Category Archives: The Denise Simon Experience

The Letter: Declassified but Somewhat Redacted

Posted on by

ODNI & DOJ Announce the Release of a Previously Classified Letter from Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Yoo to former FISC Presiding Judge Kollar-Kotelly

February 29, 2016

The Letter

ODNI: The Department of Justice has released today in redacted form a previously classified 2002 letter from former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel addressed to former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Presiding Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

The letter was designed to address certain questions that Judge Kollar-Kotelly raised during her first briefing on May 17, 2002, concerning certain collection activities authorized by President George W. Bush shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, referred to as the President’s Surveillance Program.  As described in the publicly released Inspectors General reports concerning the PSP dated July 10, 2009 (published April 25, 2015 and September 21, 2015), Judge Kollar-Kotelly was permitted to read the letter, but was not authorized to retain a copy or take notes. The 2002 letter purports to generally outline the scope of the President’s legal authority to conduct possible electronic surveillance techniques after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Beginning in 2004, the Department of Justice thoroughly reexamined the factual underpinnings and legal analysis for the PSP culminating in a legal opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on May 6, 2004. (That opinion is also publicly available in redacted form)

Additional Background

As previously released in the IC on the Record posting of December 21, 2013, President Bush authorized the NSA, via a series of classified authorizations beginning in October 2001, to collect three “baskets” of information, including: (1) the contents of certain international communications (which was later referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program); and the bulk collection of non-content (2) telephony and (3) Internet metadata, subject to various conditions. NSA’s content interception activities under the TSP were limited to the acquisition of specific international communication (i.e., to or from the United States) involving persons reasonably believed to be associated with al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations. Over time, these presidentially-authorized activities were transitioned to the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The collection of communications pursuant to the TSP ended in 2007, and the Government transitioned this collection to be undertaken pursuant to FISA authority and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Later, in August 2007, Congress enacted the Protect America Act as temporary authority to provide for the acquisition of certain communication content. The PAA, which expired in February 2008, was replaced by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which was enacted in July 2008 and remains in effect.

Today, content collection targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located overseas for foreign intelligence purposes is conducted pursuant to section 702 of FISA.  No U.S. person or person located in the United States may be intentionally targeted pursuant to section 702. The bulk collection of Internet metadata under the PSP was transitioned to the authority of the FISA in July 2004 (and ceased in December 2011, when the U.S. Government decided to not seek reauthorization from the FISC).The bulk collection of telephony metadata under the PSP was transitioned to the authority of the FISA in May 2006. In November 2015, the USA FREEDOM Act ended the NSA’s collection of telephone metadata in bulk, and provided a new mechanism for the Government to obtain the targeted production of call detail records relating to authorized investigations to protect against international terrorism through applications to the FISC.

The transition of PSP activities to authority of the FISA is described in greater and more specific detail in documents previously disclosed in IC on the Record.

***

As noted by the Bush White House Archives:

Fact Sheet: President Bush Has Kept America Safe

President Bush Fundamentally Reshaped Our Strategy To Protect The American People

“Because of … the efforts of many across all levels of government, we have not suffered another attack on our soil since September the 11th, 2001.”

President George W. Bush (March 8, 2008)

On December 17, President Bush visited the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and discussed efforts to protect the security and liberty of the American people.  Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush took the fight to the enemy to defeat the terrorists and protect America.  The President deployed all elements of national power to combat terrorism, which had previously been considered primarily a “law enforcement” issue.  He transformed our military and strengthened our national security institutions to wage the War on Terror and secure our homeland.  The President also made missile defense operational and advanced counterproliferation efforts to help prevent our enemies from threatening us, and our allies, with weapons of mass destruction.

