I do know Ed Snowden is a whistle-blower and he did a good thing outing Barack's spying on Americans. Check out today's snapshot (later in this post) for C.I.'s commentary on Dick Durbin. I agree with C.I., it did sound like sour grapes on Durbin's part that Snowden was making more than him. It's funny because Durbin probably thought he was destroying Snowden with those comments and all he did was look petty. :D
Dick Durbin's not the only one attacking Ed Snowden. FAIR notes a group of pundits are. Here's the opening:
Journalism attracts whistleblowers. In fact, some reporters need whistleblowers in order to do their jobs. But there are plenty of people working in the media who don't have much use for whistleblowers--and they've been having a field day going after NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Washington Post columnist Matt Miller (6/11/13) explained that "what Snowden exposed was not some rogue government-inside-the-government conspiracy. It's a program that’s legal, reviewed by Congress and subject to court oversight."
Or to put it another way, it's a program that's secret, that the nation's top spy lies to Congress about, and the Supreme Court refuses to review--because, being secret, no one can prove they're affected by it.
Miller went on:
Daniel Ellsberg says Snowden is a "hero." Let me suggest a different prism through which to view that term. Somewhere in the intelligence community is another 29-year-old computer whiz whose name we'll never know. That person joined the government after 9/11 because they felt inspired to serve the nation in its hour of need. For years they’ve sweated to perfect programs that can sort through epic reams of data to identify potential threats. Some Americans are alive today because of her work.It's hard to imagine seeing Snowden sitting down with Sawyer anytime soon, but Miller's certainly not alone in speculating about Snowden's motives or psyche.
As one security analyst put it this week, to find a needle in a haystack, you need the haystack. If we're going to romanticize a young nerd in the intelligence world, my Unknown Coder trumps the celebrity waiting in Hong Kong for Diane Sawyer’s call any day.
FAIR goes on to note others doing the same (including David Brooks).
That's because they want to make Ed Snowden seem toxic so people won't think about what Ed exposed.
Too bad for them, I don't think it will work.
I actually think that there will be a backlash from the people over these attempts by 'journalists' to trash Ed Snowden. There should be.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Scandals are running wild and free these days and if you doubt how serious they are, go visit The Daily Howler where Bob Somerby who insisted in the mid '00s that the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame wasn't a scandal and didn't happen. (Somerby's friends with Time's Matthew Cooper who Scooter Libby outed Plame too -- a fact he always 'forgot' to disclose while hectoring the press about ethics. Fortunately, we were here to help Bob Somberby by making the disclosure he failed to -- and he can think his abusive friend for informing us of the relationship.) Today, Bob's out to prove there are no scandals. First off, a 'great' reporter has spoken on the spying of Americans.
I like Walter Pincus and I know Walter Pincus. We're happy to highlight Walter's reporting here. And we did during the Bully Boy Bush years. And if Mitt Romney were President, we'd be highlighting Pincus now. But there's no point in highlighting Walter when a Democrat is president because Walter's in the tank. And what Bob Somerby's calling "reporting" is actually a column and your first clue there is that it's Walter's opinions. Walter runs interference for Democrats in the White House. It's a tradition with him.
Lawrence O'Donnell doesn't live in a political closet. But that's not why Somerby's hissing at him, Somerby's hissing over a the State Dept scandal and furious with David Corn and Lawrence O'Donnell for a discussion on O'Donnell's show. Which leads him to make these statements:
The boys don't seem to know who their “whistle-blower” is. If they watched Gregory Hicks testify in the House last month, they should know that the tribal lunacy in which we wallow may have spread inside the State Department by now.
The boys never extended this warning. Instead, they kept calling the complaining party a “whistle-blower,” then found ways to say that his presentation “already has an echo of truth to it.”
There is so much wrong with that but we'll just note two parts. First, apparently Somerby never saw the All In The Family episode where Gloria tells the 'riddle' about the doctor who can't operate on their own son. (Archie hems and haws and misses the point because the doctor is . . . - gasp - a woman!) Doctors can be women. You know what else, whistle-blowers can be women too. And in this case, Somerby's "he" is a she.
Monday, CBS This Morning featured a report by John Wood where he spoke with whistle-blower Aurelia Fedenisn (link is video and text):
According to Fedenisn, when a high-ranking State Department security officials was shown a draft of their findings that investigations were being interfered with by State Department higher-ups, he said, "This is going to kill us." In the final report however, all references to specific cases had been removed.
"I mean my heart really went out to the agents in that office, because they really want to do the right thing, they want to investigate the cases fully, correctly, accurately ... and they can't," Fedenisn said.
Fedenisn, a DSS agent for 26 years, was a part of the team that prepared the draft report and is now a whistleblower who has taken her concerns to Congress.
Aurelia Fedenisn is a she. And today, June 12th, Bob Somerby is confused by that even though he's writing about it and CBS filed the report Monday,June 10th. (I didn't see the report until this morning. The first thing I did before writing about this at length this morning was 'research,' called friends in the press and asked, "What am I missing on this story? We just touched on it in the snapshot yesterday.") Bob Somerby apparently has no friends to call on and his long documented sexism surfaces again as he insists that O'Donnell and Corn were discussing a man ("then found ways to say that his presentation 'already has an echo of truth to it'"). Quickly, I also don't know that you hector O'Donnell and Corn about their discussion when you're too lazy to find out who the whistle-blower is when her identity has been out there publicly for two days now. We'll come back to the second point in just a second.
Acid, booze, and ass
Needles, guns, and grass
Lots of laughs lots of laughs
Everybody's saying that hell's the hippest way to go
Well I don't think so
But I'm gonna take a look around it though
Blue I love you
-- "Blue," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Blue album
A few basics on the State Dept scandal, Ashley Fantz and Jill Dougherty (CNN) explain:
Regarding the latest
allegations, CNN was provided the documents by a lawyer for a
whistle-blower who is a former senior inspector general investigator.
They include:
• An active U.S.
ambassador "routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to
solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children," the
memo says. The ambassador's protective detail and others "were well
aware of the behavior," the memo asserts. When a diplomatic security
officer tried to investigate, undersecretary of state for management Patrick Kennedy allegedly ordered the investigator "not to open a formal investigation."
On Tuesday, CNN obtained a statement from the ambassador, who vigorously denied the allegations, calling them "baseless."
