Government Executive - Authors - Abby Ohlheiser

Germany Expels U.S. Intelligence Official After Spying Allegations

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:25:14 -0400

Germany asked a U.S. intelligence official based at the American embassy to leave the country over allegations of Americans spying on Germany, officials announced on Wednesday. According to Reuters, German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said that "the request was made in light of the ongoing investigation by the chief federal prosecutor and questions that have been raised for months about the activities of U.S. intelligence services in Germany."

Over the past week or so, German prosecutors have investigated what are apparently two separate cases of suspected American spying on German government activities. Last week, as the Guardian reported quoting German media, an employee of Germany's intelligence agency confessed to passing along hundreds of confidential files to a CIA contact. And days ago, reports emerged that German officials were investigating a German Defense employee who allegedly established contact with individuals believed to be working for U.S. intelligence services. As the New York Times makes clear, German prosecutors suspect that both alleged spies were recruited by U.S. intelligence officials. Police arrested the German intelligence official who confessed last week; there's no arrest yet in the second alleged spy case.

Although Germany is still investigating, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that if the allegations are true, "it would be a serious case." She added, according to CNN, that "it would be for me a clear contradiction to what I consider to be a trustful cooperation between agencies and partners." The new allegations don't exactly come at the best time for U.S.-German relations: earlier, documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. spied on Merkel's phone calls for more than a decade.

]]>

An 'Industrial Spill' Has Closed Part of the U.S. Capitol Building

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:58:01 -0400

The House of Representatives will probably need to find somewhere else to meet this morning. According to multiple reports, the House-side of the U.S. Capitol building is closed because of an "industrial spill," reportedly of asbestos.

Fox News's Chad Pergram, citing senior sources at the Capitol, reported on Twitter that "they don't know 'the extent' of industrial spill at Capitol. Air testing going on. EPA & HAZMAT on scene." CNN's Dierdre Walsh, citing Capitol police, reported that a portion of the ceiling fell overnight, "exposing a chemical substance." Roll Call'sHannah Hess says the spilled substance was asbestos, according to her sources.

Obviously, this is putting a dent in the routines of those who planned to spend the day reporting at the Capitol, or, you know, legislating there. The House is still set to begin its day at 10 a.m., Pergram added. It's not clear if they'll meet at a different location, or how long it will take to assess the extent of the industrial incident and clean it up.

The House side of the Capitol is closed due to an industrial spill. The basement was the only floor I was able to access this morning
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) July 10, 2014

Cap Police say House side of Capitol closed due to an "industrial spill." Um...what?
— Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter) July 10, 2014

(Image via Condor 36/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Insane Clown Posse Loses FBI Lawsuit; Juggalos a 'Gang'

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 13:59:21 -0400

A federal judge has dismissed Insane Clown Posse's lawsuit against the FBI and the Justice Department, allowing the agencies to continue classifying the group's fans, called Juggalos, as a "gang." According to the Associated Press's Tuesday report, U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland ruled last week that because a 2011 FBI report on gangs is "descriptive," and not " prescriptive," it doesn't break any laws. The group intends to appeal the decision.

Insane Clown Posse's suit was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. It claimed that the FBI report's classification of Juggalos as a "loosely organized hybrid gang" was "unwarranted and unlawful," and prompted local law enforcement officials to harass fans wearing jewelry or other symbols of the group. The ACLU of Michigan's legal director Michael J. Steinberg said this in a statementabout the decision:

"The only way to remedy this injustice for all innocent Juggalos is to start with the root of the problem – the FBI’s arbitrary and erroneous branding of hundreds of thousands of music fans as gang members. There is no doubt that the FBI created this problem and the solution begins there as well. Otherwise, we’ll be playing whack-o-mole to stop local law enforcement agencies from discriminating against our clients, when the agencies are just following the FBI’s lead.”

As the AP noted, the classification doesn't show up anywhere in the FBI's most recent report on gangs, however, the 2011 report is still used by local law enforcement agencies. The report details criminal activity by some self-identified Juggalos, but even the FBI's assessment is based on the criminal activity of a small minority of participants in ICP's fan base.

Juggalos — usually pictured wearing makeup similar to that of the ICP duo themselves — are probably best-known for their antics during the annual "gathering of the juggalos" festivals. The next one is in a couple of weeks.

(Image via Flickr user thatguygil)

]]>

Veteran Dies in VA Hospital Cafeteria After Waiting 30 Minutes for an Ambulance

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 16:09:25 -0400

A veteran who collapsed and died in the Albuquerque Veteran Affairs hospital cafeteria was waiting for an ambulance for half an hour, the Associated Press confirmed with officials on Thursday. The cafeteria is just a five-minute walk from the hospital's emergency room, but it took officials 30 minutes just to dispatch an ambulance to help him on Monday.

Apparently, hospital policy instructs employees to call 911 and wait for an ambulance, which is exactly what happened in the case of the unnamed veteran. According to KOAT, officials said they were "reviewing" that policy when asked why the veteran wasn't, say, loaded up onto a gurney and wheeled to the nearby emergency room. Kirtland Air Force Medical Group treated the veteran with CPR while they waited for the ambulance, officials told the AP.

Monday's death comes at an especially bad time for the VA's health care system, just a week after acting VA secretary, Sloan Gibson and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Rob Nabors gave the president a blistering report on the state of the VA hospital system's bureaucracy. The report described a "corrosive culture" that "tends to minimize problems or refuse to acknowledge problems at all."

(Image via Karin Hildebrand Lau/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

U.S. Embassy in Uganda Warns of 'Specific' Terrorist Threat

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:32:34 -0400

According to the U.S. Embassy in Kampala, Uganda, Ugandan police have passed along intelligence on a "specific" threat to the Entebbe International Airport, the main international airport in the country. In a statement, the embassy said the intelligence specified that the attack by an "unknown terrorist group" was planned to happen on July 3 between 9 and 11 p.m., local time (or between 2 and 4 p.m., EST).

"Individuals planning travel through the airport this evening may want to review their plans in light of this information," the embassy warns. There's not a ton of other information out there on this threat, beyond the embassy's short statement. Al Shabaab, the Somali militant group with links to al Qaeda, has claimed responsibility for previous terrorist attacks in the country, as NBC News noted.

Just a day ago, the Obama administration announced a series of increased security measures at some international airports offering direct flights to the US. As ABC News and Reuters reported, officials are concerned that al Qaeda affiliates based in Syria are developing bombs capable of sneaking through current airport security precautions.

