Iran claims to have exposed a CIA-run cyber espionage network

(June 18) Iran claimed on Monday that it had exposed a large cyber espionage network that it alleges was run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and several US spies had been arrested in several countries as a result of the discovery.

US-Iran tension are growing

The US has accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last Thursday. The US has sent a carrier strike group and bombers to the area and announced plans to deploy 1,500 troops to the Middle East. After the tanker attacks the US is sending another 1,000 troops as a recent Guardian article notes: "The US is sending an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East in response to “hostile behavior by Iranian forces and their proxy groups”, Patrick Shanahan, the acting defence secretary, announced on Monday." This is a recipe for more conflict. No doubt hawks within the Trump administration such as Bolton are hoping for a war with Iran after more clashes. Iran denies having any role in the tanker attacks. Some analysts doubt US claims of Iran's responsibility for the tanker attacks and others even see them as false flag attacks meant to provoke an attack on Iran.

Last year Trump withdrew the United States from a 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran. Trump is also ratcheting up sanctions seeking to end Iran’s international sales of crude oil and strangle its economy. The US is also trying to bully other countries into following US sanctions against Iran.

Iran uncovers CIA cyber espionage network

Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council said: “One of the most complicated CIA cyber espionage networks that had an important role in the CIA’s operations in different countries was exposed by the Iranian intelligence agencies a while ago and was dismantled. We shared the information about the exposed network with our allies that led to the identification and arrest of CIA intelligence agents.” Shamkhani did not specifiy how many CIA agents were arrested nor in what countries. He also claimed that some information about events had been released by the US so it is was fitting that Iran publish information to make the public aware of what had happened.

This is not the first time US has launched cyber attacks on Iran

As an Ars Technica article from February of 2016 reported more than just the Stuxnet attack on Iran's centrifuges was planned: "The Stuxnet computer worm that destroyed centrifuges inside Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment site was only one element of a much larger US-prepared cyberattack plan that targeted Iran's air defenses, communications systems, and key parts of its power grid, according to articles published Tuesday. The contingency plan, known internally as Nitro Zeus, was intended to be carried out in the event that diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear development program failed and the US was pulled into a war between Iran and Israel, according to an article published by The New York Times. At its height, planning for the program involved thousands of US military and intelligence personnel, tens of millions of dollars in expenditures, and the placing of electronic implants in Iranian computer networks to ensure the operation targeting critical infrastructure would work at a moment's notice."

As the New York Times noted recently the US has implanted malware in Russia's power grid. No doubt they have done the same in Iran.

Previously published in the Digital Journal.

CIA claims Huawei gets funding from Chinese government agencies

The UK newspaper, The Times citing a UK source says that the US Central Intelligence Agency told UK intelligence services Huawei gets funds from the People's Liberation Army, China's National Security Commission and a 3rd intelligence branch.

+ Add Image

Other Five Eyes nations were also informed

The Five Eyes intelligence group is described by WIkileaks as follows: "The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence.[1][2][3]The origins of the FVEY can be traced back to the post–World War II period, when the Atlantic Charter was issued by the Allies to lay out their goals for a post-war world. During the course of the Cold War, the ECHELON surveillance system was initially developed by the FVEY to monitor the communications of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, although it is now used to monitor billions of private communications worldwide.[4][5]"

Recent documents of the FVEY show that the group are intentionally spying on each other's citizens and sharing the information with each other. This is done to circumvent restrictive regulations or bans on domestic spying. So those restrictions become null and void and the arrangement in effect allows members to freely spy on their own citizens. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the advocacy group Liberty claims that the arrangement allows member states to subcontract their dirty work. Edward Snowden revealed a considerable amount about the way FVEY works. He ended up having to flee to Russia to avoid prosecution. Snowden described FVEY as a supra-national intelligence organisation that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries. Indeed part of its function is to circumvent them.

The CIA is said to have “awarded a strong but not iron-cast classification of certainty” to its findings.

The US actions against Huawei

The US has urged other countries and the EU as a whole to ban Huawei from 5G networks. But as a recent article notes they have never provided any concrete evidence. Now the US obviously providing "evidence" from their own intelligence presumably to other intelligence agencies such as those in the UK. The Chinese response seems reasonable in that there has been no concrete significant public evidence produced. The US is introducing evidence claims through intelligence reports which the public has no means of confirming. The US has even threatened to withhold intelligence from those countries that use Huawei 5G equipment. Australia one of the five eyes has agreed with the US banning government use of Huawei equipment. However, so far the UK has not acted to ban Huawei.

The EU does want to increase security around 5G networks, but it hasn’t proposed a ban on Huawei equipment. However, as a recent Digital Journal article reports the UK has identified further risks from Huawei.

Huawei reactions

As well as denying the US government charges, China has filed a suit at the federal level. The US also ordered the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver Canada. She is subject to an extradition process to face charges of sanctions violations laid in the US. She has sued the Canadian government over her arrest as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

Unlike the US, Huawei's Meng Wanzhou shows little fear of US based Apple's products. When arrested she had a MacBook, an iPhone, and an iPad. On the latest revelations Huawei said it “did not comment on unsubstantiated allegations backed up by zero evidence from anonymous sources.”