BBC notes, "CNN also reports that the inspector general found an attempt to investigate claims that a drug ring near the US embassy in Baghdad was supplying illegal substances to state department security contractors was stopped." The scandal may go to the fact that there is no Inspector General. There is a Deputy IG acting as IG. Back on December 7, 2011, at the House Oversight and Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing, US House Rep Jason Cahffetz, Chair of that Subcommittee, was outlining the problems and the failures to nominate heads for the State Dept IG and other positions.
The latest State Dept scandal led to an eruption of questions at today's State Dept press briefing. Jen Psaki is the State Dept spokesperson in the following:
QUESTION: (Inaudible) really quickly, I just need to clarify something from yesterday --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- on the IG and this whole --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- imbroglio. And that is the – specifically these outside law enforcement experts who are working with the IG now, are they investigating the specific incidents that were outlined in the 2012 October memo, or are they just investigating – or are they just looking at the process?
MS. PSAKI: Their focus, as we understand it – and I would point you to the IG’s office, of course, to confirm this, but their focus is on reviewing the process.
QUESTION: The process, okay.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So it is incorrect to say that the – there is some kind of a new or outside investigation into the actual allegations that are contained in that memo, the October 2012 memo. The investigations into them were done by DS in-house, internally, and are either finished or are in process. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: And the new – anything new – the outside experts – doesn’t have to do with the facts or the non-facts, as the case may be, in those specific incidents?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the way that we understand it – and again, the IG’s office --
QUESTION: I understand.
MS. PSAKI: -- I’m just repeating, is independent, so I’d point you to all of them, but is that they are looking into the processes as it relates to these cases. So I’m not sure how they will go about that process. They’re working with outside law enforcement. But the focus, as you mentioned, is on taking a look at some of the issues raised in the February memo.
QUESTION: Well, no, no. I understand, but they are not actually going – all right, say there’s incident X.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay? They’re not re-looking into the facts of incident X; they are looking at how the DS investigators investigated the facts of incident X, correct?
MS. PSAKI: That is the focus. But to confirm everything they’re doing, I would point you to them.
QUESTION: Well, then let me put it another way. Once that – once the outside experts are done, there isn’t going to – with their probe – people who were involved and either disciplined or not disciplined whatever for these incidents, their cases haven’t been re-opened, have they?
MS. PSAKI: Well, some cases are ongoing.
QUESTION: But from the point of view of these outside law enforcement experts that you talked about, they’re not re-looking into the actual events or allegations.
MS. PSAKI: Again, I’m not trying to be tricky here with you at all, I promise. I just don’t want to go too far in speaking on behalf of the IG’s office. So the focus of their review is to look at the process.
QUESTION: And whether or not investigators were improperly – or whether there was – whether or not they are independent or there’s – they have the appearance and --
MS. PSAKI: Correct.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: But --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: -- I would refer to them for more --
QUESTION: I have a --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- question on this as well.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Could you tell us how the allegations that were in the original internal October 2012 memo came to light? That has not been clear to me. Was it – because it was a routine review by the IG.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So how did --
MS. PSAKI: Well, all of those cases, which were from different time periods, were already under review, so it depended on each case. Each case is different.
QUESTION: So when the IG went in in October 2012, these allegations had already been made within the DS, the DS was already examining them?
MS. PSAKI: Correct.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t know under what circumstances these allegations were made? Was it confidential tipoffs? Was it a survey that was given out to workers? How did the allegations come to light?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are different individual cases --
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: -- which I don’t want to outline from here, of course.
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: So each case is different.
QUESTION: Okay. So there wasn’t any kind of – they didn’t go in and sit down and say, okay, everybody tell us if you’ve got any concerns, and then they gathered it all up and then from that the October ’12 memo was constructed?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the memo was drafted, again, by the IG’s office.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Right. So that was as part of a routine review. In terms of what information they gathered, you’d have to talk to them about it. But again, they didn’t have access to case files and there was a great deal of unsubstantiated information in there. But I would speak to them about how that memo was put together in particular.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: Jen, another question on the IG, please?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: We talked – CNN talked with Congressman Royce today, and he said that there – one of the key issues beyond everything is that there’s a lack of a permanent IG, and he said this has been going on for years. Can you – do you agree that that indeed is one of – is a problem, and can you explain why there is no permanent IG at this point?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I can tell you first, one, we have received Chairman Royce’s letter and are processing his request for further information. We’re also working to schedule an appropriate briefing as soon as possible. I know that wasn’t your question, but --
QUESTION: A briefing for us?
MS. PSAKI: For the Hill. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Oh, for the Hill. Not for us.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ve been briefing you quite extensively here, if I do say so myself.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. PSAKI: But in terms of the IG, absolutely, there is a need to have a permanent IG in place. The Secretary has made a choice on that front. In terms of when that will be fully through the process, I don’t have any update on that, but it is something that is a priority for him and he is focused on.
QUESTION: Well, why isn’t there one, though, for this long a time?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know the history of why someone wasn’t approved here or put through. I know people have been nominated at various times, sometimes there’s a delay for reasons that are hard to explain.
Earlier this year (February 4th), the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ed Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel wrote [PDF format warning] a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry which addressed the IG issue:
As you begin your tenure, we would like to raise an issue essential to the proper functioning of the Department of State. For more than five years, since January 16, 2008, the Department has lacked a presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed Inspector General. That gap of more than 1,840 days is the longest vacancy of any of the 73 Inspector General positions across the federal government. While this would be problematic under any circumstances, the repeated criticisms of the independence and effectiveness of that office by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) heighten the need for an appointment.
In addition, April 17th the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing (see April 17th snapshot, Wally covered it with "The buget hearing that avoided the budget," Ruth with "Kerry pressed on Benghazi," Kat with "I'm sick of Democrats in Congress" and Ava's with "Secretary Kerry doesn't really support women's rights"). From that day's snapshot:
US House Rep Ed Royce: And needless to say, given Washington's chronic budget deficit, wasteful spending is intolerable. But even good programs must be subject to prioritization. We can't do everything. Along those lines, it is inexcusable that the State Department has been operating for four-plus-years without a presidentially-nominated, Senate-confirmed Inspector General. This Committee is committed to its responsibility for overseeing the spending and other operations of the State Department -- and that is a bipartisan commitment I am pleased to join Mr. Engel in carrying out.
