This Blog Supplements Chapter 4 of America in Peril

and my Blog dated April 10, 2008

(“Pentagon to Shut Down CIFA – Don’t Bet On It”)

10 August 2008

I wrote in my April 10^th Blog that the Pentagon might shut down its domestic spying agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) which was established by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s in early 2002.  CIFA originally only gathered and stored information on the domestic scene, but in late 2005 it was assigned to actually investigate certain crimes within the US, even if committed by civilians.  That big creep from only investigating military espionage was stretched further in December 2005 when the Pentagon tasked CIFA with actually assigning domestic spying to various agencies of the armed forces. 

CIFA, with its TALON database, became a hot potato when the public discovered that it contained raw and unverified information about people peacefully protesting White House policy.  The outrage and negative publicity hurt the Pentagon’s image.  Its first attempt to limiting damage was to ostensibly shut down TALON in 2007.  Later the Pentagon announced that it might close CIFA.  All of this is discussed more fully in my April 10th Blog.

Now the Pentagon has piled on more public deception.  On August 4^th it announced that CIFA had actually been shut down – “disestablished” in Pentagonese.  Now we can relax.  That nasty CIFA is gone.  Another stigma of the Rumsfeld era is expunged.  Yes, the military would be happy if we were so naïve.  But there is more to that August 4^th announcement.  Obviously meant to salve citizen hostility, it told how CIFA responsibilities will be carried out more efficiently by a newly-created Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center, overseen by the Defense Intelligence Agency.  That confusing mouthful merely indicates that the military will continue to spy on us here at home – it will be business as usual.

What about the purportedly defunct TALON database?  We should not idealistically accept that it was actually destroyed.  Those things just don’t happen in the Bush government.  It has certainly been given some secret code name that we will never hear about, and it will continue to support this new CIFA replacement.

Now CIFA and Talon have gone the way of  TIPS, TIA, MATRIX, and more, at least the titles.  But a concerned citizen and true patriot will not relax.  An old saying warns that the more things appear to change the less they actually do.  The military apparatus to spy on Americans – renamed, reshuffled, and reassigned – continues unabated.

Bob Aldridge

This Blog Supplements Chapter 9 of America in Peril

24 June 2008

On 12 June 2008 the US Supreme Court ruled that detainees had the habeas corpus right in US courts to challenge their imprisonment.  This potentially upsets all Bush administration plans for convicting prisoners at Guantanamo.  Before delving into that, however, it will be instructional to recap the events leading up to this critical ruling.

Boumediene v. Bush.  Lakhar Boumediene and five other Algerians were accused of plotting to blow up the US embassy in Sarajevo while working for charities in Bosnia in November 2001.  After the Supreme Court of Bosnian and Herzegovina found insufficient evidence to substantiate that charge and ordered them released, they were kidnapped by the Bosnian police as they left the courthouse, turned over to the US military, and ended up at Guantanamo.  This case includes almost three dozen defendants who are seeking habeas corpus rights.  It worked its way up to the US Supreme Court where certiorari was denied in April 2007.

Al Odah v. United States.  Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah and eleven other Kuwaiti nationals detained at Guantanamo had also sued for habeas corpus rights and had also unsuccessfully worked their way up through the courts.  Their case was denied certiorari at the same time as Boumediene.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in denying certiorari for the above cases.  However, two of the justices voting for denial said they would reconsider the case if the administration imposes other continuing injuries on the detainees.  Such continuing injuries came to light when Al Odah’s attorneys asked Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham to sign a declaration regarding irregularities he witnessed while working with Combat Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) at Guantanamo.  Abraham is a 26-year military intelligence veteran and California lawyer.  His June 2007 declaration pointed out that clerks and reporters preparing evidence for CSRT board members were inexperienced in both legal and intelligence fields.  They could not determine if the intelligence information given to them was complete.  Intelligence agencies supplied only what they chose and brooked no questions about possible missing exculpatory information.  Neither did the clerks and reporters have any context about what in the voluminous amount of information might be relevant and what was not.  Quality assurance checks were made by personnel with a similar lack of skills.  Abraham concluded:

What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence.  Statements allegedly made by percipient witnesses lacked detail.  Reports presented generalized statements in indirect and passive forms without stating the source of the information or providing a basis for establishing the reliability or the credibility of the source.  Statements of interrogations presented to the panel offered inferences from which we were expected to draw conclusions favoring a finding of “enemy combatant” … (Declaration of Stephen Abraham)

Abraham also described one CSRY board he sat on.  It was pressured to find the detainee an “enemy combatant.”  When the board failed to do so the members were interrogated and hassled.  The same detainee was then reviewed by another CSRT board which arrived at the administration’s desired decision.  Abraham was not asked to sit on another board.

Abraham’s declaration, the first evidence from inside the CSRT process itself, caused the Supreme Court to make the rare decision of reversing itself and granting certiorari to Boumediene (now combined with Al Odah).  Possibly 200 detainees at Guantanamo would be affected by this monumental case which was heard before the Court on 5 December 2007.  (An estimated 270 are still there.)

While waiting for the Boumediene decision, a related issue cropped up.  The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) allows appeal of CSRT decisions to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  The first case to be appealed under the MCA was Bismullah v. Gates which involved eight detainees.  In July 2007, perhaps influenced by Lt. Col. Abraham’s declaration which also addressed the Bismullah case, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously ordered the government to provide all records on Guantanamo detainees when they challenge their detention, not just the clerk’s and reporter’s summaries used during the tribunal proceedings.  That of course would reveal the incompetence and prejudice Lt. Col. Abraham described in his declaration.

The Bush administration claimed assembling all the records is impossible.  There was even discussion on convening new combat status review tribunals rather than turn the records over to the court.  An appeal to the entire circuit court for reconsideration resulted in an early February 2008 decision upholding the three-judge panel.  Then the Bush administration on February 14^th filed a Supreme Court case, Gates v. Bismullah, asking the Court to review the circuit court’s demand because compliance would create a “serious threat to national security…” (Greenhouse)

All of this was rendered moot on 12 June 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus extends to detainees at Guantanamo.  The opinion of the court read in part:

… Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the constitution.” … To hold the political branches have the power to switch the constitution on or off at will … would permit a striking anomaly in our tripartite system of government, leading to a regime in which Congress and the President, not this court, say “what the law is.”

