Final Offensive Against ISIS Approved, but….

Posted on July 22, 2016July 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told Congress last week that senior al-Qaida leaders are increasingly migrating to a “growing safe haven in Syria.” Some have come from Pakistan and Yemen, where the group has suffered losses, while others may be among those recently released from years of detention in Iran.

“These leaders include individuals who have been part of the group since the time even before 9/11,” Rasmussen said. “And now that many of them are in Syria, we believe they will work to threaten the U.S. and our allies.”

The operatives are believed to include those involved in al-Qaida’s “external operations” directorate. Rasmussen did not provide names, but there are strong indications that one of them is Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian who worked closely with Osama bin Laden and once served as al-Qaida’s military commander. Adel, who fled Afghanistan to Iran in 2001, was released from a form of house arrest by that country last year in exchange for an Iranian diplomat being held hostage in Yemen. Others freed by Iran include Abu Kayr al Masri, who once ran al-Qaida’s management council, and Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, an Egyptian referred to in a 2008 classified U.S. document as the “most experienced and capable operational planner not in U.S. custody.”

“It’s hard to gauge just how much it will benefit them,” Seth Jones, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corp., said of al-Qaida’s dispatch of senior operatives to al-Nusra. But “al-Qaida is putting all its chips in Syria.” Much more here from Stripes.

*****

In a highly coordinated attack, fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda’s branch in the Sahel took over a military base near Nampala on July 19, beating back the Malian garrison and later ambushing them during their retreat. At least 17 soldiers were killed in the attack, and 35 wounded. More details here.

Islamic State conflict: US allies agree on ‘final push’

BBC: The US and its allies in the coalition against so-called Islamic State (IS) have agreed on a strategy to defeat the group, US Defence Secretary Ash Carter has said.

They will corner the militants in their bastions of Raqqa, in Syria, and Mosul, in Iraq, he added.

But he warned this would not eliminate their violent ideology or ability to spring attacks elsewhere.

Countries have also discussed plans to stabilise areas after IS is defeated.

The jihadist group has lost significant parts of its territory but still controls large swathes of both Syria and Iraq.

After retaking Falluja, Iraqi forces are preparing to force IS out of Mosul, the country’s second largest city and the group’s stronghold in Iraq.

IS may be down but it is not out

The full IS story

In Washington, representatives from more than 30 countries met to discuss plans to inflict what Mr Carter called a “lasting defeat” on IS (also known as Isil).

“Let me be clear: they culminate in the collapse of Isil’s control over the cities of Mosul and Raqqa,” Mr Carter said.

The meeting also focused on stabilisation plans for areas under IS control when they were eventually liberated.

Related reading: Islamic State group: Crisis in seven charts

“We must ensure that our partners on the ground have what they need to win the fight and then hold, rebuild, and govern their territory,” the US defence secretary added.

Meanwhile, Britain will double to 500 its deployment of troops to train Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting IS, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said.

If this is the year of the big battle to retake Mosul, its consequence could be what United Nations envoy Jan Kubis describes as “the biggest, most sensitive humanitarian crisis in the world”.

As Iraqi forces inch forward, more and more families are fleeing the other way – escaping with their lives from the clutches of IS, but entering another kind of hell.

The world’s aid community is already struggling to help care for almost 3.4 million people left homeless by earlier battles. This year, the UN’s annual appeal is less than 40% funded.

“There’s donor fatigue,” says a frustrated UN official in Baghdad. “It’s almost as if the world wants the Iraqi problem to go away, and they’re embarrassed it’s still here.”

Also in Washington, US Secretary of State John Kerry hosted a separate donor conference to help Iraq against IS.

It raised $2.1bn (£1.6bn) to fund humanitarian aid and reconstruction and development assistance.

“If we do not succeed in Iraq, none of our countries will be safer,” Mr Kerry said.

*****

— Salafi-jihadi military organizations, particularly ISIS and al Qaeda, are the greatest threat to the security and values of American and European citizens.
— Syrian al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra poses one of the most significant long-term threats of any Salafi-jihadi group.
— ISIS and al Qaeda are more than terrorist groups; they are insurgencies.
— Current counter-ISIS and al Qaeda policies do not ensure the safety of the American people or the homeland.
— American and Western security requires the elimination of ISIS and al Qaeda regional bases and safe-havens.

One-pager for Al Qaeda and ISIS: Existential Threats to the U.S. and Europe

*****

All jihad is now local and the militant Islam seed has been planted around the world. So while an offensive operation against Islamic State has been approved, what about Tunisia, Asia or Latin America? What about Boko Haram or al Qaeda? Clearly this is not an end all…even Bret McGurk speaks to the conflicts well into the future.

