House Office Report on Edward Snowden

Posted on September 16, 2016September 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

Edward Snowden, Defending His Patriotism, Says Disclosures Helped Privacy

© REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

In this file photo, American whistleblower Edward Snowden delivers remarks via video link from Moscow to attendees at a discussion regarding an International Treaty on the Right to Privacy, Protection Against Improper Surveillance and Protection of Whistleblowers in New York City on Sept. 24, 2015. More here.

Executive Summary of Review of the Unauthorized Disclosures of Former National Security Agency Contractor Edward Snowden

UNCLASSIFIED

In June 2013, former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden

perpetrated the largest and most damaging Public release of classified information in U.S.

intelligence history. In August 2014, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) directed Committee staff to carry out a

comprehensive review of the unauthorized disclosures. The aim of the review was to allow the

Committee to explain to other Members of Congress-and, where possible, the American

people-how this breach occurred, what the U.S. Government knows about the man who

committed it, and whether the security shortfalls it highlighted had been remedied.

Over the next two years, Committee staffrequested hundreds ofdocuments from the

Intelligence Community (IC), participated in dozens ofbriefings and meetings with IC

personnel, conducted several interviews with key individuals with knowledge of Snowden’s

background and actions, and traveled to NSA Hawaii to visit Snowden’s last two work locations.

The review focused on Snowden’s background, how he was able to remove more than 1.5

million classifled documents from secure NSA networks, what the 1.5 million documents

contained, and the damage their removal caused to national security.

The Committee’s review was careful not to disturb any criminal investigation or future

prosecution of Snowden, who has remained in Russia since he fled there on June 23, 2013.

Accordingly, the Committee did not interview individuals whom the Depatment of Justice

identified as possible witnesses at Snowden’s trial, including Snowden himself, nor did the

Committee request any matters that may have occurred before a grand jury. Instead, the IC

provided the Committee with access to other individuals who possessed substantively similar

knowledge as the possible witnesses. Similarly, rather than interview Snowden’s NSA

coworkers and supervisors directly, Committee staffinterviewed IC personnel who had reviewed

reports o finterviews with Snowden’s co-workers and supervisors. The Committee remains

hopeful that Snowden will retum to the United States to face justice.

The bulk of the Committee’s 36-page review, which includes 230 footnotes, must remain

classified to avoid causing further harm to national security; however, the Committee has made

a number of unclassified findings. These findings demonstrate that the public narrative

popularized by Snowden and his allies is rife with falsehoods, exaggerations, and crucial

omissions, a pattem that began befiore he stole 1.5 million sensitive documents.

First, Snowden caused tremendous damage to national security, and the vast

majority of the documents he stole have nothing to do with programs impacting individual

privacy interests-they instead pertain to military, defense? and intelligence programs of

great interest to America,s adversaries. A review ofthe materials Snowden compromised

makes clear that he handed over secrets that protect American troops overseas and secrets that

provide vital defienses against terrorists and nation-states. Some of Snowden’s disclosures

exacerbated and accelerated existing trends that diminished the IC’s capabilities to collect

against legitimate foreign intelligence targets, while others resulted in the loss of intelligence

streams that had saved American lives. Snowden insists he has not shared the full cache of 1.5

million classified documents with anyone; however, in June 2016, the deputy chairman of the

Russian parliaments defense and security committee publicly conceded that “Snowden did

share intelligence” with his govemment. Additionally, although Snowden’s professed objective

may have been to inform the general public, the infiormation he released is also available to

Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean govemment intelligence services; any terrorist

with Internet access; and many others who wish to do harm to the United States.

The full scope ofthe damage inflicted by Snowden remains unknown. Over the past

three years, the IC and the Department ofDefiense (DOD) have carried out separate

reviews with differing methodologies-fthe damage Snowden caused. Out of an abundance of

caution, DOD reviewed all 1.5 million documents Snowden removed. The IC, by contrast, has

carried out a damage assessment fior only a small subset ofthe documents. The Committee is

concerned that the IC does not plan to assess the damage ofthe vast majority of documents

Snowden removed. Nevertheless, even by a conservative estimate, the U.S. Govemment has

spent hundreds of millions of dollars, and will eventually spend billions, to attempt to mitigate

the damage Snowden caused. These dollars would have been better spent on combating

America’s adversaries in an increasingly dangerous world.

