Category Archives: Iran Israel

Covering for Hillary and the Shame of Hillary

Posted on by

State Department delays turning over files on Hillary Clinton requested by media outlets  

The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than one year.

The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the material.

The State Department denied the AP’s requests, and rejected the AP’s subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about especially newsworthy topics.

In its requests, the AP cited the likely prospect of Clinton entering the 2016 race. The former first lady is widely considered the leading Democratic contender hoping to succeed President Barack Obama. She has made scores of recent high-profile speeches and public appearances.

On Wednesday, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips.

Citizens United, which in 2009 mounted a legal battle that led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning campaign finance limits, said the department unlawfully was withholding the records it sought nearly five months ago.

The State Department is among the U.S. government’s worst-performing federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no direct evidence that political considerations in a Democratic presidential administration have delayed the release of files about the party’s leading contender for 2016. But the agency’s delays, unusual even by government standards, have stoked perceptions about what could be taking so long.

“There may not necessarily be political interference, but if the department went out of its way to speed these documents there would be no way for people to accuse them of it,” said Thomas Blanton, who has previously sued the State Department for access to records as director of George Washington University’s National Security Archive, a research organization.

The department “is stonewalling us,” said Citizen United’s president, David Bossie. He asserted that “these decisions are being made with Hillary Clinton’s intentions at heart,” but acknowledged he could provide no evidence of political interference.

Bossie, a former Republican congressional investigator who researched figures in the Clinton administration, said his group’s film unit wants the records for a sequel to its documentary about Clinton, which spurred the Citizens United court decision.

The group first asked Air Force officials for passenger lists from Clinton’s overseas trips but was told all flight records were under the State Department’s control. “These were Air Force flights and crews but State has the records?” he said, adding that his group has submitted 15 Clinton-related requests in the past six months.

The AP’s requests go further back.

The AP requested copies of Clinton’s full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; her department’s decision to grant a special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton’s and the agency’s roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor. The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in March 2010.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach cited the department’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests _ 19,000 last year _ in saying that the department “does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities.” He said the department takes requests “first in, first out,” but noted that timing depends on “the complexity of the request.” He declined to comment on Citizen United’s suit.

In a previous communication, a State Department official apologized for its own delays responding to AP’s records requests without offering any explanation for the delays.

“We sincerely regret the delay,” said Lela H. Ross of the Office of Information Programs and Services, which administers the agency’s requests. The official did not explain the delays but cited the agency’s “complex and lengthy administrative FOIA process.”

Last May, the State Department told the AP that its search for records pertaining to Clinton and the defense contractor would be completed by August. The agency said it now expects the files to be available later this month. Similarly, the agency said the Clinton and Abedin records would likely be completed in September. Now it says it will not finish until next April. The 4-year-old FOIA request still has no estimated completion date.

The agency’s pace responding to requests for Clinton-related files has frustrated news organizations, archivists and political groups trying to research her role at the State Department in the months before Clinton decides whether to formally enter the 2016 race.

At stake is the public’s access to thousands of documents that could help understand and define her activities as the nation’s chief diplomat under Obama.

Other major document repositories have released thousands of pages of files about Clinton’s private and public life.

Since February, lots of previously restricted records from her years as first lady to President Bill Clinton have been made public by the Clinton Presidential Library. Last month, the University of Virginia’s Miller Center presidential oral history collection unveiled dozens of interviews with key players from the Clinton White House.

The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department.

An inspector general’s report in 2012 criticized the State Department’s practices as “inefficient and ineffective,” citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems. A study in March by the nonpartisan Center for Effective Government said the State Department was the worst-performing agency because of its delays and frequent failure to deliver the full number of files that people requested.

***

Meanwhile another Benghazi hearing occurred today 12/10/14.

Of particular note, the February 17 Brigade hired for supplemental security at the mission post were not only fully vetted, some members were on strike over pay disputes and even worse, the organization did not have a license to operate in Libya.

When asked by Congressman Jim Jordan why we were in Libya in the first place, he was told that the single point of contact for that question and decision to be in Libya was between Hillary Clinton and Ann Patterson. Not only was Patterson a major part of the failure during the Arab Spring in Egypt, but she was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

The witnesses included Greg Starr, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, left, and Steve Linick, State Department Inspector General and the questioning was narrowed to pre-attack security violations. The Inspector General delivered oral and written testimony stating that the Accountability Review Board recommendations have yet to be fully implemented after two years and waiver are often signed for non-compliance.

