Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

Die Bundesregierung schickt die deutschen Nachrichtendienste in eine Abwehr-Offensive – gegen ihren engsten Verbündeten: die USA! Denn Deutschland wittert eine massive Späh-Aktion der USA auf allen Ebenen. „Es geht um den Verdacht eines großen Spionage-Angriffs der US-Dienste“, sagte der außenpolitische Experte der CDU-Bundestagsfraktion, Hans-Georg Wellmann (61), zu BILD.
Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel (59, CDU) sagte dem ZDF, sie glaube nicht an ein Ende der Späh-Attacken der US-Geheimdienste gegen die deutsche Regierung.
Der Verdacht: Die diversen US-Geheimdienste sollen bis zu 20 Agenten in deutschen Ministerien und Spitzen-Behörden platziert haben. Nach Informationen der „BILD am Sonntag“ (BamS) aus amerikanischen Sicherheitskreisen sind allein in vier deutschen Ministerien mindestens zwölf amerikanische Agenten aktiv.
Gespitzelt wird demnach besonders in den Ministerien für Inneres, Verteidigung, Wirtschaft und Entwicklungshilfe.
► Nun sollen Computernetzwerke auf Angriffe von außen überprüft werden. Dazu liegen den deutschen Diensten offenbar Informationen über geheime Techniken der US-Dienste vor, mit denen die bisherigen Kontrollen umgangen wurden.
► Auch verdächtige Zugriffe und Operationen aus deutschen Behörden heraus sollen rückwirkend erfasst werden. Es habe sich gezeigt, dass die bisherigen Stichproben nicht gereicht haben. So soll auch erkannt werden, welche Mitarbeiter ungewöhnlich oft Informationen aus sensiblen Bereichen, die nicht unmittelbar zu ihrem Arbeitsfeld gehörten, abgerufen haben.
► Auch die Chips von Druckern und Kopierern in bestimmten Abteilungen von Bundesregierung und Bundestag sowie wichtiger Bundesbehörden sollen ausgelesen werden. Auf diesen Chips ist gespeichert, was gedruckt und kopiert wurde.
► In sensiblen Bereichen kann zudem nur mit personen-bezogenen PIN-Nummern oder Chipkarten gedruckt oder kopiert erden – so sind einzelne Aktionen an diesen Geräten einzelnen Mitarbeitern zuzuordnen. Gleichzeitig kann überprüft werden, ob diese Daten-Chips in Drucker und Kopierern etwa von Dienstleistungsfirmen ausgelesen wurden.
► Regierungsmitarbeiter sollen selbst am Telefon bestimmte Schlagwörter, die die USA und deren Aktivitäten in Deutschland betreffen, nicht mehr verwenden, um nicht von der NSA abgehört zu werden.
Laut BamS registrieren US-Dienste bereits seit Tagen eine zunehmende Observation bestimmter Mitarbeiter der US-Botschaft durch den Verfassungsschutz.
SPIONAGE-SKANDAL
19
Spionage-Affäre: Brauchen wir die USA überhaupt, Herr Innenminister Herrmann?PREMIUM BILDPLUS INHALT
BAYERNS INNENMINISTER
„Wir brauchen die USA, aber…“
Die Affäre um US-Spionage in Deutschland. BILD fragt Bayerns Innenminister Joachim Herrmann: Müssen wir das hinnehmen?
mehr…
306
ZU GUTTENBERG IN BILD: Freundschaft zu den USA ist ein Sanierungsfall
226
SPITZEL-AFFÄRE Darum ließ Merkel den US-Chefspion rauswerfen
205
SPITZEL-AFFÄRE Ministeriums-Mitarbeiter unter Spionage-Verdacht
50
SPIONAGEFALL BEIM BND Wie ist der Doppelagent aufgeflogen?
51
ENTTARNTER NSA-SPITZEL Warum darf der BND deutsche E-Mails abfangen?
268
VON DER LEYEN „Legt Geheimdienste an die Kandare“
Am Donnerstag hatte die Bundesregierung den obersten Geheimdienstler der Amerikaner in Berlin aufgefordert, Deutschland zu verlassen. Begründet wurde der Schritt mit den Ermittlungen gegen zwei mutmaßliche Spione der USA beim Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) und im Verteidigungsministerium sowie den Spähaktionen des US-Dienstes NSA.
Nach den jüngsten Turbulenzen zwischen Berlin und Washington, so die „BamS“, finden derzeit keine Treffen zwischen CIA-Mitarbeitern und Spionen in Deutschland statt. Es werde geprüft, ob die Agenten nicht – zumindest zweitweise – von den US-Botschaften in Prag und Warschau aus geführt werden könnten.
Das Ziel der massiven und fast schon öffentlichen Agenten-Jagd seitens der Bundesregierung: Druck auf die USA ausüben zu können, um die Spitzelei einzuschränken, bzw. die eigenen Positionen in Gesprächen zur Arbeit der Geheimdienste stärken zu können.
Außenminister Steinmeier und Kerry berraten in Wien
Deutschlands Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (58, SPD) traf sich am Sonntag in Wien mit seinem US-Kollegen John Kerry (70).
Beide bekräftigten, Deutschland und die USA wollten sich dafür einsetzen, dass die Affäre um US-Spione auf deutschem Boden die Beziehungen beider Staaten nicht nachhaltig trübe. Deutsch-amerikanische Kooperation sei notwendig, um die vielen weltweit drängenden Konflikte „einer Lösung wenigstens näher zu bringen”, sagte Steinmeier. Kerry betonte, die Beziehung zwischen den USA und Deutschland sei von strategischer Bedeutung. „Wir haben eine enorme politische Kooperation und wir sind enge Freunde.”
Wie schnell diese Worte die Wogen wieder glätten, ist jedoch fraglich. Die Verstimmungen in Berlin über die Spionagefälle sind nach wie vor groß,
was CDU-Außenexperte Wellmann gegenüber BILD folgendermaßen erklärte: „Von China oder Russland erwarten wir, dass deren Dienste massiv gegen uns tätig werden – aber doch nicht unserem Freund und Partner, den USA! Da ist viel enttäuschte Liebe im Spiel.“
13.07.2014 – 20:51 Uhr
Von PETER TIEDE
Find this story at 13 July 2014
Copyright http://www.bild.de/

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Central Intelligence Agency was involved in a spying operation against Germany that led to the alleged recruitment of a German intelligence official and has prompted renewed outrage in Berlin, two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said on Monday.
CIA Director John Brennan has asked to brief key members of the U.S. Congress on the matter, which threatens a new rupture between Washington and a close European ally, one of the officials said.
It was unclear if and when Brennan’s briefing to U.S. lawmakers would take place. The CIA declined any comment on the matter.
The office of Germany’s Federal Prosecutor, based in the western city of Karlsruhe, late last week issued a statement saying that a 31-year old man had been arrested on suspicion of being a foreign spy, and that investigations were continuing. The statement offered no further details.
German politicians have said that the suspect, an employee of the country’s foreign intelligence service, admitted passing to an American contact details concerning a German parliamentary committee’s investigation of alleged U.S. eavesdropping disclosed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the U.S. National Security Agency.
The U.S. officials who confirmed the CIA’s role spoke on condition of anonymity, and offered no further details.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined comment on the dispute.
“The relationship that the United States has with Germany is incredibly important. This is a very close partnership that we have on a range of security issues, including some intelligence issues,” Earnest said. “All of those things are high priorities not just to this administration, but to this country. So we’re going to work with the Germans to resolve this situation appropriately.”
Snowden’s revelations last year, which included evidence that the NSA was targeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal cell phone, frosted U.S.-German relations. The White House agreed to stop targeting Merkel, but rejected Berlin’s pleas for a wider “no spy” pact.
The latest case risks further straining ties.
“If the reports are correct it would be a serious case,” Merkel told a news conference in Beijing, standing next to Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.
German media reported that the suspected spy, who has not been named, had first been detained on suspicion of contacting Russian intelligence agents, but then admitted he had worked with the Americans. The suspect worked for Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, known by the German initials BND.
While historically close, U.S. intelligence ties to Germany became strained over the last year in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
Snowden took refuge in Moscow last year after leaking tens of thousands of highly classified U.S. intelligence documents to media organizations.
Mon, Jul 7 2014
By Mark Hosenball
(Additional reporting by Steve Holland. Editing By Warren Strobel and Andrew Hay)
Find this story at 7 July 2014
© Thomson Reuters 2014.

