JOHN BRENNAN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED BY TRUMP (NO LONGER NEEDED)

JOHN BRENNAN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED BY TRUMP:

SINCE BRENNAN IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED WITH CIA WHY DOES HE STILL NEED HIS CLEARANCE?

TRUMP IS CORRECT TO REVOKE CLEARANCES OF FORMER GOVT OFFICIALS WHO ABUSE THEIR PRIVILEGE.

SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD NOT BE USED TO SPY ON OR INTIMIDATE OTHER CITIZENS UNLESS TO STOP TERRORISM.

TRUMP IS A MAN OF HIS WORD.


Post Sources: ABC News, Fox News, Washington Post, Youtube


******** Trump revokes security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan — a leading critic of the president


President Trump on Wednesday followed through on threats to strip the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan, igniting a firestorm of criticism that the president was recklessly attempting to distract from his own political problems and silence high-profile critics.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the decision at a White House briefing, reading a statement from Trump that accused Brennan of making “a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations — wild outbursts on the internet and television — about this Administration.”

Brennan, who led the CIA during most of President Barack Obama’s second term, has emerged as one of Trump’s fiercest critics, denouncing his performance at a summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin last month as “treasonous.” On Tuesday, Brennan lambasted Trump’s personal character after he derided former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman as a “dog.”

“Any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risk posed by his erratic conduct and behavior,” Trump said in his statement. “Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.”

Trump added that he is reviewing the security clearances of nine other former officials, including former FBI director James B. Comey, all of whom have criticized the president or been targeted by congressional Republicans seeking to discredit the Russia probe.

The move sent shock waves through Washington’s political class and the nation’s intelligence community, which has traditionally sought to avoid public partisanship but has been dragged into the debate as Trump has accused what he calls the “deep state” of seeking to undermine his presidency through leaks of sensitive material.

The president also has lashed out repeatedly against the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into possible contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives accused of tampering in the 2016 presidential election.

Brennan was a longtime intelligence official who briefed three presidents and served as CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, CIA chief of staff, director of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

His former colleagues rallied to his defense, hailing his service to the nation, including a key role in the 2011 operation that killed Osama bin Laden.

In a tweet Wednesday, former vice president Joe Biden said Trump’s decision was “unbecoming of a President” and praised Brennan as someone who “has never been afraid to speak up.”

“If you think it will silence John, then you just don’t know the man,” he wrote.

Brennan reacted to the news by comparing Trump’s actions to those of “foreign despots and autocrats.”

“I never, ever thought I’d see it here in the United States,” Brennan said on MSNBC. “I believe all Americans need to take stock of what is happening right now in our government — how abnormal and how irresponsible and how dangerous these actions are. If Mr. Trump believes this is going to lead me to just go away and be quiet, he is very badly mistaken.”

Sanders cast Trump’s decision as the outcome of an ongoing review of former and current officials whose conduct has led the president to question their willingness to “protect classified information.”

But since aides first raised the specter of Trump’s stripping Brennan and several others of their clearances, security experts have described such a move as unprecedented and warned that words and actions protected by the First Amendment are not grounds to take a clearance away.

“As far as we know, this is the first time that a president of the United States has individually taken action against somebody’s security clearance,” said Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents government employees in security-clearance disputes.

Last month, the White House said that along with Brennan and Comey, the president was scrutinizing former CIA director Michael V. Hayden, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

On Wednesday, Sanders expanded that list to include former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI agent Peter Strzok and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who was recently demoted.

Yates was fired by Trump last year after she defied the president and ordered federal attorneys not to defend his controversial travel ban. Strzok and Page, two of Trump’s favorite targets on Twitter, became the centerpiece of Republicans’ efforts to discredit Mueller’s Russia probe after anti-Trump texts between the two were revealed last year. Strzok was fired over the texts this week.

Ohr is also a frequent object of GOP criticism; he was named by Republicans in a memo earlier this year that targeted his ties to the former British intelligence officer who wrote the controversial dossier on the Trump campaign’s alleged contacts with Russian officials.

The timing of the announcement suggested that the president may also have been trying to distract public attention from saturation media coverage of accusations in Manigault Newman’s new book that Trump made racist statements before he took office that were captured on tape.

After Sanders’s briefing Wednesday, the White House released the written statement from Trump bearing the date July 26 — before quickly releasing an identical statement with the date removed. That led some of Trump’s critics to conclude that he had made the decision on Brennan’s security clearance weeks ago but that the White House strategically delayed an announcement for maximum political benefit.

“This might be a convenient way to distract attention, say from a damaging news story or two,” Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) said on Twitter. “But politicizing the way we guard our nation’s secrets just to punish the President’s critics is a dangerous precedent.”

Some Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), applauded Trump’s move. In a statement, Paul sought to take credit for the idea of revoking Brennan’s clearance.

“I urged the President to do this,” Paul said. “I filibustered Brennan’s nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information.”

Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian, called Trump’s action unprecedented, saying he knew of no historical example of a president’s trying to “dehumanize and embarrass an outstanding intelligence officer like John Brennan. There has always been a bipartisan spirit of support since the CIA was created in the Cold War.”

Brinkley suggested that the closest antecedent was President Richard Nixon’s attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service to harass people on his “enemies list” and Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s congressional hearings to try to identify and punish suspected communists inside the U.S. government in the 1950s.

“The public outcry of Brennan being stripped will echo long and far in the annals of American history,” Brinkley said. “It will be seen like McCarthyism — a dark stain on our democracy.”

Nearly 4.1 million Americans have federal government security clearances of varying levels up to “top secret,” according to government estimates. In some cases, former officials retain their clearances and are called on to provide advice or input on classified or highly sensitive matters, experts said. Some former officials also have jobs that require a security clearance.

It is not clear how much of an impact Trump will have if he seeks to strip others of their clearances. Comey and McCabe have said their security badges were automatically demagnetized after they were fired.

