Three victims of the CIA’s torture program have filed a lawsuit against the program’s two creators. On Monday, a Washington judge ruled that the case can go to trial.

The plaintiffs in this suit are Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania; Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya; and the estate of Gul Rhaman of Afghanistan. All three were detainees in a CIA prison in 2003. The first two are now free and living in their home countries. The third died in prison.

The defendants are James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen, former U.S. military psychologists who designed the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” in November 2001. Reportedly, the government paid them between $75 and $81 million for their plans.

This is the first CIA torture lawsuit to survive past the pretrial discovery phase. Prior to this, the Bush and Obama Administrations intervened, arguing that the suits put state secrets at risk.

However, a Senate intelligence committee report published in 2014 provided many details that the administrations had tried to keep secret. It confirmed that the CIA tortured 39 people, including the plaintiffs, at a secret prison codenamed “Cobalt.”

According to the report, Salim and Ben Soud’s torture included beatings, sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions, and waterboarding. In addition, Rhaman died of hypothermia after his interrogators doused him with water and left him in a freezing room overnight.

In a pretrial hearing on July 28, the defense attorneys argued that providing a memo to the CIA does not count as aiding and abetting torture. It was the U.S. government, not Mitchell and Jessen, who conducted the program.

At one point, the defense team compared their clients to the manufacturers who developed the gas used in Nazi execution chambers. The British military tribunal, the lawyers pointed out, did not try those manufacturers for what the Nazis did.

Judge Justin Quackenbush rejected those arguments, ruling that the evidence indicated that Mitchell and Jessen themselves supported using torture on the CIA prisoners. Not only that, he found it “undisputed” that the psychologists used the techniques themselves on the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah. Jessen was “physically involved” in Rhaman’s torture as well.

“Defendants have not established they merely acted at the direction of the government, within the scope of their authority, and that such authority was legally and validly conferred,” he decided.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first filed the suit on behalf of the three plaintiffs in 2015.

“The court’s ruling means that for the first time, individuals responsible for the brutal and unlawful CIA torture program will face meaningful legal accountability for what they did,” ACLU attorney Dror Ladin told the Guardian. “Our clients have waited a long time for justice.”

The trial will begin on September 5.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CIA Torture Victims Sue Program Designers appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

It’s Health Care Bill Reveal Time!

This morning, Senate Republicans unveiled the draft of the new health care bill. They’ve been working on this bill behind closed doors for weeks now. House Republicans passed a first version of the bill last month, but President Trump urged the Senate to pass a “more generous” version. Under that House bill, 23 million people could lose their health care coverage. The Senate version is pretty similar to the House bill, except even less generous. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the Senate version there are massive cuts to Medicaid, and it undoes important parts of Obamacare, like the individual mandate. It also eliminates Planned Parenthood funding.

BREAKING: Full text of the Senate’s closely-guarded health care bill has posted online. Read it: https://t.co/tWGoaC4whm pic.twitter.com/T18BUSFpTf

— CNN (@CNN) June 22, 2017

“Republicans are writing their health care bill under the cover of darkness because they are ashamed of it,” claimed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier this week.

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, WikiLeaks unleashed its latest trove of secrets: thousands of documents seemingly detailing the espionage techniques the Central Intelligence Agency has developed in recent years. Vault 7–the title WikiLeaks has given its latest series of potentially damaging info dumps–is the “largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency,” according to the anti-secrecy outfit. Here is what you need to know.

What the Leaks Reveal

Basically, the documents–nearly 9,000 in total–show that the CIA is capable of compromising smartphones, messaging systems, and televisions, and using them as modes of surveillance. Anything that connects through the internet, the CIA can hijack as a listening or viewing portal. Produced by the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence from 2013 to 2016, the documents are highly technical, and clearly meant for in-house viewing only. The documents, which have not been verified by the agency, come from an unidentified source.

Some of the programs detailed in the documents have colorful names: Wrecking Crew, CrunchyLimeSkies, ElderPiggy, AngerQuake, and McNugget to name a few. One program, called Weeping Angel, uses Samsung televisions that have internet capabilities and, according to a WikiLeaks description of the program, “operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the internet to a covert CIA server.”

It’s unclear where these documents came from. Some analysts say Russia, which provided WikiLeaks with Democratic operatives’ emails it hacked before the presidential election, could be responsible. While the CIA does not appear to penetrate already-encrypted messages, it is able to intercept messages before the content is encrypted. Encrypted messaging apps–Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram–had also been cracked by the agency.

CIA and NSA: How Are They Different?

There are a number of differences between the National Security Agency’s espionage tools–revealed in 2013 in a WikiLeak dump provided by Edward Snowden–and the CIA’s abilities. For one (and this might save the agency from the same blowback the NSA experienced) there is no evidence that the CIA has spied on Americans. There is also no evidence the CIA, unlike the NSA, has engaged in a massive data collection effort of U.S. citizens.

Instead, the picture the documents paint is one of targeted espionage, focused on foreign actors. Another key distinction: the NSA poked holes that weren’t there to peer through; the CIA uses existing holes, or vulnerabilities in an app or device for surveillance purposes. But it does not appear the agency alerts companies of the vulnerabilities it unearths.

Despite the differences between the NSA’s program and CIA’s, Snowden called the documents “a big deal.” Snowden, who has been holed up in Russia, a country that routinely interferes in the democratic processes of sovereign nations, tweeted:

The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open. Reckless beyond words.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017

On Tuesday’s “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” Michael Hayden, the former director of both the CIA and the NSA, defended the CIA’s tactics. Hayden said the agency does not spy on Americans, but “there are people out there that you want us to spy on.” He added: “You want us to have the ability to actually turn on that listening device inside the TV to learn that person’s intentions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the WikiLeaks CIA Document Dump appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, there was a meeting between the heads of the country’s leading intelligence agencies: FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan. The gathering’s subject matter: Russia’s hacking of email networks during the presidential election. On Friday, an official with direct knowledge of the meeting said that the agencies now agree that Russia’s hacking operation had the intention of putting President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.

