Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The possible declassification and release of a Senate report into the CIA’s detention and interrogation program — begun in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks — could have a huge impact on the controversial military tribunals happening at Guantánamo Bay, experts and lawyers believe. The proceedings have been moving at a snail’s pace at the U.S.-held military base on the island of Cuba, amid widespread condemnation that they are being held in a legal limbo and outside the U.S. criminal justice system. Details surrounding the CIA’s activities have been one of the most contentious issues concerning the commissions at Guantánamo, where the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and his co-defendants are on trial. Their alleged treatment while in CIA custody has been a key stumbling block in the hearings’ progress. The same goes for the man alleged to be behind the USS Cole bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, another former CIA captive. In both cases, there have been dozens of delays — mainly due to the fact that the attorneys have been battling military prosecutors over access to classified information about the CIA interrogation program that the attorneys want to use as evidence. Both cases have been dragging on for two years and are still in the pretrial evidentiary phase.

But now that the Senate Intelligence Committee appears set to vote on releasing its long-awaited 6,300-page, $50 million study — or at least some portion of it — the defense attorneys will finally get the opportunity to talk openly at the military commissions about torture. That could prove disastrous for military prosecutors. According to defense attorneys and human rights observers who have been monitoring the proceedings, it might also derail the government’s attempts to convince a jury that the detainees, if convicted, deserve to be executed. “The U.S. government has gone to great lengths to classify evidence of crimes — crimes committed by U.S. actors,” said Army Maj. Jason Wright, one of Mohammed’s military defense attorneys. “Were this information in this Senate report to be revealed … it would completely gut the classification architecture currently in place before the commissions.” The panel is expected to vote April 3, and it is widely believed the panel will approve release of its 400-page executive summary. If that happens, Wright said, he anticipates petitioning the military court to amend the protective order that treats all information about the CIA torture program as classified.

The report is likely to contain reams of information that has not yet come to light. Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein has said the report “includes details of each detainee in CIA custody, the conditions under which they were detained, how they were interrogated, the intelligence they actually provided and the accuracy — or inaccuracy — of CIA descriptions about the program to the White House, Department of Justice, Congress and others.” Wright said that in addition to seeking a change to the protective order, he would file discovery motions to gain access to the 6.2 million pages of documents the Senate had. Such a move would lead to further legal wrangling and delay the start of the trial, which the government hopes will get underway in September. “We have an absolute right to review that and have it produced in discovery,” Wright said.

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.

Though the NSA says its mass surveillance of Americans targets only “terrorists,” the spying may turn up evidence of other illegal acts that can get passed on to law enforcement which hides the secret source through a ruse called “parallel construction,” writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern. By Ray McGovern Rarely do you get a chance to ask a just-retired FBI director whether he had “any legal qualms” about what, in football, is called “illegal procedure,” but at the Justice Department is called “parallel construction.” Government wordsmiths have given us this pleasant euphemism to describe the use of the National Security Agency’s illegal eavesdropping on Americans as an investigative tool to pass on tips to law enforcement agencies which then hide the source of the original suspicion and “construct” a case using “parallel” evidence to prosecute the likes of you and me.

For those interested in “quaint” things like the protections that used to be afforded us by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, information about this “parallel construction” has been in the public domain, including the “mainstream media,” for at least a year or so. So, I welcomed the chance to expose this artful practice to still more people with cameras rolling at a large conference on “Ethos & Profession of Intelligence” at Georgetown University on Wednesday, during the Q & A after former FBI Director Robert Mueller spoke. Mueller ducked my question regarding whether he had any “legal qualms” about this “parallel construction” arrangement. He launched into a discursive reply in which he described the various ”authorities” enjoyed by the FBI (and the CIA), which left the clear impression not only that he was without qualms but that he considered the practice of concealing the provenance of illegally acquired tip-off information somehow within those professed “authorities.”

Bottom line? Beware, those of you who think you have “nothing to hide” when the NSA scoops up your personal information. You may think that the targets of these searches are just potential “terrorists.” But the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Drug Enforcement Administration and countless other law enforcement bodies are dipping their cursors into the huge pool of mass surveillance.

