Month: March 2014

The National Security Archive, an organization founded “to check rising government secrecy,” has awarded its annual Rosemary Award to James Clapper “for worst open government performance in 2013,” chiefly for his now infamous lie to Sen. Ron Wyden that the NSA doesn’t collect information on millions of Americans.

Despite heavy competition, Clapper’s “No, sir” lie to Senator Ron Wyden’s question: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” sealed his receipt of the dubious achievement award, which cites the vastly excessive secrecy of the entire U.S. surveillance establishment.

The Rosemary Award citation leads with what Clapper later called the “least untruthful” answer possible to congressional questions about the secret bulk collection of Americans’ phone call data. It further cites other Clapper claims later proved false, such as his 2012 statement that “we don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.”

The Archive’s “not-so-coveted Rosemary Award in 2005, named after President Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, who testified she had erased 18-and-a-half minutes of a crucial Watergate tape,” the press release explains.

“Bestowed annually to highlight the lowlights of government secrecy, the Rosemary Award has recognized a rogue’s gallery of open government scofflaws, including the CIA, the Treasury Department, the Air Force, the FBI, the Federal Chief Information Officers’ Council, and the career Rosemary leader — the Justice Department — for the last two years,” the Archive adds in its statement.

In addition to Clapper, the Archive also recognizes NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander, former FBI director Robert Mueller, the Justice Department, and President Obama for what you might call dishonorable mentions. Essentially, their inclusion is based on successive lies told to the American people about the surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden.

• Continue reading “Spy Chief James Clapper Wins Rosemary Award”

Who violated international law, Russia or the US? We did get UN authority to threaten Saddam Hussein but not to invade. Our country attacked Iraq with no provocation except for threats of nuclear weapons that turned out to be false. We killed probably well over 100,000 Iraqis and around 4,489 American soldiers. What did we gain from that fiasco? Iraq is falling apart with the beginnings of a religious conflict that may produce a civil war.

The Kremlin, on the other hand, is claiming territory that has belonged to Russia for centuries. There have been only one or two military fatalities. The whole imbroglio originated in the overthrow of the duly elected president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, by a bunch of hoodlums who have been quoted making anti-Semitic remarks and acting like Nazis. Yanukovych was a corrupt president, but the world is full of corrupt leaders. On the other hand, the parliament in the capital of Crimea, Simferopol, which was duly elected as well, voted to put a referendum on joining Russia to the people; the voters overwhelmingly approved the accession. Remember Woodrow Wilson. He asserted the right to "self determination."

Crimea became part of the Ukraine because Khrushchev in 1954 transferred the administration of Crimea from Moscow to Kiev. At the time, it was considered meaningless. After the USSR collapsed, Ukraine became independent. I was in Moscow at that time and was told by Russians that those living in the Ukraine were "little Russians" who would soon return to the fold. At the same time, the people in Moscow had no doubt that the Crimea belonged to them. Russia has more of a claim to Crimea than does the Ukraine.

The threats and military actions made by the West and the US are frightening. We complain that the Russians are staging military exercises on the border of the Ukraine while we are sending warplanes to the Baltic countries and Poland and are planning war exercises with a pitiable Ukrainian force. Our Vice President, Joe Biden, has been threatening Russia and asserting that the US will defend our Baltic NATO allies.

Continue reading “Breaking the Law”

The most bellicose commentators on the current situation in Ukraine are pretty much exactly the same crew who zealously cheer-led for the illegal and deranged invasion of Iraq in 2003. Disappointingly, nobody thinks it appropriate to bring this up…as if it doesn’t affect their credibility in the slightest.

The immediate consequences of the war of Iraq were disastrous and the long-term geo-political consequences for the U.S. similarly so. This has been exhaustively poured over, without so much as a blushing of the cheeks from these pro-war stalwarts.

Less considered are the horrible consequences for Iraq right now and going forward. The U.S.-backed dictator Nouri al-Maliki is ruling the country with an iron fist, putting his political opponents in jail, torturing prisoners, crushing free speech, and so on. The advocates of “democracy promotion” in Iraq, somehow, don’t have to answer for the fact that the Iraqi parliament is now considering imposing new laws that would allow girls to be forced into arranged marriages from the age of nine.