Recent Significant OIG Findings Concerning Security Issues
In addition to the ARB process review, OIG has issued a variety of reports covering significant security matters. I take this opportunity to highlight four areas of concern: (1) physical security deficiencies; (2) exceptions and waivers; (3) “stovepiping” of security issues within the Department; and (4) vetting of local guard forces protecting overseas facilities and personnel. P hysical S ecurity D eficiencies
Making Department personnel and facilities safe depends in large part on understanding and closing the gaps between established physical security requirements and the real world situations found at each post around the world. Recent OIG reports demonstrate that the Department is at increased risk because it lacks sufficient processes, planning, and procedures to ensure that the Department understands the security needs at posts around the world. For example, in March 2014, OIG reported, in its audit on requesting and prioritizing physical-security activities, that the Department lacked a comprehensive list of physical security deficiencies and funding requests at overseas posts.8 As a result, the Department could not ensure that the highest priority physical security needs at overseas posts were addressed and that the posts’ vulnerabilities to threats had therefore been reduced sufficiently.9 If the Department cannot identify security vulnerabilities, it cannot adequately implement or fund solutions.  In 2012, OIG conducted a series of audits and reviews of posts located in Europe, Latin America, and Africa, which identified physical security deficiencies at nine embassies and one consulate that required immediate attention.10 OIG auditors found that the posts were generally not in compliance with the Department’s physical and procedural security standards. Security deficiencies common among the posts included the failure to meet minimum compound perimeter requirements; to properly conduct inspections of vehicles before entering posts; to maintain functioning anti-ram barriers, as required; and to install and/or maintain functioning forced-entry/ballistic-resistant doors, as required. Some regional security officers (RSOs) at the audited posts stated that they were not aware of the security requirements, and one RSO explained that the deficiency in question was in place prior to the RSO’s arrival at post; however, no action had been initiated to remedy the security deficiency.  Exceptions and Waivers
Exceptions and waivers granted from compliance requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act11 (SECCA) or the security standards established by the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) also contribute to increased security risks at posts.
8 Audit of the Process To Request and Prioritize Physical Security – Related Activities at Overseas Posts (AUD-FM-14-17, March 2014). 9 Ibid. 10 AUD-SI-13-32, June 2013, and AUD-HCI-13-40, September 2013. 11 Sec. 606(a) of H.R. 3427 of the 106th Congress (113 Stat. 1501A-454-255) (22 U.S.C. § 4865), incorporated by reference pursuant to sec. 1000(a)(7) of Pub. L. 106-113 as Appendix G (1999).
4
OIG has found conditions of non-compliance with security standards for which posts had not sought exceptions or waivers.12 A common example is the use of warehouse space for offices. Under the Department’s security rules, office space must meet more stringent physical security standards than warehouse space; Department employees who work in warehouse spaces, which do not meet required physical security standards for offices, are at risk.  OIG also found that a number of overseas posts had not maintained accurate exception and waiver records.13 In some cases, OIG inspectors found that RSOs were unable to locate an exception or waiver approval or denial that was on file with DS. When a new RSO, chief of mission, or deputy chief of mission arrives at post, accurate, up-to-date records can help ensure that the RSO and senior management have current knowledge of outstanding exception and waiver requests. Only in this manner can the RSO ensure that mitigating steps are understood and completed and that restrictions, such as building use, are enforced. To address these issues, OIG recommended that DS require overseas posts to: (1) submit an annual written certification that exceptions and waivers have been requested for all circumstances where standards cannot be met and (2) provide a statement of assurance signed by the chief of mission certifying that post is adhering to all stipulations in existing waivers and exceptions. To date, this recommendation remains unresolved.

But the U.S. State Department was much worse under Hillary Clinton than is reported.

CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the report says was “endemic.”

The memo also reveals details about an “underground drug ring” was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

 

 

 

 

What You Should Know about BDS

Posted on by

Anyone remember that Israel is still working diligently to defend herself? Anyone remember that the West is not only doing nothing to support Israel as an ally but in many cases is working against her as noted by SecState John Kerry dealing with Iran on the nuclear program which failed but then he is still using all back-channels with regard to a peace process with the Palestinians.

There are countless grass roots operations under Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) that are also working against Israel. Businesses in America and even universities have joined the BDS network. Here is what you should know.

Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS)
Overview

Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) are the tactics of political warfare used against Israel, based on the exploitation of human rights, double standards, comparisons to apartheid South Africa, and false accusations of “war crimes.”
  • Definitions:
    •  Boycotts of products, culture, and academics – BDS activists lobby stores not to carry Israeli products and encourage others not to purchase them. They send letters to artists, musicians, authors, and academics, imploring them not to perform and appear in Israel or cooperate with Israeli institutions. Boycotts undermine liberal values, such as academic freedom and freedom of expression, by restricting openness and tolerance.
    • Divestment from companies that do business with Israel – Distorting the concept of ethical investing, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accuse companies that conduct business in Israel of involvement in war crimes and violations of international law. The NGOs approach investors, primarily large banks and pension funds, and push for the exclusion of these companies.
    • Sanctions against self-defense measures – Anti-Israel activists demand that the international community enact comprehensive sanctions against Israel – treating Israel as a pariah state. The ultimate goal is legally enforced sanctions by the UN Security Council. Other forms of sanctions include arms embargoes, which are premised on baseless charges of war crimes. Similarly, legal proceedings are initiated against Israeli officials to punish Israel for defensive actions. 
  • BDS is the main component of the “Durban strategy,” which was adopted by dozens of NGOs at the 2001 UN Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, which crystallized the strategy of delegitimizing Israel as “an apartheid regime” through international isolation.
    • Other tactics of the Durban Strategy include “lawfare” campaigns against Israeli officials in international courts; lobbying international bodies, including the UN, EU, US and criminal courts; publishing false reports and accusations of “war crimes,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid”; organizing provocations such as flotillas and violent demonstrations under the guise of humanitarian operations and human rights.
  • The campaign seeks to end the “occupation and colonization of all Arab lands” and promotes the right of “Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties.” These goals undermine the fundamental right of the Jewish people to self-determination.
  • This campaign is financed and supported extensively by foreign governments, as well as foundations and religious charities, which provide frameworks for anti-Israel political influence. *See funding chart below.
  • Most of this money comes from Europe, usually involving taxpayer funds funneled through secret processes to organizations that operate under the banners of promoting human rights, humanitarian aid, democracy and peace.
  • BDS seeks the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
    • Co-founder of Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) Omar Barghouti (2004): “The current phase has all the emblematic properties of what may be considered the final chapter of the Zionist project. We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.”
    • As’ad Abu Khalil, a central activist in the U.S. (2012): “Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the State of Israel.”
    • Pro-BDS author Ahmed Moor: “OK, fine. So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state…. I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential….In other words, BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown.”
  • BDS is not an established organization or movement, but comprised of dozens of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and radical activists.
  • In practice, the BDS campaign has little success on the ground, but its effectiveness lies in its ability to penetrate the public and political discourse and blur the lines between legitimate criticism of Israel and the complete de-legitimization of Israel in the international arena.
  • BDS activists utilize the threat of political, economic, academic and cultural isolation as a means of pressuring Israel, and seek to have this idea penetrate the public and political discourse, as a means of influencing governments and businesses to adopt BDS tactics.

Then when a retired General and a former director of the CIA puts out warnings with regard to BDS, sanctions and Israel, listening and action is prudent.

NEW YORK (JTA) — Former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus said that any nuclear deal with Iran should not include a significant decrease in sanctions on the country.

“No deal is better than a bad deal,” Petraeus told a crowd of over 1,700 Wall Street insiders on Monday night at the UJA-Federation of New York’s annual Wall Street Dinner, a fundraiser that broke last year’s record by raising more than $26 million. “And turning the screw on the sanctions is better in the end.”

At the dinner presentation, Marc Lipschultz, the global head of energy and infrastructure at the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, asked Petraeus, also the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, about the Islamic State jihadist group and other global threats to Israel.

Petraeus responded that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel in Europe is potentially more dangerous to Israel than threats in the Middle East and “might keep more people awake at night than anything else.”

He also said that Hezbollah’s threat to Israel has largely been neutralized by the Iron Dome defense system.

 

 

Feinstein’s Acrimony for the CIA Revealed

Posted on by

Today, December 9, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Majority leader for the SSCI, stood on the Senate floor for almost an hour and delivered a chilling verbal summary of the $40 million dollar investigation into the CIA Torture Report. She spoke in a measured and assertive tone naming names all the way through. My bet is she delivered this performance for the sake of setting the table to close Guantanamo immediately.

Further, Feinstein put every American in peril wherever they may travel internationally as well as all foreign service officers and our very own troops. She has aided and abetted the enemy as her 500 page summary report has been publically published for all enemies to read. What is worse, several countries friendly to America are formally exposed and will likely never cooperate again with U.S. intelligence. We cannot know the future damage but the threat assessments have risen dramatically as all foreign U.S. military bases are presently on higher alert and some embassies are in fact closed for an undetermined period of time.

Feinstein de-facto denied all evidence that the CIA program saved lives, stopped terror plots and led us to other terrorists in the global network, then perhaps the fact that over the weekend, Pakistani forces killed the man who was believed to be al-Qaeda’s top operational commander, Adnan el Shukrijumah — a terrorist who was identified thanks to the CIA’s interrogation of two senior al-Qaeda operatives.

The enhanced interrogation program was terminated several years ago and since several laws were passed to ensure they were never applied again. For Feinstein to say her only motivation was to ensure this never happened again, is misguided at best.

What is worse, the DOJ has said they will not prosecute any participants of the program but the United Nations is saying otherwise such that many contractors and CIA operatives could be bought up on charges on international law.

This matter is by far not over yet, we have people in media that are in fact outing names of countries that cooperated and they are posting names of CIA operatives that had a hand in the program. Feinstein crossed the Rubicon and the wake of destruction, damage injury or life is still yet to be realized.

As a last note, this CIA Torture Report is highly partisan as no former or still active CIA operative was interviewed during this process nor was the top lawyer at CIA, John Rizzo. Rizzo formally asked to be interviewed and was denied. Rizzo then formally asked for a copy of the report and was denied.

If you don’t think that George Soros did not have a hand in the Feinstein investigation, you need to think again.