When the CIA first announced its assessment that Russia had indeed hacked into both the Democratic and Republican email networks, only leaked the Democrat’s emails, and aimed to aid Trump, the FBI was hesitant to come to the same conclusion. Trump has called the CIA’s claims “ridiculous,” and continues to deflect any notion that he was aided by Russia.

The official close to the FBI said that the bureau was timid at first because officials entertained other motives for the Russian hacks: Perhaps Russia was trying to undermine Clinton’s position if she were to be elected, or maybe it was a personal rebuke as a result of her dicey past with Putin? Eventually, the FBI agreed that Russia’s actions were motivated by putting Trump in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponent during the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, told Democratic Party donors on Friday that the Russian breach was not only directed by President Vladimir Putin, but that the episode was a personal attack on her. She said Putin has a “personal beef” with her, alluding to her statement five years ago that Russia’s parliamentary elections were”rigged.” Clinton said: “Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.”

But Clinton also called the Russian hacks “an attack against our country,” not just her campaign. “We are well beyond normal political concerns here,” she said. “This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.” President Barack Obama, in his final news conference of the year, defended his handling of the Russian hacks. He said he even delivered this stern command to Putin when they met in September: “Cut it out.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FBI Now Agrees with the CIA: Russia Intended to Help Trump appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump may have dismissed the CIA report that Russia’s hacking was intended to aid his election efforts, but a bipartisan cohort of  politicians banded together to condemn the Kremlin’s actions over the weekend. Many have also called for a “bipartisan investigation” into the matter. Four senators–two from each party–released a joint statement on Sunday in response to the CIA’s conclusion that the hacks were pointedly aimed at putting Trump in the White House. 

“We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security,” said the statement from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI).

The senators said that the CIA’s report “should alarm every American,” adding that the hacks “cut to the heart of our free society.” McCain and Schumer appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Monday, reiterating their concern over the hacks. Contradicting Trump’s Twitter flurry denying the CIA’s report, McCain said: “there is no doubt about the hacking. Let’s establish that.”

Trump continued his Twitter tirade on Monday morning:

Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

He continued:

Unless you catch “hackers” in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn’t this brought up before election?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016

Russia’s hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, and its assist to Wikileaks, which in turn unleashed the damaging emails, has been on the CIA’s radar since at least July. But last week, the agency concluded that the Russians also hacked into the Republican National Committee’s servers, but held back on releasing what they had dug up. Based on a new analysis of previously known, and largely circumstantial evidence, the CIA concluded Russia intended to help Trump get elected over Hillary Clinton.

Trump and Clinton presented Russia with two very different futures, depending on which candidate U.S. voters elected into office. As secretary of state, Clinton clashed with Russian President Vladimir Putin several times. For instance, he blamed her for instigating anti-Putin protests in Moscow in 2011. Trump on the other hand, has shown nothing but admiration for Putin on the campaign trail. Trump has praised Putin as “a strong leader,” and has questioned the effectiveness of NATO, a key check against Russian aggression in Baltic states in Europe.

While some top-ranking Republicans have spoken out against the Russians, others have remained largely silent. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a statement on Sunday, saying “foreign intervention in our elections is unacceptable” but also added that he “rejects any politicization of intelligence matters” and did not call for a deeper probe into the matter. But for McCain, Schumer, Graham, and Reed, Russia’s meddling “cannot become a partisan issue.” They said in their statement: “The stakes are too high for our country.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bipartisan Group of Politicians Express Outrage Over Russian Hacking appeared first on Law Street.

Hello, Monday! If you’re on the East Coast like me it’s foggy and bleak out there, and the news about the Russian hackers is enough to make anyone want to crawl back into bed. But our last story for today is hopefully enough to cheer you up, so read on and have a good start to your week! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Doesn’t Believe that Russia Tried to Influence the Election

On Saturday, the CIA concluded that many Democrats’ suspicions were true: Russian authorities did attempt to influence the U.S. election. More specifically, they wanted to help Donald Trump win. Several U.S. intelligence agencies found that the Kremlin provided Wikileaks with thousands of hacked emails from Hillary Clinton and the DNC. And when Wikileaks published them online, the negative media attention helped propel Trump to victory.

Don’t let Trumps twitter rants distract from the real news: THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED IN OUR ELECTION TO HELP TRUMP WIN. #russianhacking

— Laura Benanti (@LauraBenanti) December 10, 2016

But on Sunday, Trump said that he simply didn’t believe the news and that the Democrats are just angry because he won. His team also called his victory “one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history,” when in fact, it was one of the closest elections ever.

Also on Sunday, Trump said he would not be getting the daily intelligence briefing that most presidents receive just, you know, to keep track of the world. But Trump doesn’t love the briefings–in fact, he thinks they’re too repetitive. “You know, I’m, like, a smart person. I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years,” he said.

Even some Republicans are shocked:

So wait…the CIA says Russia messed with our election to help Trump win and Trump attacks…the CIA?

Not Russia? He goes after the CIA?

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) December 10, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

American intelligence officials say that they have concluded that “Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump.”

There’s still a lot that is unclear about the hacks. According to the same senior officials, Russians also hacked into the RNC, in addition to the DNC, but apparently never released any information they found there. The intelligence officials also have said that many of the hacked documents were given to WikiLeaks for dissemination. According to the Washington Post:

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now ‘quite clear’ that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

This is all concerning news, but what may be most concerning is that President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care. Trump slammed the CIA over these reports, saying:

These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’

It’s important to note that Trump’s assertion is not exactly true–most of the officials that claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are long gone. And Trump continues to deny that Russia could have been involved in his win.

