Jay Carney on CNN’s big CIA/Benghazi scoop: I don’t know nothing ’bout nothing
POSTED AT 7:11 PM ON AUGUST 8, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Via Ace, consider this post an apology to our readership. A few days ago I led you to believe that it was somehow important for the White House press corps to ask the press secretary about one of the biggest foreign policy scoops in weeks. That was obviously in error, as I suspected at the time. It wasn’t important; this guy wouldn’t give you a straight answer on what his favorite color is (“I would refer you to my kindergarten finger-paintings on that”), never mind accusations about top-secret CIA activity linked to a major terror attack. Like I said in the earlier post, the press briefing now operates not as the White House’s conduit to the public but rather as an opportunity for the media to show the public that it’s asking worthwhile questions of the president even though there’s not a whisper of a chance that they’ll get useful information from them. The Brits have question time with the prime minister in parliament, we have this travesty. Second look at monarchy?
Speaking of which, a sneak preview for you of what Carney will be delivering non-answers about tomorrow. Off with their heads:
Three U.S. drone strikes killed a total of 12 suspected al-Qaida militants Thursday, a Yemeni military official said, raising to eight the number of attacks in less than two weeks as the Arab nation is on high alert against terrorism…Since July 27, drone attacks have killed 34 suspected militants, according to an Associated Press count provided by Yemeni security officials.The Yemeni military official said the first drone attack killed six alleged militants in central Marib province, while the second killed three more in the al-Ayoon area of Hadramawt province in the south. The third killed three others in the al-Qutn area of Hadramawt, he said.Nearly three dozen alleged jihadis liquidated in less than two weeks, more than a third of them in three separate strikes today alone. I don’t track this stuff day to day but I can’t remember a flurry of activity like that. If AQ does end up pulling something off somewhere, the feds will have plenty of evidence to point to as proof that they did their best to thwart it.Actually, since it’s a lead-pipe cinch Carney won’t have anything interesting to say about that, here’s a different question for him for tomorrow’s briefing: Does the DOJ plan to open an investigation into the source of the leaks about Al Qaeda’s big “conference call”? (Which wasn’t technically a conference call.) Marc Ambinder, who specializes in intel and counterterror reporting, wrote last night that only a tiny number of people in U.S. intelligence would be privy to information about how Al Qaeda leaders are liaising. That info’s incredibly sensitive, for obvious reasons — once the cat’s out of the bag that we know how they’re doing it, they’ll stop doing it that way. Either that’s a gigantic intelligence breach or it was leaked deliberately for strategic reasons, either to spook Al Qaeda into abandoning their plot and going to ground by showing them we know more than they think or to give them a reason to move to a different type of communication which might be even easier to penetrate. No way to know which it is, though, until we’ve ruled out the most obvious possibility. How about it, Eric Holder? Are we going after an intel bigwig for leaking this or not?
( Guess who is laughing their butts off over the Terrorama ? )
WASHINGTON — The gloating among jihadists and their sympathizers began last week, right after the United States shut down almost two dozen diplomatic posts across the Middle East in response to a terrorist threat.
“God is great! America is in a condition of terror and fear from Al Qaeda,” wrote one jihadist in an online forum. Another one rejoiced: “The mobilization and security precautions are costing them billions of dollars. We hope to hear more of such psychological warfare, even if there are no actual jihadi operations on the ground.”
The jihadists are not the only ones who see the new terrorist alert in a caustic light.
The Obama administration’s decision to evacuate so many diplomats on such short notice — however justified by the seriousness of the threat — has upset some of its foreign partners, who say the gesture contributes to a sense of panic and perceived weakness that plays into the hands of the United States’ enemies, and impedes their efforts to engage with people in their countries.
Some American officials have also said they believe the administration overreacted, in large part because of the political fallout from the attack last year on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens. Since that attack, security procedures have been tightened at American diplomatic outposts across the Middle East. Those embassies are already so heavily fortified against attacks that many diplomats lament it is more and more difficult for them to do their jobs.
“I think since Benghazi the administration has been in a defensive crouch, and they are playing it as safe as they can,” said Will McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism official who is now an analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses in Alexandria, Va.
The government of Yemen issued a rare public rebuke to the Obama administration on Tuesday, declaring in a statement that the evacuation “serves the interests of the extremists” and undermines cooperation with the United States. As if to answer the gesture, Yemen announced Wednesday that it had foiled a spectacular plot to bomb oil pipelines and take over major ports — an assertion that was greeted by analysts both here and abroad as little more than cynical political theater aimed at proving that Yemen was capable of defeating Al Qaeda on its own.
The diplomatic shutdown may have been especially jarring, analysts say, because the administration has portrayed Al Qaeda as a waning force in the past year.
“The impression the administration left was that Al Qaeda was dead or close to dead,” said Bruce Riedel, a former Central Intelligence Agency case officer and a Brookings Institution scholar. “In which case, why are we so worried about a conversation between two Al Qaeda leaders?”
The intercepted conversation in question was between Ayman al-Zawahri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden as the leader of Al Qaeda, and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen. American officials and lawmakers have said the conversation revealed one of the most serious terrorist plots against Western interests since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
But the vagueness of the threat has made it easier to question the Obama administration’s response. The two men did not specify the nature or location of the attack, American officials say. The timing was also unclear, though the attack was apparently originally scheduled to take place last Sunday.