Jose Rodriguez who ran the rendition/interrogation program had his own response to Feinstein.

WASHINGTON – The Central Intelligence Agency officer who headed the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program calls a damning Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation activities a “totally egregious falsehood.”

Jose Rodriguez, former director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told WTOP in an exclusive interview, “For those of us who were there, who read the reporting coming out of our black sites and who acted upon that intelligence, the conclusions by the SSCI report that the program brought no value, and the CIA mislead the Congress is astounding.”

The committee, in a scathing, 600-page summary of a five-year, $40 million investigation into the now defunct Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program, says the agency of misled Congress about a program that essentially brought no value to U.S. efforts to track down the al-Qaida operatives responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The program included waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other techniques that have been classified as torture.

The Senate Committee report cited several key findings:

  • The CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not effective.
  • The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to policymakers and the public.
  • The CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.
  • The CIA program was far more brutal than the CIA represented to policymakers and the American public.

But Rodriguez says the value of the program was clear and convincing. He says the program produced connective intelligence that led U.S. authorities to the key players in al-Qaida’s hierarchy.

He laid out a pattern.

“Abu Zubayda was waterboarded for the first 20 days of August 2002. Two weeks later, we captured the first important high value target, Ramzi bin al-Shibh,” said Rodriguez.

Bin al-Shibh, was a key collaborator within al-Qaida’s Hamburg, Germany, cell comprised of Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi. They formed the cell that became the essential agents of the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the following days, weeks and months, CIA personnel and contract employees executed the enhanced interrogation program designed by the agency’s Counterterrorism Center to extract valuable information. They captured Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the perpetrator of the U.S.S. Cole attack. And using the intelligence they gathered, they systematically pieced together details that led them to the mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March of 2003.

Gary Berntsen, the CIA officer who led a team of military and intelligence assets into Tora Bora, Afghanistan in 2001 looking for Osama bin Laden, said the tactics paid off.

“The information they turned over, gave us entire the second tier of al-Qaida, when they were attempting to launch attacks on the U.S.”

A key contention in the Senate report is the CIA misled members of Congress. But Rodriguez says “the Senate, the House intelligence committees were briefed more than 40 times during the life of the program.”

But in a long briefing before the Senate Tuesday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein said the CIA’s destruction of the video tapes of the interrogation session was an attempt to keep Congress in the dark.

Rodriguez said the tapes were recorded to help intelligence operatives understand the people they were interrogating.

They were destroyed because, he said “our people in the field came back and said these tapes are vulnerability for us, because we don’t have a place to store them and our faces are all over the place in these tapes.”

“We acknowledge that the detention and interrogation program had shortcomings and that the Agency made mistakes. But the intelligence gained from the program was critical to understanding al-Qaida,” the CIA said in a statement, responding to the report.

“While we made mistakes, the record does not support the study’s inference that the agency systematically and intentionally misled each of these audiences on the effectiveness of the program. Moreover, the process undertaken by the committee when investigating the program provided an incomplete and selective picture of what occurred,” the statement reads.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement alluding to the intelligence community angst over the report, “President Obama has made clear, some things were done that should not have been done — and which transgressed our values.”

But Clapper indicated, this is not a new issue.

“We recognized this 10 years ago and stopped the program as it was originally conducted; even more important, we have since enacted laws, implemented presidential orders and established internal policies to ensure that such things never happen again.”

 

Below is ODNI Director, James Clapper’s response and Barack Obama’s response.

DNI Message to the Intelligence Community Workforce on the Release of the SSCI Report

December 9, 2014

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper sent the following message to the entire Intelligence Community workforce earlier this morning.

Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its report on the detention and interrogation program.  In all of my experience in intelligence, I am hard-pressed to recall another report—and the issues surrounding it—as fraught with controversy and passion as this one.  Virtually no one who has any familiarity with the report and what it describes is “neutral.”  The rebuttal to the majority report issued by the minority on the Committee is but one example of strong alternative views.  Proponents of publication ardently believe that the report must be issued to cleanse a stain on the pages of our history, and to ensure that the practices it describes are never repeated.  Others, with equal conviction, believe that the report is unfair and biased; fails to account for the immediate impact of the attacks on 9/11—on American citizens and on those in government charged with protecting the country; and will result in greater jeopardy to American citizens, facilities and interests overseas.

The officers who participated in the program believed with certainty that they were engaged in a program devised by our government on behalf of the President that was necessary to protect the nation, that had appropriate legal authorization, and that was sanctioned by at least some in the Congress.  But, as President Obama has made clear, some things were done that should not have been done —and which transgressed our values.  We recognized this ten years ago and stopped the program as it was originally conducted; even more important, we have since enacted laws, implemented Presidential orders and established internal policies to ensure that such things never happen again.

I don’t believe that any other nation would go to the lengths the United States does to bare its soul, admit mistakes when they are made and learn from those mistakes.  Certainly, no one can imagine such an effort by any of the adversaries we face today.  In the months leading up to today’s publication, we went through an exhaustive, good-faith dialogue with the Committee to reach a mutual agreement on what could be said publicly about the program, consistent with the enduring need to protect national security.  We made unprecedented efforts to enable the release of as much of the Committee’s report as possible.