Second, Snowden was not a whistleblower. Under the law, publicly revealing

classifled information does not qualify someone as a whistleblower. However, disclosing

classified information that Shows fraud, Waste, Abuse, Or Other illegal activity to the

appropriate law enforcement or oversight personnel-including to Congressuloes make someone

a whistleblower and affords them with critical protections. Contrary to his public claims that he

notified numerous NSA officials about what he believed to be illegal intelligence collection, the

Committee found no evidence that Snowden took any official effort to express concems about

U.S. intelligence activities-legal, moral, or otherwise-to any oversight officials Within the

U.S. Govemment, despite numerous avenues for him to do so. Snowden was aware of these

avenues. His only attempt to contact an NSA attomey revolved around a question about the

legal precedence ofexecutive orders, and his only contact to the Central Intelligence Agency

(CIA) Inspector General (IG) revolved around his disagreements with his managers about

training and retention ofinfiormation technology specialists.

Despite Snowden’s later public claim that he would have faced retribution for voicing

concems about intelligence activities, the Committee found that laws and regulations in effect at

the time of Snowden’s actions afforded him protection. The Committee routinely receives

disclosures from IC contractors pursuant to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower

Protection Act of 1998 (IC WPA). If Snowden had been worried about possible retaliation for

voicing concerns about NSA activities, he could have made a disclosure to the Committee. He

did not. Nor did Snowden remain in the United States to flee the legal consequences of his

actions, contrary to the tradition of civil disobedience he professes to embrace. Instead, he fled

to China and Russia, two countries whose governments place scant value on their citizens’

privacy or civil liberties-and whose intelligence services aggressively collect information on

both the United States and their own citizens.

To gather the files he took with him when he left the country for Hong Kong, Snowden

infringed on the privacy of thousands of govemment employees and contractors. He obtained

his colleagues, security credentials through misleading means, abused his access as a systems

administrator to search his co-workers, personal drives, and removed the personally

identifiable information of thousands of IC employees and contractors. From Hong Kong he

went to Russia, where he remains a guest of the Kremlin to this day.

It is also not clear Snowden understood the numerous privacy protections that govern the

activities of the IC. He failed basic annual training for NSA employees on Section 702 of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and complained the training was rigged to be

overly difficult. This training included explanations of the privacy protections related to the

PRISM program that Snowden would later disclose.

Third, two weeks before Snowden began mass downloads of classified documents,

he was reprimanded after engaging in a workplace spat with NSA managers. Snowden was

repeatedly counseled by his managers regarding his behavior at work. For example, in June

2012, Snowden became involved in a fiery e-mail argument With a Supervisor about how

computer updates should be managed. Snowden added an NSA senior executive several levels

above the supervisor to the e-mail thread, an action that earned him a swift reprimand from his

contracting officer for failing to follow the proper protocol for raising grievances through the

chain of command. Two weeks later, Snowden began his mass downloads of classified

information from NSA networks. Despite Snowden’s later claim that the March 2013

congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was a “breaking

point” for him, these mass downloads predated Director Clapper’s testimony by eight months.

Fourth, Snowden was, and remains) a serial exaggerator and fabricator. A close

review of Snowden’s official employment records and submissions reveals a pattern of

intentional lying. He claimed to have left Army basic training because of broken legs when in

fact he washed out because of shin splints. He claimed to have obtained a high school degree

equivalent when in fact he never did. He claimed to have worked for the CIA as a “senior

advisor,” which was a gross exaggeration of his entry-level duties as a computer technician. He

also doctored his performance evaluations and obtained new positions at NSA by exaggerating

his resume and stealing the answers to an employment test. In May 2013, Snowden informed

his supervisor that he would be out of the office receive treatment for worsening epilepsy. In

reality, he was on his way to Hong Kong with stolen secrets.

Finally, the Committee remains concerned that more than three years after the start

of the unauthorized disclosures, NSA, and the IC as a whole, have not done enough to

minimize the risk of another massive unauthorized disclosure. Although it is impossible to

reduce the chance of another Snowden to zero, more work can and should be done to improve

the security of the people and computer networks that keep America’s most closely held secrets.