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

Seit 2012 soll der festgenommene BND-Mitarbeiter im Auftrag der CIA spioniert haben. Das berichten verschiedene Medien unter Berufung auf deutsche Sicherheitskreise. Bundespräsident Gauck äußert sich empört zu dem Skandal: “Jetzt reicht’s auch einmal.”
Der am Mittwoch festgenommene BND-Mann spionierte angeblich für die CIA.
Medienberichten zufolge lieferte er seit Ende 2012 sensible Papiere an die USA.
Bundespräsident Gauck reagiert empört auf die Affäre, auch Außenminister Steinmeier fordert von den USA schnellstmögliche Aufklärung
Spionage für die CIA
Der wegen Spionageverdachts festgenommene Mitarbeiter des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) hat Medienberichten zufolge den US-Geheimdienst CIA mit Informationen versorgt. Noch am 1. Juli habe der 31-Jährige geheime Dokumente zum NSA-Untersuchungsausschuss geliefert, so die Bild am Sonntag.
Demnach seien sich die deutschen Dienste sicher, dass die CIA in die Angelegenheit involviert sei. Der mutmaßliche Doppelagent habe angegeben, einmal pro Woche geheime Dokumente an die USA geschickt zu haben. Die US-Behörden hätten den BND-Mitarbeiter offenbar genau gesteuert, hieß es in dem Bericht weiter.
Aus Regierungskreisen hatten NDR, WDR und Süddeutsche Zeitung erfahren, dass der BND-Mann auch über die Aktivitäten des NSA-Untersuchungsausschusses in die USA berichtet haben soll. Nach Angaben der Bild am Sonntag haben die letzten beiden Sendungen der insgesamt 218 Dokumente, die der BND-Mitarbeiter an die USA geliefert haben soll, den NSA-Ausschuss betroffen.
BND Pullach
NSA-Ausschuss
BND-Mitarbeiter unter Spionageverdacht
Ein Mitarbeiter des Bundesnachrichtendienstes hat nach eigenen Angaben den NSA-Untersuchungsausschuss ausspioniert – angeblich im Auftrag der USA. Das erfuhren NDR, WDR und “Süddeutsche Zeitung” aus Regierungskreisen. Zuvor hatte die Bundesanwaltschaft die Festnahme eines 31-jährigen Deutschen bekanntgegeben.
US-Agent seit 2012
Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS) zitiert einen ranghohen BND-Mitarbeiter, der über den 31-Jährigen sagte: “Alle Indizien sprechen dafür, dass er für die Amerikaner gearbeitet hat.” Demnach wurde er seit Ende 2012 von einem US-Dienst als Agent geführt. FAS-Angaben zufolge arbeitete der Mann im Stab der Abteilung EA “Einsatzgebiete/Auslandsbeziehungen”, wo er für die technische Unterstützung zuständig gewesen sei. Nach Angaben der Zeitung hatte er sich selbst der US-Botschaft in Berlin per E-Mail angeboten. Bei insgesamt drei Treffen mit Kontaktmännern in Österreich habe er 25 000 Euro für seine Dienste erhalten.
Bundespräsident Gauck: “Jetzt reicht’s auch einmal”
Bundespräsident Joachim Gauck sieht durch die Affäre um den mutmaßlichen Doppelagenten die Beziehungen zu den USA belastet. Sollten sich die Spionage-Vorwürfe bewahrheiten, bedeute “das ein Spiel mit Freundschaften und enger Verbundenheit”, sagte Gauck dem ZDF.
Gauck äußerte sich in dem Interview empört. “Wir hatten wirklich eine lange und intensive Debatte darüber, mit welchen Rechten die NSA ausgestattet ist gegenüber anderen Ländern und den Bürgern aus unserer Nation”, sagte Gauck. Wenn der Mitarbeiter des BND tatsächlich für den US-Geheimdienst spioniert haben sollte, “dann ist ja wohl wirklich zu sagen, jetzt reicht’s auch einmal”. Das ZDF sendete am Samstagabend Ausschnitte aus dem Sommerinterview, das am Sonntag ausgestrahlt wird.
Auch Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier nimmt die USA nach den neuerlichen Enthüllungen in die Pflicht. “Wenn die Berichte zutreffen, dann reden wir hier nicht über Kleinigkeiten”, sagte der SPD-Politiker bei einem Besuch in der Mongolei. Die USA müssten “mit ihren Möglichkeiten an einer schnellstmöglichen Aufklärung mitwirken”. Weiter sagte der Außenminister: “Aus Eigeninteresse sollten die USA dieser Mitwirkungspflicht auch Folge leisten.” Nichts dürfe unter den Teppich gekehrt werden.
Google-Datenzentrum
Chronik des NSA-Geheimdienstskandals
Affäre ohne Grenzen
Vom Tisch? Von wegen! Seit Juni 2013 werden dank des Whistleblowers Edward Snowden nahezu täglich neue Details über die Spähpogramme des US-Geheimdiensts NSA und seiner Verbündeten bekannt. Egal ob Amerikaner oder Deutsche, Durchschnittsbürger oder Kanzlerin: Alle sind betroffen. SZ.de dokumentiert die Medienberichte sowie die Reaktionen der Politik.
Worum geht es in der Spionage-Affäre?
Ein 31-jähriger BND-Mitarbeiter steht im Verdacht, für die USA den Untersuchungsausschuss zu den Abhörpraktiken des US-Geheimdienstes NSA ausspioniert zu haben. Er soll aufgeflogen sein, weil er Ende Mai seine Dienste offenbar auch den russischen Geheimdiensten angeboten hatte.
Der NSA-Untersuchungsausschuss im Bundestag beschäftigt sich mit den Überwachungsmethoden des US-Geheimdienstes. Die Affäre um das massenhafte Ausspähen der Kommunikation unbescholtener Bürger durch die NSA, öffentlich gemacht durch den Whistleblower Edward Snowden, überschattet die Beziehungen zu Washington seit mehr als einem Jahr.
Die NSA soll unter anderem das Handy von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel überwacht haben. Im März hatte der Ausschuss seine Arbeit aufgenommen. Er soll allerdings nicht nur die Rolle der NSA, sondern auch des BND in der Affäre klären.
6. Juli 2014 11:25 Neue Medienberichte
Find this story at 6 July 2014
Copyright: Süddeutsche Zeitung Digitale Medien GmbH / Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

Er speicherte Dokumente auf einem USB-Stick – und soll sie an die Amerikaner verkauft haben: Der Spionageverdacht gegen einen BND-Mitarbeiter sorgt für Empörung in Berlin. Die Details irritieren selbst hartgesottene Experten.
Berlin – Es lag ein Hauch von Staatsaffäre in der Luft am Donnerstagabend. Seit dem späten Nachmittag schon flirrten Gerüchte über einen neuen Spionageskandal im Regierungsviertel herum. Es sei etwas Großes im Gange, vielleicht sogar heikler als die NSA-Abhöraffäre, die Edward Snowden durch seinen Schatz an internen Dokumenten aufgedeckt hat, hieß es.
In den Schlüsselministerien, dem Innen- und Justizressort, aber auch im Auswärtigen Amt herrschte wenig später Klarheit. Über verschlüsselte Handys wurden die Minister informiert, dass die Bundesanwaltschaft einen mutmaßlichen Spion festgenommen hatte, der Interna des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) gegen Geld verkauft haben soll. An die Amerikaner.
Noch ist unklar, ob alle Aussagen des 31-jährigen BND-Mannes aus der Abteilung für Auslandskontakte stimmen. Aber der Fall hat das Potenzial für eine Affäre, die beim Bundesnachrichtendienst und seinen Sicherheitsmaßnahmen beginnt und in einem fatalen Zerwürfnis mit den USA und der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Diensten beider Länder enden könnte.
Der Bundesnachrichtendienst weiß, wie heikel die Angelegenheit für die Zukunft der Behörde sein kann. Und so zeigte sich Präsident Gerhard Schindler am Donnerstag ungewöhnlich informativ. Die Mitglieder des geheim tagenden Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums wurden kurzfristig zu einer Sondersitzung zusammengerufen, die Kollegen aus dem NSA-Untersuchungsausschuss hinzugebeten.
Ein äußerst ungewöhnlicher Vorgang, manch einer wunderte sich über das spontan anberaumte Treffen. “Ob der Snowden etwa doch nach Deutschland kommt?”, witzelte einer der Anwesenden. Zum Lachen war bald niemandem mehr zu Mute. Schindler berichtete dem Ausschuss über die Hintergründe der mutmaßlichen Spionage-Affäre.
Für den BND-Maulwurf war die Arbeit lukrativ
Der Fall ist voll bemerkenswerter Details. Ins Netz ging der Mann, der inzwischen in Untersuchungshaft sitzt, den Ermittlern nicht etwa wegen seiner Kontakte mit den Amerikanern. Der Verfassungsschutz fing vor einigen Wochen eine E-Mail von ihm ab, in der er russischen Behörden seine Spionagedienste angeboten haben soll. Erstaunt mussten die Beamten schließlich feststellen, dass die Spur zum Bundesnachrichtendienst führt.
Über Jahre soll der BND-Mitarbeiter zwischen 200 und 300 vertrauliche Dokumente aus dem internen BND-System abgezapft und auf einem USB-Stick gespeichert haben. Papiere zu unterschiedlichen Themengebieten sicherte er, auch vor Dokumenten aus dem NSA-Untersuchungsausschuss machte er nicht Halt. Zwischen 2012 und 2014 soll der Mann die Informationen verkauft haben – an einen Mitarbeiter eines US-Geheimdiensts. Den Kontakt stellte er offenbar vergleichsweise simpel her: Er soll eine E-Mail an die US-Botschaft geschrieben und die Möglichkeit einer Zusammenarbeit ins Spiel gebracht haben.
Für den Maulwurf war die Arbeit offenbar durchaus lukrativ: Mehrere 10.000 Euro habe er von dem Amerikaner für seine Dienste erhalten. Man traf sich angeblich an Orten in Österreich. Sämtliche Details, die Schindler dem Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium offenbarte, stammen aus der Aussage des Mitarbeiters, die er kurz nach seiner Festnahme am Mittwoch gegenüber den Behörden machte.
BND dürfte erneut in den Fokus rücken
Im BND will das illegale Treiben des Mitarbeiters niemandem aufgefallen sein. Sicher, ein wenig geltungssüchtig habe er sich hin und wieder gezeigt, heißt es. Von einer leichten Behinderung ist die Rede. Aber dass der Mann aus dem mittleren Dienst als Spion für die Amerikaner tätig sein könnte, das hielt in Pullach offenbar niemand für möglich.
Angesichts der potenziellen Folgen, die der Fall haben kann, sind viele Eingeweihte noch etwas vorsichtig, was die Aussagen des BND-Mitarbeiters angeht. Kann das alles wirklich sein? Ist es nicht möglich, dass er in seiner Vernehmung Falschangaben macht? Sich als Wichtigtuer aufspielt? Ausschließen kann man das nicht. Aber warum sollte sich der Mitarbeiter selbst so massiv belasten?
Der Fall schreckt die Bundesregierung auf. Die Aufklärung steht erst am Anfang, die Folgen sind unabsehbar. Es stellen sich etliche Fragen, nicht nur für das transatlantische Verhältnis. Sollten sich die Angaben des BND-Mitarbeiters bewahrheiten, dürfte dies erheblichen diplomatischen Schaden anrichten.
Wegen des Verhaltens der Regierung in Washington während der NSA-Affäre sind viele in Berlin ohnehin nicht gut auf die Amerikaner zu sprechen. Schon wird auf den Fluren des Bundestags darüber spekuliert, wie man der US-Regierung symbolisch eins auswischen könnte. Vielleicht, indem man doch nochmal über eine Vernehmung Edward Snowdens in Deutschland nachdenkt?
Auch die Arbeit des Bundesnachrichtendienst dürfte erneut in den Fokus rücken. Schon im NSA-Skandal war die Behörde aus Pullach etliche Male in Erklärungsnot geraten. Nun aber steht die Frage im Raum, wie viel wert ein Auslandsgeheimdienst eigentlich ist, der nicht einmal verhindern kann, dass ein eigener Mitarbeiter für eine Partnerbehörde spioniert.
04. Juli 2014, 16:43 Uhr
Von Matthias Gebauer, Veit Medick und Jörg Schindler
Find this story at 4 July 2014
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2014