However, it's not clear whether these advanced precautions have anything to do with the Uganda threat announced today. For one thing, the enhanced screenings, which will include increased swabbings of passenger property, aren't going to start until early next week. Officials told the Wall Street Journal that they don't believe the al Qaeda-linked threat prompting the new security measures has anything to do with the July 4th holiday in the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told the Journal that his department wouldn't specify all of the new security measures, which will include "seen and unseen" procedures.

Also on Wednesday, the FBI disclosed that it had arrested a Colorado teen in April as she attempted to board a flight in Denver International, allegedly on her way to Syria to aid ISIS militants. Shannon Maureen Conley, 19, faces charges of providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization, according to the local Denver Fox affiliate.

]]>

Majority of Voters Think the Obama Administration Is Incompetent at Running the Government

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:48:14 -0400

When asked a question often discussed with dread at family Thanksgiving dinners, a plurality of voters — 33 percent — believe President Obama is the worst president since World War II. In second place on the same question was George W. Bush with 28 percent. These are the numbers you will read in several headlines today. The thing is, the "worst president since World War II" results aren't really the worst numbers for the president in the Quinnipiac poll from which they're drawn.

Let's address the headlines first. In the Quinnipiac poll, Obama finds himself among a handful of post-war presidents who garner polarizing reactions from voters. Those presidents, roughly, are Kennedy, Reagan, and the three most recent: Obama, Clinton, and George W. Bush. When asked to choose the best post-war president, for instance, Ronald Reagan snagged 35 percent of voters. But 18 percent thought it was Kennedy. Clinton took 18 percent of voters, and 8 percent think it's Obama, putting him in fourth place. (George W. Bush, for what it's worth, had just 1 percent of voters on this question).

If you look at the political breakdown by party of who is saying Obama is the worst, it falls strongly along party lines, with a little bit of help from independents: 63 percent of Republicans chose Obama, while 54 percent of Democrats said George W. Bush. Independents voted "for" both: 23 percent said George W. Bush was the worst, while 36 percent chose Obama. On a similar question directly comparing Bush and Obama, the expected partisan divide is even stronger:

Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 39 percent of voters say, while 40 percent say he is worse. Men say 43 - 36 percent that Obama is worse than Bush while women say 42 - 38 percent he is better. Obama is worse, Republicans say 79 - 7 percent and independent voters say 41 - 31 percent. Democrats say 78 - 4 percent that he is better.

So the core group of voters strongly opposed to everything Obama does think he's a bad president, and the people who voted for him have a more positive opinion of the job he's doing. That's not a surprise.

Which brings us to the number that's arguably the actual worst thing in the poll for Obama: "American voters say 54 - 44 percent that the Obama administration is not competent running the government." Politico's Mike Allen agreed, flagging that number as of most concern to the White House this morning. This is the second recent poll to give the president or his administration a bad rating on a "competency" question: an earlier NBC/WSJ poll found that just half of Americans believe Obama is a competent leader of the federal government.

Although the poll marked a slight uptick in his overall approval rating to 40 percent, the president didn't fare too well when respondents were asked to rate his performance on a bunch of crucial issues:

Voters were 40 - 55 percent against his handling of the economy;
They also were negative on his foreign policy, 37 - 57 percent. And on the related issue of terrorism? 44 - 51 percent.
Same goes for healthcare: 40 - 58 percent against.
He did better on the environment, with 50 percent of voters approving and 40 percent against.

Then again, basically no one else in government right now is doing so well in the polls, either.

]]>

Hillary Clinton Is as Good at Courting Wall Street as Mitt Romney

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 12:29:13 -0400

Although Hillary Clinton's recent comments about her wealth don't quite put her in the same presidential candidate club as Mitt Romney, there is one area where the two seem to have something in common: a knack for fundraising out of Wall Street.

According to a Wall Street Journal look at Bill and Hillary Clinton's political and foundation fundraising over the last two decades, about 12 percent of the total amount raised by the Clintons over those years has come from the financial sector. To put that in perspective, Obama's 2012 campaign raised 6 percent of its total from the industry, while Mitt Romney took in 13 percent of his total from Wall Street, according to the Journal.

The Journal's report — which estimates that the Clintons have raised over $1 billion in total corporate and industry donations — looked at a variety of fundraising outlets for the pair: Bill's two presidential campaigns, the DNC during the Clinton presidency, Hillary Clinton's senate campaigns, and the the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Although the numbers are approximate (the Foundation, for instance, gives donation ranges instead of exact figures) the report estimates that the pair have raised between $2 and $3 billion total.

The Clintons' good relationship with Wall Street is hardly unknown. But if you're not familiar, the Journal has some context:

Business has long hedged its bets in politics, supporting candidates of both parties. Mr. Clinton won industry support during eight years in the White House by helping balance the budget and steering the U.S. to a period of economic growth. For Wall Street, Mr. Clinton enacted several legislative priorities, including the elimination of barriers between commercial and investment banking in 1999.

After the Clintons left the White House in 2001, Mrs. Clinton became the junior senator from New York state, the heart of finance in the U.S. When she ran for re-election in 2006, Mrs. Clinton raked in $5.7 million from financial services firms, which was more than all but one other member of Congress that year, according to the CRP.

And that relationship has continued: since leaving office, Bill Clinton has earned 1.35 million in speaking fees for Goldman Sachs alone, and about $23 million overall in fees from the financial sector for the same period. The Washington Post recently published a more in-depth look at Bill Clinton's speaking fees earnings, in case you're interested.

As the National Journal pointed out earlier this week, this sort of information is exactly the sort of thing Republicans already campaigning against Hillary hope to keep in the public sphere for years, until the 2016 elections (or alternatively, until Clinton decides not to run). Questions about her wealth certainly didn't help Clinton's unsuccessful bid for the nomination in 2008 against Obama. It looks like Team Clinton is hoping that airing all this laundry now will help to dissipate similar questions by the time primaries actually begin.

(Image via JStone / Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Expect a Supreme Court Decision on Recess Appointments Soon

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:51:39 -0400

The Supreme Court term will likely end next week, but there are still more than a dozen cases awaiting a ruling. Among those are several potentially major decisions on issues like the contraceptive mandate, free speech, and presidential recess appointments. Thursday is the next decision release day, leaving just a few more days in June for the court to unload its large pile of remaining opinions. Or, in rare cases, postponing a case until next term.

In all, the court has yet to issue decisions on 13 cases, or 14 if you count two cases that both dealing with warrantless cell phone searches separately. (Update: with Thursday's three unanimous decisions, the court now has either 10 or 11 opinions left, again depending on how you're counting. We've updated the list below with the short version of each of those decisions.)

So the end of term crunch is going to be a busy one. Here a rundown of the remaining cases, and what's at stake in each one.