For instance, a recent DOD Inspector General report directed by the Committee found that NSA

has yet to effectively implement its post-Snowden security improvements. The Committee has

taken actions to improve IC information security in the Intelligence Authorization Acts for

Fiscal Years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, and looks forward to working with the IC to continue

to improve security.

Obama is Begging Health Insurers to Save Obamacare

Posted on September 16, 2016September 16, 2016 by Denise Simon

Congress has said no. There are countless lawsuits advancing in the judicial system and enrollment is failing. It cant be saved and 2017 will be the year of reckoning. Perhaps this is a good time for a reminder, not ONE single Republican voted for the law. Where are the media interviews now and where is Nancy Pelosi?

****

Obama steps in to save Obamacare

With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, the administration is redoubling pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law.

Politico: Deep into the final year of his presidency, Barack Obama is working behind the scenes to secure Obamacare’s legacy, struggling to bolster a program whose ultimate success or failure will likely be determined by his successor.

With no lifeline coming from the divided Congress, Obama and his administration are redoubling their pleas for insurers to shore up the federal health care law and pushing uninsured Americans — especially younger ones — to sign up for coverage. The administration is nervously preparing for its final Obamacare open-enrollment season just a week before Election Day, amid a cascade of headlines about rising premiums, fleeing insurers and narrowing insurance options.

On Monday, Obama met face to face at the White House with leading insurance executives, asking for their continued commitment to the health law despite its recent spate of difficulties. Insurers have come to the White House periodically as the law has rolled out; this time the president made a direct plea for their ongoing support. They in turn pressed their case for steps the administration can still take to strengthen the Obamacare markets.

Notably absent were two of the national insurers that have already bailed on most Obamacare marketplaces — Aetna and UnitedHealth Group.

“We know that this progress has not been without challenges,” Obama wrote this week to each insurer selling Obamacare plans. “Most new enterprises have growing pains and opportunities for improvement. The Marketplace, while strong, is no exception. Time and experience will help drive that improvement, as will constructive policy changes.”

Meanwhile, the administration is taking steps on its own to prevent the marketplaces from collapsing. That includes redoubling efforts to reach out to younger potential Obamacare customers, who have proven particularly challenging to attract in large enough numbers to sustain a high-functioning insurance market. The administration hopes the bully pulpit can bolster that outreach: The president will host a “Millennial Outreach and Engagement Summit” later this month at the White House. And for the first time, the administration will be reaching out directly to individuals who paid a fine last year for not having coverage. HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell was on the Hill Thursday updating anxious Democrats about the administration’s efforts to fortify the program.

In a concession to insurers, the administration has also recently taken steps to tighten the enrollment rules to prevent people from gaming Obamacare’s coverage system. Insurers have complained that some customers have been signing up in “special enrollment periods” when they get sick and then dumping coverage once they’ve been treated. Insurers warn the abuse of the rules — designed to help people in special, limited circumstances — is driving up premiums for all Obamacare customers.

Insurers at Monday’s meeting reiterated their concerns about those enrollment issues, according to three insurance officials at the meeting. Burwell and White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett were among administration officials who attended.

“They are definitely moving in the right direction,” said Mario Molina, CEO of Molina Healthcare. “I think the industry’s concern is how quickly they move on these things.”

Martin Hickey, CEO of New Mexico Health Connections, was similarly enthusiastic about the summit with Obama.

“He sincerely seemed to be listening, and I think that gave a lot of comfort to people in the room,” Hickey said. “We all left feeling hopeful that he and the secretary and their staffs would do what they can to address the issues brought up. I honestly felt optimistic.”

But six years after passage of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the litany of woes afflicting the Obamacare marketplaces is formidable. Enrollment has plateaued at half of what was projected. Three major insurers have largely quit, citing big losses. Double-digit rate hikes are the norm for plans across the country. And roughly one in five Americans may find just one insurer selling plans in their area when they shop for 2017 coverage.

Despite all those problems, the administration still has a compelling case to make for the law’s achievements and for fixing it rather than scrapping it.

On Tuesday, the Census Bureau announced that the uninsured rate last year dipped to 9.1 percent, down more than 4 percentage points since 2013. Nearly 13 million fewer Americans were uninsured last year than prior to the full implementation of Obamacare.