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

For years, intelligence services from the US and Germany conducted a secret project on German soil. Together, they developed a counter-terrorism database — with even a journalist coming under suspicion.
Neuss, near Düsseldorf, is one of Germany’s oldest cities. Schoolchildren are taught that the city dates back to the ancient Romans, who founded it in 16 B.C. Neuss was occupied by the French from 1794 to 1814, and by the British occupying force after World War II.
What no one knew until now, however, is that a small, select group of Americans were also stationed in the city on the Rhine River until a few years ago. Working for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), they ran a project under a cloak of secrecy in an inconspicuous office building not far from the cobblestone streets of Neuss’ pedestrian zone. It was a joint project with two German intelligence agencies, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and the Federal Intelligence Service (BND).
The Neuss undercover agents referred to their operation as “Project 6” or just “P6,” and to this day only a few dozen German intelligence agents are even aware of the project. In 2005, as part of the fight against Islamist terrorism, the unit began developing a database containing personal information associated with what is believed to be thousands of people, including photos, license plate numbers, Internet search histories and telephone connection data. The information was intended to provide the intelligence agencies with a better understanding of the web of relationships among presumed jihadists.
From Germany’s perspective, this raises the question of whether the US intelligence service, through its outpost in downtown Neuss, had direct access to data relating to German Islamists and their associates — that is, to data relating to uninvolved third parties.
A Global Surveillance Network
The secret German-American project shows that the National Security Agency (NSA), in its thirst for information, wasn’t the only US agency to establish a global surveillance network. In fact, Project 6 shows that the CIA also sought out strategic partners for the fight against terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
With the bombing attacks in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 still fresh in their memories, the Germans didn’t want to close their minds to the Americans’ request. The Interior Ministry actively pursued cooperation, especially with US agencies. Then Interior Ministry state secretary August Hanning, who had previously headed the BND, sent a BfV go-between to Washington.
In keeping with this logic, the BND and the BfV still believe today that their clandestine database in the city on the Rhine was a legally flawless project. Some domestic and legal policy experts, when confronted with the basic elements of P6, are not quite as convinced, calling the P6 project a legal gray area.
The Neuss group, which operated under the aegis of then BfV President Heinz Fromm, was established on the initiative of the Americans, insiders say today. “The issue at the time was that we weren’t cooperating with the Americans enough, whereas today we’re accused of cooperating too much,” says an intelligence agent familiar with the Neuss project. According to the agent, when the Americans presented the idea for the project to the Germans, they pointed out that it had already been introduced in other countries and was going very well. The CIA provided the computers and software that made up the core of the operation.
Identifying Potential Jihadist Informants
The software, a program called “PX,” was designed to enable the spies to gain a better understanding of the environment in which presumed supporters of terrorism operated. The primary purpose of the information was apparently to identify potential informants in the jihadist community and approach them in a more targeted manner and with more prior knowledge. An insider explains that PX was never connected online, but instead was consistently treated as a self-contained unit within the network of agencies.
A series of events in 2010 exemplify the work of the group, which moved from Neuss to the BfV’s Cologne headquarters after several years. In a letter dated May 6, 2010 and classified as “secret,” the Americans requested information from the P6 analysts. They wanted a list of contacts Yemeni terrorists had in Germany. The CIA request was titled: “Potential operational targets for Project 6 — German telephone numbers lined to Yemeni numbers associated with al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.”
The letter included a request to identify 17 German phone numbers that had been used to contact the “suspicious” Yemeni numbers. “If possible, our agency would appreciate any dates of birth, or passport information, your servers may be able to obtain for the subscribers of the German phones,” the CIA request read.
And the Germans delivered. “Our agency greatly appreciates your Service’s information on the subscribers of German telephones found possibly associated with AQAP [al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula]-related Yemeni numbers,” the Americans wrote effusively on June 29, 2010.
Letter of the Law Not Always Applied
The American search request suggests that the letter of the law is not always applied in the war on terror. Among the individuals identified by the intelligence agencies was Stefan Buchen, a journalist with North German Broadcasting (NDR). As the CIA agents wrote in their letter, Buchen’s telephone number had been “identified due to its association with Abdul Majeed al-Zindani,” a radical cleric in Yemen who the United States believed was a key supporter of former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
The Americans do not describe what exactly the reporter’s “association” to the red-bearded Islamist was. But even if there was such an association, it should be relatively easy to explain. The NDR journalist has been conducting research in Arab countries for many years. He was in Yemen in 2010 to track down two Germans who young Muslims from Germany had been instructed to smuggle into radical Koran schools in Yemen. Buchen was doing his research into the isolated environment of Islamists, canvassing their mosques in the capital Sana’a. In the end, he did manage to find one of the two men.
Buchen was a “journalist from Hamburg who specializes in investigative journalism on terrorism,” the CIA officials claimed, including his passport number and date of birth in their letter. They also wrote that “our agency believes Buchen may have visited Afghanistan multiple times in the past five years.”
The BfV, which considers its collaboration with other agencies to be “in need of secrecy,” assures that such projects are conducted “exclusively on the basis of the provisions of German law.” At least the BND confirms the existence of P6, but it also notes that the cooperative venture ended in 2010. It was “not a project to monitor telecommunications traffic,” and the German agencies had consistently acted “on the basis of their legal authority.”
‘Significant Security Interests’
In fact, Section 19 of the German Act on the Protection of the Constitution prohibits the release of personal data to foreign agencies, even if they can claim “significant security interests.” But the law also states that the intelligence service requires a so-called file order “for every automated file.” In addition, before such an order can come into effect, the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information must be consulted.
Peter Schaar, who has held this office for almost 10 years, is unaware of any of this. “I have no knowledge of such a database, nor was any of this reported to me in the context of a file order,” says Germany’s top data privacy official. If the database had been declared, he adds, he would probably have objected. In Schaar’s opinion, a construct like P6 is “at least comparable with the counter-terrorism file,” a collection of data about suspicious terrorist structures, to which dozens of German government agencies have had access since 2007. “Anyone who conducts such a project would certainly have to guarantee that all activities are fully documented and subjected to a data privacy review,” says Schaar.
Another supervisory body was also seemingly kept in the dark about Project 6. Several longstanding members of the parliamentary control committee of the German parliament, the Bundestag, cannot recall having been informed about a jointly organized exchange of data involving the BfV, the BND and the CIA — neither in Neuss nor in any other secret location. By law, the German government is required to inform the committee about “events of special importance” — a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
A Productive German-American Collaboration
Security experts among the opposition, at any rate, are irritated. The committee has met several times since the NSA affair began, and representatives of the government and the intelligence services were repeatedly asked about the nature and scope of cooperation with the Americans and British. However, the term “P6” was never mentioned. “The administration should have informed us about this, at least within the last three months,” says Left Party politician Steffen Bockhahn, “if this isn’t an especially important procedure, what then?”
Even the termination of Project 6 has had no effect on the productive German-American collaboration. Last year, the BfV alone sent 864 data sets to the CIA, NSA and seven other US intelligence agencies.
They returned the favor in the same year by sending the Germans information on 1,830 occasions. It included communications data, which the Americans had intercepted in the arenas of global jihad and, with the help of the BND, forwarded to the German domestic intelligence service. The BfV stores relevant telephone data in a state-of-the-art IT system. A program called Nadis WN, created in June 2012, is accessible to the BfV and its 16 state agencies.
The functions of the P6 software are apparently also integrated into this program. Officially, no one on the German side knows what happened to the data from the project that was sent from the United States.
BY MATTHIAS GEBAUER, HUBERT GUDE, VEIT MEDICK, JÖRG SCHINDLER and FIDELIUS SCHMID
09/09/2013 06:22 PM
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Find this story at 9 September 2013
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