But the action was the latest in a long battle between Trump and top members of the intelligence and national security communities. During the 2016 campaign, a bipartisan group of national security experts, including Hayden, signed a pair of “Never Trump” letters asserting that he “lacks self-control and acts impetuously,” has demonstrated “erratic behavior” and is “fundamentally dishonest.”

Since taking office, Trump has faced criticism that he has been reckless in his own handling of sensitive information, including disclosing highly classified material during an Oval Office meeting last year with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. And at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, Trump appeared to discuss the U.S. response to a North Korean missile launch in full view of patrons.

Questions also have been raised about Trump’s staff, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose security clearance was downgraded in February before he was granted a permanent clearance in May. Former White House staff secretary Rob Porter was granted clearance despite allegations that he had been violent toward two ex-wives, which he has denied.

“This is not merely erratic, it’s somewhat dangerous, using clearances to get at political opponents,” Eliot Cohen, a former State Department counselor during the George W. Bush administration who organized one of the “Never Trump” letters, said of the president’s decision on Brennan.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Twitter that Trump’s move demonstrates “how deeply insecure and vindictive he is — two character flaws dangerous in any President.”

“An enemies list is ugly, undemocratic and un-American. I also believe this action to silence a critic is unlawful,” Schiff said in a tweet.

Republican reactions were more muted. Last month, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) minimized Trump’s threats, suggesting that the president was merely “trolling people.” Ryan’s office declined to comment Wednesday.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who, after tangling with Trump on foreign policy issues, is not seeking reelection called the president’s action a “banana republic kind of step.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Brennan has been “far too political” in his commentary about Trump. But she added that recently retired intelligence officials generally have worthwhile expertise to offer and called Trump’s move “unwise.”

SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH)

SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH):

IRAN
LIBYA
SYRIA
YEMEN
SOMALIA
CHAD
NORTH KOREA
VENEZUELA

NEIL GORUSH BALANCES SCOTUS & RULES AS SCALIA MAY HAVE.

DEMOCRATS STOP WAITING FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT OR TRYING TO ENCOURAGE AN ASSASSINATION.

INSTEAD KEY DEMS SHOULD BE STRATEGIZING TO WIN IN 2018 OR 2020.


Sources: BBC, CTV News, NY Times, TIME, Youtube


***** Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban to take full effect


The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go fully into effect.

But the directive against travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen still faces legal challenges.

On Monday, seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions imposed by lower courts on the policy.

The ruling covers the third version of the directive that President Trump has issued since taking office.

The presidential proclamation also imposed restrictions on travellers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials, which have gone into effect.

In striking down the other parts, lower court judges had cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Further arguments will be heard this week by federal courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed an earlier version of the policy to take partial effect.

The president's travel bans have each been frustrated by the courts to some degree:

In January, he signed an order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending all refugee entry. The measure prompted protests and legal challenges across dozens of states
A revised version in March exempted green card holders and dual citizens. By June, the Supreme Court allowed most of it to go into effect, a including 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US, but granted a wide exemption for those with a "bona fide connection" to the US
President Trump's third order was announced in late September. It added non-Muslim-majority nations North Korea and Venezuela, provisions which lower courts have allowed to proceed
What have lower courts said?

In striking down the other parts, federal judges have cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Lower courts have also found the policy violated the first amendment of the US constitution covering freedom of religion.

In October, a Maryland federal judge said: "The 'initial' announcement of the Muslim ban, offered repeatedly and explicitly through President Trump's own statements, forcefully and persuasively expressed his purpose in unequivocal terms."

A federal judge in Hawaii said the administration "lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'".

A court in Virginia ruled: "The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim.

TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY SCOTUS (VICTORY)

TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY SCOTUS (VICTORY):

BANS TRAVEL FROM SIX MUSLIM COUNTRIES LINKED TO TERRORISM.

IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, YEMEN,

SCOTUS AGREES TO HEAR FULL ARGUMENTS ON TRAVEL BAN IN OCTOBER.


Sources: BBC News, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube


****** Supreme Court Upholds Trump Administration’s Travel Ban


The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to the U.S. Trump hailed the decision as a “victory for national security,” but it’s likely to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.

The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation and pointed rebukes from lower courts saying the administration is targeting Muslims. Until then, the court said Monday, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The ruling sets up a potential clash between the government and opponents of the ban over the strength of visitors’ ties to the United States. A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. But immigrant groups said relatively few people try to enter the United States without well-established ties. Those groups said they will be sending lawyers and monitors back to American airports, where the initial, immediate implementation of the ban in January caused chaos and confusion.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the ban would be implemented starting 72 hours after being cleared by courts. That means it will take effect Thursday morning.

The president has denied that the ban targets Muslims but says it is needed “to protect the nation from terrorist activities” committed by citizens of the six countries. All six have been designated as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.

The 90-day ban is necessary to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the countries, the administration says. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

The ban will have run its course by then, raising a question of whether the justices will even issue a decision in the case or dismiss it because it has been overtaken by events.

The court asked both sides to address the issue of timing, along with questions about whether the ban is aimed at Muslims, the impact of Trump’s provocative campaign statements and federal courts’ authority to restrain the president in the area of immigration.

A 120-day ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a similar, limited basis.

Three of the court’s conservative justices said they would have let the administration apply the bans without the limits imposed by their colleagues.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to win the legal case in the end. Thomas said the government’s interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.

Trump hailed the court’s order as a “clear victory for our national security,” especially after lower court rulings that blocked the travel ban in its entirety. He said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is to keep Americans safe.

His administration’s implementation plans, largely orchestrated by White House adviser Stephen Miller, focus on refusing entry to people who are unable to show a substantial and pre-existing tie to a person or institution in the United States. The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.