Secured the Homeland 

  • Protected our Nation and prevented another attack on U.S. soil for more than seven years, modernized our national security institutions and tools of war, and bolstered our homeland security.  Under the President’s watch, numerous terrorist attacks have been prevented in the United States.  These include:
    • An attempt to bomb fuel tanks at JFK airport;
    • A plot to blow up airliners bound for the East Coast;
    • A plan to destroy the tallest skyscraper in Los Angeles;
    • A plot by six al Qaeda inspired individuals to kill soldiers at Fort Dix Army Base in New Jersey;
    • A plan to attack a Chicago-area shopping mall using grenades; and
    • A plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago.
  • Arrested and convicted more than two dozen terrorists and their supporters in America since 9/11.
  • Froze the financial assets in the United States of hundreds of individuals and entities linked to terrorism and proliferation.
  • Doubled the Border Patrol to more than 18,000 agents, equipped the Border Patrol with better technology and new infrastructure, and effectively ended the process of catch and release at the border.  Increased border security and immigration enforcement funding by more than 160 percent and constructed hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers.
  • Instituted a process to screen every commercial air passenger in the country, launched credentialing initiatives to better identify passengers, and expanded the Federal Air Marshal Program.  Replaced the multiple watchlists that were in place prior to 9/11 with a single, consolidated watchlist, and incorporated biometrics in screening and identifying individuals entering our country.  Created US-VISIT to screen foreign travelers and prevent terrorists from entering America.  Required secure identification at our ports of entry to better monitor individuals entering the United States.
  • Invested more than $38 billion in public health and medical systems, created a biothreat air monitoring system, and developed a national strategy and international partnership on avian and pandemic flu.
‘History – assuming it is written by free men and women not intimidated into silence by the fear of attracting the terrorists’ notice – will be exceedingly kind to this president.’

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Sept. 16, 2007)

Waged the Global War on Terror

  • Removed the Taliban from power and brought freedom to the 25 million people of Afghanistan.
  • Freed 25 million Iraqis from the rule of Saddam Hussein, a dictator who murdered his own people, invaded his neighbors, and repeatedly defied United Nations resolutions.
  • Captured or killed hundreds of al Qaeda leaders and operatives in more than two dozen countries with the help of partner nations.  September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in U.S. custody and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in 2006.  Removed al Qaeda’s safe-haven in Afghanistan and crippled al Qaeda in Iraq, including defeating al Qaeda in its former stronghold of Anbar Province.

Transformed Our Approach to Combating Terrorism After the 9/11 Attacks

  • Increased the size of our ground forces and number of unmanned aerial vehicles and strengthened special operations forces by increasing resources, manpower, and capabilities.  Increased the Defense Department’s base budget more than 70 percent since 2001, including increased funding for military pay and benefits, research, and development.  Started moving American forces from Cold War garrisons in Europe and Asia so they can deploy more quickly to any region of the world.  Modernized and transformed the National Guard from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve.
  • Forged a new, comprehensive cybersecurity policy to improve the security of Federal government and military computer systems and made protecting these systems a national priority.
  • Improved cargo screening and security at U.S. ports and increased containerized cargo screening overseas.
  • Established a more unified, collaborative intelligence community under the leadership of a Director of National Intelligence to ensure information is shared among intelligence and law enforcement professionals so they have the information they need to protect the American people while respecting the legal rights of all U.S. persons, including freedoms, civil liberties, and privacy rights guaranteed by Federal law.
  • Consolidated 22 agencies and 180,000 employees under a new agency, the Department of Homeland Security, to foster a comprehensive, coordinated approach to protecting our country.
  • Advocated for and signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and a modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  • Shifted the FBI’s focus from investigating terrorist attacks to preventing them.  Created the National Security Branch at the FBI, which combines the FBI’s counterterrorism, counterintelligence, intelligence, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) elements under the leadership of a senior FBI official.
  • Created the Terrorist Screening Center and the National Security Division at the Department of Justice.

Invigorated International Alliances And Partnerships To Make America Safer And More Secure

  • Partnered with nations in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere on intelligence sharing and law enforcement coordination to break up terrorist networks and bring terrorists to justice.
  • Transformed NATO to face 21st century threats, including strengthening the Alliance’s capabilities against WMD and cyber attacks, while leading the international military effort in Afghanistan.
  • Established the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and other multilateral coalitions to stop WMD proliferation and strengthen our ability to locate and secure nuclear and radiological materials around the world.  Dismantled and prevented the reconstitution of the A.Q. Khan proliferation network, an extensive, international network that had spread sensitive nuclear technology and capability to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
  • Worked with European partners to limit Iran’s ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and finance terrorism, and initiated targeted sanctions against Iran’s Quds Force.  Gathered support for and won passage of three Chapter VII United Nations Security Council resolutions that impose sanctions on Iran and require it to suspend its uranium enrichment and other proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.
  • Established the Six Party Talks framework in partnership with China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia.  Obtained a commitment from North Korea to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.  Since November 2007, USG experts have supervised North Korea’s activities to disable its plutonium production capability.
  • Persuaded Libya to disclose and dismantle all aspects of its WMD and advanced missile programs, renounce terrorism, and accept responsibility for prior acts of terror.  Normalized our relations with Libya as a result.
  • Signed agreements for missile defense sites in the Czech Republic and Poland to help protect America and its allies from the threat of WMD delivered by ballistic missiles.  Obtained NATO endorsement of plans to deploy missile defense assets in Europe.