Der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) haben unter dem Namen „Projekt 6“ oder kurz „P6“ in Deutschland über Jahre hinweg gemeinsam mit der amerikanischen CIA ein Überwachungsprogramm betrieben. Nach Angaben des Verfassungsschutzes existierte die Einheit von 2005 bis 2010.
Wie das Magazin Der Spiegel berichtet, operierten die CIA-Agenten und ihre deutschen Kollegen aus einer getarnten Wohnung im rheinischen Neuss heraus. Zentrum des Projekts war nach Angaben des Spiegel eine gemeinsame Datenbank mit dem Namen „PX“. Darin sollen offiziell Informationen über mutmaßliche Islamisten und deren Umfeld gesammelt worden sein, die unter Terrorverdacht standen.
Über die Art der Informationen, den Umfang der Datenbank und die Kriterien, nach denen Personen aufgenommen wurden, gibt es keine konkreten Anhaltspunkte. Auch ob die Datenbank weiterhin existiert, geht aus den Stellungnahmen der Geheimdienste nicht hervor.
Der Fall des Journalisten Stefan Buchen zeigt aber, dass jeder ins Fadenkreuz von „P6“ kommen konnte, der Reisen an ungewöhnliche Orte unternimmt, fremde Sprachen spricht oder einfach mit den „falschen Leuten“ telefoniert. Buchen steht auf einer Liste mutmaßlicher Dschihadisten und Terrorverdächtiger, die die CIA im Jahr 2010 an die deutschen Geheimdienste weiterreichte.
Auf der Liste finden sich Buchens Passnummer, sein Geburtsdatum und seine Mobilfunknummer. Weiterhin vermerkt der Eintrag, Buchen habe mehrfach Afghanistan bereist und sei auf investigativen Journalismus spezialisiert. Der Reporter des Norddeutschen Rundfunks (NDR) war ins Visier der Geheimdienste geraten, nachdem er im Rahmen seiner Arbeit mehrmals in den Jemen telefoniert hatte.
Unklar ist bisher noch, ob die deutschen Geheimdienste dem Ersuchen der CIA nach weiteren Informationen über Buchen nachkamen. Angesichts der engen Zusammenarbeit der Dienste, die durch die NSA-Affäre bekannt wurde, ist aber anzunehmen, dass sie dabei keine Skrupel hatten.
Buchen selbst sagt, er habe „schon immer befürchtet“, dass er wie auch andere Kollegen auf Grund beruflicher Recherchen „auf den Radar der Dienste gerate“. Wie weit die Geheimdienste dabei tatsächlich gehen, hat er aber offenbar unterschätzt: „Dass man uns Journalisten so offen bespitzelt, ist schockierend.“
Der Datenschutzbeauftragte der Bundesregierung, Peter Schaar, geht davon aus, dass Journalisten trotz rechtlichem Schutz öfter ins Visier der Geheimdienste geraten. Er sagte dem ARD-Morgenmagazin: „So was kann ganz schnell passieren, wenn man in bestimmten Bereichen sich aufhält, wenn man mit bestimmten Leuten spricht, an bestimmten Orten ist, wo sich gegebenenfalls Terroristen oder Terrorverdächtige aufhalten, dass man dann in eine Datei kommt bzw. jedenfalls ins Blickfeld von Nachrichtendiensten.“
Er selbst habe von der Datenbank nichts gewusst, obwohl ihm eigentlich jede Einrichtung einer Datenbank mit automatisierter Datenverarbeitung durch staatliche Behörden gemeldet werden müsse, sagte Schaar. „Mir ist eine solche Datenbank nicht bekannt und auch nicht im Rahmen einer Dateianordnung gemeldet worden.“
Auch mehrere Mitglieder des Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums (PKG), das für die Kontrolle der Geheimdienste zuständig ist, sagen, sie seien nicht über das „Projekt 6“ unterrichtet worden. Bundesregierung und Verfassungsschutz behaupten allerdings, das PKG sei bereits früher über die Tätigkeit von „Projekt 6“ informiert worden. Auch im Zuge der jüngsten NSA-Affäre sei „P6“ noch einmal erwähnt worden.
Die widersprüchlichen Behauptungen lassen nur zwei Schlüsse zu: Entweder hatten die Geheimdienste tatsächlich weder den Datenschutzbeauftragten noch das PKG über das „Projekt 6“ unterrichtet und handelten außerhalb jeglicher Kontrolle. Oder das PKG wusste Bescheid und vertuscht dies nun, weil es sonst als scheindemokratischer Deckmantel der staatlichen Spitzelei dasteht.
Verschiedene Medien bringen das „Projekt 6“ mit der sogenannten „Sauerland-Gruppe“ in Verbindung. Dabei handelte es sich um vier Islamisten, die wegen versuchter Bombenanschläge inzwischen zu mehrjährigen Haftstrafen verurteilt worden sind. Die Gruppe war im September 2007 von der Polizei festgesetzt worden, nachdem sie über Monate hinweg direkt unter den Augen der Sicherheitsbehörden agiert hatte. Nun stellt sich heraus, dass die CIA nicht nur den Hinweis auf die Gruppe gegeben hatte, sondern auch selbst auf deutschem Boden gegen sie tätig war.
Das Magazin Focus hatte bereits Ende Juni über ein CIA-Kommando berichtet, dass sich vor Jahren im Gebäude der Sparkasse Neuss eingerichtet habe. Ende 2006 seien mehrere Dutzend Spezialisten aus der US-Geheimdienstzentrale nach Deutschland eingeflogen worden. Darunter hätten sich auch nahkampferprobte Ex-Soldaten der Navy Seals befunden.
Bis heute gilt das Umfeld der „Sauerland-Gruppe“ als höchst dubios. Der Mann, der die Zünder für die geplanten Attentate lieferte, soll Kontaktmann des türkischen Geheimdienstes MIT gewesen sein, berichtete seinerzeit der Stern. Für die Radikalisierung der Gruppe war der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung zufolge vor allem ein muslimischer Prediger aus Neu-Ulm verantwortlich, der mehr als sieben Jahre lang V-Mann des baden-württembergischen Verfassungsschutzes gewesen sein soll.
Beachtlich ist auch, dass vor der Festnahme des Quartetts im sauerländischen Oberschledorn Hunderte von Polizeibeamten und Staatsschützern monatelang jeden Schritt der Islamisten verfolgt hatten, aber erst in angeblich letzter Minute eingriffen, um ein Attentat zu verhindern. Die Festnahme der „Sauerland-Gruppe“ wurde anschließend von Politik und Medien massiv genutzt, um für stärkere Sicherheitsgesetze und die Aufrüstung von Polizei und Geheimdiensten zu werben.
Die Enthüllungen über „Projekt 6“ reihen sich in die massive Aufrüstung von Polizei und Geheimdiensten ein, die nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 einsetzte. Die in der Verfassung verankerte Trennung von Polizei und Geheimdiensten, eine Lehre aus der Schreckensherrschaft der Gestapo, ist inzwischen weitgehend aufgehoben worden. In einem gemeinsamen Extremismus- und Terrorismusabwehrzentrum (GETZ) arbeiten die Mitarbeiter von über 40 Sicherheitsbehörden eng zusammen. Das Bundeskriminalamt ist mit geheimdienstlichen Befugnissen ausgestattet worden und agiert außerhalb jeglicher Kontrolle.
Zugleich hat Deutschland die Zusammenarbeit mit den Geheimdiensten anderer Großmächte verstärkt. Das belegen nicht zuletzt die Enthüllungen von Edward Snowden. Bei allen nationalen Gegensätzen und Interessenskonflikten sind sich die herrschenden Klassen weltweit einig, dass jede Opposition gegen Sozialabbau und imperialistische Kriege kontrolliert und wenn nötig verfolgt und unterdrückt werden muss.
Von Sven Heymanns
13. September 2013
Find this story at 13 September 2013
Copyright © 1998-2014 World Socialist Web Site

