Facial recognition software generates 28 false positives linking US Congress members to mugshots

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tested Amazon's facial recognition system by scanning all 535 members of the US Congress against 25,000 mugshots public mugshots. The test generated 28 false positives.

	1 of 3
None of the members were in mugshots. The Amazon system called Rekognition is already in use by some police departments.

The ACLU wants a moratorium on the use of Rekognition by police

ACLU said: “An identification — whether accurate or not — could cost people their freedom or even their lives. Congress must take these threats seriously, hit the brakes, and enact a moratorium on law enforcement use of face recognition.”

Amazon blames results on faulty calibration

An Amazon spokesperson said to Verge that the result was due to poor calibration. The ACLU tests were done using Amazon's default setting of 80 percent. However, the spokesperson said that for law enforcement applications at least a 95 percent application should be used as a false ID could have significant consequences.

The Amazon representative said: “80% confidence is an acceptable threshold for photos of hot dogs, chairs, animals, or other social media use cases. It wouldn’t be appropriate for identifying individuals with a reasonable level of certainty. it wouldn’t be appropriate for identifying individuals with a reasonable level of certainty.”

Yet, there is nothing in the setup process that enforces the recommendation meaning that there is nothing to prevent police from using the default setting.

Amazon reported a number of police depts. used Rekognition

The Orlando police in Florida used the system as a pilot project in real-time recognition. The system is sold as part of Amazon's Web Services. It can often cost less than $12 a month for an entire department. Although the Orlando project has ceased, the department continues to use the system.

ACLU is examining Recognition use by an Oregon Sheriff's Department

The latest ACLU experiment is designed in particular to examine Washington County's Sheriff's Department in Oregon's use of Recognition. The department has compared images against a database of as many as 300,000 mug shots.

Jacob Snow who organized the test for the ACLU of Northern California said: “It’s not hypothetical. This is a situation where Rekognition is already being used.”

Test shows signs of racial bias

11 of 28 or about 39 percent of false matches were of people of color and included civil rights leader Rep, John Lewis a Democrat of Georgia and five other members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Only 20 percent of the present Congress are people of color. People of color were obviously identified at a higher rate.

Problems with the use of Rekognition

In practice many facial recognition positives would be confirmed by a human before they led to concrete action such as an arrest. However, Snow said: “Imagine a police officer getting a false match for somebody with a concealed weapon arrest. There’s a real danger if that information is surfaced to the officer during a stop. It’s not hard to imagine it turning violent.”

Snow told Reuters:“Face surveillance is flawed, and it’s biased, and it’s dangerous.”

Nevertheless the outlook of Amazon was positive and touted a range of uses for Rekognition according to a spokeswoman for Amazon Web Services:“We remain excited about how image and video analysis can be a driver for good in the world.” She said the system could be used to help find lost children and preventing crimes. She noted that they system was usually used to narrow the field rather than make final decisions.

Dangerous "Cloud Act" passes as part of huge spending bill in the US

The Cloud Act ( Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) was a last minute addition to the $1.3 trillion federal spending bill. The bill will allow the U.S. government more access to data on Americans for law enforcement purposes.

The bill also allows foreign governments access to U.S. companies for data on their own citizens.

Cloud Act hidden in Omnibus spending bill.

The Cloud Act was added to the Omnibus spending bill on Wednesday evening ahead of the voting that took place on Thursday.

The inclusion ensures there is no separate discussion or voting on the bill. The Omnibus bill passed by 256-167 In the House and 65-23 in the Senate.

Cloud Act criticized by rights groups

Privacy advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) were critical of the bill. After the bill passed the EFF said that "this final, tacked-on piece of legislation will erode privacy protections around the globe".

On March 22, the day of the vote, Senator Rand Paul tweeted: “Congress should reject the CLOUD Act because it fails to protect human rights or Americans’ privacy...gives up their constitutional role, and gives far too much power to the attorney general, the secretary of state, the president and foreign governments." He then noted that Congress could not reject the Act because without any legislative action or review it got placed into the Omnibus bill.

The ACLU's objections

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted a letter on the act on March 12. The letter said that in the opinion of the ACLU the bill “undermines privacy and other human rights, as well as important democratic safeguards,” because it bypassed Congress and the existing stored information procedure and placed authority in the executive branch.

The act also does not exclude the US making deals with governments that have human rights abuses. It also allows foreign governments to directly contact US companies for data requests without any judicial review. In other words the bill has much less oversight that might detect violations of privacy rights.

Part of the ACLU letter reads: "The CLOUD Act undermines the rights of individuals both inside and outside the U.S. The legislation would, among other things: (1) allow foreign governments to wiretap on U.S. soil under standards that do not comply with U.S. law; (2) give the executive branch the power to enter into foreign agreements without Congressional approval, including in cases where countries have a concerning human rights record; (3) allow foreign governments to obtain information that could pertain to individuals in the U.S. without meeting constitutional standards; and (4) possibly facilitate foreign government access to information that is used to commit human rights abuses, like torture."

Big tech firms are big supporters of the bill.

In spite of the fact that in actuality the CLOUD bill detracts from privacy protection a number of big tech companies wrote a joint letter supporting it.