Now that the report is public, there is certain to be much discussion of its contents—and of the alternative views of the program and the period during which it operated.  That discussion will go on, but the critical imperative for all of us who are privileged to work as members of the Intelligence Community is to remain sharply focused on our missions and the work before us.  We must sustain our vigilance to deal with the myriad threats and challenges that face the nation, including any that may arise in the coming days as a possible reaction to the report.  The women and men of the CIA specifically, and of the Intelligence Community generally, have helped to keep this nation safe for nearly 70 years.  That remains our ultimate mission; it reflects the trust that Americans have always placed in us.  I have every confidence that we will continue to meet those expectations and honor that sacred trust, just as we have always done.

James Clapper

Statement by President Obama — Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

December 9, 2014

Throughout our history, the United States of America has done more than any other nation to stand up for freedom, democracy, and the inherent dignity and human rights of people around the world.  As Americans, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who serve to keep us safe, among them the dedicated men and women of our intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency.  Since the horrific attacks of 9/11, these public servants have worked tirelessly to devastate core al Qaeda, deliver justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupt terrorist operations and thwart terrorist attacks.  Solemn rows of stars on the Memorial Wall at the CIA honor those who have given their lives to protect ours.  Our intelligence professionals are patriots, and we are safer because of their heroic service and sacrifices.

In the years after 9/11, with legitimate fears of further attacks and with the responsibility to prevent more catastrophic loss of life, the previous administration faced agonizing choices about how to pursue al Qaeda and prevent additional terrorist attacks against our country.  As I have said before, our nation did many things right in those difficult years.  At the same time, some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values.  That is why I unequivocally banned torture when I took office, because one of our most effective tools in fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe is staying true to our ideals at home and abroad.

Today’s report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence details one element of our nation’s response to 9/11—the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which I formally ended on one of my first days in office.  The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests.  Moreover, these techniques did significant damage to America’s standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners.  That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again.

As Commander in Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the safety and security of the American people.  We will therefore continue to be relentless in our fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremists.  We will rely on all elements of our national power, including the power and example of our founding ideals.  That is why I have consistently supported the declassification of today’s report.  No nation is perfect.  But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.  Rather than another reason to refight old arguments, I hope that today’s report can help us leave these techniques where they belong—in the past.  Today is also a reminder that upholding the values we profess doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us stronger and that the United States of America will remain the greatest force for freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known.

Groups Behind Closing Gitmo

Posted on by

A few years ago, Marc Thiessen wrote a book titled Courting Disaster. The spirit of the book delivers proven evidence that interrogation of enemy combatants kept America safe and offered up more actionable knowledge in the terror networks globally. Thiessen provides names, organizations and lobby groups in full opposition of black sites and Guantanamo. One needs to understand all the moving parts before they offer criticism of decisions by the Bush administration.

So as Barack Obama entered the White House, his first move was to close Gitmo while almost 7 years later there are 140 detainees still there. The question is why? The team known to be the go-to operation to close Gitmo has also proven some success in getting terrorists released from the ‘other’ Gitmo, the prison(s) in Colorado that actually has more detainees than Gitmo.

These wars across the globe against terror networks involves hundreds of thousands of fighters, hence in begs the question, who no capture and interrogate? Is killing the via drone since all ground hostilities have been terminated effective? Terror cells have grown exponentially including al Nusra, Daesh, AQAP, Boko Harem and more. Their operating territory has expanded in the last 6 years as well.

Here are some facts that cannot be disputed.

If you knew who was behind “Close-Gitmo” push, you’d be shocked

On Saturday, January 11, a coalition of “Close-Gitmo” forces is expected to march on Washington to commemorate the 12th anniversary of detention and interrogation operations.

Though the march from the White House to the National Museum of American History is purportedly about advancing “human rights” and “stopping torture,” a closer look at the key participants reveals a more troubling, some might say hidden, agenda.

If more Americans knew who is behind this campaign, there would be nationwide outrage.

While everyone is for “human rights” and “stopping torture,” Americans should not be fooled by these false flags meant to damage U.S. power and prestige.

Dig a little deeper into who has been driving the anti-Gitmo disinformation campaign these past 12 years, and you will discover an international, fervently anti-American, far-left coalition attacking the nation through a savvy propaganda effort.

Just dig a little deeper into who has been driving the anti-Gitmo disinformation campaign these past 12 years, and we discover an international, fervently anti-American, far-left coalition attacking the nation through a savvy propaganda effort.

This includes those linked to Al Qaeda financiers, communist groups, anarchist movements – backed by sympathetic press and politicians.

Regrettably, it’s a coalition President Barack Obama has sided with in his priority to release as many Al Qaeda, Taliban and “affiliates” as humanly possible.