Iran Denies U.S. Travel Visas

Posted on by

Oh, but wait to whom exactly? Investors? Nah…to members of Congress…..uh huh But we normalized relations right?

Iran Denies Travel Visas to U.S. Lawmakers

Congressman sought to observe Iranian elections

FreeBeacon: Iran has denied travel documents to three U.S. lawmakers who sought to observe the country’s Friday elections and ensure that they were carried out fairly, according to information provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Iranian regime delayed for weeks and ultimately ignored multiple visa requests by three House lawmakers who sought permission to travel to the country in order to monitor the elections held last Friday. Observers say the elections ushered in another crop of hardline, anti-American officials.

The congressmen, including Reps. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), Lee Zeldin (R., N.Y.), and Frank LoBiondo (R., N.J.), personally delivered their visa applications to the Iranian Interests Section of the Pakistani embassy in Washington, D.C., several weeks ago.

The lawmakers sought to observe the recent elections, as well as visit the country’s nuclear sites and meet with American hostages currently being held in Iran. While at the embassy, they provided Iranian diplomats with a list of their priorities for the visit.

The Iranian government failed to respond to these requests despite assurances from officials that the matter would be dealt with in a timely fashion. Iran has yet to explain why it did not respond to the congressmen.

Pompeo and the other lawmakers said Iran’s behavior indicates that it has something to hide from the United States and that the country cannot be trusted to uphold promises made under the recent nuclear agreement. They also criticized the Obama administration for not advocating on their behalf.

“Our straightforward and sincere visa applications have been met with mockery and delay from Iran, revealing this regime’s desire to hide from the American public,” Pompeo, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee of Intelligence, told the Free Beacon on Monday. “I am hopeful that the next U.S. president will critically examine the utility of President Obama’s nuclear deal and put America’s interests ahead of political legacy.”

Pompeo further described Friday’s election in Iran as a “sham” that served to enable the country’s hardline government.

“Because the fanatical Ayatollah holds ultimate power, February 26 was more of a selection of the next group of radicals by the current radicals, than a true election by the people,” he said. “Iranian state television has declared a national victory for the hardliners—politicians who declared that Israelis ‘aren’t human’ and who called for the execution of the pro-democracy Green Movement leaders were selected.”

Early election results indicate the hardliner candidates dominated the election, in part because most moderates were disqualified from participating in advance.

Iran’s Guardian Council, which is controlled by the Supreme Leader, is believed to have disqualified around 60 percent of the potential candidates, including around 99 percent of those viewed as reformists.

“The bulk of the disqualified candidates represent comparatively pragmatic elements of the ruling elite,” Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, explained in a policy briefing last week. “On the other hand, most of the approved contenders are radical revolutionaries—devotees of the supreme leader with close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It is mathematically impossible for the less-hardline factions to win at the ballot box.”

“As a result, those supposed ‘moderates’ who were approved have been forced to round off their party lists with hardline candidates,” Ghasseminejad said.

LoBiondo and Zelden said that Iran’s refusal to grant them travel documents is a sign that the country is not seeking to boost ties with the U.S. as a result of the nuclear deal.

“In this supposed ‘new era of openness and cooperation,’ it is disappointing—but not surprising—that our request to visit Iran and monitor these elections was met with a closed door,” said LoBiondo, chair of the House’s CIA subcommittee.

“Furthermore, with the implementation of the nuclear deal and with Americans still detained in Tehran, it is perplexing why the Obama administration refuses to advocate on behalf of our official Congressional visit to Iran on such critical national security issues.”