These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question in the cases now before us, for the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers.  The test for determining the scope of this provision must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain. (Boumediene v. Bush)

Now detainees at Guantanamo can challenge the legality of their incarceration, and habeas reviews are not restricted to just the D.C. Circuit.  Lawyers can file petitions one-by-one for specific prisoners.  Unlike the CSRT process, during habeas hearings the burden will be on the administration to present evidence that justifies holding the defendant and to describe the treatment he has received.  The administration will not get off with just defending a CSRT board decision.  Judges, not the president, will decide on remedies and can even order release of the prisoner.

Now the Bush administration wants to rewrite all the evidence against Guantanamo detainees – clean it up, so to speak.  Remember, this is the evidence that has kept many men locked up under inhumane conditions for over six years.  This is the evidence the administration has supported for all that time.  It is the evidence CSRT boards relied on to keep people incarcerated indefinitely.  Now that federal judges will see it the administration wants to clean it up.  Obviously the administration’s case, as the old saying goes, won’t hold up in court, at least not a legitimate court.  In the long run, most prisoners may be repatriated to their native country rather than the Bush administration having to face embarrassing habeas procedures.

A Surprise from the D.C. Circuit.

I’ll close this blog with another pleasant surprise.  Just 11 days after the Supreme Court decision on Boumediene, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for the first time declared invalid a CSRT board decision that a detainee is an enemy combatant.  Huzaifa Parhat has been a prisoner at Guantanamo for over six years.  When the MCA provided for appeal of CSRT decisions, Parhat took his case to the D.C. Circuit.  On June 23^rd a three-judge panel reversed the CSRT decision and ordered Parhat released or given a new tribunal hearing “consistent with the court’s opinion.” (Taylor)  At least 17 detainees, possibly more, will be affected by this ruling.  The full text of the court’s opinion is being reviewed for secret information and is not available at the time of this writing but there seems to be some crumbling of the outlandish extra-legal activities taking place at Guantanamo.

Bob Aldridge

References.

Abraham, Stephen; “Declaration of Stephen Abraham,” 15 June 2007.

Boumediene v. Bush; “Opinion of the Court,” Supreme Court of the United States, 12 June 2008.

Cohn, Marjorie; “Supreme Court Checks and Balances in Boumediene,” Jurist, 16 June 2008.

Greenhouse, Lind a; “Bush Appeals to Justices on detainee Case,” The New York Times, 15 February 2008.

Taylor, Marisa; In a First, Court Says Military Erred in a Guantanamo case,” McClatchy Washington Bureau, 23 June 2008.

This blog supplements Chapter 1 of America in Peril

15 June 2008

In Chapter 1 of America in Peril I summarized the neoconservative agenda and how a “War on Terror” was devised to fulfill that agenda. What I didn’t describe was a major foreign-policy objective of that agenda — occupying Iraq which sits atop a huge petroleum reserve.

After 9/11, and after toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush started calling for regime change in Iraq. His purported justification was twofold: (1) Iraq is a security threat to the United States and (2) Iraq supports international terrorists. In June 2002 he told West Point graduates: “If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.” (Puzzanghera) In September he declared: “The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.” (Carnegie Endowment Proliferation Brief) Then Bush released his National Security Strategy of preemptive force. Secret “evidence” persuaded Congress in October to conditionally authorize war powers.

In November the UN Security Council unanimously resolved that Iraq must disarm. New weapons inspections yielded inconclusive results. In early 2003 the White House tried for a second UN resolution that would authorize force against Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell provided “evidence” supposedly supporting US claims. But when it was evident the second resolution would fail, Bush dropped the issue and decided to act unilaterally. His rationale was that going ahead with no resolution was more palatable to domestic and international opinion than with a failed one. On 20 March 2003 “Shock and Awe” signaled the invasion of Iraq.

Now I will describe the fiction that led us to this point.

Was Iraq a Threat to Security?

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are classified as nuclear, chemical, and biological. In the 1980s Saddam did use chemical weapons against Iranians and his own Kurdish people. After Desert Storm Iraq had to destroy all WMDs and UN weapons inspectors found no trace of any after that.

Yet Bush insisted in his October 2002 speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center that there is “clear evidence of peril” and that “we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” (Mackay) He sent David Kay to Iraq with a $900-million budget and hundreds of inspectors to find those elusive WMDs. Kay eventually gave up, saying he didn’t think they existed.

Also in October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet provided the Senate a declassified version of CIA estimates on Iraq’s weapons along with a letter summarizing the report. The official CIA opinion was that Saddam would not strike first with chemical or biological weapons and is not a security threat on that score. But the CIA felt if he is attacked, he would use them if he had them. Regarding nuclear weapons, the CIA assessed Saddam’s program as merely one of intention. According to the CIA Iraq was not an imminent threat and there was no reason to go to war.

Was Iraq Connected to the 9/11 Attacks?

To justify a war on these grounds, Iraq had to be connected to the terrorists who planned and carried out an attack on America. White House officials consistently harped on failed liaisons between Iraq and Al Qaida during the 1990s, but could find no evidence of a successful alliance. Investigative reporter Neil Mackay wrote: “Try as it might, the UK has been unable to produce any evidence clearly linking Saddam to bin Laden, and the French have positively ruled out any connection.” France’s leading terrorist investigative magistrate, with full access to France’s intelligence material, said: “We have not found any link between Al Qaida and Iraq. Not a trace.” Mackay added that “the secular nature of Saddam’s regime deters him from getting into bed with the likes of bin Laden. It also makes cozying up to Saddam anathema to the fundamentalists of Al Qaida.” (Mackay)

During Powell’s infamous UN speech, he claimed an Al Qaida collaborator named Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi had his headquarters in Iraq. Zarqawi had overseen a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan specializing in poisons. When the Taliban was ousted, Zarqawi established a poison and explosive training program at a camp run by Ansar al-Islam in northeastern Iraq. But this was in the autonomous Kurdish territory where Saddam had no control — it was in the northern no-fly zone patrolled by the US.

