The Next Hurrah

What's that thing nature abhors, again?

by Kagro X

Via Crooks and Liars, there's video available of Sy Hersh's appearance on CNN's Late Edition today, in which he discusses his latest article for The New Yorker.

The gist of Hersh's comments on CNN? That changing the "mission" with regard to Iran makes an attack more palatable to the American public. Instead of the failed smoking gun/mushroom cloud line...

Hersh: You can also sell counter-terror, it’s much more logical. You can say to the American people, we’re only hitting these people that are trying to kill our boys and the coalition forces and so that seems to be more sensible, The White House think s they can actually pitch this, this would actually work…

By all rights, though, the "administration" shouldn't be able to get away with this one, either. Iranian "meddling" in Iraq was as foreseeable and as obvious and likely an outcome as the post-invasion looting and a sustained anti-occupation insurgency, both of which the war cheerleaders claim to have been unable to predict.

Purely from a force protection perspective, isn't it a spectacular failing to have our troops falling prey to Iranian interference at this stage of the game? And pretending it's a surprise?

Just another day in Republican Bizarro World.

Banana Cream Pie

by emptywheel

Remember that banana scandal, where a high-powered Republican lawyer advised Chiquita to go on paying right wing terrorists even though it was a felony? Where said high-powered Republican lawyer alleged that Michael Chertoff--the guy now in charge of protecting our country--told him that he could go on funding terrorists so long as he also cooperated with Administration investigations of the terrorists? And where, just last week, DOJ said the high-powered Republican lawyer would not be charged?

Now, if I told you that there were weapons and cocaine involved, would you start looking for those acid washed jeans you put away a couple of decades ago and make an appointment for a Fawn Hall doo?

I asked him about the drugs-for-weapons exchange and the Chiquita freighters. “Look, for every kilo of drugs they put in, they had to pay 500,000 pesos. If you’re a drug trafficker, and I’m in control, you’d have to pay me. You have 20 kilos of coca, or you have some other cargo, and I own that region—you understand me? You pay me 500,000 pesos for me to ship those drugs as if they were mine, in the boats. You understand? Chiquita’s boats. That’s what the Bananero Block had going on here.” Lorenzo watched the AUC load drugs onto Chiquita boats; he knew about it because he was there when it happened. “Look, there were drugs, and there were times that they sent drugs for weapons. They sent the kilos of drugs, and from out there, those duros said we are going to send this many kilos of drugs and I need this many rifles,” Lorenzo said.

What Lorenzo described was a successful scheme that allowed the AUC to act as a contraband-freight consolidator. The AUC could ship their own cocaine on the company freighters or they could ship product belonging to someone else for a tax of roughly $250 per kilo, which works out to a quarter of the Colombian value of the brick. And the smuggling scheme was a direct side effect of gaining access to the port. Lorenzo insisted more than once that Chiquita employees knew about the cocaine: everyone in the chain was paid a percentage to keep quiet, including the freighter captains.

If Lorenzo--and the two other people in this story who describe drugs being transported on banana freighters--are telling the truth, then it suggests the cooperation between Chiquita and the AUC extended far beyond payments in exchange for security. And it sure makes me wonder about the passage in the proffer that refers to additional details revealed in December 2003.

On or about December 4, 2003, Individual B and Individual C provided the Board of Directors additional details concerning defendant CHIQUITA'S payments to the AUC that had not previously been disclosed to the Board. A member of defendant CHIQUITA'S Board of Directors responded to this additional information by stating: "I reiterate my strong opinion--stronger now--to sell our operations in Colombia.

Did the Board discover their little cocaine sideline before they stopped funding the terrorists?

In any case, go read the article. It's a great background for the longer history of US banana companies in Colombia. And a testament to how little things have changed--since the 1980s or the 1890s.

 

More Inauspiciousness: Your Rent-a-Sheikh Gets Killed

by emptywheel

As many of you have pointed out, the guy I called Bush's Rent-a-Thuggish-Sheikh last week died in a bomb blast today.

The leader of local Sunni tribes in Iraq who have joined American and Iraqi forces in fighting extremist Sunni militants was killed by a bomb today, Iraqi police officials said, potentially undermining what has become a new thrust of United States policy in the country.

[snip]

It could be a significant setback for American efforts to work more closely with local tribes against Al Qaeda. Recently the council had begun to reach out to other tribes to bring them into closer cooperation with the American and Iraqi government, and had met recently with southern Shia leaders.Authorities imposed a state of emergency in Anbar Province following his assassination, police officials said. At least one other person escorting him was also killed in the explosion.

