communities,6and the former Director of ICE further instructed that, among “criminal aliens,” the focus was to be upon those convicted of “aggravated felonies,” as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); those convicted of other felonies; and those convicted of three or more misdemeanors.

*** So all this begs new questions yet to be addressed. Exactly where did those crime occur and who has that information with regard to those immigrants now in the U.S. illegally? How bad were those crimes? What names were used or have since been changed? Syria, Iraq, China, Pakistan…do any of these countries have historical records on people that they are providing to ICE, Border Patrol, the FBI or the State Department? Facts say no. How many Mohammad’s are now Jose?

Just this past November, the Barack Obama attached his name to a FACT SHEET for accountability Executive Action. Here is the ‘eye-roll’.

The President’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions will help secure the border, hold nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable, and ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.  Acting within his legal authority, the President is taking an important step to fix our broken immigration system.

These executive actions crack down on illegal immigration at the border, prioritize deporting felons not families, and require certain undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay their fair share of taxes as they register to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.

These are common sense steps, but only Congress can finish the job. As the President acts, he’ll continue to work with Congress on a comprehensive, bipartisan bill—like the one passed by the Senate more than a year ago—that can replace these actions and fix the whole system.

Three critical elements of the President’s executive actions are:

Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border:  The President’s actions increase the chances that anyone attempting to cross the border illegally will be caught and sent back. Continuing the surge of resources that effectively reduced the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border illegally this summer, the President’s actions will also centralize border security command-and-control to continue to crack down on illegal immigration.
Deporting Felons, Not Families: The President’s actions focus on the deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety. He has directed immigration enforcement to place anyone suspected of terrorism, violent criminals, gang members, and recent border crossers at the top of the deportation priority list.
Accountability – Criminal Background Checks and Taxes: The President is also acting to hold accountable those undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for more than five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.  By registering and passing criminal and national security background checks, millions of undocumented immigrants will start paying their fair share of taxes and temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation for three years at a time.
The President’s actions will also streamline legal immigration to boost our economy and will promote naturalization for those who qualify. Read the full fact sheet here.

 

 

 

Beirut to Benghazi, 32 Years Later

For decades, studies have been performed on what led up to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Beirut all covering issues from forecasting the attack, to the motivations of the attack, to protecting further attacks to what went wrong. Thirty-two years later we are still in much the same feeble security condition as well as naming those behind attacks and what stimulated the attacks yesterday, today and tomorrow.

While the U.S. military is chartered with security of U.S. interests globally, the Rules of Engagement as susceptible to robust scrutiny by agencies outside the Pentagon, namely the State Department and the National Security Council. Winning the ‘hearts and minds’ ethos did not work 32 years ago, it did not work with al Qaeda, the Taliban or even North Korea much less Iran. The sensitivity doctrine as practiced today by the White House and the State Department with regard to the wide talks with Iran have proven to be not only misguided but dangerous.

Knowing history is key so as not to repeat mistakes. After Action Reports are investigated and published to ensure more effective pro-active measures against all enemies. The Long Commission report on the attacks in Beirut was crafted such that Benghazi never should have happened and frankly neither should have the event in Garland, Texas. We repeat and repeat the stupidity and it stays bloody. There are National Security threats to America and those threats to do include Climate Change or federalizing law enforcement.

Text in part from the Long Commission Report, full text is here and here.

Summary of General Observations.

1. Terrorism.

The Commission believes that the most important message it can bring to the Secretary of Defense is that the 23 October 1983 attack on the Marine Battalion Landing Team Headquarters in Beirut was tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism. Terrorist warfare, sponsored by sovereign states or organized political entities to achieve political objectives, is a threat to the United States that is increasing at an alarming rate. The 23 October catastrophe underscores the fact that terrorist warfare can have significant political impact and demonstrates that the United States, and specifically the Department of Defense, is inadequately prepared to deal with this threat. much needs to be done, on an urgent basis, to prepare U.S. military forces to defend against and counter terrorist warfare.