After the Ansar group’s camp was captured by US forces it was found they had “no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad” and was not “a serious threat beyond its mountain borders.” (Fleishman) It was organized for jihad against a rival Kurdish group. Powell said Zarqawi went to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical reasons and started a base of operations there to coordinate movement of money, people, and supplies throughout Iraq. However, senior US officials said that although the Iraqi government was aware of that activity it did not operate, control or sponsor it. It was analogous to terrorist activity in America.

Invading Iraq Was a Crime.

The UN Charter states: “All Members shall refrain … from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,…” War is outlawed but there are exceptions for self-defense. But if a threat is fabricated, use of force constitutes an international crime. Bush had tried for another UN resolution to authorize force because no resolution so far had done that. When that failed, he twisted the language of past resolutions. He invoked Security Council Resolutions 678 (1990) and 687 (1991), claiming they provided “clear authorization from the Security Council to use force to disarm Iraq.” (Washington File) But, Resolution 678 authorized force only to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

Resolution 687, among other things, calls for Iraq to eliminate all WMDs, submit to UN inspections, and not support terrorism. A formal cease fire took effect upon “official notification by Iraq” of its “acceptance of the provisions above.” Whether in good faith or not, Iraq has accepted and has declared many times that it possesses no WMDs and harbors no terrorists. Bush invaded Iraq during a UN-mandated cease fire and thus committed an international crime. The Security Council is the decision maker, not the White House.

The Great Sham – Deception of Congress.

A high-level intelligence official said analysts at the working level “are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books.” Over a dozen others agreed. All of them granted that Saddam would eventually have to be dealt with, possibly with military action, but maintained “the US government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush’s urgent call to arms.” (Strobel, Landay, and Walcott)

Section 3 of Public Law 107-243 passed by Congress on 16 October 2002 spelled out what authorized use of US armed forces against Iraq. Subsection (b)(1) says diplomacy and working with the UN must be certified as insufficient to protect our national security. I have already shown how Bush illegally circumvented the UN.

Section (b)(2) provides for “necessary actions” to be taken against “international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” (boldface added) That means the US can attack any international terrorist organization, but to attack a nation like Iraq that nation had to have been involved in the 9/11 attack.

Bush had to certify to Congress in the exact words of those subsections in order to justify using the war powers Congress authorized. That is exactly what he did on 18 March 2003. The lie was soon exposed. On 16 June 2004 the 9/11 Commission released a preliminary staff report stating: “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” (Scheer) Thomas H. Keen, hand-picked by Bush to chair that Commission, said the commission’s staff found “no credible evidence that we can discover, after a long investigation, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in any way part of the attack on the United States.” (Pincus and Milbank) Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said “the panel had been unable to document any ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and the terror network – against the United States or any other target … of any collaborative relationship – period.” (Shenon and Stevenson)

Bush retorted : “This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaida. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida.” (Pincus and Milbank) White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett added that Bush never made an explicit link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Remember however, Bush certified to that exact connection in his letter to Congress to justify use of military force. One journalist commented “It’s the Big Lie technique – never flinch in the face of truth.” (Scheer) Andrew Kohut, director of the June Pew Research poll, said Bush will keep Iraq and 9/11 tied together: “So many people believe it because he’s saying it. Bush’s hanging tough on this gives him the credibility he has.” (Milbank)

On 5 June 2008 the Senate Intelligence Committee, after five years of investigation, released its report on the deception used to invade Iraq. Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV summed it up: “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when, in reality, it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent. Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.” (Miller)

Bob Aldridge

For a more detailed treatment of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq see my research paper on this subject at http://www.plrc.org/docs/030503.pdf

References.

Carnegie Endowment Proliferation Brief, “Origins of Regime Change in Iraq,” 19 March 2003.

Mackay, Neil; “Why the CIA Thinks Bush is Wrong,” Sunday Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), 13 October 2002.

Milbank, Dana; “9/11 Panel’s Findings vault Bush Credibility To Campaign Forefront,” Washington Post, 20 June 2004.

Miller, Greg; “Senate Intelligence Committee Rebukes Bush, Cheney on Prewar Claims,” Los Angels Times, 6 June 2008.

Pincus, Walter and Milbank, Dana; “Bush Reasserts Hussein-Al Qaida Link,” Washington Post, 17 June 2004.

Puzzanghera, Jim; “Key Advisers See Iraq War as Test Case,” San Jose (CA) Mercury News, 19 March 2003.

Scheer, Robert; “Truth About Iraq Finally Has Its Pants On,” Los Angeles Times, 22 June 2004.

Shenon, Philip and Stevenson, Richard W.; “Leaders of 9/11 Panel Ask Cheney for Reports,” The New York Times, 19 June 2004.

Strobel, Warren P., Landay, Jonathan S., and Walcott, John; “Bush Pushes for First Strike on Iraq: Evidence Not So Solid, Some Officials Say,” San Jose (CA) Mercury News, 8 October 2002.

Washington File, “Excerpt: Bush Has Legal Authority To Use Force In Iraq, Advisor Says,” US State Department International Information Programs, 21 March 2003. Search at http://usinfo.state.gov/egi-bin/washfile/

31 May 2008

We have become dependent on the media for information on what takes place in the world. The morning paper and the “10 o’clock news” provide daily updates on domestic and foreign affairs. But when news reporting becomes skewed, or biased, or outright misrepresented it becomes a serious detriment to informed democratic processes. When that detriment is promoted by our own government it is not only criminal, but treasonous. That is why Congress since 1951 has attached to every appropriations bill a statement saying, “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.” That statement forbids misrepresenting news as independently obtained when it is secretly prepared or financed by a government agency. In Chapter 7 of America in Peril I discussed pre-packaged news stories and embedded media pundits as criminal violations of that statute. On 20 April 2008 The New York Times revealed more — how the Pentagon provides military news analysts to deceive the people. As the faces and names of these analysts become familiar, they are accepted by viewers as providing professionally researched opinions. In reality they are part of “an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.” (Barstow)

