On the RNC Platform Finding NSA Programs Unconstitutional

The Republican National Committee is claiming that the USA Patriot Act's NSA provisions are now unconstitutional?

Really?

And they want investigations too?

A page-long resolution also called for "a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying." This committee would then make suggestions for reform beyond what President Barack Obama suggested a week ago. The committee also wants to "hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance."

The full text of the resolution is here.

It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetically politically motivated.

Back in 2001, Congress overwhelmingly approved the Patriot Act:

senate.gov (passed US Senate 98-1, the one person being Russ Feingold).

clerk.house.gov (211 GOPers approved, versus 3 opposed, including Ron Paul; 145 Democrats approved versus 66 opposed).

Read carefully through the names of those who approved the Patriot Act. There are a whole lot of familiar names. Both Darrell Issa and John Boehner voted for the Act.

But if that isn't enough, let's look more recently at the 2011 extension of the Patriot Act. It passed 250-153 with 28 no votes. Once again, Issa voted for. Even Louie Gohmert voted for this.

By investigations, I guess that means Darrell Issa will have to investigate himself.

Back in 2001, every GOP senator voted for this; some of them are still in the US Senate today. Did any of them misunderstand the Act? Did every one of the 211 GOPers who voted for it in the House misunderstand the Act and ignore the constitutionality? Some of them are still in Congress today too.

Did any of these same people then suddenly find that the law was unconstitutional in 2011 when they reauthorized the provisions of the Patriot Act (Pub.L. 112-14), knowing full well that there were provisions that might collect data on the US, inadvertently or on purpose? The answer, of course, is no; they approved the legislation and reauthorized the law enabling the NSA to continue gathering data.

%%FOLD%%

Back in 2006, the media revealed that the NSA amassed a massive database of calls, which they said was targeted on international calls, but that too had caveats.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

So, even after the 2006 revelations and Congressional briefings by security officials, they were still satisfied that the programs were constitutional.

So what's changed that the GOP is now claiming that these programs/actions are unconstitutional.

It isn't the NSA's actions.

It isn't the law either.

I'd argue that the only thing that's changed is that the GOP thinks that they've found an issue on which to hurt Democrats. I'm not alone in finding the flip-flop on the NSA and eavesdropping programs that the GOP formerly authorized so confounding (well, not really - it's more enlightening about tactics and politics than about the specific policy itself).

But by convenience (and in the same way that they turned on a dime to claim that the ACA's individual mandate was unconstitutional) they're now claiming that a position they once held was unconstitutional.

It's got nothing to do with the constitutionality of the NSA enabling legislation or the actions/results of the NSA programs. It has a whole lot to do with who won the White House and who won reelection in 2012.

So, it leads to a quandary: is the GOP pleading ignorance of the law they championed, or are they playing politics in the hopes of dinging the President and Democrats? It's not like they can claim they were duped either. The 2006 revelations were well documented and should have informed decisions to reauthorize the law, including in 2011, and yet the law was reauthorized without concern about the constitutionality by these Republicans.

Well, they're going to play it both ways. And neither is particularly satisfying.

It's one thing to argue that the programs should be allowed to sunset because the threat has past or that additional reforms need to be instituted. It's quite another to claim that the program is unconstitutional little more than a year after reauthorizing the law for a second time.

It was enacted with sunset clauses, meaning that it would require Congress to reauthorize - to look at the law with a critical eye and evaluate how the law operated in practice. They've now done so at least two times - 2006 and 2011, with amendments added in several other acts of Congress since first enacted in 2001.

Each time, the law was approved with support from Republicans.

Indeed, the current version of the law is far more protective of US civil rights and limits what the NSA can do with far stronger oversight. Many of the revelations about the NSA refer to actions before the Obama Administration came to office and before the reforms were instituted.

Only now, with a Democrat in the White House is there a complaint that the ongoing program is unconstitutional, when it was revealed to be doing the same exact thing that it was revealed to have done in 2006 (and to which Congress knew or should have known all along pursuant to the regular briefings to Congress).

Cross posted at LGF.

Foiled Underwear Bomb Plot Linked With UAV Airstrike in Yemen

Well, as I suspected yesterday, the foiled underwear bomb plot and the UAV raid that killed a major al Qaeda figure (and who was linked to the USS Cole bombing) were connected.

"I was told by the White House that they are connected, that they are part of the same operation," Representative Peter King told CNN a day after news of the intercepted bomb that authorities said was intended to make its way to an airplane bound for the United States or other Western country.
King and U.S. security officials did not say what happened to the suspected suicide bomber or if he was killed in the strike.

"The person who actually had the bomb is no longer a threat," King said.
John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counter terrorism adviser and a former CIA official, told ABC's "Good Morning America" program that authorities are "confident that neither the device nor the intended user of this device pose a threat to us."

On Monday, the Obama administration said Middle East authorities had seized an improved underwear bomb within the last 10 days that they said shows al Qaeda's determination to build bombs that can pass through airport security systems.

A day earlier, two Yemeni members of al Qaeda were killed by a missile strike on their car, although Washington and Yemen do not acknowledge U.S. drone attacks on militants in the country.

News of the foiled plot was embargoed by the Administration until after the UAV airstrike, which is a smart move since letting on that the plot was busted might have tipped off those involved in the plot that they were being followed closely by US and foreign intel services.

UPDATE:
The same person who passed along the information necessary to thwart the newest underwear bombing plot is responsible for the intel that led to the UAV airstrike killing Fahd al-Quso. Quso was involved in the attack on the USS Cole.

The officials also said that a successful Predator attack that killed Fahd al-Quso over the weekend was related to the plot and was a “part of a 1-2 blow against Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP),” the north African affiliate of the al-Qaida terrorist network. Al Quso, described as director of external operations at AQAP, was “involved (in the bomb plot) in an intimate fashion,” said the senior administration official.

What makes the newest iteration of the underwear bomb so dangerous is that it uses far less metal, making it even more difficult for metal detectors and scanners to pick up the device.

The US Army Releases Bin Laden Papers Online

The US has decided to release 17 declassified documents captured during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last year.

The letters are posted on the Combatting Terrorism Center website of the US Army at West Point.

The accompanying report provides context, including how al Qaeda views itself and its allies, coreligionists, and relationships with countries such as Iran and Pakistan. For instance:

Al-Qa`ida Ties to Iran and Pakistan?
While not extensive, the discussions of Iran and Pakistan in the documents suggest that al-Qa`ida’s relations with both countries were fraught with difficulties.
• References to Iran show that the relationship is not one of alliance, but of indirect and unpleasant negotiations over the release of detained jihadis and their families, including members of Bin Ladin’s family. The detention of prominent
al-Qa`ida members seems to have sparked a campaign of threats, taking hostages
and indirect negotiations between al-Qa`ida and Iran that have been drawn out
for years and may still be ongoing.
• The discussion of Pakistan is scarce and inconclusive. Although references are
made about “trusted Pakistani brothers,” there are no explicit references to any
institutional Pakistani support for al-Qa`ida or its operatives.

It's also interesting to note that bin Laden had begun to realize that his jihadis were targeting fellow Muslims, and that the campaign of jihad was backfiring against his intentions - to get the US out of the Middle East.

The following is a summary of the 17 documents (from the downloaded English version):

Description of the Abbottabad Documents Provided to the CTC
SOCOM-2012-0000003
This letter was authored by Usama bin Ladin and addressed to Shaykh Mahmud (`Atiyya Abdul Rahman) on 27 August 2010. Mahmud is specifically directed to tell “Basir,” who is Nasir al-Wuhayshi (Abu Basir), the leader of al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula, to remain in his role (presumably in response to a request from Abu Basir that Anwar al-`Awlaqi take his position), and for him to send “us a detailed and lengthy” version of al-`Awlaqi’s resume. `Atiyya is also told to ask Basir and Anwar al-`Awlaqi for their “vision in detail about the situation” in Yemen. References are also made in the letter to the 2010 floods in Pakistan, a letter from Bin Ladin’s son Khalid to `Abd al-Latif, al-Qa`ida’s media plan for the 9/11 anniversary, and the need for the “brothers coming from Iran” to be placed in safe locations.