Van nieuwsblog.burojansen.nl

Trotz der Snowden-Affäre intensiviert der deutsche Verfassungsschutz laut Recherchen von SZ, NDR und WDR die Zusammenarbeit mit US-Nachrichtendiensten wie CIA und NSA. Die Zahl der an die Amerikaner übermittelten Datensätze hat sich in den vergangenen Jahren demnach verfünffacht.
Der Verfassungsschutz hat seine Zusammenarbeit mit amerikanischen Geheimdiensten in den vergangenen Jahren ausgebaut – und sich dabei offenbar auch von den Snowden-Enthüllungen nicht bremsen lassen. Wie aus geheimen Regierungsdokumenten hervorgeht, die SZ, WDR und NDR einsehen konnten, ist die Zahl der Datensätze, die der Verfassungsschutz an US-Dienste übermittelt hat, erheblich gestiegen. Im Jahr 2013 schickte der Verfassungsschutz 1163 Datensätze an die Amerikaner. Allein in den ersten drei Monaten dieses Jahres waren es bereits etwa 400. In den vergangenen vier Jahren hat sich die Zahl damit fast verfünffacht. Bei den übermittelten Daten soll es sich unter anderem um Handynummern, Reisebewegungen und Aufenthaltsorte verdächtiger Personen handeln.
Das Pikante daran: Der Verfassungsschutz ist Deutschlands Inlandsgeheimdienst, er arbeitet also nur auf deutschem Boden. Es liegt also nahe, dass der Dienst in Deutschland erhobene Daten an die Amerikaner weitergibt. Das Ganze ist Teil eines großen Tauschgeschäfts unter “befreundeten Diensten”: Deutschlands In- und Auslandsgeheimdienste, also der Verfassungsschutz sowie der Bundesnachrichtendienst, leiten Daten an die Amerikaner weiter und bekommen im Gegenzug dann Informationen von CIA, NSA und Co. Der Verfassungsschutz erklärte auf Anfrage, mit US-Nachrichtendiensten zusammenzuarbeiten. Man halte sich dabei strikt an die gesetzlichen Aufgaben und Befugnisse.
Nach Informationen von SZ, NDR und WDR übermittelte der Inlandsgeheimdienst zuletzt Informationen an die Nachrichtendienste des US-Heeres und der Luftwaffe sowie an die Bundespolizei FBI. Die meisten Daten gingen aber an die CIA und das Joint Issues Staff, womit die CIA-Dependencen im Ausland gemeint sind. Im Falle Deutschlands wären das vor allem die Stützpunkte in der Berliner Botschaft und dem Generalkonsulat in Frankfurt. Dort sitzt auch der Special Collection Service: jene Spezialeinheit von CIA und NSA, die das Handy von Angela Merkel ausgespäht haben soll.
Fokus auf Spione aus China und Russland
Mit den Ausspähungen der Amerikaner beschäftigt sich derzeit ein Untersuchungsausschuss, zudem ermittelt der Generalbundesanwalt. Diese ausländische Spionage in Deutschland zu verhindern, ist eigentlich Aufgabe des Verfassungsschutzes. Der blickt aber fast ausschließlich auf die Spione von Staaten wie China und Russland. Es existiert zwar ein Plan, künftig auch das Treiben der Briten und Amerikaner besser im Auge zu behalten, er wurde vor einigen Monaten auch im Bundeskanzleramt vorgestellt. Bislang ist dem Vernehmen nach aber noch keine Entscheidung gefallen.
Es ist derzeit nicht zu erwarten, dass die Regierung dem Plan zustimmt. Er würde die Verfassungsschützer vor eine schwierige Aufgabe stellen: Sie müssten Dienste beobachten, auf deren Informationen sie angewiesen sind. Allein der Inlandsgeheimdienst bekommt jedes Jahr mehr als 1000 Datensätze von den Amerikanern, beim Bundesnachrichtendienst sind es sogar etwa 100 000 Datensätze. Außerdem nutzt der BND die NSA-Spionagesoftware XKeyscore. Der Verfassungsschutz besitzt eine Testversion des Programms.
11. Juni 2014 18:21 Spionage
Von John Goetz und Frederik Obermaier
Find this story at 11 June 2014
Copyright: Süddeutsche Zeitung Digitale Medien GmbH / Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH

WASHINGTON — Two weeks ago, a pair of F.B.I. agents appeared unannounced at the door of a member of the defense team for one of the men accused of plotting the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As a contractor working with the defense team at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the man was bound by the same confidentiality rules as a lawyer. But the agents wanted to talk.

They asked questions, lawyers say, about the legal teams for Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other accused terrorists who will eventually stand trial before a military tribunal at Guantánamo. Before they left, the agents asked the contractor to sign an agreement promising not to tell anyone about the conversation.

With that signature, Mr. bin al-Shibh’s lawyers say, the government turned a member of their team into an F.B.I. informant.

The F.B.I.’s inquiry became the focus of the pretrial hearings at Guantánamo this week, after the contractor disclosed it to the defense team. It was a reminder that, no matter how much the proceedings at the island military prison resemble a familiar American trial, the invisible hand of the United States government is at work there in ways unlike anything seen in typical courtrooms.

“It’s a courtroom with three benches,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. “There’s one person pretending to be the judge, and two other agencies behind the scenes exerting at least as much influence.”

Thirteen years after 9/11, nobody has been convicted in connection with the attacks and, because of the F.B.I. visit, a trial could be delayed even longer. But it was only the latest in a string of strange events at Guantánamo Bay that, coupled with the decade-long delay, have undermined a process that was supposed to move swiftly, without the encumbrances of the civilian legal system and its traditional rules of evidence.

Last year, as a lawyer for Mr. Mohammed was speaking during another hearing, a red light began flashing. Then the videofeed from the courtroom abruptly cut out. The emergency censorship system had been activated. But why? And by whom? The defense lawyer had said nothing classified. And the court officer responsible for protecting state secrets had not triggered the system. Days later, the military judge, Col. James L. Pohl, announced that he had been told that an “original classification authority” — meaning the C.I.A. — was secretly monitoring the proceedings. Unknown to everyone else, the agency had its own button, which the judge swiftly and angrily disconnected.

Continue reading the main story
X CLOSE

Last year, the government acknowledged that microphones were hidden inside what looked like smoke detectors in the rooms where detainees met with their lawyers. Those microphones gave officials the ability to eavesdrop on confidential conversations, but the military said it never did so.

“At some point, it just becomes silly,” said Glenn Sulmasy, a military law professor at the Coast Guard Academy who supports military trials for terrorism but said problems at Guantánamo Bay have undermined confidence in the system. “I don’t think we’re at that point yet, but at some point it just becomes surreal. It’s like there’s a shadow trial going on and we’re only finding out about it in bits and pieces.”

The court has also been troubled by computer problems. A botched computer update gave prosecutors and defense lawyers access to the other side’s confidential work. And the Pentagon acknowledged inadvertently searching and copying defense lawyers’ emails but said nobody read them.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Advertisement

“These things keep happening,” a defense lawyer, James Harrington, said this week as he asked for an investigation into the F.B.I.’s activities. The other instances seemed like government intrusion, Mr. Harrington said, but lawyers could not prove it. “Here it really happened.”

The F.B.I. would not comment and military prosecutors said they knew nothing about the investigation. But the F.B.I. appears to be investigating how The Huffington Post got ahold of a 36-page manifesto that Mr. Mohammed had written in prison.

The government hopes to start the trial early next year, but it is not clear whether this issue will result in another delay. Mr. Harrington said he wanted Colonel Pohl to question F.B.I. officials and determine whether anyone else on the defense team had been approached by or gave information to the government.

“It’s just a horrible atmosphere to operate in,” Mr. Harrington said Friday. “It’s built on a shaky foundation, and one thing after another happens. I don’t see how anyone can have confidence in this process.”

Continue reading the main story
RECENT COMMENTS

gmcnulty 24 days ago
The 9/11 terrorist murdered my son that day in September but I am sickened by the actions of some within our government.No matter what there…
GC 25 days ago
I have zero faith in the bureaucrats that run (leach off) our country. I am an eye for an eye purist, but we have laws for a reason. The…
RS 25 days ago
This is what our country has become, our so-called Democracy land of the free and the CIA.
SEE ALL COMMENTS
Christopher Jenks, a Southern Methodist University law professor and a former military prosecutor, said he sympathized with the Guantánamo prosecutors, who appeared to have been just as surprised as defense lawyers by the appearance of the F.B.I. and C.I.A. in their cases.

“You have these military prosecutors who are normally empowered to own their cases. And they don’t here,” Mr. Jenks said. If this were any other country’s system, Mr. Jenks said, “The reaction would be, ‘Oh my gosh. What a kangaroo process.’ ”

President George W. Bush created the military tribunal system for suspected terrorists in 2001. Years of court challenges followed and after the Supreme Court struck down the tribunal’s rules in 2006, Congress hurriedly wrote new rules giving prisoners more rights. More changes followed in 2009 and the government says the process is far better and fairer now.

The 9/11 trial, if it occurs, will be the biggest test of that system. Six detainees in other cases have pleaded guilty before military commissions. Two others have gone to trial and been found guilty, only to have their convictions thrown out by an appeals court.

Greg McNeal, a former adviser to the top Guantánamo prosecutor, said the military tribunal system was ripe for episodes like the one with the F.B.I. because it is so new. The civilian system and the traditional military judicial system have well-established rules and precedents for handling issues that arise. “Because it’s new and different, they may have a sense that they can get away with things,” Mr. McNeal said. He added, “There are interagency fights happening behind the scenes that have been going on for the past decade.”

The Obama administration had hoped to prosecute the 9/11 case in a New York criminal court. But it reversed course in the face of security fears and criticism that the government would grant constitutional rights to terrorists.

While the military tribunals have been plagued by delays, the department has successfully prosecuted several terrorism cases in civilian courts. Most recently, prosecutors in Manhattan won a conviction against Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the most senior adviser to Osama bin Laden to be tried in civilian court in the United States since 9/11.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. noted that the New York case had proceeded from capture to conviction in about a year. “It is hard to imagine this case being presented with greater efficiency or greater speed,” he said.

Correction: April 22, 2014
An article on Saturday about the F.B.I.’s involvement in terrorism-related trials misspelled the surname of a Southern Methodist University law professor and former military prosecutor. He is Christopher Jenks, not Jencks.

By MATT APUZZO APRIL 18, 2014

Find this story at 18 April 2014

© 2014 The New York Times Company

FORT MEADE, Md. — A military judge ordered prosecutors on Tuesday to turn over never-revealed details about the time a Guantánamo Bay detainee spent in secret C.I.A. prisons after his arrest in connection with the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen.

The order was a victory for defense lawyers representing the detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of orchestrating the Oct. 12, 2000, bombing of the Cole in Aden, Yemen. The attack killed 17 American sailors, wounded 42 others and tore a huge hole into the side of the ship.

Mr. Nashiri, who was born in Saudi Arabia, has been held at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since 2006, after spending time at a series of secret C.I.A. prisons.

A C.I.A. inspector general’s report said Mr. Nashiri, considered to have once been one of the most senior leaders in Al Qaeda, was waterboarded and threatened with a gun and a power drill because interrogators believed he was withholding information about possible attacks against the United States. Such practices were allowed under rules approved by the George W. Bush administration, but many have since been repudiated.

Prosecutors, who can appeal Tuesday’s ruling, had argued that information about Mr. Nashiri’s time spent in C.I.A. custody was irrelevant. The defense says the case was tainted by C.I.A. actions in the secret prisons and could be used to spare him from the death penalty.