Sen. Rand Paul has warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he will place a hold on one of President Obama’s appellate court nominees because of his role in crafting the legal basis for Obama’s drone policy.Paul, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky, has informed Reid he will object to David Barron’s nomination to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, unless the Justice Department makes public the memos he authored justifying the killing of an American citizen in Yemen.ADVERTISEMENTThe American Civil Liberties Union supports Paul’s objection, giving some Democratic lawmakers extra incentive to support a delay to Barron’s nomination, which could come to the floor in the next two weeks.Barron, formerly a lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, penned at least one secret legal memo approving the September 2011 drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric whom intelligence officials accused of planning terrorist attacks against the United States.

Hunter Biden will head  legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations.

Russian media is fanning this story and calling it a deal between Kiev leadership to US to please people in power in Congress. It may be mentioned that US Vice President visited Kiev on April 21-22 and commented that new leadership of Ukraine should look grave affairs and stressed the need for the new authorities to tackle corruption, adding: “The opportunity to generate a united Ukraine, getting it right is within your grasp.”

R. Hunter Biden is a counsel to Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, a national law firm based in New York, USA, which served in cases including “Bush vs. Gore”, and “U.S. vs. Microsoft”. Biden has experience in public service and foreign policy. He is a director for the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, The Center for National Policy, and the Chairman’s Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute. Having served as a Senior Vice President at MBNA bank, former U.S. President Bill Clinton appointed him an Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy Coordination under Secretary of Commerce William Daley. Mr. Biden served as Honorary Co-Chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural Committee

The U.S. government, citing possible "exceptionally grave harm to national security," told a federal appeals court it wants to give the public less information about its legal justification for using drones to kill Americans suspected of terrorism overseas. The Justice Department, Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency made the request in papers submitted late Thursday to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan. The document outlining the justification was sought through a Freedom of Information request by The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union. In April, a three-judge panel of the court ordered the memo released.

Lawyers for the government said they were not appealing the order but instead were demanding additional redactions to protect national security and to prevent damage to the government's ability to engage in confidential deliberations and to seek confidential legal advice. It asked that the full 2nd Circuit consider the request if the three-judge panel turned it down. It also suggested that the request be sent to the lower court for further review of specific changes the government was requesting. Lawyers for the Times and ACLU said Friday that the government's continued delays regarding the document are cheating the public of a fully informed and fair debate over the highly classified "targeted-killing" program.

David E. McCraw, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times Co., said in an email: "The government raised all these points before and lost. After two and a half years of litigation, it's time for the delays to stop so the American people can fully participate in the debate on this important issue."

Of course knowing the content of a call can be crucial to establishing a particular threat. But metadata alone can provide an extremely detailed picture of a person’s most intimate associations and interests, and it’s actually much easier as a technological matter to search huge amounts of metadata than to listen to millions of phone calls. As NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker has said, “metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s life. If you have enough metadata, you don’t really need content.” When I quoted Baker at a recent debate at Johns Hopkins University, my opponent, General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and the CIA, called Baker’s comment “absolutely correct,” and raised him one, asserting, “We kill people based on metadata.”

President Obama’s plan to destroy the Islamic State militant organization, also known as ISIL, puts the United States on the brink of another war.   Although Congress has not authorized the use of military force against ISIL, the President has been bombing targets in Iraq for more than 60 days.  While the President may have defined our enemy, there are still serious questions that have not been answered—and should be—before our nation once again puts our men and women in uniform in harm’s way. We urge Congress to hold a robust, transparent and fact-based debate. Perhaps the first question that must be answered is whether this new war can be waged under the existing 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF).  If the President is utilizing either of these two authorizations, then he must release the Office of Legal Counsel justifications for doing so.

Congress must debate and decide whether to authorize the continued use of force against ISIL. This would also provide legal justification should the President seek to extend current military action into Syria, where ISIL enjoys a base of support.  The parameters of our military action should be clear—the President should not expect to be given a “blank check.”  Beyond the question of legal authority, Congress and the President need to be clear on how this war will be funded, how success will be measured and when it will end.

