More on the FBI’s Own Falafel

/in , /by

There’s a bit of a squabble over how important Nada Nadim Prouty, the FBI/CIA agent who got unauthorized access to Hezbollah information at the CIA, was to the agency. Via Laura, NBC reports that she was very important.

Current and former intelligence officials tellNBC News that Nada Nadim Prouty had a much bigger role than officialsat the FBI and CIA first acknowledged. In fact, Prouty was assigned tothe CIA’s most sensitive post, Baghdad, and participated in thedebriefings of high-ranking al-Qaida detainees.

Aformer colleague called Prouty “among the best and the brightest” CIAofficers in Baghdad. She was so exceptional, agree officials of bothagencies, the CIA recruited her from the FBI to work for the agency’sclandestine service at Langley, Va., in June 2003. She then went toIraq for the agency to work with the U.S. military on the debriefings.

“Early on, she was an active agent in the debriefings,” said one former intelligence official. “It was more than translation.”

But the same story has a senior official reporting that she wasn’t that important.

A senior U.S. official familiar with the casesays there is no evidence she was a spy and noted that the CIA and FBIhave a good record in prosecuting spies, particularly in their ownagencies. Read more →

Share this entry

The Latest Terrorism Leak

/in /by

In his post on the latest Bush exposure of counter-terrorism resources, Noah Schachtman links to this long profile on the woman and firm exposed by BushCo. Two things stick out from the article:

Taking two staff members from the Investigative Project, Katz set upher own office. She got by on small government contracts. Some of thatwork, done for the Treasury Department, involved identifying Islamicgroups that might be sending money to terrorist organizations. She alsohad a contract with the Swiss government and with a group of relativesof 9/11 victims who were suing Saudi Arabian officials, businesses, andcharities. [my emphasis]

In other words, there is a small chance–admittedly remote–that this is the second leak of information provided by Katz’ firm to the government. After all, the best-known prosecution of Islamic charities is that of Holy Lands Foundation. The Foundation was tipped off to the impending raid on their office by a leak through the NYT (though the leak to the NYT was more than just the suspicion they provided support to terrorist groups–it included news of the impending raid). I don’t know what to make of that (admittedly outside) possibility, but it deserves note.

And then there’s this.

One afternoon early last fall, Katz came across a new thread. It was about her. A jihadi had posted a link to the SITE Institute’s Web site. “The SITEis lurking,” he wrote. Its people were on the boards, using false namesand acting as spies. He urged his brothers to ferret them out and expelthem.

But another poster responded that SITEmight be providing a valuable service. He wrote, “They translate thestatements into English on our behalf, and they do not analyze them.Why do we not grab the opportunity?” Eventually, a moderator on thesite weighed in: “All right, men, do not argue. We will carry out anelection, and then we will see if we should keep them or expelthem—what do you think? I am a democratic operative, don’t you think?”He ended with a smiley-face emoticon. By the time attention shifted toa new thread, opinion was running fifty-fifty as to whether SITE was, on balance, good for jihad.

In other words, back in fall 2005, someone went onto a jihadi site and exposed SITE’s presence. While that exposure could have come from any number of sources (SITE’s clients include members of the media and corporations, as well as the government), whoever exposed SITE had current and detailed information on SITE’s work. (I also love how we never learn whether the jihadis identified SITE’s lurkers or not.) So regardless of whether SITE’s info from Treasury got leaked, their work has been compromised at least once before.

Now couple those two details with this detail, offered by a SITE competitor in the WaPo article.

Share this entry

Banana Cream Pie

/in /by

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

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

I asked him about the drugs-for-weapons exchange and the Chiquitafreighters. “Look, for every kilo of drugs they put in, they had to pay500,000 pesos. If you’re a drug trafficker, and I’m in control, you’dhave to pay me. You have 20 kilos of coca, or you have some othercargo, and I own that region—you understand me? You pay me 500,000pesos for me to ship those drugs as if they were mine, in the boats.You understand? Chiquita’s boats. That’s what the Bananero Block hadgoing on here.” Lorenzo watched the AUC load drugs onto Chiquita boats;he knew about it because he was there when it happened. “Look, therewere drugs, and there were times that they sent drugs for weapons. Theysent the kilos of drugs, and from out there, those duros said we are going to send this many kilos of drugs and I need this many rifles,” Lorenzo said.