SOCOM-2012-0000004
This document is a letter authored by the American al-Qa`ida spokesman Adam Gadahn to an unknown recipient and was written in late January 2011. In the first part of the document Gadahn provides strategic advice regarding al-Qa`ida’s media plans for the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The letter is in essence a response to many of the requests/queries that Bin Ladin makes in his letter to `Atiyya dated October 2010 (SOCOM-2012-0000015), particularly those concerning a media strategy for the ten-year anniversary of 9/11. In other parts of the document Gadahn incisively criticizes the tactics and targeting calculus of the Islamic State of Iraq (AQI/ISI) and the Pakistani Taliban (TTP); he strongly advocates for al-Qa`ida to publicly dissociate itself from both groups. The document concludes with a draft statement, which provides a candid assessment of these issues.

SOCOM-2012-0000005
This document is a letter dated 7 August 2010 from “Zamarai” (Usama bin Ladin) to Mukhtar Abu al-Zubayr, the leader of the Somali militant group Harakat al-Shabab al-Mujahidin, which merged with al-Qa`ida after Bin Ladin’s death. The document is a response to a letter Bin Ladin received from al-Zubayr in which he requested formal unity with al-Qa`ida and either consulted Bin Ladin on the question of declaring an Islamic state in Somalia or informed him that he was about to declare one. In Bin Ladin’s response, he politely declines al-Shabab’s request for formal unity with al-Qa`ida.

SOCOM-2012-0000006
This document is a letter believed to have been composed in December 2010 and its content relates to SOCOM-2012-0000005. The letter is addressed to Azmarai, perhaps a typo or misspelling of the nickname Zamarai (a nickname or kunya for Bin Ladin). While the identity of the author is unclear, the familiar tone and implicit critique of Bin Ladin’s policy vis-a-vis al-Shabab suggest that this is from a high ranking personality, possibly Ayman al-Zawahiri. Referring to “our friend’s letter” and the perspective of the “brothers…[who might have been] too concerned about inflating the size and growth of al-Qa`ida,” the author of the document urges the receiver to “reconsider your opinion not to declare the accession [i.e. formal merger] of the brothers of Somalia…” This is clearly a reference to al-Qa`ida’s potential merger with al-Shabab and suggests that al-Qa`ida’s relationship with the “affiliates” is a subject of internal debate. If indeed the author of the letter is Ayman al-Zawahiri this could be an indication of a major fissure over a key strategic question at the pinnacle of the organization (for different interpretations of this letter, see Appendix of “Letters from Abbottabad”).

SOCOM-2012-0000007
This letter is authored by Mahmud al-Hasan (`Atiyya) and Abu Yahya al-Libi and addressed to the amir of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Hakimullah Mahsud. It is dated 3 December 2010 and is sharply critical of the ideology and tactics of the TTP. The letter makes it clear that al-Qa`ida’s senior leaders had serious concerns about the TTP’s trajectory inside Pakistan, and the impact the group’s misguided operations might have on al-Qa`ida and other militant groups in the region. The authors identify several errors committed by the group, specifically Hakimullah Mahsud’s arrogation of privileges and positions beyond what was appropriate as the TTP’s amir; the TTP’s use of indiscriminate violence and killing of Muslim civilians; and the group’s use of kidnapping. `Atiyya and al-Libi also take issue with Mahsud labeling al-Qa`ida members as “guests” and the attempts made by other groups (presumably the TTP) to siphon off al-Qa`ida members. The authors threaten that if actions are not taken to correct these mistakes, “we shall be forced to take public and firm legal steps from our side.”

SOCOM-2012-0000008
This letter was originally an exchange between Jaysh al-Islam and `Atiyya that was forwarded first to a certain `Abd al-Hamid (and presumably to Bin Ladin later). The gist of Jaysh al-Islam’s letter makes it known that the group is in need of financial assistance “to support jihad,” and that the group is seeking `Atiyya’s legal advice on three matters: 1) the permissibility of accepting financial assistance from other militant Palestinian groups (e.g., Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad); 2) the permissibility of investing funds in the stock market in support of jihad; and 3) the permissibility of striking or killing drug traffickers in order to use their money, and even drugs, to lure their enemies who could in turn be used by Jaysh al-Islam as double-agents. `Atiyya’s response, written sometime between 24 October 2006 and 22 November 2006, is cordial but distant, responding to the questions but refraining from giving any strategic advice.

SOCOM-2012-0000009
This document is part of a longer letter which was not released to the CTC. It is not clear who authored the letter or to whom it was addressed. It discusses the potential need to change the name of “Qa`idat al-Jihad.” The author is of the view that the abridging of the name “al-Qa`ida” has “lessened Muslims’ feelings that we belong to them.” The author is further concerned that since the name “al-Qa`ida” lacks religious connotations, it has allowed the United States to launch a war on “al-Qa`ida” without offending Muslims. The author proposed a list of new names that capture Islamic theological themes: Ta’ifat al-tawhid wa-al-jihad (Monotheism and Jihad Group), Jama`at wahdat al-Muslimin (Muslim Unity Group), Hizb tawhid al-Umma al-Islamiyya (Islamic Nation Unification Party) and Jama`at tahrir al-aqsa (Al-Aqsa Liberation Group).

SOCOM-2012-0000010
This letter is authored by “Abu `Abdallah” (Usama bin Ladin), addressed to “Shaykh Mahmud” (`Atiyya) and dated 26 April 2011 – a week before bin Ladin’s death. In it, Bin Ladin outlines his response to the “Arab Spring,” proposing two different strategies. The first strategy pertains to the Arab World and entails “inciting people who have not yet revolted and exhort[ing] them to rebel against the rulers (khuruj ‘ala al-hukkam)”; the second strategy concerns Afghanistan and it entails continuing to evoke the obligation of jihad there. The letter also makes reference to a wide variety of topics including: the scarcity of communications from Iraq, “the brothers coming from Iran,” and hostages held by “our brothers in the Islamic Maghreb” and in Somalia. The document also briefly discusses Bin Ladin’s sons, his courier, Shaykh Abu Muhammad (Ayman al-Zawahiri), and other individuals of interest.

SOCOM-2012-0000011
This letter, dated 28 March 2007, is addressed to a legal scholar by the name of Hafiz Sultan, and it is authored by someone who is of Egyptian origin. The author makes it explicit that he was alarmed by al-Qa`ida in Iraq’s conduct and he urges Sultan to write to that group’s leaders to correct their ways. The author also asks for legal guidance on the use of chlorine gas, which he appears not to support. A reference is also made to “the brothers in Lebanon” and the need to arrange “to have one of their representatives visit us in the near future.” A message from the “brothers in Algeria” is also included.

SOCOM-2012-0000012
This letter dated 11 June 2009 was written by `Atiyya to the “honorable shaykh.” It is possible that it was addressed to Usama bin Ladin, but it may have been addressed to another senior leader. The majority of the letter provides details on the release of detained jihadi “brothers” and their families from Iran and an indication that more are expected to be released, including Bin Ladin’s family. It seems that their release was partially in response to covert operations by al-Qa`ida against Iran and its interests.

SOCOM-2012-0000013
This is a draft that formed the basis of a publicly available document, part four in a series of statements that Ayman al-Zawahiri released in response to the “Arab Spring.” Through the document one can observe al-Qa`ida’s editing process (reflected in the editor’s comments highlighted in green and in a bold font). While it is not clear if Bin Ladin himself did the editing, whoever did so has solid grammatical foundations and prefers a more self-effacing writing style than al-Zawahiri. The edits were not included in al-Zawahiri’s final speech which was released in a video on 4 March 2011 on jihadi forums. Of the 12 proposed corrections only one appears in al-Zawahiri’s speech.