So Bush's big debut for Magical September just got further clouded. First the oil compromise collapses on the eve of his presentation. And now the guy Bush was parading around last week as the symbol of great promise in Anbar just got blown to bits. But don't worry. I'm sure Bush won't ... um ... dwell on these depressing details.

Mark Lynch has more on the meaning of Risha's death, including the speculation that Risha was not killed by Al Qaeda.

If the UC Regents Are So Susceptible to Political Pressure...

by emptywheel

Then perhaps they could be persuaded to fire unitary laughingstock John Yoo?

Normally, I find it inappropriate to engage the David Horowitzes of the world on their McCarthyist ground. But if the UC system is comfortable rescinding an offer they've made to Edwin Chemerinsky, then it seems fair to ask them to fire the lawyer who has elicited--by far--the most controversy in recent years (and that's coming from someone who lives in Jeffrey Fieger's state)--John Yoo.

After all, Jack Goldsmith makes it pretty clear in his book. John Yoo's opinions--which served as the basis for the dismantling of significant parts of our Constitution--were, um, "flimsy." And that's coming from a fellow conservative.

Chemerinsky may be liberal, but he's not a "flimsy" liberal. You'd think a strong law school like Boalt Hall would be embarrassed about having Professor Flimsy Yoo floating around its halls; if they want to employ a lawyer who shredded the Constitution, they could at least look for one whose opinions were rigorous.

So perhaps the UC Regents, having set this precedent, might use the precedent to rid the UC system of its biggest embarrassment, Flimsy Yoo.

Banana Republic

by emptywheel

The Sentencing Memorandum the government filed in the Chiquita case reveals something rather interesting. Chiquita was an equal opportunity terrorist supporter. You see, from 1989 to 1997, Chiquita paid protection money to FARC and ELN, left wing terrorist groups. Then, after FARC and FLN were declared terrorist groups in 1997, Chiquita switched sides, paying protection money to right wing terrorist group AUC instead. Of course, Chiquita got in trouble because, in 2001, after the US declared AUC a terrorist organization, Chiquita kept right on paying their protection money, presumably having no other side to flip to. I guess it's nice not to be bound by ideology in your support of terrorist organizations.

In spite of funding the AUC long after Chiquita became aware they were breaking the law, the government is recommending that Chiquita be able to keep half of its profits from doing business under the protection of a terrorist organization. They're recommending a fine of half their profits, when the maximum fine was twice their profits for the period.

We knew that that was the government's recommendation for a fine. What is new, though, is that the government has decided not to indict the well-connected Republican lawyer Roderick Hills for recommending his clients engage in ongoing criminal behavior. Perhaps Michael Chertoff had something to say about that decision. You see, Hills alleged that Michael Chertoff, the guy who's in charge of our Homeland Security, okayed Chiquita's ongoing payments to right wing terrorists. The government denies those allegations in its Sentencing Memorandum.

The Department of Justice never authorized defendant Chiquita to continue under any circumstances the Company's payments to the AUC--not at the meeting on April 24, 2003, nor at any other point. To be sure, when first presented with this issue at the meeting on April 24th, Department of Justice officials acknowledged that the issue of continued payments was complicated. But this acknowledgment did not constitute an approval or authorization for defendant Chiquita to continue to break the law by paying a federally-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

But I guess they weren't confident enough in their own side of the story to take that to court.

And so it happens that another well-connected Republican with ties to funding terrorism gets off scot free.

Is There Any Indication This Isn't the Fault of OVP?

by emptywheel

Via Secrecy News, I see that DCI Michael Hayden is lecturing the press on its obligations in the GWOT.

The duty of a free press is to report the facts as they are found. By sticking to that principle, journalists accomplish a great deal in exposing al-Qa’ida and its adherents for what they are.

Just as they report on the terrorists, it’s the job of journalists to report on the how the war against terrorism is being fought. And when their spotlight is cast on intelligence activities, sound judgment and a thorough understanding of all the equities at play are critically important. Revelations of sources and methods—and an impulse to drag anything CIA does to the darkest corner of the room—can make it very difficult for us to do our vital work.

When our operations are exposed—legal, authorized operations overseen by Congress—it reduces the space and damages the tools we use to protect Americans. After the press reported how banking records on the international SWIFT network could be monitored, I read a claim that this leak—and I quote—“bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.”