*******
Snowden's Email Service Provider Shuts Down Following Government Pressure
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/08/2013 18:04 -0400
Secure and free web-based email service provider Lavabit shut down today. What makes Lavabit different from countless other email providers who have shuttered over the years is that according to BoingBoing, Lavabit is the email service supposedly used by Edward Snowden. Which would explain the nebulous tone in the farewell letter posted on the company's front page by owner Ladar Levison. It also explains why Lavabit was shut down by the US government, although that was mostly inferred from the letter which due to legal limitations does not expound on the official reasons for the shut down - one can imagine. It certainly explains the following punchline in Levison's letter: "This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States."
We wholeheartedly agree.
Lavabit's farewell letter:
My Fellow Users,I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise.As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.What’s going to happen now? We’ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company.This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.Sincerely,
Ladar LevisonOwner and Operator, Lavabit LLCDefending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fundhere.
No domestic spying? How NSA collects Americans' cross-border emails
An NSA source has admitted the agency’s data collection technology makes it impossible to intercept communication with foreigners without gathering data on US citizens. This counters Obama’s claim that US surveillance only concerns ‘terrorist threats.’
A senior official at the National Security Agency anonymously explained the process to The New York Times, broadly confirming the revelations about US spying mechanisms leaked by Edward Snowden in previous weeks.
According to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulations from 2008, the NSA is only allowed to track communication between foreign suspects, or a foreigner and an American, without a warrant. Collecting data exchanged between US citizens that way is illegal.
But it appears to be impossible to filter out data relevant to a particular suspect in real-time without capturing a much larger flow of information passing through the world’s communication cables, as data parcels are fractured and need to be copied whole before being pieced together.
This data includes communication between non-suspect US citizens, although accessing such correspondence is illegal.
According to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) regulations from 2008, the NSA is only allowed to track communication between foreign suspects, or a foreigner and an American, without a warrant. Collecting data exchanged between US citizens that way is illegal.
But it appears to be impossible to filter out data relevant to a particular suspect in real-time without capturing a much larger flow of information passing through the world’s communication cables, as data parcels are fractured and need to be copied whole before being pieced together.
This data includes communication between non-suspect US citizens, although accessing such correspondence is illegal.
The needed information concerning legitimate foreign suspects is picked out from the mass with what the source called a “very precise” ‘selector’ - an email address, name or some other form of identifier pertinent to a suspect. Then, a “clone of selected communication links” such as emails or internet browsing histories is made. It is then stored and distributed to other agencies for further investigation.
The rest of the information is discarded, according to the source. He added that since the overall amount of data gathered is so huge, it can only be stored for a limited time – so “retrospective searches” are not possible. Snowden’s records indicated the storage period to be up to three days.
But the NSA insider admitted that illegal American data is gathered not only at the initial stage, but is sometimes “inadvertently collected” after the filter is applied (picture it as a very precise Google search that nevertheless produces accidental results). After presumably being illegally examined by an NSA agent, this data is removed within “a small number of seconds.”
The NSA employee claimed that such “overcollection” of US data occurs routinely, but is regularly reported to overseers, and the ‘selector’ search mechanisms are modified to produce results more relevant to catching actual terror suspects.
The rest of the information is discarded, according to the source. He added that since the overall amount of data gathered is so huge, it can only be stored for a limited time – so “retrospective searches” are not possible. Snowden’s records indicated the storage period to be up to three days.
But the NSA insider admitted that illegal American data is gathered not only at the initial stage, but is sometimes “inadvertently collected” after the filter is applied (picture it as a very precise Google search that nevertheless produces accidental results). After presumably being illegally examined by an NSA agent, this data is removed within “a small number of seconds.”
The NSA employee claimed that such “overcollection” of US data occurs routinely, but is regularly reported to overseers, and the ‘selector’ search mechanisms are modified to produce results more relevant to catching actual terror suspects.
In response to the revelations, NSA spokesperson Judith A. Emmel told The Times that the agency“collects only what it is explicitly authorized to collect,” and that its targets are “foreign powers and their agents, foreign organizations, foreign persons or international terrorists.”
Earlier this week, Obama also staunchly defended the NSA.
“We don't have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat,” the President said on the Tonight Show.
The validity of those statements seems to hinge on a somewhat narrow and self-defined meaning of what it is to “collect” data and to “target.”
Assuming that NSA agents work exclusively in good faith and never break regulations, it is plausible that they “collect” only information from suspects, and that US individuals are never “targeted.” That is, their names are never typed in as ‘selectors.’
But in a more general way, it is also clear that even the most honest-minded NSA staff will possess information relating to millions of innocent Americans, which they are not legally allowed to read, and that this information will be accessed on a routine basis - without any legal or practical supervision.
“We don't have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat,” the President said on the Tonight Show.
The validity of those statements seems to hinge on a somewhat narrow and self-defined meaning of what it is to “collect” data and to “target.”
Assuming that NSA agents work exclusively in good faith and never break regulations, it is plausible that they “collect” only information from suspects, and that US individuals are never “targeted.” That is, their names are never typed in as ‘selectors.’
But in a more general way, it is also clear that even the most honest-minded NSA staff will possess information relating to millions of innocent Americans, which they are not legally allowed to read, and that this information will be accessed on a routine basis - without any legal or practical supervision.
No comments:
Post a Comment