The BAE Bribes Funded Covert Ops

/108 Comments/in /by

Man, this is one big paragraph. Makes you want to, um, breathe.

But here’s the key point of the paragraph–the description of how BAE bribes to Bandar bin Sultan and others were laundered through some offshore accounts and then used to fund covert ops.

Remember, that the real story behind the BAE "Al Yamamah" scandal is that, under the arms-for-oil barter deal, the British accumulated well-over $100 billion, in off-the-books, offshore funds, that have been used to finance covert operations, for the past 23 years (the deal was first signed in 1985, and has been regularly updated ever since).

After which said long breathless paragraph goes onto insinuate that the BAE bribes might be tied to 9/11.

The other nagging matter around the BAE case is that Prince Bandar "inadvertently" helped finance the 9/11 attacks, through funds provided by him and his wife to two Saudi intelligence operative in California, who, in turn, bankrolled two of the hijackers.

Now, before we focus too closely on the 9/11 insinuation, first let’s consider a few other details. 1985, when these funds were set up, was actually before BCCI, the Pakistani bank that both the CIA and the Saudis used to launder money for covert ops, folded. I’m curious whether any of the "usual hedge funds, etc. in places like the Cayman Islands, BVI" in which the Saudis dumped their bribe receipts were BCCI accounts? And did they move from there to Riggs Bank, where the Saudis and General Pinochet were subsequently laundering their money?

Read more →

Share this entry

In Minneapolis, Vegan = Terrorist

/95 Comments/in , , /by

How does one equate vegan potlucks with this restriction on permissible terrorist investigations?

Mere speculation that force or violence might occur during the course of an otherwise peaceable demonstration is not sufficient grounds for initiation of an investigation under this Subpart, but where facts or circumstances reasonably indicate that a group or enterprise has engaged or aims to engage in activities involving force or violence or other criminal conduct described in paragraph (1)(a) in a demonstration, an investigation may be initiated in conformity with the standards of that paragraph. [my emphasis]

I ask because apparently, Minneapolis’ Joint Terrorist Task Force is recruiting people to infiltrate vegan potlucks to look for potential–what?–tahini enthusiasts?–in advance of the RNC convention this fall.

Paul Carroll was riding his bike when his cell phone vibrated.

[snip]

When Carroll called back, Swanson asked him to meet at a coffee shop later that day, going on to assure a wary Carroll that he wasn’t in trouble.

Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.

“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.”

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered. [my emphasis]

Now, maybe the vegans we’ve got here in Michigan are dramatically different from those infesting Minnesota. But where I’m from, vegans tend to be fairly peaceful people. Read more →

Share this entry

The 9/11 Detainees Want Hartmann Disqualified, Too

/17 Comments/in , /by

In thoroughly unsurprising news, the defense attorneys for the five 9/11 High Value Detainees (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh) have moved to either have the charges against their clients dismissed or, at least, have General Hartmann disqualified as Legal Advisor to the Show Trials. Here’s Carol Rosenberg on that story–as well as the news that Judge Allred will delay the start of Salim Hamdan’s trial until after SCOTUS rules in Boumedienne.

This motion obviously piggy-backs on Judge Allred’s decision from last week to have Hartmann disqualified in the Hamdan trial. The 9/11 defendants largely replicate the Hamdan complaint in their own motion–with one significant addition. They also argue that Hartmann illegally tried to coerce defense counsel, in addition to Colonel Morris Davis, the Chief Prosecutor. As they describe:

On January 25, 2008, a member of the Convening Authority’s staff, Colonel Wendy Kelly, inadvertently emailed a draft copy of the charges against Khaleed Sheikh Mohammed and five other detainees to Mr. Michael Berrigan, the Deputy Chief Defense Counsel. The draft charges were being circulated within the Office of the Convening Authority. Mr. Berrigan immediately notified Colonel Kelly of the disclosure and ascertained it was inadvertent, but after seeking counsel from his state bar, refused to return the draft charges.

On February 1, 2008, the Legal Advisor to the Convening Authority wrote a memorandum to the Chief Defense Counsel, Colonel Steven David. General Hartmann stated that he had contacted the professional responsibility offices for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps and they had opined that Mr. Berrigan must return the draft charges in this case; charges which approximately two weeks later General Hartmann claimed to have just received.

[snip]

The fact that the Legal Advisor, rather than the Chief Prosecutor, sent the Memorandum to the Chief Defense Counsel illustrates the point that the Legal Advisor failed to retain the required independence from the prosecution function and maintain his ability to provide independent, neutral, and impartial advice to the Convening Authority.