I disagree. In a war that largely depends on our success in collecting intelligence on the enemy, publishing information on our sources and methods can be just as damaging as revelations of troop or ship movements were in the past. Now, the compromise to safety can be both immediate and lasting, extending far beyond specific individuals.

Hayden then goes on to cite two examples where leaks to the press compromised operations.

Some say there is no evidence that leaks of classified information have harmed national security. As CIA Director, I’m telling you there is, and they have. Let me give you just two examples:

• In one case, leaks provided ammunition for a government to prosecute and imprison one of our sources, whose family was also endangered. The revelations had an immediate, chilling effect on our ability to collect against a top-priority target.
• In another, a spate of media reports cost us several promising counterterrorism and counterproliferation assets. Sources not even involved in the exposed operation lost confidence that their relationship with us could be kept secret, and they stopped reporting.

Now, of all the leaks to the press of late, only two that I can think of could have compromised individual sources and "operations"--and if the latter pertains to counterproliferation, I'd say the possibilities are even fewer. There's the revelation that Pakistan had captured Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, Al Qaeda's IT guy. Pakistani officials claimed that the leaked capture had compromised a large operation--which may well have touched on both counterproliferation and counterterrorism.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

If we can believe the Pakistanis, then this is almost certainly one of the incidents Hayden refers to. But the leak came from Administration leakers trying to justify one of their orange alerts.

And then, of course, there's the outing of Valerie Wilson. Her work definitely touched on counterproliferation. Her exposure definitely required the CIA to pull back some operatives working under the Brewster Jennings cover. But it may well have led to either of the consequences Hayden cites--the arrest of assets tied to the cover, or the hesitation of others to work with us.

After all, if the US Vice President is willing to out intelligence secrets, what guarantee do others have that Cheney won't out assets as well?

Bush Administration Only Understands Its Own Propaganda

By DHinMI

Apparently the Bush administration only understands their own domestic propaganda:

President George W. Bush's homeland security adviser said on Sunday al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is "virtually impotent" and can do little more than send videotaped messages.

Top White House aide Fran Townsend said U.S. officials were studying bin Laden's new video tape for clues to his health or whereabouts, and whether there were any hidden meanings or messages.

But she said there was no sign of an imminent attack.

"This is a man on the run in a cave who is virtually impotent other than his ability to get these messages out," Townsend said on CNN's "Late Edition." "It is propaganda.

"Based on our experience, we have never seen bin Laden use a tape to trigger any operational activity."

Then why did Condi tell the networks not to air his tapes?:

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, this morning called a group of network executives to raise their awareness about national security concerns of airing pre-recorded, pre-taped messages from Osama bin Laden that could be a signal to terrorists to incite attacks.

It was a very collegial conversation. At best, Osama bin Laden's message is propaganda, calling on people to kill Americans. At worst, he could be issuing orders to his followers to initiate such attacks.

Townsend in right in one important respect: Bin Laden’s communiqués are propaganda.  But they’re propaganda that needs to be taken seriously, and our actions and our own efforts at shaping public opinion in the rest of the world need to be improved.  The terrorist’s credo of the propoganda of the deed is about sending a message.  The more dramatic the message AND the delivery, the more effective the terrorist will be.  As terrorism expert Brian Jenkins succinctly put it, "terrorism is theater."  Al Qaeda obviously understands this, and is adapting this dictum to the information age:

Anbar: Not a Success, and Irrelevant to the "Surge"

by DHinMI

Commander guy is making a big deal about the supposed "success" of the surge in Anbar Province.  Sure, he dropped by a film set remote military base in the vast desert that makes up most of Anbar, and tried to claim that the surge was connected to the apparent defeat of Al Qaeda in Anbar:

You see Sunnis who once fought side by side with al Qaeda against coalition troops now fighting side by side with coalition troops against al Qaeda. Anbar is a huge province. It was once written off as lost. It is now one of the safest places in Iraq. (Hooah.) Because of your hard work, because of your bravery and sacrifice, you are denying al Qaeda a safe haven from which to plot and plan and carry out attacks against the United States of America. What you're doing here is making this country safer, and I thank you for your hard work. (Hooah.)

The surge of operations that began in June is improving security throughout Iraq. The military successes are paving the way for the political reconciliation and economic progress the Iraqis need to transform their country...