Putin got just what he wanted: Trump as POTUS and America turning against itself over this intrusion rather than standing together vs Russia

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) December 10, 2016

Obama ordered an investigation into Russian involvement in the general election, and Russia denies any wrongdoing. Hopefully further investigations will answer some of these questions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Intelligence Officials Say Russia Worked to Help Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Last week Sarah Palin sensed divine intervention, Donald Trump supported torture techniques, and Texas required women to cremate unborn fetuses. ICYMI–check out these top stories from Law Street below!

1. Sarah Palin Claims God Intervened and Helped Trump Win the Election

Sarah Palin likes Donald Trump, but doesn’t believe he made it all the way to the White House on his own. On the holiday edition of the Breitbart News Daily radio show she claimed that God was responsible for Trump’s win. In the show, she said she saw the role “divine providence” played on the campaign trail. She said people have been desperate for a change after the country’s deterioration and that his victory was due to people praying to God that the rest of the citizens would wake up. Read the full article here.

2. Trump Could Dismiss Lawsuit by CIA Torture Victims

In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA broadened its torture toolkit. Detainees were stuffed in boxes. They were forced to spend hours holding uncomfortable positions, sometimes barred from sleeping for days at a time. And of course, there was waterboarding. In October 2015, two men who were subjected to the CIA’s interrogations at secret prisons in Afghanistan filed lawsuits against the two CIA contractors who sculpted the agency’s torture program. Read the full article here.

3. New Rules in Texas Will Require Burial or Cremation of Fetal Remains

Texas established new rules preventing health care facilities from disposing of fetal remains following an abortion or any miscarriage that requires a medical procedure–instead, the state will now require women to pay for the burial or cremation of those remains. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA broadened its torture toolkit. Detainees were stuffed in boxes. They were forced to spend hours holding uncomfortable positions, sometimes barred from sleeping for days at a time. And of course, there was waterboarding. In October 2015, two men who were subjected to the CIA’s interrogations at secret prisons in Afghanistan filed lawsuits against the two CIA contractors who sculpted the agency’s torture program.

The plaintiffs and their lawyers now question whether their quest for justice could be undermined by President-elect Trump, who has expressed support for torture techniques, and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the suit if he chooses. No government official involved in a torture program has been held accountable, and this suit, backed by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, is the furthest former detainees have gotten.

Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya, along with representatives of a third man who died in the CIA’s secret prison, are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants are James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, both psychologists and contractors who devised and helped implement the torture program.

If Trump, who recently hinted his position supporting torture might have shifted, decides to invoke the state secrets privilege, the case would be dismissed under the grounds of national security. The Department of Justice under President Obama has blocked civil cases against CIA contractors from proceeding under the same pretense.

But in April, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, where the suit was filed, dismissed a motion that claimed the suit could reveal security-compromising secrets. Under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for human rights abuses, Judge Justin Quackenbush allowed the case to proceed. The trial is set for June 2017.

On Tuesday, Mitchell, one of the defendants, is set to release a book titled “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America.” According to The New York Times, which obtained an early copy, Mitchell defends his torture program, saying his “unpleasant” techniques “protected detainees from being subjected to unproven and perhaps harsher techniques made up on the fly that could have been much worse.”

The effectiveness of Mitchell and Jessen’s program was questioned in a 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report, however, which concluded the “inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Could Dismiss Lawsuit by CIA Torture Victims appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government allegedly paid a British PR firm half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 to produce fake al-Qaeda videos as part of a propaganda program, the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed on Monday.

A British PR firm called Bell Pottinger reported frequently to the CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council. The staff produced videos made to look like amateur footage shot by rebels, and Arabic news programs.

One of the video editors, Martin Wells, called the operation “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing,” and provided comments to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. When he applied for the job in London in May of 2006 he only knew it involved a project in the Middle East. When he went for an interview it surprised him to find guards watching the room where it took place. When he asked when he would find out if he got the job, they said: “You’ve already got it. We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq: https://t.co/QzBAPV0HSn #comms pic.twitter.com/ALM9asdimZ

— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) October 4, 2016

Wells then had 48 hours to prepare for a flight to Baghdad, where he spent his time producing fake news segments and low-quality, violent commercials for al-Qaeda. He and the other staff sent out the videos to local TV stations and the military dropped digital copies off in different raids. Since the video files contained embed codes they were able to trace where and how the footage was being watched—and also trace the people who were watching them–a powerful counter-terrorism tool.

This was not a small operation—it cost over $100 million a year. Sometimes approval came straight from the White House and at one point almost 300 staff members from Britain and Iraq were involved. Wells stayed for two years. The whole operation ended in 2011, when American troops withdrew from Iraq. It was not the first time the government has used the media to spread its views and policies.

In 2005 the government hired a Washington-based firm called the Lincoln Group to pay Iraqi newspapers thousands of dollars to publish pro-American articles, written by the U.S. military. In 2009 it was revealed that the Pentagon hired controversial PR firm Rendon to monitor journalists embedded within the U.S. military to see whether they were covering their missions in a positive way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

France Has a Burkini Problem

Speedwater Park in Marseille, France is being booked for a burkini-only event. It is a women-only gathering and only guests wearing a full body swimming garment will be allowed in. Of course, this has caused crazy outrage all over secular France, including from its top political officials. Stephane Ravier, a mayor of two other Marseille districts with the far-right Front National party, said this:

This Islamist day demonstrates that, outside of the comforting words of Muslim authorities, a certain number of Muslims are deciding among themselves to break away from our Republican model and put themselves outside our society.

The event organizers noted that the event was open to all women, including non-Muslims, who agreed to wear bathing suits that covered their bodies from chest to knees. Seems easy enough!

