CIA’s Blackwater Circular Firing Squad

/34 Comments/in /by

While we wait for Jeremy Scahill’s piece on this today (which will surely tell a more complete story than the NYT and WaPo‘s spook reporters did), I want to follow up on the two posts I did yesterday, obviously based on leaks and counter-leaks, to sort out what we know of the plans to use Blackwater as the US assassination squad. There are two parts to the story: first, that CIA invented an assassination program shortly after 9/11. And then, that CIA gave a contract to Blackwater for the program in 2004. Here are the dates we know of.

2001: Presidential finding allowing assassinations of al Qaeda, assassination squads set up

2002: CIA sets up contract for Blackwater to "provide security" for CIA’s Afghan station

2002: Dick Cheney tells CIA not to brief Congress on assassination plans

2002: Cofer Black ousted from CTC

2004: CIA terminates program, then gives contract to Blackwater to do assassination squads

September, 2004: Buzzy Krongard resigns as CIA’s Executive Director (replaced by Dusty Foggo)

February 2005: Cofer Black becomes Vice Chairman of Blackwater

Fall 2007: Krongard joins Blackwater advisory board

September 2007: Nisour Square massacre

June 23, 2009: Panetta learns of active assassination squad program, cancels it

June 24, 2009: Panetta briefs Congress

Now, a couple of points about this. The stories coming out today want to focus on 2004, when Blackwater supposedly got the contract to do this. If so, then what did Cheney order CIA not to tell Congress about in 2002? It may be that they’re using the term "contract" loosely to hide an earlier arrangement, given that they admit to NYT there was never really a contract.

Officials said the C.I.A. did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince, a politically connected former member of the Navy Seals and the heir to a family fortune. 

I guess if you’re doing all this without contracts, it makes it a lot easier for it to take four months before the Director of the CIA learns about it. But isn’t that one of the nightmares we’ve all been waiting for, as we outsource our intelligence? That the privatized spooks will take over and continue programs without telling the political appointees? Hell, that the privatized spooks will continue to work for the last guy who was President and not the current one?

Read more →

Share this entry

Blackwater’s Nay-Sayer in HPSCI: Crazy Pete Hoekstra

/16 Comments/in /by

You know how Crazy Pete Hoekstra has led the chorus of those who claim Leon Panetta should never have briefed Congress on the secret assassination squads, that the program in question was not that big a deal? To his credit, he’s doing it even now that Blackwater’s role has been revealed.

“I think there was a little more drama and intrigue than was warranted,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Um, yeah. It all makes sense why Hoekstra would care about Congressional oversight when the CIA shoots down missionaries but not when CIA pays Blackwater’s mercenaries to assassinate its enemies. 

Hoekstra, of course, is very closely tied (and financially reliant upon) the Prince and DeVos families. What he says about investigations into Erik Prince’s company should never be taken as credible.

I will say this though. As we get further and further along, the design of the HPSCI investigation into all this–including the inclusion of that missionary plane to get Crazy Pete’s buy-in–looks smarter every day.

Share this entry

Did I Say the Daily Beast Story Was BS?

/35 Comments/in /by

Because it was. They were trying to hide the fact that the company of their former ExecDir, Buzzy Krongard and Blackwater, is the gimmick behind the CIA’s assassination program.

The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials. 

Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.

The fact that the C.I.A. used an outside company for the program was a major reason that Leon E. Panetta, the new C.I.A. director, became alarmed and called an emergency meeting to tell Congress that the agency had withheld details of the program for seven years, the officials said.

Only of course they didn’t mention Buzzy Krongard, not once, in the whole article. Didn’t mention that he left the CIA before he got this contract. (He was probably contracted by Dusty Foggo, but whatever.)

If I had to guess, I’d say the Dems are closing ranks around Panetta. 

I don’t love Panetta–he has humiliated himself thus far. But hey, if those trying to reform the Company join with Panetta and push him, we might make some progress.