In Libya, the Islamic State’s Tripoli Province took credit for a hotel attack on Feb. 1 which killed nine people, including an American.

Published reports tie other groups to ISIS including The Jundallah militant group and the Tehreek-e-Khilafat groups in Pakistan; the Philippines’ Abu Sayyaf group; Sinai Province in Egypt; Lebanon’s The Free Sunnis of Baalbek Brigade; Indonesia’s Jama’ah Ansharut Tauhid; and Sons of the Call for Tawhid and Jihad in Jordan. More here from FNC.

While You Were Sleeping, Russia Bombed the U.S., No Really

Posted on July 22, 2016July 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

The Department of Defense today held a video conference co-chaired by Acting Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs Elissa Slotkin and Lt. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, director, J-5, Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, with Russian Ministry of Defense counterparts. The video conference was held to discuss airstrikes conducted by Russian forces on June 16 on the At-Tanf border garrison, striking Syrian opposition forces conducting counter-ISIL operations in the area. This extraordinary session was convened under the auspices of the Safety of Flight Memorandum of Understanding, an arrangement between the counter-ISIL coalition and Russian Federation to maintain safety in the air space over Syria.

Department officials expressed strong concerns about the attack on the coalition-supported counter-ISIL forces at the At-Tanf garrison, which included forces that are participants in the cessation of hostilities in Syria, and emphasized that those concerns would be addressed through ongoing diplomatic discussions on the cessation of hostilities. Regarding safety, department officials conveyed that Russia’s continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through proper channels of on-going coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns for U.S. and coalition forces.

Department officials requested Russian responses to address those concerns. The two sides reiterated the need to adhere to measures to enhance operational safety and avoid accidents and misunderstandings in the air space over Syria.

Above reading provides evidence that Putin and Assad should be tried for war crimes. So where is Code Pink now?

Russian warplanes reportedly bombed US base in Syria

FNC: Russian warplanes reportedly bombed a secret military base in Syria used by elite American and British forces last month.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Russian strike on the CIA-linked site was part of a campaign by Russia to pressure the White House to agree to closer cooperation in the Syrian skies, U.S. military and intelligence officials said.

Despite the fact that some forces could have been killed and the bombing dampened relations between Russia and the Pentagon and CIA, the White House and State Department still persued a compromise.

The U.S. and Russia agreed to a pact last week to target airstrikes against the Al Qaeda affiliate in the region – Nusra Front – despite objections from the Pentagon and CIA. Russia agreed to stop airstrikes on U.S.-backed rebels and restrain the Syrian air campaign. The two sides are still talking about designations where Russia would need U.S. approval to conduct an airstrike.

According to The Wall Street Journal, deal backers in the White House and State Department believe U.S. airstrikes on the Nusra Front in areas that were previously occupied by Russian forces would provide protection for allies in Syria.

However, officials in the Pentagon and CIA contend that Washington bowed to Moscow in the deal and believe that the U.S. needs to confront Russia.

The Russian strike on the base occurred on June 16. The U.S. and British forces help maintain what is described as a buffer zone in Jordan. Forces go into Syria to help protect Jordan from Islamic State, U.S. officials told The Journal. Forces didn’t spend the night, due to security reasons.

Nearly a day before the strike, 20 of 24 British special forces pulled out of the base. The U.S. tracked a Russian plane heading toward the base. The warplane dropped a cluster bomb, according to U.S. and rebel officials.

After the first strike, U.S. central command air operations center in Qatar called Russia’s air campaign headquarters in Latakia, Syria to tell them that the base shouldn’t be attacked.

However, Russian forces struck again nearly 90 minutes after the call was made. Russian pilots didn’t respond to U.S. calls using frequencies the two sides had previously agreed to use in case of an emergency.

At least four rebels were killed in strikes.

Russian officials initially told the Pentagon that the military thought it was an Islamic State facility, but U.S. officials rejected the notion because of what they described as a unique way the base was fortified, The Journal reported.

Russians then said that the Jordanians had given them the go-ahead to strike the base, but the U.S. double-checked and said no such authorization was given. Later, Russia told the U.S. that their headquarters wasn’t in position to call off the strike because the U.S. didn’t provide them with the proper coordinates of the base.

U.S. officials said that the Pentagon had never asked the Russians to steer clear of that area because it wasn’t close to the front lines and Russian aircraft didn’t operate in that part of Syria anyway.

The strike has increased the distrust between U.S. and American forces in Syria. According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. didn’t want to give Russia any more information than they had to.