Earlier today I met with some of the tribal sheiks here in Anbar. It was a really interesting meeting. And at the table were the leaders of the central government, as well. They told me that the kind of bottom-up progress that your efforts are bringing to Anbar is vital to the success and stability of a free Iraq.

Almost everything in this statement is a lie.

DNI McConnell: Not Fighting Them Over There, So We Can Wiretap You Here

by emptywheel

This is our Director of National Intelligence, talking about the threat of Al Qaeda growing stronger in an area nominally controlled by our ally Pakistan:

After the 31st of May we were in extremis because now we have significantly less capability. And meantime, the community, before I came back, had been working on a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorist threat to the homeland. And the key elements of the terrorist threat to the homeland, there were four key elements, a resilient determined adversary with senior leadership willing to die for the cause, requiring a place to train and develop, think of it as safe haven, they had discovered that in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now the Pakistani government is pushing and pressing and attempting to do something about it, but by and large they have areas of safe haven. So leadership that can adapt, safe haven, intermediate leadership, these are think of them as trainers, facilitators, operational control guys. And the fourth part is recruits. They have them, they've taken them. This area is referred to as the FATA, federally administered tribal areas, they have the recruits and now the objective is to get them into the United States for mass casualties to conduct terrorist operations to achieve mass casualties. All of those four parts have been carried out except the fourth. They have em, but they haven't been successful. One of the major tools for us to keep them out is the FISA program, a significant tool and we're going the wrong direction. [my emphasis]

This is the urgent new reason McConnell gave to Congress for refusing to allow the FISC to oversee the minimization procedures on wiretapping done in the United States.

Now, first of all, Al Qaeda didn't just "now" "discover" the tribal lands, though we may have when we let Bin Laden escape to them. Al Qaeda and the Taliban knew and used it, well before they retreated to it as their primary safe haven ... over five years ago.

More importantly, is anyone as concerned as I am that our Director of National Intelligence says, "one of the major tools for us to keep them out is the FISA program"? After all, this is a guy who oversees all aspects of intelligence, including human intelligence, satellite sigint (after all, there are oh so many fiber optic cables laid in the tribal lands), and covert operations. Not to mention data collection from international air travel, military intelligence, and financial operations. But DNI McConnell is relying on needle-in-a-haystack wiretapping to keep us safe?

And, while it's not McConnell's fault (it's Dick Cheney's), tell me how it makes you feel that our DNI is saying, of an ostensible ally, that, "Now the Pakistani government is pushing and pressing and attempting to do something about it, but by and large they have areas of safe haven." Because I sure have a vague memory of saying over and over that our first task in the war on terror is to get Pakistan right. Heck, the non-serious left and people like Richard Clarke have been saying, for even longer, that Pakistan and Afghanistan should have taken precedence over Iraq. But here our DNI is, telling us about this urgent everything-old-is-new-again threat in Pakistan, pinpointing the source of any terrorist threat to our country.

And he basically shrugs it off.

"It's entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false"

by emptywheel

cboldt linked to Wired's liveblog from the warrantless wiretap Appeals hearing that took place today in San Francisco. Go read it. It may make you cry. Repeatedly, the government lawyers appeal to arguments outside all human cognition to defend their wiretap program.

"Was a warrant obtained in this case?" Judge Pregerson asks.

"That gets into matters that were protected by state secrets," Garre replies.

Judge McKeown asks whether the government stands by President Bush's statements that purely-domestic communications, where both parties are in the United States, are not being monitored without warrants.

"Does the government stand behind that statement," McKeown asks.

Garre: "Yes, your honor."

But Garre says the government would not be willing to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect for the court record.

[snip]

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that the room is central to their case and that they don't know what is going on in that room," says Garre. "Something else could be going on in that room. Just to pick one, it could be FISA court surveillance in that room."

Not that he's saying that there is FISA court surveillance conducted in the secret room. Just that there could be. Who knows? Presumably, Garre does. But he's not saying.

[snip]

Al-Haramain Foundation attorneys, he points out, "think or believe or claim they were surveilled.

"It's entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false," he says.

They appear to have decided that the only means to defend these programs is to dissociate reality from any logical assertions, thereby preventing anyone from winning an argument in court. It was bad enough when Rove (or whoever) claimed that, as an empire, we create our own reality, pretending that if we asserted that the Iraq War was going well often enough, it might not matter anymore that it's not. But here, they're just refusing to allow anyone to make assertions about the reality in which they live.

Your world must remain entirely indescribable by words, solely so they can vacuum up your words into their spy system.