Share this entry

The Errors of Telling of Leon Panetta’s Error

/30 Comments/in , /by

By my count there are 27 paragraphs in the Daily Beast’s breathless attempt to un-ring Leon Panetta’s bell for him–to tell a story in which Panetta’s revelation that the CIA had an assassination program it had not briefed Congress on was all a big misunderstanding. It takes novelist Joseph Finder, who wrote this story, until paragraph 23 to reveal the context of HPSCI’s reaction to Panetta’s briefing on the program that hadn’t previously been briefed.

More seriously, this controversy has given ammunition to congressional efforts to broaden CIA briefings. Instead of allowing the CIA to limit disclosure of the most sensitive, most highly classified stuff to just the “Gang of Eight”—the leaders of those committees and of the House and Senate—they want to require the CIA to brief the full membership of the intelligence committees.

Somehow, Finder neglects to provide his readers that information where it chronologically makes sense–between the time Panetta briefed Congress on June 24 …

On June 23, in the course of a routine briefing by the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Panetta first learned about the assassination squads. Alarmed, he terminated the program at once and called the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX). He told Reyes he’d discovered something of grave concern, and requested an urgent briefing for the House and Senate intelligence committees as soon as possible. Less than 24 hours later, he was on the Hill, "with his hair on fire," as a Republican member of the House committee put it. “The whole committee was stunned,” said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA).

And when he describes them leaking the letter and turning this into a big stink.

Afterward, seven Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee sent Panetta an indignant letter: “Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. They demanded he “correct” his statement back in May that the CIA does not mislead Congress.

Ten days later, one of them leaked the letter.

That is, Finder totally neglects to mention the full chronology, which looks something like this:

June 24: Panetta’s briefing on this program

June 26: HPSCI passes a funding authorization report expanding the Gang of Eight briefings

Read more →

Share this entry

The Job No One Wants: CyberCzar

/in /by

To be honest, I’ve lost count, but I believe we have had close to eight cyberczars in the last eight years.

Make it nine.

The White House’s acting cybersecurity czar announced her resignation Monday, saying in an interview that she is leaving for personal reasons.

Melissa Hathaway, who completed the Obama administration’s cybersecurity review in April, had initially been considered a leading contender to fill the post permanently.

[snip]

Ms. Hathaway said she took her name out of the running for the post two weeks ago.

At this point, you’d think someone smart would take a step back and re-evaluate and–more importantly–have a public conversation about what our country needs to do for cybersecurity.

As I understand it, two factors have been chasing cyberczars back to the private sector as fast as we can hire a new one. First, no one wants to demand that private sector companies meet certain standards for their cybersecurity. As a result, their vulnerability becomes our vulnerability. But in the US of A, you simply can’t ask money-making institutions to sacrifice for the public good, so one after another cyberczar realizes their job is completely unworkable, and leaves.

Then there’s the giant pissing match over turf within the government. The NSA has the best capabilities for taking on this job. But to give them the job would mean the same people spying on our emails would also be (hell, probably already are) spying on our internet use. Plus there’s the whole problem of what is basically a defense function within our day-to-day Toobz. 

Now, I know the government doesn’t like to talk openly about how easily the Chinese and Israelis and Russians can waltz into our computers and fuck around. And I know how mandating that businesses do certain things cuts into the donor pool. But perhaps the problem is in the entire way we’re conceiving of the Toobz police. Perhaps it’s time to reconstitute the NSA such that the military isn’t–as they now are–given carte blanche to sneak in my metaphorical panty drawer. Maybe if we rethink this whole thing we can actually keep someone on this job for more than 18 months?

Share this entry

Army Responds to its Own Spy Program–by Investigating Lynndie England

/in , /by

Well, not actually Lynddie England. They’re investigating the allegations that John Towery, a member of their Force Protection unit, infiltrated peace groups (which I discussed here and here). But in all their discussions of the investigation, they mention just Towery, or just one infiltration.

The Army says it has opened an inquiry into a claim that one of its employees spent more than two years infiltrating antiwar groups active near one of the nation’s largest military bases. The groups say the employee infiltrated their activities under an assumed name and gained access to their plans as well as names and e-mail addresses of some members.

[snip]

“Mr. John Towery performs sensitive work within the installation law enforcement community, and it would not be appropriate for him to discuss his duties with the media,” the Army said in written statement. “Fort Lewis is aware of the claim with regard to Mr. Towery. To ensure all regulatory guidelines were followed, the command has decided that an inquiry is prudent, and an officer is being appointed to conduct the inquiry.”