BBCWorld : ‘Burkini-only day’ at waterpark in France criticised https://t.co/XFttjrSIzl (via Twitter … pic.twitter.com/dxLdt6yZ7o

— jahir (@jahirvai2) August 4, 2016

France has been known to be particularly harsh against Islamic traditions, and some may say that its possibly racist. But it’s only fair that the small community of  citizens be allowed to enjoy this summer pastime with their non-Muslim neighbors. This is not France “slipping under the submission of Islam,” this is France’s motto: Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Intercept released a batch of 166 previously unseen documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The release fulfilled Snowden’s wishes for the classified information, by pairing it with context that makes it accessible and understandable to the general public. The Intercept also attempted to protect the personal welfare of innocent individuals associated with the information.

On its website, the Intercept declared that it will release the documents in batches, starting with the oldest ones from 2003 and going all the way until the most recent documents, from 2012. The documents in question are from the NSA’s internal newsletter called SIDtoday, short for Signals Intelligence Directorate.

On Tuesday, reports came that the CIA “mistakenly” destroyed a 6,700 page U.S. torture report, containing thousands of confidential files about the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation. Something that does sound very fishy, and Snowden said:

I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it's never a mistake. https://t.co/S1VULfE4NY

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) May 18, 2016

Along with the release of information, the Intercept published four accompanying articles. One went through how closely the NSA was involved in the Guantánamo interrogations, explaining how staff were sent to the military base during the time that the torture-like interrogations took place. It states:

The NSA LNO might pull together intelligence to support an upcoming interrogation, formulate questions and strategies for the interrogation, and observe or participate in the interrogation.

The documents and corresponding articles also account for how the staff spent their free time doing water sports, going to a Tiki bars, or:

Pottery, hiking, nature walks, biking, paintball, martial arts, tennis, racquetball, basketball, softball, and bowling.

This all sounds like a relaxing, enjoyable vacation. But reports from FBI agents who were disturbed by the conditions under which the prisoners were questioned all stem from the same time period. They state that prisoners were questioned while lying chained to the floor in fetal positions, while exposed to aggressive dogs, and while starved as just a few of the examples. The reports also stated that the interrogators claimed to be FBI agents, to avoid later blame for abuse and possible repercussions.

Another article from the Intercept goes through the most intriguing spy stories that have come to light as a result of the documents. For example, it highlights North Korean nuclear plans, Russian mobsters, and information about the rescue of a kidnapped female soldier.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 and is dedicated to fearless reporting. The site is known especially for its coverage of the Snowden documents–editor Glenn Greenwald was one of the original recipients. Batches of more documents are coming shortly, so stay tuned as more of Snowden’s revelations come to light.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Intercept Releases New Snowden Documents, Details About Guantánamo appeared first on Law Street.

Caught up in the whirlwind of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris was an interesting little footnote: American FBI agents headed to France to assist in the investigation. The FBI going to Paris or anywhere else outside the United States may, on its face, seem like the agency is overstepping its jurisdiction. When it comes to matters outside the borders of the country most assume that the Central Intelligence Agency would be the organization involved, not the FBI, whose mandate is more domestically focused. However, as this recent example and others have shown, the FBI does, in fact, operate abroad. Read on to see what the FBI does around the globe, how its role has changed over the years, and how all this activity is perceived internationally.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Abroad

The beginning of the FBI’s work abroad can be traced back to World War II. In 1940, as the war intensified and the prospect of the United States joining in the fight grew, President Roosevelt assigned the Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle intelligence responsibilities for the Western Hemisphere. In an era before internationally-focused agencies like the CIA existed, the FBI was given the task. This initial step centered on finding and exposing Nazi spies who were attempting to sneak into the United States from South America.

The FBI realized early on that in order to maximize its effectiveness it needed to coordinate with local authorities in other countries. Starting in Bogata, Columbia, the FBI began assigning special agents to positions that would eventually be known as Legal Attachés or “Legats.” When WWII ended, the CIA took over much of the foreign intelligence work and the FBI shifted its international focus to training and developing working relationships abroad. Since then the program has continued to expand. According to the FBI’s Legal Attaché website:

Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices in 75 key cities around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host country and is situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation.

In addition to Legat offices in foreign countries, the FBI coordinates with similar organizations overseas like Europol. The following video looks at what the FBI does abroad with a focus, in this case, on investigation:

What the FBI Does

So what does the FBI do with all these agents and other personnel stationed abroad? A major focus of the FBI’s effort abroad is training. Among other things, the FBI’s training focuses on providing information on kidnapping, fingerprinting, and corruption. As part of this exchange, the FBI also welcomes a growing number of foreign nationals to its training facility in Quantico, Virginia.

In addition to training, the FBI assists with investigations in other countries. In the most recent example, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the FBI sent agents with particular expertise. According to the New York Times, the agents sent by the FBI have skills that focus on recovering data from electronic devices. The agents will help assist French police recover intelligence about the attackers and provide any information about U.S. security interests back to the United States. The FBI conducted a similar operation in Uganda in 2010. In that investigation, a large contingent of FBI agents were sent to the African nation to investigate the terrorist attacks and aid in identifying potential suspects.

In order to understand the FBI’s role abroad, it is important to look at how the bureau changed in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. After the attacks, the FBI moved away from its traditional role of investigating domestic crime to a new focus on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering. This transition has been widely documented and is openly accepted by the bureau itself. According to an FBI report on its counterterrorism program after 9/11,

Since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have implemented a comprehensive plan that fundamentally transforms the organization to enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorism. We overhauled our counterterrorism operations, expanded our intelligence capabilities, modernized our business practices and technology, and improved coordination with our partners.