SOCOM-2012-0000014
This document consists of two letters addressed to “Abu `Abd-al-Rahman,” almost certainly `Atiyya `Abd al-Rahman. It was sent by an operative who knows `Atiyya and is a religious student with ties to the senior shaykhs and clerics in Saudi Arabia. While the letters are not dated, their contents suggest they were composed soon after January 2007; they read very much like an intelligence assessment, designed to provide `Atiyya with some perspective on how al-Qa`ida generally, and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) more specifically, are perceived amongst Saudi scholars of varying degrees of prominence. The author provides `Atiyya with brief summaries of private meetings the author had with certain scholars, with the clear intent of evaluating the level of support that al-Qa`ida enjoys from some relatively prominent members of the Saudi religious establishment.

SOCOM-2012-0000015
This document is a letter dated 21 October 2010 from Bin Ladin to “Shaykh Mahmud” (`Atiyya). The letter is primarily focused on issues in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. In the letter Bin Ladin specifically comments on: the security situation in Waziristan and the need to relocate al-Qa`ida members from the region; counter surveillance issues associated with the movement of his son Hamza within Pakistan; the appointment of `Atiyya’s three deputies; various al-Sahab videos and the media plan for the tenth anniversary of 9/11; the release of an Afghan prisoner held by al-Qa`ida; and the trial of Faisal Shahzad. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Yahya al-Libi, Saif al-`Adl, and Adam Gadahn are also mentioned in the document.

SOCOM-2012-0000016
This document is a letter addressed to “Abu Basir” (Nasir al-Wuhayshi, leader of al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula - AQAP) from an unidentified author, most likely Usama bin Ladin and/or `Atiyya. The letter is in part a response to specific requests for guidance from AQAP’s leadership. The author specifically advises AQAP to focus on targeting the United States, not the Yemeni government or security forces. The author also discusses media strategy and the importance of AQAP’s relations with Yemen’s tribes.

SOCOM-2012-0000017
This document is a series of paragraphs, some of which match the content found in SOCOM-2012-0000016. This document was likely written by the author of that document. This letter discusses strategy, the need for al-Qa`ida to remain focused on targeting the United States (or even against U.S. targets in South Africa where other “brothers” are not active), the importance of tribal relations in a variety of different countries, and media activity.

SOCOM-2012-0000018
This document is a letter addressed to Usama bin Ladin from “a loving brother whom you know and who knows you” and dated 14 September 2006. The author is critical of Bin Ladin for focusing al- Qa`ida’s operations on “Islamic countries in general and the Arabian Peninsula in particular.” He enumerates the numerous negative consequences of engaging in jihad inside Saudi Arabia, and informs Bin Ladin that people are now repulsed by the technical term “jihad” and even forbidden to use it in lectures. The author strongly advised Bin Ladin to change his policies.

SOCOM-2012-0000019
This document is a long letter authored by Usama bin Ladin after the death of Sheikh Sa‘id (Mustafa Abu’l-Yazid) in late May 2010 and it is addressed to “Shaykh Mahmud” (`Atiyya) who he designates as Sa‘id’s successor. Bin Ladin’s letter is concerned with the mistakes committed by regional jihadi groups, which have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Muslim civilians. Bin Ladin indicates that he would like to start a “new phase” so that the jihadis could regain the trust of Muslims. He directs `Atiyya to prepare a memorandum to centralize, in the hands of AQC, the media campaign and operations of regional jihadi groups. Considerable space is devoted to a discussion about Yemen, external operations and Bin Ladin’s plans for his son Hamza. This document includes an additional letter that Bin Ladin forwards to `Atiyya authored by Shaykh Yunis, presumably Yunis al-Mauritani, consisting of a new operational plan that al- Qa`ida should consider adopting.

Al Qaeda, Down But Not Out A Year After Bin Laden's Death

Al Qaeda is hurting a year following the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of a US special forces unit in Pakistan.

But it isn't done by a long shot.

Terrorists continue to try to plan attacks, and they are using all kinds of methods to spread word of their plans.

One such plan and communications methods was intercepted just days after bin Laden was killed. A 22-year-old Austrian named Maqsood Lodin was being questioned by police in Berlin after recently traveling to Pakistan via Budapest, Hungary. Law enforcement discovered memory cards and a digital storage device.

On it were pornographic videos, but upon closer inspection they found that there were embedded documents hidden in the porn.

Several weeks later, after laborious efforts to crack a password and software to make the file almost invisible, German investigators discovered encoded inside the actual video a treasure trove of intelligence -- more than 100 al Qaeda documents that included an inside track on some of the terror group's most audacious plots and a road map for future operations.

Future plots include the idea of seizing cruise ships and carrying out attacks in Europe similar to the gun attacks by Pakistani militants that paralyzed the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008. Ten gunmen killed 164 people in that three-day rampage.

Terrorist training manuals in PDF format in German, English and Arabic were among the documents, too, according to intelligence sources.

U.S. intelligence sources tell CNN that the documents uncovered are "pure gold;" one source says that they are the most important haul of al Qaeda materials in the last year, besides those found when U.S. Navy SEALs raided Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a year ago and killed the al Qaeda leader.

One document was called "Future Works." Its authorship is unclear, but intelligence officials believe it came from al Qaeda's inner core. It may have been the work of Younis al Mauretani, a senior al Qaeda operative until his capture by Pakistani police in 2011.

The documents turned out to be the biggest trove of intel gathered outside those captured in the bin Laden raid. It shows a terror group continuing to look for high profile attacks and the means to carry them out.

The US will be putting those bin Laden files online for the public to view, and they shed light on the man who was behind the most violent and deadly terror attacks in history. They show bin Laden as a micromanager who thought that he could overcome a series of failures with another spectacular attack on a 9/11 scale to force the US to change its policies.

Bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership understood that they were in serious danger from the UAV airstrikes that had begun in 2008 and accelerated/intensified thereafter. They were doing real damage to the al Qaeda network in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

He also realized that affiliated and like-minded terror groups were heaping more attention on themselves by claiming alliances or an al Qaeda name:

On August 7, 2010, bin Laden wrote to Mukhtar Abu al-Zubair, the leader of the brutal Al-Shabaab militia in Somalia, telling him that Al-Shabaab ("the Youth") would be better off if it did not declare itself publicly to be part of al Qaeda. Bin Laden advised, "If asked, it would be better to say there is a relationship with al Qaeda, which is simply a brotherly Islamic connection, and nothing more."

Bin Laden explained to the Shabaab leader that al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq had attracted many enemies by adopting the al Qaeda name. He also pointed out that it would be better for fundraising purposes if Shabaab didn't identify itself as being part of al Qaeda, because businessmen in the Arab world "who are willing to help the brothers in Somalia" would be more likely to do so if they thought they were not supporting al Qaeda directly.

Al Qaeda, "the base" in Arabic, was the name that the group had given itself when it was founded in Pakistan by bin Laden in 1988. Now the leader of al Qaeda was advising his followers to steer away from using the term.

In fact, Bin Laden was considering changing the terror group's name to make it more difficult for the US and others to claim that they were not waging war on all Muslims but only on terror groups that had perverted Islamic doctrine for their jihad.

Among the terror plots being concocted by bin Laden prior to his death besides the cruise ship plot was an assassination of President Obama. While he was ordering subordinates to provide him with new plots on a regular basis, he lacked the capabilities to act on them.

It was a terror group that was on the run and whose capabilities were vastly diminished from just a few years before. But diminished doesn't mean that the threat is completely gone or mitigated.

Terrorist groups affiliated with al Qaeda or which have similar outlooks and agendas are still dangerous, and they're looking at a whole range of new tactics, including ingesting explosives (or implanting explosives within the body itself) to avoid detection.

North Korea Parading Missile Fakes?

Is North Korea parading fakes for the world to see, but lacking any real capability to field the equipment? That's the conclusion of a team of missile technology experts who have reviewed the photos and video of missiles paraded before Kim Jong Un during the 100th anniversary of his grandfather's birth earlier this month.