The government has confirmed little about what happened in the C.I.A. prisons. Tuesday’s order, by Col. James L. Pohl, a judge with the United States Army, did not make any details available to the public. His order explicitly noted that all parties in the case are required to follow a protective order barring release of classified information.

The judge said the government must provide details about Mr. Nashiri’s capture, detention, rendition and interrogation. The information the judge ordered the government to reveal included a chronology of how Mr. Nashiri was shuttled among the secret prisons, and how he was transported, clothed and restrained. The government must also provide reports, summaries of interrogations and any photos or videos documenting his confinement conditions.

Under the rules for military commissions, prosecutors are barred from using any evidence or testimony obtained by coercion, and the defense has argued that all information from Mr. Nashiri is tainted by the harsh treatment he endured.

The hearing was held Tuesday at Guantánamo Bay, but reporters were able to watch it here.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSAPRIL 22, 2014

Find this story at 22 April 2014

© 2014 The New York Times Company

Judge James Pohl orders agency to produce detailed account of its detention of USS Cole bombing suspect at secret prison

A judge overseeing the trials of terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay has ordered the CIA to turn over details of its treatment of a detainee in one of its secret prisons, a watershed ruling that sets the stage for the military commissions to learn much more than the US public about the agency’s brutal interrogations.

While the ruling is still sealed, Judge James Pohl, an army colonel, issued the order on Monday for the CIA to produce a detailed account of its detention and interrogation of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is charged with orchestrating the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 that killed 17 US sailors.

Details of the order, issued through the military commissions prosecution team, were first reported by the Miami Herald on Thursday.

Pohl is also the judge overseeing the stalled 9/11 tribunal involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees. Their defense attorneys have long bemoaned their lack of access to CIA information about the treatment of their clients before their 2006 arrival at Guantánamo, which they argue directly impacts their fitness to stand trial and the evidence underlying their cases.

The defense teams in the 9/11 tribunal said on Thursday they would seek Pohl’s ruling on similar disclosure orders covering everything from a chronology of their clients’ detention, to any approvals by the CIA of the use of particular interrogation techniques.

Pohl’s move comes as the CIA is locked in a bitter public battle with the Senate intelligence committee over the panel’s recent report into the agency’s post-9/11 torture programs. It opens a new front for the agency in an unexpected venue.

A bright spot for the CIA may be that Pohl has not ruled that information regarding Nashiri’s treatment – which, according to declassified information, involved waterboarding and a threat with a gun and a revved power drill – must be made public, but rather turned over to the commission.

Lawyers for one of the defendants, Ammar al-Baluchi, filed a motion on April 2 to acquire the Senate committee report. Lawyers for Baluchi and co-defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh said that the defense teams were now petitioning Pohl to issue a similar order for CIA disclosure in their cases.

“It is important to know what happened, who did it, where did it happen, who authorized it, who knew about it, and what was the result,” said Baluchi’s attorney, James Connell.

“Those are the important thing to know in order to answer some of the hugest questions in this case: what was the pretrial treatment of the defendants, what was the impact on the admissibility of their statements, what impact does it have on the United States’ compliance with international standards, and what impact does it have on the appropriate sentence of the case, if any.”

Pohl’s order to the CIA reportedly requires the agency to turn over more information than is contained in the portions of the report that the committee recently voted to declassify, including communications between the so-called “black site” prisons and agency headquarters; names of interrogators; and the techniques used on Nashiri.

Brigadier General Mark Martins, the chief military commissions prosecutor in both cases, did not tip his hand as to whether he would contest the CIA disclosure order.

“We are studying that ruling,” Martins said.

“I can pledge that whatever happens, whatever we do will adhere to the rule of law and will be an effort to seek justice.”

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd declined comment, saying: “As a general matter, CIA does not comment on ongoing court litigation.”

Human rights advocates hailed Pohl’s ruling on the CIA as a potential transparency breakthrough.

“For the first time, the CIA is being forced to disclose details about secret black sites and torture that it has fought for years to hide,” said Hina Shamsi, an attorney with the ACLU.

“Without this information, defense lawyers cannot properly do their job and represent their client.”

Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch said the Pohl ruling “represents a chink in the armor of secrecy that the US government erected around its torture program”.

Along with the Senate report’s partial declassification, “it is only a matter of time before the public will learn the horrific details of officially sanctioned torture, and the pattern of lies designed not only to allow torture to continue, but to immunize torturers from prosecution,” Prasow said.

If the prosecution believes the defense teams in either the Nashiri or the 9/11 case ought to receive CIA accounts of their treatment in the agency’s custody but the CIA disagrees, Connell said the tribunals in either case would have to be paused to resolve the dispute.

“The agency with equities in that information can have a veto over the prosecution,” Connell said.

Spencer Ackerman at Guantánamo Bay
theguardian.com, Thursday 17 April 2014 18.39 BST

Find this story at 17 April 2014

© 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — The military judge in the USS Cole bombing case has ordered the CIA to give defense lawyers details — names, dates and places — of its secret overseas detention and interrogation of the man accused of planning the bombing, two people who have read the still-secret order said Thursday.

Army Col. James L. Pohl issued the five-page order Monday. It was sealed as document 120C on the war court website Thursday morning and, according to those who have read it, orders the agency to provide a chronology of the overseas odyssey of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, 49, from his capture in Dubai in 2002 to his arrival at Guantánamo four years later.

The order sets the stage for a showdown between the CIA and a military judge, if the agency refuses to turn over the information to the prosecution for the defense teams. The order comes while the CIA fights a bitter, public battle with the Senate on its black site torture investigation.

The judge’s order instructs prosecutors to provide nine categories of closely guarded classified CIA information to the lawyers — including the names of agents, interrogators and medical personnel who worked at the so-called black sites. The order covers “locations, personnel and communications,” interrogation notes and cables between the black sites and headquarters that sought and approved so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, the two sources said.

It does not, however, order the government to turn over Office of Legal Counsel memos that both blessed and defined the so-called Torture Program that sent CIA captives to secret interrogations across the world after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks — out of reach of International Committee of the Red Cross delegates.

“It’s a nuclear bomb that may shut down the case,” said one person who read the order and is not a part of the Cole case.

It covers so many of the agency’s closely guarded secrets that the source predicted “the prosecution would probably take an interlocutory appeal,” meaning rather than release the information Pentagon prosecutors will ask a military commissions appeals court to overrule Pohl.

It was not known whether the CIA would assert a national security privilege. “As a general matter, CIA does not comment on ongoing court litigation,” said agency spokesman Dean Boyd.

Different remedies sometimes suggested by defense attorneys in pretrial hearings range from abating the proceedings until the government complies to making life in prison, rather than military execution, the maximum possible penalty.

The chief prosecutor, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, would not comment on whether he would appeal.

“We are studying that order,” he said, adding that the prosecution would comply with both “the rule of law” and “our discovery obligation.”

Nashiri pretrial hearings are still scheduled for next week, he said.

Defense lawyers at the five-man Sept. 11 war crimes trial said Thursday that, upon learning of Pohl’s order in the USS Cole case, they styled a motion seeking access to the same CIA information about their clients.

After the Miami Herald disclosed the order Thursday morning, Nashiri’s civilian lawyer, Rick Kammen, cast it as material that “the prosecution has publicly resisted producing.”

“The prosecution’s argument that the defense is precluded from checking the government’s work is frivolous. One of the defense functions is to check the government’s story,” he said. “The biggest cause of reversals in capital cases is due to prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory material including material relevant to punishment.”

He added: “We also note that the CIA has lied to at least three federal courts, the 9/11 Commission and, according to the newspapers, Congress. This demonstrated history of lying clearly obligates us to a full investigation.”

Even if the prosecution does secure the information from the CIA and releases it to Nashiri’s lawyers, that does not necessarily mean that the public will get to know the details.

The program is still classified, and Pohl ordered the material produced as discovery — for pretrial preparation in the case of Nashiri, the Saudi captive who the U.S. has called the mastermind of al-Qaida’s suicide bombing.

Two men sailed a bomb-laden skiff alongside the Cole on Oct. 12, 2000, and blew themselves up, crippling the warship and killing 17 U.S. sailors.

The development comes two weeks after the Senate voted to declassify a portion of an investigation of the so-called CIA torture program that could contain some of the answers sought by lawyers for Nashiri before his death-penalty trial. But the judge’s order appears to go further to a level of detail not provided in the executive summary, findings and recommendations that might be made public, if President Barack Obama agrees.

It also follows the recent Pentagon release of unclassified portions of a secret Feb. 22 Cole case hearing among lawyers with security clearances that allow them to know certain aspects of the still-secret CIA Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program.

One person who read Pohl’s ruling this week said the order “largely ordered a huge amount of RDI material produced to the defense.” Pohl apparently at one point specifies that information must be unredacted, not blacked out.

At that hearing, the lead prosecutor preparing for Nashiri’s Dec. 4 death-penalty tribunal, Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lockhart, argued that the government had provided the defense with anything “relevant” to trial preparation.

The defense doesn’t have the authority to “double-check the government’s work,” Lockhart told the judge, “and they certainly don’t have the right to do their own independent investigation” of what happened to Nashiri.

Pohl apparently concluded otherwise.

Defense lawyers want to independently reconstruct what happened to Nashiri in secret confinement to challenge the integrity of certain evidence and to argue that his mistreatment disqualifies a death penalty sentence.

The CIA waterboarded him, and an internal abuse investigation showed its agents interrogated Nashiri while he was nude and that they threatened him with a revving power drill, handgun and threats to sexually assault his mother.