President Obama famously counseled his foreign policy team “don’t do stupid stuff,” but he is now violating his own principle by plunging into an incoherent war policy in Iraq and Syria rather than challenging the stupid “group think” of Official Washington, as Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett explain.

President Obama has said the United States’ combat mission in Afghanistan is over, and that the 13-year-long war there has come to an end. Top lawyers in his administration have a different message: Not so fast. Obama stated unconditionally in his State of the Union address in January that “our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” But in a recent speech to the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, an often-used venue for Obama administration officials to make extensive remarks on national security policy, the Defense Department’s general counsel seemed to reinterpret the president’s earlier statements. The lawyer appeared to walk back his more emphatic pronouncements about the end of America’s longest war.

“Although our presence in [Afghanistan] has been reduced and our mission there is more limited, the fact is that active hostilities continue,” Stephen Preston, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, said in a speech April 10. And, he added, “There is no doubt that we remain in a state of armed conflict against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and associated forces as a matter of international law.” Preston’s observations were supported by facts:

Justice Department lawyers are likely being put in the awkward position of having to argue against the president’s own statements. On Friday, U.S. attorneys filed a motion opposing an argument by an accused Taliban member held at Guantanamo Bay, Mukhtar al Warafi, that he should be released because Obama has said the war in Afghanistan is over, erasing any legal grounds to continue holding him. The government's response is classified. But legal experts told The Daily Beast that to counter Warafi’s claims, U.S. lawyers will almost certainly have to argue that despite what Obama has said, there is still a state of armed conflict against the Taliban, meaning the U.S. may continue to hold Warafi.

The Oscar-winning documentary film-maker Laura Poitras is suing the US government demanding to know why she has repeatedly been subjected to “Kafkaesque harassment” at airports across the world. Poitras, 51, said she had been held at borders more than 50 times between 2006 and 2012, often for hours at a time. At various times she alleges being told by officials that she was on a “no fly” list, having her electronic equipment confiscated and not returned for 41 days, and being threatened with handcuffs for taking notes. The latter incident took place when she was working on a film about the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Poitras said she was launching the legal action, which demands the release of all documentation held on her tracking, targeting and questioning by agencies over the six year period, following the failure of a 2013 freedom of information request.

“I’m filing this lawsuit because the government uses the US border to bypass the rule of law,” said the film-maker in a statement, The Intercept reported. “This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy. I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted.” Poitras has previously said she was placed on the Department of Homeland Security’s watch list in 2006 after returning home to the US following work on My Country, My Country. She says airport security told her officials had assigned her the highest “threat rating” possible, even though she had never been charged with a crime. She was repeatedly stopped until 2012, when the journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote an article about her experiences.

Poitras’s reporting on the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, along with work by Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Barton Gellman contributed to the Pulitzer prize for public service won jointly by the Washington Post and the Guardian in 2014. Her film on Snowden, Citizenfour, won the 2015 Oscar for best documentary. The director is being represented by lawyers from digital-rights advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The well-documented difficulties Ms Poitras experienced while traveling strongly suggest that she was improperly targeted by federal agencies as a result of her journalistic activities,” senior counsel David Sobel told the Intercept. “Those agencies are now attempting to conceal information that would shed light on tactics that appear to have been illegal. We are confident that the court will not condone the government’s attempt to hide its misconduct under a veil of ‘national security.’”

The PATRIOT Act is going to need a miracle to survive the weekend unscathed. Backers of the post-9/11 anti-terror measure are scrambling this week to prevent the law’s key surveillance programs from lapsing at midnight Sunday. But with the Senate not slated to return to Washington until just hours before that deadline, opponents like Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) showing no signs of budging, and the House so far unwilling to bail out the upper chamber, the prospects for an eleventh-hour breakthrough look slim.

