By Mark Rumold
A federal judge in Los Angeles has given our clients, Human Rights Watch, the go-ahead to take discovery from the government in our ongoing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the DEA’s bulk surveillance program. Friday's decision is rare, and it's a decisive victory—both for HRW and for the general public. EFF is not aware of any other case where discovery has been allowed into a government mass surveillance program. And the order forces the government to answer questions, under oath, about the steps it took to ensure that all illegally collected records have been fully purged from all government systems.
The case stems from the DEA’s disclosure in January of this year that it had secretly collected Americans’ international call records in bulk for over two decades. News reports described the program as massive—sweeping in billions of records of Americans’ calls to more than 100 countries around the globe, including Canada, Mexico, India, and Italy. The DEA relied only on an obscure administrative subpoena statute to obtain the records in bulk. That means, unlike the NSA’s bulk surveillance program, there was no judicial involvement whatsoever. Making matters worse, reports confirm that multiple agencies searched the illegally collected records for all kinds of cases—from terrorism, to drug trafficking, to export violations.
In April, immediately following a lengthy report in USA Today, EFF filed suit on behalf of Human Rights Watch against the DEA, DHS, FBI, and various unnamed agencies. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the program, and seeks to ensure that the program is permanently stopped rather than merely suspended as claimed by DEA. The suit further asks the court to ensure that all illegally collected records are accounted for and destroyed.
The government, instead, asked the judge to dismiss the case. DEA had previously said that it had “suspended” collecting records in bulk in September 2013. Now, it submitted an additional four-paragraph declaration from a DEA agent that said the DEA’s illegally collected records had been “quarantined” and “purged.” That, the government argued, required the court to dismiss the case. The government was trying to sweep two decades worth of unconstitutional activity under the rug with a single, four-paragraph declaration.
We pushed back. We’ve seen enough government double-speak concerning surveillance programs to know that there was more to the story. We argued that the government’s four-paragraph, summary declaration wasn’t enough to establish that all of the billions of records it collected, over a twenty-year span, had been accounted for and purged. Instead, we asked the court to allow HRW to take discovery—basically, a process by which one party to a lawsuit can compel the other side to provide information—from the government about the surveillance program.
Although the court narrowed the scope of the discovery HRW can take, the decision is still a victory. It will provide some much needed insight into the government’s surveillance program and whether or not the government continues to retain and use those illegally collected records. And we'll keep fighting for more information about the program and to ensure that the program is stopped, once and for all.
Reprinted with permission from Electronic Frontier Foundation
By Human Rights Watch Sudanese
authorities should investigate reported abuses, including sexual abuse,
of female Darfuri students during a government raid on an all-female
dormitory. The authorities should release or charge all those remaining
in detention.
On October 5 and 6, 2014, government security forces forcibly evicted
about 70 female students from the Zahra dormitory complex in Khartoum,
beating and arresting many students. The police verbally and physically
abused students, those who have been released told Human Rights Watch.
Students who were arrested on both days were taken to the National
Security and Intelligence Service (NISS) offices, where officers beat
and interrogated them about their political affiliations before
transferring them to the Omdurman prison for women.
“Sudanese security forces apparently think they can intimidate Darfuri
students by beating them up and throwing them out of their dorms,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director. “There is no justification for treating students that way.”
Students caught up in the raid told Human Rights Watch the security
forces groped them, taunted them, and threatened to assault them
sexually. A women’s rights group, No to Women’s Oppression, reported
that security officials raiding the dorms forced some women to undress
in the dorms, photographed them, and threatened to use the photos
against them.
The eviction and arrests occurred in the context of growing tensions
between Darfuri students and university administrators over a range of
issues. Sudanese security forces have repeatedly cracked down violently
on Darfuri students protesting government policies, including attacks on
civilians in Darfur and the death of a student protester last March.
In late September, authorities ordered the students to vacate the
complex for maintenance, but many – particularly those from Darfur –
protested, saying they had nowhere else to go. The operation began on
October 5, during the Eid al Adha holidays. Witnesses told Human Rights
Watch that a group of plainclothes security officials surrounded the
dormitory and arrested at least 20 students outside the dorms, sometimes
dragging them into cars.
The next day, a large mixed group of uniformed and plainclothes security
forces, together with student welfare administrators and pro-government
students wielding sticks, raided the dorms, breaking down doors,
beating students, arresting at least 11 more, and forcing others to
flee, witnesses said.
“When I was in the room collecting my things six policemen came into the
room and beat me with batons on my chest and on my arms and back,” one
student said. “I screamed and I ran out and left my things among it
precious things like money.”