The [Military Commissions Act] prohibits attempting to coerce or unlawfully influence the professional judgment of trial or defense counsel. While the Secretary of Defense has attempted to circumvent the statutory prohibition against unlawful influence of trial counsel by regulation, he has not done so for defense counsel. When unlawful influence is directed against a defense counsel, it "affects adversely on accused’s right to effective assistance of counsel." [citations removed]

Read more →

Share this entry

Berlusconi to Testify in Abu Omar Trial

/36 Comments/in /by

This could be interesting. Nicolo Pollari–the right wing former head of Italian intelligence–is calling Silvio Berlusconi to testify as a defense witness in the Abu Omar rendition trial.

Berlusconi’s testimony had been requested by lawyers for Nicolo Pollari, a former intelligence chief who is one of the defendants in the case.

Pollari hopes the testimony might help prove that he was against the rendition, lawyers said. He could face from one to 10 years in jail if convicted.

Pollari has denied any involvement by Italian intelligence in the abduction.

Berlusconi, one of the United States’ close allies in its battle against terrorism, has expressed support for Pollari and has maintained his government was not informed about the operation and did not take part in it.

I haven’t followed the trial closely enough to know what Pollari intends to achieve. This could be a bid–similar to that of the AIPAC spying trial defendants–to provide the government with a big disincentive to continuing the trial (Pollari already tried a state secrets defense). Or it may be a bid to argue that, since the Italians were tracking Abu Omar themselves, they had no incentive to help the CIA in its rendition plans. (Here’s a NYT story reporting on Pollari getting charged.)

I just wish we could get eriposte to Italy to cross-examine Berlusconi about what he knew of Pollari’s involvement with American GWOT efforts. Pollari was, almost certainly, involved in the plot to propagate the Niger forgeries. He also should have informed Stephen Hadley that the aluminum tubes that the US claimed were nuclear centrifuge parts were clearly intended to support Iraqi reverse-engineering of Italian missiles; either he did, and Hadley proceeded to claim the tubes were for nukes anyway, or Pollari willfully let the Americans make claims he knew were false. In short, Nicolo Pollari has close ties to those Americans (people like Michael Ledeen) who were flogging this war from the start. And he did it, by most accounts, because Silvio wanted to curry favor with the Bush Administration.

I’m not sure we’ll get really astute questioning of Silvio Berlusconi’s knowledge of Pollari’s close ties with the most hawkish elements in America. But it would be fun if we did.

Share this entry

Yoo Issued an Opinion on 9/11 about Scrambling Planes

/86 Comments/in , /by

Still reading through the Yoo side of the Esquire transcript. At times, it’s very frustrating, since Esquire gave only Yoo’s side of the conversation, without the questions. But by putting this passage of the final article…

So let’s go back to that moment in the heat of battle. The way Yoo tells the story, he was sitting at his desk at the Justice Department when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. He had only been working there two months, hired to answer the White House’s questions on foreign-policy laws at a time when the biggest legal issue before him was a treaty about polar bears. When the order came to evacuate Washington and people began heading out into the streets, someone from the attorney general’s office told him to stick around.

Soon the questions came:

Is this a war?

Do we need to declare war?

Can we scramble planes?

And again: Is this a war?

Together with these two answers from the transcript…

Yes, that was a question [Can planes be scrambled to shoot down any remaining hijacked aircraft]. That was earlier: Can we use force?

I must have. I can’t tell you what I said. No, I don’t think that’s actually public. Can you use force in response? What kind of force? What are the standards that guide the use of force?

I think it’s fairly safe to say that sometime on 9/11, Yoo gave an opinion about whether or not the US could shoot down remaining hijacked planes.

Only he’s not going to tell us what that opinion said.

The opinion is relevant, of course, because one thing Dick Cheney attempted to hide from the 9/11 Commission was that he–without consulting George Bush–issued an order to shoot down any remaining planes. He even tried (unsuccessfully) to get the 9/11 Commission to reverse its finding that Cheney gave the shoot-down order before speaking to Bush.

Now, Yoo’s opinion almost certainly came after Cheney issued the order and after he told Bush he had made it. According to Libby’s notes, Cheney issued the order between 10:15 and 10:18; according to Ari’s notes, Cheney informed Bush of the opinion shoot-down order at 10:20. In other words, Yoo’s opinion probably didn’t contribute to Cheney’s extra-constitutional order.

Still, it’s notable that they went to Yoo for such an opinion, presumably after the fact. And it’s notable that this is yet another of Yoo’s opinions they haven’t released.

Update: Read more →

Share this entry

Politicizing Show Trials at the Same Time as Politicizing DOJ

/87 Comments/in , , /by

Marty Lederman links to the important opinion disqualifying General Thomas Hartmann from any involvement in Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s–Osama bin Laden’s driver–military tribunal. (Kudos to Marty Lederman for thwacking the traditional media for touting an opinion’s limited availability–and then not providing a link to that opinion.)

