Tag Archives: CIA

“Russia”? Really?

Posted on by
2

Democrats and Republicans

Is the national Democratic Party trying to burn into extinction any hope that it is the party of the people? A couple of weeks ago, the word “recount” was on the lips of every mouthpiece. A week or so ago (and before and since), proposals to abolish the Electoral College were bruited. Now the drive is on to investigate Russia.

Margie Burns artwork

Modern Russian art — is a stage set really  nonobjective?

A ‘bipartisan’ alliance of the most comprehensively bought-and-sold members of Congress–led by Mitch “Big Tobacco” McConnell for the Repubs, Chuck “Big Banks” Schumer for Dems–has as of this writing signed on to allegations that Russia backed Julian Assange. Not surprisingly, entrenched Republican Senate hacks have joined ditto Dems in what is being hailed in some media outlets as an instance of bipartisan cooperation. (What these insiders chiefly have in common is that they were up-ended by Trump’s victory. This point is not being emphasized in the news media.)

Basically the claim seems to be that a) Russia hacked into U.S. Democrats’ emails, and that b) it did so to throw the election to Donald Trump. This is not a Q.E.D. It is preposterous. For one thing, the emails came from leaks, not from ‘hacking’. (Most in the McConnell-Schumer cohort would not likely know the difference.)

cropped-DSCN0289-1.jpg

(The photograph is just for fun. Merry Christmas.)

So why would any Democratic office holder, let alone one of any prominence, sign on to this Cold-War-redux saturnalia? Well, a simple motive is that in fact some Dems in office really are threatened by populism, and by elections. Some, not all. But some are genuinely threatened by any possibility of base-broadening. They live in safe congressional districts, or states (Schumer), themselves. Why would they open up access, just because not doing so is a losing proposition? After all, the smaller the pie, the larger their own piece in proportion.

Another motive is the obvious denial. Blaming ‘Russia’ is another way to delay the reckoning about their hand-picked candidate, Secretary Clinton.* That it makes them look like lying imbeciles is a small price to pay. The previous efforts at denial didn’t work–yes, Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; no, abolishing the Electoral College and throwing a whole campaign into California wouldn’t help. But there’s always another effort, and another. (Looming behind this one is the next, exhorting faithless Electors to throw away American history and just vote for someone other than President-elect Trump.)

CIA

Meanwhile, someone knocked on the right office door in halls of CIA, and found–predictably–the right leaks for their kind of investigation.

From those wonderful people who brought you the Iraq War

These are national party leaders? They don’t notice that they are leaving it to Trump to point out a fundamental fact? — “These are the same people that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

Fortunately, some CIA analysts still retain a more sensible perspective.

The news media

There is no point in listing all the media outlets now boosting the ‘Russia’ meme. Most of them also boosted the recounts. Almost all also tout Clinton’s popular vote lead without mentioning the massive vote total in California, thereby creating a vague impression that the national popular vote lead was across-the-board. The impression is false.

Clinton’s vote lead is IN CALIFORNIA

For the record, below is a sprinkling of the countless recent articles that refer to Clinton’s popular vote lead without mentioning that the numbers come disproportionately from California. This very quick list does not include television programs or online news aggregates, which would run the total into thousands. We may have a new conventional wisdom here, hardening like concrete before our very eyes. Or putting it a different way, we may have a spectacular example of a narrative fueled largely by reification, denial, and cross-cultural stereotyping taking on a life of its own inside national media outlets. (See ‘Russia’, above. Even the estimable Eugene Robinson seems to be getting on the bandwagon.)

Insert the words “IN CALIFORNIA” where needed:

New York Times, December 13: “Hillary Clinton’s growing lead over Donald J. Trump is now over 1 million votes, making this the second time a president has been elected without a popular majority since 2000.”

Chicago Tribune, December 12: “With almost all ballots finally counted, Hillary Clinton won the “popular” vote — that is, the total number of votes cast — by more than 2.8 million, about a 2.1 percent edge over Trump’s tally. This is a larger gap than the one in the 2000 election, when Al Gore won about a half-million votes more than George W. Bush did.”

Washington Post, December 12: “In the end, Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.7 million votes, or 2 percent of all ballots cast.” (A bunch of WaPo writers have done the same; too many to list.)