A letter on February 6th written jointly by Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Oath said: “Our companies have long advocated for international agreements and global solutions to protect our customers and Internet users around the world. We have always stressed that dialogue and legislation - not litigation - is the best approach. If enacted, the CLOUD Act would be notable progress to protect consumers’ rights and would reduce conflicts of law.”

Microsoft again posted a letter supporting the bill on March 21, stating that the Cloud Act claiming that the bill: “Creates a modern legal framework for how law enforcement agencies can access data across borders. It’s a strong statute and a good compromise that reflects recent bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, as well as support from the Department of Justice, the White House, the National Association of Attorneys General and a broad cross section of technology companies [...] it gives tech companies like Microsoft the ability to stand up for the privacy rights of our customers around the world. .."

If the bill has all these virtues, why was it not examined by any committee in either House or Senate? It received no hearing.

Behind closed doors, Congressional leaders decided to tack this bill onto a 2,237 page bill that was meant solely to appropriate money for government spending. Legislators were handed the bill at 8:00 p.m. the evening before a morning vote. One can imagine how thoroughly the contents were examined.

No doubt there was considerable lobbying by Big Tech and others to have this happen, to ensure that there was no debate on a separate bill. The way that this bill was passed shows how little the U.S. Congress and Big Tech care about discussing privacy issues. Congress is moved by the interests of big corporations and acts so as to avoid any discussion of the Cloud Act so it can pass without any criticism.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Electronic Frontier Foundation criticizes decision to revoke services to the extreme right The Daily Stormer

Electronic Frontier Foundation(EFF) has reacted strongly against the decision by GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudfare to revoke services to the extreme right The Daily Stormer.

The EFF said that the tactics used to silence the Daily Stormer's hate speech could be used against other groups ultimately such as civil rights groups. The EFF wrote in a blog post: "All fair-minded people must stand against the hateful violence and aggression that seems to be growing across our country. But we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with." Matthew Prince the CEO of Cloudfare said in an email that the EFF concerns were justified:"We wholeheartedly agree with the concerns outlined by the EFF. They reflect the same risks we outlined in our blog." However, Cloudfare revoked services to the Daily Stormer. Google said that it revoked the Daily Stormer registration since it violated its terms of reference. There was a concern that the site was inciting violence. The revocation of its registration came after the Stormer had published an offensive article about Heather Heyer who was run over deliberately and killed by a car as she was protesting against a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Stormer can now not be found by search engines but is visible to users of the Tor browser through an address on the dark web. The Tor browser allows users to browse anonymously but also hosts sites anonymously as well.

Other technology companies also reacted to events in Charlottesville. Twitter suspended accounts related to The Stormer. Discord, a chat service used by gamers, also shut down several servers that white supremacists were using to communicate. Apple and Paypal disabled services to merchants who glorified white nationalism or racism. Reddit and Facebook banned groups they regarded as dedicated to hate speech.

Prince, whose firm Cloudfare protected Storm Trooper sites from denial of service attacks, criticized his own decision: “Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have that power.” Firms do have that power. EFF agrees that all fair-minded people should stand against hateful speech, violence and aggression. However, they argue that the same tactic now being used to silence neo-Nazis and white supremacists could soon be used against others. For example, there are some who are calling for Black Lives Matter to be characterized as a hate group. What if Trump decides that much of the criticism against him is a form of hate speech? There are a number of countries that make it a crime to be critical of the ruler. The EFF notes that we believe that neither government nor commercial enterprises should decide whose speech should be heard and whose should not.

Daily Stormer moved their domain to Google's domain management service. Google not only refused Daily Stormer as a customer, it also placed daiystormer.com on "Client Hold" which means that the owner of the Daily Stormer not only cannot activate the domain or use it but that also it cannot be moved to another site. Whether this is for a limited time or whether Google has effectively taken over ownership of the domain is not clear. I find it surprising that Google has the power to do this.

EFF defended the right of companies to choose what content they allow on their online platforms. Nevertheless what GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudfare did they consider dangerous. Internet intermediaries, the EFF notes, already control much online speech and their acts have far reaching consequences. In this regard, search engines also filter out speech. There is an entire Wikipedia article on Google censorship. The World Socialist Website has accused Google of manipulating search results so that less people are accessing their website..

The Daily Stormer's Russian domain became defunct when Cloudfare withdrew its protection services. CEO Prince said that the last straw came when the team behind the Stormer said that Cloudfare was "one of us". Before this Cloudfare had stuck with the Daily Stormer. Prince said: “I realized there was no way we were going to have that conversation with people calling us Nazis. The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.” Owners of the Stormer tried to set up the Chinese domain www.dailystormer.wang and the Russian www.dailystormer.ru but they were both shut down just hours after being created.

The reaction to Charlottesville has been so strong that even the ACLU is under fire for defending the neo-Nazis right to free speech. ACLU executive director wrote that hateful, bigoted speech must be allowed saying: "Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground. Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it." There was some resentment against the ACLU because it had represented Jason Kessler organizer of Unite the Right when Charlottesville tried to revoke its permit to gather in a downtown Charlottesville park. Kessler's permit was upheld by US District Court Judge Glen Conrad, who noted that the city had left in place permits for counter-protesters to gather near the park.