A major driver behind the FBI’s international cooperation is enabling other countries to handle terrorism within their own borders so the FBI does not have to bring a suspect back to the United States to faces charges.

Abuse Abroad?

While the FBI’s methods are targeted to prevent terrorism and assist organizations abroad, the bureau has faced a lot of scrutiny for its actions in other countries. There are several examples of people, often American nationals abroad, alleging that improper techniques were used to extract information or force compliance.

One example is of an American national, Gulet Mohamed, who was detained in Kuwait on suspicion of being connected with known terrorist Anwar Al-Awalaki. Gulet, who had traveled in Yemen and Somalia, was detained and aggressively interrogated. He was then placed on the no-fly list. Amir Meshal, another American national, fleeing Somalia and headed to Kenya, shared a similar fate. Meshal was detained in Kenya and claims that he was tortured in order to force a confession. Another instance is the case of Raymond Azar. Azar, a Lebanese citizen, was captured, stripped, and taken from Lebanon then flown to the United States to be charged with bribery.

Yonas Fikre is yet another example. Fikre was arrested in the UAE at the behest of the FBI. He claims that he was detained after he refused to be an FBI informant. According to Fikre, he was then subsequently tortured and added to the FBI’s no-fly list. Fikre is one of nine members of his mosque who he claims have been added to the FBI’s no-fly list for refusing to become informants. In Uganda, four men from Kenya and Tanzania claim that they were illegally detained and abused by FBI agents. They claim that they were tortured in relation to a bombing in Kampala that killed 76 people, a crime which they were suspected of committing. A spokesperson for the FBI said that all agents act within FBI guidelines and the laws of the country where they operate.

These methods have not gone unchallenged. Both Fikre and Gulet challenged their place on the no-fly list and the methods employed by the FBI during their detentions. Meshal also took issue with his capture and actually attempted to file a lawsuit against the FBI. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied him the opportunity because his case dealt with national security. The suspects allegedly tortured in Uganda took issues with the conduct of the FBI as well. Their allegations of abuse led to an internal investigation by the FBI. Ultimately, though, following the investigation, no charges were filed. In all cases, the FBI has maintained that its agents acted appropriately.

The video below details the specifics of the case:

Conclusion

Unbeknownst to many citizens, the FBI has had a large and increasing presence abroad since the early days of World War II. This presence generally takes the form of agents, known as legal attachés, who are stationed at American embassies all over the world. The agents are primarily concerned with acquiring information and disseminating it to local law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies in the United States. This system helps empower countries to effectively combat terrorism and domestic threats as well as further U.S. security interests abroad.

Aside from information gathering and training, FBI Legal Attachés are often called on for assistance in investigating crimes and terror threats. There are numerous examples of this, from the recent attack in Paris to earlier attacks in Africa; the FBI also has its own list of selected accomplishments. In these cases, the FBI offered expertise in analyzing a crime scene or technical skills that the local government did not have.

Nevertheless, the FBI’s efforts abroad are not universally acclaimed. In the course of its investigations, the agency has repeatedly faced criticism for abuse and punishments for not cooperating, such as adding suspects names to the no-fly list without probable cause. Despite criticism, the FBI often maintains that its agents acted properly and internal investigations rarely find wrongdoing.

The FBI’s shift from focusing on domestic investigations to gathering counterterrorism intelligence has led many to criticize the agency. But the FBI maintains that it must change in order to be “a global organization for a global age.” The FBI has continued to grow its international presence in the form of Legal Attachés and several counterterrorism task forces after the 9/11 attacks. While some may criticize this trend, most evidence suggests that it will continue.

Resources

New York Times: F.B.I. Sending Agents to Assist in Paris Investigation

San Diego Union-Tribune: Al-Shabab Leader Threatens More Ugandan Attacks

New York Times: In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle

New York Times: Detained American Says F.B.I. pressed him

CBS News: American Can’t Sue FBI Over Abuse Claims, Federal Appeals Court Says

Los Angeles Times: Lebanese Man is Target of the First Rendition Under Obama

Open Society Foundation: FBI Responds to Kampala Abuse Allegations Cited in Open Society Justice Initiative

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the FBI Do Abroad? appeared first on Law Street.

Wayne Simmons, a Fox News guest, was just indicted after it was discovered that he was lying about his qualifications. Despite repeatedly appearing as a guest on Fox News programs and proclaiming to be a former CIA agent, it turns out he never worked for the CIA.

Right-wing media’s Benghazi “expert” arrested for falsely claiming he worked for the CIA: http://t.co/UmFjR3T62zpic.twitter.com/VTeVaG6MDu

— Media Matters (@mmfa) October 15, 2015

While Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti has emphasized that Simmons was never paid, he has appeared as a guest commentator on various Fox News programs, including “Fox & Friends,” and has been interviewed by Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto. It’s unclear how many times he appeared on the network; his website lists dozens of appearances on various programs. While he technically portrayed himself to Fox as an “outside paramilitary special operations officer” with 23 years of experience, the title he was often given on various shows was “former CIA operative,” most likely for the sake of brevity.

A grand jury just indicted Simmons on a number of different charges, including major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, making false statements to the government, and the fact that he used those fake claims in order to gain security clearances and confidential information. Bizarrely, the indictment also included charges that he was involved in a real estate scheme that scammed an unnamed individual out of $125,000. According to the indictment, he used his fake CIA credentials to bolster his credibility to conduct that endeavor. Federal prosecutors claim that this indictment didn’t come out of the blue, as he allegedly has a:

Significant criminal history, including convictions for a crime of violence and firearms offenses, and is believed to have had an ongoing association with firearms notwithstanding those felony convictions.

It was also noted that he “has a history of acting in an aggressive manner, and is likely aware of the imminent nature of the charges in this case.”

