The Importance of Targeted Airstrikes and Killing Abu Sayyaf

A document trove tells how Abu Sayyaf ran the terror group’s operations; approving expenses for slaves, dodging U.S. airstrikes

by, Benoit Faucon and Margaret Coker | The Wall Street Journal

Islamic State oil man Abu Sayyaf was riding high a year ago. With little industry experience, he had built a network of traders and wholesalers of Syrian oil that at one point helped triple energy revenues for his terrorist bosses.

His days carried challenges familiar to all oil executives—increasing production, improving client relations and dodging directives from headquarters. He also had duties unique to the extremist group, including approving expenses to cover the upkeep of slaves, rebuilding oil facilities damaged by U.S. airstrikes and counting towers of cash.

Last May, U.S. Special Forces killed Abu Sayyaf, a nom de guerre, at his compound in Syria’s Deir Ezzour province. The raid also captured a trove of proprietary data that explains how Islamic State became the world’s wealthiest terror group.

Documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal describe the terror group’s construction of a multinational oil operation with help from officious terror-group executives obsessed with maximizing profits. They show how the organization deals with the Syrian regime, handles corruption allegations among top officials, and, most critically, how international coalition strikes have dented but not destroyed Islamic State’s income.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter called the May 16, 2015, raid a “significant blow” against Islamic State and heralded the death of Abu Sayyaf, the terror group’s No. 2 oil executive.

In the 11 months since, U.S. and allied forces have launched hundreds more strikes against terrorist-controlled oil facilities and killed dozens of militants working in Islamic State’s oil and finance business. U.S. officials estimate that at least 30% of the group’s oil infrastructure has been destroyed, and taxes have replaced oil as the group’s largest profit center.

Daily oil sales in Syria and Iraq, though fallen, still total nearly $1 million. Two former Islamic State oil managers said the corporate structures created by Abu Sayyaf remained intact, including deals with businessmen linked to the Syrian regime.

Spreadsheets and Excel files show that Abu Sayyaf’s division contributed 72% of the $289.5 million in total Islamic State natural-resource revenues over the six months that ended in late February 2015.

The documents reviewed by the Journal represent only a portion of the files recovered in last year’s raid, which U.S. officials said has been useful for intelligence and military operations. This account of how Abu Sayyaf built and operated his division of Islamic State’s oil business is based on the documents and interviews with five people familiar with him and his Syrian operation.

Turning to terror

Abu Sayyaf was born in a working-class neighborhood of the Tunisian capital Tunis in the early 1980s and named Fathi Ben Awn al-Murad al Tunisi. How he became an extremist is unclear. He left for Iraq after dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003 by U.S. forces and joined the jihadist group then known as al Qaeda in Iraq. Its goal was to repel U.S. troops and fight the Shiite-led government that took over Iraq.

In 2010, Abu Sayyaf married an Iraqi woman from a family also involved in the anti-American jihad. He took the name Abu Sayyaf al-Iraqi—literally, father of the sword bearer—reflecting his close ties with the jihad movement in Iraq and the nucleus of Iraq’s Sunni militants that included Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, founder of Islamic State.

Islamic State had seized many of Syria’s best-producing oil fields and created its oil ministry known as the Diwan of Natural Resources by the time Mr. Baghdadi declared his so-called caliphate in June 2014. Their lightning advance overwhelmed other rebel groups that shared control of Syrian oil territory. The terror group had crushed the Iraqi army to take oil fields and territory around Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city.

The head of the oil ministry, an Iraqi known as Haji Hamid, put Abu Sayyaf in charge of Syria’s best oil-producing provinces, Deir Ezzour and al Hakasah. Abu Sayyaf’s 152 employees included managers from oil-producing Arab-speaking countries who had joined the extremist group: a Saudi, who managed the top-producing fields; an Iraqi, who ran oil-field maintenance; an Algerian responsible for refinery development; and a Tunisian, who was in charge of refinery operations.