The censoring of speech means not only that people are being told that they cannot say certain things but also that others cannot hear what they have to say either. Surely any speech which we consider hateful should be heard so that we can argue against it. Censorship of this sort shows a lack of faith in the ability of the people who hear the speech not to be taken in by it. The result of such censorship is to drive groups that peddle such hate speech underground. If gives them further evidence that their ideas are right because the established order does everything in its power to stop those ideas even from being heard. It may even help enlist more people extremely dissatisfied with the status quo.

Connecticul bill would allow law enforcement personnel to use lethally armed drones

A bill in the U.S. state of Connecticut that would permit law enforcement personnel to use lethally-armed aerial drones passed through the Judiciary Committee and will now go to the state House of Representatives for a full vote.

If passed Connecticut would become the first U.S. state to allow police to use armed drones. Originally the bill banned the use of deadly weapons on drones entirely before amending it to allow police to use them. Teenager, Austin Haughwout, of Clinton Connecticut, put on YouTube videos of drones equipped with flamethrowers and a handgun. One of his videos had more than 3.8 million views. The Federal Aviation Administration announced that it was going to investigate Haughwout for any possible violations. The appended You Tube video reports on Haughwout's drone.

North Dakota has already passed legislation that will allow law enforcement agencies to use armed drones but only using less than lethal weapons such as tear gas. There was concern that the law might be used against pipeline demonstrations.

David Mcguire, executive director of the Connecticut American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said: “This was originally a good bill to protect communities from unwarranted police drone surveillance and prevent police from weaponizing drones. The ACLU of Connecticut supports protecting people from unwarranted drone surveillance, but opposes the amendment to allow police to equip drones with lethal and “less-lethal” weapons.” McGuire said the state was behind in legislation as at least three departments have already started to use drones for surveillance but there are as yet no oversight rules. Already, 36 states have laws on their books regarding aerial drone use. Others have departments that want to purchase and use drones for search and rescue operations but are awaiting oversight rules. McGuire also said: "We would be setting a dangerous precedent. It is really concerning and outrageous that that's being considered in our state legislature. Lethal force raises this to a level of real heightened concern."

Those in support of the bill say they want to give leeway to law enforcement officers when it comes to handling emergency situations. The Police Officers Standards and Training Council would establish guidelines for use of drones to be approved by the state legislature.

Republican state Senator John Kissel, a co-chair of the Judiciary Committee said: "Obviously this is for very limited circumstances We can certainly envision some incident on some campus or someplace where someone is a rogue shooter or someone was kidnapped and you try to blow out a tire." Five states have already banned anyone from using armed drones and two more have specifically banned police from using them according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The use of armed drones would be just one more step towards the militarization of police forces.

Obama releases official figures of civilian casualties from drone strikes

The Obama administration has finally released figures on the number of civilians killed in non-combat areas including Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia.

The figures exclude Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claims that between 2009 to 2015 airstrikes killed between 64 and 116 civilians in the four countries. This is the first time that the Obama administration has provided official estimates of the death toll from drones. He also issued that an executive order report on drone strikes annually including the number of combatants and non-combatants killed. The order also instructs the government to increase efforts to avoid civilian casualties and acknowledge them when they do occur. Hina Shamsi, the director of the National Security Project for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said that the order was a "positive step but riddled with caveats and weak formulations."

The official numbers are much lower than those estimated by journalists and researchers. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, based in London estimates that at least 325 civilians have been killed in drone strikes outside of war zones by the Obama administration. The New America Foundation estimates are somewhat lower at 247 to 294. Neither estimate included Libya. The estimates are still more than double those of the official statistics. The government insists that the US government is better informed as it has classified information unavailable to outside investigators. The report notes: . "The U.S. Government uses post-strike methodologies that have been refined and honed over the years and that use information that is generally unavailable to non-governmental organizations."

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism actually gives much higher casualty figures than those attributed to it above by Mother Jones.

A Bureau article says of the US official figures:This is a fraction of the 380 to 801 civilian casualty range recorded by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism from reports by local and international journalists, NGO investigators, leaked government documents, court papers and the result of field investigations.

At the same time, the estimates of the total number killed are much less different. The US government total is 2,436 killed, while the Bureau's total is 2,753. The official data has been a long time coming as the White House announced three years ago it would release casualty figures. It comes four months after Obama's counter-terrorism adviser Lisa Monaco promised the data would be released.

The figures do not include those killed under the administration of George Bush who carried out an estimated 58 strikes which were estimated to have killed 174 civilians. The newly released figures are not broken down by year, nor do they provide any detail on controversial strikes. Jamel Jaffer of the ACLU said:“While any disclosure of information about the government’s targeted-killing policies is welcome, the government should be releasing information about every strike—the date of the strike, the location, the numbers of casualties, and the civilian or combatant status of those casualties. Perhaps this kind of information should be released after a short delay, rather than immediately, but it should be released. The public has a right to know who the government is killing—and if the government doesn’t know who it’s killing, the public should know that.”Jennifer Gibson of Reprieve noted that back in 2011 the US administration claimed to have only killed 60 civilians but now its estimates lead one to conclude that it is possible that there have only been four more since then to arrive at the 64 number at the low end of their estimates.

Obama said as the figures were released: “All armed conflict invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.” The statement is similar to that made by John Brennan in June 2011 who said the drone strikes were "exceptionally precise and surgical" and had not killed a single civilian since August 2010.