Another student, Hawa Suliman, was so badly beaten during her arrest
that she required medical treatment, witnesses who saw her later in
detention told Human Rights Watch.
Following their arrest at the dormitory on both days, many detainees
were taken to the National Security and Intelligence Service (NISS)
offices, where officers beat and interrogated them about their political
affiliations before transferring them to the Omdurman prison for women.
“There were around 20 security men beating us nonstop, some with batons,
others with their legs, and others with their hands,” a student
arrested on October 6 told Human Rights Watch. “They were beating all of
us every place in our body.”
Another student recalled: “They asked me about individuals and they said
that I am a leader, and I work in politics with the Sudanese Congress
party […] they told me that they will be following me, and that I must
work with them and give them information […] and that I must be in
contact with them within the next week or they will arrest me again and
this time will be different.”
The total number of students detained, and their date of detention, is
not clear. Sudanese activists monitoring the situation believe several
were released within days, but that 15 are still detained in the
Omdurman women’s prison, held without charge and without access to
lawyers or family visits. In addition, the whereabouts of at least 20
students are unknown.
Authorities should make known the whereabouts of all detained students
and release or charge them immediately, said Human Rights Watch. The
unacknowledged detention of individuals or the concealment of the
whereabouts or fate of those detained by state agents constitutes an
enforced disappearance, which are absolutely prohibited under
international law.
Sudanese authorities should put an end to these violent and repressive
tactics, which violate both Sudanese and international law, Human Rights
Watch said. They should immediately investigate all reported abuses
against the students and hold those responsible to account.
“Students who have been released described horrific treatment at the
hands of the security forces,” Bekele said. “The violence against these
young women during the eviction only increases the fears for those who
have not been able to contact their families or lawyers.”
Reprinted with permission from Human Rights Watch.
The 120-page report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union documents how national security journalists and
lawyers are adopting elaborate steps or otherwise modifying their
practices to keep communications, sources, and other confidential
information secure in light of revelations of unprecedented US
government surveillance of electronic communications and transactions.
The report, based on extensive interviews with journalists, lawyers, and
senior US government officials, documents how government surveillance
and secrecy are undermining press freedom, the public’s right to
information, and the right to counsel, all human rights essential to a
healthy democracy.
Cynical cold blooded murder for political advantage
Norman Finkelstein describes how Israel instigates conflict whenever there is a new
peace initiative. (Screen capture from DemocracyNow! video)
"A unity government was formed between the PA (Palestinian Authority) and Hamas. Netanyahu (prime minister of Israel) was enraged at this unity government. It called on the U.S., it called on the EU to break relations with the Palestinian Authority. Surprisingly the United States said, 'No. We're going to give this unity government time, we'll see whether it works or not.' Then the EU came in and said it will also give them time: 'Let's see what happens.' At this point Netanyahu virtually went berserk. And he was detemined to break up the unity government.
"When there was the abduction of the three Israeli teenagers he found his pretext. There isn't a scratch of evidence, not a jot of evidence that Hamas had anything to do with the kidnappings and the killings. Nobody even knows what the motive was at this point. Even if you look at the July 3rd report of Human Rights Watch, they said nobody knows who was behind the abductions. Even the U.S. State Department [at a July 7th news conference] said, 'We don't have hard evidence about who was responsible.' But that had nothing to do with it. It was just a pretext. The pretext was to go into the West Bank, attack Hamas, arrest 700 members of Hamas, blow up two homes, carry on these rampages and ransackings, and try to evoke a reaction from Hamas. This is what Israel always does.
"Anybody who knows the history - It's what the Israeli mainstream political scientist Avner Yaniv said, 'It's these Palestinian peace offensives. Whenever the Palestinians seem like they are trying to reach a settlement of the conflict (which the unity government was) at that point Israel does everything it can to provoke a violent reaction...' and Israel has its pretext."—Norman Finkelstein
By Afef Abrougui
On 7 May, a criminal court in Jeddah sentenced blogger Raif Badawi to
ten years in prison and a thousand lashes for “insulting Islam”. Badawi
was prosecuted for developing “Saudi Arabian Liberals”, an online forum
he launched in 2008 debating the role of religion in the conservative
kingdom.
The 32-year-old was also ordered to pay a one million riyals fine (approximately US$266,600).
The verdict is subject to appeal. But Badawi's lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, has also been jailed for setting up a human rights monitoring group, according to Human Rights Watch.
Arrested in June 2012 and tried in July 2013, Badawi originally
was sentenced to six years in prison and 600 lashes. In December 2013,
an appeals court overturned the initial verdict and referred the case back to the Jeddah Criminal Court.