But the weapons displayed April 15 appear to be a mishmash of liquid-fuel and solid-fuel components that could never fly together. Undulating casings on the missiles suggest the metal is too thin to withstand flight. Each missile was slightly different from the others, even though all were supposedly the same make. They don't even fit the launchers they were carried on.

"There is no doubt that these missiles were mock-ups," Markus Schiller and Robert Schmucker, of Germany's Schmucker Technologie, wrote in a paper posted recently on the website Armscontrolwonk.com that listed those discrepancies. "It remains unknown if they were designed this way to confuse foreign analysts, or if the designers simply did some sloppy work."

The missiles, called KN-08s, were loaded onto the largest mobile launch vehicles North Korea has ever unveiled. Pyongyang gave them special prominence by presenting them at the end of the parade, which capped weeks of celebrations marking the 100th anniversary of the country's founding father, Kim Il Sung.

The unveiling created an international stir. The missiles appeared to be new, and designed for long-range attacks.

The missiles appear to be a mish-mash of variations on a single missile design. That could have been intended so as to give misinformation to experts peering down on those missiles but it just as likely could be that the North Korean fabricators couldn't get the details right.

The missile carriers, which apparently are based on a Chinese design, were far larger than the missiles they were carrying, which could indicate the North Korean intention to build still larger missiles, but it also shows that the North Koreans are an indeterminate period of time away from fielding a credible long range missile force capable of hitting the US. It could still hit US interests overseas, but the country remains a regional threat for all of its bluster.

North Korea took more than a decade between showing off the previous generation of missile, the Taepodong-2, at a military parade and actually putting on a launching pad.

North Korea has thus far failed to successfully launch any of its long range missiles in four attempts since 1998. Some experts suggest that the only way North Korea could field an ICBM is if someone gives it to them because of the lack of industrial capabilities to do so. I think that's overstating the problems facing the North Korean regime and underestimating their capabilities to circumvent sanctions in place. We do so at our peril.

Has NYPD Gone Too Far In Surveillance Efforts Looking For Islamic Extremists?

Following the intel failures that led to the US government being unprepared for the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD vastly expanded its intel efforts, including establishing outposts in foreign countries to bring in intel directly from those foreign countries instead of relying solely on the FBI or CIA.

Those surveillance efforts include looking for Muslim extremists in the New York City metro area - including in New Jersey. While the NYPD can claim that they've thwarted numerous plots involving Islamic terrorists since 9/11, there have been several notable failures, including the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shazad. In that case, police didn't know of the plot to attack Times Square with a bomb planted in a SUV. Police learned of the incident after a local vendor alerted police to the smoking vehicle and it was only after conducting standard investigation techniques that Shazad was arrested.

As a result of the revelations about the scope of the surveillance, Muslim groups across the region are speaking out against the NYPD spying efforts, noting that it's a potential civil rights violation. They have a point, and while then-New Jersey Governor Richard Codey was informed of the spying efforts in places like Newark and elsewhere in the state, it doesn't mean that there was sufficient oversight.

Following the NYPD's illegal surveillance of radical groups during the 1970s, the NYPD entered into an agreement in 1985 called Handschu that required oversight of surveillance operations.

The Handschu agreement, as it is often referred to, was established in 1985 after decades of covert NYPD infiltration of activist groups including the New York City chapter of the Black Panthers. It also kept tabs on citizens who had done nothing more than sign a petition to end the Vietnam war, reporting their political positions to potential employers.

The element of the NYPD responsible for this surveillance went through a number of names, including the Italian squad, the black hand squad, and the bureau of special services. Today it is known as the intelligence division.

Handschu restricted the department's powers to monitor political groups, stipulating that police needed information indicating that a crime was being committed in order to investigate political activity. The rules remained in place for over 15 years.

In 2002 the NYPD, under the guidance of former CIA officer Cohen, lobbied to have Handschu's restrictions significantly loosened, following the September 11 attacks of the previous year. The department argued that it could not effectively fight terrorism with the rules in place.

The NYPD largely got what it wanted in 2003, when significant modifications were made to the agreement.

Civil rights attorney Jethro Eisentstein, who is involved in a class action lawsuit against the NYPD in relation to Handschu, says what remains of the agreement is vitally important to the latest revelations concerning the NYPD's surveillance of Muslim communities.

Specifically, Handschu required that surveillance operations must secure a warrant from a three-person panel comprised of two police commissioners and a mayor-appointed civilian. That was modified in 2003 when the panel was reduced to a single person.

It's the reduction of the panel to a single person that opens the door to mischief and it's time to restore a 3-person panel. That wont necessarily eliminate all warrants along these lines, but introduces a level of oversight lacking when you have a single person who is intent upon investigations that might lead to violations of civil rights (to say nothing of accusations of malfeasance).

Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly are defending the actions, and Bloomberg calls critics naive. Sorry, but that doesn't quite cut it. While there are indeed serious concerns about terror groups operating in the NYC metro area based on past history (both the 9/11 attackers and the 1993 WTC bombers had ties to the metro area), wholesale spying on an entire community is overbroad. It also reduces the level of trust between the Muslim community that would be willing to work with law enforcement to root out extremists in their midst and actually makes it more difficult to track down those who might be plotting attacks down the line.

The World Continues Reacting to Kim Jong-il's Death

China has formally recognized Kim Jong-un as the new leader of North Korea following the death of his father. Expect other countries to follow, and there's no reason for anyone not to accept that Jong-un is the newest dictator in charge of North Korea. The dynastic totalitarian regime begun by Jong-un's grandfather continues, and Jong-il's death allows the regime to reinforce and restate its cult of personality surrounding the Kim clan.

While China has traditionally had close ties and has thwarted efforts to pressure North Korea into giving up its nuclear program, it doesn't have the kind of sway to affect the political situation as much as one might suspect. They're often as much in the dark about the political machinations as everyone else. They're spectators to the death and transition in the regime. China has been keen on keeping the border tightly controlled, because it doesn't want to deal with a potential influx of millions of North Korean refugees streaming across the border. Since that border is far less militarized by the North Koreans, it is often used by those trying to escape the regime to points elsewhere in Asia, including South Korea.

Meanwhile, MSNBC/New York Times wonders whether intel services dropped the ball by not detecting signs of Kim's death.

For South Korean and American intelligence services to have failed to pick up any clues to this momentous development — panicked phone calls between government officials, say, or soldiers massing around Mr. Kim’s train — attests to the secretive nature of North Korea, a country not only at odds with most of the world but also sealed off from it in a way that defies spies or satellites.

Asian and American intelligence services have failed before to pick up significant developments in North Korea. Pyongyang built a sprawling plant to enrich uranium that went undetected for about a year and a half until North Korean officials showed it off in late 2010 to an American nuclear scientist. The North also helped build a complete nuclear reactor in Syria without tipping off Western intelligence.

Will younger Kim's aunt, uncle be N. Korea puppet masters?
As the United States and its allies confront a perilous leadership transition in North Korea — a failed state with nuclear weapons — the closed nature of the country will greatly complicate their calculations. With little information about Mr. Kim’s son and successor, Kim Jong-un, and even less insight into the palace intrigue in Pyongyang, the North’s capital, much of their response will necessarily be guesswork.

The fact is that the North Korean regime is so insular that it is nearly impossible to divine its intentions or decision making processes because so little is communicated (telecommunications in general in North Korea is highly limited so there isn't much in the way of chatter that could be intercepted) and human intelligence assets are also constrained by the very nature of the regime.

North Korean leaders want to perpetuate this notion and secretive nature because so much of their power is derived from the inability of others to understand what's going on in the country - including North Koreans who are constrained from knowing anything other than what the regime deems necessary.

Indeed, news of the death was kept from North Koreans for 48 hours, likely to insure the handover of power to Kim's son. There are even questions about what will happen to Jong-il's remains; some question whether he'll be embalmed and put on display next to his father, or buried simply. Considering the cult of personality surrounding the Kim clan, expect the regime to spend whatever it takes to display his remains, even if the impoverished country remains on the verge of famine and can't afford extravagances such as the multimillion dollar costs associated with such displays.