Ed Royce is the Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and he was speaking at this morning's hearing on the State Department's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2014. Appearing before him was Secretary of State John Kerry. Engel is US House Rep Eliot Engel who is the Ranking Member. Other than his remarks beating the drums on Iran -- and praising US President Barack Obama for the same ("Over the past four years, President Obama has unified the international community against this threat and signed into law the strongest-ever sanctions against the regime in Tehran."") -- his opening remarks really don't require noting here nor do even of his remarks during questioning. If you believe a House members greatest duty is to serve Israel, then I've short changed you. If you believe a US House member needs to be covering US issues, Eliot Engel has short changed you.
The issue Royce raised is not a minor one. We first noted it December 7, 2011 when US House Rep Jason Chaffetz raised it in a hearing. We've noted this lack of oversight many times since including last month with "Media again misses story (lack of oversight)." Maybe if the press had covered it, the position wouldn't have remained vacant for this record length.
Chair Ed Royce: I'd also like to call your attention to the State Department's Inspector General's Office. This is the key independent office looking at waste and fraud. Mr. Secretary, as of today, there has been no permanent State Department Inspector General for over five years. This includes President Obama's entire first term. The Committee raised this issue in a bi-partisan letter sent to you in February and we would like to see an immediate appointment to this position.
Secretary John Kerry: On the IG, you're absolutely correct. We're -- we're trying to fill a number of positions right now, the IG among them. The greatest difficulty that I'm finding now that I'm on the other side of the fence is frankly the vetting process. And I've got some folks that I selected way back in February when I first came in and it's now April and I'm still waiting for the vetting to move. I've talked to the White House. They're totally on board. They're trying to get it moved. So I hope that within a very short span of time, you're going to see these slots filled. They need to be. And that's just the bottom line. It's important and I commit to you, we will.
Chair Ed Royce: I think this is the longest gap that we've had in the history of this position. So if you could talk to the President about this in short order, we would very much appreciate it.
Secretary John Kerry: I don't need to talk to the President, we're going to get this done. We know it and we're trying to get the right people. Matching person to task and also clearing all the other hurdles, as I am finding, is not as easy as one always thinks. But we'll get it done.
This issue has been festering forever and the administration -- that would be Barack, he was elected President of the United States (twice) -- and it has been ignored repeatedly. If the allegations are true, the lack of an IG is how that happened.
Going back to Somerby, but moving beyond his sexism and laziness, Gregory Hicks? Gregory Hicks was a believable witness. George Zornick (The Nation) spoke to Jesselyn Radack, the FBI whistle-blower who is now with the Government Accountability Project:
“In terms of whistleblower calculus, he fits—he had a reasonable belief that he could get help there in time to at least minimize the damage.”
Radack has represented numerous federal whistleblowers, including many from the State Department. She said that not only is Hicks unquestionably a whistleblower but that his immediate poor performance review and subsequent inability to get a good assignment easily categorize as improper retaliation.
“Those are two of the most classic, beginning ways to start the retaliation,” she said.
Maybe Hicks is a bad manager, and maybe he isn’t—but Radack strongly cautioned against anonymous sources trashing his character, something she has repeatedly seen in other whistleblower cases. “This is very typical of the kinds of attacks and baseless caricatures that whistleblowers get painted about them as soon as they blow the whistle,” she said. “The kind of smears I’m hearing are pretty much in keeping with the smears I hear of other whistleblowers, including other State Department whistleblowers I have.”
Radack also noted that while it may be State Department policy to have a lawyer present at all staff meetings with Congress, it isn’t a good one. “My organization sees that as really just a whistleblower deterrent, because if you’re going to Congress over something that your agency is doing, then obviously the lawyer is going to stop you. These are impediments that are being put up, in my opinion, that work against whistleblowers,” she said.
“The whistleblower has a First Amendment right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, and under that prong, I think they should—do not pass go, go directly to Congress,” Radack continued.
Hicks is whistle-blower. Somerby's problem is he painted himself into a corner on Susan Rice and 'never wrong!' Somerby can't leave that corner now. So his embarrassing May 13ths posts against Hicks stand -- with all their errors. How tired has Bob Somerby's act become? He's back to attacking Maureen Dowd again today. Because he has no life, because he hates women and most of all because he's got nothing new to say, hasn't for years now. Substitute "writers" for "artists," and Joni Mitchell was describing Somerby's problems on Q with Jian Ghomeshi (CBC Radio One) yesterday, "You know inspiration doesn't stay with a lot of artists for very long. It's very brief. And you're in the game and you've got to keep it sustaining something, right? You know, you notice like one-trick-wonders, two good albums and then they peter out. You know to sustain a gift for a long time is very rare."
Barack's spying on Americans? That's because of the lazy press, Somerby argues today. While I love the idea of a free press, no one can be harder on than me (and that's especially true offline). But exactly how was the press supposed to report a program that not even Congress was briefed on? Somerby is as tired as his folk hero (a male, naturally) and needs to find some new chords to play because we've heard his tired song over and over now and long for something new.
Speaking of sour grapes . . .
Senator Dick Durbin: I was on the intelligence community right at the time of 9-11. I saw what happened immediately afterwards. There was a dramatic investment in intelligence resources for our nation, to keep us safe, a a dramatic investment in the personnel to execute the plan to keep us safe. I trusted, and I still do, that we were hiring the very best -- trusting them to not only give us their best in terms of knowledge but also their loyalty to the country. I'd like to ask you about one of those employees who is now in a Hong Kong hotel and what is as follows: He was a high school drop out, he was a community college drop out, he had a GED degree, he was injured in training for the US Army and had to leave as a result of that and he took a job as a security guard for the NSA in Maryland. Shortly thereafter, he took a job for the CIA in what is characterized in the Guardian piece that was published. At age 23, he was stationed in an undercover manner overseas for the CIA and was given clearance and access to a wide varray -- a wide array of classified documents. At age 25, he went to work for a private contractor and most recently worked for Booz Allen, another private contractor, working for the government. I'm trying to look at this resume and background. It says he ended up earning somewhere between $122,000 and $200,00 a year. [Fun facts: While 29-year-old Ed Snowden may have made $200,000 a year, 68-year-old Dick Durbin makes $174,000 a year as a senator. Durbin hails from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and received his law degree from Georgetown University Law.] I'm trying to look at the resume background for this individual who had access to the highly classified material at such a young age with a limited educational and work experience, part of it as a security guard and ask if you were troubled that he was given that kind of opportunity to be so close to information that was critical to our security?