Abu Sayyaf set up his headquarters at the giant al-Omar field in Deir Ezzour, which was previously run by Anglo-Dutch major Royal Dutch Shell RDS.A -1.93 % PLC.

Islamic State moved swiftly to expand sales to friendly Iraqi and Syrian traders. It began accepting dollars instead of the Syrian pound, making it easier for the terror group to transfer funds abroad and pay for imported goods through its international network of money changers.

Syria’s state-controlled system of marketing oil to international buyers through pipelines and oil tankers was replaced by a cottage industry of small smugglers who bought oil at the fields and ferried it away by truck.

Islamic State retained many Syrian oil-industry veterans, in part by paying high salaries. Two workers at Abu Sayyaf’s operations said in interviews that experienced people were paid handsomely—from $160 a month for an accountant to $400 for a drilling technician, compared with Syria’s average monthly wage of $50. Islamic State’s treasury, known as Beit al-Mal, based pay on the number of dependents and slaves a worker had.

Everyone was afraid of Islamic State, said Ibrahim, a 36-year-old former oil worker. “Local tribes used to fight over the fields,” he said, but now all submit to the terror group.

Islamic State oil managers demanded cash payments from traders buying their crude, with security supervisors deciding who was trustworthy enough to count the money. They were warned against transferring funds via banks for fear Western intelligence agents would intercept the financial information.

Abu Sayyaf created a regimented, compartmentalized work environment unusual for the region. Syrian workers had long relied on social and family contacts to retain plum positions. Under Islamic State rule, foreigners supervised their work. Such tasks as accounting were assigned to two Islamic State operatives from outside the region to discourage embezzlement.

The responsibilities of Abu Sayyaf extended beyond oil. In September 2014, he was given custody of Kayla Mueller, a kidnapped American aid worker. Ms. Mueller, who had been sexually abused by Mr. Baghdadi after being taken hostage in 2013, was killed about five months later, U.S. officials said.

Abu Sayyaf was a strict and unpopular manager, said Ibrahim, who had worked in oil fields under his supervision. Employees were threatened with transfers to Iraq, he said, where they feared oil bosses who were even more extreme.

The areas around the fields became scenes of occasional horror, said the drilling technician who fled Syria last year: “You go to work and you find someone beheaded.”

Under fire

At a Sept. 19, 2014, meeting, the United Nations Security Council called for a crackdown on Islamic State’s oil business. Five days later, U.S. jets started bombing the group’s makeshift refineries in Syria.

By mid-October, the U.S.-led coalition reported hundreds of strikes a day against Islamic State, which was increasing its grip on Iraq’s Anbar Province and battling for the Syria-Turkey border city of Kobani.

Some allied strikes targeted Abu Sayyaf’s wells. On Oct. 13, the Pentagon reported hitting oil collection points in Deir Ezzour. He ordered repair crews into action. Memos dated on Oct. 17 from his Saudi deputy provided details of an estimated $500,000 in damage at several oil facilities.

His Saudi subordinate, Abu Sarah al-Zahrani, promised that teams would have the wells up and running within four to 14 days. Workers had to fortify derricks and fix broken valves and pipes. In follow-up memos, Mr. Zahrani provided photos of the repairs, including jury-rigged pumps and hoses.

The allied bombardments forced attention on security. Islamic State bureaucrats in the Syrian city of Raqqa, its administrative headquarters, ordered militants to stop using communication devices equipped with GPS trackers.

Abu Sayyaf’s work brought tangible results. For the Islamic State monthly budget running from Oct. 25 to Nov. 23, 2014, his division reported $40.7 million in revenue, a 59% increase over the previous month. Monthly totals topped $40 million for each of the next two reporting months.

Internal affairs

By the end of 2014, Abu Sayyaf was facing pressure from inside Islamic State, which was struggling to build a promised religious utopia. People in Islamic State-controlled territory complained about high fuel prices, and Abu Sayyaf was ordered to keep a lid on prices and boost margins on oil sales, the terror group’s largest income source at the time.