A Bureau investigation concluded that there had been 213 civilian killed in Pakistan alone during Obama's presidency. An investigation into a drone strike in Yemen revealed that the US hid its responsibility for a strike on a camp that killed 41 civilians many of them children and 5 pregnant women. Often the US has little idea of who was killed in a strike and the dead often remain unidentified. The situation is made worse by the use of signature strikes which target people on the basis of their behavior and double-tap strikes that target those who come to help those hit by an earlier strike. Leaked records from CIA strikes show that not only did they not know who they killed but did not know what group they belonged to. They are listed as "other militants" or "foreign fighters."

According to the figures released between 2,372 and 2,581 militants were killed. An anonymous administration official did admit to reporters that exact figures were difficult to determine since the strikes often took place in "non-permissive environments". In the past, the administration has refused even to acknowledge the drone program existed in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

Newly released documents give more information on CIA torture techniques

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has released 50 documents giving details of its brutal interrogation and torture techniques used on terror suspects after 9/11.

The documents were released in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The CIA used interrogation techniques that President Obama has called "torture" but the CIA refers to either as "expanded interrogation" or "enhanced interrogation techniques." Under "Description of Pressures" are discussed facial slaps, use of diapers, "insects" and "mock burial." Under insects there is the suggestion to use the threat of stinging insects being placed within a confined box with suspects but non-stinging insects would be released. In the "mock burial" the suspect was placed in a cramped confinement box resembling a coffin but the box had hidden air holes to prevent suffocation.

One much redacted communique sent on August 12, 2002, warned employees about using speculative language as to the legality of their activities or making judgement calls about their legality. One CIA official wrote in an email that the interrogation program was a train wreck waiting to happen and he was getting off the train before the crash. A Senate torture investigation in 2014 had made much of the information public earlier.

One document shows that even President Bush showed concern about the processes. A memo dated June 7, 2006, said that Porter Goss then director of the CIA said that Bush "was concerned about the image of a detainee chained to the ceiling, clothed in a diaper and forced to go to the bathroom on themselves". While CIA officers and others acting on behalf of the CIA were warned only to use permissible techniques that included waterboarding and forcing detainees to wear adult diapers for purposes of "humiliation".

The documents also confirm the torture of German citizen Khalid Al-Masri who was mistakenly abducted in Macedonia and then rendered to Afghanistan where he was detained for over four months. He was held even after it had been determined he was innocent. He had been tortured during his internment. Before the Senate torture report, the CIA had denied that the US had any role in the affair. The CIA flew El-Masri out of Afghanistan and released him at night on a desolate road in Albania. Albanian guards found him. They believed he might be a terrorist because of his unkempt condition. He was returned to Germany. El-Masri was so disoriented he thought that the release was a ruse and he would be executed. Jameel Jaffer, ACLU deputy legal director said:"These newly declassified records add new detail to the public record of the CIA's torture program and underscore the cruelty of the methods the agency used in its secret, overseas black sites,"

One portion of the documents deal with Gul Rahman who died from hypothermia at a secret CIA prison in 2002. The family of Rahman is now suing CIA-contracted psychologists James Mitchell and John Jesse who helped design the torture program. The Wikipedia entry on Rahman says: Gul Rahman (died 20 November 2002) was a suspected Afghan militant and torture victim. He died in a secret CIA prison, or black site, located in northern Kabul, Afghanistan and known as the Salt Pit.[1][2] He had been captured October 29, 2002.[3][4]His name was kept secret by the United States for more than seven years although his death was announced. In 2010 the Associated Press reported that before his death he was left half-stripped and chained against a concrete wall on a night when the temperature was close to freezing.[3] The United States government did not notify his family (wife and four daughters) of his death, according to the report.[3]

Another report shows that Zubaydah Abu Zubaydah who was waterboarded 83 times was probably willing to cooperate with his captors according to medical personnel who were involved. Zubaydah said he made up fake terrorist plots in an attempt to make the torture stop. As noted in the Wikipedia entry on Zubaydah he was subject to other torture than waterboarding and lost an eye while in custody:During the time in CIA custody Zubaydah was extensively interrogated; he was water-boarded 83 times[2] and subjected to numerous other torture techniques including forced nudity, sleep deprivation, confinement in small dark boxes, deprivation of solid food, stress positions, and physical assaults. While in CIA custody, Zubaydah lost his left eye.[3] Videotapes of some of Zubaydah's interrogations are amongst those destroyed by the CIA in 2005.[4][5][6][7]

Zubaydah was arrested in 2002 and is still being held in Guantanamo. CIA interrogators apparently apologized to him as they found out he was not a senior figure in Al-Qaeda as they thought but probably a minor "fixer" whose role was to arrange transportation to training camps for militants in Pakistan.

At a military hearing in Guantanamo Zubaydah said that the interrogators said that they were sorry they made a big mistake. He said that during custody he was beaten, prevented from using the bathroom for up to 36 hours. He testified: “They didn’t care that I almost died from these injuries. Doctors told me that I nearly died four times.” His case is mentioned in the accompanying video. Tapes of interrogation videos have been destroyed.

Defending freedom of speech and expressing solidarity with speech

Glenn Greenwald has a long article on the reactions to the attacks on Charlie Hebdo culiminating in the huge march in Paris expressing support for the satirical journal.