Well at least Dickie didn't cry in public, right? That's a step up. He was speaking at this afternoon's Senate Appropriations Committee hearing -- and maybe he's angling for a pay raise for senators? Your pay is based on a skill set. Director of National Security General Keith B. Alexander made that point. I'm not surprised by that at all.
Alexander, Homeland Security's Rand Beers ("acting deputy"), NIST Director Patrick Gallagher and Richard McFeely (Executive Assistant Director of Criminal, Cyber, Reponse, and Services Branch- FBI) appeared before the full Committee which Senator Barbara Mikulski is Chair of. Ava will be addressing Mikulski tonight at Trina's site (and may grab Dianne Fienstein as well). Wally will cover a topic -- possibly Mike Johanns but he and Ava are discussing that right now. Wally will be writing at Rebecca's site tonight. Kat's going to do an overview which will include Feinstein. By the way, Ava's going to let it rip including a phrase I don't say in my personal life but I do applaud her for it and agree with her and felt that way last week when we encountered Mikulski as a Chair for the first time last week. And Wally's saying that he's covering Jeff Merkley instead and will also be noting the Committee Chair.
What we'll note here is Dianne Feinstein isn't the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Commitee but acted as though she were. There was no reason for her to be at the hearing, she heard from the witness yesterday and will again tomorrow. It's not as though she added a damn thing of value to the hearing. She was there to run interference. She broke into others questioning. At a certain point, it stops looking DiFi's protecting the law breakers and it becomes more obvious that she's trying to prevent the public from grasping that DiFi is also responsible for the spying.
In addition to that, we'll note this exchange.
Senator Patrick Leahy: [. . .] I've had a lot of concern about section 215 of The PATRIOT Act. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [Act] -- FISA. We've had a number of common sense proposals in the Judiciary Committee to improve these provisions but the intelligence community has told us that, really, we obviously don't have the ability as simple senators, to know anything as well as you do and so they don't need changes, we're told they're critical to our counterterrorism efforts, Congress shouldn't 'tinker,' we should simply trust you to use in the right way and they should be made permanent. Now I don't think that's wise. I think that there should be sunset [automatic expiration] provisions and we should look at them periodically. We should actually debate them in a free and open society. Now we have information recently declassified by the Director of National Intelligence -- and I'm not going into questions on whether he contradicted himself on a couple of answers -- but taking what he's recently declassified, it appears that Section 702 said was critical to upsetting the Zazhi case in New York City. But it's not clear if data collected pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot Act was similarly critical or crucial. So, Gen Alexander, let me ask you this, has the intelligence community kept track of how many times phone records obtained through Section 215 of the Patriot Act were critical to the discovery and disruption of terrorist threats?
Gen Keith Alexander: I don't have those figures today. I --
Senator Patrick Leahy: Are those -- are those figures available?
Gen Keith Alexander: We're going to make those figures available. We promise --
Senator Patrick Leahy: How soon?
Gen Keith Alexander: Over the next week, it would be our intent to get those figures out. I talked to the Intell Committee [Senate Intelligence Committee] on that yesterday. I think it's important to know --
Senator Patrick Leahy: Wait a minute, wait a minute. You talked to the Intell Community about this yesterday but you didn't have the figures yesterday?
Gen Keith Alexander: I gave an approximate number to them --
Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay, what's the approximate --
Gen Keith Alexander: It's classified. But it's dozens of terrorists events that these have helped prevent.
Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay, so dozens. Now we collect millions and millions and millions of records to, uh, 215, but dozens have proved crucial -- critical -- is that right? Dozens?
Gen Keith Alexander: For both here and abroad. In disrupting or contributing to the disruption of terrorist attacks.
Senator Patrick Leahy: Of all those millions, dozens have been critical?
Gen Keith Alexander: That's correct.
Senator Patrick Leahy: Would you give me the specific -- even if that's classified -- the specific cases we're talking about?
Gen Keith Alexander: We will. But we're going through the Intell Committee to do this. Tomorrow, I'll give as clear as we've vetted precisely what we've done on each of those. And the reason I want to get this exactly right, Senator, is because I want the American people to know that we're being transparent in here.
Senator Patrick Leahy: No, no, no, you're not giving it to the American people. You're giving it classified to specific members of Congress. Is that correct?
Gen Keith Alexander: Well there's two parts. We can give the classified. That's easy. But I think also for this debate, what you are asking -- and perhaps I misunderstood this -- but I thought you were also asking what we could put out unclassified. So the intent would be to do both.
Senator Patrick Leahy: You can do that in a week?
Gen Keith Alexander: That is our intent. I am pushing for that and --
Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay.
Gen Keith Alexander: -- perhaps faster. If I don't get any kicks from behind me.
Senator Patrick Leahy: If you don't get any what?
Gen Keith Alexander: Kicks from the people behind me who are doing the work because we do want to get this right. And it has to be vetted across the community so that what we give you, you know is accurate, and we have everybody here, especially between the FBI and the rest of the intell community can say this is exactly correct.
Senator Patrick Leahy: Okay. DNI [Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper said that Section 702 collection is critical to the discovery and disruption of the plot to bomb the New York City subway system -- the Zazi case -- is that correct?
Gen Keith Alexander: Uhm, that is correct. In fact, not just critical, it is the one that developed the lead on it so I would say -- I would say it was the one that allowed us to know it was happening.
Senator Patrick Leahy: But that is different than Section 215.
Gen Keith Alexander: That is different than Section 215.
Senator Patrick Leahy: 215, Phone records. 702 --
Gen Keith Alexander: If I could, I could explain this.
Senator Patrick Leahy: Go ahead.
Gen Keith Alexander: Uhm, because I do think it's important that we get this right. And, uh, I want the American people to know that we're trying to be transparent here, protect civil liberties and privacy but also the security of this country. On the New York City one, the [Najibullah] Zazi case, it started with a 702 set of information based on operatives overseas. We saw connections to a person in Colorado. That was passed to the FBI. The FBI determined who that person was and phone numbers that went to that. The phone numbers on Zazi were the things that then allowed us to use the business records, uh, FISA, to go and find out connections from Zazi to other players, uh, to other players throughout the community in New York City.
Senator Patrick Leahy: Was 215 critical?
Gen Keith Alexander: That's how -- I think 215 is corroborating and to helping us understand --
Senator Patrick Leahy: Was it critical in Zazi?
Gen Keith Alexander: Not to Zazi. Because the first part in Zazi went to the 702.
Senator Patrick Leahy: And, and [David] Headly, was either 702 or 215 critical?