Initial data from the CDC suggests that the uninsured rate has kept right on dropping into this year, to a historic low of 8.6 percent.

In addition, the Obama administration no longer faces the ugly prospect that no insurers will be selling plans in Pinal County, Ariz. The threat of that county becoming an Obamacare ghost town was lifted last week when Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona announced that it would sell plans in the county.

But the progress on coverage expansion hasn’t convinced Republicans that the law is sustainable. Most Republicans, including presidential nominee Donald Trump, continue to call for full repeal of the law, which was passed entirely with Democratic votes. That’s made any discussion around legislative fixes to bolster Obamacare a nonstarter.

That unyielding stance has proven potent politically: Republicans have won control of both chambers of Congress in part by demonizing Obamacare. And there’s no chance their stance will change before Election Day. Obamacare’s recent woes have only amped up the apocalyptic rhetoric from Republicans.

“Obamacare is unraveling at an alarming rate,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the HELP Committee, on the Senate floor Wednesday. “There’s no excuse for having a failing insurance market where taxpayers are paying most of the bill.”

A hearing this week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee provided another platform for Republicans to bash Obamacare.

“Premium are off the charts,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who chairs the committee. “Competition has dramatically declined. All in all the everyday patient is left paying more for fewer choices.”

But Democrats countered that Republicans have done everything possible to sabotage Obamacare, holding dozens of repeal votes and hearings to highlight the law’s shortcomings. They stressed that any legislation as complex as the Affordable Care Act is inevitably going to require legislative fixes.

“It’s time to stop having this kabuki dance over and over again, and it’s time to figure out how we can fix the Affordable Care Act,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt stressed similar points during testimony before the committee.

“Undertaking fundamental change is rarely easy,” Slavitt said. “Our mantra is to continually learn and adjust.”

But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) scoffed at the idea that Republicans should work to salvage the law. “I remember the victory dance that you guys performed after passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote,” McCain said at a hearing on Thursday. “Now the chickens have come home to roost.”

Without any cooperation from Congress, the administration’s ability to fortify the Obamacare markets remains limited. Of course, the law’s namesake is soon to be a lame duck. That raises at least the possibility that the political gridlock that has existed since Obamacare’s passage could finally ease.

“We’re just hoping that we can get to some practicality come January,” said Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.

In America: What Exactly is a Refugee?

Posted on September 15, 2016September 15, 2016 by Denise Simon

DHS Officials Admit They Have Not Used ‘Deception Detection Technologies’ to Screen Visa Applicants, Refugees

MRCTV: At a House Homeland Security Committee hearing Wednesday titled “Shutting Down Terrorist Pathways into America,” officials at the Department of Homeland Security admitted they have not explored the use of “deception detection technology” for screening refugees and other visa applicants despite a law signed last year directing the agency to do so.

Migrant surge poses challenge for U.S.: Who’s a refugee, who isn’t?

WASHINGTON

Ordonez/McClatchy: U.S. Border Patrol agents will apprehend more family members entering the United States along the Southwest border this fiscal year than they did in 2014, when a massive surge of Central Americans found the Obama administration detaining thousands of mothers and their children.

Newly released U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics show that while overall apprehension numbers are down from two years ago, the number of family members being apprehended will almost certainly surpass the total of two years ago.

Both family apprehensions and detentions of unaccompanied children have shown dramatic increases over last year’s totals – with family detentions nearly doubling and the number children traveling without parents increasing 52 percent.

Those increases raise serious questions about the Obama administration’s strategy to curb the flow through a combination of immigration enforcement and humanitarian assistance.

“It has been a failure, because people are still coming,” said Amy Fischer, the policy director for the Texas-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.

Many migrants from Central America cite violence in their homelands as the reason for seeking refuge in the United States. The Obama administration has created a variety of programs, including aid to Central American governments, to try to tamp down that violence. The administration acknowledged over the summer that efforts have been “insufficient to address the number of people who may have legitimate refugee claims.”

A total of 68,445 family members were apprehended in 2014, when a surge of Salvadoran, Honduran and Guatemalan mothers and children fleeing violence and poverty raced into the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.