In one memo, Islamic State’s General Governance Committee demanded a 10% cap on profits by fuel traders. Another memo from central command demanded that Islamic State’s oil ministry work with the local governor to set oil prices in al Hasakah, a district under Abu Sayyaf’s control.

Oil sellers, in turn, launched their own revolt. Angry over moves to slice profit margins, they alleged that Islamic State officials, including Abu Sayyaf, overcharged them and embezzled the money.

Abu Sayyaf set different prices for crude from different fields, depending on quality. For example, the average price a barrel in November 2014 at the al-Tanak field in Deir Ezzour ranged from $32 to $41, according to a spreadsheet seized by U.S. forces. Prices at the al-Omar and al-Milh fields, meanwhile, ranged from $50 to $70 a barrel around that time.

Oil buyers believed Islamic State gave some traders preferential treatment. The complaints reached Abu Sayyaf’s boss. A memo dated Dec. 22, 2014, from Islamic State’s oil ministry admonished employees in the field to maintain fair trade rules, including not allowing favored traders to cut in line at the oil fields.

Video recordings recovered from the raid appear to be part of an investigation of Abu Sayyaf at the time. Videos show interviews with oil tanker drivers at the al-Omar and al-Milh fields, and Islamic State officials talking about procedures for pricing and purchasing oil

One of the videos, recorded in January 2015, shows two lines of approximately 500 trucks waiting to purchase crude at the al-Omar field. A second video shows a high-ranking Islamic State official, identified as Abu Ubaydah, talking with truck drivers, traders and Islamic State officials there.

Drivers in the video complained that local Islamic State managers ran a two-tier pricing system: Drivers willing to pay higher prices—between $60 to $70 a barrel—moved to a priority loading lane, with little or no waiting. The $50-a-barrel line had a long wait.

Islamic State at the time was undercutting international oil prices, which were still about $80 a barrel. The loaded trucks left oil fields bound for either local makeshift refineries, buyers in Syrian government-held territory or the extremist-held city of Mosul in Iraq, according to Islamic State workers in the area. Discounted prices at Islamic State fields left room for sizable profits.

In the recording, Mr. Ubaydah told the drivers there was no corruption scheme and that Islamic State wasn’t driving up prices. He blamed the secondary fuel market in Syria where traders resold their loads. “We provided very low prices, but you all increased your prices at the auction, [so] we increased our prices, too,” he told the drivers on the video.

“We are the people,” one trucker said, “but you are ISIL.”

“It’s true that we are ISIL, but you are the one who are raising your prices against all Muslims,” Mr. Ubaydah said.

A report from Islamic State’s General Governance Committee dated Feb. 24, 2015, concluded there was no corruption and cleared Abu Sayyaf.

He didn’t have time to savor the victory. Global oil prices were falling. For the month ending on Feb. 20, 2015, his oil division revenues fell 24% from the previous month to $33 million.

Abu Sayyaf and his team focused on a new mission: finding investment capital to open operations at wells left inactive because of a labor shortage.

Memo No. 156 dated Feb. 11, 2015, from Islamic State’s treasury to Abu Sayyaf’s boss requested guidance on establishing investment relationships with businessmen linked to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The document said the terror group already had agreements allowing trucks and pipeline transit from regime-controlled fields through Islamic State-controlled territory.

In the early hours of May 16, U.S. Special Forces flew from a military base in Iraq to al-Omar. U.S. forces killed several armed Islamic State guards outside his compound, U.S. officials said, and then fatally shot the Tunisian.

“The operation represents another significant blow to ISIL, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies,” Defense Secretary Carter said that day.

In September 2015, the U.S. Treasury placed Abu Sayyaf’s boss, Haji Hamid, on a terror-sanctions list, and, four months later, Abu Sayyaf’s Saudi deputy.

This spring, Islamic State oil wells pump at reduced capacity. In March, a baby-faced French jihadist called Abu Mohammad al-Fransi took over some of Abu Sayyaf’s duties as a senior accountant of Syrian oil fields.

Defense Dept Refused Cooperation on Benghazi Witness?