“It’s unfortunate that Iran has not yet granted our request for visas to observe Iran’s election and for other productive purposes. The American people and rest of the free world still deserve first hand confirmation of what present day reality is in Iran. I look forward to Iran showing that it is a partner in peace by issuing our visas so that we can meet with Iranian leadership, visit nuclear sites, and meet with American hostages,” said Zeldin, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

*** Western corporations have been doing business in Iran for decades despite sanctions, especially so since 2013;

US-listed companies doing business in Iran: $540 million in revenue and counting

QZ: Economic sanctions on Iran have been getting tougher in recent years, and the United States tightened the screws a little more last summer with the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (PDF).
One unusual aspect of that law is that it started requiring companies traded on US stock exchanges to disclose more about the business they’re doing with Iran, and the Securities and Exchange Commission created the clunkily named IRANNOTICE filing to help them do it.
Companies were already beginning to disclose more about their ties to Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries non grata (at least in US eyes) under pressure from the SEC. Now they must be systematic about it—and disclose gross revenue and net profits wherever possible.
Quartz’s partial tally: more than $540 million in gross revenue and $15.5 million in profits for US-listed companies from their business with Iran in 2012—and that’s just from 30 or so large companies that have made the disclosures since mid-February.
The numbers underscore the difficulty of maintaining tight sanctions in a global economy. But they also hide a lot of nuance and variation.
Companies based outside the US accounted for 99% of the revenue and three-quarters of the profit. (They made the disclosures because they list shares or American Depository Receipts on US markets.)
In fact, a big chunk of the total came from one company: $414 million in revenue for Statoil ASA, the Norwegian oil and gas company, from Statoil’s contracts with the National Iranian Oil Co.
Statoil also said it has terminated its agreements with Iran, abandoned it licenses there, and “will not make any investments in Iran under present circumstances.”
That’s a common refrain in the disclosures we saw: Many, though not all, of the disclosed transactions reflected companies wrapping up old business en route to cutting most or all ties with the Islamic republic. Typically, the transactions hadn’t been prohibited before the new rules kicked in.
Among the other noteworthy disclosures:
ING Groep said it collected €58 million in revenue and €395,000 in profits from repayment of old loans and a collection of frozen Iranian bank accounts. (Of course, in June, ING also settled allegations by the US Treasury and federal prosecutors that it hid transactions with Cuba and helped finance some sales to Iran, by agreeing to pay $619 million in penalties. It if keeps its nose clean for 18 months, the prosecutors will drop their charges.)
The biggest disclosure by a US company came from auto-parts maker TRW Automotive Holdings, which said it collected $8.3 million in revenue and $377,000 in profits from non-US subsidiaries that “sold products to customers that could be affiliated with, or deemed to be acting on behalf of, the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization” — one of the Iranian entities on the federal government’s massive list.
Under broad rules defining corporate “affiliates,” TRW’s transactions forced investor Blackstone Group to file its own disclosure. And Carlyle Group disclosed that a European portfolio company, Applus Servicios Technologicos, collected €1.19 million in revenue (and €200,000 in profits) from Iranian customers “that could be affiliated with the Industrial Development and Renovation Organization.” Similarly, Hertz had to report that a French affiliate of investor Clayton, Dubilier & Rice had received €2.5 million in payments from Iranian interests to an account at Bank Melli last year. And Apollo Global Management disclosed that portfolio company LyondellBasell Industries (Apollo funds owned 19.6%) reported collecting €4.2 million in revenue and €2.4 million in profit last year from Iranian entities.
Thomson Reuters reported $2.4 million in revenue and $426,000 in profits from selling news and intellectual-property and financial data to Iran-linked entities.


Other big Iran-related disclosures included GlaxoSmithKline at £19.7 million in revenue and £2.8 million in profits, and AstraZeneca at $14 million in revenue and $6 million in profits, both through distributors. Glaxo said that, after a review of the business, it “intends to supply only products of high medical/public health need (as determined using criteria set by the World Health Organization) from its Pharmaceuticals and Vaccines businesses.” AstraZeneca says it has a US license to do some business with Iran, but so far has sold only drugs from outside the US to distributors there.
Amusingly, at least for observers, there doesn’t seem to be a lower threshold to the disclosure requirement. So Dell, the Texas computer company, disclosed a whopping £106.13 ($169.90 at the time) in revenue from Iran, collected by a United Kingdom subsidiary to Quest Software, which Dell said last year it would acquire. The fees were paid by a unit of Bank Melli, which the US government links to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, for maintenance licenses on software that helps search email and other communications. Drafting Dell’s 374-word disclosure probably cost the company more than the licenses brought in. (Dell says it canceled the service contract and won’t do further business with Bank Melli.)
Other picayune disclosures include Hyatt Hotels, which said the Park Hyatt Hamburg collected $9,300 for 33 room nights under a preferred-rate arrangement with Europaeisch-Iranische Handelsbank, which is on the US Treasury’s Blocked Persons List. And CME Group said it received $3,150 in revenue for selling market data to Iran’s Government Trading Group and a European subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company.