Let’s take a look at the key players:

Amnesty International. Along with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International was revealed as partner organization to Al Karama, a human rights non-profit run by Qatar’s Abdul Rahman Omeir Al-Naimi.

Al-Naimi was recently exposed by the U.S. Treasury Department in December 2013 as a long-term major financier of Al Qaeda.  According to an expose by Eli Lake in the Daily Beast, “Terrorists for Human Rights,” the Treasury Department’s designation said he, “oversaw the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen over the last 11 years.”

Center for Constitutional Rights. CCR was founded by far-left civil rights lawyer William Kunstler in the 1960s, a man who told the press his goal was to “destroy society from within.”

Kunstler represented the “Chicago 7,” a group that was charged with conspiracy to start a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, and later he defended domestic militant/terror groups like the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, and Attica Prison Rioters.

CCR is currently funded by groups like the “1848 Foundation,” named after the year Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published and revolutions swept through Europe.

Kunstler would be proud of CCR’s signature work over the past decade in coordinating the “Gitmo Bar Association” of 500 lawyers representing detainees.

Reprieve. A British organization led by blogger Andy Worthington, it pressures release of British citizens and residents.  Ethiopia’s Binyam Mohammed, a British resident, allegedly plotted to blow up high rise apartment buildings in the U.S. with a dirty bomb; Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, and Shafiq Rasul, a.k.a., the Tipton Three, ethnic Pakistanis went to fight for jihad in Afghanistan but were caught by the Northern Alliance in Nov. 2001; and Shaker Aamer, a Saudi citizen with British residence, alleged to have led a unit of Al Qaeda fighters in Tora Bora, and reportedly a former close associate of Usama Bin Laden, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui.

World Can’t Wait. This organization is believed to have been founded by members and supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party & Anarchists. It organized at least 24,000 supporters during Iraq War, including actor Sean Penn and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Jason Leopold. Leopold is a former Los Angeles Times investigative journalist with a checkered past.  According to Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz, writing in a 2005 Washington Post feature, “Leopold says he engaged in ‘lying, cheating and backstabbing,’ is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life.”

So these are the folks Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to appease by releasing more Gitmo detainees?

Nearly half the current population of 155 may be freed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.

It would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high.

We’ve already seen Al Qaeda re-take Fallujah, site of the Iraq War’s bloodiest battles, just two years after Mr. Obama’s ordered withdrawal.  And Al Qaeda and/or “affiliates” killed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.

Speaking of which, a Fox News report this week by Catherine Herridge reveals that the State Dept. will finally designate ex-Gitmo detainee, Libya’s Sufian Bin Qumu, and his group, Ansar Al-Sharia as “foreign terrorist entities” for their roles in the Benghazi Consulate attack.

Does Mr. Obama really think it’s in America’s security interests to free more terrorists from Gitmo, nearly one-third of whom have already returned to terrorism?

The silent majority must take this opportunity to speak up. Preventing the next Al Qaeda attack may depend on it.

J.D. Gordon is a retired Navy Commander who served as a Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-09. He serves as senior adviser to several Washington-based think tanks.

***

Military tribunals have proved excruciatingly slow and imprisonment at Guantánamo hugely costly — $800,000 per inmate a year, compared with $25,000 in federal prison.

The criminal justice system, meanwhile, has absorbed the surge of terrorism cases since 2001 without calamity, and without the international criticism that Guantánamo has attracted for holding prisoners without trial. A decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, an examination of how the prisons have handled the challenge of extremist violence reveals some striking facts:

Lengthy sentences. Terrorists who plotted to massacre Americans are likely to die in prison. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, is serving a sentence of life without parole at the Supermax, as are Zacarias Moussaoui, a Qaeda operative arrested in 2001, and Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, among others. But many inmates whose conduct fell far short of outright terrorism are serving sentences of a decade or more, the result of a calculated prevention strategy to sideline radicals well before they could initiate deadly plots.

¶ Special units. Since 2006, the Bureau of Prisons has moved many of those convicted in terrorism cases to two special units that severely restrict visits and phone calls. But in creating what are Muslim-dominated units, prison officials have inadvertently fostered a sense of solidarity and defiance, and set off a long-running legal dispute over limits on group prayer. Officials have warned in court filings about the danger of radicalization, but the Bureau of Prisons has nothing comparable to the deradicalization programs instituted in many countries.

¶ Quiet releases. More than 300 prisoners have completed their sentences and been freed since 2001. Their convictions involved not outright violence but “material support” for a terrorist group; financial or document fraud; weapons violations; and a range of other crimes. About half are foreign citizens and were deported; the Americans have blended into communities around the country, refusing news media interviews and avoiding attention.

About 40 percent of terrorism cases since the Sept. 11 attacks have relied on informants, by the count of the Center on Law and Security at New York University, which Ms. Greenberg headed until earlier this year. In such cases, the F.B.I. has trolled for radicals and then tested whether they were willing to plot mayhem — again, a pre-emptive strategy intended to ferret out potential terrorists. But in some cases prosecutors have been accused of overreaching.