Gen Keith Alexander: 702 on Headley and some on the business records FISA for corroboarting. And I think it's important to understand because this is an issue that I think we'll be important to the debate. And I put on there, Senator, obviously, the Boston. I think we need to walk through that so that what we have on the business records, FISA, what we have on 702, what you debate, the facts that we can give you, what we do with that, how we take that to the FBI, if we took that away what we could not do and is that something when we look at this from a security perspective --
Senator Patrick Leahy: In Boston, you're talking about the marathon. What the FBI could have done was to pass on the information to the Boston authorities who said they did not. That might have been helpful too. But my time is up. I mention this only because before it's brought up in the Judiciary Committee, we're going to be asking some very, very specific questions.
Gen Keith Alexander: So if I could, Senator, I'd just want to make sure we're clear on what we're talking about here is that these authorities compliment each other in helping us identify different terrorist actions and help disrupt them.
On the spying scandals, Penny Lee (US News and World Reports) wonders if there are 2016 implications:
Now, recent revelations of National Security Agency surveillance and the PRISM program have renewed outrage within the progressive wing of the Democratic Party over security matters – expressions of contempt for those who voted to authorize these broad uses of power and profound disappointment in the president over his administration's expansion of what he vigorously opposed as a candidate. The liberal base is now demanding a vote in Congress for a full repeal of the Patriot Act.
In 2016, the Patriot Act could very well be the new "Iraq War Vote" litmus test for the Democratic field as it speaks to a core principal for the left – the need for fierce protection of personal liberties. Two potential candidates, Clinton and Biden, are in the awkward positions of having to both defend their past votes authorizing the original Patriot Act, and their implicit support for the expansion of the program while serving in the Obama Administration.
We'll come back to Congress later in the snapshot. Spencer Ackerman has a report for the Guardian on the hearing (I haven't read it yet, a friend asked that we link to it). Turning to the topic of Iraq, Good is a US site which insists it's "A community of people who give a damn." Pity it's not a community of people who have a clue. Adele Peters makes that very clear in her bad post about a library in Iraq.
Did Iraq get a new library? Not yet. But being "Good" apparently means applauding lip service. Now there have been so many promised projects that have never materialized in post-2003 invasion Iraq but knowing that might make "people who give a damn" educated and they'd never hop on their high horses if they were smart enough to realize how harmed they could be in a fall.
Here's another little clue for Good and Peters, buildings don't make libraries: Information does. Considering some of the squabbling currently going on about the national museum in Iraq (it's not been made public yet so Good and Peters are forgiven for not knowing about it) and what qualifies as "art" -- a debate built not around artistic merit but on fundamentalist religious grounds -- I'd be really hesitant about applauding any proposed library in Iraq before it opens. What will be on the shelves?
"People who give a damn" might try to also become "People who are factual." Peters writes, "The roof is filled with skylights to illuminate the reading rooms, and solar panels to power the building. It's scheduled to be built later this year." Until it's built, grasp this, there is no roof -- not one filled with skylights or one empty of skylights.
Peters has written an extremely idiotic post that's also highly misleading as it features photos -- of what? What are these buildings? Are these projections of what the library will look like? When you run photos, if these are not photos, you need to say so. The photo credit takes you to another site. (At that site, click on "projects" and then select Baghdad library.) There, via a 'ghosting' of people in one photo (you can see through the people) you realize these are not images that were captured of a building that is built but images that have been manipulated digitally. You also find out that Good is cheering a project that they know will be open by the end of the year. My calendar says it's 2013. The project was started in 2011 and is listed as "ongoing" for its current status. I'm not so sure it's going to be finished this year -- especially with a pesky fact like the increased violence in Iraq the last two months.
At that site, you will find the claim, "This will be an accessible library for all ages with access to a collection of over three million books along with rare manuscripts, periodicals." You'd think that -- and not building plans -- would be the focus of someone excited about a library.
But you'd think someone excited about a library, looking at these digital images would be concerned with access and quickly note that security's not a concern for the library and then quickly realize that this isn't in Baghdad. Not Baghdad that Iraqis access. This is a library that will be in the heavily fortified Green Zone that most Iraqis are prevented from entering.
I have no idea why anyone would go with "Good" as the name of a group or post -- to indicate others are "bad"? Or why they'd proclaim that they were "a community of people who give a damn." Are they unaware of Robert Burns' "To a Mouse, On Turning Her Up In Her Nest With The Plough"? "The best laid schemes of mice and men/ Often go awry." Or of the saying, thought to have originated with St Bernard of Clairvaux, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Maybe instead of writing about a library, next time Good might try first visiting one.
While there, Peters can ask a reference librarian about books on attribution. She's using a long quote from a de zeen magazine article published yesterday and failed to attribute it to de zeen which, don't mean to upset "the people who give a damn" here, is also known as plagiarism.
Violence continues in Iraq. National Iraqi News Agency reports a Falluja roadside bombing injured two people, Nouri's forces shot dead 3 suspects in Diyala Province, a Diyala roadside bombing left two police officers injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing has left five college students injured, Dawa official Khalil Thiyab Shibab al-Sumayda'e was shot dead in Mosul and his body guard was injured, Louay Abdul Wahid ("Candidate for Khayr and Aataa Slate) was shot dead in Mosul, a Tikrit attack left 2 Sahwa dead and two more injured, a Tikrit bombing left three police officers injured, and early this morning the manager of iron and steel plant was shot dead in Sulaymaniyah Province. Alsumaria adds that tribal leader Hamoud al-Hasnawi and his son Uday were shot dead while on the highway that connect Dhi Qar Povince with Basra. Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 187 violent deaths so far this month.
Alsumaria notes that Iraqis living in Wasit Province also have to deal with an estimated 4,000 dogs running through the province in packs, scaring and intimidating the citizens. If this seems familiar, yes, this was a problem last year as well. Wasit Province attempted to kill the stray dogs then. That effort appears to have made no real impact. Citizens are attempting to use devices that provide ultrasound noises and run on batteries to keep the dogs away.
Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:
Supposedly, there's been spill-over violence in Iraq. It's strange, though, that you can argue that al Qaeda in Iraq is rushing into Syria and doing battle there and that it's also doing damage in Iraq and responsible for the massive increase of violence in Iraq. It was just like October that Lara Jakes and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reporting that "now, Iraqi and U.S. officials say, the insurgent group has more than doubled in numbers from a year ago -- from about 1,000 to 2,5000 fighters." But since when have government claims -- US or Iraqi -- ever made sense or been actually factual? They're in Syria, these 2,500 people, but also in Iraq, they're ripping apart Syria but also taking Iraq to the worst violence in five years.
Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reports that intelligence sources testified to Parliament's Security and Defense Committee that they estimate 2,000 al Qaeda in Iraq fighters are in the country, with many having returned from Syria. Matthew Hoh reflects on al Qaeda and other things in an interview with Leighton Woodhouse (Huffington Post):
The second thing is to stop lending credence or validating the propaganda claims of al-Qaeda and other terror groups. In 2005, while on the Iraq Desk at the State Department, I recall reading the summaries of interrogations of non-Iraqi fighters we had captured in Iraq (the actual number of non-Iraqi fighters was quite small, in the few hundreds). The overwhelming reason for their travel to Iraq to fight the Americans were the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the photos from Abu Ghraib and the stories from Guantanamo (the reason for the Iraqi fighters fighting us was quite simple: we were there). Al-Qaeda's message to its recruits is not one of establishing worldwide Muslim rule or of gaining virgins in Paradise, but rather it is a defensive message, an exhortation to defend Muslim lands, culture and people from Western invasion and occupation, and, increasingly, revenge for American attacks. The greatest recruitment event for al-Qaeda was not 9/11, but rather the invasion of Iraq and subsequently, the escalation of the Afghan War and the worldwide, too often indiscriminate, targeted killing campaign (additionally, President Bush calling our actions in the Muslim world a Crusade may be one of the greatest foreign policy mis-pronouncements ever). So we need to stop validating and proving the terror groups' propaganda and recruitment messages.
Matthew Hoh is an Iraq War veteran who deployed there as a Marine. Later, working for the State Dept, he was part of Embassy teams in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
While the world press has treated the meet-up between Nouri al-Maliki and KRG President Massoud Barzani at the start of the week as a big deal, in Iraq, the impression has been far less effusive. Today NINA reports that Kurdistan Alliance MP Sirwan Ahmed Amin is predicting "failure of ongoing dialogues between the central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government." Also being a lot more realistic was Hanife Sede Kose (Todays Zaman), "Prospects for reconciliation between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the president of the country's Kurdistan region, Massoud Barzani, remain bleak after the two leaders met in Arbil on Sunday to resolve long-running problems between them, analysts note." UPI notes:
Sunday's talks in Erbil between Maliki and Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government, may have broken the ice, but political sources said little of substance emerged that would indicate some kind of settlement is possible.
Maliki is incensed that the Kurds are now shipping their oil northward to Turkey's export terminal on the Mediterranean, rather than through the Oil Ministry's pipeline network, cutting Baghdad out of the revenue loop.
The Kurdish exports are being trucked across Turkey, but Ankara and Erbil are building a new pipeline from Kurdistan to the Mediterranean that's expected to be completed within the next few months. That would allow the landlocked Kurds to export 250,000 barrels per day by the end of 2013, 1 million bpd by 2015 and 2 million bpd by 2019.
Nouri's State of Law came in second place in the 2010 parliamentary elections to Iraqiya. Today All Iraq News notes:
The head of the Iraqiya Slate, Ayad Allawi described last visit of the Premier, Nouri al-Maliki, to Kurdistan Region as aiming to calm down the tensions after he failed to run the country. Allawi mentioned in his personal Twitter page "Maliki's visit to KR came to calm down the tensions after he failed to run the state following his domination on the decision-making, thus created many problems."
Adam Schreck (AP) reports that Nouri met in BAghdad with Kuwait's Prime Minister Jaber Al Mubuarak Al Sabah. I don't understand this article. How do you write about this meeting and not write about Chapter VII. That's what the meeting was about. I do not understand why the US press repeatedly fails to address Chapter VII. I've been at the UN watching the Security Council briefings and heard Martin Kobler talk about Chapter VII and seen US reporters leave that out, even when they quote him right before he mentioned Chapter VII and right after. Why is Chapter VII such a damn secret?
Kuwait is owed, the United Nations determined, reperations by Iraq for Iraq's war on Kuwait. Until those monies are paid off, Iraq remains in Chapter VII. This is a huge issue to Iraq. Every year, Nouri sends a representative to appear before the UN Security Council and make the case that 'enough has been done' and Iraq should be removed from Chapter VII. How do you _____ miss this over and over except intentionally? I'm printing this in full because it's in English. If I translate an Arabic article on this, e-mails will insist that I made it up (because they can't read Arabic and suddenly that's my problem). Here's Aswat al-Iraq on Monday:
It
is expected that the UN Security Council will meet at the end of this
month to discuss moving Iraqi-Kuwaiti dossiers from Chapter VII to
Chapter VI, following Kuwaiti preliminary acceptance of this move.
Legal
advisor of Premier Nouri al-Maliki Fadhil Mohammed Jawad stated that
moving these dossiers means that UN mission in Iraq will follow up the
questions of Kuwaiti prisoners and properties, not the Security Council.
Iraq
pays 5% of its total oil revenues to Kuwait according to the
compensations decided by the United Nations for the damages of Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Jawad added that Chapter VII issues abiding resolutions, while Chapter VI submits recommendations.
"By
this change, Iraq will be benefited in trade and bank transactions, as
well as the dangers in fields of economic exchange and investments.
In the November 29, 2012 and November 30, 2012 snapshots, we covered Martin Kobler (UN Secretary General's Special Representative to Iraq) testifying before the Security Council on November 29th.