Since the strike, the U.S. has told Russia to steer clear of the Jordanian border.

Turkey Hacks Library of Congress During Coup

Posted on July 22, 2016July 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

Primer:

In part from Time: Kerry raised the question of Turkey’s NATO membership, suggesting that anti-democratic behavior by Erdogan could imperil the country’s place in the alliance. “NATO also has a requirement with respect to democracy,” Kerry said, and added said NATO would “measure” Turkey’s actions in days to come. “Obviously, a lot of people have been arrested and arrested very quickly,” Kerry said. “The level of vigilance and scrutiny is obviously going to be significant in the days ahead. Hopefully we can work in a constructive way that prevents a backsliding.”

Turkey’s membership in the NATO alliance is a matter of major strategic importance to the U.S., and talk of the country being ousted caught some experts by surprise in the U.S. Amb. Bryza of the Atlantic Council said Kerry’s comments were being taken as threats in Turkey, and that it was an “extreme misinterpretation that we would kick them out of NATO.” Much more detail here.

Turkish hackers claim credit for Library of Congress attack

FCW: A hacking group called the Turk Hack Team is taking credit for a shutdown of the Library of Congress website and hosted systems including Congress.gov, the Copyright Office, Congressional Research Service and other sites.

The group claimed credit on an online message board where users go for updates on the availability of websites.

The attack was launched July 17, in the midst of Turkey’s response to the military coup targeting the elected government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Prominent Turkish officials have accused the U.S. of fomenting the coup; Secretary of State John Kerry issued a stern denial of such accusations.

The Turk Hack Team is not considered at the level of a nation-state sponsored group or an advanced persistent threat, former U.S. CERT director Ann Barron-DiCamillo told FCW. They’re more of a “middle-tier, hacktivist” type group, she said. They’ve gone after targets for perceived slights to Turkey’s honor in the past, including an April 2015 hack on the Vatican website made in response to comments from Pope Francis characterizing the 1915 massacres of Turkish Armenians as a genocide.

The group has not gone after U.S. targets in the past, but Baron-DiCamillo, currently partner and CTO at Strategic Cyber Ventures, said U.S. officials would likely be on the lookout for more hacktivist activity emanating from Turkey. “This is the first kind of visible activity generated post-coup, but it doesn’t mean it’s going to be the last,” she said.

Library of Congress CIO Bernard Barton said on July 20 that the attack had been successfully thwarted.

“This was a massive and sophisticated DNS assault, employing multiple forms of attack, adapting and changing on the fly,” he wrote in a blog post. “We’ve turned over key evidence to the appropriate authorities who will investigate and hopefully bring the instigators of this assault to justice.”

Congress is not covered by the Federal Information Security Management Act and is not required to report cyber incidents to the Department of Homeland Security.

Spokesperson Gayle Osterberg told FCW that the Library of Congress reports all cyber-related criminal activity to the FBI.

DHS is aware of the incident but is not involved in the investigation or mitigation of the attacks, according to an agency source.

DDOS attacks can be expensive to deal with, requiring network operators to obtain specialized routing services from their internet service providers. They can also potentially front for other attacks, or test systems to see what kind of defenses are in place.

Related reading: Turkey blocks access to WikiLeaks after ruling party email dump

Mostly, Barron-DiCamillo said, they are “distracting, causing pain to both users and customers, but not impacting back-end systems and more critical data.”

It is possible the hackers imagined that the Congress.gov and LOC.gov domains represented a more critical target than they actually are. Congress.gov is mostly a public-facing information warehouse that is not integral to the legislative function of the House and Senate. Most of the complaints about the site being down came from librarians and researchers looking to execute catalog searches.

The outage also affected the Congressional Research Service, the in-house think tank for Congress. CRS reports, available only to members and staff, are not published elsewhere except on an ad hoc basis legislators and public interest groups that obtain the odd document. A bill introduced by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) just days before the hack would open up CRS reports to the public, and have the effect of creating a backup site for the material on the Government Publishing Office website.

Obama/DoJ Allowing Foreigners to Serve Warrants

Posted on July 22, 2016July 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

This sounds like selective investigations, prosecutions and collaborated witch hunts which all add up to an offshore shadow NSA and new type of Interpol. Is this something else that also will be under the purview of the United Nations? Hello Google?

Photo: Leaksource

Photo: Security Affairs

WSJ: The Obama administration is working on a series of agreements with foreign governments that would allow them for the first time to serve U.S. technology companies with warrants for email searches and wiretaps—a move that is already stirring debates over privacy, security, crime and terrorism.