Wall Street to Clinton Foundation: $40 Million

Posted on by

For what exactly? A question likely to never fully be answered…Unless we get the rest of ‘those’ emails.

Clinton Foundation Discloses $40 Million in Wall Street Donations

Hillary Clinton is facing more questions about her close ties to Wall Street financial institutions. Last week, the New York Times urged Clinton to release transcripts of her highly-compensated speeches to Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs.

Breitbart: The paid speeches are just a slim chapter of her relationship with financial titans. According to Clinton Foundation records, Wall Street financial institutions have donated around $40 million to the eponymous family foundation.

As a non-profit, the Clinton Foundation isn’t legally required to disclose its donors or contributions. The Foundation has publicly disclosed some contributions on its website. It only provides ranges for contributions, e.g. $1-5 million, and doesn’t detail when the contribution was made or for what purpose, if any.

Here’s the chart of contributions from Wall Street to the Clinton Foundation.

Four major Wall Street institutions stand out; Barclays, Barclays Capitol, Goldman Sachs and Citi. Each are listed as given between $1 million and $5 million to the Foundation. Citigroup, UBS, Banc of California and Bank of America are listed as giving up to $1 million to the Foundation.

All together, contributions from readily identifiable Wall Street institutions to the Foundation total somewhere between $11 million and $41 million in contributions. If we assume the donations fall in the middle of the ranges disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, the contributions would total just under $30 million.

As with most things involving the Clintons, the devil is in the details. This total of contributions does not include those made by individuals with strong Wall Street ties. It also does not necessarily represent the total amounts contributed to the Foundation from those donors listed. It only accounts for the donations which the Foundation has chosen to disclose.

The failure of the Foundation to include any information on the timing of the donations is especially worrisome. In terms of donor relationships, there is a real difference between a one-time gift of $1 million and an ongoing gift of $200,000 for 5 straight years. The total dollar amount may be the same, but an ongoing gift usually requires a more substantive relationship between the Foundation and the donor.

There is, of course, an added dimension to the timing issue with the Clintons. During the life of the Foundation, Hillary Clinton has been a US Senator, Secretary of State and two-time candidate for President.

When the Clinton Foundation discloses that the “Friends of Saudi Arabia” contributed $1-5 million, it begs the obvious question of when that donation was made. The specific date of that donation is particularly important, given Clinton’s considerable focus on the Middle East while she was Secretary of State.

It is also important to note that these contributions are completely seperate from the paid speeches made by Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2013 alone, Hillary earned just over $3 million in paid speeches to financial firms and institutions.

These contributions, obviously, also don’t include direct contributions made by Wall Street institutions and individuals to either of Clinton’s Presidential campaigns.

In a recent Democrat debate, Clinton’s sole challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) challenged her, “Can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions…And when they are providing speaking fees to individuals?”

He should have added that Wall Street has showered Clinton’s family foundation with millions in contributions.

Wall Street, and the financial industry generally, is not simply a special interest contributing to Clinton’s political ambitions. It is woven into the very fabric of the Clinton’s lives. It fuels her politial ambitions, provides employment to Bill and Hillary through generous speaking fees, and it underwrites a significant amount of the work undertaken by the family’s Clinton Foundation.

If the Clintons were any closer to Wall Street and financial firms, they would probably have to file SEC disclosures. They could very well be the first American family with their own Dodd-Frank regulation.

 

 

al Qaeda Making a Comeback

Posted on by

Al Qaeda Makes a Comeback

Intelligence analysts paid close attention last month when al Qaeda’s master bombmaker, Ibrahim al Asiri — whose name tops U.S. kill lists — issued an audiotape from his hiding place.

NBC: The content was the usual anti-Saudi Arabian screed, sprinkled with threats against America — but the news was Asiri’s sudden willingness to join the terror group’s PR campaign. For years, the man who tried to take down planes with underwear and parcel bombs had laid low, as al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate tried to protect him from U.S. drone strikes.

In 2016, however, a resurgent al Qaeda is emerging from the shadows. While ISIS has been soaking up headlines, its older sibling has been launching attacks and grabbing territory too, and U.S. intelligence officials tell NBC News they are increasingly concerned the older terror group is poised to build on its achievements.

“Al Qaeda affiliates are positioned to make gains in 2016,” James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, warned the House Intelligence Committee Thursday.