2. Performance of the USMNF.

The USMNF was assigned the unique and difficult task of maintaining a peaceful presence in an increasingly hostile environment. United States military personnel assigned or attached to the USMNF performed superbly, incurring great personal risk to accomplish their assigned tasks. in the aftermath of the attack of 23 October 1983, U.S. military personnel performed selfless and often heroic acts to assist in the extraction of their wounded and dead comrades from the rubble and to evacuate the injured. The Commission has the highest admiration for the manner in which U.S. military personnel responded to this catastrophe.

3. Security following the 23 October 1983 Attack.

The security posture of the USMNF subsequent to the 23 October 1983 attack was examined closely by the Commission. A series of actions was initiated by the chain of command to enhance the security of the USMNF, and reduce the vulnerability of the USMNF to further catastrophic losses. However, the security measures implemented or planned for implementation as of 30 November 1983 were not adequate to

–4–


 

prevent continuing significant attrition of USMNF personnel.

4. Intelligence Support.

Even the best of intelligence will not guarantee the security of any military position. However, specific data on the terrorist threats to the USMNF, data which could best be provided by carefully trained intelligence agents, could have enabled the USMNF Commander to better prepare his force and facilities to blunt the effectiveness of a suicidal vehicle attack of great explosive force.

The USMNF commander did not have effective U.S. Human Intelligence (HUMINT) support. The paucity of U.S. controlled HUMINT is partly due to U.S. policy decisions to reduce HUMINT collection worldwide. The U.S. has a HUMINT capability commensurate with the resources ad time that has been spent to acquire it. The lesson of Beirut is that we must have better HUMINT to support military planning and operations. We see here a critical repetition of a long line of similar lessons learned during crisis situations in many other parts of the world.

***

What we are facing today on our own soil is bubbling to the surface as noted by recent arrests leading up to the shooting in Garland, Texas.

ISIS strikes in Texas.
by: Judith Miller

Ben Torres/Getty Images News

Fortunately, no innocent people died in the militant Islamic terror attack Sunday night in Garland, Texas, where an anti-Islamist organization was holding a Mohammed cartoon-drawing contest. The two wannabe Jihadists, armed with assault rifles and body armor, proved no match for an off-duty Texas traffic cop, who shot them dead with his pistol. But had the “homegrown” terrorists been more numerous, better trained, or better armed, the attack might have proved as deadly as that on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine where 12 people were murdered in January. Mitchell Silber, the former director of counterterrorism research for the New York Police Department and now with K2 Intelligence, a consulting group, called the Garland strike the “first ISIS-inspired terror attack on U.S. soil.”

On Tuesday, ISIS embraced the assailants in a statement on its radio station for the Garland attack, calling them “soldiers of the caliphate,” and expressing hope that they would be granted “the highest rank of paradise” for their attack. In another message posted on JustPasteit, an anonymous message board, the group claimed credit for the assault and warned Pamela Geller, the head of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which sponsored the cartoon contest, that it would not rest until she was dead. Boasting that it has “71 trained soldiers in 15 different states,” among them Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Michigan, and California, “ready at our word to attack,” ISIS vowed to send “all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.” The attack in Garland, the message states, was “only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah (authority or governance) in the heart of our enemy.”

While the authenticity of this message has not been independently confirmed, ISIS has frequently used that message board to publish propaganda. And terrorism analysts and law enforcement officials alike take seriously its warning that the Garland attack is only the start of a sustained effort to create havoc and fear through such strikes. According to a report published in April by the New York-based Anti-Defamation League, which fights anti-Semitism and other forms of religious, racial, and ethnic discrimination, this year has seen a dramatic spike in such attacks and plots by individuals inspired by ISIS and other militant Islamic groups. Since the beginning of the year, the report notes, 31 people in 11 U.S. states have been linked to “plots, conspiracies and other activity on behalf of foreign terrorist groups motivated by Islamic extremist ideologies.” The pace of arrests—unprecedented, notes the ADL report—is a “stark reminder of the varied extremist threats we face in this country,” warned Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. While most of the attacks and more serious plots were hatched in other countries—most notably in Canada, France, and Denmark—“the U.S. is far from immune from the global reach of Islamic extremism,” he said.