Saudi Arabia, Britain's ally & top arms customer, has sentenced blogger @raif_badawi to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes #IStandWithRaif
— Daniel Wickham (@DanielWickham93) May 8, 2014
On his website, Badawi and other contributors posted articles
critical of Saudi religious authorities and declared May 7 a day for
Saudi liberals.
Jail over a forum that welcomed
everyone to debate and present their arguments for discussion. Since
when prison changes thought?
رائف كان ينتقد المجتمع الازدواجي و يدعوا للأنسانية و احترام الرأي الاخر اذا كانت هذه جريمه فانا مجرمة #السجن_10سنوات_لرائف_بدوي
— أميمه Omaima (@Omaima) May 7, 2014
Raif criticized a double-standard
society and called for humanity and respect for the other's opinion. If
this is a crime, then I declare myself a criminal
Prosecutors had previously charged Badawi with apostasy, a charge which could carry a death penalty in the Saudi kingdom.
By Daniel Wickham
The top ten recipients of US foreign assistance this year all practice torture and are responsible for major human rights abuses, according to the findings of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other leading human rights organisations.
This may be in violation of existing US law, which requires that little or no aid be provided to a country which “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture”.
A report released by the Congressional Research Service lists the following countries as the largest beneficiaries of US government-provided aid planned for 2014:
1. Israel – $3.1bn
2. Afghanistan – $2.2bn
3. Egypt – $1.6bn
4. Pakistan – $1.2bn
5. Nigeria – $693m
6. Jordan – $671m
7. Iraq – $573m
8. Kenya – $564m
9. Tanzania – $553m
10.Uganda -$456m
All ten have been accused of torturing people in the last year, and at least half of them are reported to be doing so on a massive scale.
The Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 bandwagon has started very
early and with a purpose. The idea is to get large numbers of endorsers,
so that no Democratic Primary competitors dare make a move. These
supporters include Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), financier George Soros
and Ready for Hillary, a super PAC mobilizing with great specificity
(already in Iowa).
By Ralph Nader
Given this early bird launch, it is important to raise the pressing question:
Does the future of our country benefit from Hillary, another Clinton,
another politician almost indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s
militaristic, corporatist policies garnished by big money donors from
Wall Street and other plutocratic canyons?
Caricature: DonkeyHotey
There is no doubt the Clintons are syrupy political charmers,
beguiling many naïve Democrats who have long been vulnerable to a
practiced set of comforting words or phrases camouflaging contrary
deeds.
Everybody knows that Hillary is for women, children and education.
She says so every day. But Democrats and others can’t get the Clintons
even to support a $10.50 federal minimum wage that would almost equal
the 1968 minimum wage, inflation-adjusted, and would raise the wages of
30 million workers mired in the gap between the present minimum wage of
$7.25 and $10.50 an hour. It just so happens that almost two-thirds of
these Americans are women, many of them single moms struggling to
support their impoverished children. Nearly a million of these workers
labor for Walmart, on whose Board of Directors Hillary Clinton once sat.
Words hide the deeds.
As a Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hillary had to
start proving that women, just like the macho men, can be belligerent
and never see a weapons system and its use that they didn’t like. Never
did she demonstrate any ongoing interest in debloating the massive,
wasteful, duplicative military budget so as to free up big monies for
domestic public works programs or other necessities.
As Senator she also admitted that she didn’t have time to read a
critical National Intelligence Estimate Report, which had caveats that
might have dissuaded her from voting with George W. Bush to invade Iraq
in 2003. War-mongering and wars of Empire never bothered her then or
now. Just a few weeks ago, she was photographed giving the recidivist
war criminal, Republican Henry Kissinger, a big, smiling hug at a public
event. It’s all part of the bi-partisan image she is cultivating under
the opportunistic banner of “cooperation.” (For more information, read
the New York Times’ Collateral Damage and Nixon and Kissinger’s
Forgotten Shame, or Seymour Hersh’s The Price of Power: Kissinger in the
Nixon White House.)
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton accelerated the Department’s
militarization, belting far more war-like, threatening assertions toward
governments of developing countries than did the Secretaries of
Defense. She loved to give speeches on “force projection,” the latest
synonym for “the Empire,” and “the pivot” toward East Asia and against
the asserted looming threat of China. Taking due note, the Chinese
generals demanded larger budgets.
George Soros: a "power behind the throne?" (Photo: Niccolò Caranti)
The Secretary of State’s highest duty is diplomacy. Not for her.