Because of those far-flung affiliates, al Qaeda “remains a serious threat to U.S. interests worldwide,” Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress recently.

After seizing a large segment of Iraq and Syria, beheading Western hostages on camera and slaughtering civilians in the heart of Paris, ISIS has eclipsed its extremist rival as the biggest brand in global jihad.

But U.S. officials tell NBC News that al Qaeda — though its core in Pakistan has been degraded by years of CIA drone strikes — is now experiencing renewed strength through its affiliates, led by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen and the Nusra Front in Syria. Clapper called the two groups al Qaeda’s “most capable” affiliates in his House testimony Thursday.

Both branches have expanded their territorial holdings over the last year amid civil wars. Russian air strikes against the Nusra Front, and CIA drone attacks on AQAP leaders, have set them back, but have not come close to destroying them.

Al Qaeda has not managed to attack a Western target recently, but it continues to inspire plots. There is no evidence December’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California was directed by al Qaeda, but Syed Rizwan Farook, who carried out the attack with his wife Tashfeen Malik, appears to have been radicalized by al Qaeda long before the rise of ISIS. He was a consumer of videos by al Qaeda’s Somalia affiliate and the AQAP preacher Anwar al Awlaki, court records show.

Al Qaeda attacks on hotels in Burkina Faso in January and Mali in November, which together killed dozens of people, appeared to affirm the threat posed by the terror group’s Saharan branch, al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb, or AQIM.

Stewart added that intelligence officials are also “concerned al Qaeda could reestablish a significant presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if regional counterterrorism pressure deceases.”

In Yemen, AQAP has benefitted from the power vacuum created by the Houthi rebels’ uprising, and the air war on the Houthis by Saudi Arabia.

AQAP last April seized the city of Mukalla, the capital of Hadramout province and a port city with a population of some 300,000. It looted a bank of more than $1 million in cash, U.S. officials said, and released 300 inmates from jail.

Since then, the group has expanded its territory in the provinces of Abyan and Shabwa, its traditional strongholds.

“AQAP’s expansion is unchecked because there is no one on the ground to put any pressure on the organization,” noted Geoffrey Johnsen, a Yemen expert. “What is left of Yemen’s military is too busy fighting other enemies to engage AQAP, and the Saudis are focused on rolling back the Houthis. In the midst of Yemen’s civil war, AQAP is able to pursue more territory and to plot, plan, and launch attacks.”

The CIA is watching closely. Jalal Bala’idi, a prominent AQAP field commander, was killed in an agency drone strike in February.

AQAP’s seizures of territory have “allowed them to operate more openly, have access to a port, and have access to other kinds of infrastructure that has certainly benefitted them,” a U.S. intelligence official told NBC News. At the same time, he said, the U.S. has “managed to remove many significant figures from the battlefield and keep AQAP somewhat at bay.”

Al Qaida’s Syrian affiliate gets less public attention than others. Western media reporting sometimes refers to the Nusra front as a Syrian rebel group, without mentioning that it’s part of the global terrorism organization.

But Nusra is as well-organized and disciplined as any al Qaeda affiliate, U.S. intelligence officials say. Although it is now focused on defeating Assad, its battle tested fighters could pose a risk to the West in the years ahead.

“Jabhat al Nusra is a core component of the al Qaeda network and probably poses the most dangerous threat to the U.S. from al Qaeda in the coming years,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said in a recent report. “Al Qaeda is pursuing phased, gradual, and sophisticated strategies that favor letting ISIS attract the attention — and attacks — of the West while it builds the human infrastructure to support and sustain major gains in the future and for the long term.”

U.S. air strikes have set back a group of al Qaeda operatives in Syria known as the Khorasan Group, which embedded with Nusra while plotting attacks against the West, intelligence officials say.

But Nusra has trained a core of elite fighters, the ISW says. Georgetown terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman says Nusra has achieved Osama bin Laden’s goal of rebranding al Qaeda and moving away from a name that had lost its luster.

The group’s leader, Abu Mohammad al Julani, is hardly a household name in the West, but he is respected by his adversaries in American intelligence. He is believed to have been detained by the U.S. military in Iraq and released in 2008.

Hoffman, who served as the CIA’s Scholar-in-Residence for Counterterrorism, calls Nusra “even more dangerous and capable than ISIS.”

Al Qaeda is watching ISIS “take all the heat and absorb all the blows while al Qaeda quietly re-builds its military strength,” he said.