Oren Segal, director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism, said that the “alarming” number of mostly young people drawn to jihadist causes demonstrates the “impact foreign terrorist groups have on this generation of homegrown extremists,” mainly through terrorist propaganda or communication on social media. ISIS, the report says, is the largest inspirer, accounting for 29 of the 31 individuals. Terrorism may well be a family enterprise, the ADL report suggests. Nine of the 31 have family members who have also been implicated in militant Islamic activity. Just over half are believed to have traveled or planned to travel to join terror groups abroad. Eleven of the 31 were engaged in domestic terrorist plots. Five of those arrested were female, which brings the number of women linked to Islamic militancy since the start of last year to a total of 14. At least seven of those arrested were converts to Islam—a trend first identified in a controversial 2007 report coauthored by Silber and published by the NYPD.

Considerable debate is underway about what is prompting the dramatic rise in such plots and attacks. Silber says that greater decentralization is an important factor. ISIS has issued a standing order to attack Western targets, “as in Nike’s old tag line: ‘Just do it!’ ” he said. Unlike al-Qaida, whose chief of external operations had to approve a plot in advance, aspiring jihadis can interpret mere “contact with ISIS and its supporters through Twitter and other social media as an order to mobilize.” At least one of the attackers in Texas had a history with terrorist groups and causes: Elton Simpson, who lived in Arizona, was indicted in 2010 for lying to the FBI about having discussed travel to Somalia, which he denied. In 2011, he was found guilty and received three years of probation.

The explosion of social media concerns terrorism and law-enforcement terrorism experts alike. “If the current rate of arrests continues,” Segal said, “the number of Islamic-extremist-related terror arrests in 2015 will exceed that of any previous year.” The best defense against such radicalization, he and others say, is an informed community.

But educating Americans about the danger increasingly posed by homegrown radicals may not be easy. Some analysts have spent almost as much time denouncing the anti-Islamist group that sponsored the event in Texas as they have the two dead attackers. The Southern Poverty Law Center called Geller, a free-speech advocate who has been highly critical of Islam, an “anti-Muslim propagandist.” The ADL, too, has branded Geller’s group an organization that spreads “virulent anti-Muslim bigotry and conspiracy theories.” Many of the group’s critics have suggested that Geller’s event provoked the attack by offering $10,000 to the person who drew the best caricature of Mohammed, an offense to many pious Muslims who believe that the Koran forbids depictions of their prophet. While spokesmen for both the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center stress that such provocative action in no way justifies a resort to violence, both have criticized conduct by Geller as offensive to Muslims.

Geller is having none of it. Continuing to portray herself as an advocate for free speech, she denies that she is anti-Muslim, but rather “anti-jihadi” and “anti-Sharia,” a reference to Islamic law. She also defends her controversial contest in Garland, saying that it is precisely the kind of event protected by the First Amendment. “Inoffensive speech doesn’t require legal protection,” she says. “Offensive speech does.”

John Kerry’s Iran Relations Deeper that Reported

Afternoon tea with Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif at the Upper East Side in New York on Park Avenue is a first in over 20 years. There is also Wendy Sherman and Ernest Moniz that are working the streets at the behest of the White House to get a nuclear agreement signed with Iran. Then there is the matter of gratuity with regard to new embassy locations including that (never-neutral) Switzerland. Imagine the non-reported and secretive discussions.

Secretary of State John Kerry is meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif this afternoon at the official residence of the Iranian ambassador to the UN in New York City. This is a rare symbolic move to have a secretary of state entering Iran’s soil for the first time since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman is accompanying Kerry in his visit to the Upper East Side residence.

When asked by reporters how Iran nuclear talks were progressing, Kerry replied, “We’re plugging away, we’re plugging away.” Earlier in the day, speaking at the UN on the opening day of a month-long conference on nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Kerry said Iran and world powers were closer than ever to a historic Iran nuclear deal.

Iran and U.S. cut deal on new diplomatic offices in Washington, Tehran

The United States, in what may be among the first negotiated deals with Iran since relations broke off in 1980, is allowing the Iranian Interests Section in Washington to move to new headquarters on 23rd Street Northwest in West End.

In exchange, Switzerland, which had been looking for new space for the U.S. Interests Section in Tehran — because the current offices, we were told, were “no longer viable and pretty decrepit” — will be getting new offices as well for the U.S. facility.

“Reciprocity is the hallmark of diplomacy,” one source told us. “This was a swap.”