Huawei has recently offered Germany a "no-spy agreement" and urged the Chinese government to do so also as reported in a recent Digital Journal article. A March Digital journal article discusses Huawei as a security risk and measures that can be used to lessen security risks.

Equipment from countries other than China could be security risks

Other countries than China notable the United States and no doubt many others also produce equipment that are subject to security risks some even worse than spying. Consider the Iran Stuxnet virus case. which not only gathered information but causing centrifuges to tear themselves apart. If Iran had done something similar to the US it would probably have been attacked and the attack seen as an act of war. The the attack was probably carried out by the Equation Group described in part by Wikipedia as follows: "The Equation Group, classified as an advanced persistent threat, is a highly sophisticated threat actor suspected of being tied to the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) unit of the United States National Security Agency (NSA).[1][2][3] Kaspersky Labs describes them as one of the most sophisticated cyber attack groups in the world and "the most advanced ... we have seen", operating alongside but always from a position of superiority with the creators of Stuxnet and Flame.[4][5] Most of their targets have been in Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Syria, and Mali.[5]"

Kaspersky has uncovered hundreds of examples of their malicious software no doubt one of the reasons the US has attacked Kaspersky alongside the fact it has links to Russia. The US bans the government and its agencies from using Kaspersky security software which is highly rated. Not everyone agrees that it was a good idea to ban Kaspersky from the US government and agencies. A Wired article notes: "Kaspersky is an industry leader on endpoint security and cyber threat intelligence. Security researchers often rely on the company's high-quality analysis of cyber threat groups, especially those from Russia. Today, the issue is one company, but plenty of technology firms have ties to intelligence services and governments. If this ban moves ahead, it is easy to foresee its use against Chinese, French, or Israeli firms. If such bans come, these firms’ national governments will be sure to make US tech firms share the pain, with retributive discrimination against US products."

One can see the US acting against Chinese firms as it is with Huawei but I imagine Israel has little to worry about. The US could end up not sharing in cutting edge advances of technology as Huawei is at the forefront of developing 5G technology. The US may find itself falling behind in part because of its own security policies.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

CIA could have been involved in attack on Madrid North Korean embassy

Back on February 22, 10 assailants with fake weapons, are reported to have broken into the North Korean embassy in Madrid. They tied up diplomatic workers and placed plastic bags over their head before beating and questioning them.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

Spanish police link attack to the US CIA

A North Korean embassy worker was able to get through a window on the second story of the embassy and call for help. The assailants fled at high speeds in two stolen vehicles. Spanish newspaper El Pais reports at least two of the attackers have been identified as having links to the CIA. However, the CIA denies any involvement. With the US trying to improve relations with North Korea after 70 years of hostility allegations of CIA involvement could be explosive and damage relations s further.

The attack came just days before US president Trump and Kim Jong-un the North Korean leader met in Hanoi for a second summit on denuclearization and peace in the two Koreas. Kim Hyok-choi a former ambassador to Spain now serves as a key North Korean envoy in talks with the United States.

BBC coverage

There has been relatively little coverage of the event in the mainstream press, but the BBC and Yahoo are among the exceptions. The BBC version of events is as follows:Local media reports that on the afternoon of 22 February, a group of 10 people broke into North Korea's embassy, north-west of the Spanish capital's centre. According to El Confidencial (in Spanish), the assailants gagged and tied up staff members, and took a number of computers. One woman managed to get free, escaping through a second floor window and screaming for help. Concerned neighbours quickly called the police. But when officers arrived they were greeted by an Asian man at the door who reassured them that all was well and nothing had happened. Minutes later, the man and the other attackers sped away from the embassy at full speed in two North Korean diplomatic vehicles.

However, the police went inside and found eight people with bags tied over their heads. They had been bound for four hours, and two needed medical help as a result of the assault. The two stolen cars were found abandoned nearby shortly afterwards.

Who was behind the attack?

Spanish authorities reject the idea that it was common criminals who launched the raid. Sources that claimed to be close to the investigation told the newspaper El Pais that the operation was well planned as if it had been done by a military cell. The attackers knew what they were looking for as they grabbed mobile phones and computers. Both El Pais and another Spanish newspaper reported that Spanish authorities believe US intelligence agencies were behind the attack.

The North Korean victims said the attackers spoke in Korean and could have been from South Korea. El Pais even reported that two of the ten have been identified and are linked with the CIA. The CIA gave no statement to the BBC although other sources say they have denied involvement.

Why would the embassy be attacked?