Chief prosecutor Martins, has already noted that the Obama administration revamped the tribunal to prohibit use of involuntary interrogations at trial. In the transcript, Lockhart says all mistreatment of Nashiri is now in the public domain.

Navy Cmdr. Brian Mizer, one of Nashiri‘s lawyers, told the Miami Herald recently that an investigation of the treatment should determine whether any of Nashiri’s answers to questions at Guantánamo were truly voluntary: “You have to get back to the past to determine whether this is just a dog barking on command.”

A military medical board has diagnosed Nashiri, 49, a self-described former millionnaire merchant from Mecca, as having post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder.

His lawyers want to interview officials who worked at the black sites, comb through manifests and read approved Standard Operating Procedures on so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that spelled out how to waterboard Nashiri in secret custody.

Posted on Thursday, 04.17.14
BY CAROL ROSENBERG

Find this story at 17 April 2014

Copyright 2014 Miami Herald Media Co.

WASHINGTON — A secret Senate report on the CIA’s treatment of Al Qaeda detainees from 2001 to 2006 concludes that the spy agency used brutal, unauthorized interrogation techniques, misrepresented key elements of the program to policymakers and the public, and actively sought to undermine congressional oversight, officials who have read the report say.

Contrary to previous assertions by President George W. Bush and CIA leaders, the use of harsh interrogation techniques — which many consider to be torture — did not produce game-changing intelligence that stopped terrorist attacks, the report concludes. Though detainees supplied useful intelligence after such treatment was applied, the report argues that the information could have been elicited through noncoercive methods.

The 6,200-page report was produced by Democratic staffers on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which earlier this month voted 11 to 3 to seek declassification of a 480-page executive summary and a list of findings. The White House and the CIA will now decide what, if anything, must be censored for national security before the summary is released to the public.

The report’s top-line conclusions amount to a scathing indictment of the CIA. Current and former agency officials and many Senate Republicans say they take issue with some of the findings, although not all the specific points of dispute are clear.

“Given that the report remains classified, we are unable to comment,” CIA spokesman Dean Boyd wrote in an email. “Our response to the 2012 version of the report found several areas in which CIA and [the committee] agreed, and several other areas in which we disagreed.”

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA held Al Qaeda operatives in secret prisons in Europe and Asia and received permission to use sleep deprivation, stress positions, slapping, humiliation and other techniques to break down detainees viewed as uncooperative. Among the most controversial techniques was waterboarding, which creates a sensation of drowning.

The Justice Department had authorized the CIA to use the techniques in a series of secret legal opinions that have since been rescinded.

Bush and CIA officials involved in the program say it produced crucial, lifesaving intelligence. Critics say some of the techniques amounted to torture that was both immoral and ineffective.

Those who have seen the report, who did not want to be identified discussing a classified document, say it concludes that the CIA misled the Justice Department, the White House and congressional leaders about key elements of the program and exaggerated the intelligence gained from using the harsh techniques. In many cases, the report says, the best intelligence a detainee provided was obtained before the techniques were used.

Officials say the report also found that the CIA used techniques that hadn’t been approved by the Justice Department or CIA headquarters, and that even the approved techniques were far more brutal and harmful to detainees than the CIA communicated to senior policymakers and members of Congress who were briefed on the program.

The program was so badly mismanaged that the CIA did not always have an accurate accounting of how many detainees it held, the report is said to conclude. Sources said the report found that much of the program was outsourced to contractors, including two psychologists, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, who were the architects of the program and personally conducted some of the waterboarding sessions.

CIA employees who raised questions internally about the use of the coercive techniques were ignored, the report concludes, and CIA interrogators who committed misconduct were not held accountable. A Justice Department criminal investigation looking at whether CIA officers could be prosecuted in connection with the harsh interrogations ended in 2011 with no charges filed.

Senate staffers spent years poring over millions of pages of CIA documents to complete the report. They were prevented from interviewing participants because a criminal investigation was ongoing, so they relied on interviews conducted by the CIA’s inspector general. The inspector issued a report in 2004 that criticized how some of the techniques were used, but also concluded the interrogation program as a whole produced useful intelligence.

By KEN DILANIAN

Find this story at 11 April 2014

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

Investigators mapped flight paths of private contractor planes that stopped in Djibouti, a suspected CIA ‘black site’

New evidence culled from a court case involving CIA contractors has revealed flight paths through Djibouti that appear to indicate the country’s role as a hub of the CIA’s rendition network in Africa, according to documents released by the U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve and New York University’s Global Justice Clinic.

The documents could support the case of Mohammad al-Asad, a former CIA detainee who is suing the government of Djibouti for its alleged role in hosting CIA “black sites” — specifically the one where he says he was detained and tortured for two weeks between December 2003 and January 2004. A Senate investigation into the agency’s “detention and interrogation program” had previously confirmed that several individuals had in fact been detained in Djibouti, according to two officials who read the still-classified report and spoke to Al Jazeera.

Investigators behind the document release combed through contracts, invoices and letters put into evidence for a court case — which involved CIA contractors and was separate from the Djibouti allegations — and pieced together a series of rendition circuits, or flight paths, between 2003 and 2004. They include legs through Djibouti — even though the Horn of Africa did not appear to be a convenient stopover between the United States and Afghanistan, the circuits’ endpoints.

“Djibouti was not on the way, it was a destination,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, al-Asad’s attorney and a professor at the Global Justice Clinic. “That’s kind of a telltale sign of a rendition circuit.”

The evidence also implicated private companies — including Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC), DynCorp Systems and Solutions (which was purchased by CSC in 2003 and later divested), Richmor Aviation and First Flight — in the Africa rendition program for the first time.

“These documents provide further evidence of how U.S. corporations played a crucial role in the CIA’s torture network, rendering people to torture around the world far from public scrutiny and even further from the rule of law,” said Kevin Lo, corporate social responsibility advocate at Reprieve.

A spokesman for Computer Sciences Corp. said his company did not comment on “speculation about its clients or their activities” but added in an email to Al Jazeera: “CSC has had the privilege for over fifty years of supporting governments and private sector organizations worldwide, and has done so within the law.”

Richmor Aviation and First Flight did not respond to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment in time for publication.

Al-Asad’s case is currently under consideration by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, al-Asad, who is now 54 years old, said he was taken from his home in Tanzania to Djibouti, where he was detained for two weeks. He was then rendered to Afghanistan, where he says he was tortured at various points over the course of more than a year at several CIA black site prisons.

Djibouti has vehemently denied “knowing” participation in any U.S. rendition or torture programs in the country. Its ambassador to the U.S., Roble Olhaye, called al-Asad a “liar.”

“Everything about his case relies on hearsay and conjecture. There were no flights that came to Djibouti on that day he said he was brought to my country from Tanzania,” Olhaye said. “That was checked by our lawyers.”

Human rights researchers say that after the 9/11 attacks, dozens of suspects captured by the U.S. were secretly detained, interrogated and tortured in Djibouti. Although President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2009 banning the CIA’s use of black-site prisons, the order states that it does “not apply to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.”

And while Djibouti says it is not aware the CIA had ever operated a black-site prison on its soil, Olhaye pointed out: “If something was done in the context of the American base there, how would we know?”

Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, which hosts the Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa, is a known hub for U.S. drone operations against Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Al-Shabab in Somalia.

Satterthwaite said the choice of Djibouti for a black site is logical not only because the country has been a strategic partner in the U.S. “war on terror” for more than a decade, but also because the country has a long history of silencing human rights advocates and journalists. “It’s not hard to keep things secret there,” she said.

May 9, 2014 9:15AM ET
by Michael Pizzi @michaelwpizzi

Find this story at 9 May 2014

© 2014 Al Jazeera America, LLC.

Horn of Africa nation has denied hosting secret prison facilities for US, but classified document may undermine claim

The legal case of a former CIA detainee suing the government of Djibouti for hosting the facility where he says he was detained could be helped by the contents of a still-classified Senate report. Djibouti, a key U.S. ally, has denied for years that its territory has been used to keep suspected Al-Qaeda operatives in secret captivity. But the Senate investigation into the agency’s “detention and interrogation program” concluded that several people had been secretly detained in the tiny Horn of Africa state, two U.S. officials who read an early draft of the report told Al Jazeera.

Official confirmation of Djibouti’s role in hosting “black sites” used in the CIA’s rendition program would be welcomed by Mohammad al-Asad, a Yemeni arrested at his home in Tanzania on Dec. 27, 2003, blindfolded and flown to a location he insists was Djibouti. Two U.S. officials who read an early draft of the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation — and who requested anonymity because the report remains classified — were unaware of whether al-Asad’s case was specifically cited in the document. But they confirmed that the report found that several detainees had been held in Djibouti, and that at least two of them had been wrongfully detained.

Djibouti’s Ambassador to the U.S., Roble Olhaye, told Al Jazeera his country was not a “knowing participant” in the CIA’s rendition program and he rejected claims by al-Asad that he was temporarily imprisoned there.

However, Olhaye said, “If something was done in the context of the American base there how would we know?” But, he said, Djibouti’s agreement with the U.S. precluded the base from being used to house prisoners.

Al-Asad said that after his arrival in the country he alleges was Djibouti, he was held in a prison cell and tortured. He said he was interrogated by an American woman about his connections to the now-defunct Saudi charity Al-Haramain. The group, later accused by the U.S. Treasury of supporting terrorism, had in 1994 rented apartment space from al-Asad in a building he owned in Tanzania.