Greenwald is a famous American journalist and author, perhaps best known for articles based on documents he received from Edward Snowden. He is a staunch defender of free speech and is opposed to "hate speech" laws that are common in Europe including France but also Canada. He discusses Canada's criminalization of hate speech in this March 2010 article in Salon. Greenwald notes that activists are usually concerned with defending the right to disseminate one's opinions, however distasteful to certain groups or the establishment. Quite often these same activists may be vehemently opposed to the content of what is expressed.

 The ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie: ACLU attorney David Goldberger, caught in the ironic position of being a Jew defending the rights of Nazis against fellow Jews. While the ACLU did win the case, it was a costly victory--30,000 of its members left the organization. And in the end, ironically, the Nazis never did march in Skokie. Of course, Goldberger did not agree with the viewpoint of the Nazis or express any agreement with their ideas in defending them. Yet in the case of the attack on Charlie Hebdo the marchers express solidarity with Charlie Hebdo using the slogan "Je Suis Charlie " (I am Charlie).

As Greenwald put it. But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

 There are many hypocrites among the marchers. Saudi Arabia condemned the attacks but some of Hebdo's cartoons are blasphemous in that they insult the Prophet. In Saudi Arabia this would result in the death sentence: The kingdom's laws treat blasphemy as an instance of apostasy....Sharia says apostasy is a hadd (line-crossing) offence. Sharia prescribes the death penalty for hadd offences.[1] This hardly shows much respect for free speech.

French president Hollande, who was in the march, presides over a country that has hate speech laws that restrict free speech. Indeed, Hebdo's editor-in-chief Philippe Val was charged with insulting a group of people because of their religion when the weekly published satirical cartoons in a 2006 issue. The charge was not successful with the court ruling that Muslims as a whole were not insulted but just terrorists or fundamentalists. In some cases however the charges have stuck with convictions for anti-Semitic and also anti-Muslim speech. Perhaps the most famous convictions are those of the popular French actress Brigit Bardot, who in 2008 was convicted for the fifth time under the hate laws for parts of a letter sent to the government complaining about the Muslim festival of Eid-al-Kibir.

Many of the officials represented in the march of solidarity come from countries that have hate speech laws and in which political correctness is the polite norm of discourse. Yet here they all are supporting not just the right of Charlie Hebdo to print the cartoons but suggesting there should be more to show those opposed that we support this sort of thing. But Hebdo's cartoons are often bigoted and sometimes even revolting.

 This cartoon represents Boko Haram sex slaves as welfare queens. The caption says that they are angry and the bubble: "Don't touch our child benefits". Many make fun of Muslims in general. Greenwald himself pulls off a bit of satire by publishing a number of anti-Jewish cartoons or cartoons that show the divergence between cartoons that have Muslims as their target and those with Israel as their target as this one.

Another article quite critical of the magazine and of the reaction to the attack can be found here. The author is Oliver Cryan who worked at Charlie Hebdo from 1992 to 2001. He walked out because of the dictatorial actions and corrupt promotion practices as he saw them of his boss, Philippe Val, the former editor. Historically, the Hebdo cartoons had many different targets often with a strong leftist slant. However, after 9/11 Cryan claims many in the magazine concentrated on Muslim fundamentalism and making fun of Arabs and Islam. He gives graphic examples of cartoons. Here is one cartoon. Cryan remarks caustically: From what psychological depths did you drag up the nerve to “laugh” at a cartoon representing veiled women baring their buttocks as they bow in prayer towards “Mecca-relle” [a pun onmaquerelle, the madam of a brothel - trans.]? This pathetic stream of crap isn’t even shameful; its stupidity embarrasses you, even before it reveals your state of mind, your vision of the world.

 Here is another cartoon. The captions read: “You’re sure that Mohammed had sex with a pig’s head?” “I can’t afford to pay a nine-year-old prostitute, dude!” This cartoon of course is also poking fun at the film-maker no doubt a take off on the film The Innocence of Muslims I expect.

 To demonstrate the depth of their hypocrisy, many of the European officials left the march to go back home and press not for more free speech but for internet censorship and more power for spies.

US Senators considering secret court to rule on additions to kill list

The idea is that a secret court would consider evidence that a suspect should be on a targeted killing list and hence could be attacked by a drone. The court would issue what might be called a "death warrant".

The secret drone court would be modeled on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that was created in 1978. This court approves national security surveillance on US soil. Earlier these decisions had been the prerogative of the president. The court has almost never rejected requests for surveillance warrants although at times they have modified them. The court has also complained at times that evidence presented to the court was not well verified. George Bush carried out surveillance without bothering to go to the court on a number of occasions..

The suggestion of such a court is obviously an attempt to establish some type of legal legitimacy for the drone program by providing judicial oversight that could then be touted as due process. As of now, the due process is simply the operation of the hidden group that advises the president on who should be added to the kill list. The president makes the ultimate decision. Usually, due process is understood as the accused being charged and brought before a court with legal representation, where he or she can know the charges and the evidence against him or her and have his lawyer question that evidence. Such a model does not fit with the prevalent view of the US administration which considers the globe a battlefield between the US and Al Qaeda. Suspected terrorists are not criminals accused of a crime but unprivileged combatants in a battle. Given this conceptualisation of the status of the suspected terrorist due process, as understood in charges against cirminals, does not really enter into the situation. The stark contradiction between the legal framework of the war on terror and normal legal processes should be emphasized more.