The former ambassador to Spain Kim Hyok-choi is now a key envoy to the Trump Kim nuclear talks. The attackers may have been seeking information on him. He was expelled form Spain in September of 2017 after North Korea carried out nuclear testing

Kim helped organize the recent summit. In January he traveled to Washington with Kim Yong-choi, Kim Jongun's key aide. However, it is not completely clear why the raid was made. Spanish investigators are saying little and the embassy has not filed any complaint as yet. The Spanish High Court, the Audiencia Hacional will hear the investigation and could order the arrest of any of the identified attackers. It seems the story is just beginning. It remains to be seen if there will be more extensive coverage.

Wikileaks dumps more than 8700 US cyberespionage files

Wikileaks has just released thousands of documents allegedly taken from the CIA Center for Cyber Intelligence that seems to expose details of U.S. cyberespionage program. The release contains more than 8,700 documents and files. If the documents are authentic they could undermine confidence that consumers have in the security of their computers, mobile devices and smart TVs. Wikileaks claims the documents came fron "an isolated, high-security network situated in the CIA Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley Virginia". Wikileaks did not say how the files were removed. The documents cover a host of technical topics including a discussion of how to compromise smart TVs and use them as a surveillance device. As Al Jazeera puts it the CIA can turn your TV into a listening device. It can also bypass popular encryption and may even be able to control your car. There are also details on how the agency sought to subvert U.S. software products and smartphones, which included the Apple iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft Windows. The CIA would not comment on the information dump. Jonathan Liu, a CIA spokesperson said:"We do not comment on the authenticity or content of purported intelligence documents." Wikileaks has a long record of releasing top secret government material. Experts who are beginning to search through the material said that the documents seemed legitimate and that the CIA would be upset by the leak. According to Wikileaks the archive "appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive." If the documents turn out to be genuine they represent another massive breach of security for the U.S. intelligence community. Jake Williams, a security expert with Rendition Infosec said: "There's no question that there's a fire drill going on right now. It wouldn't surprise me that there are people changing careers — and ending careers — as we speak." Williams, who has had experience dealing with government hackers said that the extensive reference to operation security meant that they involved the government, said: "I can't fathom anyone fabricated that amount of operational security concern. It rings true to me. The only people who are having that conversation are people who are engaging in nation-state-level hacking." The data also included digital espionage techniques used by other countries including Russia. Bob Ayers, retired U.S. Intelligence official noted that Wikileaks has promised that it would release more CIA documents. Ayers said: "The damage right now is relatively high level. The potential for really detailed damage will come in the following releases." NSA whistleblower William Binney noted that in the past the NSA, FBI and CIA were used by then-president Nixon during the Watergate Scandal. He noted also that the FBI Counterintllelligence Program (COINTELPR) spied on the anti-war movement during the sixties and also targetted activists such as Martin Luther King. Binney claimed: "They’re trying to start a new Cold War. Why? Because for the military, industrial, intelligence and governmental complex that’s involved here that means trillions of dollars in spending from taxpayers. It means a lot more going into their budgets, a lot more programming and empire building in government. So I think we have a bunch of people in Congress and various places who cannot change." A Guardian article suggests that the latest Wikileaks dump of the CIA hacking tools is looked at in Washington as another blow in the struggle between U.S. and Russian intelligence services with Wikileaks being on Russia's side. Trump has been a critic of the U.S. intelligence agencies. There are signs that the agencies are out to get Trump as suggested in a recent Digital Journal article. During the 2016 presidential campaign Wikileaks dumped nearly 2,000 emails that were damaging to Clinton. In January, U.S. intelligence agencies the CIA, NSA and FBI assessed with "high confidence" that Russian military intelligence stole the data and gave it to Wikileaks. However, Julian Asssange, Wikileaks' founder claims the leaks did not come from Russians. In the press release announcing the latest dump, Wikileaks suggests that the original source was a former U.S. government hacker or contractor. However, Wikileaks usually does not know the sources of its data. The documents were released as "Vault 7 Part 1" and titled "Year Zero". The CIA is estimated to employ more than 5,000 people, and operated more than 1,000 programs in 2016. The documents contain information on CIA malware with titles such as "Assasin" and "Medusa" meant to target smart phones, TVs, and the main operating systems. Wikileaks claims that there is an entire CIA program devoted to hacking data from Apple products. Wikileaks claimed that some of the tools developed by the CIA could be used for such purposes as assassinations which would be almost impossible to detect. The dump is also covered in another recent Digital Journal article.

Obama refuses to declassify torture report

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, along with many human rights and transparency advocates have been pressing President Obama for some time to declassify the unabridged version of the Senate Intelligence Committee torture report.

 

The Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program as it is called is nearly 7,000 pages. The report was approved on December 13, 2012 by a vote of nine to six, with seven Democrats, one Independent and one Republican voting in favor of publication and six Republicans voting against.

Instead of declassifying the report or having it declared an official record of one of the agencies that has a copy, Obama has decided to place the report in his official presidential records. The records will be subject to public requests only after 12 years in 2029 which could then trigger a declassification process. Obama passed up options to declassify large swathes of the document. Far from being open and more transparent about the subject Obama has ensured that the public cannot learn the details of the torture program for more than a decade. A letter to Dianne Feinstein was sent by White House Counsel Neil Eggleston outlining Obama's decision. Eggleston wrote: "I write to notify you that the full Study will be preserved under the Presidential Records Act. The determination that the Study will be preserved under the PRA has no bearing on copies of the Study currently stored at various agencies. ... At this time, we are not pursuing declassification of the full Study."