This news comes after Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s visit in New York last week to the elegant second-floor parlor in the residence of the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations — making Kerry the first senior American official to, at least technically, set foot on Iranian soil in decades.

We asked whether the deal indicated a thaw in relations and was related to negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programs.

A State Department official, in an e-mail reply Thursday, said “there is no connection that we are aware of between this long-planned relocation and the ongoing . . . negotiations to address the international community’s concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.”

“The Iranian Interests Section requested last year to relocate to a new address,” the official said,  “and permission was granted, per standard protocol.” (The Iranians say they’ve been trying to move to new space for about 30 years.)

The Iranian mission here, which is technically under the auspices of Pakistan, basically handles visas, passports and some cultural matters for the estimated 1.5 million Iranian Americans in this country. It’s currently housed on Wisconsin Avenue north of the Georgetown Social Safeway and above the Wide World of Wines.

Well, this is one deal the Senate won’t get to review.

In part from al Monitor: There will be a “very detailed understanding of the process to resolve the IAEA’s [International Atomic Energy Agency] Iran requirements for satisfying and clarifying the [past] possible military dimensions” of its program.

Moniz also reiterated that under the framework deal reached earlier this month with Iran, the only enrichment site Iran will operate will be at Natanz, and that the underground Fordow facility will have no enrichment, no fissile material and also no advanced centrifuge research and development.

Under the agreement, “Fordow is shut down as an enrichment facility,” Moniz said. “Nearly two-third of its apparatus will be shipped out. There will be continuous surveillance and monitoring.”

“There will be no enrichment at Fordow,” Moniz said. “There will be no enrichment research and development at Fordow. There will be no uranium at Fordow.”

He added, “All of the enrichment and enrichment research and development will be at Natanz.”

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/kerry-meets-zarif-at-iran-embassy-residence.html#ixzz3ZazdRChe

Al Jazeera Trouble, al Qaeda and Anti-Semitism

The news outlet from the Middle East, al Jazeera which is the primary news source in the region also reaches into the United States with journalists and a television division. But lately they are in real trouble, ethically and financially. What is worse it appears they have al Qaeda on the payroll.

The embattled CEO of Al Jazeera America was pushed aside Wednesday, ending more than a week of public turmoil that included the resignations of three top female executives.
The announcement capped a turbulent week for Ehab Al Shihabi. His company was sued for $15 million, AJAM was cited for alleged sexism and anti-Semitism and al Shihabi was blamed by one departing executive for presiding over a ‘culture of fear’. Full article here.

But it gets worse.

U.S. Government Designated Prominent Al Jazeera Journalist as “Member of Al Qaeda”

The U.S. government labeled a prominent journalist as a member of Al Qaeda and placed him on a watch list of suspected terrorists, according to a top-secret document that details U.S. intelligence efforts to track Al Qaeda couriers by analyzing metadata.

The briefing singles out Ahmad Muaffaq Zaidan, Al Jazeera’s longtime Islamabad bureau chief, as a member of the terrorist group. A Syrian national, Zaidan has focused his reporting throughout his career on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and has conducted several high-profile interviews with senior Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden.

A slide dated June 2012 from a National Security Agency PowerPoint presentation bears his photo, name, and a terror watch list identification number, and labels him a “member of Al-Qa’ida” as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. It also notes that he “works for Al Jazeera.”

The presentation was among the documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In a brief phone interview with The Intercept, Zaidan “absolutely” denied that he is a member of Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood. In a statement provided through Al Jazeera, Zaidan noted that his career has spanned many years of dangerous work in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and required interviewing key people in the region — a normal part of any journalist’s job. 

“For us to be able to inform the world, we have to be able to freely contact relevant figures in the public discourse, speak with people on the ground, and gather critical information. Any hint of government surveillance that hinders this process is a violation of press freedom and harms the public’s right to know,” he wrote. “To assert that myself, or any journalist, has any affiliation with any group on account of their contact book, phone call logs, or sources is an absurd distortion of the truth and a complete violation of the profession of journalism.” 

A spokesman for Al Jazeera, a global news service funded by the government of Qatar, cited a long list of instances in which its journalists have been targeted by governments on which it reports, and described the labeling and surveillance of Zaidan as “yet another attempt at using questionable techniques to target our journalists, and in doing so, enforce a gross breach of press freedom.”