This year, with one month left in the fiscal year, more than 68,080 family members have been apprehended. With apprehensions averaging 6,189 a month, the annual total is certain to be a record. No month this year has seen fewer than 3,000 family members detained. In August, Border Patrol agents apprehended 9,359 family members, the highest yet of the year.

Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are three of the most violent countries in the world.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned last October that women from Central America would continue to flee their countries because of the escalating tide of violence, including domestic violence and rape, fueled by sophisticated transnational gangs.

The number of Central Americans seeking asylum in the United States has grown nearly eightfold in the last six years. Mexico, Canada, Nicaragua and Costa Rica also have seen an increase in Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans seeking refugee status, according to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.

Federal officials have an obligation under national and international law to protect the vulnerable. The challenge is determining who qualifies as a bona fide refugee and who has come for family or economic reasons.

The surge has exacerbated an already long backlog of hundreds of thousands who are awaiting cases in immigration court. To receive asylum in the United States, applicants must prove they have well-founded fears of persecution because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” These cases can take years to resolve.

Homeland Security officials said they continued to monitor migration trends and were working aggressively to “deter unauthorized migration, while ensuring that those with legitimate humanitarian claims are afforded the opportunity to seek protection.”

The White House reached an agreement with Costa Rica in July to host up to 200 Central American refugee applicants while the United States assessed their asylum claims. It was part of a larger package of measures put in place to protect migrants that included expanding the number of people who can apply to the U.S. refugee program for children. The administration also worked with Congress to secure $750 million to help El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras fight poverty and violence as well as reform their governments.

President Barack Obama has authorized spending up to $70 million to meet the “unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs related to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.”

But Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has made it clear that deportations of Central Americans will continue despite recognition of the crisis.

“As long as we have border security and as long as our borders are not open borders,” Johnson told reporters last month. “We have to be consistent with our priorities.” Mo re here.

Best Foreign Hack Job: Library of Congress…Done

Posted on September 15, 2016September 15, 2016 by Denise Simon

The Library of Congress Was Hacked Because It Hasn’t Joined the Digital Age

Motherboard: With the presidential election taking all the air out of the room, July’s IT attack on the Library of Congress barely made the news. But for good governance advocates and policymakers, this denial of service attack, which caused a three day service outage, validated decades of complaints about the Library of Congress’ failure to join the digital age.

Americans are familiar with the Library’s mission to archive the world’s literature and research. But Congress, librarians, and specialized policy wonks are more familiar with the Library’s many other functions, including the intelligence gatherer, legislative tracker, governance think tank, and intellectual property bureaucracy. The library’s dysfunction is bad news for Congressional staff, and the researchers and scholars who defend on the archives of American history and information on the world’s most unstable regions.

Surprisingly, the Library of Congress was among the first in government to embrace the power of the Internet. Pushed on the Library by Newt Gingrich and thrown together with a quick and dirty build, THOMAS.gov (the predecessor to Congress.gov) debuted in January of 1995. Despite the fast execution and concern over who could even access this site when comparatively few people had internet access, THOMAS.gov handled almost a million queries within the first 38 days of operation.

So what happened? Government investigations as far back as 2002 have highlighted the mismanagement of contractors, budget, overall management, and IT services. Many government watchdogs and library scholars also point to the former librarian, Dr. James Billington. Serving 28 years in the position, Billington had a reputation for both being difficult manager and an infamous luddite, even reportedly requesting at times that staff fax him at home and refusing to use email.

staff fax him at home and refusing to use email.

Library of Congress Great Hall. Image: Ed Schipul/Flickr

Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987, Billington has had some positive moments in his legacy. His review of the DMCA in 2010 (which the library holds jurisdiction over and is tasked with reviewing every three years) massively changed the future of copyright. Around Washington, Billington gained a reputation as a dynamic private fundraiser, using these funds to supplement library budgets for collections and programming. However, much like his overall management, Billington’s fundraising style has also come under fire, both over the exclusivity and possible use of donated funds for donors-only swank dinners and performances.

The library does have a Chief Information Officer, but in recent years, it struggled to fill the position, cycling through five temporary CIOs before being forced to find a permanent CIO by recommendations in a scathing 2015 Government Accountability Office report on the Library’s IT systems.