International Business Times, December 12: “The latest popular vote totals Monday, as reported by nonpartisan election analysis group The Cook Report, show Clinton garnering 65,746,544 votes compared to Trump’s 62,904,682, a difference of more than 2.8 million votes. In percentages, Clinton’s locked down a plurality of 48.2 percent of the vote and Trump 46.2 percent.”

Mother Jones, December 7: “I figure it’s still worth periodically posting a reminder that far more people wanted Hillary Clinton as their president than Donald Trump.”

Time.com, December 1: “Hillary Clinton’s lead in total votes over President-elect Donald Trump has reached 2,526,184 as ballots continue to be tallied.”

What is the issue here, you ask? One issue is the credibility of major periodicals. When a big-city daily newspaper refers to Clinton’s popular vote lead without mentioning the massive four-thousand-vote lead in California, big newspapers lose even more credibility. Every thinking person who followed the election at all sees that item, or that headline about Hillary Clinton’s popular vote lead, and thinks, That’s mainly from California. But the self-styled analysts or pundits do not mention the obvious and valid point. The line from omission to distortion is short.

*I will deal more fully with the Clinton candidacy after the holidays, speaking of denial. It isn’t a very Christmas-like topic.

BOOZ ALLEN ETC and the Washington Post

Posted on by
3

BOOZ ALLEN ETC and the Washington Post

 

The Washington Post has extensively covered Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old hacker hired by prime contractor Booz Allen Hamilton to work for the National Security Agency, who was given global access to online information that he then leaked. One question still unanswered, however, is how much material if any Snowden gave to the Post itself. Follow-up: what if anything does the Post have from Snowden, or from the NSA?

 

Future plans

According to the Guardian interview with Snowden, in the extensive June 9 article revealing Snowden’s identity, he had “copied the last set of documents he intended to disclose” three weeks earlier. Snowden then packed and boarded a plane for Hong Kong.

Questions for the press: Where are those documents? What is in them?

Snowden, as quoted in the Guardian interview, distinguishes himself from Daniel Ellsworth and Bradley Manning thus:

“”I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest,” he said. “There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn’t turn over, because harming people isn’t my goal. Transparency is.””

The quoted statement comes in a long article written mostly in third-person paraphrase. Along with the previous question–what is on the documents Snowden turned over to the press?–it raises another. What is on the documents he has not disclosed?

 

Former Booz Allen executive and now DNI, testifying

Among the items of information paraphrased third person:

  • Snowden broke both his legs training in the U.S. Army Special Forces, at some time between 2003 and 2007
  • he then got his first NSA job, as a security guard in a covert NSA facility at the University of Maryland
  • “From there, he went to the CIA, where he worked on IT security.”
  • he rose quickly in the CIA because of his computer skills, without a high school diploma
  • “By 2007,” the CIA stationed him in Geneva, “with diplomatic cover”
  • in 2009 he went to work for a private contractor for NSA, on a military base in Japan

Edifice wrecks

It would be good to know the exact date on which Snowden began working for Booz Allen Hamilton. The company’s publicly released statement and news reports put it at about three months before Snowden leaked the NSA material–the company says “less than three months.” That would be early March, 2013. The Guardian’s first exclusive, based on contacts with Snowden, appeared June 5. In an online chat, Snowden subsequently said he had taken the Booz Allen job for the purpose of collecting proof of NSA surveillance activities.

“”My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the [South China] Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

The surveillance license was approved on April 25. In other reports, The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald and documentary film maker Laura Poitras began working with Snowden back in February 2013.

 

Poitras

Questions about the documents and other NSA material are by no means the only questions. They are just the biggest, the weirdest, and the most immediate elephant-in-the-room. What if anything is the Post sitting on? As a Washington Post subscriber and faithful reader, I would like to be alerted beforehand, if my paper plans to run a series based on primary sources from inside the NSA. I would think Post reporters not in the loop would be curious themselves. Where if anywhere is the Post housing these materials, if any? Who is responsible for them, if anyone? Are there backup copies, and if so, where? According to The Hindu, Snowden left carrying “four laptop computers.”

 

Further questions, as mentioned, are not as big–less global–but still intriguing. Here are a few, categorized for convenience into first, the question of particular fact, and second, the broader questions stemming from the fact.

Fact question one:

As we know, Reuters reported days ago that Booz Allen hired Snowden despite “discrepancies” on his resume. What were the discrepancies?

