Archive for category: emptywheel

I’m pooped so will have to return to this article. It explains how, after DOJ under Jack Goldsmith threw out John Yoo’s torture policies, Steven Bradbury came in and replaced them with still worse opinions.

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” ina legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared tohave abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authorityto order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’sarrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Departmentissued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very differentdocument, according to officials briefed on it, an expansiveendorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time providedexplicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination ofpainful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping,simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey,the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruisingclashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as theopinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues atthe department that they would all be “ashamed” when the worldeventually learned of it.

Later that year, as Congress Read more →

I guess if you make sure your contractors can’t reveal what they’ve done in your name, it becomes harder for others to discover what it is that you, personally, have done. But not impossible. The IT companies for the White House are denying that their the company that missed 5 million missing emails in their daily audits.

When Congress asked about 5 million executive branch e-mails that wentmissing, a White House lawyer pointed the finger at an outside ITcontractor.

The only problem? No such IT contractor exists, according tosources close to the investigation of a possible violation of theFederal Records and Presidential Records acts.

[snip]

Contrary to Roberts’ statement to the Oversight Committee, severalsources, including an IT company currently doing contractual work forthe Executive Office of the President, have told ChannelWeb that nooutside company had a managed services contract to audit the Executive Office of the President’s e-mail archiving system daily during the period when the e-mails went missing.

"There are many contractors working for the [Information Assurance]Directorate and no single one provided audit and archive functions,"said a spokesperson for Unisys, an IT security and hardware firm whichhas provided the Executive Office of the President "with a variety ofIT services that support the Office of Administration."

"We don’t believe that Unisys is the Information AssuranceDirectorate contractor to which Deputy Attorney General Keith Robertsreferred when he briefed Rep. Waxman’s committee in May," said LisaMeyer, director of public relations for the Blue Bell, Penn.-basedcompany.

For the record, we might want to distrust Unisys on this point. After all, they’re the company supposedly in charge of monitoring Homeland Security’s computer system. And they seemed to have missed basic things–like installing security devices on Homeland Security’s networks.

One lingering suspicion that they’re just moving this off the books:

After several requests from the Homeland Security Committee callingfor a moratorium on the controversial use of spy satellite imagery fordomestic purposes, the Department has heeded the call and delayed itsplanned October 1st launch of its new National Applications Office(NAO). The Department has cited the need to address unanswered privacyand civil liberties questions from Congress – as addressed in theCommittee’s September 6th hearing on the matter and also in lettersfrom August 22nd and September 6th from Committee Members.

Rep.Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Chairman of the Committee on HomelandSecurity, released the following statement regarding the decision:

“Whilewe are pleased by the Department’s decision to go back to the drawingboard and get it right, we are troubled by its silence on the secondpart of our request: that Congress also be provided ‘a full opportunityto review the NAO’s written legal framework, offer comments, and helpshape appropriate procedures and protocols.’

Even putting aside my suspicion this is just another head fake to move surveillance beyond the grasp of Congress, Thompson’s point remains. The Administration thus far refuses to allow Congress some input into what appropriate use of satellite surveillance of civilians would be.

Well, at least Read more →

The Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee are trying to force the Administration to implement procedures for protecting the privacy of Americans before it will approve funding that will fund the Administration’s domestic satellite surveillance program. In their letter to the Democrats who oversee this appropriation, they put a price tag on all the surveillance programs the Administration has had to scrap because they didn’t first implement procedures to protect Americans’ privacy. That number? $290 million dollars.

In the last three years, at least four programs — including the $140million Secure Flight Program; the $100 million Computer AssistedPassenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) program; the $42 millionAnalysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and SemanticEnhancement (ADVISE) program; and the $8 million MultistateAnti-Terrorism Information Exchange Pilot Project (MATRIX) — have beeneither cancelled or suspended by the Department as a result of itsfailure to adhere to applicable privacy rules and regulations. Weappreciate that Democrats on the House Homeland Security AppropriationsSubcommittee played a critical role in bringing to light thevulnerabilities of these programs. Each of these programs, ifimplemented, would have compromised the privacy rights of hundreds ofthousands, if not millions, of Americans. We do not want the Departmentto repeat the same mistakes with this program.

Given the Read more →

The House response to the Brent Wilkes subpoena is now online–it’s 81 pages long. I’ll comment more on the rationale for quashing the subpoenas in an update (I’ve got a talk to go give shortly, but the short version is speech and debate). But some initial details:

• The subpoena to Ike Skelton has been withdrawn
• Wilkes also subpoenaed: Carl Levin and Jay Rockefeller (no doubt in their role as Armed Services and SSCI Chair), Larry Craig, Daniel Inouye (both recipients of Wilkes largesse; here’s a question–is Craig sticking around the Senate to retain immunity? And will the Senate let him?), and Josh Bolten, Robert Gates and Gordon Craig

After some back and forth, the General Counsel of the House was able to get Geragos to explain that he was interested in information "concerning the congressional appropriations process and how it works." No, really?

There’s more detail on the subpoenas to Hunter and Lewis (big surprise) and Murtha and Reyes, as follows.