PR experts noted in 2002 that news analysts receive more air time than regular media reporters. Culturing retired military officers to analyze the news was devised by The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq to prepare the public for regime change in Baghdad. Established with White House blessings in 2002, this Committee deplored public perception of the Vietnam war being a military defeat. The war was lost, it declared, “not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped.” The Committee outlined a new approach to psychological operations that makes extensive use of the media to “strengthen our national will to victory” in Iraq. (Barstow)

Viewers get used to these former military officers and feel comfortable with their interpretations of events. They accept those interpretations as their own. In the months before invading Iraq the administration was propagating the notion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had connections with Al Qaida. The Pentagon focused its PR efforts on military analysts who would bolster the administration’s story. White House officials liked the idea and oversaw the selection of candidates. Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary at the time, had the final sign-off on these “reliable friends who could be counted on ‘to carry our water’ on the television and cable networks.” (Galloway)

These selected analysts – “surrogates,” as they are called — receive special information separate from the regular press offices. They are briefed by elite teams from the White House, the State and Justice Departments, and the Pentagon. Some are given access to secret intelligence. These briefings provided “talking points” which are taken to the airways as “message force multipliers” of the administration’s position. The analysts who attend these briefings cannot quote briefing specialists or even identify the briefings. They must transform all material into their own words so it sounds like an independent judgment.

In his new memoir, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed the mass deception leading to the Iraq war. He said “some of the administration’s most senior officials regularly lied to the public” and “managed the debate leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq in a way that ‘almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.’” (Gerstenzang and Schmitt) McClellan pointed out that “the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated ‘public propaganda campaign’ led by President Bush and aimed at ‘manipulating sources of public opinion.’” (Shear) Although the White House commiserated over how Scott had been so loyal and this was so shocking, it made no official comment on the accusations themselves.

During the summer of 2003 the Iraqi insurgency gained momentum. News stories coming from Baghdad told of widespread mayhem. This was not what the Bush administration wanted the public to hear. The Pentagon sent out an order to “re-energize surrogates and message force multipliers.” In September 2003 four embedded Pentagon analysts were given a government-sponsored tour of Iraq which was hyped as observing “the real situation on the ground in Iraq” — a situation described years later by more objective observers as deteriorating. The analysts were shown carefully selected locations and were briefed on how the insurgents themselves were “degraded, isolated, and on the run,” and “would be ‘down to a few numbers’ within months.” (Barstow) This excursion proved so successful for the administration that more trips followed to Baghdad, Afghanistan, and the US Central Command headquarters at Tampa, Florida. Embedded military analysts have been used to mollify any bad news, from military deaths in Iraq to the April 2006 “Generals Revolt” against Rumsfeld. Now, most certainly, they are prepped to mitigate Scott McClellan’s memoir and interviews.

Military analysts were also mobilized when Amnesty International depicted Guantanamo as “the gulag of modern times.” (Barstow) Evidence of abuse and torture made public during the summer of 2005 snapped the administration’s “perception management” teams to action. They flew a group of retired officers to Cuba where they received a meticulously orchestrated tour of the prison. That June 24^th junket was the first of six to America’s offshore “gulag” to counter domestic and international perception of Guantanamo as the epitome of White House obsessions with torture.

Over the years, there have been some 75 military officers selected as expert news analysts. Most were/are affiliated with some 150 major and smaller military contractors as lobbyists or consultants, executives or board members. Of course these contractors have a vested interest in the war. Clandestine briefings, access to privileged material, and Middle East junkets all provide information and opportunities that enhance the analysts’ work for big business. Many of these “surrogates” are even seeking Pentagon contracts. Some say they do notify the network and recluse themselves when conflicts of interests crop up, but of course the public understands none of these machinations between government and industry and public communication. Analysts won’t express doubts or criticize the war, and they won’t reveal the workings of this conspiracy. Doing so would immediately lead to exclusion from valuable information. It could also lead to cancellation of contracts they have already negotiated. Rumsfeld said in a 2005 memo: “This trusted core group will be more than willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter.” (Galloway)

Pentagon-cultured military analysts appear on all the major broadcast and cable networks. Some appear on radio talk shows or have articles published in newspapers, magazines, and websites. Receiving compensation from media networks while at the same time being indoctrinated by the administration and accepting taxpayer-paid trips raises questions regarding ethics and the authenticity of their analyses. Even more serious, the secret nature of this program smacks of covert propaganda against the American public by its own government, an activity that is criminalized by US statutes.

According to Stars & Stripes, “The Defense Department has temporarily stopped feeding information to retired military officers pending review of the issue, said Robert Hastings, principle deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.” (Schogol, emphasis added)

Bob Aldridge

References.

Barstow, David; “Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” The New York Times, 20 April 2008.

Galloway, Joseph L.; “Famed War Reporter Calls Pentagon/Media ‘Propaganda’ Program Illegal,” Editor & Publisher, 15 May 2008.

Gerstenzang, James and Richard B. Schmitt; “Political World Abuz over Scott McClellan’s Tell-All Book,” Los Angeles Times, 29 May 2008.

Schogol, Jeff; “Pentagon Halts Feeding of Information to Retired Officers While Issue is Reviewed,” Stars &Stripes, 27 April 2008.

Shear, Michael D.; “Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq,” Washington Post, 28 May 2008.

18 May 2008

The Bush administration’s enchantment with people-tracking data bases continues unabated while citizen opposition lolls in passivity. The Joint Regional Information Exchange System (JRIES) has information spread across 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 US territories, and 50 major cities but is so digitally interconnected that it can be accessed in its entirety with a single query. Federal and state agencies feed into JRIES as do commercial entities such as Entersect (claiming 12 billion records on 98% of Americans); Accurint, ChoicePoint, and LexisNexis (with billions of records on homes, cars, phone numbers, and more); LocatePlus (cell phone and unlisted phone numbers); and ClaimSearch (insurance, casualty, and property claims). Certain authorized JRIES users can interact with Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an FBI secret level repository, and through the FBI to top secret CIA data banks. There are also links to the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon’s Northern Command.

The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) already has digital fingerprints and criminal records on 55 million people convicted of everything from a misdemeanor to a capital crime. Fingerprint comparison requests from 900,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers in the US and Canada reach 100,000 a day. The CJIS interacts with the Terrorist Screening Center’s database and the FBI’s National Crime Information Center master database on criminals, fugitives, and terrorists.