The Big Ones

Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores & Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp v. Sebelius.These two cases, considered together, challenge the health care reform law's contraceptive mandate. There are two broad questions at issue here: whether private businesses have the right to exercise their freedom of religion either under the Constitution or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and if so, whether the contraceptive mandate violates that religious freedom. Those are both big questions with implications for the more than 40 other challenges to the contraceptive mandate working their way through the courts. However, as we noted in our recap of the oral arguments, the court could end up issuing a much narrower ruling. Justice Ginsburg has said that the Hobby Lobby decision will be one of the last released by the court this month.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. This case is about recess appointments. It shouldn't be exciting, but it has become a major battle between the two other branches of government. Basically, conservatives are hoping for — and, to some extent, seem likely to get — a Supreme Court decision against President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That's because Obama used his recess appointment power even though Republican legislators were holding "pro forma" sessions over the holidays just to prevent the president from sidestepping their obstruction of his nominees. The case could potentially limit the recess appointment power in several other ways, if the justices allow a very narrow interpretation of the recess appointment power handed down by the D.C. Circuit court to stand. MSNBC has a good primer on the context of this case, here.

Privacy, Patents, and Copyright

The court took on several cases this year dealing with the application of older laws to newer technology: smartphones, software, and internet-transmitted broadcast television:

Riley v. California & United States v. Wurie. Another pair of cases on another important issue: warrantless searches of cell phone contents by law enforcement officers during the course of an arrest. In a decision handed down before cell phones were in everyone's pocket, the court gave officers the right "from incident to arrest" to a search a subject in “the area into which he might reach." The intent was to prevent the destruction of evidence and to protect the safety of the officers. The court now has to decide if — and to what extent — that authority applies to the vast amount of information stored on a personal cell phone. Here's our recap of the oral arguments for these cases.

~~Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International~~. Although, as SCOTUSblog notes, the justices seem very unlikely to issue a major decision on software patent law here, the case is at least an opportunity for the Supreme Court to address a longstanding question of whether the Patent Act allows for software patents. A narrower ruling would favor companies with a lot of patent claims. But several major companies, including Google, are hoping that the court will place limits on what kinds of software programs are eligible, which would help them fend off those ever-present "patent troll" lawsuits. (Update: the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on this case on Thursday, ruling that Alice Corp's patent claims are ineligible, "because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea." Although experts on the subject matter are still combing through the details of the decision, it looks like the case indeed provides useful guidance — though no huge breakthroughs — on when a piece of software is eligible for a patent. The Alice decision is here.)

American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo. Aereo is a subscription service that allows users to stream over-the-air broadcast television on their computers and other devices. ABC believes that such a retransmission is a public performance of their content, and therefore a violation of copyright. Aereo says their service is really more of a technology rental — users pay for access to thousands of tiny TV antennas scattered across a market, in order to access and record the same content they'd be able to get by purchasing an individual digital antenna. If the court sides with Aereo — allowing it to continue to bypass broadcast fees — it could have huge implications for the business model of local and national broadcast TV.

The EPA

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (and other, similar cases.) The justices are considering whether the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate stationary sources of emissions, like coal plants. But as the New York Times notes, the justices gave little indication that they were interested in issuing a major decision on this case. For one thing, the justices seemed to believe that even if they struck down the specific provisions challenged in this case, the agency would still have other ways of maintaining the same programs.

First Amendment

McCullen v. Coakley. This is the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case on abortion clinic "buffer-zones" since 2000, when the court upheld a Colorado law giving patients a protester-free "bubble." Massachusetts's law, a response to attacks on patients and clinic employees in the state, puts a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion-providing clinics there. Using a grandmotherly protester as its face, anti-abortion groups have mounted a challenge to the law on First Amendment grounds. Although it's a bad idea to try and predict these things, the oral arguments on this case indicate that the justices are split, with the balance possibly going towards sympathy for the challengers.

~~Lane v. Franks.~~ The question in this case is whether the First Amendment prohibits the government from firing a public employee who truthfully testifies as part of a subpoena that goes beyond his normal duties as an employee. Based on the oral arguments, the justices seem inclined to rule in favor of the man who was fired, Edward Lane, who exposed fraud at a program run out of an Alabama community college. The justices will also consider a second, related question: whether the target of Lane's lawsuit — the former president of the college — is immune from liability in the suit because he works for the state. (Update: the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in this case on Thursday, affirming that "The First Amendment...protects a public employee who provided truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the course of his ordinary job responsibilities." Read the full opinion here.)

Business, Banks and Labor

Several of the remaining cases pertain to financial crime, unions, and shareholders. Here they are, roughly in order of interestingness:

Harris v. Quinn. The Supreme Court could hand down a decision in this case with extensive consequences for public sector unions. Illinois's home care workers are represented by the SEIU under state law, and all workers pay small dues to the union for that representation. A group of home care workers — with the help of the conservative National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, sued to stop that practice on First Amendment grounds. Interestingly, as Mother Jones noted, Justice Antonin Scalia might end up siding with the unions on this case.

Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund. This case pits Halliburton against a group of its shareholders. As Reuters explains, several other major companies will be watching the case to see if the Supreme Court ends up siding with Halliburton, because it could impact other class action suits brought by shareholders who believe companies misled them about their stock, and lost money because of those misleading statements. Essentially, the court will decide what standards must be met before such a suit is granted class action status.

Loughrin v. United States. What do federal prosecutors have to prove in order to convict someone on federal bank fraud charges? That's the question in this case. Loughrin's legal team argues that the government must prove an intent to defraud the banks issuing checks used to purchase a little over $1,000 at Target stores. AsReuters explains, Loughrin argued that Target, but not the banks, suffered a loss as a result of his crime.

Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. This case could potentially resolve a split among federal courts on the issue of a presumption of prudence for fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In slightly more plain language: members of the Fifth Third Bancorp's 401(k) plan have claimed that its fiduciaries committed a violation by continuing to offer company stock through the plan, even though the company "switched from being a conservative lender to a subprime lender," meaning that its stock was overvalued. This case is a little bit in the weeds, but SCOTUSblog has some good resources if you're interested.

~~United States v. Clarke.~~ This case has to do with how district courts enforce an IRS summons when a recipient objects to the summons. Essentially, the question is about when a district court decides that an objection merits an evidentiary hearing, and you are probably already bored with this summary. Once again, always and forever, SCOTUSblog has more. (Update: the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in this case on Thursday, holding that a taxpayer has a right to an examination of the reasons behind an IRS summons "when he points to specific
facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of
bad faith." The decision is here).