Related reading: The witness was located and interviewed

Rep. Westmoreland: No Democrat Members Attended Yesterday’s Witness Interviews

June 10, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03), a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi and Chairman of the Subcommittee of the NSA and Cybersecurity on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement after none of the five Benghazi Committee Democrats showed up for either of yesterday’s interviews with drone sensor operators from the time of the attacks, including “John from Iowa”:

“It’s a shame none of the Democrat members of the Benghazi Committee showed up to hear what these two service members had to say about their service to our country on the night of the Benghazi attacks.”

After the Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger to testify under oath next week, Communications Director Jamal Ware issued the following statement in response to Democrats’ mischaracterizations of the drone sensor operators’ testimonies:

“Democrats belie their own political motivation and lack of interest in conducting a serious investigation when they would rather accept briefings provided by the Pentagon than talk to the actual Air Force operators who were conducting missions over Benghazi that night. Since not a single Democrat member could be bothered to show up to hear what the sensor operators had to say, I find it surprising their spokesman is so willing to mischaracterize the witnesses’ testimony. In fact, the operators were able to tell the committee what they were directed to look for, what information they were focused on gathering, what information was relayed up the chain of command and what capabilities the drones possessed. Video footage the administration refuses to let the American people see and briefers instructed what to say cannot do that.

“Chairman Gowdy wants answers under oath and he wants them quickly—a subpoena accomplishes both. The Democrats and administration incessantly whine about the committee’s length, so they shouldn’t be surprised when the committee cuts to the chase.”

The dishonest Democrats are falsely claiming the Benghazi Committee “waited … 659 days” to specifically request the Department of Defense (DOD) find “John from Iowa.” But the truth – as made clear by the timeline of events the committee released yesterday – is that DOD was unable to comply with the committee’s February 26 request for relevant drone personnel. So on March 24, the committee sent DOD a list of outstanding requests and noted an investigator trying to gather any publicly available information about relevant drone personnel came across a news report about “John from Iowa,” an individual who called into a talk radio show in May 2013 and claimed to be a drone sensor operator on the night of the attacks.

In other words, the committee requested “John from Iowa” as soon as it became aware of him.

The February 26 and March 24 dates are confirmed by an email from DOD staff to the committee acknowledging the timing of the committee’s requests.

 

Select Committee Subpoenas Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger

June 10, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger, a Pentagon political appointee, to testify in private, under oath on Wednesday, June 15:

“This Pentagon political appointee claimed in an official letter to the committee the Department of Defense could not find a requested witness, despite expending ‘significant resources’ searching for him. This witness is still on active duty and confirmed Thursday the Air Force knew exactly who he was – a drone sensor operator who was operating over Benghazi on the night of the attacks. Mr. Hedger will now have the opportunity to detail exactly what ‘resources’ he ‘expended’ and how. I look forward to him explaining the serious questions that have arisen with respect to this matter, including whether they are related to incompetence or deliberate concealment of the witness from a congressional inquiry.”

In his April 28 letter to Chairman Gowdy that was leaked to the press, Hedger stated he “would appreciate a meeting with you at your nearest convenience to discuss these issues[.]”

In response, Gowdy wrote that the “overtly partisan” letter “intentionally mischaracterizes both the nature of the Committee’s investigation and its interaction with the Department of Defense. It is also riddled with factual inaccuracies, which not only does a disservice to the public but also does a disservice to the women and men who work for the Department of Defense.” He stated that Pentagon political staffers are “welcome to waste taxpayer dollars writing partisan, factually deficient letters to our committee, coordinate the language with House Democrats, and then leak it to the media,” but that “will not prevent this committee from interviewing all witnesses who can help us write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi[.]”

On May 20, three months after the committee’s request, the Department of Defense provided a complete list of names of drone personnel from the time of the attacks. While it is unclear if the Department knew at the time it had finally provided the name of “John from Iowa,” the committee did. Based on this drone sensor operator’s testimony to the committee Thursday, it now appears the Department had knowledge well in advance of who and where John was. In fact, the Department had been in contact with him regarding his public statements prior to the committee’s request. The committee intends to question Hedger about this discrepancy and other matters.