In addition the Pentagon has collected fingerprints, iris scans, and facial photographs of 1.5 million Iraqis and Afghans, as well as DNA from detainees. The Department of Homeland Security uses iris scans at some airports and has millions of fingerprint sets collected from US and foreign travelers, overseas baby adoptions, and visa/passport applications.

The administration wants more. The FBI has a $1-billion program called “Next Generation Identification” to compile a spectrum of biometric data – fingerprints, palm patterns, iris images, and facial patterns. The goal is to “fuse” all these biometric identifiers by 2013. Other projects feed into this program. Here are some highlights.

Fingerprints and Palm Patterns. The original plan for a program called US-VISIT was to collect fingerprint and facial identification on all travelers entering and exiting the US. The exit part was dropped in 2006 for lack of funds. Then in April 2008 the Department of Homeland Security asked airlines to collect fingerprints of all foreigners leaving the country by air. The airlines, of course, balked because, they say, fingerprinting 33 million people anually will cost $230-million while resulting in delayed departures and missed connections globally. DHS secretary Michael Chertoff said, “We have to decide who is going to win this fight. Is it going to be the airline industry, or is it going to be the people who believe we should know who leaves the country by air?” (Spencer S. Hsu and Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, 22 April 2008) Has anyone seen the poll that shows that’s what people believe?

DHS has another plan in the works. A program called “Server in the Sky” will allow sharing fingerprint databases among Canada, Australia, the UK, and the US. Chertoff was asked by the Canadian media if sharing such personal data among four countries wasn’t a scary thing. He replied that “a fingerprint was hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world …” Jennifer Stoddart, responsible for Canada’s privacy issues, retorted, “Fingerprints constitute extremely personal information for which there is clearly a high expectation of privacy.” DHS’s own Privacy Impact Statement classifies “biometric identifiers (e.g. fingerprints)” as “personally identifiable information.” (Peter Swire, PrisonPlanet.com, 17 April 2008)

A fingerprint database shared throughout the world will soon become the biggest identity theft of all. Yet the secretary of homeland security doesn’t believe fingerprints should be guarded because, as he told the Canadian media, it is difficult to fake a fingerprint. Not so says Security expert Bruce Schneier, who purchased a technique on the internet for $10 that fooled eleven commercially-available fingerprint identification systems. Yes, there is definitely reason to worry.

Palm print recognition uses many of the same techniques as with fingerprints. The ridges and valleys of the skin form distinctive patterns. More than 30% of the prints lifted at crime scenes are of palms, not fingers. For that reason the FBI’s “Next Generation Identification” initiative has the objective of setting up an integrated National Palm Print Service.

Iris Scans and Facial Patterns. A patent on iris scan technology expired in 2006 and corporations jumped on board to reap the benefits. Ostensibly to identify sex offenders, runaways, kidnapped children, and lost Alzheimer’s patients; over 2,100 sheriffs departments in 27 states are storing infrared digital photographs of people’s eyes. In addition, at least 10 metropolitan police agencies are scanning the irises of criminals for future identification. Infrared cameras can detect 235 unique details in the iris compared to 70 for fingerprints. Iris scans can differentiate between right and left eyes and between twins.

A new 3-dimensional face recognition technology is claimed to be more accurate than 2D. It recognizes faces when turned 90 degrees from the camera (only 35 degrees permissible for 2D) and it focuses on features where skin and bone are most prominent — such as eye socket curvature and distance between eyes; shape of nose, chin, and ears; and length and shape of jaw. Scars, moles, and other blemishes are also noted.

West Virginia University’s Center for Identification Technology Research is working with the FBI to capture covert iris images from 15 feet away and facial features from 200 yards. Retica Systems is scheduled to deliver test equipment to the Pentagon next year to scan a crowd and store many iris images simultaneously.

A Sweeping New DNA Database.   DNA is a much more comprehensive biometric identifier than fingerprints and iris scans, or palm impressions and facial features. It contains volumes of sensitive genetic and medical information. Privacy issues are far more seriously threatened by unauthorized and inappropriate use of DNA.

Congress passed the DNA Identification Act of 1994 to create the National DNA Index System (NDIS) for people convicted of violent felonies. In 2004 that was amended to include people convicted of any felony, and allows states to contribute DNA samples of people charged or convicted of any crime. When the state contributions are added the database is called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). Another modification in 2006 allows states to provide DNA of anyone arrested, even if they are not charged. Today there are 13 states contributing to CODIS (Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia). Today CODIS is the world’s largest DNA databank with some 5.9 million samples.

It will grow. Attached to the Violence Against Women Act was a provision that allows federal authorities to collect DNA samples from those arrested, but not yet convicted, of any federal crime (previously only states could do this), and from immigrants detained for any reason. This will add approximately 1.2 million samples a year to CODIS. Some 140,000 of those will come from people arrested for federal crimes but the vast majority will be from immigrants, legal or illegal, whether detained for a crime or held for an administrative violation. Federal statutes require that people’s DNA be removed from the database if not convicted, but the federal rule for administrating the new law requires that a person must request removal. With the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy and deception it would be naïve to expect removal even if one happens to know enough to request it.

There is more. In late April 2008 President Bush signed into law The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007. Don’t be misled by that misleading title. What this law does is allow the federal government to collect DNA from every newborn baby in the US. Under the pretext of preparing for some “public health emergency” the new law says the government will “continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening” and “maintain a central clearinghouse of current information on newborn screening … ensuring that the clearinghouse is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly.” (Steve Watson, Infowars.net, 2 May 2008) The bill also allows this DNA to be used for genetic experiments and tests. What it doesn’t say is that the government will have a complete DNA databank on everyone born after 2008.

It is clear that all of this personal identity collection compounds already significant privacy issues, enhances identity theft, and moves the US inexorably toward a total surveillance society.