Do we really want to close Gitmo? Do we really want to keep these terrorists in prisons around the homeland? They are quietly being released by the Justice Department while being radicalized still during their prison terms. Do you know where they are now?

Money, People, Bribes, Politicians and Islamic State

Posted on by

The U.S. Treasury maintains a sophisticated global banking network that tracks money for laundering, destinations, use, recipients and interim banks. But why is the top person in charge of tracking dark money not using the tools when it comes to the increasing wealth of Islamic State? The answer is chilling.

Corruption Currents: Islamic State Receives Millions in Ransom Payments

Bribery:

Brazil’s bribery probe of Petrobras SA is threatening the firm’s debt financing. A suspect in the scandal turned himself in. (Bloomberg, AP)

The former chief executive of a Virginia defense contractor pleaded guilty to providing gratuities to a federal contracting official, and the company agreed to pay a $300,000 fine. (Washington Post)

Fewer Filipinos are giving bribes, according to a survey, but opposition politicians doubted the findings. (Philippine Star, Philippine Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN News, Manila Standard-Today)

Tom Fox navigates resource reductions, spots the Chamber of Commerce defending the FCPA and discusses doing business in India. The FCPA Blog notes a purge of ad men in China and reports on recent remarks from the SFO director. The FCPAProfessor runs a guest post about challenges in pursuing bribe-takers.

Fraud:

A grand jury found that fraud persists in programs meant to bring New York contracts to businesses owned by women and minorities. (NY Times)

Money Laundering:

An Indian regulator tightened regulations targeting money laundering. (Economic Times)

The founder and former president of a community bank was sentenced to two years in federal prison for bank fraud and money laundering. (AP)

A senior executive FIFA’s ticketing and hospitality partner could be jailed if he returns to Brazil to await trial for charges including money laundering, racketeering and illegally selling World Cup tickets. The executive denies the charges. (Bloomberg)

Iran and China agreed to fight money laundering together, Iranian media reported. (FARS)

A Thai court extended detention for family members accused of helping their “big brother,” a former top police official, launder bribes. The two denied the allegations. Thai police say the “big brother” confessed to the charges, including soliciting bribes for job appointments and allowing illegal gambling and oil smuggling. (Bangkok Post, AP)

Sanctions:

Republicans are fuming about the Iran nuclear talks extension. Both sides are racing to sign a deal before the new, Republican-controlled Congress takes office. Oman has played a low-key but important role in the negotiations. (National Journal, NY Times, Guardian, ABC News, BuzzFeed)

The extension in talks leaves a U.N. atomic agency probe in limbo; it needs more money to continue the investigation. (Reuters, Reuters)

A European court awarded damages, for the first time, in a sanctions case. (European Sanctions)

Terrorism Finance:

The Islamic State has received between $35 million and $45 million in ransom payments in the past year, a U.N. report said. (AP)

How can a bank know if it’s holding money for a terrorist? (Top Broker)

General Anti-Corruption:

China’s corruption watchdog launched a series of inspections of state-owned enterprises and government bodies, state media reported. (Reuters)

FIFA’s general secretary said the body will need years to repair its reputation. (NY Daily News, AP, Reuters)

The first tennis official to be banned for life from the sport for corruption said he’s innocent and is being used as a scapegoat. (Bloomberg)

What do you do when corruption is treated as part of the business process? (HR Reporter)

Corrupt politicians only suffer when there are local media organizations to report on it. (Nieman Lab)

***

No Blacklist Yet for Islamic State Banks

Why the United States isn’t using its biggest financial weapon against banks in the Islamist militant group’s territory.

In June, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) militants inspired fear and awe when they swept into Iraq’s second-biggest city, Mosul, and reports spread that they looted the city’s banks and walked away with more than $400 million.

Those claims were later contested, but the group’s reputation for being not only savagely violent, but also incredibly wealthy, was already set. In July, the Financial Times reported that armed guards from the Islamic State, as the group later renamed itself, were stationed outside the banks, but that the banks’ coffers had not been pillaged.

Over the summer, the United States continued blacklisting members of the group and its supporters, but not the financial institutions in territory under Islamic State control. The Treasury Department traces its efforts against the group and its predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, back to 2004. In August, the United States froze the assets of three key terrorist financiers, one of whom allegedly helped funnel money through Kuwait to ISIL, as the U.S. government calls the group.

In September, 11 more names of individuals were added to the list for allegedly helping move funds and fighters to facilitate terrorist organizations from Iraq to Indonesia. Still, the banks that were so brazenly overrun in Mosul and those in the rest of Islamic State-controlled territory were never named. The reasoning behind that decision illustrates how fraught the U.S. fight to disrupt the Islamic State’s funding has been, as even the best U.S. tools for fighting terrorist financing are ill-suited to the task.