Brad Wiegmann, a senior official at the Justice Department, discussed the administration’s efforts during a public forum on Friday at a congressional office building in Washington, D.C. The first such agreement is being assembled with the U.K., he said.

Word of the plans came one day after a federal appeals court ruled that federal warrants couldn’t be used to search data held overseas by Microsoft Corp. MSFT -0.07 % , dealing the agency a major legal defeat.

The court’s decision in favor of Microsoft could prove to be a major barrier to the Obama administration’s proposed new rules to share data with other nations in criminal and terrorism probes, which would be sharply at odds with the ruling. It might lead some companies to reconfigure their networks to route customer data away from the U.S., putting it out of the reach of federal investigators if the administration’s plan fails.

The Justice Department has indicated it is considering appealing the Microsoft ruling to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Justice Department officials are pressing ahead with their own plan for cross-border data searches.

Under the proposed agreements described by Mr. Wiegmann, foreign investigators would be able to serve a warrant directly on a U.S. firm to see a suspect’s stored emails or intercept their messages in real time, as long as the surveillance didn’t involve U.S. citizens or residents.

Such deals would also give U.S. investigators reciprocal authority to search data in other countries.

“They wouldn’t be going to the U.S. government, they’d be going directly to the providers,’’ said Mr. Wiegmann. Any such arrangement would require that Congress pass new legislation, and lawmakers have been slow to update electronic privacy laws.

That U.K. agreement, which must be approved by the legislatures of both countries, could become a template for similar deals with other countries, U.S. officials said.

Mr. Wiegmann said the U.S. would strike such deals only with nations that have clear civil liberties protections to ensure that the search orders aren’t abused.

“These agreements will not be for everyone. There will be countries that don’t meet the standards,’’ he said.

Greg Nojeim, a privacy advocate at the Center for Democracy and Technology, criticized the plan. He said it would be “swapping out the U.S. law for foreign law’’ and argued that U.K. search warrants have less stringent judicial protections than U.S. law.

British diplomat Kevin Adams disputed that, saying the proposal calls for careful judicial scrutiny of such warrants. Privacy concerns over creating new legal authorities are overblown, he added.

“What is really unprecedented is that law enforcement is not able to access the data they need,’’ Mr. Adams said. The ability to monitor a suspect’s communications in real time “is really an absolutely vital tool to protect the public.’’

While Thursday’s court decision represented a victory for Microsoft, which strives to keep data physically near its customers, it may not be viewed as a positive development for all internet companies, said University of Kentucky law professor Andrew Woods. Yahoo Inc., YHOO -0.63 % Facebook Inc. FB -0.37 % and Alphabet Inc. GOOGL -0.02 % ’s Google operate more centralized systems. They didn’t file briefs in support of Microsoft’s position in the case, he noted.

Mr. Woods warned that increased localization of data could have the unintended consequence of encouraging governments to become more intrusive.

“If you erect barriers needlessly to states getting data in which they have a legitimate interest, you make this problem worse,’’ he said. “You increase the pressure that states feel to introduce backdoors into encryption.”

Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said the company shares concerns about the “unintended consequences” of excessive data localization requirements.

“But rather than worry about the problem, we should simply solve it” through legislation, Mr. Smith said. Microsoft supports the proposed International Communications Privacy Act. That legislation would, among other provisions, create a framework for law enforcement to obtain data from U.S. citizens, regardless of where the person or data was located.

Companies and governments generally agree that the current legal framework for cross-border data searches is far too slow and cumbersome. Though major tech firms don’t always agree on the particular changes they would like to see, the industry has long sought to get clearer rules from the U.S. and other governments about what their legal obligations are.

A coalition of the country’s largest tech companies, including Microsoft, Facebook and Google, created a group called Reform Government Surveillance that is pushing for updating data-protection laws. The group has said it was “encouraged by discussions between the U.S. and the U.K.”

Thursday’s ruling could lead some Microsoft rivals that offer email, document storage, and other data storage services, but which haven’t designed systems to store data locally, to alter their networks, said Michael Overly, a technology lawyer at Foley & Lardner in Los Angeles.

Google, for example, stores user data across data centers around the world, with attention on efficiency and security rather than where the data is physically stored. A given email message, for instance, may be stored in several data centers far from the user’s location, and an attachment to the message could be stored in several other data centers. The locations of the message, the attachment and copies of the files may change from day to day.

“[Internet companies] themselves can’t tell where the data is minute from minute because it’s moving dynamically,” Mr. Overly said.

The ruling could encourage tech companies to redesign their systems so that the data, as it courses through networks, never hits America servers.