People are rightly horrified at the idea that the President,in effect, becomes judge, jury, and executioner. The processes by which the decision to kill are made have no input from the accused and involve no formal charges, simply an assessment that the suspect is an imminent threat to the US, where "imminent" could mean as little as that the person is thought to be planning attacks against the US or its forces. No one from outside the closed system is allowed input into the process.

The situation is little changed if a secret court were to be involved. The evidence presented would be from those who want a suspect declared a legitimate target. No one is present to argue against that evidence except the judge. The court would end up being for the most part a rubber stamp for administrations requests. If there was some resistance or if the process seemed to slow and cumbersome, the administration would probably simply go ahead on its own, as happened with the FISA court under Bush. However, in politics perception is probably at least 80% of reality so the court idea could come to fruition.

Robert M Chesney a law professor at the University of Texas said:“We’ve gone from people scoffing at this to it becoming a fit subject for polite conversation." Chesney said court approval for adding names to a kill list is not beyond the realm of political possibility, at least for US citizens. Chesney noted further:“People in Washington need to wake up and realize the legal foundations are crumbling by the day,”

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California and chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, promised to review proposals to establish a secret court. She was supported by Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine. King said:“Having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country." His remarks suggest the conventional idea of due process, which is never going to have a place with respect to terror suspects unless the war conceptualisation is changed to a view of the terrorist as a criminal.

Brennan disclosed that the Obama administration had actually held talks internally about the feasibility of such a court. Brennan said:“I think it’s certainly worthy of discussion. What’s that appropriate balance between the executive, legislative and judicial branch responsibilities in this area?”

If such a court were to be formed its jurisdiction would likely be limited to approving names for a kill list rather than approving drone strikes. Many believe though that extending the court's review to foreign suspects would infringe on the role of the president as commander in chief. Senator King felt that the court would be constitutional only if limited to ruling on names of American suspects to be placed on the kill list. Apparently, there is concern about judicial oversight only if US citizens are involved.

Of course all this does nothing to dampen concerns about civilian deaths in the strikes, how decisions are made on targeting foreign suspects, or about public disclosure about the strike rules and procedures. As William Banks, a national security law expert at Syracuse University put it:“In terms of the politics and the optics, aren’t you in the same position that you are now? It’s still secret. The target wouldn’t be represented. It’s a mechanism that wouldn’t satisfy critics or advance the due process cause much.”

Hina Shamsi of the ACLU's national security project said that the drone court would actually represent a step backward. A better approach would be extradition and criminal prosecution of suspected terrorists. However this misses the point. This is conceptually a war. In a war you do not charge your opponent with a crime. If you apprehend an opponent he or she is held in effect as a prisoner until hostilities end. Of course in the war on terror, hostilities never end and so the logical extension of that is indefinite confinement without charge as happens in Guantanamo, for the most part.

Shamsi continues: “I strongly agree that judicial review is crucial. But judicial review in a new secret court is both unnecessary and un-American.”But FISA does exactly the same type of thing and has been in place since 1978. In the war on terror, secrecy is as American as apple pie.

UN to investigate legality of drone strikes and civilian casualties

The UN will launch a formal investigation into the legality of drone strikes and also of the casualties that result from them.

The announcement came as there is a report that the latest US drone strike in Yemen is claimed to have mistakenly killed two children. Ben Emmerson, the UN's special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism said at a press conference in London that he will lead a group of international specialists who will examine drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan by the CIA and Pentagon. However, the group will also examine drone use by UK and US forces in Afghanistan, as well as Israel's use of drones against Palestinians.

The senior UK lawyer will work with international criminal lawyers, a senior Pakistani judge, and a leading UK forensic pathologist as well as other experts. A serving judge-advocate with the US military will be "assisting the inquiry in his personal capacity." More about the members of the team can be found at the end of this article.

Emmerson told reporters at the new conference:

’Those states using this technology and those on whose territory it is used are under an international law obligation to establish effective independent and impartial investigations into any drone attack in which it is plausibly alleged that civilian casualties were sustained.’

Neither the US nor others have carried out such investigations so the UN is doing so as a last resort. The UK Minister of Defence is already said to be co-operating with the investigation. The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice has indicated that Washington "has not ruled out full co-operation". We shall see. The US has refused so far even to admit officially that any such program exists.

Back in May 2010, Philip Alston had already presented to the UN a detailed report on the legal questions of targeted killing. Most of the recommendations he suggests have not been carried out by the Obama administration nor anyone else.

The UN Human Rights Council is taking action after a number of nations including, Russia, China, and Pakistan requested action be taken on covert drone strikes. Emmerson said:

‘It’s a response to the fact that there’s international concern rising exponentially, surrounding the issue of remote targeted killings through the use of unmanned vehicles.’

The group is expected to make recommendations to the UN general assembly this fall. The team will also recommend further UN action should it be justified by the findings of the inquiry. Of course nothing will get through the UN security council unless the US approves it, so there will not be any teeth in what the UN says or does. If there are any UN resolutions condemning the attacks, they will come from the General Council. Many countries ignores those resolutions since they are interpreted as advisory and consdiered non-binding, whenever they demand something a country does not want to do.