For the moment, his remains are lying in repose in Pyongyang. North Korean media handlers are pushing the propaganda about Jong-un, noting his divine origins in a fashion that mimics the cult of personality established around his father and grandfather.

Paper Claims Russian Spymaster Was Double Agent For US

The New York Daily News is reporting that the ringleader of the Russian spy ring that included Anna Chapman was actually a double agent for the US and that the Russian spy agency is trying to hunt the guy down.

According to the newspaper Kommersant, a Russian spook named Colonel Shcherbakov double crossed Moscow's Foreign Intelligence Service, the espionage agency known as SVR, by reporting to the U.S. while also serving a the ringleader of a band Russian secret agents.

The betrayal is a major blow to Russian intelligence, and now the Kremlin is calling for the traitor's head.

"We know who he is and where he is," a Kremlin official told Kommersant.

"Do not doubt that a Mercader has been sent after him already," the official told the paper, referring to Russian agent Ramon Mercader, who murdered exiled Bolshevik Leon Trotsky with an ice axe in 1940 in Mexico.

The newspaper reported that Shcherbakov had been spirited out of Moscow to the United States just days before the FBI announced its spy ring sting in late June.

The SVR missed some crucial red flags that should have tipped them to Shcherbakov's identity, the newspaper reported, including the fact that he had a daughter living in the U.S. and a son who abruptly quit a job for Russia's anti-narcotics agency just days before the scandal broke.

It's believed that the daughter further assisted in the spy efforts.

Of course, this gives another opportunity to bring out the Anna Chapman photos:

Chapman and the other Russian spies were honored as heroes upon their return to Russia, and Chapman managed to land a deal with Maxim for a sexy photo shoot.

US authorities have not commented on the claims.

Cargo Bomb Plot Tip Came From Ex-Gitmo Detainee

The BBC is reporting that an al Qaeda member and former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was released and then went back to al Qaeda had turned himself in to Saudi authorities who helped crack the latest bomb plot to blow up airlines using disguised cargo packages.

Jabr al-Faifi handed himself into authorities in Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, the officials told the BBC.

US officials have suggested that a Saudi bombmaker is the key suspect in last week's attempt to send the parcel bombs from Yemen to the US.

One bomb travelled on two passenger planes before being seized in Dubai.

Jabr al-Faifi is described as a former detainee at the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

After leaving Guantanamo he went through a rehabilitation programme in Saudi Arabia and then rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen before turning himself in to Saudi authorities, AFP news agency reports.

He contacted Saudi government officials saying he wanted to return home and a handover was arranged through Yemen's government, interior ministry spokesman General Mansour al-Turki said.

Jabr al-Faifi is reported to be one of several former detainees from Guantanamo who were returned to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation in December 2006.

If this is true, then it is perhaps a sign that the rehabilitation program has worked out. Jabr's double cross of al Qaeda means that al Qaeda can no longer trust those that return to the group and may make it harder to carry out future operations without having to worry about the group's intentions becoming knowledge of law enforcement and intel agencies.

Still, it is quite troublesome that former detainees have returned to al Qaeda in relatively high percentages and not all have provided intel to thwart terror operations.

Meanwhile, US intel agencies believe that a Saudi man was responsible for designing the bombs.

U.S. intelligence officials have named the chief suspect in the plot as Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, who is believed to be a member of the leadership of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

He is also suspected of sending his own brother on a suicide mission against a top Saudi official.

Al-Asiri and his brother abruptly left their Mecca home three years ago, their father, a four-decade veteran of the Saudi military, said. Aside from a brief phone call to say they had left the country, he never heard from them again.

With the bomb hidden in a body cavity, Abdullah approached the prince and blew himself up. The prince was only wounded.

Despite all this, officials got lucky and almost missed catching the bombs before they made their way into the US.



Yemen is attempting to improve its security at its airports, but that's a tall order given that the bombs made their way onto several flights before ultimately being detected in the UAE and UK.

At the same time media reports from around the world want to make it sound like Yemen is the latest focus of the war on terror, even though Yemen has always been a significant threat as a failed state that sits astride major shipping lanes and has a porous border with Saudi Arabia and from which multiple terror attacks have been carried out - some of which predate the 9/11 attacks (think USS Cole). Failed states like Yemen continue to be a major threat as a breeding ground for terror training camps, recruitment centers, and areas of operation for terror groups because of inadequate or nonexistent law enforcement. It's one of the reasons why al Qaeda operates from places like in Afghanistan, the frontier provinces of Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Iran Admits That Its Nuclear Program Was Penetrated By Western Intel Agencies

This is an interesting admission. Iran has admitted that Western spy agencies managed to coopt nuclear scientists and workers involved in Iran's nuclear programs. It said that those efforts have ended as a result of Iranian counterintel operations and arrests of those suspected of spying on the Iranian nuclear program.

Some of its workers at its nuclear facilities took bribes to pass secrets to Western officials, Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi said Saturday.

The explosive admission comes on the heels of arrests made by the Islamic nation of several alleged spies, along with a computer virus, which Iran said was part of a conspiracy to doom its controversial nuclear program.

Salehi, however, said an uptick in security will put an end to the spying.

"The possibility of information leaking is almost impossible now," Iran's Fars news agency quoted Salehi as saying.

He did not say what information may have been leaked by the alleged spies.

The U.S. has spent several years fighting Iran's buildup of nuclear materials and technology with economic embargoes imposed by the United Nations, despite Iran's claims that its nuclear program will only be used for civilian purposes.

The vice president, who also heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said the agency hands out booklets to workers that "spell out precautionary measures to protect (information) and the life of scientists" from Western spies, Fars reported.

Do Svidaniya Russian Spies (You Too Anna Chapman?!)? UPDATE: All 10 Plead Guilty

It looks like the rumored deal to swap the 10 Russian spies captured in the US for a US spy that the Russians had incarcerated for six years is underway.

The advocate, Ernst Chyorny, said Mr. [Igor V.] Sutyagin – who has served 10 years of a 14-year sentence for espionage — had called his father from Vienna, where he was met by a British officer. Family members who met with Mr. Sutyagin this week in Moscow said he had been informed he would be transported through Vienna to Britain, where he would be freed. Mr. Sutyagin’s mother, a chemical engineer in a scientific community outside Moscow, rushed home from work when she heard the news.

“So far I don’t know what happened,” said the mother, Svetlana Y. Sutyagina. “I am in a state of suspense.”

The reported exchange was not confirmed by Russian or American officials on Thursday, though anticipation had built throughout the day.

The scientist’s lawyer, Anna Stavitskaya, said Mr. Sutyagin had verbally agreed to an exchange during a meeting with Russian officials who he believed were from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, or S.V.R., and that Americans had also been present at the meeting.

Her comments followed reports from Washington on Wednesday that just days after the F.B.I.’s sensational dismantling of a Russian spy ring, the American and Russian authorities were negotiating an exchange of some or all of the 10 espionage suspects for prisoners held in Russia, including Mr. Sutyagin.

The deal may involve guilty pleas from the 10 Russian spies, including the honey pot Anna Chapman. MSNBC is reporting that this is going to end up being an 11 for 11 swap.

Relatives of Sutyagin, a nuclear researcher serving a 14-year sentence for spying for the United States, said he had told them he was going to be one of 11 convicted spies in Russia who would be freed in exchange for 11 people charged by the United States with being Russian agents.

Speculation swirled around the possible swap even as Russian and U.S. officials refused to directly comment on any possible exchange.

UPDATE:
The various Russian spies are being moved to New York for what appears to be final disposition in the case - entering guilty pleas and sentencing. Those spies arrested in Virginia and Boston are being transferred to New York, joining Chapman and the others.