Broader question/s one:

Why is it not policy to deny a security clearance to any job applicant, anyone without exception, whose resume or job application contains “discrepancies”?  Has acceptance of middle-class, white-collar lying on the job gotten so broad that anything goes, even in high-level clearance work? Have four-plus years of relentless press trashing the national economy taken such a toll that no (white-collar) job can be denied or removed, even justifiably?

 

Fact question two:

Aside from the Booz Allen job, how long, exactly, had Snowden been working for or on NSA facilities? Snowden told the Guardian four years; NSA Director Keith Alexander testified to Congress that Snowden had held a position at the NSA for twelve months.

Broader question/s two:

Are there any safeguards in place [YES, FUNNY WAY TO START A QUESTION], so that red flags go up when a subcontractor jumps from job to job, especially in high-level clearance positions? Have the broader attacks on 1) company pensions and 2) “government jobs” taken such a toll nationally that job-jumping is now assumed to be a resume brightener, even in high-level clearance positions?

 

Fact question three:

How, exactly, did Snowden get his series of NSA jobs? Did he apply through regular channels? Was it through someone he knew? We already know that he was ‘vetted’ for Booz Allen by USIS. Who recommended him? Who if anyone were his references, for a string of six-figure high-level security jobs?

Broader question/s three:

Is there such a thing as ‘regular channels’ when you apply for a job as a security contractor for the NSA? Are there any protocols in place [YES, YES, I KNOW; FUNNY WAY TO BEGIN A QUESTION] applied uniformly to every applicant? Or are the hoops just something to be sidestepped, rather than jumped through, for someone who knows someone?

 

As both a U.S. citizen and a journalist, I am eager not to jump to conclusions. We have an ethical obligation to use our judgment to the best of our ability. I cannot see Snowden as either a ‘hero’ or a ‘traitor.’ I have no desire to see him hounded into prison or chased around the globe, let alone worse. There is far too much passive complicity at multiple levels in the quasi-private, excessively outsourced, limply ‘privatized’ intelligence-security realm that hired Snowden and basically bred him, to make him a person of interest in isolation.

Both as a person and a journalist, however, I cannot help being curious. As indicated in the previous posts, I continue to be curious about the multi-billion layers of private contracting–an ironic term, at this point–as well as about government surveillance. So questions will continue to arise.

Back to that press coverage. The Guardian, unlike the Washington Post, has published aptly on Booz Allen. See here and here and here, for example.

To be continued

 

Richard Helms, unsung hero re Iran?

Posted on by
Reply

Richard Helms unsung hero re Iran?

 

Shah of Iran

As previously written, part of the long shadow cast by foreign policy in the Nixon administration has come from Nixon, Kissinger and Gerald Ford’s unwillingness or inability to understand domestic unrest in Iran. In a reciprocal cause and effect, their intransigent unwillingness in the 1970s to acknowledge the extent of the Shah’s unpopularity among his own people corresponded to their unwillingness to make U.S. policy toward Iran genuinely reflective of American interest.

The release of embassy cables by wikileaks casts new light on U.S. relations with Iran in the 1970s, with the unexpected twist of a new unsung hero for the epoch, Ambassador Richard Helms.

 

The condensed version of this story is that former Director of Central Intelligence Helms apparently learned something from the shameful CIA episodes in Cuba, Vietnam and Chile. Better late than never, although as Bob Haldeman might have put it, “TLsub2”—too little, too late.

The Nixon administration’s coziness with the Shah of Iran, little publicized by Nixon’s people at the time, has already been highlighted by a February 1972 cable from the U.S. ambassador in Iran urging that a shipment of fighter planes for the shah be expedited. Such friendly overtures to the shah were not impeded by ample warning from the U.S. embassy that the shah was under attack by his populace.

Predictably, this alliance between administrations of two countries disconnected from their people came to a head in a foreign policy disaster, a disaster which seems to have been foreseen by Helms.

In a lengthy cable on March 4, 1975, Helms warned Washington of the trouble brewing in Iran. This, be it noted, was the period when the White House was occupied by President Gerald Ford, the man who famously said in debate with Jimmy Carter that the Soviet Union did not dominate Eastern Europe.