Bob Aldridge

24 April 2008

The Director of National Intelligence in May 2007 announced the availability of America’s most powerful spy satellites for use domestically against the war on terror. Law enforcement officials at all levels of government will have access to super precision data on selected targets within the US from Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT), Imaging Intelligence (IMINT), and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) spacecraft. Ostensibly this is to enhance border and seaport security, get information on critical infrastructure, monitor suspected people, survey suspicious events, detect explosives and other substances, and manage natural disasters. Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff set up the National Applications Office (NAO) to open on October 1^st, the beginning of fiscal year 2008, to handle requests for spy satellite data. That’s as far as Chapter 3 of America in Peril went. But there is now more to the story.

The NAO didn’t open in October 2007. A House Homeland Security Committee letter dated 26 September 2007 pointed out how at least four programs – Secure Flight, CAPPS II, ADVISE, and MATRIX – were either cancelled or suspended because they violated privacy rules. (See Chapters 2 & 3 of America in Peril for a description of these programs) The letter continued: “We do not want the Department [of Homeland Security] to repeat the same mistakes with this program.” Then the letter said that given “the gravity and civil liberties issues in play with the NAO,” the committee would request the joint House-Senate Conference Committee to withhold funding for NAO until the legal safeguards and operating procedures were received, reviewed, and assessed.

Several months were needed to draw up the required documents. They were then presented to Congress in early spring of 2008. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson sent a reply to Chertoff on April 8^th, saying the briefings “did not allay any of our concerns…. Should you proceed with the [program] without addressing our concerns, we will take appropriate steps to discontinue it.” (Siobhan Gorman, The Wall Street Journal, 8 April 2008) Chertoff said he would send additional documents that week.

Those documents were submitted on April 10^th but legislators quickly branded them inadequate. Representative Jane Harman, citing the domestic spying by NSA, said: “I have had firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration. I won’t make the same mistake… I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program.” Chairman Thompson said what was submitted was “a good start,” and added: “We still don’t know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided.” (Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, 12 April 2008)

Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner called the demands unwarranted because the “legal framework that governs the National Applications Office … is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all U.S. laws.” (Hsu, op. cit.) Well, yes. But recall that is what was supposed to be guiding the NSA regarding domestic spying.

That is the standoff as of this date. I will put future developments in a subsequent blog.

Bob Aldridge.

18 April 2008

Section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 effectively repealed the Posse Comitatus Act which, with few exceptions, forbids the military from performing law enforcement within the US. This was done by expanding the Insurrection Act to allow employment of federalized National Guard troops and/or the Armed Forces during “natural disaster, epidemic or serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any state or possession of the United States, the president determines that domestic violence has occurred,” to an extent justifying federal intervention. (Emphasis added) The Insurrection Act was also revised to add “or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws” in defining who federal authorities can order to disburse. Previously only “insurgents” could be so ordered. This of course could easily be stretched to cover legitimate peaceful protesters.

Then some good news, or so it seemed at first glance. Section 1068 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 repealed those changes. Posse Comitatus is revived and only “insurgents” can be ordered to disburse by federal officials. But as the bloggers warned, watch the signing statement. Sure enough, the president issued one when he signed that Act on 28 January 2008. It read in part:

Provisions of the Act … purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations …. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

Judging from how the executive branch wields its perceived “constitutional authority” during the normal administration of government, one can easily imagine how that signing statement would play out during the turmoil and panic of a national emergency. Nothing has altered the president’s plan for continuity of government during such an emergency.

Continuity of government was spelled out in a dual executive order on 9 May 2007 — National Security Presidential Directive No. 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 20 (NSPD-51/HSPD-20). This order effectively suspends the Constitution and confers extraordinary powers on the President and Vice-President. Lip service is given to guaranteeing the checks and balances among the three branches of government but the overriding theme is that the executive branch is paramount.

Declaring national emergencies is not new. “National Emergency Powers,” a November 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, recalled that “delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis…. Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the President may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and in a variety of ways control the lives of United States citizens.”

The operative phrase is “delegations or grants of power.” The Constitution and Congress never intended a dictatorship. The CRS report also explained the limits of that power:

With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion.

In 1976 Congress passed The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) to restrict arbitrary declarations of emergencies by executive order. The Act mandated reporting the emergency declaration and subsequent updates to Congress, including the rules & regulations issued during the emergency.

Section 1079 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act (which reversed the martial law provisions) requires the head of any intelligence agency or department to respond within 45 days to a congressional request for information. However, Bush’s signing statement (which takes specific exception to Section 1079) along with NSPD-51/HSPD-20 leaves considerable doubt about compliance with any reporting requirements. Section 20 of that executive order reads very similar to his signing statements: “This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers …” In addition, nothing in NSPD-51/HSPD-20 provides for any notification to Congress.

The American public does not know the full scope of NSPD-51/HSPD-20, and neither does Congress. All except one of the annexes to that directive are classified. When Congressman Peter DeFazio asked to see the secret annexes, a request made and honored numerous times, he was denied. DeFazio said: “We’re talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America. I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.”

The point is that we should not be complacent because certain martial law provisions have been rescinded. The thinking behind those provisions lives on, and the planning for continuity of government after another “terrorist attack” remains the same. America is still very much in peril.

Bob Aldridge

10 April 2008

The New York Times reported in April 2008 that the Pentagon might close its domestic spying agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) – a program which has triggered public and congressional outrage over spying on Americans when anti-war protestors were found in its terrorist database. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2007 started a complete review of all Pentagon intelligence-gathering programs. The resulting report recommended that CIFA be shut down and many of its activities transferred to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It is not publicly known what activities would continue under DIA, if there would be tighter restrictions on domestic spying by the Pentagon, or if this is merely another shell game for public relations purposes. In fact, according to the report, closing CIFA would strengthen counterintelligence operations. (Counterintelligence, also called counterespionage, is the function of detecting espionage activities.)

Traditionally, the military has focused on “technical means” of intelligence gathering; using electronics, satellites, and other technologies to support military commanders. But since 9/11 the Pentagon has increasingly strayed into collecting “human intelligence” using spies, covert operations, prisoner interrogation, and the like. A February 2002 Defense Department Directive created CIFA to “develop and manage DOD counterintelligence programs and functions that support the protection of the Department … as well as to detect and neutralize espionage against the Department.” That order mandated two functions for CIFA: (1) to be the central point for collection, evaluation, and analysis of all DOD counterintelligence information although CIFA, itself, does not actually gather information; and (2) to seek and prevent espionage activities which target the Defense Department.