Federal judge Kimba Wood had signed an order yesterday requiring El Diario columnist Vicky Pelaez, Juan Lazaro's wife and fellow codefendant, remain detained until the judge can hear an appeal by the prosecutors over the $250,000 bail package approved last week (the other defendants were denied bail and considered flight risks after an 11th alleged spy jumped bail in Cyprus). It's not clear whether how the pending spy swap will handle Pelaez's situation.

UPDATE:
Prosecutors have announced that all 10 alleged Russian spies will plead guilty to charges that they were unregistered agents in the US. That includes the hyperventilating Vicky Pelaez and her husband Juan Lazaro. However, that doesn't mean that all of them want to return to Russia - and that includes the NJ couple that had two kids (a further complication).

The criminal penalty for that charge is up to 5 years in prison.

UPDATE:
We now know the true identity of four of the 10 Russian spies.

In entering their guilty pleas, five of the 10 revealed their real Russian names publicly for the first time. The couple known as Richard and Cynthia Murphy gave their names to the court as Vladimir and Lydia Guryev, and the couple who called themselves Donald Howard Heathfield and Tracey Lee Ann Foley said their real names were Andrey Bezrukov and Elena Vavilova. The defendant known as Juan Lazaro said he was Mikhail Anatonoljevich Vasenkov.

The interesting thing about this case is how quickly the feds got guilty pleas and how quickly the defendants admitted to their guilt. That would seemingly indicate that the case against them was quite strong, which makes one wonder just how much more intel could be gleaned from further inquiry. At least one Russian expert thinks that the catch and turnover was too quick to do a thorough debriefing of the spies to get as much intel as possible about tactics and methods.

Accused Russian Spy Embarrassed About Photos?

If you're an accused Russian spy living in the US, whose father was apparently a member of the Russian intel service and espionage may run in the family, the thing you worry about is all those photos of you showing up online?

Are you kidding me?

Anna Chapman's lawyer says his client is embarrassed about all those photos making the rounds. Excuse me, but Chapman posted those photos and videos online herself and she has no one else to blame for becoming infamous by being arrested as part of a Russian spy ring (and which several members have admitted to using aliases to hide their true identities.

UPDATE:
The NY Post is revealing that Chapman took topless photos and her ex-husband has made them public. The ex-husband also told of her sexual prowess and exploits - and while Chapman may not want it known that she was skilled in all manner of sexual pursuits, none of this would have become public had she not been arrested and charged as a spy.

If anything, her sexual prowess and skills were further tools to use and exploit her contacts for information as a honey trap.

And This Is Why They Were Chosen

Take a good look at that picture. That attractive face is none other than alleged Russian spy Anna Chapman. She's getting quite a bit of attention precisely because of her good looks.

Chapman's American dream, U.S. authorities say, was a ruse.

The 28-year-old Chapman, they say, was a savvy Russian secret agent who worked with a network of other operatives before an FBI undercover agent lured her into an elaborate trap at a coffee shop in lower Manhattan.

Though the U.S. has branded the operatives as living covertly, at least in Chapman's case, she had taken care to brand herself publicly as a striver of the digital age, passionately embracing online social networking by posting information and images of herself for the world to see.

Prosecutors have charged Chapman and 10 other suspects with following orders by Russian intelligence to become "Americanized" enough to infiltrate "policymaking circles" and feed information back to Moscow.

Don't think that this wasn't purposeful. She was a honey trap.

The trade name for this type of spying is the "honey trap." And it turns out that both men and women are equally adept at setting one -- and equally vulnerable to tumbling in. Spies use sex, intelligence, and the thrill of a secret life as bait. Cleverness, training, character, and patriotism are often no defense against a well-set honey trap. And as in normal life, no planning can take into account that a romance begun in deceit might actually turn into a genuine, passionate affair. In fact, when an East German honey trap was exposed in 1997, one of the women involved refused to believe she had been deceived, even when presented with the evidence. "No, that's not true," she insisted. "He really loved me."

Those who aim to perfect the art of the honey trap in the future, as well as those who seek to insulate themselves, would do well to learn from honey trap history. Of course, there are far too many stories -- too many dramas, too many rumpled bedsheets, rattled spouses, purloined letters, and ruined lives -- to do that history justice here. Yet one could begin with five famous stories and the lessons they offer for honey-trappers, and honey-trappees, everywhere.

Many of the others involved in the spy ring blended in to their surroundings so as to avoid arousing suspicions.

The ring may have been operating for more than a decade, but it doesn't appear that they purloined much in the way of national secrets or classified/sensitive data. So, while it may have been a well organized cell (or group of cells), it was out of date as a means of gathering the kind of information being sought.

UPDATE:
Video showing Chapman in her own words:

Russian Spy Ring Busted, 10 Arrested In US

A Russian spy ring that has operated in the United States for the better part of the last seven years was busted yesterday. 10 were arrested in and around the United States, and a 11th person was arrested in Cyprus, although the Russian government denies the charges.

The spies, four couples and three other individuals lived in places like Montclair, New Jersey, and completely blended in. Their neighbors were blindsided by the accusations.

The FBI alleges that the accused spies carried out their spycraft of passing messages and other information in public places - transit stations, coffee shops, etc.

Among those arrested was Anna Chapman, who could have been straight of of central casting for a James Bond flick. She had a Master's degree and a model's physique all while passing along messages to her handlers every Wednesday.

The undercover instructed her on how she would recognize her fellow spy and how to report back on the handoff, the feds said.

"Haven’t we met in California last summer?" the spy expecting the fake passport was supposed to say. Chapman was to respond, "No, I think it was the Hamptons," according to the FBI.

Chapman allegedly was also supposed to hold a magazine under her arm so her counterpart would recognize her, and plant a stamp on a wall map indicate the handoff was a success.

It never took place.

Another spy-movie-like maneuver took place in Brooklyn shortly after the meeting with the undercover agent when Chapman darted into a Verizon phone store to buy a cell using the name Irine Kutsov, and an address of "99 Fake Street," the feds said. She only planned to use the phone to "avoid detection of her conversations," the FBI alleged.

At her arraignment last night, she was held without bail as federal prosecutor Michael Farbiarz called her a "highly trained agent" and a "practiced deceiver."

Their goal was to infiltrate US policy circles and financial institutions.

In 2009, for instance, the foreign intelligence service in Moscow, or S.V.R, asked the Murphys to learn details of the White House’s latest position on an arms-reduction treaty, Afghanistan and Iran’s nuclear program to prepare for President Obama’s pending visit to Russia, authorities said.

"Try to outline their views and most important Obama’s goals which he expects to achieve during summit in July and how does his team plan to do it," Moscow ordered, according to the documents.

The full text of the complaints are here.

Obama's Choice For Director of Central Intelligence: Leon Panetta?!

Of all the people that President elect Barack Obama could choose to be Director of Central Intelligence, he picked a guy who has absolutely no intelligence experience, no military experience, and is strictly a numbers guy: Leon Panetta.

What does this say about Obama and the intel community from which he had choices?

Admiral Dennis Blair was also named to be national intelligence director, according to officials.

Panetta is qualified to be DCI why? How? What are his qualifications?

Admiral Blair is more qualified to be DCI than Panetta. Then again, according to Blair's wiki, he's got himself a thing for not following orders and odd relationships with defense contractors.

Is it an admission that there's no one qualified to run the intel business in the nation, so we've got to get a numbers guy to do it? Or just no one qualified that is a Democrat? Or that Obama couldn't find someone who wasn't associated with current intel policy that the far left could find satisfactory (aka opposed aggressive tactics to uncover terror plots, waterboarding, and other tactics used since 9/11 to prevent further terror attacks inside the US), or a combination of the above?

UPDATE:
Panetta was calling for intel spending cuts during the 1990s at a time when Clinton's CIA director was warning against such a move?

UPDATE:
Sen. Diane Feinstein is not a happy camper with the choice. The California Democrat wasn't informed of the choice. That's a polite way of saying, you never bothered to ask my opinion. She's not alone either. Sen. Jay Rockefeller echoes those sentiments; couldn't Obama have found someone with experience who opposed the aggressive interrogations, which the left construed as torture? Steve Kappes was apparently their choice; someone who had experience and opposed waterboarding.