]]>

John Kerry Busted Taking a Brief Nap in Poland

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:03:23 -0400

At a press conference conference in Warsaw on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry appeared to briefly nod off to the dulcet sounds of his translator earpiece. To make things more awkward for Kerry, he was in the audience of a press conference conducted by his boss, Barack Obama. At least Kerry fell asleep during Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski's response to a question.

The joint press conference launched Obama's European tour this week, during which Obama announced a $1 billion plan to increase American military deployments to Europe: "Our commitment to Poland's security as well as the security of our allies in central and eastern Europe is a cornerstone of our own security and it is sacrosanct," Obama said. The president more directly addressed the Ukraine crisis on Tuesday, saying that if Putin was willing "I think it is possible for us to try to rebuild some of the trust that has been shattered," but that such a move would take "quite some time," as CNN reported.

Aside from that brief nap, Kerry was actually pretty busy in Poland Tuesday.

Today, @JohnKerry signed an innovation agreement with Polish Foreign Minister @sikorskiradek. Photos: https://t.co/950jNOWKKo
— Department of State (@StateDept) June 3, 2014

]]>

Here's What's in the Benghazi Chapter of Hillary Clinton's New Book

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Fri, 30 May 2014 11:38:45 -0400

A 34-page chapter of Hillary Clinton's upcoming book, Hard Choices, is all about the Benghazi attacks. According to a copy of the chapter obtained by Politico, a substantial portion is clearly meant to address ongoing committee hearings convened by the GOP-led House of Representatives, who believe that Clinton was part of a conspiracy to cover up government knowledge of the attack. There's been a "regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media,” Clinton writes.

The former Secretary of State goes on to say that she "will not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans," adding, "it's just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country. Those who insist of politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me." Clinton has already given testimony at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi in 2013, but that line is probably directed at the next step in the Republican investigation into the attacks: a big special committee, announced earlier this spring, that could keep the show going through the fall and into the final stretch of the midterm season. That committee is already working to establish their timeline of the events leading up to the attack, which the Republican leadership believes is incomplete, even after a Senate report and a State Department review.

Politico's Maggie Haberman explains that the book is already being used to help Democrats to address Clinton's participation in the government response to the attacks. She writes:

The section was obtained and reviewed by POLITICO on the eve of a meeting in which members of Democratic-leaning groups will be briefed by Clinton’s team about how she addresses the attacks in the book.

And in a sign of the concerted effort to rebut the ongoing controversy in a cohesive way, Clinton’s camp has brought on former National Security Council spokesman and longtime President Barack Obama hand Tommy Vietor to assist in the response to the book, a source familiar with the plan said.

And, Clinton herself will sit down with Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren for a lengthy interview to air June 17. The interview is part of her book tour, but the network's history of being very, very interested in Benghazi conspiracy theories (along with Clinton devoting an entire chapter to it) suggests that the attacks will be a topic of focus.

The chapter will address a number of specific points about the attacks:

On the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the attack:Stevens's death was “a punch in the gut,” Clinton writes, adding, that the death of "fearless public servants in the line of duty was a crushing blow... as Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day.”

The role of an anti-Islamic video in the Benghazi attacks: Citing "later investigation and reporting" (see: here) on the attacks, Clinton writes that the video was "indeed a factor." She adds that those at the consulate on that night had "different motives": "“It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

How Obama and the military responded to the attacks: “[Obama] gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”

Whether she personally saw cables before the attacks requiring additional security:"That’s not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t," Clinton writes, noting that the cables bore her name as a "procedural quirk” and not because they went directly to her.

Why she wasn't interviewed for the Accountability Review Board investigation, and whether that's proof that she rigged the entire investigation as part of the massive cover-up for Obama: "[the board] had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do so.”

On Susan Rice's early statements to the press after the attacks: “Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time...That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”

Why she didn't go on the Sunday morning shows herself: Some, she writes, "fixate on the question of why I didn’t go on TV that morning, as if appearing on a talk show is the equivalent of jury duty, where one has to have a compelling reason to get out of it. I don’t see appearing on Sunday-morning television as any more of a responsibility than appearing on late-night TV. Only in Washington is the definition of talking to Americans confined to 9 A.M. on Sunday mornings.”

On why she said "what difference at this point does it make?” about the motivations behind the attacks: "In yet another example of the terrible politicization of this tragedy, many have conveniently chosen to interpret [it] to mean that I was somehow minimizing the tragedy of Benghazi. Of course that’s not what I said...My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?”

Hard Choices comes out on June 10. Read more on the Benghazi chapter at Politico.

]]>

National Park Service Will Start Promoting Historic LGBT Sites

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 29 May 2014 09:49:08 -0400

The National Park Service will start considering more sites important to the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in the United States, based on the recommendation of a recently convened panel through the Interior Department. The panel of 18 scholars is examining the history of the LGBT movement, according to a report from the Associated Press. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell will announce the panel on Friday.

There are three federally recognized sites in the United States chosen in part for their importance to LGBT history, one of which is landmarked — the Stonewall Inn in New York gained the distinction in 2000. The area around the inn is also on the National Register of Historic Places. And the Dr. Franklin E. Kameny Residence in Washington, D.C., is listed on the Historic Places register as well. So is Fire Island's Cherry Grove Community House & Theater.

Although, as the AP notes, the study (funded by Colorado philanthropist Tim Gill) probably won't be completed until 2016, there are some sites that could be considered by the Park Service. Here are just three of many potential places:

Castro Camera, San Francisco

The Castro Camera shop was owned by Harvey Milk and was where the LGBT rights activist lived and worked. Milk was the first openly-gay man to be elected into public office in California. He was assassinated in 1978, after which the store temporarily became the home to an art gallery. The building is currently home to a satellite office of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT equality group.

The Henry Gerber House, Chicago

In the mid-1920's, Henry Gerber founded what is widely believed to be the first gay rights organization in the U.S.: the Society for Human Rights. The organization published the first LGBT publication as well, called the Friendship and Freedom newsletter. Gerber lived in this house during the height of his activism. Gerber House is already a recognized landmark by the city of Chicago.

You can read more about the Gerber House here.

Alice Austen House, Staten Island

The Alice Austen House, now a museum, was the home of an an early pioneer for LGBT women. Austen was a photographer, and her work includes shots of women dancing together, in bed together, and wearing men's clothing. She lived with her partner Gertrude Amelia Tate in the house until the 1930's, when she lost the property in foreclosure. After that, Take and Austen were forced to live apart.