A particular area the inquiry may examine is the alleged practice of the CIA of deliberately targeting rescuers and even funeral goers in Pakistan strikes, a practice revealed in an investigation by the Bureau for the SundayTimes. In October 2012, Emmerson said:

‘The Bureau has alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns [UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killing] … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.’

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the inquiry and requested that the US cooperate with and aid the invetigators. A spokesperson noted:

‘Whether it does or not will show whether it holds itself to the same obligation to co-operate with UN human rights investigations that it urges on other countries”

The Obama administration has rejected requests from the ACLU for information on its targeted killing programs or the basis for the legality of its drone attacks. The ACLU made a Freedom of Information Act request two years ago on January 13, 2010. Two years later having gone to court as well, the group still has not been able to get the information.

The Obama administration will have to decide whether to cooperate with the UN investigation. Perhaps it will in order to try and influence the investigation but on the other hand it may decide just to take a hard line as it has so far all along about releasing any information except what could be used for propaganda purposes.

Officially U.S. government does not admit that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone attack!

The New York Times and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) have been seeking to have the U.S. government release information about the (alleged!) program of targeted killings using drones. The suit has been ongoing since June 2011 and the U.S. government has repeatedly taken the position that to even affirm or deny the existence of the program would endanger national security.

This is the official position even though U.S. officials and the president have repeatedly spoken about the program indicating how successful it has been and how few civilian casualties there are.Obama even boasted about killing the Anwar al-Awlaki a U.S. citizne in Yemen. There was even a long article in the New York Times based no doubt on information deliberately leaked to paint a mostly positive portrait of the president and his kill list.

Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone attack in Yemen on Sept. 30 2011. Of the killing Obama boasted:: "The death of Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Furthermore this success is a tribute to our intelligence community …"" Even though Obama said this apparently it does not imply that there even is a drone program or that Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone.. Apparently the government cannot even acknowledge what the president clearly said.

This idiocy has a rational purpose. The U.S. government can release classified information that they believe will help them politically while denying critics any information that might be disadvantageous politically. However the U.S. government does admit that it was responsible for the killing of Osama bin Laden! For more see this article.. The entire Motion For Summary Judgment presented by the U.S. government can be found here.

Drone Strikes: Government lawyers hold that even existence or non-existence of strikes should not be revealed

The U.S.government which itself has now admitted, defended, and praised the drone program has asked a federal court to reject ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) demands that the government release information on drone attacks. U.S. government lawyers filed a brief that says in part:“Whether or not the CIA has the authority to be, or is in fact, directly involved in targeted lethal operations remains classified"

Logically it would seem that to refuse either to affirm or deny the existence of the program is ludicrous given that there is a constant flow of information about the attacks. The situation is so ludicrous that even the ludicrous main stream press has on the whole given up on reporting suspected U.S. drone strikes by simply describing them as U.S. or CIA drone strikes. But being illogical has a rational purpose and that is to keep information about the drone strikes from the populace while leaking out any information that might be found politically positive. Much of the leaked information may be misinformation as well since the populace cannot gain access to genuine information since it is classified.

The ACLU together with the New York Times has requested documents that explain the legal basis for the raids and killing of U.S. citizens. The U.S. government wants a summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuits. The government brief warns:“Even to describe the numbers and details of most of these documents would reveal information that could damage the government’s counter terrorism efforts,” The ACLU's Jamee Jafeer countered:“Senior officials have discussed it, both on the record and off. They have taken credit for its putative successes, professed it to be legal and dismissed concerns about civilian casualties,”

While the government brief said that it realized that there was public concern about the details it had to take into consideration the need to keep information classified. If there is so much concern about releasing classified information about the program why are top officials such as Obama, Brennan, and Panetta constantly releasing information?

The UN has also been asking the same sorts of questions as the ACLU and has even suggested that some attacks may involve war crimes. However, the Obama administration has been accountable in the only way it knows how by selectively setting out purported data about the strikes that is meant to serve their own interest. For more see this article.

CIA and U.S. government still neither affirm or deny existence of drone program

Even though everyone knows that there are drone attacks by the CIA in Pakistan and Yemen among other locations targeting suspected terrorists the official position of the CIA is that they neither confirm or deny it. Obama has bragged about killing terrorist leaders in Pakistan and Yemen. Panetta has defended the program and called it successful. Yet the official CIA line does not even admit the program exists.

Given that everyone knows the program exists and the president and national defense chief have specifically talked about the program it seems a bit asinine to deny that it exists. However the CIA position has a purpose and that is to keep any details hidden from the public while U.S. officials reveal whatever aspects of the program they think will be politically advantageous to them.

The ACLU has been for some time trying to obtain information on the drone program through the Freedom of Information Act. There will be a hearing on the matter on Sept. 20. Twenty six members of the U.S. Congress have asked Obama to consider the consequences of the program and explain its necessity. However, the ACLU has been trying to get information from 2010. The ACLU asked to see the legal basis for the attacks, restrictions on those targeted, civilian casualties, geographic limits to attacks, and the number of attacks carried out and other features of the program.

A federal judge sided with the CIA ruling that to confirm or deny the existence of the program and records would expose national security secrets. So there you have it. Even to admit the existence of the program would expose national security secrets. However Obama can reveal anything about the program that he finds useful politically and Leon Panetta can do likewise. This is what is known as accountability. For more see this article.