Helms’ cable, declassified by the State Department, is crisp, clear and to the point, refreshingly clear of cant about our friends on or near the Peacock Throne. Helms summarizes the shah’s light-bulb idea of creating a one-party system as it deserves:

ALL IRANIANS OF VOTING AGE ARE EXPECTED TO EXPRESS ALLEGIANCE TO NEW PARTY OR RISK BEING VIEWED AS OPPONENTS OF SHAH AND EVEN TRAITORS WHO SHOULD LEAVE IRAN OR GO TO PRISON. SHAH EXPLAINED IRAN’S RETURN TO SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM AS NECESSARY BECAUSE QTE SHAMEFUL UTTERANCES UNQTE BY SOME IRANIANS SHOWED NEED FOR IRANIANS TO CLOSE RANKS IN EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE QTE GREAT CIVILIZATION, UNQTE AND BECAUSE OPPOSITION PARTIES HAD FAILED. ELECTIONS SCHEDULED FOR SUMMER WILL APPARENTLY BE HELD, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THEY WILL BE ORGANIZED. NET RESULT IS TO MAKE IRANIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM LESS FLEXIBLE. INTERNATIONAL REACTION

WILL PROBABLY RANGE FROM INDIFFERENCE TO CHARGES OF INCREASED TOTALITARIANISM.

 

Further enhancements of dictatorship are clearly in the offing:

SHAH’S LENGTHY STATEMENT AT HIS MARCH 2 PRESS CONFERENCE, FROM WITH CORRESPONDENTS FOR FOREIGN MEDIA WERE EXCLUDED . . . ESTABLISHED IRANIAN RESURGENCE PARTY. NEW PARTY WILL

ABSORB RULING IRAN NOVIN PARTY, LOYAL OPPOSITION MARDOM PARTY, AND THE ULTRA-NATIONALIST PAN IRANIST PARTY AND ITS SPLINTER GROUP THE IRANIANS PARTY. PRIME MINISTER HOVEYDA IS TO BE SECRETARY GENERAL FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST TWO YEARS. SHAH WILL LATER PROPOSE CHAIRMAN OF NEW PARTY’S EXECUTIVE BOARD AND PRESIDENT FOR ITS POLITICAL BUREAU.

 

The picture does not get any sunnier as the shah and Helms continue:

ONLY REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN NEW ORGANIZATION WOULD BE LOYALTY TO (1) MONARCHY, (2) IRAN’S CONSTITUTION, AND (3) SIXTH OF BAHMAN (SHAHPEOPLE) REVOLUTION. . . HE URGED ALL IRANIANS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE TO ENTER INTO NEW POLITICAL STRUCTURE OR CLARIFY THEIR POSITION. BY THIS HE MEANT THAT THOSE WHO COULD NOT AGREE WITH THE THREE PRINCIPLES SHOULD LEAVE IRAN OR GO TO PRISON AS TRAITORS UNLESS THEY OPENLY EXPRESSED THEIR DISAPPROVAL AND WERE NOT ANTINATIONAL. IF DISAPPROVAL IS IDEOLOGICAL, PERSON WOULD REMAIN FREE

IN IRAN BUT QTE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY EXPECTATIONS UNQTE. FULL PARTICIPATION IN IRAN’S PROGRESS WOULD OBVIOUSLY REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP IN THE IRAN RESURGENCE PARTY. HE SAID IT WAS HIS EXPECTATION THAT WORKERS, FARMERS, AND TEACHERS WOULD BE THE FIRST GROUPS TO ANNOUNCE THEIR LOYALTY TO THE NEW PARTY.

Helms’ comment is trenchant:

COMMENT: ABOVE ALL, SHAH’S ACTION IN RETURNING TO SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM OF 1964-67 PERIOD SHOWS HIS EXTREME SENSITIVITY TO CRITICISM AND STRONG DESIRE TO RECEIVE OVERT EVIDENCE OF POPULAR SUPPORT. AFTER HE EXPERIMENTED WITH TAME OPPOSITION PARTIES IN 1956-64 PERIOD WITH POOR RESULTS, SHAH THEN TURNED TO HASSAN ALI MANSUR’S PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY TO CREATE IRAN NOVIN PARTY AS INSTRUMENT TO IMPLEMENT HIS SIXTH OF BAHMAN REVOLUTION. MARDOM PARTY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REJUVENATED TO STIMULATE IRAN NOVIN TO PERFORM MORE EFFECTIVELY. DESPITE CONSTANT STATEMENTS OF LOYALTY TO SHAH AND HIS PLANS FOR IRAN, PARTIES HAVE APPARENTLY NOT PLEASED HIM.