In this report, the GAO again confirmed what scholars, lawmakers, and their staff have been struggling with for years: the Library of Congress is simply not equipped to join the 21st century. The GAO estimates that the LOC spends roughly $120 million dollars on IT functions, but the library’s accounting records leave much to be desired, particularly when recording acquisitions of new IT assets.

These overseas offices have even become an important tool in the fight against ISIS.

When asked to account for the number of systems within the library, the number of systems was first recorded to be 30, then 46, and eventually 70. Most notably, overseas office systems were left off the list. Since 1962, these offices have been tasked with collecting materials in underdeveloped and politically volatile areas, including (infamously) the acquisition of a copy of Osama Bin Laden’s autobiography.

These overseas offices have even become an important tool in the fight against ISIS. With the wanton destruction of cultural artifacts and archives by ISIS and general civil unrest, experts at the library’s Middle Eastern offices have been at the forefront of providing support in the salvaging of damaged books and other materials. The collection of materials (in 2014, the overseas offices collected over 800,000 items) has been invaluable for researchers in the United States. However as the associate librarian for library services, Mark Sweeney, noted in a March 2015 testimony before the Senate Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, security is a continuing concern for these offices.

With overseas offices in cities such as Islamabad, Cairo, and Jakarta, accurately managing cybersecurity risks to the Library’s overseas collections and personnel is difficult, particularly when, as admitted by Chief of the Library Services Automation and Planning Office, these systems haven’t been accredited or credentialed.

The library has also been unable to keep an accurate inventory of key resources and assets. It reported having fewer than 6,500 computers in use, while the actual number is somewhere around 18,000. While the library does have oversight of initial technology investments, it lacks any effective way to oversee continued funding. For example, the library reported in 2013 “missing” the review of the $2.2 million dollar project, the National Library Catalog.

An .xml database and public facing web service intended to replace Online Public Access Catalog, the library’s current publically accessible database, the National Library Catalog was intended to finally allow a smooth search experience of the Library’s many different archives and websites after a 2009 report by the Office of the Inspector General that highlighted the difficulty the public had accessing the library’s resources.

Library of Congress. Image: Monica Volper/Pixabay

In March 2012, the project was dumped after being denied release when it was discovered that a recommended switch to Solr-based platform had been ignored. Due to a lack of communication, the entire project was scrapped, including the usable .xml database which had cost 1.25 million dollars and 33 months to develop.

Even offices with separate functions operating under the Library’s jurisdiction haven’t been free from massive mismanagement. The copyright office still runs on a largely paper based system (some records kept are still kept in card catalogues) and is forced to share the library’s aging IT systems. Large digital projects have even failed to materialize, such as the promise of an archive of everything that has been tweeted since 2010. Digitization projects are so far behind that only a fraction of the Library’s 24 million titles have been made available online.

While Congress has been reluctant to criticize Billington, a bill to term limit the Librarian of Congress to 10 years seems very conveniently timed to Billington’s retirement. Congress also took a step in the right direction with the confirmation of Carla Hayden, former president of the American Library Association. Despite opposition from some conservative advocacy groups and Republican Senators on her stances on the Patriot Act, censorship, and frankly ridiculous assertions that she didn’t have the appropriate scholarly background to helm the library, Hayden was confirmed late this summer to become the first female and African American librarian.

Read more: The Twitter Archive at the Library of Congress Won’t Actually Be Very Useful

Hayden’s reputation as a technologically savvy reformer is well deserved, having modernized Baltimore’s flailing Enoch Pratt Free Library and ushered in a period of unprecedented expansion for Baltimore’s library system in an otherwise bleak time for the city. Hayden even became a beacon of stability and normalcy after the Freddie Gray riots with her decision to keep the library open despite the unrest.

With Hayden in the top job, policy advocates and scholars might have a glimmer of hope that the former crown jewel of American libraries can be pulled out of mothballs and dragged into the 21st century.

ODNI Report on Released Gitmo Detainees

Posted on September 14, 2016September 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

In an attempt to prevent the closure, Congress is now voting on a bill preventing further transfers of inmates until a new defense policy bill is passed.