But some immigration lawyers said relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.

“This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban. It’s going to be really important for us to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a backdoor into implementing the full- scale Muslim ban,” said Omar Jadwat, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing some of the challengers to the travel ban.

The court’s opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a U.S. visa.

“For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the court said. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, “the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the purpose of evading” the travel ban.

The opinion faulted the two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel policy for going too far to limit Trump’s authority over immigration. The president announced the travel ban a week after he took office in January and revised it in March after setbacks in court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends Sept. 30.

Trump’s first executive order on travel applied to travelers from Iraq and well as the six countries, and took effect immediately, causing chaos and panic at airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out whom the order covered and how it was to be implemented.

A federal judge blocked it eight days later, and that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.

In March, Trump issued the narrower order.

NEW IMMIGRATION TRAVEL BAN SAME AS 1st TRAVEL BAN (PROTECTS USA BORDERS)

NEW IMMIGRATION TRAVEL BAN SAME AS FIRST TRAVEL BAN (PROTECTS USA BORDERS):

TRUMP SAYS YES TO NATIONAL SECURITY, NO TO BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT.

TRUMP SAYS NO TO ISIL OPERATIVES POSING AS REFUGEES.

HIS PREDECESSORS ENFORCED SIMILAR
ANTI-TERRORISM TRAVEL BANS.


Sources: Fox News, NBC News, YouTube


***** Trump adviser says new travel ban will have 'same basic policy outcome'


Senior White House Policy Adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News' "First 100 Days" Tuesday that a revised version of President Donald Trump's travel ban would "have the same basic policy outcome."

Miller claimed that the new executive order would be "responsive" to federal court rulings which halted the original order and resolve "a lot of very technical issues that were brought up by the court."

However, Miller also insisted that the court ruling staying the original order was "flawed" and "erroneous" and that Trump's action was "clearly legal and constitutional."

"Here's the reality," Miller said. "We’ve got a serious problem in our country of terrorism, radicalization and serious problems of people joining ISIS, joining terror groups, joining Al Qaeda and committing or attempting to commit acts of crime and terror against our nation."

Miller indicated the revised order would apply to the same seven majority-Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya — as the previous order.

Miller spoke to host Martha MacCallum at the top of an hour-long immigration town hall in Jacksonville, Fla. hours after Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly directed agency heads to hire thousands more immigration officers, end so-called “catch-and-release” policies and begin work on the president’s promised U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Senior White House Policy Adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News' "First 100 Days" Tuesday that a revised version of President Donald Trump's travel ban would "have the same basic policy outcome.

Miller spoke to host Martha MacCallum at the top of an hour-long immigration town hall in Jacksonville, Fla. hours after Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly directed agency heads to hire thousands more immigration officers, end so-called “catch-and-release” policies and begin work on the president’s promised U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Through a show of hands, most of the town hall audience indicated that they supported Trump's tough stance on illegal immigration.

"I think [Miller's] main argument was right on point," said audience member Jack Capra. "Securing our borders is a national security issue [and] it's the federal government's job to keep our citizens safe from external and internal threats. I think immigration is a big contributor to that."

However, immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez told MacCallum that Trump's ordered immigration enforcement changes had "written a blank check that he can't cash."

"He’s going to have to get the money from somewhere," Hernandez said, "and we don’t have the money."

In last year's presidential election, a Fox News exit poll found that 10 percent of Florida voters said immigration was the biggest issue facing the country. Of those voters, 69 percent backed Trump over Hillary Clinton.

TRUMP TO "SEE 9TH CIRCUIT IN COURT" (BORDER SECURITY & INADMISSIBLE ALIENS)

TRUMP VOWS TO "SEE 9TH CIRCUIT IN ANOTHER COURT" AFTER STUNNING DECISION:

TRUMP WILL PREVAIL BUT MUST COOLY RETHINK STRATEGY REGARDING INADMISSIBLE ALIENS.

THE SECURITY OF AMERICA'S BORDERS MATTERS MORE THAN 2016 POLITICS.


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Hot Air, NBC News, YouTube


***** Trump seizes on omission in court's travel ban ruling, plots next move


President Trump got to work early Friday picking apart a federal court’s decision not to reinstate his controversial travel ban, noting that the detailed 29-page order did not include one mention of the statute he claims gives him broad authority on immigration.

“A disgraceful decision!” Trump tweeted, while quoting an analyst who flagged the omission in a Lawfare blog post.

The writer, Brookings fellow and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, had noted the order skipped over a key part of the U.S. code on “inadmissible aliens” which Trump had publicly recited two days earlier in defense of his immigration restrictions.

The statute reads in part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Wittes wrote that this statute speaks to one of two “big questions” on which the case will turn.

He said the statute indeed gives Trump “sweeping power” to restrict entry, writing: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order).

That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.”

The Trump administration has pointed to that statute for days in defending the controversial move to suspend refugee admissions as well as travel and immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, though, declined to lift a lower-court ruling that suspended the policy on other grounds.

In their unanimous decision, the judges generally referred to the government’s position that such presidential decisions on immigration policy are “unreviewable” – but rejected that argument.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the judges wrote. “…Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.”

The ruling did address what Wittes said was the other “big” question at play: How statements from the president and his campaign team could “render an otherwise valid exercise of this power invalid.”

This aspect pertains to past statements by Trump and his advisers that they were looking at ways to suspend immigration to the U.S. for Muslims. While the administration now insists this is not a “Muslim” ban, the states challenging the order say it violates the establishment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution because it was meant to target Muslims – pointing to the president’s past statements and other factors.

The court wrote: “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.”

The Justice Department is now reviewing its options -- which include the possibility of appealing the matter to the Supreme Court, asking for a review from a broader panel of judges or taking the dispute back to the lower court. Or the White House could issue a revised order.

Trump tweeted overnight, “SEE YOU IN COURT,” without specifying which court.