]]>

Army Removes the Commander of Fort Bragg's Hospital Following Patient Deaths

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Wed, 28 May 2014 10:20:17 -0400

Col. Steven J. Brewster was replaced as commander of the Womack Army Medical Center on Tuesday, after recent patient deaths and issues with surgical-infection control at the facility. The Fort Bragg medical center is one of about 40 across the nation that serve active duty members of the military and their families. In a statement issued to the New York Times, the Army said that “senior Army medical leaders have lost trust and confidence" in Brewster. The dismissal comes amidst an ongoing scandal involving medical care in the Veterans Affairs department.

In the past 10 days, two patients in their twenties have died unexpectedly after being treated at Womack. A Joint Commission review required for the facility to keep its accreditation found that it had a "higher-than-expected rate of surgical complications from January 2010 to July 2013," the Times wrote, possibly due to problems with the methods used to control infections in surgical facilities.

According to the Times, the first recent unexpected fatality was a 29-year-old wife of an active duty serviceman who went to Womack for a "routine tubal ligation." Racheal Marie Rice, 29, returned to the hospital's emergency room hours after the surgery feeling ill. Here's what happened next, according to the Times' report:

Patients who return that soon after surgery are supposed to be placed on a triage list and seen quickly. But Mrs. Rice waited for about two hours without seeing a doctor, then left to breast-feed her baby, who is about 6 months old, according to people familiar with the case. By the next morning, she was close to death. An ambulance took her from her home back to Womack, where she died.

The second unexpected fatality, who remains unnamed, was 24 and an active duty soldier. He was diagnosed with tachycardia after an emergency room visit, and sent on his way with medication to take. He died shortly after, although it's not known when and where.

Later on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a “comprehensive review” of military health care services.

]]>

80 U.S. Troops Are Headed to Chad to Search for the Kidnapped Nigerian Schoolgirls

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Wed, 21 May 2014 17:41:07 -0400

On Wednesday, President Obama announced that 80 U.S. military personnel have gone to Chad to aid officials there in a search for more than 200 missing Nigerian schoolgirls. "These personnel will support the operation of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria and the surrounding area," Obama said in a letter to Congress as reported by the AFP.

According to NBC News, the troops will operate and protect a Predator drone involved in the search. Half of the group will operate the drone, while the other half will protect the first group. The troops will remain in Chad "until its support in resolving the kidnapping situation is no longer required," Obama added.

The schoolgirls were kidnapped in Nigeria on April 14 by militants associated with the Islamist Boko Haram organization. The group is holding the girls hostage, demanding the release of some of their members from prison in exchange for the return of the girls.

Here's the full text of Obama's letter to Congress, which was addressed to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate:

Approximately 80 U.S. Armed Forces personnel have deployed to Chad as part of the U.S. efforts to locate and support the safe return of over 200 schoolgirls who are reported to have been kidnapped in Nigeria. These personnel will support the operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria and the surrounding area. The force will remain in Chad until its support in resolving the kidnapping situation is no longer required.

This action has been directed in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.

]]>

'House of Cards' Is Looking for its NSA Director

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Mon, 19 May 2014 17:09:09 -0400

House of Cards Season Three will involve the National Security Agency — or at least an NSA director — according to a casting notice sent to SAG-AFTRA actors in the Baltimore area, where the show is shot. According to the Baltimore Sun, the show is looking for a male or female aged 45-55 years old of any ethnicity.

Of course, the real NSA chief position was recently vacated by Gen. Keith Alexander, who stepped down in March (and replaced by Michael Rogers) after what was a pretty tough year of defending the spy agency against a series of revelations based on documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden.

For instance: did you know that the NSA has been collecting the audio of virtually every phone conversation going through the Bahamas? It's true! That's a new revelation from earlier on Monday, over at the Intercept.

Anyway, here's the full listing, via the Baltimore Sun. You'll notice that the show is also casting for a series of reporters and editors, which means we have even more of the show's trademark highly-accurate depictions of life as a DC journalist to look forward to:

Kimberly Skyrme Casting (email address at end of post) is seeking talent for House of Cards Season 3

When: Shooting availability: June 12 -July 15, 2014

Audition Availability: Please select top 3 choices to Kimberly Skyrme Casting.

10:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Monday, May 19 (every 20 minutes)

10 a.m.-6 p.m., Tuesday, May 20 (every 15 minutes)

10 a.m.-4 p.m., Wednesday, May 21 (every 15 minutes)

Seeking performers able to portray the following:

· ER DOCTOR: MALE or FEMALE: 38-43, harried and tired

· REPORTER-SUSAN: FEMALE: 35-55 years old, open ethnicity

· REPORTER-GEOFF: MALE: 35-55 years old, open ethnicity

· PHOTOGRAPHER: MALE: 42-48 years old, open ethnicity. Photography experience essential.

· COLONEL: MALE: 50-60 years old, open ethnicity, military

· NSA DIRECTOR: MALE or FEMALE: 45-55 years old, open ethnicity

· CHAIRMAN: MALE: 50-60 years old, part of senate

· SENATOR TORN: MALE: 58-62 years old, Southern senator

· SENATOR EVERETT: FEMALE: 45-55 years old, academic

· DETECTIVE SMITH: MALE: 35-48 years old, open ethnicity, blue collar.

· BETTE: FEMALE: 32-36 years old , open ethnicity, good with hands, smart, pretty, capable

Submission/Audition Instructions:

Please be selective and submit for each role that you feel you are suitable for. You must send one submission per role. Include the following subject line for your email: “HOC3: 301 & 302 - ROLE: insert role TALENT NAME: insert name”

Kimberly Skyrme Casting will search the e-mails submissions based on the subject line so PLEASE follow the instructions properly. For consideration, please email --------@gmail.com.

]]>

How to Manage Expectations for Your Rally to Overthrow the American Government

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Thu, 15 May 2014 13:01:48 -0400

Retired Army Col. Harry Riley expects that somewhere between 10 million and 30 million people will help him shut down Washington on Friday for Operation American Spring. Operation American Spring, in case you didn't get your invitation, is a militia-heavy protest explicitly aiming to force Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, and Eric Holder from office. This is not going to happen. 30 million people will not show up for Riley's protest. And the protest will not overthrow the government.

So, for the benefit of the future of the Overthrow Obama protest movement, here is a guide to managing expectations and making your attempted coup the best version of itself.