Al-Qaeda, which had no presence in Iraq before the U.S. war, is sticking to Iraq’s Sunni provinces now like a malignant cancer, helping destabilize not just Iraq but Syria.

That’s all insignificant and obviously doesn’t reflect on their ability to properly analyze the U.S.-Russian relations in the aftermath of the Ukraine crisis…right?

A recent Reuters “Special Report” details horrendous atrocities committed by U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces, including extra-judicial executions of suspected terrorists and gruesome mutilations of dead bodies right out in public. Meanwhile, a Sunni-Shia civil war simmers just below the boiling point, with gun battles and car bombs an increasingly ordinary part of Iraqi life. More civilians were killed in 2013 than in any year since the war supposedly ended.

The brainless warmongers who helped turn American opinion in favor of invading Iraq are now stirring up indignation among millions of cable news watchers who now believe the U.S. must take aggressive action to rectify the situation in Ukraine. Their past records are irrelevant.

Stephen Walt summed up the issue rather well on Twitter yesterday:

The wronger you are about big issues in US FP, the more likely you are to rise in power & prominence and be immune to accountability.

— Stephen Walt (@stephenWalt) March 20, 2014

Commentators across the spectrum support Obama’s recent executive order allowing economic sanctions to be placed on Putin’s “inner circle.” The fact that hardly anybody opposes this is instructive.

To put it simply: sanctions don’t work. The well known political scientist Robert Pape years ago examined 115 cases of economic sanctions over almost 80 years and found (p. 99) only 5 that could be considered a success (that is, the targeted nation changed policy in the desired direction of the imposer nation).

In the Los Angeles Times, Andrew Cockburn criticizes the “wholly mistaken belief that [sanctioning] makes the targets do what we want.” Cockburn delves into an eloquent and persuasive debunking of the near-universal belief that harsh economic sanctions on Iran “brought them to the table” and pressured them to make concessions. Former U.S. Ambassador to Iran William Miller described that narrative as “total nonsense.”

I’ve written about this several times myself. To make a long story short: (1) Iran made an even better offer back in 2003, before the worst of the sanctions (and it was rejected by the U.S.); (2) once the sanctions began in earnest, Iran became even more defiant. In 2003, Iran had 164 centrifuges operating and no 20% enriched uranium. After a decade of escalating sanctions, in 2013 Iran had 19,000 centrifuges and a sizable stockpile of 20% uranium. If that’s success, I’d hate to see failure.

A good example of the mindless enthusiasm for sanctions appeared in yesterday’s Washington Post. “Putin won’t back down, or be kicked out, until credible threats to his power create a split among his elites and advisers,” Garry Kasparov wrote in advocating harsh sanctions on Putin’s inner circle. “Right now they have no incentive to bet against him. Putin protects them and their assets while the free world they enjoy living in has made no moves that would force them to choose between their riches and Putin.”

Does Kasparov really believe Putin’s lifelong friends and sycophants who have been enriched by sticking close to the president of Russia’s profoundly corrupt economic system will suddenly decide to oppose Putin’s foreign policy and initiate some kind of silent coup just because Obama targets them with sanctions? This is a fantasy. More likely, as we see from history, Putin and his inner circle will dig in their heels, become more defiantly committed to their cause, and find ways to retaliate.

“Sanctions have an economic impact, there’s no question about that,” the Cato Institute’s Steve Hanke said recently. “But they almost never achieve their political goals and they’re largely symbolic.”

This point about sanctions being symbolic is the important point, as I hinted above. Since they don’t actually change policy in the desired direction, sanctions really serve only one purpose: they make America seem tough. The benefit for Obama is huge in that he neutralizes right-wing criticisms that he is appeasing Russian imperialism. Sanctions are merely for domestic consumption. Aside from making Obama look tough, they serve no greater foreign policy utility.

The executive branch’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) issued a report back in December that was devastating to the Obama administration’s claims that NSA surveillance is both legal and effective in providing security. The report concluded that, in fact, the bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) doesn’t yield valuable intelligence and violates the rights of Americans.