The Islamic State evolved out of earlier extremist groups in the region and improved upon their financial models as it grew. Instead of relying mostly on outside donations, the Islamic State earns most of its money through criminal activity — from oil smuggling to kidnapping — within the territory it controls, which makes it less reliant on the formal financial system. The group’s ability to make money in the illegal financial sector using cash for dealings in stolen oil and antiquities means it is less vulnerable to the biggest weapon the United States uses to go after its enemies’ finances: shutting down the banks, accountants, and middlemen that keep the money flowing.

On Thursday the Obama administration will face questions from Republican lawmakers about U.S. attempts to undercut the Islamic State’s funding. Treasury Department anti-terrorism finance chief David Cohen is set to testify before the House Financial Services Committee.

Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling, the committee chairman, said the hearing would “examine the adequacy of international banking policies to combat the new challenges that the Islamic State and groups like it present.”

In remarks prepared for Thursday’s hearing, Cohen states that the United States is working with “Iraqi authorities, Iraqi bank headquarters, and the international financial community to prevent ISIL from using the scores of bank branches located in territories where it operates.

“The results of this work have begun to show,” Cohen’s remarks state. “We’ve seen a decline in financial activity in areas where ISIL operates, and banks under ISIL influence are losing their access to the international financial system.”

Cohen is also expected to say that U.S.-led airstrikes are taking a toll on the Islamic State’s oil smuggling operations. Since mid-June, the group reportedly has been taking in $1 million a day in illicit oil revenue, but Cohen says that the bombing has lessened the haul to “several million dollars a week” — an imprecise figure, to be sure.

According to Cohen, the United States is also trying to improve its ability to track the extremist group’s money: “We are working with our counterparts in the intelligence community to ramp up collection on ISIL’s finances.”

In addition, the United States is combing through financial data for potential connections to the Islamic State. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is assisting in the effort by looking at the data the agency collects in the United States and through the agency’s connections with international financial intelligence-gathering institutions, a spokesman for the agency said Tuesday.

The risk of the Islamic State using the banks to move money internationally has to be weighed against the possible effect on the local population if Treasury tries to cut off those institutions. In a speech last month, Cohen acknowledged that the United States was not using its biggest weapon — shutting banks out of the financial system — against the institutions that had fallen into the hands of the extremists for exactly that reason.

“Our interest is not in shutting down all the economic activity in the areas where ISIL normally operates,” Cohen said. “They are subjugating huge swaths of the population, millions of people, who are still trying to live their lives. And banks, as everybody knows, are important lubricants for the economy.”

Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on illicit money at the Brookings Institution, said there are more than humanitarian factors to consider; the United States also doesn’t want to anger locals and push them closer to the extremists.

“At the end of the day what will make a difference in debilitating ISIL will be how much the local population turns against the group,” Felbab-Brown said. “This very tempting desire to shut down the financial system will tremendously worsen the lives of people that are already living in desperation.”

Felbab-Brown said that Somalia taught the United States that lesson. The United States sanctioned al-Shabab in 2010 as a terrorist group, but the move also scared humanitarian organizations out of the country just as a devastating famine was bearing down. Although many blamed the resulting suffering and starvation on al-Shabab, concerns grew that the anger and frustration would push more people toward the militant group.

Felbab-Brown praised the Treasury Department’s careful approach.

“The good thing about Shabab and ISIL is that they’re very heavy-handed and tend to really overplay their hand in terms of violence to the local population,” Felbab-Brown said. Without interference, that violence often becomes intolerable and eats away at the group’s local political support.

“One has to judge very carefully the likelihood of making a difference,” Felbab-Brown said. “And what are the political effects of any policy.”

Dennis Lormel, who led the FBI’s terrorism-financing investigations after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said the United States doesn’t want to give the extremists an opening to demonstrate leadership.

“If they come out because they have the money to fund social programs that help the local economy and help the people, then they’re going to tout that and they’re going to demonstrate that they care and that the West doesn’t care,” Lormel said. “And they’ll use that as a recruitment tool.”

Perhaps acknowledging the importance of keeping the local economy going, if only so the group can continue extorting money from it, the Islamic State reportedly reopened the banks in Mosul in September, three months after it took control of them. Local reports said the Sunni militants allowed certain account holders to take out money, subject to the approval of an Islamic State committee and a hefty fee off the top.

Some analysts speculate that Treasury could also be keeping the banks open in order to glean intelligence that could help paint a clearer financial picture of the group.

“It’s considered to be more useful to try to watch what’s going on rather than to take some hard, punitive action right away and disrupt the process before you understand how it works and leverage your understanding,” said Patrick Johnston, a counterterrorism expert with the Rand Corp.

Even if the banks were blacklisted, though, it’s not clear that would keep the group from using them.

“They actually could be quite useful for ISIL without even having any real ability to transact with any foreign entity,” Johnston said.

Johnston said the conundrum for the United States is that even if they were to be cut off from the international financial system, the banks could be used to store and transfer money within the group’s territory for much the same reasons of efficiency and security that make banks a preferable way to move money in other countries.

“It really shows the challenge ahead of Treasury as much as anything else,” Johnston said.