Learn from the Examples of Others

Had Riley based his estimate on anything other than, we presume, the numbers he'd like to see in the papers, he'd know that promises to send We the People to the door of American power rarely meet lofty turnout estimates. Last October, "10,000" truckers were reportedly on their way to literally clog the Beltway and shut down traffic in protest of Washington politics. In reality, about 30 truckers showed up, and they caused no delays worth mentioning. In November, Larry Klayman promised that "millions" would show up at his rally "to occupy Washington D.C" and call for the overthrow of President Obama. Instead, the crowd looked more like this:

Here are the "millions" who showed up for Larry Klayman's rally to overthrow Obama pic.twitter.com/ihnmBowwMH
— Right Wing Watch (@RightWingWatch) November 19, 2013

Of course, this advice applies beyond the realm of the "overthrow America" protest genre. In 2012, a coalition of progressive groups planning to march on the Tampa RNC failed to top 500 in attendance, despite estimates of thousands. And Glenn Beck famously estimated that his 2010 "Restoring Honor" rally would draw 300,000 people to the Lincoln Memorial. While still an indisputably enormous event, Beck had a crowd of about 87,000 people instead, based on the most generous of reliable estimates.

Despite the symbolism of crowd size, journalists who have ever actually tried to cover a protest or rally know that it's very difficult to get accurate head counts. In other words, there is some leeway here when it comes to numbers — no one will fault you for saying 10,000 people would come to your protest, if it's really only more like 8,000. The effect is the same. The best estimate of the crowd at the famous Million Man March is 837,000, for instance, with a large margin of error of plus or minus 20 percent. But you have to make sure the crowd will be big enough to fake it, at the very least. If you say that 10 million people will attend your weekday rally, you're setting yourself up for a great disappointment that would impress even the Millerites.

Look at Some Polls

Riley's high estimate of 30 million people amounts to a little under 10 percent of the entire U.S. population. While no one has polled reliably on whether Americans want to forcibly remove Obama and several other members of the federal government from office by force, we do have some polling on American attitudes towards the president and the government in general. Polling on impeachment is tough, but the most reliable figures out there seem to estimate that as much as 35 percent of the entire population would favor the House of Representatives bringing impeachment proceedings against the president (depending on how the Huffington Post asked that question, however, results varied widely).

35 percent! That's more than 10 percent, so Riley's in the clear, right? Not exactly. Take a look at those attendance figures up above. Under a million people showed up for the Million Man March. Glenn Beck's highly publicized rally, at the height of his influence and with a still-fresh Tea Party, was under 100,000. By comparison, Operation American Spring's Facebook Page has 800 likes, and Riley's explanatory video promoting the rally has about 9,500 views:

Larry Klayman promised that "millions" would show up at his rally "to occupy Washington D.C" and call for the overthrow of President Obama. Instead, the crowd looked more like this:

In order to get even the low Riley estimate, nearly a third of all Americans who would support some sort of impeachment proceedings would have to take Friday off from work, travel to Washington, and stand with the militias for the protest. It's not impossible that such a thing would happen. But it almost certainly won't.

Have a Back Up Plan

Operation American Spring has a very detailed, widely-circulated plan. Mission? "Restoration of Constitutional government, rule of law, freedom, liberty “of the people, by the people, for the people” from despotic and tyrannical federal leadership." It continues:

Assumptions:

Millions of Americans will participate.

American veterans and patriots are energized to end the tyranny, lawlessness, and shredding of the US Constitution.

Government is not the target, it is sound; corrupt and criminal leadership must be replaced.

Those in power will not hesitate to use force against unarmed, peaceful patriots exercising their constitutional rights.

Patriots may be incarcerated, wounded or god forbid; killed.

It goes on, outlining the plan of action, with the assumption that 10 million people show up to participate:

Phase 1 – Field millions, as many as ten million, Patriots who will assemble in a peaceful,non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the United States of America Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership in Washington D.C., with the mission to replace with law-abiding leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.

Phase 2 – One million or more of the assembled must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holderresign or be removed from office.

Consistent with the US Constitution, as required, the U.S. Congress will take appropriate action, execute appropriate legislation, deal with vacancies, or U.S. States appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.

Phase 3 – Principled leaders such as, Former Representative Allen West, Senator Ted Cruz, Doctor. Ben Carson, Senator Mike Lee, Former Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Rand Paul, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Jeff Sessions, Representative Trey Gowdy, Representative Jim Jordan, appointed by their peers, would comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.

This plan would certainly send a message, but given the above, it seems prudent to make sure you have a Plan B in case the crowd is less than historically unprecedented.

]]>

The State Department Warns of an 'Evolved,' Decentralized Al Qaeda

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:22:59 -0400

In its annual terrorism report, the State Department warned that the rise of aggressive, decentralized al Qaeda affiliates scattered through the Middle East and North African regions presents "serious threat to the United States, our allies, and our interests." In the report, the department outlines how losses among al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan has forced the terrorist organization into an "accelerated" splintering.

Because of that decentralization, the state department notes, the remaining members of al Qaeda's central leadership are having some trouble issuing orders that the local affiliates actually follow. From the report:

AQ leadership experienced difficulty in maintaining cohesion within the AQ network and in communicating guidance to its affiliated groups. AQ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was rebuffed in his attempts to mediate a dispute among AQ affiliates operating in Syria – al-Nusrah Front and al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), now calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – which resulted in the expulsion of ISIL from the AQ network in February 2014. In addition, guidance issued by Zawahiri in 2013 for AQ affiliates to avoid collateral damage was routinely disobeyed, notably in attacks by AQ affiliates against civilian religious pilgrims in Iraq, hospital staff and convalescing patients in Yemen, and families at a shopping mall in Kenya.

That being said, al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri still holds significant ideological sway over affiliated al Qaeda groups working across the regions. Countries seeing increasingly autonomous al-Qaeda splinter groups include Yemen, Syria, Iraq, northwest Africa, and Somalia, the AP notes.

The report, unsurprisingly, also focuses on the presence of extremist fighters in Syria: "Iran, Hizballah, and other Shia militias provided a broad range of critical support" to extremist fighters in the country, the report reads, as sectarian violence increased in Syria.

During the press briefing on the report, CNN asked Ambassador Tina Kaidanow, the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism, about the effect, if any, of Edward Snowden's NSA whistleblowing activities on the U.S.'s ability to fight terrorism. Kaidanow's answer: "The Snowden revelations were an unauthorized disclosure of classified information," the ambassador said, adding, "It is therefore not surprising if I tell you that it has done damage." She called the leaks "very damaging" to the U.S.'s security efforts. This is something the U.S. has often indicated in response to those leaks — particularly that the terrorists have "changed tactics" since the NSA's bulk surveillance programs became public.

The full report is here.

]]>

Edward Snowden Says He Was Challenging Vladimir Putin, Not Helping Him

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:47:46 -0400

Whistleblower Edward Snowden raised some eyebrows yesterday when he made a "surprise" appearance at Russian President Vladimir Putin's annual press conference. Today, Snowden has defended his decision to participate in the Q and A in a Guardian op-ed, saying he was taking Putin to task, not lobbing him a softball for propaganda purposes.

