Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Lots of gruesome detail in the article and even more in the documents. Another major leaked disclosure from the Big Brother secret arm of U.S. government. A cautionary warning: these are merely documents. They are not regulations as that term is understood under the Administrative Procedures Act. There may or may not be one or more secret Executive Orders requiring Agency personnel to adhere to what the documents say.  Even with agencies that are far more open to public scrutiny, it is common for agency staff to ignore regulations and statutes. Every time someone wins a lawsuit pursuant to the combination of the Administrative Procedures Act and some other federal law or regulation, one of the most common types of lawsuits against federal agencies, it is because agency staff violated the law or the regulation. It's a common situation even with agencies that have to operate in the sunlight. An agency allowed to operate without any right of the public to challenge its actions has even less incentive to adhere to its formal procedures.   So particularly with an agency permitted to operate in secret, the existence of these documents does not mean that they get more than an occasional wink and a nod by agency staff. That said, this is pretty gruesome reading for a civil libertarian and is also rife with vagueness, ambiguity, and loopholes. Not surprisingly though for an experienced lawyer; those who deliberately trample on others' rights rarely write written confessions.

The Brits at least have the decency to attempt to make amends for its soldiers who tortured prisoners. Not so in the U.S. *Every* "war on terror" detainee who has filed a case for damages in the U.S. has been thrown out of court at the government's request, usually on grounds of the State Secrets privilege. It is a sad situation that our courts allow government secrecy about unlawful conduct to trump individual rights to redress for injury. 

Potentially important case brewing in the UK on the legality under international law of U.S. drone strikes that kill or injure non-combatants. Should this result in a Royal Commission of Inquiry, we will likely learn far more about U.S. drone strike policies, because Royal Commission's powers to receive and disclose classified information is far broader than available in U.S. courts or in Congress. E.g., much of what we now know about the Bush Administration's true motives for launching the war in Iraq was disclosed in a Royal Commission Inquiry into the Blair administration's reasons for participation in that war. 

There's a lot more in the article. Looks like Obama/Kerry's "coalition of the willing" is running up against the same UK opposition to war in Syria that played such a big role in Obama's decision to refer the same matter to Congress about a year ago. 

If you follow the "November" link you'[l learn that yes, indeed, the UK government lawyers were happily getting the content of their adversaries privileged attorney-client communications. Conspicuously, the promises of reform make no mention of what is surely a disbarment offense in the U.S. I doubt that it's different in the UK. Discovery rules of procedure strictly limit how parties may obtain information from the other side. Wiretapping the other side's lawyers is not a permitted from of discovery. Hopefully, at least the government lawyers in the case in which the misbehavior was discovered have been referred for disciplinary action.  

I particularly liked this Snowden observation as an idea for a constitutional amendment: "This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency. " Repeal of the State Secrets privilege would require a constitutional amendment because the Supreme Court decided back when that it is inherent in the President's power as commander in chief of the military forces. In other words, neither Congress nor the courts can second-guess such claims, a huge contributing factor in the over-classification of government records when the real reason is to protect bureaucrats from embarrassment, civil rights suits, and criminal prosecution. It is no accident that we have an Executive Branch that is out-of-control, waging dictatorial powers under the protection of the State Secrets privilege. 

Here's hoping that the Senate has the sense to reject James Comey as the new FBI Director. The FBI needs a Director and Comey's active assistance  in unconstitutional NSA surveillance, even if not an absolute disqualifier, cannot possibly be sorted out  during the foreseeable future.   Hey, Mr. President, how about a real civil libertarian instead?

The drive for a US/UK military strike on Syria is beginning to bog down. The UN Security Council could not reach agreement on a resolution to authorize the strike; resistance in Congress is rising with a call for full debate before launching such a strike, and I just watched the UK House of Commons forbid UK participation in the strike. ("Heated moments in the UK debate" video is on the linked page.) Unsurprising in the U.S. because last weekend's Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that public resistance to U.S. military action against Syria is actually stiffening, with only 9 percent supporting military action. Obama has scheduled a telephone conference with key members of Congress to encourage them not to interfere, but reportedly the phone conference will use non-secure connections so classified information will not be discussed.  Personally, I want the raw intelligence data on the alleged use of sarin by the Syrian government to be publicly released, including audio recordings, so that it can be subjected to debate by the public. Based on my monitoring of news on the Syrian conflict for more than a year, it seems clear that the Syrian foreign "rebels" have the ability to manufacture Sarin and have used it repeatedly in Syria. And the Syrian government has very strong incentives not to use Sarin, particularly at the moment the gas attack occurred. A UN team had just arrived, at Syria invitation, to investigate prior incidents involving alleged gas attacks in which both sides blamed the other. Not a good time for the Syrian government to launch such an attack but a great time for the rebels to stage a false flag attack, blaming the Syrian government.  So I want to see the evidence Obama claims to be relying upon. Supposedly, it is an intercept of a panicked conversation between a Syrian commander and a lower officer in the field. But that too could have been staged. Making it public would go a long way toward resolving the authenticity issue and determining whether it w

As with senior Bush II administration officials, travel abroad is becoming increasingly risky for high Israeli officials.  Background: After similar events a couple of years ago involving high Israeli officials, the UK Parliament enacted law purporting to exempt the UK from the international law obligation to arrest and prosecute war criminals no matter where the war crimes were committed. But that legislation clashed irreconcilably with the UK's treaty obligations as a member of the E.U. Apparently, a UK judge understood that the E.U. obligations trumped the national legislation in that regard.  

Note that this case was filed with the ECHR in September 2014.  Quote from a prior decision of the ECHR involving Dutch journalists and government surveillance that will give UK government a steep hill to climb in persuading the ECHR to give GCHQ a pass:  "…where, as here, a power of the executive is exercised in secret, the risks of arbitrariness are evident. Since the implementation in practice of measures of secret surveillance is not open to scrutiny by the individuals concerned or the public at large, it would be contrary to the rule of law for the legal discretion granted to the executive to be expressed in terms of an unfettered power. Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference."

Nice tight summary

A U.S.-U.K. propaganda front operating behind ISIL and al-Nusrah lines. See also: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/06/gallery-dramatic-rescue-man-with-kid-runs-towards-camera-43-staged-pictures.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d1fb87c3970c amd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k6hSS6xBTw&feature=youtu.be The U.S. State Department admits to providing $23 million to this group operating behind al-Nusrah and ISIL lines.