Feinman reacted by reiterating her belief that the report should be declassified but was pleased that the report would go into Obama's archives and would not be subject to destruction. She also noted that one day it would be available for declassification. Feinstein was chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee that produced the report. The move does prevent incoming president Trump from destroying the document. Given Trump's statements approving torture, he along with a number of Republicans might favor destruction of the report. However, Trump is also at odds with the intelligence community, does not trust them or attend briefings, and is angry at their presentation of evidence of Russian intervention in the U.S. election. Perhaps Trump might actually want to preserve the report, change his tune on torture, and use the report against the intelligence community or as a defense against any attempt to attack him by the intelligence community. However, given his views on torture, Trump appears unlikely to declassify the report as he could if he wished.

An executive summary of the report was released back in 2014, but the Obama administration fought against a Freedom of Information lawsuit that requested release of the full report. The administration argued that it was a congressional record, and not a record of the executive branch. Courts accepted that argument.

The executive summary is about 500 pages but is heavily redacted. The entire report cost about $40 million to prepare. The report shows that the program failed on the whole to produce anything useful and it also shows that the CIA lied about the program. The current chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Senator Richard Burr far from wanting the full report declassified, would like to see the report destroyed.

Burr claims that the report is a Congressional Record not a federal one. He wants all copies to be returned. People in the executive branch are being told not to read it and not to enter it as a federal record. This keeps it away from Freedom Of Information Act Requests. Obama's move prevents Burr from destroying every single copy even if he manages to get them back. The CIA has somehow managed to destroy its only copy of the report, as indicated on the appended video.

Obama has refused to move ahead to declassify the report and the letter indicates there are no attempts at declassification at this time. Perhaps, Obama has a soft spot for incoming president Trump and does not wish to embarrass him by making public information that torture does not work.

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.

Erik Prince, ex-Blackwater head, had dealings in Libya

The U.S. Justice Department is investigating Erick Prince over evidence he used Frontier Services Group, of which he is chair, to sell defense services in Libya. He is also suspected of being involved in a money-laundering deal using the Bank of China.

Erik Prince is perhaps best known as founder and former head of Blackwater Inc., a government services and security company. He was CEO until 2009. Blackwater was sold in 2010. He is currently head of Frontier Resource Group, and chair of Frontier Services Group based in Hong Kong. He lives in Dubai and also Virginia,

From 1997 until 2010 Blackwater won $2 billion in government security contracts. From 2001 to 2010 the CIA awarded up to $600 million in classified contracts to Blackwater and affiliates. It was the largest of the U.S. State Departments' three private security companies and provided 987 guards for embassies and bases abroad. In September of 2007, a convoy of Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians and seriously wounded 20 more. Eventually three guards were convicted of 14 manslaughter charges and one of murder in a U.S. court. When Obama took office in 2008 criticism continued. Prince told Vanity Fair in January 2010: "I put myself and my company at the CIA's disposal for some very risky missions. But when it became politically expedient to do so, someone threw me under the bus."

Prince has denied any knowledge of a federal investigation. There are accusations that Prince used Chinese intelligence connections to open up an account in the Bank of China to finance the sale of self defense services in city which would in effect be used for money laundering on behalf of Libyans.

In January of 2014, Prince went into business with China's largest state-owned investment firm the Citic Group and he founded the Frontier Services Group(FSG) based in Hong Kong. Citic is the largest investor and two board members are Chinese citizens.

The FSG is staffed by many well-qualified U.S. personnel in spite of its ties to China. The firm has strict restrictions upon what sort of services it can offer. FSG is a publicly traded aviation and logistics firm that specializes in shipping in Africa and other places. It also provides high-risk evacuations from conflict zones. Prince himself describes his work with the FSG as "on the side of peace and economic development" and helping Chinese businesses to work safely in Africa. What seems to have happened is that Prince is using his connection with FSG to secretly rebuild his own private CIA and special operations by setting up foreign shell companies that offer paramilitary services. Documents reviewed by the Intercept and interviews with several people familiar with Prince's operations show that he pitched a plan to deploy paramilitary assets to Libya. Currently Libya is under many US and UN restrictions as far as providing such assets are concerned.

When the firm's leadership got wind of what was happening there were objections to his plan: Several FSG colleagues accused him of using his role as chairman to offer Blackwater-like services to foreign governments that could not have been provided by the company, which lacks the capacity, expertise, or even the legal authority to do so.The CEO of FSG is, Gregg Smith, a decorated former U.S. marine. He vehemently denies that the firm has any involvement at all in Prince's projects saying: “FSG has no involvement whatsoever with the provision of — or even offering to provide — defense services in Libya. To the extent that anyone has proposed such services and purported that they were representing FSG, that activity is unauthorized and is not accepted or agreed to by the company.”