View the timeline of events regarding “John from Iowa.”

Core of Hillary FBI Investigation, Wilful Drone Discussions

Emails in Clinton probe dealt with planned drone strikes: WSJ

Reuters/WSJ: Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters – as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

Investigators have raised concerns that Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems, and a recent report by the State Department inspector general found that Clinton had broken government rules by using a private email server without approval, undermining Clinton’s earlier defenses of her emails.

The still-secret emails are a key part of the FBI investigation that has long dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign, the officials told the Journal. Clinton this week clinched the Democratic presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election.

The vaguely worded messages did not mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said, according to the Journal.

The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

Law enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information, the Journal reported.

Context at the time:

Pakistan UAV attacks have become one of the Obama administration’s signature efforts in the terror war. Although the CIA does not divulge how many drones it operates, press reports suggest the agency has as many as 16 such systems. But in the early days of his presidency, Barack Obama was advised by at least two former high-ranking CIA officers not to over-rely on the use of drones.

Former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel, commissioned by the president to review US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluded that robot airplanes could only function successfully when allied to high-quality “on the ground” intelligence.

That view was shared by General Michael Hayden, CIA director at the start of the Obama presidency. In his book Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward recounts how Hayden believed that “The great lesson of World War II and Vietnam was that attack from the air, even massive bombings, can’t win a war.”

Noah Shachtman, contributing editor of Wired.com, warns that the lesson of not having troops on the ground could be over-learned: “The idea that any terrorist problem could be solved by drones alone just isn’t realistic. Drones are only as effective as the human informants who tell them where to strike.” For him, a drones-only policy could become “a way of maintaining political cover and a veil of secrecy over operations that might ordinarily be wide open”. More here.

**** Additionally for later context:

NPR: In 2013, President Obama tightened rules for drone strikes in order to reduce civilian casualties. NPR’s Audie Cornish talks to Wall Street Journal correspondent Adam Entous who learned that the president secretly waived the new rules for CIA operations in Pakistan.

In 2015: The killings revealed last week of two hostages – an American and an Italian – have raised new questions about how the CIA operates in Pakistan. Warren Weinstein and Giovanni La Porto were aid workers. They were killed in January by a U.S. drone strike aimed at al-Qaida militants. The Wall Street Journal reports the CIA conducted that strike under a secret waiver approved by President Obama in 2013. Obama laid it out in a speech at National Defense University in 2013. And he didn’t reveal all the rules. The actual guidance that he issued is – remains classified. But he did talk about three of them. He said that operations targeting individuals needed to have near certainty that there would be no civilians killed or injured in those strikes. He also said that the CIA and the Pentagon, when conducting strikes like this, need to know that there is an imminent threat to the United States posed by the militants that they intend on targeting. And another guideline that he laid out was the idea that the United States is not going to kill people in order to punish them for acts that they did in the past. This is about preventing them from attacking the United States or U.S. persons or assets overseas in the future.

Pakistan is important because this is the staging area for al-Qaida and other militant groups that are looking to cross the border into Afghanistan and attack American forces there. Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan is a way to prevent them from later attacking U.S. forces across the border. So the White House and the president said that there would be a thorough review of this incident in order to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again. And within this debate within the administration, several members of the president’s inner circle are making the case that now is the time to rein in the program.

But it’s really hard to tell what direction this is going to go in the end because of strong support, not only within the administration for the drone program and wanting to have the flexibility to use it, but also within the Congress. You have very powerful committees, members of the president’s own party, who very much support this program and don’t want to see it go away. Additional information here.

More to the Paula Broadwell Classified Material

FBI found hundreds of classified files on Petraeus biographer Broadwell’s computer

CharlotteObserver: FBI agents found hundreds of classified documents on Paula Broadwell’s home computers in Charlotte during their investigation into her relationship with then-CIA Director David Petraeus, according to newly unsealed FBI documents obtained by the Observer.