[snip]

He said Mr. Towery told them that the Army had reassigned him, at least temporarily, and that he was being investigated “for espionage.” [my emphasis]

That’s important because–at least according to what Towery told the group who discovered him–there are other people who have infiltrated their group.

And I called him up; I said, “John, you know, what’s the deal? Is this true?” And he told me; he said, “Yes, it is true, but there’s a lot more to this story than what was publicized.” So he wanted to meet with me and another anarchist in person to further discuss what happened and what his role was.

So, when I met him, he admitted to several things. He admitted that, yes, he did in fact spy on us. He did in fact infiltrate us. He admitted that he did pass on information to an intelligence network, which, as you mentioned earlier, was composed of dozens of law enforcement agencies, ranging from municipal to county to state to regional, and several federal agencies, including Immigration Customs Enforcement, Joint Terrorism Task Force, FBI, Homeland Security, the Army in Fort Lewis.

So he admitted to other things, too. He admitted that the police had placed a camera, surveillance camera, across the street from a community center in Tacoma that anarchists ran called the Pitch Pipe Infoshop. Read more →

Share this entry

Leon Panetta Begs and Threatens for Consensus Rather than Oversight

/in /by

Remember when the Obama Administration appealed to a "fundamental compact" between Congress and the Executive Branch when arguing the intelligence community didn’t need more oversight? ("Fundamental compact, my ass," I thought was the best response.)

Well, Leon Panetta’s out with a similar appeal to inflated, but totally bogus, language in an attempt to avoid increased Congressional oversight. This time, he appeals to "consensus" as the core of congressional oversight.

In our democracy, effective congressional oversight of intelligence is important, but it depends as much on consensus as it does on secrecy. We need broad agreement between the executive and legislative branches on what our intelligence organizations do and why. For much of our history, we have had that. Over the past eight years, on specific issues — including the detention and interrogation of terrorists — the consensus deteriorated. That contributed to an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information. 

[snip]

I recognize that there will always be tension in oversight relationships, but there are also shared responsibilities. Those include protecting the classified information that shapes our conversations. Together, the CIA and Congress must find a balance between appropriate oversight and a recognition that the security of the United States depends on a CIA that is totally focused on the job of defending America. 

The last eight years have proven that Congress is utterly impotent to stop covert actions the Executive Branch wants to do. Congress’ unsuccessful attempt to stop the data-mining of American citizens by defunding it proves that point. And other tactics used by the Bush Administration–such as funding covert activities in supplemental appropriations or having JSOC carry out those activities instead of CIA, both to completely side-step the intelligence committees’ oversight–further proves Congress’ utter impotence to influence Executive Branch activities.

So when Panetta appeals to consensus as a cornerstone of oversight, when he says "we need broad agreement," he’s basically saying, "Congress must agree with the Executive Branch." "Deteriorating consensus," in this context, is just a pretty way of saying "blowing off Congress" in the face of opposition. When Panetta suggests there needs to be a "balance between appropriate oversight and a recognition that the security of the United States depends on a CIA that is totally focused," he’s basically arguing that oversight must stop short of actually criticizing CIA, however merited.

Read more →

Share this entry

A Fusion Center Before Its Time

/in /by

The other day, I described how peace groups in Washington had gotten proof that a spy from a DOD facility had infiltrated their groups. A local paper and Jeff Stein have more on the story–including (from the paper) these statements that the infiltration probably violated posse comitatus.

A Yale Law School faculty member and military law expert said he is disturbed by allegations that Fort Lewis employed a civilian who spied on an Olympia-based anti-war organization.

Eugene R. Fidell, a former judge advocate for the Coast Guard and the president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said such a practice appeared to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that prohibits the use of the Army for conventional law enforcement activities against civilians.

[snip]

Another legal expert, Stanford Law School lecturer Steven Weiner, said there are exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act that allow the secretary of defense to authorize the Army to pass on information to local law enforcement agencies when it is gathered through normal military training and operations. Weiner said that does not sound like what happened in Olympia. Weiner, an expert in national security law, added that for the military to use “an employee as a covert operative … is probably over the line.”