"I was surprised that people who witnessed me risk my life to expose the surveillance practices of my own country could not believe that I might also criticize the surveillance policies of Russia," Snowden said, continuing, "a country to which I have sworn no allegiance, without ulterior motive."

Edward Snowden has just officially made himself into a Russian propaganda tool http://t.co/kNyTUts4Oq
— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum) April 17, 2014

On Thursday, Snowden asked the following to Putin: "Does [your country] intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals' communications?" His participation in the press conference was widely read as an opportunity for Putin to rebuke the U.S. in a politically tense moment, especially since Snowden has been living under asylum in Moscow for the past eight months. There were also questions about whether Snowden's participation was voluntary, compelled, or somewhere in between. In his response, the former NSA contractor says it was entirely up to him. "I am no more willing to trade my principles for privilege today than I was then, " he writes. Here's more:

I expected that some would object to my participation in an annual forum that is largely comprised of softball questions to a leader unaccustomed to being challenged. But to me, the rare opportunity to lift a taboo on discussion of state surveillance before an audience that primarily views state media outweighed that risk. Moreover, I hoped that Putin's answer – whatever it was – would provide opportunities for serious journalists and civil society to push the discussion further.

Snowden also notes that he believes Putin "denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter," which was about the legal and moral backing for mass surveillance programs in general. Russia, in fact, does have some known surveillance programs that mirror precisely the kinds of U.S. programs Snowden exposed in the US. Take the PRISM clone SORM, which was active in the country as recently as the Sochi Olympics. As the Washington Post (citing Russian surveillance expert Andrei Soldatov) outlines, Russia's KGB successor FSB, seems to have a pre-reform, NSA-like leeway to obtain permission to conduct surveillance in a way that doesn't gel with the spirit of the laws on the books:

Putin argued that the FSB, the successor agency to the Soviet era's KGB, needs to get a warrant from a court before surveillance can begin. This is true in theory, Soldatov admits, but in practice the warrants are not required to be shown: Telecoms agencies and Internet providers do not have the necessary security clearance to view the warrants, in any case.

Soldatov went on to note that Putin's claim of Duma oversight on the country's surveillance program is limited to a special Security Committee, which has no actual power over secret intelligence gathering programs.

]]>

Biden, Survivors Pay Tribute on Anniversary of Boston Marathon Bombings

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:31:27 -0400

Vice President Joe Biden spoke at a memorial event marking the one year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings in the city. Biden was joined by Massachussetts Gov. Deval Patrick and others to remember the day before a moment of silence from 2:30 to 3 p.m. at the marathon finish line later in the afternoon. At 2:49 p.m., the moment the bombs went off last year, church bells rang through the city.

In his speech, Joe Biden told the invite-only crowd of survivors, first responders, and family members that their recovery over the past year has been inspirational for the entire country. "We are Boston. We are America. We respond. We endure. We overcome. And we own the finish line," he concluded.

President Obama was not in attendance. But he released a statement on the anniversary earlier in the day:

A year ago, tragedy struck at the 117th Boston Marathon. Four innocent people were killed that week, and hundreds more were wounded. Today, we remember Krystle Campbell, Lingzi Lu, Martin Richard, and Sean Collier. And we send our thoughts and prayers to those still struggling to recover.

We also know that the most vivid images from that day were not of smoke and chaos, but of compassion, kindness and strength: A man in a cowboy hat helping a wounded stranger out of harm’s way; runners embracing loved ones, and each other; an EMT carrying a spectator to safety. Today, we recognize the incredible courage and leadership of so many Bostonians in the wake of unspeakable tragedy. And we offer our deepest gratitude to the courageous firefighters, police officers, medical professionals, runners and spectators who, in an instant, displayed the spirit Boston was built on – perseverance, freedom and love.

One year later, we also stand in awe of the men and women who continue to inspire us – learning to stand, walk, dance and run again. With each new step our country is moved by the resilience of a community and a city. And when the sun rises over Boylston Street next Monday – Patriot’s Day – hundreds of thousands will come together to show the world the meaning of Boston Strong as a city chooses to run again.

Although the highest profile of Tuesday's events, the anniversary tribute was one of many ways that the nation marked the deadly bombing anniversary.

]]>

Defense Team in 9/11 Trial Says the FBI May Be Spying on Them

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:49:52 -0400

According to an emergency motion filed late Sunday night in the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the defense team's lawyers was interrogated by the FBI, possibly compromising their case. The motion, first reported by the Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg, derailed a planned competency hearing at Guantanamo Bay Monday morning.

According to Rosenberg's report, the FBI approached the defense team member while looking into how the media obtained a copy of the prison camp writings of Mohammed, who is accused of being the mastermind of the September 11 attacks. He currently faces trial at the Cuban prison where he is being held, with four others accused of conspiring with him.

The defense team now wants the court to look into whether the FBI has turned a member of Yemeni captive Ramzi bin al Shibh's legal team into a "confidential informant." That interrogation, the emergency order claims, carries the implication "that all defense teams have a potential conflict of interest between their loyalty to their clients and their interest in demonstrating their innocence to FBI investigators.” If true, it would mean the federal government had created a source on the defense team of a person they are currently trying to prosecute.

The competency hearing got underway on Monday morning with questions about the emergency motion.

It was adjourned shortly thereafter. Monday's competency hearing was the first pre-trial hearing in the 9/11 war crimes case. The Pentagon is seeking capital punishment against all five detainees in the military trial, which could take years to complete.

]]>

One of the NSA's Biggest Defenders Is Retiring to Be a Radio Host

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:36:02 -0400

Seven-term Republican Rep. Mike Rogers announced early on Friday that he would not seek re-election this November. Instead, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee will host a national radio show. In a statement, the Michigan legislator said:

“I have always believed in our founder's idea of a citizen legislature. I had a career before politics and always planned to have one after. The genius of our institutions is they are not dependent on the individual temporary occupants privileged to serve. That is why I have decided not to seek re-election to Congress in 2014. As I close this chapter in my life, I am excited to begin a new one that allows me to continue serving as a voice for American exceptionalism and support a strong nation security policy agenda.”

According to Detroit News, Rogers told WJR-AM radio this morning that “They may have lost my vote in Congress, but you haven’t lost my voice." His show will be syndicated by Cumulus Radio.