That was CIFA’s mission in 2002 and 2003. Then it began to creep. In August 2003, then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz ordered CIFA to maintain a domestic law-enforcement database of information on possible terrorist threats directed against the Pentagon called Threat And Local Observation Notice (TALON). Into that would go everything considered a threat, no matter how remote that threat may seem or who reported it. CIFA was now collecting raw and unverified information on US citizens – even those exercising their right to free speech – and this dubious information is being used by the FBI and local law enforcement agencies.

Things got worse. A late 2005 Washington Post article read: “The White House is considering expanding the power of a little-known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity … from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts … to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage, or even [civilian] economic espionage.” That’s a big creep from a mission that originally forbade any law enforcement except in regard to military espionage.

Public outrage flared when a four-page Pentagon memo entitled “Review of the TALON Reporting System” indicated there were some 13,000 entries at that time including 2,821 reports on America citizens. The memo said “an examination of the system led to deletion of 1,131 reports involving Americans, 186 of which dealt with ‘anti-military protests or demonstrations in the US.’ The Pentagon claimed less than 2% of the 13,000 entries shouldn’t have been there. That leaves 12,740 “suspicious incidents” which are supposedly legitimate. If there is that much evidence of terrorism in America we are in big trouble. Our jails should be bulging.

To further fuel public fury, a secret briefing paper obtained by NBC showed the military to be collecting dissidents’ names and vehicle license numbers, and otherwise monitoring their activities. It stated that “we have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the internet,” but no “significant connection” between incidents, such as “recurring instigators at protests” or “vehicle descriptions.” All of which confirms CIFA monitors who attend protests, the vehicles they drive, and what they do on the internet.

In December 2005 the Pentagon tasked CIFA with assigning domestic cases to the counterintelligence units of the military services that have over 4,000 trained investigators at home and abroad. That goes way beyond CIFA’s previous mission to only collect and process information from those units. CIFA now assigns domestic-spying to the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Newsweek in April 2006 revealed a possible merger of CIFA with the Defense Security Service which investigates the security arrangements of defense contractors and has millions of classified background checks on defense-contractor employees. Such a merger would weaken the safeguards on some 4.5 million employee security files. The media covered this possible merger in April 2006 but it has since disappeared from public view.

So now the pressure is on as anti-CIFA opinion soars. There is talk of ending that program. But history has taught us that terminating a program doesn’t mean it just goes away. When Congress killed the Pentagon’s notorious Total Information Awareness (TIA) program in 2003, two key elements including the prototype system went to what is now a unit of the Department of Homeland Security. Likewise, three of TIA’s data mining and artificial intelligence programs went to the 902^nd Military Intelligence Group which is the Pentagon’s largest counterintelligence unit with hundreds of personnel spread across the country. Besides having access to TALON, the 902^nd makes extensive use of Homeland Security’s Joint Regional Information Exchange System (JRIES) which has databases in all 50 states, all of which can be instantaneously accessed by any law enforcement agency as well as military and government units. JRIES provides terrorist-related information on US citizens without involving the federal government after TIA was cancelled. So the practice, when a program is cancelled, is to shuffle programs among various government departments under ever-changing names, but all interconnected to work as a unit that everyone can access.

In 2007 the Pentagon shut TALON down and is now considering the same for CIFA. That makes sense since both have generated much controversy and they go together like hand in glove. We can be assured, however, that the databases and the infrastructure for those programs will live on. Perhaps CIFA and the Defense Security Service did merge and everything continues as before, only under the DSS label. Or perhaps the 902^nd Military Intelligence Group is now shouldering CIFA’s activities. And remember that the Defense Intelligence Agency is to inherit some of CIFA’s legacy. Or it may be a mix of all these and more. One thing is certain: CIFA and TALON will live on somewhere, under some name. Information on America and Americans will remain on databases obscured from the public but accessible to any spy agency on demand.

Bob Aldridge

My book America in Peril may be ordered from Hope Publishing House, P.O. Box 60008, Pasadena, CA 91116. (360 pages, $16.95 plus $3 shipping)

References.

Block, Robert and Fields, Gary; “Is Military Creeping Into Domestic Law Enforcement?” The Wall Street Journal, 9 March 2004.

DOD Directive 5105.67; “Department of Defense Counterintelligence Field Activity (DOD CIFA),” 19 February 2002.

Hosenball, Mark; “America’s secret Police?” Newsweek, 13 April 2006.

Mazzelli, Mark; “Pentagon is Expected to Close Intelligence Unit,” sThe New York Times, 2 April 2008.

Myers, Lisa; Pasternak, Douglas; and Gardella, Rich; “Is the Pentagon Spying On Americans?” NBC News, 13 December 2005.

Pincus, Walter; “Pentagon Expanding Its Domestic Surveillance Activity,” Washington Post, 27 November 2005.

Pincus, Walter; “Protesters Found In Database,” Washington Post, 17 January 2007.

16 February 2008

The Pentagon announced February 11^th that six Guantanamo prisoners will be tried by Military Commission for complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and that the Bush administration is seeking the death penalty. Five of them were held for years in secret CIA prisons and transferred to Guantanamo in September 2006. The sixth has been at Guantanamo since 2002. Bringing terrorists to justice is a natural desire but there are several things wrong with the Military Commission procedure. Vincent Warren, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights called this a show trial devoid of any due process, saying: “Rather than playing politics the Bush administration should be seeking speedy and fair trials,” instead of them being “based on torture as confessions as well as secret evidence.” (Andrew Gumbel, The Independent UK, 12 February 2008)

The Military Commission Act of 2006 authorized trials at Guantanamo for alien unlawful enemy combatants who had violated the laws of war or any other offenses specified in the Act. The “other offenses” include such common crimes as perjury, obstructing justice, contempt, and of course the catch-all crime of conspiracy.