“Our options are a lot more limited” given the time constraints, said Utah Sen. Mike Lee, the chief Republican backer of the bill in the Senate. “We can either let the provisions at issue expire, or we can pass the House-passed USA Freedom Act.” The problem is that doing anything ahead of the midnight deadline would take the cooperation of all 100 senators. That’s hardly a given since Paul is still insisting that McConnell allow votes on privacy-related amendments, and Wyden has vowed to block any clean extension of what he calls a “bad law.”

n an appearance in Kentucky on Tuesday, McConnell acknowledged the strong support for the USA Freedom Act “makes it pretty challenging to extend the law as it is.” In Washington, top Republican aides could not — or would not — explain how the Senate will escape the fix beyond the possibility that Senate leaders can somehow persuade Paul and Wyden to stop blocking a PATRIOT Act extension with the promise of a robust Senate debate to follow.

While NSA boss Keith Alexander issued a misleading denial of this morning's report of how the NSA has infiltrated Yahoo and Google's networks by hacking into their private network connections between datacenters, the NSA has now come out with its official statement which is yet another typical non-denial denial. They deny things that weren't quite said while refusing to address the actual point:

Note what is missing from all of this. They do not deny hacking into the data center connection lines outside of the US. They do not deny getting access to all that data, especially on non-US persons. As for the claim that they're protecting the privacy of US persons, previous statements from Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, have already made it clear that if they collect info on Americans, they're going to use this loophole to search them: "If we're validly targeting foreigners and we happen to collect communications of Americans, we don't have to close our eyes to that," Litt said. "I'm not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we've already collected."

So, for all the claims that this kind of information will be "minimized," it certainly looks like they've already admitted they don't do that. Meanwhile, that Guardian article that has the NSA's response also has responses from the 3 other players in this drama. There's the UK's GCHQ, who apparently has partnered with the NSA in breaking into Google and Yahoo. It didn't want to say a damn thing: "We are aware of the story but we don't have any comment."

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has taken the unusual step of actively blocking a former committee aide from talking to TPM about congressional oversight of the intelligence community. At issue isn’t classified sources and methods of intelligence gathering but general information about how the committee functions — and how it should function. The committee’s refusal to allow former general counsel Vicki Divoll to disclose unclassified information to a reporter was the first and only time it has sought to block her from making public comments, based on her experience as one of its most senior aides, since she left Capitol Hill in 2003.

The committee’s decision comes amid fallout from leaks of classified National Security Agency documents by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden. In light of the Snowden revelations about the country’s secret surveillance programs, TPM was reporting a story based on interviews with members of Congress and current and former aides about the successes and pitfalls of intelligence oversight on Capitol Hill. The goal was to answer some basic questions for readers: How does a classified process differ from public oversight? What challenges do the combination of government secrecy, classified briefings, and strict committee protocols present to legislators trying to control the nation’s sprawling intelligence apparatus?

While Divoll remains legally barred from disclosing classified information, she is also still subject to a non-disclosure agreement with the Senate Intelligence Committee that bars her from discussing committee-sensitive business. Out of an abundance of caution, Divoll also conferred with the committee on Friday about her interview with TPM. She anticipated that the committee would approve the interview, noting that in her post-government career, both the committee and the CIA had never done more than request minor tweaks when she brought them pieces of her writing for pre-publication review. This, she believed, would be a similar process. But for the first time in her career, the committee took the extraordinary step, on a bipartisan basis, of declaring the interview’s entire contents a violation of her non-disclosure agreement and effectively forbade her from putting any of it on the record. “The committee has reviewed your submission … and objected to any publication of the information contained therein,” she was told. Specifically the committee claimed the information she provided TPM was both “out of date” and “committee sensitive.” Angered by the committee’s decision, Divoll sought Friday to have it reversed. The committee declined. TPM agreed to honor her request that we leave her comments off the record.

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is appealing a ruling ordering her to reconsider her decision not to investigate Israel’s lethal attack on an aid flotilla to Gaza five years ago. But Geoffrey Nice, lead counsel for victims and families of those killed in the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara, told The Electronic Intifada that the arguments Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has put forward are “complete hogwash.” Nice, who worked for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia from 1998 to 2006, led the prosecution of former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević. Nice and his law firm Stoke and White also represent the government of Comoros, the Indian Ocean archipelago state where the Mavi Marmara is registered. Instead of doing her job and properly investigating the case, Nice said, Bensouda’s appeal is “a last ditch attempt to do what would be expected of her by the US and supporters of Israel.”