As Marty notes, the opinion does much more than the traditional press coverage of the opinion lets on–though as always, Carol Rosenberg’s coverage of the show trials is quite good. The opinion basically affirms that the Gitmo show trials under Hartmann have been just that–trials driven by political motivations rather than legal evidence. Go read the opinion, written by Judge Keith Allred, for the timeline it offers of Hartmann’s (and others’) attempts to tailor the show trials to political considerations.

I’m particularly interested in the coincidence of timing the opinion reveals. The Bush Administration started crafting its show trials at precisely the same time–fall 2006–when it was engineering the firing of 8 US Attorneys for political reasons.

5. About 28 September of 2006, [Colonel Morris Davis] attended a meeting of the Senior Oversight Group, held in the office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England. During one of these meetings, Mr. England said "there could be strategic political value in getting some of these cases going before the [November 2006–editorial comment original] elections. We need to think about who could be tried" or words to that effect. The commission takes judicial notice that the Supreme Court issued Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in June 2006 and that the Military Commissions Act was not signed until late October 2006. Consequently, there was no possible way in which any military commission case could be referred, much less brought to trial, before the November 2006 elections.

[snip]

Colonel Davis viewed [England’s] remark as an opinion, rather than a command. Colonel Davis affirmatively denies that this statement had any effect on any decision he made with respect to Mr. Hamdan’s case.

7. During the same meeting, then-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Mr. Steve Cambone opined that Department of Defense (DoD) attorneys were not sufficiently experienced to handle these cases, and that they needed to get some Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys involved. Although no DOJ attorney had made an appearance in a military commission hearing before that date, they have since been assigned to military commission trial teams.

Read more →

Share this entry

EFF Bags A Big Win On NSLs

/61 Comments/in , , , /by

Our good friends at EFF have a big announcement. They have bagged a big win against the Bush Government on the improper use of National Security Letters.

The FBI has withdrawn an unconstitutional national security letter (NSL) issued to the Internet Archive after a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). As the result of a settlement agreement, the FBI withdrew the NSL and agreed to the unsealing of the case, finally allowing the Archive’s founder to speak out for the first time about his battle against the record demand.

"The free flow of information is at the heart of every library’s work. That’s why Congress passed a law limiting the FBI’s power to issue NSLs to America’s libraries," said Brewster Kahle, founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive. "While it’s never easy standing up to the government — particularly when I was barred from discussing it with anyone — I knew I had to challenge something that was clearly wrong. I’m grateful that I am able now to talk about what happened to me, so that other libraries can learn how they can fight back from these overreaching demands."
…
The NSL included a gag order, prohibiting Kahle from discussing the letter and the legal issues it presented with the rest of the Archive’s Board of Directors or anyone else except his attorneys, who were also gagged. The gag also prevented the ACLU and EFF from discussing the NSL with members of Congress, even though an ACLU lawyer who represents the Archive recently testified at a congressional hearing about the FBI’s misuse of NSLs.

"This is a great victory for the Archive and also the Constitution," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU. "It appears that every time a national security letter recipient has challenged an NSL in court and forced the government to justify it, the government has ultimately withdrawn its demand for records. In the absence of much needed judicial oversight – and with recipients silenced and the public in the dark – there is nothing to stop the FBI from abusing its NSL power."

You can read the entire press release here. When they say "there is nothing to stop the FBI from abusing its NSL power" that is not quite right; there is something, and it is the invaluable work of the EFF and ACLU. Make no mistake Read more →

Share this entry

Sunset Musings

/89 Comments/in , , , , /by

It was a nice quiet weekend; thankfully somewhat thin on bad and/or outrageous news. Other than all the allergens that are currently thick as soup in the air, the weather here is perfect; 90 degrees and not a cloud in sight. Perfect day to get the backyard and pool ready for the summer. There are a couple of legal pieces on the various Bush atrocities of government I should probably work on, but that just seems like a little too much work as I sit here on the patio watching the sunset turn Camelback Mountain the most beautiful shades of purple, crimson, and gold that you can imagine. My wife calls sunsets like this "golden hour", they are truly stunning. The attached picture is from Flickr via Google Images, but I swear it must have been taken from my front yard; it is exactly the view I have as I write this post. Well, almost exactly, this is clearly taken at sunrise, because the view is looking to the east. It is a little hard to make out, but the pointed rock immediately underneath the sun is known as the Praying Monk. When the light is right, it really does bear a remarkable resemblance to it’s namesake.