Wittes argued that the 9th Circuit was right to leave the restraining order in place, “for the simple reason that there is no cause to plunge the country into turmoil again while the courts address the merits of these matters over the next few weeks.”

Before the measure was put on hold, Trump’s order caused chaos at airports amid confusion over which travelers were affected. Green-card holders initially were thought to be included in the freeze, though the Homeland Security Department later made clear they were exempt.

Wittes cautioned in his post that the fight over the merits is different than the battle that just played out in San Francisco: “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.”

OBAMA SENDING 600 MORE US TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIL (PRAY)

PRES OBAMA SENDING 600 MORE US TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIL IN IRAQ:

IS 600 ENOUGH?

PLEASE PRAY FOR OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

Sources: NY Times, YouTube

**** U.S. to Send 600 More Troops to Iraq to Help Retake Mosul From ISIS

WASHINGTON — President Obama has authorized sending an additional 600 American troops to Iraq to assist Iraqi forces in the looming battle to take back the city of Mosul from the Islamic State, United States officials said on Wednesday.

The announcement means that there will soon be 5,000 American troops in Iraq, seven years after the Obama administration withdrew all American troops from the country. Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has criticized both Mr. Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, for that decision.

Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, traveling in New Mexico, said the additional troops would help with logistics as well as providing intelligence for Iraqi security forces in the fight for Mosul. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week that Iraqi forces would be ready to retake the city by early October.

“These are military forces that will be deployed to intensify the strategy that’s in place, to support Iraqi forces as they prepare for an offensive,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday.

Administration officials insisted that the deployment was consistent with Mr. Obama’s policy not to commit American ground forces again in Iraq. Mr. Obama, who vowed to end the Iraq war in his 2008 presidential campaign, has been wary of increasing the number of American troops there. The officials said the Americans would be there to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces, who they said were leading the operations to retake the Islamic State’s remaining territory.

Mrs. Clinton said at an NBC News forum on national security this month that she would not put ground troops in Iraq “ever again.” Mr. Trump said in Marchthat he would deploy up to 30,000 American troops in the Middle East to defeat the Islamic State.

NSA: New Ruling Claims NSA Overreach Does Not Violate 4th Amendment Rights (It Does!)

#NSARuling

ANOTHER NSA RULING:

WHO SHOULD MANAGE THE NSA??

U.S. MILITARY vs U.S. FEDERAL GOV'T:

Friday a New York Federal Judge ruled NSA Data Mining & Mass Phone Surveillance of American Citizens is LEGAL.

Can someone please explain how can a procedure be LEGAL if it Violates the U.S. Constitution?? (4th Amendment)

I thought that Federal Judges were supposed to use LEGAL Precedent to Interpret & Enforce Laws, Not use the Judicial Bench to Legislate NEW Laws,
Or use the Judicial Bench to Destroy the U.S. Constitution!!

Now let's be clear.

If the U.S. Military manages the NSA Program, it Is LEGAL & I concur.

Why??

Because the U.S. Military will use ONLY use the Collected Metadata & Collected Personal Citizen Info to Target Real TERRORISTS.....

Not TARGET U. S. Citizens.
(i.e., National Security Purposes)

However.....

If the U.S. Federal Gov't manages the NSA Program, and SPIES on American Citizens,
We could be held HOSTAGE & have Collected Private Info used against Us.

Thus this action is Not LEGAL if the NSA is Managed by the Federal Gov't because it Violates Our 4th Amendment Rights.

I am also concerned if the U.S. Federal Gov't manages the NSA Program, it will use Collected Metadata & Personal Citizen Info for POLITICAL Purposes........

Not for National Security purposes!


Source: USA Today

Mayor Bloomberg vs Obama: White House Cuts NYC's Security Funding

White House Slashes NY Anti-Terrorism Funds


Eleven days after the botched plot to bomb Times Square, the Obama administration on Wednesday slashed some $53 million from the city's terror-fighting budget.

"For the administration to announce these cuts two weeks after the attempted Times Square bombing shows they just don't get it and are not doing right by New York City," fumed Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

To top it off, the news arrives as President Obama comes to town today amid buzz he will meet with the very cops who helped thwart the bombing.

Obama will also be tapping the city's deep pockets for the Democratic Party.

"The President seems more interested in raising money for political campaigns than providing New York the money it needs to defend itself against Islamic terrorism," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.

The cuts, to be announced today, target the annual allocations for transit and port security, legislators said.

The New York City area will get $111million for transit security in the final 2010 budget - a 27% chop from last year's $153 million. The port security program is getting chopped from $45 million to $33.8million - a cut of 25%.

"The fact that the Obama administration would cut New York's homeland security funding just 11 days after the Times Square car bomb attempt is dangerous and unconscionable," King said.

The Department of Homeland Security had forecast the cuts in December, but local leaders thought the administration would change its mind after a car packed with fireworks, propane and fertilizer nearly detonated in Times Square on May 1.

Another terror plot busted up last September targeted the city's subways.

"Just when we thought they finally realized a war on terror is going on, they do something like this," raged City Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens), head of the Council's Public Safety Committee.

"This leaves us more vulnerable to 'man-caused disasters,'" he said sarcastically, referring to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's term for terror attacks.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Matthew Chandler begged to differ with New York's interpretation, insisting his agency is "actively engaged in supporting New York City's first responders and overall preparedness."

He argued that in 2009, the administration gave the area more than $457 million for "terrorism and other threats." He blamed Congress for appropriating less money for 2010, and an administration official said if New York includes the cash it got from the economic stimulus bill passed in 2009, it's actually getting $47.3 million more than last year for ports and transit protection.

King was unimpressed by that math, arguing the stimulus cash is a one-time payout that won't be repeated.