I further disagree with Instapundit's take relying on Angelo Cordvilla about Panetta being a good choice to fight Obama's turf battles with the CIA to avoid the problems that dogged President Bush from 2001 onwards.

The CIA is a massive bureaucracy with its own inertia. It will do what it must to survive those who pass through. That means that there will always be people who oppose the President, regardless of which side of the aisle is in charge. There are partisans who think that they know better than the President or that they are the ones who make the decisions. They are the ones who leak information to the press, which often reports it regardless of the potential for undermining national security.

Panetta's selection wont fix any of that. If anything, it will make the problem worse since he has no understanding of the culture at CIA and no experience in intel matters. He's a bean counter, and a bad one at that given that he opted to cut the intel budget during the 1990s when al Qaeda was an emerging threat.

It's wishful thinking to believe that Panetta will fix the problems at CIA or will allow Obama to avoid the pitfalls that befell Bush. The reality is that bureaucracies the size, scope and nature of CIA are creatures unto themselves.

The thing is that someone has to get the CIA under control and to ensure that the nation gets the best intel possible from all sources - human and signal. It means dealing with unsavory characters. It means getting your hands dirty from time to time, but the end result should be an organization that is free of politics and puts the national interest first and foremost. Having opposing viewpoints proffered isn't a bad thing either, but it should be free of politics.

The Panetta choice does nothing to solve the problems, and shows that Obama is putting politics ahead of the best person for the job.

Sons Admit Obvious: Julius Rosenberg Was Spy

Well, they admit what was evident decades ago, but who had convinced themselves that their father acted with the Soviet Union's best intentions in mind. Michael Meeropol, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg's son, had been spending decades trying to convince anyone who would listen that his father wasn't passing secrets to the Soviets. Well, he's admitting that his father was a spy, but not that they were passing nuclear secrets.

He was wrong.

It began in July 1950 when F.B.I. agents arrested Julius Rosenberg in the family’s Lower East Side apartment, thrusting the boys onto a global stage as bit players in their parents’ appeals, in the government’s efforts to extract their parents’ cooperation and in Soviet propaganda campaigns to cast the Rosenbergs as martyrs.

Their journey became public again nearly a generation later when the brothers proclaimed that their parents were framed to feed cold war hysteria and compensate for America’s counterespionage lapses. Amid the Watergate-era revelations of criminal conspiracies and cover-ups, they began a legal battle to release all the government records in the case. While they were vested in a single outcome, they insisted all along that they would follow the facts, wherever they led.

“We believed they were innocent and we tried to prove them innocent,” Michael Meeropol said on Sunday. “But I remember saying to myself in late 1975, maybe a little later, that whatever happens it doesn’t change me. We really meant it, that the truth is more important than our political position.”

This is how they still see things: whatever atomic bomb information their father passed to the Russians was, at best, superfluous; the case was riddled with prosecutorial and judicial misconduct; their mother was convicted on flimsy evidence to place leverage on her husband; and neither deserved the death penalty.

But after digesting Mr. Sobell’s confession, in an interview last week with The New York Times, that he and Julius stole nonatomic military and industrial secrets, the Meeropols have now concluded that continuing to claim that their father was innocent of an espionage conspiracy was no longer defensible.

Rosenberg was a spy, and one of Rosenberg's comrades, Morton Sobell, admitted as much, though he claimed that what Rosenberg was passing was military secrets and nonnuclear weapons information, and not nuclear weapons secrets. Sorry, but that's splitting hairs and the Venona documents plus released caches of information from the former Soviet KGB show just how important the Rosenbergs were in helping the Soviet Union acquire information for their own nuclear program. Sobell is engaging in a bit of revisionist history of his own, and perhaps he's trying to clear his conscience, but the facts show just how involved the Rosenbergs were in passing national secrets, including atomic secrets, to the Soviets.

Specifically, the Venona program broke the Soviet codes, and revealed several major spy rings operating inside the US, including Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Theodore Hall, William Perl, the Rosenbergs, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, and Harry D. White.

Ethel Rosenberg wasn't some innocent caught up in Red menace hysteria either. She was busy trying to recruit other members to the spy ring, including her sister in law and brother, Ruth and David Greenglass. Greenglass worked at Los Alamos as a machinist in 1944, working on the Manhattan Project, and was passing on information to Rosenberg for distribution back to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that one of the Rosenberg sons, Robert Meeropol, now runs a legal organization that tries to help children whose parents suffered because of their progressive politics. And both sons still don't think that their parents passed our nation's nuclear secrets to the Soviets.

Nice.

Explosive Claims

Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.

Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.

Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan.

The name of the official – who has held a series of top government posts – is known to The Sunday Times. He strongly denies the claims.

Of course this particular government official denies the claims. It's word against word, and without corroborating evidence, that's all it would be. Edmonds claims that this official was passing secrets from not only the State Department but the Pentagon.

That suggests someone who had the means and access to do so. As the CIA and FBI have repeatedly shown, counterintelligence isn't exactly a strong suit to weed out moles and spies, so it certainly could be plausible. Throw in the claim by the Times that investigations have been thwarted to preserve diplomatic relations, and you begin to understand just how dysfunctional the intel and diplomatic corps are in the US.

This is precisely the kind of issue that should not be politicized. It's the kind that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It threatens US national security and regional stability, not to mention poses an extreme risk that such technologies could fall into the wrong hands.

It's also curious as to the timeline. It appears that such transactions occurred during the late 1990s, which puts it squarely within the Clinton Administration and coincides with Pakistan's nuclear declarations and these interactions continued through the Bush Administration. While it has long been believed that the Pakistanis received much of their support and technologies from Chinese sources, this could change the calculus.

Further, Edmonds claims that the Turkish intel agencies provided a conduit for these transfers because they wouldn't attract as much attention.

Edmonds says packages containing nuclear secrets were delivered by Turkish operatives, using their cover as members of the diplomatic and military community, to contacts at the Pakistani embassy in Washington.

Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.

Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”

The four suspects on the list were released from interrogation and extradited.

Edmonds also claims that a number of senior officials in the Pentagon had helped Israeli and Turkish agents.

“The people provided lists of potential moles from Pentagon-related institutions who had access to databases concerning this information,” she said.

“The handlers, who were part of the diplomatic community, would then try to recruit those people to become moles for the network. The lists contained all their ‘hooking points’, which could be financial or sexual pressure points, their exact job in the Pentagon and what stuff they had access to.”

One of the Pentagon figures under investigation was Lawrence Franklin, a former Pentagon analyst, who was jailed in 2006 for passing US defence information to lobbyists and sharing classified information with an Israeli diplomat.

UPDATE:
Brad Friedman [ed: thanks to John Thacker for the correction (I posted it as Brad DeLong)] goes where the Times of London wouldn't, and names the State Department official who appears at the heart of Edmonds claims.

I too echo Friedman's comments that these claims need to be seriously investigated by journalists and the government itself to weed out those who threaten US national security. This has gone on for far too long.

UPDATE:
Clarified the timeline above to note that the transfers began during the Clinton Administration but carried through into the Bush Administration as well.

Iran's Endgame

What is Iran up to? The experts don't know what the endgame is, but they certainly can see what they've been up to.

They're busy inside Iraq, as Bill Roggio details here.

The issue of Iranian complicity in the Iraqi insurgency has been contentious since US and Iraqi forces began heavily targeting the Iranian networks in late 2006. While news reports have touted Iran's role in reducing the violence, US military officers believe Iran still serves as a source of weapons and fighters in Iraq.

The Long War Journal has spoken to several mid-level and senior US military and intelligence officers, all of whom have declined to go on the record due to the sensitive nature of the Iranian issue. Based on these conversations as well as other information, The Long War Journal has learned the nature of the Qods Force operations in Iraq and how they move resources into the country.