More than 300 of those documents were classified as secret, according to a 2013 FBI affidavit accompanying the agency’s request to search Petraeus’ home in Arlington, Va.

 A newly unsealed FBI search warrant reveals that agents found hundreds of classified documents on Paula Broadwell’s computers when they searched her Charlotte home in 2012, part of the agency’s investigation into her relationship with then CIA Director David Petraeus. File photo, July 13, 2011
A newly unsealed FBI search warrant reveals that agents found hundreds of classified documents on Paula Broadwell’s computers when they searched her Charlotte home in 2012, part of the agency’s investigation into her relationship with then CIA Director David Petraeus. File photo, July 13, 2011 AP

The documents, which were unsealed Tuesday by the U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia, offer new details of the sweeping federal investigation into the relationship between Broadwell, a Charlotte author, and Petraeus, a highly decorated military commander, the subject of Broadwell’s book as well as her former lover.

The probe uncovered their affair, revealed their mishandling of classified documents and lead to Petraeus’ resignation as head of the CIA. Last year, Petraeus pleaded guilty in Charlotte to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government documents and was fined $100,000.

Broadwell, the author of Petraeus’ biography, was never charged. Legal experts say her role as a journalist made any prosecution problematic.

Broadwell did not respond Wednesday to a phone message and email seeking comment. Neither did her Washington-based attorney Robert Muse. Jacob Sussman, the Charlotte member of Petraeus’ defense team during his plea hearing, had no comment.

The documents, partially redacted, have been sealed for more than three years. At the time of the search warrant request, the FBI asked that the affidavit remain sealed to protect an ongoing investigation. It was released in response to a public-information request by the media.

The affidavit is signed by a Charlotte-based FBI agent. Its allegations include:

▪ The documents show that when confronted by the FBI, both Broadwell and Petraeus appeared to mislead investigators about their extensive exchange of classified material, most of it involving military and diplomatic operations during Petraeus’ years as commander of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  

Petraeus admitted his affair with Broadwell during an October 2012 interview with the FBI in his CIA office. But he said he never gave classified information to her. That answer led some prosecutors to recommend that Petraeus be hit with a felony charge of obstructing a federal investigation. As part of his plea deal with Charlotte-based prosecutors, Petraeus admitted he lied to the FBI.

Interviewed in Charlotte, Broadwell claimed to have gotten some of the documents doing research for her book but “was unable to provide specifics as to how she obtained them … Broadwell advised that she never received classified information from Petraeus,” the affidavit says.

On the contrary, the new documents include details of multiple emails between the two over classified records, including the “black book” diaries and logs Petraeus kept as commander.

In one exchange included in the affidavit, Broadwell told Petraeus that certain records he’d shared were “naturally very helpful … (I want more of them! I know you’re holding back.)”

 

In June 2011, the affidavit says she expressed excitement at Petraeus’ willingness to share certain files. “(I)’ll protect them. And I’ll protect you,” she wrote.

During the same conversation, Petraeus referred to some files from his time as Iraqi War commander. “Class’d, but I guess I might share!” he told Broadwell.

From 2003 to 2012, Broadwell had security clearance to handle classified information, the affidavit says. But that came with the understanding that she not unlawfully remove the information “from authorized storage facilities” and not store the classified information “in unauthorized locations.”

The FBI found that Petraeus shared eight of his black books with Broadwell in 2011. Those contained secret codes, highly sensitive diplomatic information and wartime strategies, among other highly classified information. At the time, she was writing “All In,” Petraeus’ biography.

None of the classified information appeared in the book, documents say. But the affidavit says the FBI seized numerous photographs of the contents of the black books during a search of Broadwell’s home.

▪ The FBI gathered recordings Petraeus made as military commander in the Middle East in which he discussed information classified as “Top Secret” with reporters.

In an audio file taken from Broadwell’s home in November 2012, Petraeus can be heard discussing “sensitive military campaigns and operations” with reporters from the Washington Post. His only demand was to be referred to in the subsequent stories “as a senior military officer,” the affidavit says.