An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as a one who has engaged in or supported hostilities against the US and has been classed as an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combat Status Review Tribunal. These tribunals were set up by executive order to ostensibly meet a treaty requirement that enemy combatant status be determined by a reputable tribunal. They have military officers, not lawyers, to represent the defendant. Those making decisions are also military officers, not judges. The tribunals are not to prove guilt, but to determine whether incarceration should continue and if the defendant should be tried by Military Commission. Nevertheless, confessions made during these tribunals, run by non-lawyers and non-judges, play a major role in later proceedings.

Back to the Military Commission Act. It deprives habeas corpus relief for the defendant. The most common use of habeas corpus is a court order that a prisoner be told the reason for confinement or to produce evidence of a charge so it can be challenged. Absence of habeas corpus allows hearsay evidence, evidence derived by torture, and secret evidence which the defendant cannot see or challenge. It is strictly up to a military judge to determine what to admit. The Act also exempts Military Commissions from any rights the defendant may claim concerning contempt, speedy trial, self-incrimination warnings, and pretrial investigations. The US Supreme Court is to decide soon if the Military Commission Act is unconstitutional in denying habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. The case was heard in December 2007 but a decision has not yet been handed down, so Military Commissions continue.

The so-called “Mastermind of 9/11,” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is one of the six defendants. Sensational news stories about Mohammed’s March 2007 Combat Status Review Tribunal told of censored transcripts and confessions. According to the transcripts he confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks and 30 others, most of which failed or never happened. Censored parts of his testimony are believed to be references to his treatment in CIA prisons. Mohammed did refer to previous confessions extracted by torture. Those may be what were read into the record by his interpreter. The public, the press, even civilian lawyers were excluded from the tribunal hearings. Without observers no one knows how much out of context or how inaccurate the transcripts were. (The previous 558 status review tribunals for Pentagon prisoners had all been open.)

On February 5^th, a couple months after it was revealed that the CIA destroyed tapes of detainees being tortured by a technique called waterboarding, CIA director General Michael V. Hayden said that only three terrorist suspects, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had been waterboarded by the CIA, but that the Agency hasn’t used that technique since 2003. He did not mention two other avenues by which the CIA obtains confessions through waterboarding and other forms of torture to escape culpability. One is “extraordinary rendition” where the CIA captures or kidnaps suspects and puts them on secret flights to countries that condone torture. The Agency tells the foreign interrogators what information is sought. An Agency operative is sometimes allowed to watch.

The other method is hiring contractors to perform “enhanced interrogation,” a euphemism for torture. They have been used at Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and in secret prisons. The contractors are usually small companies – or at least small front companies – such as Sytex, Inc. (owned by Lockheed Martin Corporation) and Premier Technology Group (owned by CACI International, Inc).

Hayden said the information forced from Mohammed and another prisoner named Abu Zubaydah provided 25% of the human intelligence circulated by the CIA since 9/11. Claiming that information derived from torture saves American lives is pure deception. What torture does is induce false confessions. Take the case of three Britons detained at Guantanamo – Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, and Ruhel Ahmed. After three months of solitary confinement they confes­sed to meeting with Osama bin Laden. British intelligence MI5 showed that on the date of the alleged meeting the three were in the United Kingdom. “This experience does not appear to have been unique. In reviewing declassified Combat Status Review Tribunal files in March 2006 reporters found them ‘replete’ with such retractions. ‘Detainees who had confessed to having ties to Al Qaida or the Taliban or terrorism frequently told the tribunals that they had only made those admissions to stop beatings or torture by their captors.’” (“Trials Under Military Order: A Guide to the Rules for Military Commissions,” a report by Human Rights First, updated and revised May 2006)

One bit of information the CIA obtained from Zubaydah was that Jose Padilla, an American citizen later dubbed the “dirty bomber,” was assigned to find materials to build a bomb that would spread radioactive material over a wide area in the US. Padilla was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in May 2002 on a material witness warrant issued by federal judge Michael B. Mukasey (now attorney general of the US) in New York City. In June 2002 Padilla was declared an enemy combatant by Bush and transferred to a Navy brig.

In February 2005, almost three years later, a US District Court Judge ruled that Padilla must be charged with a crime or released. That ruling was reversed by the US 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals so Padilla’s lawyers petitioned the US Supreme Court. In November 2005, just before the deadline for briefs to show Bush has the power to detain enemy combatants in the US indefinitely, the administration dropped the enemy combatant status and charged Padilla with several federal crimes. He was released from military custody and imprisoned under the Attorney General.

Padilla’s attorneys argued in federal court that Zubadah had been tortured into saying Padilla worked with Al Qaeda. The court dismissed that allegation as meritless because it could not be proved. That would not have been the case had tapes of Zubadah’s torture not been destroyed at the time Padilla was being transferred from military custody. When it looked like the administration might be embarrassed, the notorious “dirty bomber,” declared one of the worlds worst, was transferred to a civilian court and charged with lesser offenses, and the evidence of terrorism destroyed. The prosecution presented no evidence of Padilla’s involvement in a terrorist plot.

As for Zubaydah, he told his Combat Status Review Tribunal that despite what he said after being waterboarded, “I disagreed with the Al Qaida philosophy of targeting innocent civilians like those at the World Trade Center … I never conducted nor financially supported, nor helped in any operation against America.” (Nat Hentoff, The Village Voice, 15 January 2008) Earlier, when Zubaydah was still in a secret prison, and when Bush was touting him as “one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction against the United States,” the FBI’s leading expert on Al Qaida said Zubaydah was “insane, certifiable, split personality,” and not the top operative he was made out to be. (Hentoff, op. cit.)

This summary of Combat Status Review Tribunals and torture will give the reader an inkling of what to expect from the Military Commission now convening at Guantanamo to try six of the “worst of the worst” prisoners. With the kind of evidence being used it is shaping up to be the mother of all kangaroo courts. It could turn out that, on appeal, actual terrorists may be acquitted and go free because due process was lacking.

In this blog I have used Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah to epitomize how detainee treatment denigrates American values. Similar cases could be made for the other defendants. I do not propose that these prisoners are innocent. I am merely saying that guilt or innocence should be decided in a court that observes the same rights to fair treatment that we citizens are guaranteed by the US Constitution. As stated in a New York Times editorial: “Instead of being w