During his varied appearances, Simmons said some pretty incendiary thing–here’s an example of an appearance he made on “Fox and Friends,” in which he was listed as a “former CIA operative”:

In that particular appearance he called Obama “the boy king.” This January he claimed that there were “at least 19 paramilitary Muslim training facilities in the United States.” He also at one point claimed that waterboarding was not torture.

Despite the fact that Fox News apparently never paid the commenter, and he wasn’t officially sanctioned by the network in any way, this still doesn’t look very good. By having him on the show, the network tacitly said that he did have something worth hearing. Just because he wasn’t paid doesn’t mean that his microphone was any less real.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Guest Indicted on Fraud Charges appeared first on Law Street.

After the CIA’s use of torture in interrogations came to light in a controversial Senate report, few people have been held directly responsible for misconduct. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hopes to change that with a recently filed civil suit against two psychologists who consulted with the CIA to develop and implement the program.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two former CIA prisoners and the estate of another who died while in CIA custody, claims that John “Bruce” Jessen and James Mitchell violated international law for their role in the CIA’s use of torture.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” program reignited the debate about the agency’s use of torture from 2002 to 2009. The so-called “torture report” immediately became controversial, revealing the details of several interrogations and the tactics that were employed by the CIA and its contractors. While the full report, which spans more than 6,000 pages, remains classified, the 512-page executive summary came out last December. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) include waterboarding, physical abuse, sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, nudity, rectal rehydration, mock executions, and isolation in extreme cold and in coffin-shaped boxes for days at a time. Hypothermia is reportedly the cause of Gul Rahman’s death, and according to the ACLU’s complaint:

An autopsy report and internal CIA review found that Mr. Rahman likely died from hypothermia caused ‘in part from being forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants,’ with the contributing factors of ‘dehydration, lack of food, and immobility due to ‘short chaining.’

Prior to the Senate report, there was very little available evidence about the CIA’s use of torture in the post-9/11 era. In fact, the ACLU noted that its lawsuit is largely based on the contents of the CIA report. Steven Watt, a lawyer for the ACLU told the Huffington Post that the report is “really why our clients are able to pursue this case.”

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs–Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and now-deceased Gul Rahman–were interrogated at CIA black sites using techniques that constitute torture. It further claims that the two psychologists, Jessen and Mitchell, “designed, implemented, and personally administered an experimental torture program for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.”

The lawsuit seeks relief for the plaintiffs based on the Alien Tort Statute, which enables non-citizens to file lawsuits for violations of international laws and treaties. The ACLU has three specific claims against Jessen and Mitchell, specifically the use of “torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment,” non-consensual human experimentation, and war crimes.

The complaint argues that the defendants’ roles were central to the entire enhanced interrogation program, as they monitored the interrogations, suggested tactics for interrogators, and may have participated themselves. In an interview with Vice, Mitchell admitted to participating in waterboarding a prisoner but has so far refused to give additional details about his involvement.  Their company, Mitchell Jessen and Associates, was contracted by the CIA to oversee and conduct interrogations, for which it received about $80 million. The company also employed 11 of the 13 interrogators used by the CIA. The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Washington state, which is where the company was headquartered.

Prior to their involvement with the CIA, both Mitchell and Jessen worked for the Air Force’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape program, which trained soldiers to resist coercive and violent interrogation tactics. Based on their experience training people to resist harsh interrogation, the CIA asked them to advise and monitor interrogations of high-level suspects in the wake of 9/11.

According to the complaint, the psychologists utilized research from the 1960s to develop their recommendations for the CIA, specifically the work of Dr. Martin Seligman who experimented with dogs to develop an understanding of learned helplessness. Seligman found that repeated abuse eventually put dogs in a state where they became completely compliant, which is what Jessen and Mitchell sought to reproduce in CIA interrogations. Because many of the prisoners had been trained to resist interrogation, these methods were used to break them down in order to retrieve information. This conclusion is a point of much contention–the Senate report concluded that the enhanced techniques proved ineffective and even counterproductive, while Mitchell has maintained that his advice saved lives. The CIA concluded that it is impossible to tell whether or not the CIA torture had intelligence benefits. Ultimately, the answer to that question has become more a product of individual ideology than the available evidence.

The ACLU’s claims and its underpinnings in the Senate’s report are certainly shocking. One of the few relatively undisputed parts of the report is the actual tactics that were used. The lawsuit focuses on the long-term psychological consequences of the torture that the victims are currently dealing with.

The exact culpability of Jessen and Mitchell is difficult to determine based on the information available, which will make this lawsuit particularly challenging. It is unlikely that the CIA will release new evidence and it appears that based on the contract that the psychologists have with the agency, they will not be paying their legal fees. According to the Guardian,

A Spokane-based company the two founded, Mitchell and Jessen Associates, would secure $75m from the CIA in contracts, in addition to a further $6.1m from the agency for legal expenses in the event of criminal or civil action stemming from the contract.

In light of the government’s unwillingness to hold those who committed and authorized torture accountable, the ACLU’s attempt to seek justice is laudable. But securing sufficient evidence to receive compensatory damages will be particularly difficult, as the program has been and will continue to be shrouded in secrecy.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Architects of CIA Torture Program appeared first on Law Street.

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country.

This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. For example, lawyers claim they aren’t able to visit their clients at the site, and beatings and other forms of violence occur. In some ways most disturbingly, it’s all off the books. People who are taken to the Homan Square site aren’t entered into the Chicago PD system, or have any records of their detainment. As Anthony Hill, a criminal defense lawyer put it, “They just disappear, until they show up at a district for charging or are just released back out on the street.”

Read more: Chicago Still Dangerous Despite Absence From Crime Rankings

The facility at Homan Square is being dubbed a “black site” as a nod to the CIA detention facilities in the Middle East, although others have called them “shadow sites.”