. . . EVEN ACTIVITIES OF GELDED OPPOSITION HAD PROVED TOO CRITICAL FOR SHAH’S TASTE. NEVERTHELESS HIS PAST STATEMENTS INDICATED CONTINUING SUPPORT FOR COCCEPT OF MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM IN IRAN, AND IMPERIAL DECISION TO INSTITUTE ONEPARTY STATE REPRESENTS 180-DEGREE SHIFT IN POLICY WHICH ALSO APPEARS TO NEGATE EARLIER PROMISES OF FREER ELECTIONS LATER THIS YEAR. KEY SECTION OF SPEECH IS COMMENT THAT HE HAD HEARD QTE SOME REALLY SHAMEFUL UTTERANCES, WHICH IN NOW WAY SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM AN IRANIAN. THIS SCENE, OF COURSE, HAS ALWAYS RECURRED WHEN IRAN HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE DEFENCE OF ITS RIGHTS AT A HISTORIC JUNCTURE. THIS SITUATION IS INTOLERABLE, UNQTE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DOUBT THAT MUCH CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WILL EMERGE FROM THE IRANIAN RESURGENCE PARTY.

The conclusions are sadly prescient:

IN OPERATIONAL TERMS LITTLE HAS CHANGED, FOR DESPITE FACADE OF QTE ME-TOO UNQTE OPPOSITION PARTIES SHAH HAS ALWAYS CALLED THE TUNE AND ONLY RULING IRAN NOVIN PARTY HAD ANY IMPORTANCE. PRIME MINISTER HAS BEEN LEAD DANCER, AND HIS SELECTION AS SECGEN AT JANUARY PARTY CONGRESS HAD TIED IRAN NOVIN PARTY EVEN CLOSER TO SHAH. IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE OF NEW MOVE HAS BEEN FLOOD OF STATEMENTS OF LOYALTY TO SHAH, CONSTITUTION AND REVOLUTION, BOTH BY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS. THERE IS CLEARLY NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR

IRANIANS WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN IRAN‘S DEVELOPMENT AND SHARE ITS PROSPERITY. ALL DIFFERENCES OF VIEW ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT SHAH’S PLAN FOR IRAN WILL BE SUPPRESSED UNTIL NEW PARTY DEVELOPS AN IDEOLOGY AND ITS LEADERSHIP IS CONSTITUTED.

 

INTERNATIONAL REACTION WILL PROBABLY VARY FROM INDIFFERENCE TO INCREASINGLY SHRILL CHARGES OF TOTALITARIANISM. IRAN’S IMAGE AS COUNTRY IN WHICH ALL ELEMENTS WERE BEING TAPPED IN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS MAY SUFFER UNLESS NEW PARTY’S MEMBERSHIP COMES FROM BROAD SPECTRUM. IT APPEARS THAT EARLIER SUCCESSFUL IRANIAN POLICY OF COMPROMISE AND COOPERATION HAS BEEN REPLACED BY QTE TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT UNQTE STANCE IN DEALING WITH OPPOSITION.

IN SUM, GIVEN EXISTING STRICT DEGREE OF POLITICAL CONTROLS, SHAH’S DECISION TO MELD ALL POLITICAL PARTIES INTO ONE APPEARS TO OFFER LITTLE IN WAY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO IRANIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM WHILE ADDING SEVERAL DISADVANTAGES BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY.

 

Note:

Newly released tapes continue to disclose Nixon’s problems with ethnicity in the U.S. They have long been written about, notably in the vibrant and colorful How the Good Guys Finally Won, by Jimmy Breslin. Breslin’s touching narrative about Italian-American congressman Peter Rodino (D-N.Y.), an honorable man, is worth reading on its own.

The CIA and the $3 million coffee table

Posted on by
Reply

The CIA and the $3 million coffee table

Amidst other events in a week of losses, pain and gains, some good news on legal/security matters.

First, a remarkable case involving secret electronic surveillance and fraud against the court has been settled in DC.

When the CIA replaces your coffee table without your consent or knowledge, and you are a loyal employee of the U.S. government, sometimes the Agency has to pay. Plaintiff Richard A. Horn, a former Drug Enforcement Agency officer, sued the CIA and others for secretly bugging his home when he was stationed in Rangoon, Burma, in the 1990s. On March 30, plaintiff and CIA finally settled the lawsuit, Horn v. Huddle, for $3 million.

 

Richard A. Horn

Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of D.C. District Court issued the final order. The case has dragged since its 1994 filing by plaintiff Horn, alleging that CIA and State Department personnel illegally wiretapped him.