SecDef on Gitmo and Detainees Too Dangerous

Posted on by

A partial closing? An Executive Order to overrule the law and Congress? There are no more enemy combatants anywhere in the world? Where would a new president send enemy combatants? What about the next Secretary of Defense?

Thoughts?

Ash Carter: There Are Gitmo Detainees so Dangerous That it Is Not Safe to Transfer Them

FreeBeacon: Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters on Monday there are detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison who are so dangerous that it would not be safe to transfer them outside the care of the United States.

Carter and President Obama have drawn up a plan to move many of the remaining 91 detainees into the custody of foreign governments. Detainees not cleared for transfer overseas—those who Carter describes as too dangerous to go elsewhere—would be moved stateside in an effort to close the detention facility.

Moving Detainees From Gitmo To U.S. Is Reckless and Dangerous

February 23, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) issued the following statement on the President’s plan to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and relocate some of the most dangerous detainees into the United States:

“President Obama is once again proving his willingness to set aside the rule of law to pursue his own reckless agenda no matter the consequences for the American people. The plan announced today would take detainees deemed too dangerous to transfer to other countries and bring them right into our own backyards. It risks the lives and safety of American citizens and it’s not what the people expect of our commander-in-chief.”

“The administration has already let nearly 150 detainees go free, only to see many of them return to terrorist groups and rejoin the fight against us. Instead of focusing on finding new homes for terrorists, the President should refocus his efforts on winning the War on Terror and bringing an end to the extremist groups seeking to do us harm.”

 

 

Carter made his comment while holding a press briefing at the Pentagon along with Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A reporter asked Carter if the United States is thinking of transferring the Guantanamo Bay naval base back to the Cuban government, which he denied while drawing a distinction between the naval base and the detention facility.

“The base is separate from the detention facility,” Carter said in response. “The base is in a strategic location. We’ve had it for a long time. It’s important to us, and we intend to hold onto it.”

Carter then turned his attention to the detention center within the naval base, which he said is the specific focus of the Obama administration’ closure plan.

“With respect to the detention facility at [Guantanamo], which is what the president was speaking about last week … there are people in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility whom it is not safe to transfer to any other—they have to stay in U.S. detention,” Carter said. “Safety is the top priority for me, the chairman, and for the president.”

Carter then said that because some detainees are too dangerous to release, there needs to be an alternate facility in the U.S. for these individuals to go if Guantanamo is closed, which is at the heart of Obama’s proposal.

The Pentagon is reportedly looking at send prisoners to either the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colo., the military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, or the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

One problem for the administration, however, is that it is currently illegal to move Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil. Carter said at Monday’s briefing that Congress must change the law for the closure plan to go into effect.

“[Obama’s Guantanamo plan] can’t be done unless Congress acts, which means Congress has to support the idea that it would be good to move this facility and the detainees to the United States … it’s good if it can be done, but it can’t be done under current law. The law would have to be changed. That’s the reason we would put the proposal in front of Congress,” Carter said.

This may prove difficult for the administration, as a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress disapprove of closing Guantanamo and transferring detainees to the U.S.

Carter reaffirmed his support for the president’s plan, citing its fiscal benefits—U.S. officials say it would save the government between $65 million and $85 million per year—and benefits for U.S. military personnel charged with duty at Guantanamo. He said the plan is good “on balance” and that he does not want to pass the Guantanamo issue to the next president and Defense Secretary if possible.

The president has long maintained that Guantanamo should be closed because the detention facility is not in keeping with American values and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

Those who want Guantanamo to remain open argue that the facility is necessary to hold enemy combatants who are members of jihadist groups like al Qaeda to keep them off the battlefield and gather intelligence. They cite the reportedly exceptional treatment detainees receive at the facility, which military leaders have detailed to reporters, as well as experts who say that Guantanamo plays a minimal role in jihadist propaganda.

The recidivism rate for Guantanamo detainees who are released and return to terrorist activity is about 30 percent, according to experts.

A recent example that garnered attention was Ibrahim al Qosi, a former aide to Osama bin Laden who was sent to Guantanamo in 2002 and released 10 years later. Al Qosi resurfaced this month as a senior member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group’s most dangerous branch.

When asked about al Qosi’s return to jihadist activity at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week, Secretary of State John Kerry lamented that “he’s not supposed to be doing that.”

It is important to understand the term enemy combatant, lawful and unlawful as defined the Geneva Convention. You can read the 10 items here.