The Chicago Police Department is, of course, trying to play Public Relations catch up. It’s claiming that nothing untoward has happened at Homan square, providing a statement that included:

CPD [Chicago police department] abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspects or witnesses, at Homan Square or any other CPD facility. If lawyers have a client detained at Homan Square, just like any other facility, they are allowed to speak to and visit them. It also houses CPD’s Evidence Recovered Property Section, where the public is able to claim inventoried property…There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square.

These revelations come at an interesting time–the United States has been engaged in a discussion over the power of our police forces for a while now. Reports of increased militarization, racial profiling, and human rights abuses are finally seeing the light of day and mainstream news coverage. From Ferguson, Missouri, to New York, New York, people this Fall stood up in protest against police treatment of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and others. This information out of Chicago seems to be just the latest in a long, terrifying list. It’s horrible, reprehensible, and heartbreaking, but it’s by no means unsurprising.

Reading the Guardian piece, complete with the many, many horrifying examples of what purportedly happens at this detention center, reminded me of a powerful speech by FBI Director James Comey just a few weeks ago. He talked a lot about innate racial biases in law enforcement, particularly in light of those events I mentioned above. Although his speech was by no means faultless, there were many honest truths to which Comey seemingly spoke. At one point, he said:

A mental shortcut becomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lights. The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others the officer has locked up. Two young white men on the other side of the street — even in the same clothes — do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black. And that drives different behavior. The officer turns toward one side of the street and not the other. We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve.

While there’s no indication exactly what race those interred at Homan Square are–there are certainly claims that many of the people brought there are low-income, and black, Hispanic, or members of other minority populations. It’s sad, in light of Comey’s speech and the events of this summer, how easy this becomes to imagine. Chicago’s police force taking those who lack resources, subjecting them to inhumane treatment, and not worrying about the consequences. It’s easy to silence a voice when that voice is nowhere near a microphone. While it’s yet to be seen what will be borne out of these revelations, I wouldn’t be surprised if more “black sites” exist in other cities. There’s a big problem here–and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.

Former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling was convicted on Monday of charges under the Espionage Act, closing a four-year case in which the government accused him of giving a reporter classified information about covert operations. This information included a plan that gave Iran officials flawed nuclear plans. Sterling allegedly gave author and New York Times reporter James Risen the information for his 2006 book, “State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration.”

Sterling was hired in 1993 and fired in 2001 after suing the CIA for racial discrimination, according to a 2002 New York Times article written by Risen. Prosecutors said that being fired gave him a motive to leak the information to Risen as revenge, according to the Washington Post. Having been interviewed by Risen before, the government argued that Sterling was also the only CIA employee who had a relationship with the reporter in addition to a motive.

Sterling pleaded not guilty in 2011 to 10 counts, including unauthorized retention and disclosure of classified information, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice. His defense attorneys argued that there were other CIA employees who could possibly have leaked the information to Risen.

To establish the connection between Sterling and Risen, prosecutors spent a large chunk of the the four-year ordeal trying to subpoena Risen to testify. Risen, however, vigorously fought back all the way up to the Supreme Court, saying that he’d rather go to jail than give up a source. He lost, but the government eventually let up. Attorney General Eric Holder guaranteed that Risen wouldn’t go to jail for refusing to reveal a source.

So, Risen did walk away from having to submit testimony against his will, but did hold up the case. Ultimately, that didn’t help Sterling, whose jury convicted him in an Alexandria, VA, U.S. District Court after deliberating over the course of three days. He is set to meet the jury again for his sentencing hearing in April and is free until then. Defense attorney Barry Pollack told the Washington Post that they plan to appeal the verdict.

Including the James Risen fiasco, the Sterling’s trial itself was “a daily spectacle worthy of fiction,” as the Washington Post’s Matt Zapotosky put it. By choosing to prosecute Sterling, a former CIA employee privy to classified information, the government put itself in the pickle of having to use the classified information against Sterling without revealing too much of it in the process, which would partially defeat the purpose. Several witnesses testified while hidden behind a gray screen in the courtroom and only used their first names and last initials. A Russian scientist involved in the faulty nuclear plans was asked to respond in only “yes” or “no” answers so as not to disclose more information than needed.

Despite the government’s risk of leaking information itself while prosecuting leakers, the Obama Administration has pursued many such cases. However, there is a contradiction between pursuing so many leak cases and Obama’s pledge of a “new era of openness” early in his first term.

Former government employees John Kiriakou and Stephen Kim are serving prison time for leak cases that didn’t go their way. Former NSA official Thomas Drake settled for a minor charge after a four-year court battle for giving Fox News classified information about North Korea. Even former CIA director David Petraeus might get the leak treatment for allegedly giving classified files to his biographer.

Whether or not the Obama Administration ever truly does welcome a “new era of openness,” it doesn’t appear to define a clear line between whistle-blowing and illegal leaking. When a government makes mistakes, citizens of a country with freedom of speech and of the press ought to know whether or not they’re going to be tried under the Espionage Act. Better yet, the government could commit to its own pledge to openness.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Former CIA Employee Jeffrey Sterling Found Guilty of Leaking Information appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.

The nation has been waiting for the Senate’s 6,000 page report on the use of torture during the War on Terror since an investigation began in 2009. However, a series of stumbling blocks–including tampering by the CIA and large redactions by the Obama administration–have continually pushed back the public release date. The Senate’s frustration is clear, and there’s no way to know when this crucial report will finally be released.

The Senate Torture Report 

The controversy revolves around a report that the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote on potential abuses of the detention and interrogation program during the Bush administration’s War on Terror. Those who have seen the report say that it is damning proof that the CIA used cruel tactics, including water-boarding, against detained terror suspects. The report also concludes that these tactics did not produce any useful intelligence information, and that CIA officials lied to Congress during multiple hearings on the subject. However, the committee was not unanimous in this conclusion. The committee’s Republicans came out strongly against the report, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) referred to the investigation as a “mistake.”