"That's a story they're coming up with at the last minute, because an hour ago they were saying they couldn't give us the money because Congress only allocated $300 million," he said. "Actually, Obama only asked for $250 million."

King noted there is nothing stopping the administration from giving the city a bigger slice. "New York should get first shot, because we're the No. 1 target," he said.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Daily News, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Pres. Obama Addresses U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center Staff

(President Barack Obama said the U.S. is making real progress in the battle against al-Qaeda and other extremists as he addressed workers at the National Counterterrorism Center today in suburban Washington.)




"Every Morning I Look to You for the Latest Intelligence"

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER

THE PRESIDENT:

Thank you so much, Mike, for the introduction. Usually it's Mike who comes to brief me at the White House. Today, it's my honor to visit you in your house. I was just told this is called the "bat cave," is that correct? (Laughter.) Mike, thank you for your many years of public service and your outstanding leadership at the National Counterterrorism Center.

It is great to be with all of you. It is great to be here at the hub -- at the headquarters of our efforts to defend America from those who threaten our country and so many others. Our intelligence community is comprised of 16 organizations. We have countless federal and state and local and international partners. And this is where it has to all come together.

So I'm pleased to see Denny Blair and those of you from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. We have folks here from the FBI and the CIA. We have folks from across the federal government -- intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security and so many others. My understanding is we've even got some of New York's finest -- some NYPD folks who are here.

Standing together and serving together, it's clear for all to see -- that you are one team -- that you are more integrated and more collaborative and more effective than ever before. And you're focused on one defining mission, and that is to protect the United States of America and thwarting terrorist attacks around the world.

Now, I just received an extraordinary briefing from some of your colleagues. I have to tell you, I was surprised to see how young everybody is around here. It is a sign of my age that everybody is starting to look young. But the capacity and the dedication that's on display was remarkable. And, look, all of you have some of the most important work that is done in this country -- you're doing it. These big screens I understand are not just to watch SportsCenter. (Laughter.)

But I wanted to come here today and take a few minutes just to deliver a simple message -- and I delivered it inside, and that is the message of thanks -- to say thank you from me, who use your product each and every day to make some very tough decisions, and to thank you on behalf of the American people, who may not even know that you're here but are relying on you each and every day to make sure that their kids get home safely and that when they commute to work it's going to be okay. To think about the profound impact that all of you are having on the day-to-day life of this nation I think is extraordinary. Your professionalism is essential to protecting this country.

Now, we recently observed the eighth anniversary of that terrible day when terrorists brought so much death and destruction to our shores. And once more we remembered all the lives that were lost. And once more we redoubled our resolve against the extremists who continue to plot against the United States and our allies.

So we need you more than ever. Our troops and our intelligence officers in the field, our diplomats overseas, our law enforcement here at home, they all depend on you -- your analysis, your insights, your ability to work together, across divisions and disciplines, turning information into intelligence and sharing it quickly, in real time, with those who need it.

As I said before, I am one of those consumers of your work product here at NCTC. Every morning I look to you for the latest intelligence. In fact, I think so highly of NCTC that I picked the guy who put NCTC together -- John Brennan -- as my chief adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security. And by the way, John Brennan is here and doing an outstanding job each and every day. He's also, by the way, I think, responsible for getting this spiffy building up and running.

Now, again, a lot of you are working in some obscurity right now. Few Americans know about the work that you do, and this is how it should be. Your assignments require it, and obviously you didn't go into this line of work for the fame and glory, or the glare of the spotlight. You're in this to serve and protect.

But today, I want every American to know about the difference you've made -- especially in recent months and days. Because of you, and all the organizations you represent, we're making real progress in our core mission: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and other extremist networks around the world.

We must never lose sight of that goal. That's the principal threat to the American people. That is the threat that led to the creation of this Center. And that must be the focus of our efforts to defend the homeland and our allies, and defeat extremists abroad.

We know that al Qaeda and its extremist allies threaten us from different corners of the globe -- from Pakistan, but also from East Africa and Southeast Asia; from Europe and the Gulf. And that's why we're applying focused and relentless pressure on al Qaeda -- by sharing more intelligence, strengthening the capacity of our partners, disrupting terrorist financing, cutting off supply chains, and inflicting major losses on al Qaeda's leadership.

It should now be clear -- the United States and our partners have sent an unmistakable message: We will target al Qaeda wherever they take root; we will not yield in our pursuit; and we are developing the capacity and the cooperation to deny a safe haven to any who threaten America and its allies.

We also know that success against al Qaeda must go beyond destroying their network -- it must be about the future that we want to build as well. And that's why we're putting forward a positive vision of American leadership around the world -- one where we lead by example, and engage nations and peoples on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect.

As one counterterrorism expert recently observed, because of our efforts al Qaeda and its allies have not only lost operational capacity, they've lost legitimacy and credibility. Of course, nobody does a better job of discrediting al Qaeda than al Qaeda itself, which has killed men and women and children of many faiths in many nations, and which has absolutely no positive future to offer the people of the world.

So even as we target al Qaeda and its bankrupt vision, we also know that we have to be vigilant in defending our people at home. And that takes aggressive intelligence collection and skillful analysis. And that demands the effective and efficient coordination between federal government and our state and local partners.

And that's what we've seen from you in recent years. We've seen your success here in America in the last several weeks. You've stayed vigilant. You watched for signs. You stitched together the intelligence. You worked together, across organizations, as one team. And then -- arrests in Denver and New York, and still more in Illinois and Texas, have made us safer.

So I say to every American: You see the headlines, but here are some of the people who help write them, who keep you safe. And I say to all of you, you are setting the standard. You're showing us what focused and integrated counterterrorism really looks like. And the record of your service is written in the attacks that never occur -- because you thwarted them; and in the countless Americans who are alive today -- because you saved them. For that, America is in your debt.

Of course, you know that we're facing determined adversaries who are resourceful, who are resilient, and who are still plotting. And no one can ever promise that there won't be another attack on American soil.