Asad
Yemeni citizen Mohammad al-Asad
In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera, al-Asad, now 54 years old, said he was detained for about two weeks in Djibouti and then rendered to Afghanistan, where he says he was tortured at various points over the course of more than a year at several CIA black site prisons.

Before he was released in 2005 and sent back to Yemen, he said, he received a visitor from Washington.

“What I remember through the interpreter was that he said, ‘I am the head of the prison, and you will be the first one at the top of the list of the people we are going to release because we have nothing on you,’” al-Asad told Al Jazeera. “The interpreter said that he was the director of all the prisons.”

Al-Asad was never charged with terrorism or related crimes, but he pleaded guilty in Yemen to making false statements and using forged documents to obtain his Tanzanian travel papers.

Al-Asad, who still lives in Yemen, has been trying since his release to hold Djibouti officials accountable for his detention. In 2009, he sought redress from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, a quasi-judicial body that has jurisdiction over Djibouti and other countries that approved the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In the coming days, that commission, which is based in Gambia, is expected to decide whether it will take up al-Asad’s case.

Olhaye called al-Asad a “liar”, adding, “Everything about his case relies on hearsay and conjecture. There were no flights that came to Djibouti on that day he said he was brought to my country from Tanzania. That was checked by our lawyers.”

But John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, who has spent more than a decade investigating the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program testified before the commission last year and said “the fact that the flight records of CIA aircraft that are public do not include a flight that matches Mr. al-Asad’s trajectory is not indicative of anything in and of itself.”

Sifton said the CIA could “easily circumvent data collection” and “aircraft used by the CIA could easily be rendered untraceable while flying in and around Djibouti.”

Al-Asad has based his legal case on flight records, collected by Human Rights Watch and the U.K.-based human rights charity Reprieve, demonstrating CIA-linked aircraft flying in and out of Djibouti (PDF).

His lawyers have also obtained documents from Tanzanian immigration officials stating that al-Asad was sent to Djibouti on a Tanzanair aircraft after his 2003 arrest.

“This is one of the most direct pieces of evidence we have showing that Djibouti is where our client was held before being handed to the rendition team on the tarmac,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, al-Asad’s attorney and a professor at New York University’s Global Justice Clinic.

Al-Asad, who still lives in Yemen, has been trying since his release to hold Djibouti officials accountable for his detention.
If the case proceeds, it will mark the first such investigation into the workings of the rendition program in Africa, and could open the door to additional legal challenges by former “war on terror” captives.

A handful of similar cases are already pending before the European Court of Human Rights. However, U.S. courts — citing state secrecy — have rejected attempts by detainees to hold their former captors accountable.

Al Jazeera’s sources noted that in addition to 6 million pages of CIA records, Senate committee investigators obtained some information about the wrongful detentions from people they characterized as “whistleblowers.” The U.S. officials declined to elaborate.

Djibouti, a former French colony, has been one of the key U.S. counterterrorism partners for more than a decade, hosting the Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonnier. The U.S. Air Force also reportedly uses Djibouti as a base for a fleet of drones to strike at Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabab suspects in Yemen and Somalia.

According to human rights researchers, after 9/11 dozens of suspects captured by the U.S. were secretly detained, interrogated and tortured in Djibouti.

The Obama administration, as recently as August 2012, reportedly continued to render suspects to Djibouti for short-term detention. Although President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2009 banning the CIA’s use of black-site prisons, the order states that it does “not apply to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.”

Confirmation by the Senate Intelligence Committee of Djibouti’s role in the rendition program would be a “critical” development, said Satterthwaite.

“The cooperation of countries all over the world — including Djibouti — was central to the operation of the U.S. rendition, secret detention, and torture program,” Satterthwaite said. “While the role of European partners such as Poland and Romania has been the subject of much reporting and investigation, the assistance of countries such as Djibouti has yet to be scrutinized. Further, as the home of a fleet of U.S. drones, Djibouti is an enormously important partner but has not received adequate scrutiny for its role in facilitating U.S. abuses.”

The cooperation of countries all over the world — including Djibouti — was central to the operation of the U.S. rendition, secret detention, and torture program.
Margaret Satterthwaite
Al-Asad’s attorney
Jonathan Horowitz, who works on national security and legal issues at the Open Society Justice Initiative, said al-Asad’s case provides the African human rights commission with an opportunity “to state that African governments can’t collude with other governments to abuse human rights, and they can’t use the fight against terrorism to justify violating people’s rights.”

Last year, Open Society issued a report, Globalizing Torture, which found that 54 countries, including Djibouti, were complicit in the extraordinary rendition of 136 CIA prisoners. The nonpartisan Constitution Project also produced a Detainee Task Force report identifying Djibouti as a CIA rendition partner and focused heavily on al-Asad’s case to support its conclusions.

“One of the things that is really important to recognize here is that the CIA torture and rendition program couldn’t have gone global without the assistance from other countries,” Horowitz said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to work on strengthening its counterterrorism relationship with Djibouti. Next week, Djibouti’s president, Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, will travel to the U.S. to meet with President Obama at the White House. Ambassador Olhaye does not believe the Senate’s report, if it is ever released, will identify his country as a rendition partner.

“I don’t believe the Senate report will say anything about my government,” he said. “Maybe about the American base. Our prisons have not been participating in that kind of thing.” Olhaye said neither he nor anyone from his country has had any discussions with U.S. officials about the Senate’s report.

May 2, 2014 5:00AM ET
by Jason Leopold @JasonLeopold

Find this story at 2 May 2014

© 2014 Al Jazeera America, LLC.

Senate investigators want public reckoning of torture tactics under Bush admin., despite CIA attempts to obstruct

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted 11-3 Thursday to declassify parts of a secret report on Bush-era interrogations of terrorism suspects.
“The purpose of this review was to uncover the facts behind this secret program, and the results were shocking. The report exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation. It chronicles a stain on our history that must never again be allowed to happen,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the committee, said in a statement. “This is not what Americans do.”
Now that the 15-member panel votes has approved the declassification of a 400-page summary and the key findings of its report, the onus is on the Central Intelligence Agency and a reluctant White House to speed the release of one of the most definitive accounts about the government’s actions after the 9/11 attacks.

The CIA will now start scanning the report’s contents for any passages that compromise national security.

That has led to fears that the CIA, already accused of illegally monitoring the Senate’s investigation and deleting files, could sanitize key elements of what Senate investigators aim to be the fullest public reckoning of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on Al-Qaeda suspects in CIA-run prisons abroad. Feinstein has urged the White House to get involved.
Thumbnail image for Senate CIA torture report could throw Gitmo hearings into chaos
Senate CIA torture report could throw Gitmo hearings into chaos
Release of study on detention program might further disrupt military commissions for terrorist suspects at Guantánamo

Congressional aides and outside experts familiar with the document say it is highly critical of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, and concludes among other things that such practices provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The CIA disputes many of the conclusions in the report.

“It’s important to tell the world, ‘Yes, we made a mistake and we’re not going to do it again,'” said Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who planned to vote for the summary’s release.

Human rights groups and advocates too believe the release of the report crucial to ensuring that similar tactics are never adopted again and that the debate over torture is settled once and for all.
“This information has been kept secret from the American people and from policymakers for years and keeping it secret just perpetuates the false impression that torture is effective and works,” said Laura Pitter, senior national security researcher at Human Rights Watch. “In fact, is is immoral, illegal and ineffective and never should be employed, and was a terrible mistake that the U.S. needs to reckon with on so m any levels.”

But some in the intelligence community said the Senate report, which was written by the committee’s Democratic staff, was missing a key element: the voices of key CIA officials.

Those missing include former Bush administration officials involved in authorizing the use of waterboarding and other harsh questioning methods, or managing their use in secret “black site” prisons overseas.

“Neither I or anyone else at the agency who had knowledge was interviewed,” said Jose Rodriguez, the CIA’s chief clandestine officer in the mid-2000s, who had operational oversight over the detention and interrogation program. “They don’t want to hear anyone else’s narrative,” he said of the Senate investigation. “It’s an attempt to rewrite history.”

Rodriguez himself is a key figure in the Senate report, not least for his order in 2005 to destroy 92 videotapes showing waterboarding of terror suspects and other harsh techniques.

Rodriguez said the Senate’s report would be a “travesty” without input from him and officials such as former CIA directors Michael Hayden and Porter Goss. Congressional aides said the CIA’s own field reports, internal correspondence, cables and other documents described day-to-day handling of interrogations and the decision-making and actions of Rodriguez and others.

Senate investigators have griped for years about what they contend is the CIA’s failure to be held accountable for the harsh methods used during the George W. Bush administration’s war on terror.

Bad blood between Senate aides and the CIA ruptured into the open last month when Feinstein took to the Senate floor to accuse the agency of improperly monitoring the computer use of Senate staffers and deleting files, undermining the Constitution’s separation of powers. The CIA alleges the Senate panel illegally accessed certain documents. The Justice Department is reviewing criminal complaints against each side.

Feinstein said this week she had “no idea” how long a declassification process would take, but expressed hope that it could be resolved in a matter of weeks.

Amid all the distrust, Senate Democrats are pressing for President Barack Obama to step into the fray.

Obama, who outlawed waterboarding after taking office, sought closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and released long-secret, Bush-era legal documents on harsh interrogations. He has publicly supported declassification of at least the findings of the Senate committee’s report “so that the American people can understand what happened in the past, and that can help guide us as we move forward.”

Still, the president has so far declined to weigh in publicly on Congress’ dispute with the CIA.

April 3, 2014 12:19PM ET Updated 3:26PM ET
Al Jazeera and The Associated Press

Find this story at 3 April 2014

© 2014 Al Jazeera America, LLC.