A professor of law at London’s Gresham College who has previously represented victims before the ICC, Nice said he doubted that Bensouda even had a right to go to the appeal judges at this stage. He said his first legal response would be to ask them to throw her appeal out on procedural grounds. Serious errors Earlier this month, a panel of ICC judges found in a scathing 2-1 ruling that Bensouda had made serious errors of fact and law in her decision not to pursue the case. They said that the chief prosecutor had underestimated the seriousness and international significance of the crimes and ordered her to review her decision not to proceed with an investigation into the attack. In the early hours of 31 May 2010, Israeli commandos boarded and seized the flotilla boats in international waters in the eastern Mediterranean. Israeli forces carried out a particularly violent armed attack on the largest vessel, Mavi Marmara, killing nine persons. A tenth victim died of his injuries in June 2014. The victims were all Turkish citizens. One of them, 18-year-old Furkan Doğan, was also a US citizen.

The initial request for the ICC to investigate the killings was submitted in 2013 by Comoros. Bensouda decided not to proceed with a full investigation in November 2014. Ignoring evidence In a notice of appeal filed Monday, Chief Prosecutor Bensouda says that the judges overstepped their mandate and trampled on her prosecutorial discretion by ordering her to review the case. She also claims that the ruling gives her no clear explanation of how to review her decision. But Nice said that her claims are “absolute rubbish” and the judges’ ruling is very clear about what matters and evidence should be looked at again. The judges’ 16 July ruling lists a long litany of errors by the prosecutor.

     House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is “confident” that the House would be able to uphold the president’s veto of a potential Republican-backed bill to kill the deal. “More and more of them have confirmed to me that they will be there to sustain the veto,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference, referring to members of the Democratic caucus. “They’ve done this not blindly but thoroughly,” as they examined the agreement over recent weeks.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is “confident” that the House would be able to uphold the president’s veto of a potential Republican-backed bill to kill the deal. “More and more of them have confirmed to me that they will be there to sustain the veto,” Pelosi said at her weekly press conference, referring to members of the Democratic caucus. “They’ve done this not blindly but thoroughly,” as they examined the agreement over recent weeks.

The fear among major Jewish organizations that they will be drawn into the domestic U.S. political fray over the nuclear deal is prominent in statements released by both the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Both organizations have refrained from strongly attacking the nuclear agreement and defining it as a disaster, instead leading the public to believe that they instead have misgivings over large parts of the agreement, and that they hope that Congress will review it in depth. The U.S. Reform movement, too, issued a convoluted statement that fell short of taking a decisive stance on the agreement. Norman Podhoretz has never had this problem. He became a neoconservative because he wanted a big U.S. military budget to support Israel. Now he sees the writing on the wall and calls for an Israeli attack on Iran, in Wall Street Journal: I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later.

In a bid to bring the "rest of the story" to the nation about the CIA's detention and interrogation of al Qaeda terrorists, eight former top CIA officials, including three directors, are publishing a rebuttal to the sensational Senate Democratic "torture report." Early next month, the Naval Institute Press will release "Rebuttal: The CIA Responds to the Senate Intelligence Committee's Study of Its Detention and Interrogation Program." In addition to challenging the Democratic conclusion that CIA techniques, including waterboarding, didn't produce any intelligence, it will be the first time the top officials who oversaw the program will jointly give their review of how it all went down and the successes it brought. Surprisingly, none were interviewed for the Democratic report published in December. It also will include the responses of the Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, left out of the best-selling "The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program."

Proceeds generated from the sale of the 352-page "Rebuttal" will go to the CIA Officers Memorial Foundation. The key essays about the program are written by three former CIA chiefs: George Tenet, Porter Goss and retired Gen. Michael V. Hayden. Other contributors include two former deputy directors, John McLaughlin and Michael Morell, former clandestine service boss Jose A. Rodriguez, former CIA and FBI counterterrorism official J. Philip Mudd and former CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo. The intelligence community has been eager to counter the Democratic report by the committee's chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, which many said has been unfairly characterized as the main report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation programs.