But I can promise you this. I pledge to do everything in my power as President to keep America safe. And I pledge to give all of you the tools and support you need to get the job done, around the world and here at home. And I pledge to stay focused on that mission -- just as you stay focused on your mission.

So we all have to redouble our efforts in the face of a threat that persists. We're going to have to draw strength from the values that we hold dear. We must keep our eye fixed on the world we seek to build -- one that defeats our adversaries, but that also promotes dignity and opportunity and justice for all who stand with us.

To do that, we need you to keep standing and serving together -- every agency, every department, every branch, every level. One team. One mission. That's how we're going to prevail in this fight, and that's how we're going to protect this country that we all love.

So thanks to all of you. Continue the outstanding work. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much.



View Larger Map

Sources: Whitehouse.gov, National Counter Terrorism Center, AP, Flickr, Youtube, Google Maps

Denver, CO Man Subject Of Intense FBI Anti-Terrorism Investigation...Link To Al-Qaida May Be Real

Target of probe admits to Terrorist training

Federal officials said Friday that their high profile terrorism investigation of an immigrant from Afghanistan with suspected ties to Al Qaida has disrupted what may have been a dangerous terrorism cell. NBC's Chief Justice Correspondent Pete Williams reports.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Denver, CO resident is the focus of an FBI Terrorism investigation.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(8 years later the Al-Qaida movement is still alive and appears to be growing.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, AP, Yahoo News, Google Maps

EX-CIA Chiefs Warn AG Eric Holder Of International Implications From Interrogation Probe...Should He Listen?

Ex-CIA chiefs seek halt to interrogations probe


(CIA report details litany of abuses)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Former AG Chief Gonzales backs Holder on CIA decision)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Cheney, McCain fuel National Security debate)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Seven former CIA directors asked President Barack Obama on Friday to quash a criminal probe of harsh interrogations of terror suspects during the Bush administration.

The CIA directors, who served both Democratic and Republican Presidents and include three who worked under President George W. Bush, made their request in a letter Friday to the White House.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced last month that he was appointing an independent counsel to investigate possible incidents of abuse by CIA personnel during interrogations that went beyond guidelines imposed by the Bush administration.

The incidents were referred by the CIA inspector general to the US Justice Department during the Bush administration, but Justice officials at the time prosecuted only one case.

"If criminal investigations closed by career prosecutors during one administration can so easily be reopened at the direction of political appointees in the next, declinations of prosecution will be rendered meaningless," wrote the former directors.

Possible indictments?
The Washington Post reported on its Web site Friday night that the Justice Department will focus on only two or three cases for possible indictment.

One of them, said the newspaper, involved an Afghan prisoner who died after being beaten and chained on a cold night to a concrete floor without blankets. The report cited unidentified officials.

The seven former CIA directors included Michael Hayden, Porter Goss and George Tenet, who served under Bush; John Deutch and James Woolsey, who worked for President Bill Clinton; William Webster, who served under President George H.W. Bush; and James Schlesinger, who ran the agency under President Richard Nixon. Tenet also served under Clinton.

They urged Obama to reverse Holder's Aug. 24 decision to reopen the investigation of interrogations following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency is cooperating with the Justice Department review "in part to see that they move as expeditiously as possible."

"The director has stood up for those who followed legal guidance on interrogation, and he will continue to do so," said Gimigliano.

In their letter, the former directors warned that the investigations could discourage CIA officers from doing the kind of aggressive intelligence work needed to counter terrorism and may inhibit foreign governments from working with the United States.

Matthew Miller, Holder's spokesman, said Holder does not believe his probe will affect CIA employees' commitment to their work.

"The attorney general's decision to order a preliminary review into this matter was made in line with his duty to examine the facts and to follow the law. As he has made clear, the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees," Miller said in a written statement.

The former CIA directors also warned that foreign governments may be hesitant to cooperate with the United States if the probe continues.

"As a result of the zeal on the part of some to uncover every action taken in the post-9/11 period, many countries may decide that they can no longer safely share intelligence or cooperate with us on future counter-terrorist operations. They simply cannot rely on our promises of secrecy," the letter says.

The letter said the CIA referred fewer than 20 incidents to Bush administration prosecutors, including the case of CIA contractor David Passaro. Passaro was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to eight years for beating an Afghan detainee in 2007. The detainee later died.

One former CIA official familiar with the cases now under review said that Bush-era Justice lawyers declined to prosecute either because they were not certain they could win conviction or because some of the CIA personnel involved had already been disciplined by the agency. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the cases.

Though not a signatory to the letter, current CIA Director Leon Panetta also opposed Holder's investigation.

"I think the reason I felt the way I did is because I don't believe there's a basis there for any kind of additional action," Panetta said.

"My concern is ... that we don't get trapped by the past. My feeling is ultimately, we're going to be able to move on," he told reporters this week after a speech in Michigan.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Politico, Hardball, Whitehouse.gov, US Dept Of Justice, Wikipedia, Google Sight Seeing, Google Maps

Dick Cheney Strongly Objects To US Justice Dept Interrogation Probe...Here's Why

NY Times----

Dick Cheney's Version

After the C.I.A. inspector general’s report on prisoner interrogation was released last week, former Vice President Dick Cheney settled into his usual seat on Fox News to express his outrage — not at the illegal and immoral behavior laid out in the report, of course, but at the idea that anyone would object to torturing prisoners. He was especially vexed that the Obama administration was beginning an investigation.

In Mr. Cheney’s view, it is not just those who followed orders and stuck to the interrogation rules set down by President George Bush’s Justice Department who should be sheltered from accountability. He said he also had no problem with those who disobeyed their orders and exceeded the guidelines.