Despite her heavy travelling, she made little or no effort to get the
government to sign onto the numerous international treaties which
already had over a hundred nations as signatories. These include
stronger climate change agreements and, as Human Rights Watch reports,
unratified treaties “relating to children, women, persons with
disabilities, torture, enforced disappearance and the use of
anti-personal landmines and cluster munitions.” These tasks bore her.
Much more exciting was military action. Against the wishes of
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, she pulled Barack Obama into the
Libyan war. There were consequences. Libya is now in militia chaos,
having spilled over into Mali, but without Gaddafi, its overthrown
dictator who had disarmed and was making peace with western nations and
oil companies.
As a Yale Law School graduate, she was not in the least bothered that
the attack on Libya occurred without any Congressional declaration,
authorization or appropriation of funds – a classic Madisonian
definition of impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.
Like Bill Clinton, she is an unabashed cheerleader for corporate
globalization under NAFTA, the World Trade Organization and the proposed
sovereignty-stripping, anti-worker Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade
Agreement. Secretary of State Clinton, in the words of trade expert
Jamie Love, "put the hammer to India when the government took steps to
grant compulsory licenses on cancer drug patents."
Even regarding the easy clampdown on waste and fraud, Hillary Clinton
fired Peter Van Buren, a 24-year-Foreign Service Officer, who exposed
such waste and mismanagement by corporate contractors in Iraq. (For more
information, see http://wemeantwell.com/).
Foreshadowing this season’s headlines, former Secretary of State Clinton
ordered U.S. officials to spy on top UN diplomats including Secretary
General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, and those from the United Kingdom. She
ordered her emissaries around the world to obtain DNA data, iris scans
and fingerprints along with credit card and frequent flier numbers. Not
only was this a clear violation of the 1946 UN convention, but after
admitting what happened she didn’t even make a public apology to the
affected parties.
Under her watch, the advice and status of the Department’s foreign
service officers and aid workers were marginalized in favor of the
militarists – and not only in Iraq.
Many Wall Streeters like Hillary Clinton. Expecting their ample
contributions, and socializing with their business barons, it is not
surprising that Hillary Clinton avoids going after the crooked casino
capitalism that collapsed the economy, drained investors, pensions, jobs
and taxpayer bailouts. Hillary Clinton is a far cry from the stalwart
Senator Elizabeth Warren on this towering pattern of unaccountable
corporate abuse.
The surreal world of Hillary Clinton is giving $200,000 speeches,
collecting prestigious awards she does not deserve, including one from
the American Bar Association, and basking in the glory of her admirers
while appropriately blasting the Republicans for their “War on Women” –
the safe refrain of her forthcoming campaign.
It is true that the Republican madheads make it easy for any Democratic
candidate to judge themselves by the cruel, rabid, ravaging Republicans.
But, is that the kind of choice our country deserves?
A Clinton Coronation two years or more before the 2016 elections will
stifle any broader choice of competitive primary candidates and more
important a more progressive agenda supported by a majority of the
American people.
Full Medicare for all, cracking down on corporate abuses, a fairer
tax system, a broad public works program, a living wage, access to
justice and citizen empowerment, clean election practices, and pulling
back on the expensive, boomeranging Empire to come home to America’s
necessities and legitimate hopes are some examples of what the people
want.
Maybe the sugarcoating is starting to wear. Columnist Frank Bruni,
writing in the New York Times (Hillary in 2016? Not so Fast), reports
her polls are starting to slump. Apparently, as Bruni suggests, she’s
being seen as part of the old Washington crowd that voters are souring
on.
As I wrote to Hillary Clinton in early summer 2008, when calls were
made by Obama partisans for her to drop out, no one should be told not
to run. That’s everyone’s First Amendment right. However, not voting for
her is the prudent decision.
by Cora Currier ProPublica, Nov. 5, 2013, 2:23 p.m. November 6: This story has been updated to reflect new developments.
Nearly six months ago, President Obama promised more transparency and tighter policies around targeted killings. In a speech, Obama vowed that the U.S. would only use force against a "continuing and imminent threat to the American people." It would fire only when there was "near-certainty" civilians would not be killed or injured, and when capture was not feasible. The number of drone strikes has dropped this year, but they've continued to make headlines. On Friday, a U.S. drone killed the head of the Pakistani Taliban. A few days earlier came the first drone strike in Somaliain nearly two years. How much has changed since the president's speech?
Drone ground station (USAF).