After it came out, current CIA Director John O. Brennan said the interrogations helped produce information that helped set the stage for the 2011 raid by Navy SEALs on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Eric Holder: The Justice Department could strike deal with Edward SnowdenMichael IsikoffChief Investigative CorrespondentJuly 6, 2015Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. (Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty) Former Attorney General Eric Holder said today that a “possibility exists” for the Justice Department to cut a deal with former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that would allow him to return to the United States from Moscow. In an interview with Yahoo News, Holder said “we are in a different place as a result of the Snowden disclosures” and that “his actions spurred a necessary debate” that prompted President Obama and Congress to change policies on the bulk collection of phone records of American citizens. Asked if that meant the Justice Department might now be open to a plea bargain that allows Snowden to return from his self-imposed exile in Moscow, Holder replied: “I certainly think there could be a basis for a resolution that everybody could ultimately be satisfied with. I think the possibility exists.”

But his remarks to Yahoo News go further than any current or former Obama administration official in suggesting that Snowden’s disclosures had a positive impact and that the administration might be open to a negotiated plea that the self-described whistleblower could accept, according to his lawyer Ben Wizner.

It’s also not clear whether Holder’s comments signal a shift in Obama administration attitudes that could result in a resolution of the charges against Snowden. Melanie Newman, chief spokeswoman for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Holder’s successor, immediately shot down the idea that the Justice Department was softening its stance on Snowden. “This is an ongoing case so I am not going to get into specific details but I can say our position regarding bringing Edward Snowden back to the United States to face charges has not changed,” she said in an email.

LISBON: A former CIA operative convicted of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric in Milan as part of the U.S. extraordinary renditions program is fighting against being sent to Italy to serve the six-year sentence she received in absentia there, a Portuguese court official said Friday.Sabrina De Sousa, who has both U.S. and Portuguese citizenship, was arrested at Lisbon's international airport Monday on a European arrest warrant issued by Italy.She told a judge on Tuesday she wants to stay in Portugal, where she has been living recently, Luis Vaz das Neves, president of the Lisbon court handling her case, told The Associated Press on Friday.De Sousa also "expressed a wish to serve her sentence, if she has to serve it, here in Portugal," he said.De Sousa was among 26 Americans, mostly CIA agents, convicted in absentia in the kidnapping of Milan cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from a Milan street on Feb. 17, 2003.De Sousa claims she was never notified of the Italian court decision, according to Vaz das Neves.

De Sousa handed both her passports over to the Lisbon court, which gave her 10 days to provide written arguments against her extradition. In the meantime, she must report weekly to a police station.The court believed she was not a flight risk, Vaz das Neves said, since she had a return plane ticket to Lisbon, is a Portuguese citizen and says she wants to settle here.De Sousa, who operated for the CIA under diplomatic cover, was initially acquitted due to diplomatic immunity but was found guilty by Italy's highest court in 2014.The Indian-born De Sousa came out against the U.S. decision not to allow the American defendants to get their own lawyers near the end of the first trial, eventually winning permission to have her own counsel. De Sousa said she was concerned about losing her freedom to visit family in India.

Vaz das Neves said De Sousa was trying to fly to Goa, a one-time Portuguese territory in India, to see her 89-year-old mother when she was arrested. She was due back in Portugal on Oct. 27.Asked why De Sousa was not caught earlier, Vaz das Neves said Portuguese authorities were aware of the warrant but police had no record of her residing here.De Sousa's lawyer in Lisbon said neither he nor his client would give interviews until the extradition case was resolved.But De Sousa acknowledged in published comments that she had endangered her freedom by trying to travel across a border."I knew I was taking a risk, but at some point I want to live (in Portugal) as a free citizen, and this needs to be resolved," De Sousa told Vice News in an article Thursday.After De Sousa presents her arguments, the court has 10 days to respond. The Portuguese Constitution prohibits the extradition of nationals, but Vaz das Neves said the court will also have to take European Union laws into account.

one-on-one health coaching

earn wellness credits each pay period, which may be applied toward the cost of medical coverage or taken as additional taxable income.