What Lorenzo described was a successful scheme that allowed the AUCto act as a contraband-freight consolidator. The AUC could ship theirown cocaine on the company freighters or they could ship productbelonging to someone else for a tax of roughly $250 per kilo, whichworks out to a quarter of the Colombian value of the brick. And thesmuggling scheme was a direct side effect of gaining access to theport. Lorenzo insisted more than once that Chiquita employees knewabout the cocaine: everyone in the chain was paid a percentage to keepquiet, including the freighter captains.

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

On or about December 4, 2003, Individual B and Individual C providedthe Board of Directors additional details concerning defendantCHIQUITA’S payments to the AUC that had not previously been disclosedto the Board. A member of defendant CHIQUITA’S Board of Directorsresponded to this additional information by stating: "I reiterate mystrong opinion–stronger now–to sell our operations in Colombia.

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

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

 

Share this entry

More Inauspiciousness: Your Rent-a-Sheikh Gets Killed

/in , , /by

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

Share this entry

If the UC Regents Are So Susceptible to Political Pressure…

/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

Share this entry

Banana Republic

/in /by

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

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

We knew that that was the government’s recommendation for a fine. What is new, though, is that the government has decided not to indict the well-connected Republican lawyer Roderick Hills for Read more →

Share this entry

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

/in /by

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

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

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

Whenour operations are exposed—legal, authorized operations overseen by Congress—itreduces the space and damages the tools we use to protect Americans. After thepress reported how banking records on the international SWIFT network could bemonitored, I read a claim that this leak—and I quote—“bears no resemblance tosecurity breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearlycompromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.”

Idisagree. In a war that largely depends on our success in collectingintelligence on the enemy, publishing information on our sources and Read more →

Share this entry

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

/in , /by

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

After the 31st of May we were in extremis becausenow we have significantly less capability. And meantime, the community,before I came back, had been working on a National IntelligenceEstimate on terrorist threat to the homeland. And the key elements ofthe terrorist threat to the homeland, there were four key elements, aresilient determined adversary with senior leadership willing to diefor the cause, requiring a place to train and develop, think of it assafe haven, they had discovered that in the border area betweenPakistan and Afghanistan. Now the Pakistani government is pushing andpressing and attempting to do something about it, but by and large theyhave areas of safe haven. So leadership that can adapt, safe haven,intermediate leadership, these are think of them as trainers,facilitators, operational control guys. And the fourth part isrecruits. They have them, they’ve taken them. This area is referred toas the FATA, federally administered tribal areas, they have therecruits and now the objective is to get them into the United Statesfor mass casualties to conduct terrorist operations to achieve masscasualties. All of those four Read more →

Share this entry

“It’s entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false”

/in , /by

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

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

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

Judge McKeown asks whether the government standsby President Bush’s statements that purely-domestic communications,where both parties are in the United States, are not being monitoredwithout warrants.

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

Garre: "Yes, your honor."

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

[snip]

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

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

[snip]

Al-Haramain Foundation attorneys, he points out, "think or believe or claim they were Read more →

Share this entry

Behavior Detection

/in , /by

There are two things that "always" happen to me when I fly to DC. I "always" (often, rather) sit next to MI’s Republican Congressmen in First Class. And I "always" (almost always, probably) get pulled into secondary when I’m flying out of Reagan National Airport. I know why the latter occurs: my driver’s license says, "Margaret" while my Northwest frequent flier number is under the name "Marcy," so they have to pull me into secondary to quiz me about my family’s weird nicknaming habits.

But the day after the Libby sentencing, I got the full-fledged treatment, including what I believe to be behavior detection.

Specially trained security personnel are watching body language andfacial cues of passengers for signs of bad intentions. The watchercould be the attendant who hands you the tray for your laptop or theone standing behind the ticket-checker. Or the one next to the curbsidebaggage attendant.

They’recalled Behavior Detection Officers, and they’re part of several recentsecurity upgrades, Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawleytold an aviation industry group in Washington last month. He describedthem as "a wonderful tool to be able to identify and do risk managementprior to somebody coming into the airport or approaching the crowdedcheckpoint."

[snip]

At the heart of the new Read more →

Share this entry