We don't know the U.S. count of civilian deaths
The administration says that it has a count of civilian deaths, and that there is a "wide gap" between U.S. and independent figures. But the administration won't release its own figures. Outsideestimatesof total civilian deaths since 2002 range from just over 200 to more than 1,000. The Pakistani government has given three different numbers: 400, 147, and 67. McClatchy and the Washington Post obtained intelligence documents showing that for long stretches of time, the CIA estimated few or no civilian deaths. The documents also confirmed the use of signature strikes, in which the U.S. targets people without knowing their identity. The CIA categorized many of those killed as simply "other militants" or "foreign fighters." The Post wrote that the agency sometimes designated "militants" with what seemed like circumstantial or vague evidence, such as "men who were probably' involved in cross-border attacks" in Afghanistan.
RQ-1 Predator aircraft, Tallil Air Base, (AB), Iraq.
The administration reportedly curtailed signature strikes this year, though the new guidelines don't necessarily preclude them. A White House factsheet released around Obama's speech said that "it is not the case that all military-aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants." It did not say that people must be identified. (In any case, the U.S. has not officially acknowledged the policy of signature strikes.)
We don't know exactly who can be targeted
The list of groups that the military considers "associated forces" of Al Qaeda is classified. The administration has declared that it targets members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and "elements" of Al Shabaab, but there are still questions about how the U.S. determines that an individual belonging to those groups is in fact a "continuing and imminent threat." (After the terror alarm that led to the closing of U.S. embassies this summer, officials told the New York Times they had "expanded the scope of people [they] could go after" in Yemen.) This ties into the debate over civilian casualties: The government would seem to consider some people legitimate targets that others don't.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch conducted in-depth studies of particular strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, respectively. They include eyewitness reports of civilian deaths. (Most of the deaths investigated happened before the Obama administration's new policies were announced, although the administration has not said when those guidelines went into effect.) The reports also raised questions of the legality of specific strikes, questioning whether the deaths were all unavoidable casualties of legitimate attacks.It does not appear that the U.S. plans to expand strikes against Al Qaeda to other countries — officials have reportedly told Iraq, for example, it won't send drones there. But the U.S. has established a surveillance drone base in Niger, and fed information from drones to French forces fighting in Mali.
"Drones Kill People" - Protesters at President Obama's inauguration 2012 (Photo: Debra Sweet).
We don't know if the U.S. compensates civilian casualties
CIA director John Brennan suggested during his confirmation hearing that the U.S. made condolence payments to harmed families. But there is little evidence of it happening. U.S. Central Command told ProPublica that it had 33 pages related to condolence payments — but wouldn't release any of them to us.
We don't always know which strikes are American
While unnamed officials sometimes confirm that strikes came from U.S. drones, other attacks may be from Pakistani, Yemeni, or even Saudi planes. (It's also worth noting that the U.S. has also used cruise missiles and Special Forces raids. But the bulk of U.S. counterterrorism actions outside Afghanistan in recent years appear to rely on drones.)
We don't know the precise legal rationale behind the strikes
Some members of Congress have seen the legal memos behind targeted killing of U.S. citizens. But lawmakers were not granted access to all memos on the program. Legislation pending in the Senate would require the administration to give the Intelligence Committees a list of such legal opinions.
Other congressmen have introduced billswith more reporting requirements for targeted killings. (Proposals for a "drone court" for oversight have not gotten very far.)
"Reaper" Drone - Even deadlier than the Predator Drone.
It's far from clear that any of that additional oversight would lead to public disclosure. The government and the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Times are still locked in court battles over requests for drone documents. While a judge has ruled the CIA can no longer assert the "fiction" that it can't reveal if it has any interest in drones, the agency hasn't been compelled to release any information yet. The government has also so far fought off disclosure of legal memos underpinning targeted killings.
And here are some things we've learned through leaks and independent reporting: How the U.S. tracks targets: Documents provided by Edward Snowden to the Washington Post detailed the NSA's "extensive involvement." Lawyers in a terrorism-related case also uncovered reports that government surveillance of their client may have led to a drone strike in Somalia. The Atlanticpublished a detailed account of Yemen using a child to plant a tracking chip on a man who was killed in a U.S. strike.
The CIA's role: The administration had reportedly planned to scale back the CIA's role in targeted killing, moving control of much of the drone program to the military. But the CIA reportedly still handles strikes in Pakistan and has a role in Yemen as well. Officials told Foreign Policy yesterday that the transition won't happen anytime soon.
The history of the programs: Revelations continue to change our understanding of the contours of the drone war, but two books published this year offer comprehensive accounts — The Way of the Knife, by Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, and Dirty Wars, by Jeremy Scahill.