CIA reaction to the report

CIA employees are having a slight panic attack. As one not-so-eloquent headline puts it, “CIA Employees Worry They’ll Be Shafted After Torture Report’s Release.”

The primary concern of those who participated in the detention program is that they could potentially be prosecuted for torturing suspected terrorists. It is unclear whether or not this could ever happen. CIA Director John Brennan seems to be unsure, and political leaders are not providing much information either. President Barack Obama made it clear when he came into office that he would not be prosecuting Bush administration officials for their role in the detainment program, but that was five years ago.

This kind of concern over the report might explain why the CIA tried to impede the investigation.

CIA tampered with Senate computers

Last week, Brennan admitted that the CIA had accessed computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee. CIA employees tampered with the investigation and deleted files from the computers.

According to an inquiry by the CIA’s inspector general, Five agency employees, two attorneys, and three information technology staff members gained access to emails written, sent, and received by members of the Senate committee.

This is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Watch Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) list the laws that the CIA may have broken:

That speech from Feinstein took place on March 11. Brennan did not actually admit that Feinstein was correct until July 31 after an internal inquiry.

Back in March, just a few hours after Feinstein’s speech, Brennan promptly dismissed any claim that the CIA had hacked Senate computers, saying “nothing could be further from the truth.” He claimed that such hacking was “beyond the scope of reason.” Brennan has had to walk back that statement in the past few days and has apologized to Feinstein.

Feinstein has recognized but not accepted the apology. Many Senators have expressed shock and anger at this violation of the separation of powers. Some, including Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) are even calling for Brennan’s resignation.

The only person who seems to be defending Brennan is the man who appointed him to his current position. At a recent press conference, Obama defended Brennan, claiming that he had “full confidence” in the CIA leader. Obama further stated:

Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the I.G. report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

Critics of Brennan still contend that he should be fired, not just for this offense but for prior offenses, including his involvement in a drone program that has killed American citizens. Brennan will come under even more fire when the committee’s report comes out. At that point, he will probably have to defend his agency against charges of torture and illegal spying.

What’s going on with the report now?

The report was sent to the Obama administration after Senate completion in April for a declassification review. During such a review, the administration and other federal agencies redact parts of the report they believe could compromise national security or the safety of CIA agents. Obama can redact anything from a single word to an entire section.

The executive branch completed this process on July 2 and submitted the reviewed report to the Senate. Feinstein has complained that there were “significant redactions” in the new version of the report. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not satisfied and has withheld release of the report until they discuss these redactions with the executive branch. Anonymous sources have told VICE News that the redacted sections of the report that discuss forms of torture, the living conditions of detainees, and the intelligence gained from torture.

Congress and Obama will have to spend a significant amount of time resolving these issues before releasing the report to the public, and the status of the CIA tampering is still up in the air. This is a controversy with a lot of angry players; but when the report is finally released it will certainly be illuminating.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Justin Norman via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release appeared first on Law Street.

Americans may soon get some information regarding CIA operations and intelligence procedures in the post 9-11 information gathering frenzy.

For the past five years, the Senate Intelligence Committee has been compiling a report totaling 6,300 pages, in which details of the Agency’s information-gathering tactics are assessed. The committee began looking into the Agency’s actions after 9/11. In 2012, the report was completed but remained confidential. And apparently, it doesn’t reflect too highly on the CIA. This Thursday, the Committee voted to declassify a 480-page summary of the report. Now, the White House has to agree by giving the final approval.

But declassification may not be as straightforward as many hope it to be. Before the findings are released, the CIA will have the opportunity to redact any statements which compromise national security. And rightfully so- the public doesn’t need to know every detail of what the Agency has been doing for the past decade. But the question has to be asked- if this document is so detrimental to the Agency, as Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein has claimed, will it stop at redacting only the parts of the document that are a threat to national security?

Another problem is the time it will take for this document to be declassified. Some suspect that because there are still trials for terrorists going on, groups like the Pentagon and FBI need to be called in to review the documents further to ensure information critical to those trials is not released. President Obama has supported declassifying the report, but his press secretary Jay Carney made it clear Obama doesn’t have a specific timeframe in mind, saying “he would expect that the actions that are necessary to declassify a document that be conducted in all due haste,” but refusing to give a specific timeframe in which they would happen.

But perhaps most problematic with the potential declassification of these documents is the fact the findings might not change anything. When Obama came into office in 2009, he stopped waterboarding. While it’s important the Senate has looked into these activities, what if releasing this information to the public is untimely? If the CIA has amended their policies to conform to Obama’s standards, is there any substantive benefit that could come from the public seeing how they messed up years ago?

I would argue yes, to an extent. From Edward Snowden to Chelsea Manning, the American public has been debating whether or not this kind of information should be provided in large quantities, and who should release the information in the first place. This committee report seems to be the best of both worlds: information released about government actions from a reliable source, in a way that won’t compromise national security. Americans will get more transparency, but not in a way that puts intelligence officers, or relations with other countries, on the line.

But at the same time, what does the American public gain from finding out about the ill actions of the CIA years ago? While there is probative value to understanding how past administrations have functioned, and this may allow citizens to stay cognizant of government officials (both elected and otherwise), it’s possible there will not be enough context provided in regards to this report. Without working background knowledge on the subject, a lot of people could look at snippets of information while missing the bigger picture.

So this declassification seems to be a step in the direction of transparency for American citizens, but a standstill for actual change in CIA policy. Ultimately, that will have to come from powers much higher up than the average American reading the report.

[White House] [CNN] [Huffington Post] [USA Today]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Declassify CIA Documents appeared first on Law Street.