Currently, 61 detainees still remain at the detention camp, following the release of 15 in August, the largest single transfer under the Obama administration. Additionally, 16 others have been cleared for transfer.

Summary of the Reengagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

From the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

Summary of the Reengagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

The Director of National Intelligence submits this summary consistent with direction in the Fiscal Year 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act, Section 307, which states:

(a) “The Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, shall make publicly available an unclassified summary of,

(1) intelligence relating to recidivism of detainees currently or formerly held at the Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense; and

(2) an assessment of the likelihood that such detainees will engage in terrorism or communicate with persons in terrorist organizations.

(b) Updates – Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Secretary of Defense, shall update and make publicly available an unclassified summary consisting of the information required by subsection (a) and the number of individuals formerly detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who are confirmed or suspected of returning to terrorist activities after release or transfer from such Naval Station.”

Section 307 (a) (1) Intelligence relating to recidivism of detainees currently or formerly held at the Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.

**

Reengagement of Former Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) Detainees as of 15 July 2016

Total Pre-22 January 2009a Post-22 January 2009

Detainees Transferred 693* 532 161

Confirmed of Reengaging 122 of 693 (17.6%) 113 of 532 (21.2%) 9 of 161 (5.6%)**

Dead – 30 of 122 29 1

In custody – 25 of 122 25 0

Not in custody – 67 of 122 59 8

Suspected of Reengagingb 86 of 693 (12.4%) 75 of 532 (14.1%)** 11 of 161 (6.8%)**

Dead – 3 of 86c 2 1

In custody – 18 of 86 18 0

Not in custody – 65 of 86 55 10

a Executive Order 13492 was signed on January 22, 2009 to determine the disposition of the 240 detainees then remaining at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

b The Defense Intelligence Agency assesses five additional detainees are suspected of reengagement.

c Due to a coding error this number was previously reported as 4.

*An additional nine detainees died while at GTMO, and one was transferred to New York for trial, was convicted, and is now imprisoned in Colorado.

**Each of these categories includes detainees who were transferred pursuant to a court order.

Section 307 (a) (2) An assessment of the likelihood that such detainees will engage in terrorism.

Based on trends identified during the past eleven years, we assess that some detainees currently at GTMO will seek to reengage in terrorist or insurgent activities after they are transferred. Transfers to countries with ongoing conflicts and internal instability as well as recruitment by insurgent and terrorist organizations could pose problems. While enforcement of transfer conditions may deter reengagement by many former detainees and delay reengagement by others, some detainees who are determined to reengage will do so regardless of any transfer conditions, albeit probably at a lower rate than if they were transferred without conditions.

Section 307 (a) (2) An assessment of the likelihood that such detainees will communicate with persons in terrorist organizations.

Former GTMO detainees routinely communicate with each other, families of other former detainees, and previous associates who are members of terrorist organizations. The reasons for communication span from the mundane (reminiscing about shared experiences) to the nefarious (planning terrorist operations). We assess that some GTMO detainees transferred in the future also will communicate with other former GTMO detainees and persons in terrorist organizations. We do not consider mere communication with individuals or organizations—including other former GTMO detainees—an indicator of reengagement. Rather, the motives, intentions, and purposes of each communication are taken into account when assessing whether the individual has reengaged.

Definition of “Terrorist” or “Insurgent” Activities. Activities such as the following indicate involvement in terrorist or insurgent activities: planning terrorist operations, conducting a terrorist or insurgent attack against Coalition or host-nation forces or civilians, conducting a suicide bombing, financing terrorist operations, recruiting others for terrorist operations, and arranging for movement of individuals involved in terrorist operations. It does not include mere communications with individuals or organizations—including other former GTMO detainees—on issues not related to terrorist operations, such as reminiscing about shared experiences at GTMO, communicating with past terrorist associates about non-nefarious activities, writing anti-US books or articles, or making anti-US propaganda statements.

Definition of “Confirmed” Activities. A preponderance of information which identifies a specific former GTMO detainee as directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-US statements or propaganda does not qualify as terrorist or insurgent activity.

Definition of “Suspected” Activities. Plausible but unverified or single-source reporting indicating a specific former GTMO detainee is directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities. For the purposes of this definition, engagement in anti-US statements or propaganda does not qualify as terrorist or insurgent activity.