A person familiar with Google’s networks said that such a move wouldn’t be easy for the company.

Julian Castro was a Hillary VP Pick, What Happened?

Posted on July 22, 2016July 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

Julian Castro is an Obama cabinet official. Yet no consequence.

Obama won’t punish HUD chief Castro for giving partisan interview

Special Counsel Finds Hatch Act Violations by HUD Chief, Others

With the electoral campaigns in full swing, the Office of Special Counsel in recent days has announced a series of findings of Hatch Act violations, including one by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro.

On Monday, the independent investigative and prosecutorial agency sent the White House a report saying that Castro violated the act during an April 4 interview with Yahoo News anchor Katie Couric. His statements “impermissibly mixed his personal political views with official agency business despite his efforts to clarify that some answers were being given in his personal capacity,” OSC said. “Federal employees are permitted to make partisan remarks when speaking in their personal capacity, but not when using their official title or when speaking about agency business.”

The questionable comments came late in an interview that dealt mostly with HUD policy. Couric asked Castro what makes him most fearful about Donald Trump being president, to which he responded that “Mr. Trump is not prepared for the office of president because Mr. Trump does not understand what leadership or being president is about, or the basic functions of our government or its relationships with other countries.”

Couric then asked Castro whether he wanted to be the vice presidential nominee on a ticket with Hillary Clinton, to which he replied that he did not think that would happen. “What I am interested in, though, is trying to do a great job here at HUD and serving the people that we do serve, folks that are of modest means but who deserve our attention and our efforts,” he said. “And so I don’t believe that is going to happen, but I am supportive of Secretary Clinton and I believe she is going to make a great president.”

The OSC investigated after receiving a complaint. Its report included details such as the preparations the HUD public affairs staff executed in arranging the interview and the fact that Castro had received four briefings on the Hatch Act since arriving at HUD. “Although he stated during the interview that he was ‘taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually,’ to indicate he was answering questions in his personal capacity,” OSC wrote, “that disclaimer could not negate the fact that he was appearing in his official capacity for the rest of the interview.”

In response, Castro sent Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner a letter acknowledging error. “I offered my opinion to the interviewer after making it clear that I was articulating my personal view and not an official position,” he said. “At the time, I believed that this disclaimer was what was required by the Hatch Act. However, your analysis provides that it was not sufficient. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. When an error is made — even an inadvertent one — the error should be acknowledged.”

Castro commended the OSC staff’s “professionalism” and said he was tasking HUD’s executives with enhancing training in compliance with the Hatch Act.

Separately, the OSC on Friday announced it had filed a petition for discipline against a Commerce Department GS-15 employee for sending “several emails, while on duty, in support of the Montgomery County (Md.) Republican Party and to assist candidates running for local and state office.” That employee, it added, also invited—while at work– more than 100 individuals to attend an annual “Lincoln and Reagan” Republican Party fundraiser and asked them to send him a check if they wanted to attend.

The Commerce employee had previously received guidance from a senior ethics official warning him not to solicit or receive political contributions or engage in local political activity while at work.

OSC is seeking disciplinary action from the Merit Systems Protection Board. “As the presidential election approaches,” Lerner said in a statement, “it is important for federal employees to remember the Hatch Act’s restrictions on engaging in partisan political activities while at work and the ban on soliciting contributions for partisan political candidates or groups at any time.”

Last week, OSC announced that it had obtained disciplinary settlements with three other federal employees for Hatch Act violations.

At the Labor Department, a wage and hour investigator was found to have circulated a nominating petition for a mayoral candidate, obtaining signatures from three co-workers and retweeting one of the candidate’s requests for political contributions. She received a three-day unpaid suspension and a letter of reprimand.

At the U.S. Postal Service this May, a letter carrier admitted to displaying a congressional candidate’s campaign sticker on his official vehicle while delivering mail in his official uniform. He will be suspended for five days without pay.

At the Internal Revenue Service in June, OSC confirmed allegations that an employee, while on official travel to perform site visits with her subordinates, canceled a site visit and asked a subordinate to drop her off at the location of a presidential candidate’s campaign rally. The employee did not return to her place of duty for over four hours and did not request leave, OSC found. The employee agreed to serve an unpaid 14-day suspension.

OSC’s annual report, released last week, showed that its Hatch Act Unit had better focused its activity since a 2012 law relieved its staff of responsibility for state and local government officials who run for political office. In fiscal 2015, the Hatch Act Unit received 106 complaints while resolving 131 complaints, and issued 1,023 total advisory opinions, a drop of 359 from the previous year.