Martin Kobler: In addition to the hydrocarbons legislation, we are continuing to provide technical advice and assistance on the establishment of the Federation Council, the reform of the judicial system, and the adoption of laws on minority communities and political parties. At the regional level, Iraq continues its re-emergence onto the international stage. Earlier this year, Iraq demonstrated renewed commitment to meeting its remaining obligations under Chapter VII of the Charter and to improving its bilateral relations with Kuwait. Progress will, however, depend upon the restoration of confidence between both sides. Over the past few months, I stepped up my engagement with Iraq and Kuwait to see how the United Nations could best facilitate the resolution of outstanding issues in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. And, in this context, I recently held high-level meetings in Iraq and Kuwait in which I was encouraged by the strong commitment that both Prime Minister al-Maliki and the Amir of Kuwait expressed by normalizing relations between their two countries. I very much hope that they will now be able to move quickly. They can count on the UN in this regard. I am happy to report to the Council today that I spoke to Foreign Minister [Hoshyard] Zaebari this morning. He informed me that, first, his government had nominated the names for the technical team of the border maintenance project today and, second, the government would start immediately to update the list of farmers entitled to compensation. A meeting with the farmers will take place as soon as possible. I welcome those steps and call on the Government of Iraq to initiate work on the border maintenance project without further delay. I also appeal to the government of Iraq to continue to demonstrate the goodwill necessary to fulfil Iraq's other outstanding obligations, in particular with regard to missing persons and property. The commitment of Iraq to fulfil those obligations will be conducive to the normalization of relations between the two countries. And I equally call on the government of Kuwait to continue to act in a spirit of flexibility and reciprocity, as reflected earlier this year by the important reciprocal visits of the Amir in Baghdad and the Prime Minister in Kuwait. On a different note, I remain fully committed to continue to work with both governments to resolve bilateral issues, at their request. I am hopeful that the agreement between Kuwait and Iraq for the cancellation of pending lawsuits against Iraqi Airways and on navigational rights in the Khor Abdullah waterway will facilitate improved relations between the two neighbors.
We're noting that because some people will use the Adam Schreck link, not know what's going on, but feel the need to e-mail that Schreck wrote about the plane! Sorry, Tatoo, the plane isn't the issue. That's not what got them in Chapter VII. Which is why Kobler says "on a different note" after discussing Chapter VII.
We have written Chapter VII repeatedly and, in the last few years, repeatedly noted it's the only big stick the US has left. The US is a voting member of the UN Security Council. Which means they can stop Chapter VII from being removed. And they should be using that power to demand improvements in human rights in Iraq.
Michael Young (The National) notes how little influence the US has today:
Mr Obama washed his hands of a country that had cost the US thousands of lives and billions of dollars without first attempting to contain Iran's growing influence there. While Mr Bush had facilitated Iran's agenda there by removing the Iraqi regime, Mr Obama seemed unperturbed by the fact that Washington's principal regional rival would benefit from too hasty a US disengagement.
The loss of Iraq was compounded by a far more serious strain on American alliances when the so-called Arab Spring broke out in early 2011. No matter how justified, the Obama administration's decision to persuade the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, to step down had two consequences: it pushed an allied country into a prolonged period of political uncertainty and it alarmed another long-standing ally, Saudi Arabia, which came to question American reliability.
The US continues to arm Nouri and he uses those arms against the Iraqi people -- just as then-Senator Joe Biden predicted in the infamous April 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Chapter VII is pretty much it now in the US diplomatic tool kit. You'd think its importance would mean that US reporters would finally begin noting it.
Back to the US which means back to the scandals. In yesterday's snapshot, we noted James Clapper's many tales to cover up Barack's spying on American citizens. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes Clapper today:
Since Clapper’s crimes are in many ways the same as Obama’s crimes, it isn’t that surprising that the White House is defending him. Yet as the scandal lingers, Clapper’s lies and the compounding factor that they were made under oath could make him a political liability, one the administration may eventually have to ditch as it struggles to keep its surveillance apparatus intact.
If you flip through that site's pictures, you're taken through what is supposed to be a library to suddenly inside a building that is clearly an athletic stadium.
Last Tuesday, there was a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing about rape and assault within the ranks. We covered it in that Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot," Ava in "Saxby Chambliss' gross stupidity," Wally in "Senator Bill Nelson sets the tone," Kat in "Senator Kirsten Gillibrand didn't come to play," we covered the third panel of that hearing in Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot" and Dona moderated a discussion on it in "Report on Congress." From Dona's discussion, we're talking about the problems with that hearing and have just finished with the fact that it was nearly 8 hours long.
C.I.: In 2008, for three days, then-General David Petraeus and then-Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified to Congress. Over and over. And we were at those hearings, all four of us, and none of those hearings lasted eight hours. The biggest problems, the real reason it went over, was because it wasn't a hearing about the issues. It was largely a hearing about how Senator Kirsten Gillibrand must be wrong. Carl Levin and many others wasted time on that over and over. I'm not saying she's wrong, by the way, I agree with her. But Levin and many others wanted to turn the hearing into that. And that was on the first panel, the second panel and the third. Kat?
Kat: I have never seen that before in any hearing we have attended. I have strong praise for Gillibrand because she was not just standing up to a number of Republicans on the Committee, she was also having to stand up to the military brass and to members of her own party on the Committee including the Chair.
Dona: What is she proposing?
Kat: "S. 967 the Military Justice Improvement Act, a critical bill that professionalizes the military justice system by ensuring that trained, professional, impartial prosecutors control the keys to the courthouse for felony- level crimes while still allowing commanders to maintain judicial authority over crimes that are unique to the military and requiring more expeditious and localized justice to ensure good order and discipline." Like C.I., I'm quoting from the Service Women's Action Network summary of the bill. They are backing that bill.
Dona: So all she's doing is asking that felony crimes be decided by prosecutors and not by military commanders.
Kat: Right, to hear Levin and Senator James Inahofe and so many others, this will destroy the military. It will end all order. Do you believe that? I don't. I'm like C.I., this really wasn't an issue for the first half of the 20th century and commanders really just crafted this power in the second half -- because rape wasn't a talked about issue in an all male military -- and they're acting like this is a power they were given and have had. Now the reality is that they've abused this power. They have used it to protect friends.
Dona: There's the infamous case of the commander who overturned the assault conviction of a friend last February. And that's just most recently. Wally, the hostility towards Gillibrand?
Wally: It was there. And I would argue that's why she was treated rudely by the generals. I'd argue the women were all treated poorly and I would blame Carl Levin for that. Maybe he needs to step down? He created a men versus women split, enforced it, promoted it. And the rudeness that was directed at the women by the first panel and by the members of the Committee went on until Senator Bill Nelson did his questioning. He was loud and he spoke slow. He's not a rapid talker most of the time. But he was louder than usual and slower than usual. And a lot of the nonsense stopped immediately. You could feel a level of recognition register with the panel of the fact that they were before Congress and they immediately got more respectful.
Dona: You pointed out that Senator Kay Hagan went after Nelson and not only were they respectful but Gen Ray Odierno made a point of thanking her for her question.