The Casa de bmaz travelogue portion of this post thus complete, I would like to point out a recent New York Times story. It is the story of Sami al-Hajj, an individual caught up in Bush’s berserker war on terror. Often in our discussions Hannah Arendt’s phrase "the banality of evil" is applied; but it is not a metaphor, it really is the truth about our country these days. The following story is reported in national media, including the New York Times, but with a casual nonchalance that is an ox gore to our collective national soul.

Courtesy of William Glaberton at the New York Times, is the tale of Sami al-Hajj

A former cameraman for Al Jazeera who was believed to be the only journalist held at Guantánamo Bay was released on Thursday, after more than six years of detention that made him one of the best known Guantánamo detainees in the Arab world, his lawyers said.
…
“It is yet another case where the U.S. has held someone for years and years and years on the flimsiest Read more →

Share this entry

Jello Jay And Hoyer Slither Back Into The FISA Limelight

/73 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Crikey, this is getting old. You may have seen by now that rumors of a new push on passage of FISA, and, of course, full retroactive immunity, are bubbling to the surface in the last 24 hours. Here is Jane. Here is Digby. Here is McJoan. From Jane at FDL:

According to the ACLU, there is rumor of a backroom deal being brokered by Jay Rockefeller on FISA that will include retroactive immunity. I’ve heard from several sources that Steny Hoyer is doing the dirty work on the House side, and some say it will be attached to the new supplemental.

A few more facts and circumstances are available now than were in the earlier stories. For one, we apparently see the "urgency lever" being pressed this time around (there always seems to be one in these plays, it’s a feature). From Alexander Bolton at The Hill:

The topic has reached a critical point because surveillance orders granted by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general under the authority of the Protect America Act begin to expire in August.

If Congress does not approve an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by Memorial Day, intelligence community officials will have to prepare dozens of individual surveillance warrants, a cumbersome alternative to the broader wiretapping authority granted by the Protect America Act, say congressional officials familiar with the issue.

Maybe, but if so, then the situation is intentionally so from a designated plan by the Administration to have some of their programs start running out while they are still in office and can use the "urgency" to fuel their desperate push for immunity. The reason, if you will recall, is the little provision placed in the Protect America Act (PAA) allowing any surveillance order (i.e entire general program, not just individual warrants) existing at the sunset of the PAA, which occurred on February 17, 2008, to continue until expiration, which means that there was NO necessity that any program that the government wished to pursue expire anytime during the current Administration. I have reminded folks of this repeatedly, but here is a wonderful synopsis from Cindy Cohn of EFF:

The PAA provides that any currently ongoing surveillance continues until the "date of expiration of such order," even if PAA expires. "Orders" are what the PAA calls the demand for surveillance by the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence (there’s no court involved). These surveillance orders can be Read more →

Share this entry

Some Perspective on the Bush Administration Fight Against Terrorism

/72 Comments/in , /by

December 2000: Richard Clarke develops policy paper entitled, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects." It calls for identifying and destroying known Al Qaeda camps and pressuring Pakistan to cooperate in the fight against Al Qaeda.

January 25, 2001: Clarke sends the "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat" document to Condi Rice, noting that "we urgently need … a Principals level review" of the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

September 4, 2001: Condi holds first Principals Committee meeting dedicated to Al Qaeda.

February 14, 2003: The Bush Administration unveils the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which includes the objective: "Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens."

July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission releases its report. The first recommendation is:

The US government must identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help.

June 23, 2006: The Bush Administration announces the indictment of the Liberty City Seven, an alleged terrorist cell the FBI admits is "more aspirational than operational."

August 3, 2007: The Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act signed into law. It requires:

(1) REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT ON STRATEGY.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report, in classified form if necessary, that describes the long-term strategy of the United States to engage with the Government of Pakistan to address the issues described in subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection (a)(2) and carry out the policies described in subsection (b) in order accomplish the goal of building a moderate, democratic Pakistan.

December 13, 2007: The first trial of the Liberty City Seven ends in a mistrial, with one defendant, Lyglenson Lemorin, acquitted of all charges.

April 16, 2008: The second trial of the Liberty City Seven ends in a mistrial.

April 17, 2008: 87 months after Richard Clarke first insisted that the Bush Administration develop a strategy to combat Al Qaeda, 62 months after the Bush Administration announced its intention to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 45 months after the 9/11 Commission called for the Administration to develop a strategy to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, 258 days after Congress required the Administration to submit a strategy to combat terrorist safe havens in Pakistan within 90 days, and one day after the Bush Administration insisted it may try a group of aspirational terrorists a third time, GAO releases a report finding:

Read more →

Share this entry