One colorful detail from Horn’s lawsuit was the following:

“As evidence of his claim, Horn points to a cable transmitted by Huddle, which contains quotation marks and which Horn claims quotes him verbatim, as well as a suspicious entry into his apartment when, unsolicited, his government-issued rectangular coffee table was swapped for an oval replacement while he was out of town.”

 

The lawsuit was delayed under two administrations, terminated and revived, placed under seal but unsealed after convincing signs of fraud against the court, i.e. intentional misleading statements to the judge by government lawyers.

Rather than just deny swapping out Horn’s coffee table and other activities, CIA argued that the state secrets privilege protected it from having to come clean. Regrettably, the Agency also falsely told both the District court and the appeals court that the defendant CIA officer was covert. He was not. Both courts were jarred when this claim was retracted; as Lamberth noted in 2009,

“The new Department of Justice attorney in the case filed a notice with the Court that Defendant II’s identity was not actually covert—the declaration stated that Defendant II (Arthur Brown) had his covert status lifted and rolled back in 2002. Of course, no one from the Office of General Counsel for the CIA (which was actively working on this case) nor the defendant himself informed this Court or the Court of Appeals of that fact.”

Thus “defendant Brown and at least one attorney committed fraud on this Court and the Court of Appeals,” and the CIA officer was reinstated as a defendant.

 

Fraud against the court, or fraud on the court, is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “A lawyer’s or party’s misconduct in a judicial proceeding so serious that it undermines or is intended to undermine the integrity of the proceeding.” Examples include bribing a juror and introducing fabricated evidence.

Like other crime, fraud on the court does not pay. In January 2009 the judge referred the CIA attorney to the Court’s Committee on Grievances. Contempt motions were filed by plaintiff against others including former CIA Director George Tenet. Plaintiff also filed motions for attorneys’ fees. CIA threw in the table, and on the Pottery Barn principle—You replace it, you buy it—the two parties have settled, pursuant to court directions regarding any future filings, for $3 million to the plaintiff for damages, fees and other litigation costs.

In the process, the state secrets privilege also went over the side:

“This development demonstrated that Director Tenet’s assertion of the state secrets privilege was no longer accurate as to at least one material fact (the secrecy of Brown’s identity), and led the plaintiff and the Court to question what portions of Director Tenet’s assertion still were accurate and what information the government still believed was privileged.”

The judge rejected assertions of state secrets privilege in this CIA-related matter and also granted permission to file an amicus brief is to attorneys in a wiretapping lawsuit on the West Coast. The amici curiae brief by Al Haramain Foundation should be informative. The Al Haramain case is the last case still alive with evidence provided by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein that the telephone company participated with the NSA in extensive wiretapping.

 

(In an otherwise unrelated development, Norman Leboon, the off-balance Philadelphia man who made death threats against Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., and his family, also attempted to sue his phone company over alleged wiretapping.)

 

More transparency would be a break in the case, from a public policy perspective.

As reported in law.com, in dismissing the case, the judge “ordered the Justice Department to notify him whether it will refer allegations of government misconduct to the Office of the Inspector General and to appropriate oversight committees in Congress . . .”


The judge said there is “disturbing” evidence in a sealed motion that “demonstrates the benefit” of notifying the oversight committees of Congress.”

Disturbing, indeed: Lamberth says that the sealed motion suggests that “misconduct occurred in the Inspector General’s Office both in the State Department and in the Central Intelligence Agency.” It would be illuminating to have the sealed evidence disclosed by the current Justice Department.

The watchword to go with transparency is accountability. In approving the settlement between the parties, the judge added that “it is not without some misgiving that the Court reaches this decision.” Despite the undeniable benefit of having a contentious 15-year case settled and out of the courts, Lamberth notes that another $6 million was awarded to an individual in the anthrax investigation. That would be Steven Hatfill, whose life was made miserable by berserk accusations about the anthrax mailings, and who was later exonerated. A defendant in the Hatfill case was Bush’s third Attorney General, Michael Mukasey.

As Lamberth writes, “It does not appear that any government official was ever held accountable for this huge loss to the taxpayer.” “Now,” the judge writes, “this Court is called upon to approve a $3 million payment to an individual plaintiff by the United States, and again it does not appear that any government officials have been held accountable for this loss to the taxpayer. This is troubling to the Court.”