Wally: Right. There was so much disrespect on the Committee. From the top, from Levin. And, sadly, from Inahofe. I say "sadly" because the hearing wouldn't have been as out of control at the start if the Republicans didn't have term limits on Committees. Term limits is why Senator John McCain wasn't Ranking Member. And McCain's on the Committee still and he was much more respectful than Inhofe or Carl Levin. If I were a woman on the Senate, I'd be registering a complaint.
Ava: But to who? There are 100 senators -- counting the one New Jersey Governor Chris Christie just appointed. Only 20 are women. That's a fifth. They are not in leadership and you could argue that Harry Reid being Senate Majority Leader goes a long way towards endorsing disrespect for women. If I were on the Senate, I'd be very depressed. And I think Wally is exactly right. I think Senator Nelson saw just how out of control the hearing was becoming and just how much disrespect was being shown to senators on the panel and I think he used his volume and speaking pace intentionally to snap the panel to attention.
C.I.: In a way, the way the women on the Committee were treated was perfect because it demonstrated the problem that women in the military have. There are peers they serve with like a Bill Nelson who take the issue seriously but there are others that they serve with who just don't have a clue.
Today, Ponta Abadi (Ms. magazine's blog) reports:
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) announced on Tuesday he is replacing a measure proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) that would have removed military sexual assault crimes from being handled within the military chain of command. Levin’s replacement measure would keep authority on major military crimes with senior officers.
Gillibrand’s measure, part of a defense spending bill, was an attempt to improve the reporting and prosecution of sexual assault within the military by giving military prosecutors, instead of the accusers’ commanders, authority to decide which cases to try. Opposition to the measure comes from Levin, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the military. Levin’s Senate measure was approved by the Armed Services Committee by a 17-9 vote.
Gillibrand's bill wasn't controversial. It also was also distorted by opponents. Most importantly, it works in England. Katty Kay, filling in for Diane Rehm on The Diane Rehm Show's first hour May 24th, made that point, "And I think Sen. Gillibrand has already -- of New York has already proposed a bill to that effect. And actually, it is what happens in the U.K. We have an independent judiciary process that -- prosecutorial process that deals with sexual assault cases. In the British military, it does seem to work more effectively. " Gillibrand's bill was important and it was one of seven bills attempting to address the issue of rape and assault in the ranks. One of the seven has made it into the Defense Bill today, Senators Patty Murray and Kelly Ayotte joint-bill:
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office (202)
224-2834
Wednesday, June
12, 2013 Ayotte Press Office (202) 224-3324
MURRAY-AYOTTE
MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT LEGISLATION INCLUDED IN DEFENSE BILL
Bipartisan
legislation would provide trained military lawyers to victims of sexual assault
in all service branches
WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Senators Patty Murray
(D-WA) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) announced today that key provisions of their
bipartisan legislation – the Combating Military Sexual Assault Act – are
included in the National Defense Authorization Act being considered this week by
the full Senate Armed Services Committee. The Murray-Ayotte measure would
provide victims of sexual assault in all military branches with a Special
Victims’ Counsel (SVC), a trained military lawyer to assist the victim
throughout the legal process. The bill also includes provisions authored by
Senators Murray and Ayotte that enhance responsibilities for the Pentagon’s
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and provide Sexual Assault
Response Coordinators to members of the National Guard and Reserve.
“Our legislation to provide victims with a
dedicated legal counsel absolutely gets to the heart of effectively addressing
the tragic epidemic of sexual assault in our military,” said Senator Murray. “As I told Secretary Hagel and General
Dempsey this morning, Congress must act on legislation to give victims the
protections they deserve to seek justice, while giving the Pentagon the tools to
deal with this growing crisis. I am pleased the Senate Armed Services Committee
agrees and has included our
legislation to help victims every step of the way
through what is a deeply personal and painful process. I want to thank Senator
Ayotte for being such an outstanding partner and for all she has done to push
this bill forward in committee. While I believe the overall legislation is
practical and will make a difference, there will always be more work to do and I
am committed to continuing this fight on behalf of our nation’s heroes of the
past, present and future.”
“This is not
something that we’re going to pass today and then forget about,” said
Senator Ayotte during today’s committee markup of the defense authorization
bill. “Because many of us will continue to serve on this committee and we’ll
expect to understand how this system is working, we’ll expect to hear real
metrics back as to whether victims can come forward, how many victims are coming
forward, and how they are treated within this system. And this will not be the
last time the military hears from Congress on this issue.”
In a statement
endorsing the Murray-Ayotte SVC legislation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff General Martin Dempsey said, “The Air Force Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) pilot
program, while very new, has shown positive results and provides a robust
support program for victims of sexual assault. Hundreds of victims have
availed themselves of SVC services in the Air Force in just the past several
months since it was implemented. Many of those victims who initially filed
restricted reports of sexual assault decided to change their report to
unrestricted, allowing full investigation of the offenses committed by their
assailant. As the early reports have been so promising, I expressed in my
May 20, 2013, letters to Senators Levin and Inhofe that the proposed SVC
legislation had merit. I support providing victims of sexual assault this
important resource.”
The
Murray-Ayotte Combating Military Sexual Assault Act (S.871) takes additional
steps aimed at reducing sexual assaults within the military and helping the
victims of these crimes. The legislation would address a number of gaps in
current law and policy and would build upon the positive steps the Pentagon has
taken in recent years to address this problem.
The Murray-Ayotte bill currently has 37 bipartisan
cosponsors.
The
Combating Military Sexual Assault (MSA) Act of
2013 legislation would:
· Provide
victims of sexual assault with Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) – a military
lawyer who will assist sexual assault victims throughout the process.
· Enhance
the responsibilities and authority of DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response (SAPR) Office so that it can better oversee efforts to combat MSA
across the Armed Forces and regularly track and report on a range of MSA
statistics, including assault rate, number of cases brought to trial, and
compliance with appropriate laws and regulations within each of the individual
services.
· Refer
cases to the general court martial level when sexual assault charges are filed
or to the next superior competent authority when there is a conflict of interest
in the immediate chain of command.
· Bar
sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of
completion of basic training or its equivalent.
· Ensure
that Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC) are available to members of the
National Guard and Reserve at all times and regardless of whether they are
operating under Title 10 or Title 32 authority.
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media
Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty
Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834
iraq
al mada
mohammad sabah
all iraq news
alsumaria
the associated press
antiwar.com
jason ditz
ms. magazine
npr
the diane rehm show
cnn
ashley fantz
jill dougherty
cbs news
cbs this morning
john miller
joni mitchell
cbc
q with jian ghomeshi