Although Rogers's pre-congressional career was in the FBI and not in talk radio, Rogers noted that he used to host a show in college. He's also a frequent Sunday talk show guest. Lately, Rogers's highest-profile opinions have been about the NSA and whistleblower Edward Snowden. The congressman has, for instance, called journalist Glenn Greenwald a "thief" and accused him of "selling" the NSA documents provided to him by Snowden. Rogers has also suggested that a "foreign power" was behind Snowden's leaks, despite the existence of no evidence to support that theory.

More recently, Rogers and the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, introduced an NSA reform bill to compete with the bulk collection reforms announced by President Obama yesterday. Obama's reform plan would require the NSA to get a court order to access metadata records stored by telephone companies, while Rogers's bill would allow the government to get that approval after accessing them.

Rogers is the 22nd member of the House to announce his retirement this cycle, as Roll Call points out. That's still around the average number of retirements from the House per cycle. This year, he's the 12th Republican to do so.

]]>

State Department Official Caught on Tape Saying "F-ck the EU"

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:35:57 -0500

Victoria Nuland is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States. And, thanks to a leaked phone conversation during which she says, "Fuck the EU," her international relationships might be a bit awkward right now. In the phone conversation, Nuland discusses a deal to end the political unrest in Ukraine with Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. The presumably private conversation was somehow recorded. The origins of the tape aren't clear. Although the State Department has declined to confirm or deny the content of the recording, the tape appears to be genuine. The conversation isn't dated, though it is recent.

The video was first picked up by the Kiev Post. The Ukrainian paper notes that Nuland's salty language seems to come from frustration with the EU's indecision over its role in the political unrest. They summarize that part of the call:

Before the call ends, Nuland tells Pyatt she has “one more wrinkle” for him.

Commenting on European pressure put on Yanukovych – or lack thereof – she explains that she has spoken to the United Nations and has gotten an official there who said that Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, agreed to send someone to Ukraine to “help glue this thing and to have the UN glue it.”

She adds: “And you know, fuck the EU.”

“Exactly,” Pyatt replies. “And I think we got to do something to make it stick together, because you can be sure that if it does start to gain altitude the Russians will be working behind the scenes to torpedo it. Let me work on Klitschko, and I think we should get a Western personality to come out here (to Ukraine) and midwife this thing,’’ he adds.

Congress Could Move to Ease the Way for More Aid to Egypt

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:34:17 -0500

Remember, months ago, how the story of whether the U.S. would call the military takeover of the Egyptian government a coup or not was a big story? Some members of Congress are apparently hoping that you don't, as the House and Senate prepare to release a spending bill that will restore aid funding to the interim Egyptian government. That's despite continued repression of opposition groups in the country, and the U.S's decision months ago to suspend that aid until "credible progress" was made towards an inclusive democracy in the country.

The news, first reported by the Daily Beast, comes days before the country is set to vote on a constitutional referendum. According to Human Rights Watch, at least seven activists in the country have been handed criminal charges, apparently just for attempting to hang posters urging Egyptians to vote against the military-backed proposal.

Apparently, the White House has been asking Congress to restore funding to Egypt for awhile, despite little evidence that the country is progressing toward democratic rule. If anything, the military crackdown on supporters of deposed former president Mohammed Morsi has crystalized. The military-supported interim government declared Morsi's party, the Muslim Brotherhood, to be a terrorist group late in December.

NASA Launches MAVEN, a New Mission to Mars

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:03:00 -0500

NASA launched its Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution spacecraft (better known as MAVEN) on Monday afternoon, beginning a 10-month journey to the Red Planet. Once there, assuming everything goes according to plan, the craft will remain in orbit around Mars in order to study its upper atmosphere. Why, you ask? Scientists believe that Mars's surface was once much more like Earth's — that is, with flowing water on its surface. MAVEN will examine the continuing loss of Mars's atmosphere, along with its current composition and the rate at which it's losing what it has left.

MAVEN launched at 1:28 p.m. Eastern, from Cape Canaveral in Florida. NASA is streaming continued coverage of MAVEN's initial journey, which you can watch below.

Just before the launch, the prospects of acceptable weather conditions for liftoff were rated at about 60 percent. NASA had to launch MAVEN by mid-December in order to stay in the ballpark of the project's $671 million budget. If it didn't happen by then, NASA will have to wait until 2016 for another launch opportunity.

But you do not want us to explain what MAVEN is all about. You want "Geordi La Forge" to explain. Thankfully, Star Trek's own LeVar Burton filmed a PSA on the mission for all the world to see:

Bad Accounting Practices May be Standard Procedure at the Pentagon

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:46:28 -0500

The Pentagon routinely uses faulty accounting methods in order to balance its books with the U.S. Treasury's, according to a new report from Reuters. The practice, which apparently has been standard procedure for decades, effectively conceals billions of dollars in waste and fraud from prying American eyes.

Reporter Scot J. Paltrow writes that the bad bookkeeping is a symptom of a larger plague of the U.S. military's operations, a "chronic failure to keep track of its money - how much it has, how much it pays out and how much is wasted or stolen." The report comes as debate continues over whether the Department of Defense's budget can possibly be cut further, after already taking hits through sequestration. Earlier this month, Marine Commandant James Amos told the Senate Armed Services Committee that any further cuts to the Defense budget will cause the armed forces to "end up with more casualties."

The Defense Department's budget for 2013, after the sequester, is $565.8 billion. Reuters reported that it is "impossible" to know how much of that is spent as appropriated. The problem of Pentagon waste has not gone unnoticed -- it's almost legendary among Big Government foes -- but it's extremely difficult to account for. That's because the Pentagon has never been audited, despite a law that has required an annual audit from every federal department since 1996. Since that date, taxpayers have given the department $8.5 trillion.

State Department Offers $10 Million for Benghazi Information

Abby Ohlheiser, The Wire — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:02:32 -0500

The State Department revealed that it is offering a $10 million reward for information leading to an arrest of those responsible for the 2012 Benghazi compound attacks.

The reward has actually been up for grabs since January, however officials apparently kept it under wraps for "security" reasons. In a statement to the AFP, a State Department spokesperson also cited "sensitivities surrounding the investigation" as a reason the reward wasn't announced sooner. It's offered as part of the "Rewards for Justice" program.

So far, no one has been arrested for the attacks. The U.S. filed its first round of charges in August against Ahmed Khattalah, a Libyan militia leader long believed to bear some responsibility for the planning and execution of the attack on the diplomatic compound. The specific charges against Khattalah and an unspecified number of other suspects have not been disclosed. FBI Director James Comey gave his first testimony as director on Thursday on the Benghazi investigation, referring to it as one of the agency's "highest priorities." Comey also assured Congress that the FBI "will never stop" investigating the case until those responsible are brought to justice.