Don't Like Torture? CIA Says You're Too Emotional

Senator Ron Wyden blasted former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden when he suggested Dianme Feinstein was "too emotional" about torture undertaken by the CIA during the Bush administration.

General Hayden’s suggestion that Chairman Feinstein was motivated by ‘emotion’ rather than a focus on the facts is simply outrageous.  General Hayden unfortunately has a long history of misleading the American public – he did it on domestic surveillance when he was the head of the NSA, and he did it on torture when he was the CIA Director.
The best way to correct this culture of misinformation is to give the American people a chance to review the facts for themselves, and I’ll be working with my colleagues and the administration to ensure that happens quickly.

CIA Vrs the Senate

While Dianne Feinstein has long protected the US Intelligence agencies in the Senate, she finally had enough when the CIA accused her staff of hacking while investigating waterboarding Post 9/11 by the CIA.  She took to the floor of the Senate for 90 minutes denouncing the CIA and their tactics, accusing them of violating the US Constitution.  Ron Wyden agreed in a statement released Tuesday, 3/11/2014.  His language regarding the CIA was very blunt.

In my judgment, the Intelligence Community leadership’s misleading statements on interrogation and many other issues has undermined their credibility. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the facts about the CIA’s detention and interrogation program are made public, so that the American people can make up their own minds about what happened and prevent the mistakes of the past from being repeated.

 Even Lindsey Graham rose in wrath according to CNN.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina called the allegations "dangerous to a democracy," if it's substantiated that the CIA interfered with a congressional investigation.

"Heads should roll, people should go to jail, if it's true. ... I'm going to get briefed on it. If it is, the legislative branch should declare war on the CIA, if it's true," Graham said.

Are You a National Security Threat?

If you have been deemed to be of interest to any government, don't expect anyone to let you know you're being investigated.  The FBI has issued thousands of requests every year for information held by Google and Microsoft, and nobody can reveal who or what is being investigated.  I read a story in PC Magazine  that portrayed the number of requests as trivial, why it's barely .02% of all users.  That may sound like practically nothing, but the numbers are frightening to me. 

"Microsoft received 75,378 requests for user data in 2012 from U.S. and foreign governments, and fulfilled a little over 80 percent of the requests"  they go on to say "The requests potentially impacted 137,424 accounts ... Interestingly, the bulk of requests came from foreign governments, with just a mere 11,073 requests from the U.S. government." 

May I quibble with the use of the word "mere" in describing over 11,000 requests in 2012?  That's about 30 requests a day in the US that they claim are necessary to protect the country.  That sounds like an extreme number to me, and much more indicative of fishing expeditions rather than targeted investigating.  We'll never know who those people are, but given the rate of charges being filed, maybe twenty or so a year, they're casting a pretty wide net. 

See this article discussing terrorism cases brought to trial in the 10 years following 9/11.  "Of the nearly 200 most serious terrorism cases brought to court since the September 11 attacks, some 178 have ended in convictions, either through a guilty plea or a jury's decision, according to an Associated Press review of government documents and interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys." .

"Critics say the conviction rate is boosted by the Justice Department's overly broad definition of terrorism, as well as reluctance by jurors to acquit on such serious charges, and defendants' acceptance of plea bargains because of fear of going to trial.".

A Federal judge just ruled that the FBI use of "National Security Letters" were unconstitutional, but the Obama Administration will appeal that.

Did CIA fund Bin Laden?

There is a wide belief that the CIA funded Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) recently repeated the claim. Many studies dispute this, and in fact there is no evidence the claim is true.  It makes a great sensational statement, but technically it is false.  I say technically because the US did fund the Afghan resistance fighters, many of whom later became part of the Taliban that provided refuge for Bin Laden, but Bin Laden himself received no assistance as a Saudi who traveled to Afghanistan to resist the occupation.

Don't mess with Ron Wyden

Our defender of rights has taken on the Obama administration, which wants to keep secret their justification on assassinating people around the world, including American citizens abroad and frequent innocents caught in the "collateral damage".  Many of the policies originated With George W Bush, but are now the modus operandi of the current administration

In the process, he has picked up allies on both sides of the aisle, with Rand Paul (KY-R), Mike Lee (UT-R), and Mark Udall (CO-D) joining in the demands of more transparency on the arbitrary use of lethal force thousands of miles away.

Is the rule of Law in the US Inoperative?

It was Richard Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler that made the word "inoperative" a part of American history (it was a euphemism for "We Lied").  Now during the Senate confirmation hearings for John Brennan as head of the CIA we hear echos of inoperative.
SEN. RON WYDEN: Let me ask you several other questions with respect to the president’s authority to kill Americans. I’ve asked you how much evidence the president needs to decide that a particular American can be lawfully killed and whether the administration believes that the president can use this authority inside the United States.

Brennan answers with total gibberish.

JOHN BRENNAN: I have been a strong proponent of trying to be as open as possible with these programs, as far as our explaining what we’re doing. What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. I don’t think that it’s one or the other. It’s trying to optimize both of them. And so, what we need to do is make sure we explain to the American people what are the thresholds for action, what are the procedures, the practices, the processes, the approvals, the reviews. The Office of Legal Counsel advice establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate. It doesn’t mean that we operate at those out of boundaries. And, in fact, I think the American people will be quite pleased to know that we’ve been very disciplined, very judicious, and we only use these authorities and these capabilities as a last resort.

If ever there was the epitome of obfuscating bureaucratic blather, Brennan achieved it in pointedly not ruling out the killing of US citizens on US soil.

So what is the answer to Wyden's question?  What are the rules?  Will they just kill anyone they deem dangerous, no matter where?

Legal Executions

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has asked the Obama administration to answer questions about when and how they decide a US Citizen can be summarily killed after this leaked White Paper was leaked to the press.  He has long been concerned on the lack of transparency by the administration on this subject.  He is in a delicate position since as a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, he knows a lot of the answers, but he can not arbitrarily release them publicly.  He will be bringing up the issue in the John Brennan confirmation hearings as director of the CIA.

Update 2/6/2013 6:45 PM, Wyden wins after threatening to derail Brennan nomination.