The PCLOB had sought input from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to complete that report. Now, another report is in the works that may be even more devastating to the defenders of limitless NSA surveillance. The new report will focus on the PRISM program which taps into servers of internet providers and tech companies to directly spy on the content of user data. The FAA supposedly authorizes this sweeping surveillance in its Section 702.

But the ACLU is arguing that programs like PRISM are doubly illegal. In talking with the PCLOB, the ACLU is arguing not only that the NSA’s implementation of Section 702 authorities violates what the statute actually authorizes, but also that the FAA itself is illegal in that it violates the Constitution.

In testimony provided to the board in advance of today’s meeting, the ACLU argues — as it has in litigation, notably in Amnesty International USA v. Clapper and United States v. Muhtorov — that the FAA is unlawful. The statute violates the Fourth Amendment because it permits the warrantless surveillance of American’s international communications on a truly massive scale. The testimony also makes the case that the government’s implementation of the FAA — about which we’ve learned much over the past nine months — violates the text of the statute itself:

First, while the statute was intended to augment the government’s authority to collect international communications, the NSA’s targeting and minimization procedures give the government broad authority to collect purely domestic communications as well. Second, while the statute was intended to give the government authority to acquire communications to and from the government’s targets, the NSA’s procedures also permit the government to acquire communications “about” those targets. And, third, while the statute prohibits so-called “reverse targeting,” the NSA’s procedures authorize the government to conduct “backdoor” searches of communications acquired under the FAA using selectors associated with particular, known Americans. Thus, even if the statute itself is lawful, the NSA’s implementation of it is not.

A significant part of the public defense of the NSA’s spying apparatus is that there have been no deliberate violations of the law. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said in August, for example, that critics have “never identified an instance in which the NSA has intentionally abused its authority to conduct surveillance for inappropriate purposes.” In December, President Obama insisted “There had [sic] not been evidence and there continues not to be evidence that the particular program had been abused in how it was used.” NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander claimed that “no one has wilfully or knowingly disobeyed the law or tried to invade your civil liberties or privacy.”

Continue reading “ACLU: NSA’s PRISM Program is Doubly Illegal”

There are 54 different countries on Earth that the U.S. is legally obligated to militarily protect and defend if they get into their own conflicts. Below is the State Department’s list of them (via Micah Zenko):

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

A treaty signed April 4, 1949, by which the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and each of them will assist the attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.

PARTIES: United States, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

A Treaty signed September 1, 1951, whereby each of the parties recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States , Australia, New Zealand

PHILIPPINE TREATY (BILATERAL)

A treaty signed August 30, 1951, by which the parties recognize that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and each party agrees that it will act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States, Philippines

SOUTHEAST ASIA TREATY

A treaty signed September 8, 1954, whereby each party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties would endanger its own peace and safety and each will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States , Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, and the United Kingdom

JAPANESE TREATY (BILATERAL)

A treaty signed January 19, 1960, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. The treaty replaced the security treaty signed September 8, 1951.

PARTIES: United States, Japan

REPUBLIC OF KOREA TREATY (BILATERAL)

A treaty signed October 1, 1953, whereby each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and that each Party would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

PARTIES: United States, Korea

RIO TREATY

A treaty signed September 2, 1947, which provides that an armed attack against any American State shall be considered as an attack against all the American States and each one undertakes to assist in meeting the attack.

PARTIES: United States, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela

This illustrates rather well the sheer magnitude of U.S. commitments around the world. It’s worth remembering, too, as Nima Shirazi noted, that not every state that Washington commits itself to militarily is listed here (Israel is conspicuous for its absence). So, U.S. military commitments go beyond even this lengthy list.

Why? Politicians will tell you this is about defending freedom and democracy (right…). Policy wonks will rattle off old chestnuts about global security and international cooperation. More accurately, this helps institutionalize U.S. hegemony (that is, unrivaled power over all other states in the system).

This doesn’t merely demonstrate how taxpayer money and resources go to the defense of other countries. It illustrates the pervasive conviction in Washington that there are few, if any, spots on the planet that aren’t vital U.S. interests that require military interventionism. America’s mandate is limitless, it would seem.