Suffice to say, had this reporting been done at the New York Times or Washington Post, not only would more people know what's going on, but it should be a Page One blockbuster story.

Roggio clearly indicates that the Iranians are heavily involved in what's going on inside Iraq, and that they're busy trying to shape the conflict to Iran's best interests. Those interests differ from that of the Iraqis, let alone the Americans.

At the same time, taking the NIE at face value makes little sense. In fact, it's downright dangerous, especially on how narrowly it defines the pursuit for nuclear weapons. Iran's currently actively engaging in nuclear enrichment and working on a plutonium processing plant, both of which are critical elements of a nuclear weapons program, but which are given short shrift in the NIE.

During the past year, a period when Iran’s weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran’s civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran’s needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran’s, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

For years these expensive projects have been viewed as evidence of Iran’s commitment to nuclear weapons. Why aren’t they still? The answer is that the new report defines “nuclear weapons program” in a ludicrously narrow way: it confines it to to enriching uranium at secret sites or working on a nuclear weapon design. But the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications.

That work includes the centrifuges at Natanz, which bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon every day — two to seven years away. To assert, as the report does, that these centrifuges are “civilian,” and not part of Iran’s weapons threat, is grossly misleading.

And by grossly misleading, it means irresponsibly dangerous.

Yet, the media and opponents to the Bush Administration cling to the NIE with all the tenacity they can muster because they think that this will prevent the Administration from going further on dealing with the threat posed by Iran than sanctions, if the Administration can even generate any action on that front.

Dropping Like Flies

Yet another critic of Russia's Putin has died under mysterious circumstances.

Ivan Safronov, the military affairs writer for Kommersant, died Friday after falling from a fifth-story window in the stairwell of his apartment building in Moscow, officials said. His body was found by neighbors shortly after the fall.

With prosecutors investigating the death, Kommersant and some other media suggested foul play.

"The suicide theory has become dominant in the investigation, but all those who knew Ivan Safronov categorically reject it," Kommersant said in an article Monday.

He literally fell to his death. His friends and those who knew him believe that it was a murder meant to look like a suicide.

Another critic, who recently appeared on NBC's Dateline, was found shot to death.

Paul Joyal, a former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer, was shot in his driveway just four days after he appeared in a "Dateline NBC" segment that was critical of Putin and his government.

After it was reported that Joyal's wallet was stolen during the shooting, some questions of a broader conspiracy waned; but Joyal's son Alex showed his father's billfold to a reporter from The Post, as Eric Rich writes this morning. Joyal was shot following a meeting with Putin's former KGB boss, Oleg Kalugin at the International Spy Museum, where Kalugin is a board member. The family refuses to speculate on the motive of the shooting.

This could be nothing but a serious of coincidences resulting in people who may undermine or embarass Putin's regime turning up dead. Or not.

This makes the third such critic to die under strange circumstances and doesn't count the mysterious poisoning of other rivals, like Viktor Yushchenko. Alexander Litvinenko was killed by exposure to Polonium 210.

The body count keeps piling up around the world, and the tie that binds appears to be the Kremlin up to its old tricks.

UPDATE:
Jammie Wearing Fool notes that criticizing Putin is bad for your health.

It certainly seems that way. That has a chilling effect on free speech and the press, though some are pressing the matter: The paper that Safronov wrote for, has an update on the now criminal investigation of Safronov's death. Does his death have something to do with an expose he was going to run on arms sales to the Middle East?

The Taganka prosecutor’s office in Moscow has initiated a criminal investigation on the forcible suicide of Kommersant journalist Ivan Safronov, who died under unknown circumstances last Friday when he fell from a window in the stairway of the Khrushchev-era five-story building in which he lived. The police and prosecutor initially characterized his death as suicide. Safronov, who turned 51 last month, wrote about the army and space. It is known that he was preparing a publication on Russian arms deliveries to the Middle East that could have caused a major scandal.

Good for the paper to push forward despite the fact that it is putting other journalists in harm's way.

Scoring Old Predictions and Issuing New Ones

I did this a few months ago, and it's time to revisit my predictions before I go ahead and provide a few new ones. I have come to the realization that I really need to go out on a limb in order to really score the big points. How can I get noticed in the din of year end postings and prognostications?

My 2005 final score? Out of 15 predictions, I got about 50%. Not bad, but a dartboard could have been more useful. I'll try harder this time. To wit, the 2006 predictions:

1) The Yankees will win the Pennant, the Red Sox will not make the playoffs, and the Dodgers will continue to suck despite becoming the West Coast version of the Red Sox.

2) Osama bin Laden will still be missing in action, but his neice will be found in action at Scores. A fatwa will be issued.

3) The misunderestimation of President Bush will continue unabated in 2006. The NSA eavesdropping case will result in criminal prosecutions of several disgruntled NSA operatives who thought that they could get in the good graces of the DNC. Apparently, Joe Wilson was their advisor before going public.

4) Iran will claim that they have the bomb, though their public acknowledgment will be puncuated by the detonation of epic proportions at the nuclear facilities where said bombs are being made. It will turn out that the Russians had been working with the US all along, and simply built in a failsafe so that the moment the facility went critical, so would the built in bomb. To be sure, another bomb goes off at the headquarters of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. It will later be determined that a special forces unit was in position at several locations to support the overall mission. Israel breathes a sigh of relief.

5) Terrorists will continue to try and attack the US, and one gets as close as being in position for an attack, but a sharp-eyed cop thwarts the attack. It is later determined that the terrorist would have been picked up by an NSA program had it been allowed to continue after the program became public in 2005 by leakers.

6) Rudy will declare his candidacy.

7) Roe v. Wade will not be an issue in 2006. Or 2007. Or 2008.

8) Alito will be confirmed, but Joe Biden's intelligence (or lack thereof) will similarly be confirmed. It wont be pretty.

9) Lawhawk and Mrs. Lawhawk will continue looking for a house in North Jersey - and interest rates plus an increase in home prices will still make it next to impossible to find a house. However, we will find one this year - only to find that the market crashes the day after closing. [If this one looks familiar, you're right - I made this prediction last year and nearly came true so why should I mess with a good thing.]

10) The New York Times share price will finally bottom out at $12 per share and Pajamas Media will IPO at the end of the year with a higher per-share price.

11) Google! will look at both NYT and Pajamas Media as growth opportunities and purchase both. Microsoft will go to the Justice Department demanding an investigation into anti-trust violations by Google in its cornering of the media market, especially when Google invents a way to not only distribute preferred Blogspot blogs, but makes money from the endeavor.

12) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton realize that their stars have been eclipsed by Barack Obama and therefore must be destroyed. They will resort to chicanery and outright slander in order to undermine Obama's potential running for national office. And fail mightily when they are found out. Cheney and Rove will snicker into the night.

13) Speaking of Cheney and Rove, neither will be indicted as part of Fitsmas. Wilson, however, will be. As will Joe Wilson's five year old son.

14) Howard Dean will be sacked by the DNC six months too late [in December] when the fundraising campaign runs into such hardship that they will be forced to go to Charles Schumer to run the fundraising campaign. This too will be problematic as Schumer's aides use Michael Steele's SSN on their employment forms.

15) The NSA leak probe will result in more criminal prosecutions than any other prosecution in the Bush Administration. It will turn out that career bureaucrats that are registered Democrat in both the NSA and CIA are involved. One turns out to have contacts with Joe Wilson [see above].

* Bonus prediction #16: A natural disaster will once again show that the UN is completely incapable of acting decisively, except to blame the US for a slow response. Of course, this natural disaster is in the US - where Mt. Rainier rumbles back to life for the first time in recent history. Thankfully, I'll have pictures to remember what it looked like before the Eruption of 2006 takes out 5,000 feet of the summit. And I get partial credit if any of the nearby volcanoes rumble back to life and blow their stacks.

There you have it.

UPDATE:
Upon further consideration, I have another prediction - Able Danger will make a major splash in the news, especially as the NSA spycraft story takes hold.