ACLU sues Obama administration under Freedom of Information Act

The ACLU is suing under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The group seeks information on the guidelines Obama officials use in deciding on targets to be killed in drone attacks.

The request “seeks to find out when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the United States ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killing”. The administration has refused to provide any information on these issues. The CIA is insisting to federal courts that it is unable even to confirm or deny the existence of the drone program.The CIA argues that revealing any of that information would endanger national security. This is such astonishing nonsense that it is almost beyond belief.

Consider this! A number of Obama administration officials have publicly not only recognised the existence of the program but praised it as being effective. Obama recently said:“we are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” and and the program is “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on.” Former CIA Director and current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also spoke about the program noting that the drone program has “been very effective at undermining al Qaeda and their ability to plan those kinds of attacks.” Finally Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech tried to justify the program in legal terms.Should not all these officials be prosecuted for endangering the national security of the U.S. by revealing all this about a drone attack program that cannot be admitted even to exist?

Obama administration officials are free to say whatever they like about the program for their own political ends. But when the public seeks basic information it cannot be revealed for reasons of national security. For much more see the full article in Salon.

United States: No-fly list more than doubled in the last year

    The secret U.S. government no-fly list of people banned from flying has jumped from 10,000 to 21,000 according to the Terrorist Screening Center that is responsible for maintaining the list. People on the list are regarded as actual or suspected terrorists. The list includes persons such as Maher Arar who was cleared of any terrorist connections ages ago and awarded 10 million dollars in damages for his treatment in Syrian jails where he was tortured after being rendered there by the U.S.
   The threshold for being put on the list has been lowered. Formerly one had to be considered a threat to aviation but now anyone who is considered a threat to domestic or international security can be put on the list. About 500 U.S. nationals are on the list. The ACLU says: "It's a secret list, and the government puts people on it without any explanation. Citizens have been stranded abroad."
    However, an official claimed that the list was under continuous review to ascertain that the right people are on it and that those who should not be on the list are removed. Many terror suspects travel under names that may be quite common so that people with the same name often find themselves delayed or denied the right to board a plane. It may be difficult if not impossible to have ones name removed from the list. For more see this article.

ACLU: Obama creating immunity doctrine for torturers

Although Obama started out supposedly banning torture he did not ban rendition and at every turn he seems now to be preventing an action to hold torturers accountable. He is using precisely the same rationale as Bush namely national security issues. His whole doctrine of holding people accountable and being transparent is in shambles. Of course he has also prevented photos of torture being released as well. Note too that he is going ahead with military tribunals which do not meet adequate legal standards in the opinion of many legal scholars.


ACLU: Obama creating ‘a sweeping immunity doctrine for torturers’

By Sahil Kapur


WASHINGTON -- The nation's pre-eminent civil rights organization ACLU on Thursday slammed President Obama for shielding the Bush administration from accountability for its "dangerous torture policy," and insisted that this "lack of transparency" severely threatens the future of constitutional liberty in the United States.

"The Bush administration constructed a legal framework for torture," Jameel Jaffer, Director of ACLU's National Security Project, said in a conference call with reporters. "Now the Obama administration is constructing a legal framework for impunity."

While he credited Obama for having disavowed torture under his watch, Jaffer said that "on every front, the administration is actively obstructing accountability by shielding Bush officials from civil liability, criminal investigation and even public scrutiny for their role in authorizing torture."

"It's the last month of 2009, and not a single torture victim has had his day in court," said ACLU Attorney Ben Wizner. "Not a single court in a torture case has ruled on the legality of the Bush administration’s torture policies."

In response to a question from Raw Story, Jaffer said refusing to prosecute past acts of torture sets "an extremely dangerous precedent" in the legal system. "Torture victims can be denied their day in court solely based on assertions made by their torturers," he said.


"We still don't have a definitive binding determination that what went on in the last eight years was illegal," he added. "And without that kind of determination, it will be all too easy for an unscrupulous lawyer in an unscrupulous future administration to write another memo saying that there is no legal prohibition against monstrous conduct."

"Torture is not an issue where there should be one person on both sides of the table on Hardball -- torture is universally prescribed as clearly illegal."

The Obama administration has evaded transparency by "seeking to cover up details of enhanced interrogation programs," said Alex Abdo, ACLU's attorney for torture FOIA lawsuits, citing the president's refusal to release photos, memos and documentation that detail instances of torture -- largely under the pre-text of state secrets.

"The effect of the Obama administration's argument across these civil cases is the creation of a sweeping immunity doctrine for torturers," said Abdo, citing as one example Obama's defense of torture memo author John Yoo.

"The government can engage in torture, declare it a state secret or a matter of national security, and by virtue of that declaration avoid any accountability for conduct that the entire world and the United States have always recognized as illegal in all instances," he said.

"We're frustrated by the growing gap between Obama administration's rhetoric on accountability and the reality," Jaffer said.

"I think there is an obvious connection between what the president is saying about the commitment we've got to human rights and the work we're doing here inside the United States to hold people accountable for the violations of both domestic and international law," Jaffer said, referring to Obama's acceptance of the Nobel Prize today.

Last week, ACLU Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson told Raw Story that Obama's support for key Patriot Act provisions is "a major travesty."