“The basic rule is the military’s not supposed to be engaged in law enforcement activities,” he said.

Weiner said he doubts that someone high up in the Army chain of command would authorize spying on OlyPMR. When told about OlyPMR’s activities, he said it sounded as though the group “is not actively imperiling national security” in a manner that would justify violating Posse Comitatus.

I’ll come back to this story as it develops. But in the meantime, I wanted to draw attention to a different case–happening in San Diego–in which a number of Marines and Marine reservists are being tried for leaking terrorism-related information to the Los Angeles police departments and (possibly) private companies.

On June 26, the military charged Marine reserve Colonel Larry Richards with stealing classified documents. Those charges come after the military has gotten guilty pleas from Eric Froboese and Gary Maziarz, two of the guys whom Richards had recruited to get classified intelligence documents from Camp Pendleton and the US Northern Command and give to him to use in his role in Los Angeles’ anti-terrorism units.

Maziarz testified that Richards recruited him in 2004 as his successor for taking classified documents from Camp Pendleton. Read more →

Share this entry

CIFA Lives?

/in , /by

Remember CIFA? That’s the military’s domestic spying program that used to spy on Quakers and bloggers like Jesus’ General. In April 2008, the Pentagon announced it was shutting down the program.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it sounds like they didn’t shut down the program.

A group of peace activists have confirmed that spies from a defense program have infiltrated their group. (h/t EC)

Peace activists in Washington state have revealed an informant posing as an anarchist has spied on them while working under the US military. The activists are members of the group Students for a Democratic Society and Port Militarization Resistance, which protests military shipments bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before his true identity was revealed, the informant was known as “John Jacob,” an active member of antiwar groups in the towns of Olympia and Tacoma. But using documents obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, the activists learned that “John Jacob” is in fact John Towery, a member of the Force Protection Service at the nearby Fort Lewis military base.

The activists claim Towery has admitted to them he shared information with an intelligence network that stretches from local and state police to several federal agencies, to the US military. They also say he confirmed the existence of other government spies but wouldn’t reveal their identity.

Read the whole Democracy Now piece–it descrbes that Towery, the spy, got himself appointed a Listserv moderator with access to all the email subscribers of this group.

Share this entry

Panetta’s Parsings

/in /by

As bmaz reported yesterday, in addition to the five current and former CIA officers whom Judge Lamberth has said were invoking state secrets to protect something that wasn’t secret anymore, Lamberth also criticized a declaration he received from Leon Panetta invoking state secrets anew. He describes Panetta’s declaration this way:

Director Panetta’s unclassified declaration appears to significantly conflict with his classified declaration. His unclassified declaration states that: "Plaintiff has provided a declaration in which he stated that the alleged wiretap at issue in this case was allegedly the result of an eavesdropping transmitter placed under the coffee table located in his residence in Burma… To the extent that this is his allegation, he is permitted to proceed with discovery to determine whether such a transmitter was used." (Panetta Unclassified Decl at 9) Panetta later states, however, that the plaintiff cannot inquire into information about the "U.S. Government’s capabilities to conduct electronic surveillance." id. If a method of intelligence is unclassified and publicly available, it is not immediately apparent why it suddenly becomes a state secret to even argue that it could be used by the U.S. Government. Moveover, the plaintiff makes a credible argument not only that the device is publicly known, but that the fact that the government uses this type of device is publicly available, as this type of device is on display at the Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. Indeed, Panetta’s classified, ex parte declaration significantly conflicts with the unclassified declaration and appears to acknowledge that the plaintiff can present evidence as to the coffee table eavesdropping transmitter, even if it is used by the U.S. Government. Panetta states: "Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants used an eavesdropping transmitter placed under the coffee table located in his residence in Burma. He has also stated that these types of transmitters are publicly available and on display at the Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. To the extent that the theory of his case is that the defendants conducted the alleged surveillance using purely unclassified, publicly available methods, I do not assert the state secrets or statutory privileges. To the extent Plaintiff’s discovery attempts to sweep more broadly, and to inquire about other intelligence capabilities … such discovery cannot proceed …." (Panetta Classified Decl. 21) Read more →

Share this entry