It’s easy to understand Mr. Cheney’s aversion to the investigation that Attorney General Eric Holder ordered last week. On Fox, Mr. Cheney said it was hard to imagine it stopping with the interrogators. He’s right.

The government owes Americans a full investigation into the orders to approve torture, abuse and illegal, secret detention, as well as the twisted legal briefs that justified those policies. Congress and the White House also need to look into illegal wiretapping and the practice of sending prisoners to other countries to be tortured.

Mr. Cheney was at the center of each of these insults to this country’s Constitution, its judicial system and its bedrock democratic values. To defend himself, he offers a twisted version of history:

•

He says Mr. Bush’s Justice Department determined that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” ordered by the president were legal under American law and international treaties like the Geneva Conventions.

In reality, those opinions were based on a corrupt and widely discredited legal analysis cooked up after the White House had already decided to use long-banned practices like waterboarding. Mr. Cheney was an architect of the decision to “get tough” with prisoners, as the bureaucrats often say to soften the outrage of this policy.

•

He insists the inspector general’s findings were “completely reviewed” by the Justice Department and that any follow-up investigation would be improper and unnecessary.

In reality, Mr. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, did not appoint an independent investigator after receiving the inspector general’s report, which was completed in 2004. The Justice Department decided there was only one narrow case worth pursuing, involving a civilian contractor — hardly a surprise from a thoroughly politicized department whose top officials set the very rules they were supposed to be judging. Mr. Gonzales’s team did not look into allegations that some interrogators broke those rules. Mr. Cheney may not care about that, but Mr. Holder rightly does.

•

Mr. Cheney claims that waterboarding and other practices widely considered to be torture or abuse “were absolutely essential” in stopping another terrorist attack on the United States after Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Cheney is right when he says detainees who were subject to torture and abuse gave up valuable information. But the men who did the questioning flatly dispute that it was duress that moved them to do so.

Deuce Martinez, the C.I.A. officer who interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, engineer of the 9/11 mass murders, said he used traditional interrogation methods, and not the infliction of pain and panic. And, in an article on the Times Op-Ed page, Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who oversaw the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, another high-ranking terrorist, denounced “the false claims” about harsh interrogations. Mr. Soufan said Mr. Zubaydah talked before he was subjected to waterboarding and other abuse. He also said that “using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions.”

Every week, it seems, new disclosures about this sordid history dribble out. This week, Physicians for Human Rights analyzed what the inspector general’s report said about the involvement of C.I.A. physicians and psychiatrists in the abuse of prisoners. It said they not only monitored torture, like waterboarding, but also kept data on the prisoners’ reaction in ways that “may amount to human experimentation.”

Getting at the truth is not going to be easy. The C.I.A. destroyed evidence — videotapes of interrogations — and is now refusing to release its records of the questioning of its prisoners. It also is asking the courts to keep secret the orders Mr. Bush gave authorizing the interrogations, and the original Justice Department memos concluding that they were legal.

Americans need much more than glimpses of the truth. They should not have to decide whether to believe former interrogators, whom they do not know, or Mr. Cheney, who did not hesitate while in office to mislead them when it suited his political aims.

Sources: NY Times, Huffington Post

Obama Admin Approves Creation Of Elite Interrogation Team To Investigate Anti-Terrorism Programs & CIA Abuse

(Will Bush Admin CIA officials be prosecuted? MSNBC reports.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(U.S. Dept of Justice releases reports on Bush Admin Interrogation Tactics.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

MSNBC, Washington Post----

(House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims the CIA misled her and other lawmakers about its use of waterboarding during the Bush administration. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reports.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports to msnbc's Rachel Maddow on the long-suppressed report by the CIA's inspector general on torture tactics used on terror suspects.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff discusses the potential for another attack on U.S. soil with NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.”)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

President Obama has approved the creation of an elite team of interrogators to question key terrorism suspects, part of a broader effort to revamp U.S. policy on detention and interrogation, senior administration officials said Sunday.

Obama signed off late last week on the unit, named the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Made up of experts from several intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the interrogation unit will be housed at the FBI but will be overseen by the National Security Council -- shifting the center of gravity away from the CIA and giving the White House direct oversight.

Seeking to signal a clean break from the Bush administration, Obama moved to overhaul interrogation and detention guidelines soon after taking office, including the creation of a task force on interrogation and transfer policies. The task force, whose findings will be made public Monday, recommended the new interrogation unit, along with other changes regarding the way prisoners are transferred overseas.

A separate task force on detainees, which will determine the fate of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and future regulations about the duration and location of detentions of suspected terrorists, has not concluded its work.

Under the new guidelines, interrogators must stay within the parameters of the Army Field Manual when questioning suspects. The task force concluded -- unanimously, officials said -- that "the Army Field Manual provides appropriate guidance on interrogation for military interrogators and that no additional or different guidance was necessary for other agencies," according to a three-page summary of the findings. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters freely.

Gray Zone

Using the Army Field Manual means certain techniques in the gray zone between torture and legal questioning -- such as playing loud music or depriving prisoners of sleep -- will not be allowed. Which tactics are acceptable was an issue "looked at thoroughly," one senior official said. Obama had already banned certain severe measures that the Bush administration had permitted, such as waterboarding.

Still, the Obama task force advised that the group develop a "scientific research program for interrogation" to develop new techniques and study existing ones to see whether they work. In essence, the unit would determine a set of best practices on interrogation and share them with other agencies that question prisoners.

The administration is releasing the new guidelines on the day when what it sees as the worst practices of the Bush administration are being given another public airing. New details of prisoner treatment are expected to be included in a long-awaited CIA inspector general's report being unveiled Monday about the spy agency's interrogation program. The report could set off a fresh debate between members of the current administration and the previous one over whether such tactics are necessary to prod detainees into cooperation and, ultimately, keep the country safe.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is also considering whether to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate past interrogation abuses. Obama and White House officials have stated their desire to look ahead on national security; White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said last week that the administration is eager to keep "going forward" and that "a hefty litigation looking backward is not what we believe is in the country's best interest."