One of Prince's close associates described his activity in the most unflattering terms: “He’s a rogue chairman.Erik wants to be a real, no-shit mercenary. He’s off the rails exposing many U.S. citizens to criminal liabilities. Erik hides in the shadows … and uses [FSG] for legitimacy.”FSG's board is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with their chairman and passed a series of resolution restricting his power.

Prince's Libyan operation was code-named Lima. It offered the Libyans a large array of military equipment and services. The vehicles included helicopters, boats and surveillance airplanes and was designed to help stabilize eastern Libya. One person familiar with the plan said it would involve former Australian special operations commandos. However, Prince was unable to find the right power brokers to sell his plans.

By May of 2015, Prince had managed to rebrand himself as chair of a legitimate company the FSG. Without approval from his board, Prince returned to Libya with a repackaged proposal. Rather than a counter-insurgency force, the same group and equipment would serve to reinforce border security. In particular he would take advantage of the concern in Europe of the flow of migrants from Libya. His armed vehicles, helicopters, boats and surveillance planes would be used to stop the flow of refugees from Libya to Europe. Prince told colleagues that he had support from a senior Libyan official. Prince hoped to get support from European officials and pitched the plan in Italy but got only a lukewarm response. He also went to Germany. He then tried to set up a bank account in Macau to launder money from Libya sources. Prince was unable to do so on his own but apparently through connections with Chinese intelligence authorities was able to open an account at the Bank of Canada.

The U.S. authorities are not only concerned about the money-laundering scheme but also U.S. citizens offering military service or technology to Libya must have a license that the services or articles are approved under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation or ITAR. John Baker, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for export controls said “Many of these services and articles are designed to kill people or defend against killing people. To protect U.S. national security and foreign policy as well as that of its allies, the U.S. requires prior authorization.”

The U.S. may decide to clamp down on Prince but then again he no doubt has connections with the CIA. However, so far it looks as if he has not enough important power brokers to enable him to be successful in his plans. He may even find himself losing the chairmanship of the FSG.

US launches special secret drone operation in Syria targeting Islamic State leaders

- A secret targeted killing campaign launched by the CIA and US Special Forces aims at suspected terrorists in Syria. Drones have been flown over Syria and used for strikes. The campaign is separate from the overall offensive against the Islamic State

+ Add Image

Several recent targeted drone strikes have been against senior Islamic State operatives according to officials. One of those killed was actually a British militant who is said to have planned IS use of social media to incite attacks in the United States. An article here claims this strike raises a number of questions about the U.S. program.

The British militant was Junaid Hussain, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike on Raqqa a city in Syria occupied by the Islamic State. He is believed to be an Islamic State recruiter. He is also is credited with helping to radicalize one of the shooters who attacked a cartoon drawing contest in Texas earlier this year. John Reid asks what the position of the UK government is on the targeted killing of a UK citizen. In the U.S. there was considerable discussion about the targeted killing of several Americans. Reid suggests that it is problematic when a government is unable to comment quickly on the targeted killing of one of its citizens by another country. He wonders too, if there has been UK involvement in the new program. Reid questions whether a targeted killing program is really an effective way to fight terrorism or a "martyr-machine that spits fuel onto the fire of anti-western Islamic militancy." Reid suggests the targeted killing program raises other questions for journalists: Does this strike mean that the US thinks enemy hackers, propagandists, and online recruiters are fair game for targeted killings? Or, was the decision to kill Hussain borne out of a self-defense rationale thanks to his identifying Americans as potential targets for attack? What is the level of online recruiting necessary to land an individual on a targeted kill list? The media needs to start asking such follow up questions.

The new attacks are an escalation of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center (CTC) in the war in Syria. Although the CTC has been given an expanded role in identifying and locating senior Islamic State figures, U.S. officials said the strikes are being carried out exclusively by the Joint Special Operations Command(JSOC). No one from the CIA or US Special Operations Command that oversees the JSOC would speak to the press on the new program. Other officials discussed the program only anonymously.

Syria is now a new front in expanding secret operations involving drone strikes. Drone strikes are now returning to Pakistan even though Pakistan troops have launched the anti-terror operation on the ground that the US long demanded. The strikes are continuing in Yemen even though the government authorizing the strikes is in exile in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has also launched a strike in Libya and continues with strikes in Somalia.

The Syria operation represents cooperation between the CIA and the JSOC who have often been seen as in competition or even conflict with each other over their roles in drone warfare. The US military and EU allies operate aircraft from the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan but the US launches drones from bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. The al-Udeid base in Qatar is the Middle East headquarters of JSOC.

There appear to be other drone attacks in Syria. The Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front was attacked when it launched an attack on rebels trained and supported by the US.

Psychiatrists and psychologists have long history of work with the CIA

A new report reveals that the American Psychological Association(APA) collaborated in secret with the G.W. Bush administration to help support the legal and ethical justification for the torture of prisoners in the war on terror after the 9/11 attacks.