▪ Petraeus tried to stop the FBI investigation as soon as he heard about it. According to the affidavit, the FBI began its probe in Tampa, Fla., after a person identified as “Witness 1,” who is clearly Tampa socialite and Petraeus confidante Jill Kelley, complained of receiving threatening emails from someone who had access to the CIA director’s schedule – a potential breach of security.

According to Kelley’s recent book, an email went to her husband, Scott, on June 1, 2012, and referred to a Washington, D.C., dinner when Kelley and Petraeus, after a night of drinking, had compared each other’s muscles.

“As her husband, you might want to examine your wife’s behavior and see if you can rein her in before we publicly share the pictures of her with her hands sliding between the legs of a senior service official,” the email said.

The FBI later traced those messages to Broadwell.

On June 22, 2012, the FBI notified Petraeus’ security detail of its investigation. A month later, Kelley notified the FBI that she no longer wanted to press charges against the cyber stalker. That August, Kelley told the FBI that Petraeus “personally requested” that Kelley “call off the G-men,” and that the stalker “possessed information which could embarrass Petraeus and other public officials,” the affidavit says.

▪ Broadwell, who is married, and Petraeus, also married, took steps to hide their correspondences. The affidavit says the two used prepaid cellphones and email accounts “using non-attributable names.”

In September 2012, Broadwell told agents that she and Petraeus would use the same email account, saving messages in the “draft” folder instead of sending them.

In the years since, Broadwell has apologized for the affair and says she has attempted to rebuild her marriage and has focused on charitable issues such as returning veterans and “Wounded Warriors.” She has also started a foundation to examine gender bias in the media.

‘I’m the first to admit I screwed up,” Broadwell recently told the New York Times. “… But how long does a person pay for their mistake?

CIA Personnel may have been Compromised Due to Hillary Emails

Anyone remember the Valerie Plame affair, the outing of her position at the CIA?

The names of some CIA personnel could have been compromised in release of Clinton emails

WASHINGTON (AP) – The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton’s private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.

Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state.

Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.

At least 47 of the emails contain the notation “B3 CIA PERS/ORG,” which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton’s server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.

“Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton’s server,” said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.

If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.

In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the “B3 CIA PERS/ORG” exemption as the reason, “Presto – the CIA names just fall off the page,” Baker said.

The CIA declined to comment.

A U.S. official said the risk of the names of CIA personnel being revealed in this way is “theoretical and probably remains so at this time.” The official, who did not have the authority to publicly address the matter, spoke on condition of anonymity and would not elaborate.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said even if any identities were revealed, they might be the names of analysts or midlevel administrators, not undercover operatives.

“I don’t think there’s any particular vulnerability here,” Aftergood said.

Clinton has acknowledged that the email server, set up in the basement of her New York home, was a mistake. But she says she never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time of transmission. Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, insists the personal server she used was never actually breached.

hillary clinton emails

The AP discovered last year that Clinton’s private server was directly connected to the internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers. A recent State Department inspector general’s report indicated the server was temporarily unplugged by a Clinton aide at one point during attacks by hackers, but her campaign has said there’s no evidence the server was hacked.

In each year from 2011 to 2014, the State Department’s poor cybersecurity was identified by its inspector general as a “significant deficiency” that put the department’s information at risk. Another State Department inspector general report revealed that hacking attempts forced Clinton off her private email at one point in 2011.

Then in 2014, the State Department’s unclassified email system was breached by hackers with links to Russia. They stole an unspecified number of emails. The hack was so deep that State’s email system had to be cut off from the internet while experts worked to eliminate the infestation.

Baker points out another instance where Clinton’s server might have been hacked.

A March 2, 2009, email warned against State Department officials using Blackberries. Eric Boswell, assistant secretary of state, says the “vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries … considerably outweigh their convenience.”

Nine days later, another email states that Clinton approached Boswell and says she “gets” the risk. The email also said: “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (the diplomatic security office officials) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

Clinton traveled to China, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea in February 2009.