The document cites Zaidan as an example to demonstrate the powers of SKYNET, a program that analyzes location and communication data (or metadata) from bulk call records in order to detect suspicious patterns.

In the Terminator movies, SKYNET is a self-aware military computer system that launches a nuclear war to exterminate the human race, and then systematically kills the survivors.

According to the presentation, the NSA uses its version of SKYNET to identify people that it believes move like couriers used by Al Qaeda’s senior leadership. The program assessed Zaidan as a likely match, which raises troubling questions about the U.S. government’s method of identifying terrorist targets based on metadata.

It appears, however, that Zaidan had already been identified as an Al Qaeda member before he showed up on SKYNET’s radar. That he was already assigned a watch list number would seem to indicate that the government had a prior intelligence file on him. The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, is a U.S. government database of over one million names suspected of a connection to terrorism, which is shared across the U.S. intelligence community.

The presentation contains no evidence to explain the designation.

Peter Bergen, CNN’s national security analyst and author of several books on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, told The Intercept, “I’ve known [Zaidan] for well over a decade, and he’s a first class journalist.”

“He has the contacts and the access that of course no Western journalist has,” said Bergen. “But by that standard any journalist who spent time with Al Qaeda would be suspect.” Bergen himself interviewed bin Laden in 1997.

The NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to answer questions about the basis of Zaidan’s inclusion on the watch list and alleged Al Qaeda affiliation. The NSA also declined to answer a set of detailed questions about SKYNET, and how it uses the information about the people that it identifies.

What is clear from the presentation is that in the NSA’s eyes, Zaidan’s movements and calls mirrored those of known Al Qaeda couriers.

According to another 2012 presentation describing SKYNET, the program looks for terrorist connections based on questions such as “who has traveled from Peshawar to Faisalabad or Lahore (and back) in the past month? Who does the traveler call when he arrives?” and behaviors such as “excessive SIM or handset swapping,” “incoming calls only,” “visits to airports,” and “overnight trips.”

That presentation states that the call data is acquired from major Pakistani telecom providers, though it does not specify the technical means by which the data is obtained.

The June 2012 document poses the question: “Given a handful of courier selectors, can we find others that ‘behave similarly’” by analyzing cell phone metadata? “We are looking for different people using phones in similar ways,” the presentation continues, and measuring “pattern of life, social network, and travel behavior.”

For the experiment, the analysts fed 55 million cell phone records from Pakistan into the system, the document states.

The results identified someone who is “PROB” — which appears to mean probably — Zaidan as the “highest scoring selector” traveling between Peshawar and Lahore.

The following slide appears to show other top hits, noting that 21 of the top 500 were previously tasked for surveillance, indicating that the program is “on the right track” to finding people of interest. A portion of that list visible on the slide includes individuals supposedly affiliated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as members of Pakistan’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. But sometimes the descriptions are vague. One selector is identified simply as “Sikh Extremist.”

As other documents from Snowden revealed, drone targets are often identified in part based on metadata analysis and cell phone tracking. Former NSA director Michael Hayden famously put it more bluntly in May 2014, when he said, “we kill people based on metadata.”

Metadata also played a key role in locating and killing Osama bin Laden. The CIA used cell phone calling patterns to track an Al Qaeda courier and identify bin Laden’s hiding place in Pakistan.

Yet U.S. drone strikes have killed many hundreds of civilians and unidentified alleged militants who may have been marked based on the patterns their cell phones gave up.

People whose work requires contact with extremists and groups that the U.S. government regards as terrorists have long worried that they themselves could look suspicious in metadata analysis.

“Prominent American journalists have interviewed members of blacklisted terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It would surprise me if journalists in Pakistan hadn’t done the same. Part of the job of journalists and human rights advocates is to talk to people the government doesn’t want them to talk to.”

A History of Targeting Al Jazeera 

The U.S. government’s surveillance of Zaidan is not the first time that it has linked Al Jazeera or its personnel to Al Qaeda.

During the invasion of Afghanistan, in November 2001, the United States bombed the network’s Kabul offices. The Pentagon claimed that it was “a known al-Qaeda facility.”