+ Add Image

The report discussed in a New York Times article shows the APA secretly supported and cooperated with the G.W. Bush administration to provide both legal and ethical justification for torture of prisoners captured in the war on terror initiated after the 9/11 attacks.

The report uses newly disclosed emails that it argues show that the group acted to keep psychologists involved in the interrogation program just when the Bush administration was trying to salvage the program after the release back in 2004 of photos showing extensive abuse of prisoners by US military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The use of psychologists and psychiatrists by the military has a long history often involving association with universities as well.

A military staff study in May of 1951 recommended that “a major contract be awarded to a recognized educational institution to provide for the formation of an Army Human Resources Research Office, which would have primary responsibility for conducting research in the areas of training methods, motivation and morale, and psychological warfare” (Department of the Army, 1951). A contract was signed with George Washington University on July 31, 1951 with Dr. Meredith Crawford assuming the directorship of HumRRO or the Army's Human Resources Research Organization. As the Wikipedia entry on the APA notes: A year after the establishment of Human Resource Research Organization by the U.S. military, CIA began funding numerous psychologists (and other scientists) in the development of psychological warfare methods under the supervision of APA treasurer Meredith Crawford. Donald O. Hebb, the APA president in 1960 who was awarded the APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1961, defended the torture of research subjects, arguing that what was being studied was other nations' methods of brainwashing.

Not only psychologists were recruited by the CIA but eminent psychiatrists as well. The Project MKUltra was the code name of what is often described as the CIA mind control program. The program consisted of experiments on human subjects sometimes without their knowledge or consent. It was developed by the CIA and was intended to develop drugs and procedures to be used in interrogations in order to obtain confessions through mind control. The program was quite extensive:The scope of Project MKUltra was broad, with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies.[10] The CIA operated through these institutions using front organizations, although sometimes top officials at these institutions were aware of the CIA's involvement.

One participant in the program was Dr. Ewen Cameron: Donald Ewen Cameron (24 December 1901 – 8 September 1967) ...was a Scottish-born psychiatrist who served as President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, American (1952–1953) and World Psychiatric Associations, the American Psychopathological Association and the Society of Biological Psychiatry during the 1950s. Notwithstanding his high professional reputation, he has been criticized for his administration, without informed consent, of disproportionately-intense electroshock therapy and experimental drugs, including LSD, which rendered some patients permanently comatose. Some of this work took place in the context of the MKUltra mind control program.

Note the high positions Cameron held. Cameron's work was in part based upon the ideas of Donald Hebb, the former head of the APA who defended torture of prisoners. Alfred McCoy writes:"Stripped of its bizarre excesses, Dr. Cameron's experiments, building upon Donald O. Hebb's earlier breakthrough, laid the scientific foundation for the CIA's two-stage psychological torture method," which refers to first creating a state of disorientation in the subject, and then second creating a situation of "self-inflicted" discomfort in which the disoriented subject can alleviate their pain by capitulating.[48]

The authors of the new report conclude that the APA secretly worked with the CIA, the White House, and the Department of Defense to create an APA ethics policy on national security organizations which fit in with the legal guidance, then classified, that authorized the CIA torture program. The APA has since changed its policy after many of its own members and others were critical of what was going on.

Obama's drone wars continue with no end in sight

In spite of the fact that recently President Obama announced that a drone strike in Pakistan killed two innocent hostages being held by Al Qaeda, there is no sign of the drone program ending any time soon or that it will even be altered.

+ Add Image

Last Thursday, Obama said he took full responsibility for drone strikes that killed two Al Qaeda hostages in Pakistan. The strikes killed an American, Warren Weinstein,and Giovani Lo Porto, an Italian, along with two American Al Qaeda members. Weinstein was a 73-year-old economic advisor, and Lo Porto a 39-year-old aid worker. Obama gave few details of the operation but officials said that it took place in January after hundreds of hours of surveillance. If there was so much surveillance, how is it that there was so little intelligence about who was with the Al Qaeda operatives?

As Jeremy Scahill points out, the public only finds out about mishaps when journalists investigate. He claims there is very little transparency as to who the intended targets of the strikes were or what the aftermath is like. There appears to be renewed interest in drone attacks once a foreign citizen, especially an American, is a victim, but when civilians of the country targeted are victims there is often only limited press attention usually accompanied by US authorities denying reports of any civilians being killed. Everyone killed is almost always described as a suspected terrorist. While many anti-war and civil rights organizations have criticized the drone program, except for Pakistan, few countries, particularly U.S. allies, have criticized the program.

The UN, however, has been critical a number of times, including reports claiming the strikes were against international law and some of the practices, such as returning to an attacked site or attacking a funeral, being "war crimes." But as Professor Philip Alston, the former special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, points out this has not resulted in much criticism of the program by countries:‘Instead, most states are remaining relatively silent in the face of the evolution of US policies that are entirely inconsistent with international law and deeply problematic from a human rights and international law perspective.’