But a steady drip of stories about past practices has focused attention on the Bush administration. According to recent reports, the CIA hired the private contracting firm Blackwater USA as part of a program to kill top al-Qaeda operatives.

In addition to the new interrogation unit, the Obama task force recommended that the State Department play a more active role in transferring detainees between countries. When the United States is moving a prisoner to another country, it "may rely on assurances" from the foreign government that the detainee will not be tortured. But the State Department will now be involved in evaluating whether such assurances are sincere, the officials said, and the United States will also seek new ways of monitoring treatment of prisoners in foreign custody. Other recommendations involve prisoner transfers that are classified, the summary said.

Members of the new interrogation unit will have the authority to travel around the world to talk to suspects and will be trained to handle certain high-interest people, such as al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Linguists and cultural and interrogation specialists will be assigned to the group and will have "some division of responsibility" regarding types of detainees, a senior administration official said. Most of the group's members will work there full time, although they will have part-time support from the FBI.

Gleaning Intelligence

Interrogators will not necessarily read detainees their rights before questioning, instead making that decision on a case-by-case basis, officials said. That could affect whether some material can be used in a U.S. court of law. The main purpose of the new unit, however, is to glean intelligence, especially about potential terrorist attacks, the officials said.

"It is not going to, certainly, be automatic in any regard that they are going to be Mirandized," one official said, referring to the practice of reading defendants their rights. "Nor will it be automatic that they are not Mirandized."

The director of the HIG is expected to come from the FBI, and the deputy will be selected from one of the intelligence agencies, such as the CIA. Although past CIA techniques have come under fire in the debate over torture, the agency will continue to play "a very important role," one official said.

The CIA had recommended to the presidential task force that the agency, the FBI and the Defense Department establish a joint interrogation training center so that all agencies understand the rules under which they operate.


Justice Dept. Report Advises Pursuing C.I.A. Abuse Cases

The U.S. Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.’s inspector general but have never been released.

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general’s findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder’s associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

With the release of the details on Monday and the formal advice that at least some cases be reopened, it now seems all but certain that the appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the C.I.A. It is politically awkward, too, for Mr. Holder because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda.

The advice from the Office of Professional Responsibility strengthens Mr. Holder’s hand.

The recommendation to review the closed cases, in effect renewing the inquiries, centers mainly on allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Justice Department report is to be made public after classified information is deleted from it.

The cases represent about half of those that were initially investigated and referred to the Justice Department by the C.I.A.’s inspector general, but were later closed. It is not known which cases might be reopened.

Mr. Holder was said to have reacted with disgust earlier this year when he first read accounts of abusive treatment of detainees in a classified version of the inspector general’s report and other materials.

In examples that have just come to light, the C.I.A. report describes how C.I.A. officers carried out mock executions and threatened at least one prisoner with a gun and a power drill. It is a violation of the federal torture statute to threaten a prisoner with imminent death.

Mr. Holder, who questioned the thoroughness of previous inquiries by the Justice Department, is expected to announce within days his decision on whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct a new investigation; in legal circles, it is believed to be highly likely that he will go forward with a fresh criminal inquiry.

Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said Sunday that the Justice Department recommendation to reopen the cases had not been sent to the intelligence agency. He added: “Decisions on whether or not to pursue action in court were made after careful consideration by career prosecutors at the Justice Department. The C.I.A. itself brought these matters — facts and allegations alike — to the department’s attention.”

The report by the Justice Department’s ethics office has been under preparation for more than five years, and its critique of legal work on interrogations provoked bitter complaints from Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as he was leaving office as the Bush administration’s final attorney general.

The Justice Department’s report, the most important since Mr. Holder took office, was submitted by Mary Patrice Brown, a veteran Washington federal prosecutor picked by Mr. Holder to lead the Office of Professional Responsibility earlier this year after its longtime chief, H. Marshall Jarrett, moved to another job in the Justice Department.

There has never been any public explanation of why the Justice Department decided not to bring charges in nearly two dozen abuse cases known to be referred to a team of federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., and in some instances not even the details of the cases have been made public.

Former government lawyers said that while some detainees died and others suffered serious abuses, prosecutors decided they would be unlikely to prevail because of problems with mishandled evidence and, in some cases, the inability to locate witnesses or even those said to be the victims.

A few of the cases are well known, like that of Manadel al-Jamadi, who died in 2003 in C.I.A. custody at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq after he was first captured by a team of Navy Seals. Prosecutors said he probably received his fatal injuries during his capture, but lawyers for the Seals denied it.

Over the years, some Democratic lawmakers sought more details about the cases and why the Justice Department took no action. They received summaries of the number of cases under scrutiny but few facts about the episodes or the department’s decisions not to prosecute.

The cases do not center on allegations of abuse by C.I.A. officers who conducted the forceful interrogations of high-level Qaeda suspects at secret sites, although it is not out of the question that a new investigation would also examine their conduct.

That could mean a look at the case in which C.I.A. officers threatened one prisoner with a handgun and a power drill if he did not cooperate. The detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was suspected as the master plotter behind the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole.

All civilian employees of the government, including those at the C.I.A., were required to comply with guidelines for interrogations detailed in a series of legal opinions written by the Justice Department. Those opinions, since abandoned by the Obama administration, were the central focus of the Justice Department’s internal inquiry.

It has been known that the Justice Department ethics report had criticized the authors of the legal opinions and, in some cases, would recommend referrals to local bar associations for discipline.

But the internal inquiry also examined how the opinions were carried out and how referrals of possible violations were made — a process that led ethics investigators to find misconduct serious enough to warrant renewed criminal investigation.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Washington Post, NY Times, Huffington Post, Day Life, Google Maps