That was just the beginning. Sami al-Hajj, an Al Jazeera cameraman, was imprisoned by the U.S. government at Guantanamo for six years before being released in 2008 without ever being charged. He has said he was repeatedly interrogated about Al Jazeera. In 2003, Al Jazeera’s financial reporters were barred from the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange for “security reasons.” Nasdaq soon followed suit.

During the invasion of Iraq, U.S. forces bombed Al Jazeera’s Baghdad offices, killing correspondent Tariq Ayoub. The U.S. insisted it was unintentional, though Al Jazeera had given the Pentagon the coordinates of the building. When American forces laid siege to Fallujah, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news organizations broadcasting from within the city, Bush administration officials accused it of airing propaganda and lies. Al Jazeera’s Fallujah correspondent, Ahmed Mansour, reported that his crew had been targeted with tanks, and the house they had stayed in had been bombed by fighter jets.

So great was the suspicion of Al Jazeera’s ties to terrorism that Dennis Montgomery, a contractor who had previously tried peddling cheat-detector software to Las Vegas casinos, managed to convince the CIA that he could decode secret Al Qaeda messages from Al Jazeera broadcasts. Those “codes” reportedly caused Bush to ground a number of commercial transatlantic flights in December 2003.

But the U.S. government appeared to have somewhat softened its view of the network in the last several years. The Obama administration has criticized Egypt for holding three of Al Jazeera’s journalists on charges of aiding the Muslim Brotherhood. During the height of the 2011 Arab Spring, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the network’s coverage, saying, “Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news.”

A Journalist and Al Qaeda

Zaidan first came to international prominence after the 9/11 attacks because of his access to senior Al Qaeda leadership. Zaidan wrote an Arabic-language book on bin Laden, and interviewed him in person multiple times.

“He covered the wedding of bin Laden’s son which was shortly after the [U.S.S.] Cole attack, and I think it was a very useful piece of journalism, because bin Laden declaimed a poem about the Cole which implied him taking responsibility for the attacks, which of course he later did,” said Bergen.

Zaidan also received a number of bin Laden’s taped messages to Americans, which were broadcast on Al Jazeera.

In 2002, he met a mysterious man with a “half-covered face,” who handed him a cassette tape with bin Laden’s voice, Zaidan told Bergen in an interview. In 2004, another bin Laden tape was dropped off at the office gate, Zaidan told the Associated Press. “The guard brought it to me along with other mail. It was in an envelope, I opened it and it was a big scoop,” Zaidan recounted.

Zaidan, right, in a 2011 Al Jazeera documentary he made about bin Laden.

Files collected from bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound after his death — a portion of which were released this year — indicate that Al Qaeda members viewed Zaidan as a journalist they felt comfortable dealing with.

In an August 2010 missive, discussing Zaidan’s plans for a documentary, bin Laden directs his deputies to get “brother Ahmad Zaydan’s” questions and “tell him it would be good if it was on the tenth anniversary of September Eleventh.” Any other input should come in “an indirect way,” bin Laden cautions. “If we want this program to be a success, then we should not get involved in the details of how it is run, except that I don’t want him to interview any of my family,” he wrote.

Zaidan released his documentary on Al Jazeera in December 2011, an oral history of bin Laden’s years in Pakistan and Afghanistan comprised of interviews with a range of people who had known him, including Taliban fighters, government officials, and many journalists.

Bin Laden had also grown paranoid about meetings with Zaidan, although he did not think the U.S. government had managed to kill anyone “from surveying Ahmad Zaydan,” he wrote in May 2010.

He continued, “keep in mind, the possibility, though remote, that the journalists may be involuntarily monitored in a way that we or they do not know about, either on ground or by satellite, especially Ahmad Zaydan of Al Jazeera, and it is possible that a tracking chip could be put into some of their personal effects before coming to the meeting place.”

Zaidan is still Al Jazeera’s Islamabad bureau chief, and has also reported from Syria and Yemen in recent years. Al Jazeera vigorously defended his reporting. “Our commitment to our audiences is to gain access to authentic, raw, unfiltered information from key sources and present it in an honest and responsible way.” They added that, “our journalists continue to be targeted and stigmatized by governments,” even though “Al Jazeera is not the first channel that has met with controversial figures such as bin Laden and others — prominent western media outlets were among the first to do so.”