There is oversight of the program but it is limited. About once every month staff members of the intelligence committees of Congress go to CIA headquarters in Langley Virginia to watch videos of drone attacks. At the headquarters they get to view selected videos and selected intelligence reports supporting strikes. No doubt the intelligence presented and the videos seen are carefully vetted by the CIA before being presented to the staff. This macabre ritual is then presented as evidence that the drone program is rigorously reviewed.

A key official in developing the "targeted killing" drone operations was Michael D'Andrea. Earlier, D'Andrea was head of operations during the development of the CIA detention and interrogation program. In spite of the backlash against rendition and black sites, D'Andrea became head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center where he was a chief architect of the targeted killing operations. Just last month however, D'Andrea was shifted to another position. It is not clear why.

D'Andrea was a strong and persuasive advocate of the drone program and gained supporters in both parties for the program. In particular he gained the support of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee until January when Republicans took control of the Senate. CIA officials assured her that the program results in hardly any civilian deaths, but different sources come up with wildly different figures on civilian casualties:

Organizations that track drone strikes, like the New America Foundation, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Long War Journal, estimate that drones have killed some 4,000 people, about 500 of them civilians. But these numbers, based on news accounts and some on-the-ground interviews, are considered very rough.Feinstein gave a much lower figure in 2013: "The figures we have obtained from the executive branch, which we have done our utmost to verify, confirm that the number of civilian casualties that have resulted from such strikes each year has typically been in the single digits,”These figures have been shown to be far too low by many investigations. Even though the CIA drone program and the program to capture and question Al Qaeda suspects were run by many of the same CIA agents, the drone program continues to have wide support while the other program was severely criticized and rejected. In March 2013 a Gallup poll showed 65 percent of Americans favoured drone strikes against foreign terrorists in foreign countries. There was much less support if the targets were American citizens. Given the degree of U.S. public support for the drone attacks, there is little incentive to criticize the program as a means of garnering votes.

Psychologist who helped plan CIA "torture" program sleeps soundly

Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell were pyschologists who were hired as private contractors by the CIA to plan and develop methods to get terror suspects to talk.

Among the techniques were interrogation tools such as waterboarding, slapping, and sleep deprivation. A CIA medical professional warned in an email back on June 16, 2003: “Although these guys believe that their way is the only way, there should be an effort to define roles and responsibilities before their arrogance and narcissism evolve into unproductive conflict in the field,” These two psychologists are among very few major participants in the torture program who are actually identified. There are many who are calling for legal prosecutions as a result of the report and the two psychologists could be among those against whom charges could be filed.

 However, given the attitude of the Obama administration it is highly unlikely that any legal action will ever be taken against anyone in the US. The only person charged in the entire torture affair is CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou who is still in jail. Attorney General Eric Holder decided some time ago to cease all attempts to prosecute anyone at the end of August 2012: Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Thursday that no one would be prosecuted for the deaths of a prisoner in Afghanistan in 2002 and another in Iraq in 2003, eliminating the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the C.I.A. Obama's own famous announcement about looking forwards not backwards--except for whistleblowers, makes it clear there will be no prosecutions: Asked about investigating CIA torture in 2009, Obama replied that "it’s important to look forward and not backwards." Obama admitted that "we tortured some folks" earlier this year, but he didn't call for those responsible to be punished.

Obama appointed John Brennan head of the CIA in spite of the fact that he had to withdraw his name when Obama first tried to appoint him: In late 2008 Brennan was the reported choice for Director of the CIA in the incoming Obama administration. Brennan withdrew his name from consideration because of opposition to his CIA service under President George W. Bush and past public statements he had made in support of enhanced interrogation and the transfer of terrorism suspects to countries where they might be tortured (extraordinary rendition).[3][6][22] President Obama then appointed him to be his chief counterterrorism advisor, a position that did not require Senate confirmation.[3 In 2013 Obama tried again this time with success and Brennan became CIA chief on March 5. There were frantic attempts to delay release of the Senate summary report on torture but they failed. A statement by the White House press secretary makes it clear that he has confidence both in his CIA appointment Brennan and those who work for the CIA:"The president wakes up every morning pleased to know that John Brennan and the men and women of the CIA are hard at work using their skills and expertise to protect the American people," press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday, calling Brennan a "dedicated professional" and a "patriot." In other words although Obama disapproves of torture and the Bush CIA operations, he fully supports those that carried it out.

 It should not be surprising that one of the two psychologists who contracted with the CIA, James Mitchell, can say: "I always sleep soundly at night". He need not worry about charges being laid against him as he lives a retired life of leisure in Florida. There is an appended video interview with him. Another reason why Mitchell can sleep well at night is that he is well off as a result of his work planning harsh interrogation methods for the CIA. The two psychologists' firm was paid a total of $81 million between 2005 and 2008 before the $181 million contract was terminated in 2009. Senator Dianne Feinstein who released the report said: “The CIA relied on these two contractors to evaluate the interrogation program they had devised and in which they had obvious financial interests.” Mitchell said that he could not comment on whether he personally participated in water-boarding alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said due to a nondislocure agreement he could not respond. He said of waterboarding: “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do, I don’t think it’s the wrong thing to do."

He did implicitly defend techniques such as slapping noting with some irony: “To me it seems completely insensible that slapping KSM is bad but sending a Hellfire missile in to a family picnic and killing all the children, killing Granny, is OK,” Of course, both could be bad. That someone should think one action cannot be bad because another is much worse shows rather weak powers of elementary reasoning.

 Even the spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, Rhea Farberman, said in an interview: “If the allegations are true, their behavior was a clear violation of the profession’s ethical standards, clear violations of human rights, and probably violations of U.S. and international laws They should be held accountable.” With the Obama administration clearly opposed to any prosecution any prosecutions must await the Republican take-over of both houses. They will order prosecutions just after they help Obama finally close Guantanamo.

The rebranding of CIA-linked General Khalifa Haftar in Libya

The internationally recognized Libyan government of prime minister Abdullah al Thinni has now reconciled with CIA-linked former general Khalifa Haftar.

With the blessing of the government Haftar has been carrying out a number of bombings in Tripoli, Benghazi, and elsewhere. Now the House of Representatives(HoR) in Tobruk according to a report in the Libya Herald is about to appoint Haftar as Commander-in-Chief of the Libyan army. Within the next few days a formal decision will be announced. Even within the anti-Islamist dominated HoR however there is opposition with 30 members expressing reservations about Haftar's recent reinstatement into the Libyan army and even questioning the legality of his Operation Dignity attacks against extremists in the east of Libya. The Libya Herald reports: A group of 30 members of the Libyan House of Representatives (HoR) have signed a petition saying that they do not support the efforts to fight terrorism in eastern Libya by retired General Khalifa Hafter’s Operation Dignity . This shows that opposition to Haftar exists not only within the more-Islamist oriented government in Tripoli but also within the pro-Haftar government as well.

Prime Minister Al-Thinni with John Kerry

 The prime minister of the Tobruk government Abdullah al-Thinni was not always favorable towards Haftar. He was defense minister during Haftar's first coup attempt on Feb. 14 this year. Haftar went on TV and announced he had suspended the Gneral National Congress(GNC), the government and the Constitutional Declaration. Al-Thinni was hardly supportive then: Libyan Defence Minister Abdullah Al-Thinni, responding to the declaration, claimed that Haftar's claim to forces loyal to him being in Tripoli was a lie, and also alleged that Haftar had no legitimacy. Thinni also reiterated that there was a warrant out for Haftar's arrest on the grounds of plotting a coup d'état.[1] 

 Al-Thinni was prime minister when Haftar started Operation Dignity on May 16 with attacks on Islamist bases in Benghazi but then two days later moved to Tripoli with the burning and sacking of the parliament. After the start of Operation Dignity, al-Thinni declared Haftar's operation illegal:At a government press conference held as a response to the Benghazi assault, acting Prime Minister Abdullah Al-Thinni condemned the move by Haftar as illegal and claimed that the move undermined attempts to confront terrorism. At the time, Major General Al-Obaidi also condemned Haftar's operation and said that his militia were intruders into Benghazi and should be resisted by revolutionaries.

 Now Al-Thinni presides over the Tobruk government that has welcomed Haftar back into the fold and given him the green light to "liberate" Benghazi and Tripoli. While he has retaken some parts of Benghazi at considerable cost he has achieved nothing on the ground in Tripoli except some damage to an airport and homes.

 The choice of Haftar to command the Libyan army was suggested in an August article in Washington Institute publication by Barak Barfi a research fellow at the New America Foundation where he specializes in Arab and Islamist affairs:"Washington and its partners should persuade the new Libyan government to appoint Haftar as chief of staff. Respected by his troops, he has the military skills and combat experience necessary to create a modern army. But most important, he is the sole Libyan willing to take on the Islamist militias that are preventing the establishment of a modern state" 

 The UN is trying its best to bring together the parties in conflict. However, the Tobruk government continues to support Haftar and his bombing in spite of UN condemnation and requests that they stop so that dialogue can take place. While the Libyan Supreme Court ruled back on November 6 that the June elections were unconstitutional and the Tobruk government should be dissolved, the international community shows no sign of making any move to question the legitimacy of the Al-Thinni government or take any significant actions to stop Haftar's attacks. 

A recent meeting in Khartoum even re-affirmed the legitimacy of the al-Thinni government without even mentioning the Libyan Court decision. Since the UN said it was studying the decision more than a month ago now, it has not mentioned the decision either. The Tobruk government rejected the decision out of hand noting that the court was surrounded by armed forces and guards. The court no doubt needed protection just as parliament needed it earlier when it could have been saved by burning and ransacking by the Zintan brigades, allies of Haftar. Al-Thinni was quite pleased however when the same court rejected the Islamist choice for prime minister Ahmed-Maiteeq. Maiteeq accepted that ruling which left Al-Thinni as prime minister!