KSM Releases Lengthy ‘Nonviolence’ Manifesto, Shows Nothing Has Changed

 

High-value Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) has released a 36-page ‘nonviolence’ manifesto, filled with deeply extremist religious ramblings and advocating that Muslims should avoid using violence to spread Islam. What KSM fails to realize however, is that, while what he likely means is avoiding force, his hate-filled, extremist rant is nonetheless promoting violence, hate, and intolerance.  Continue reading

Benghazi Review Demonstrates the Transparency Promised by the Obama Administration

Earlier this morning, I posted briefly on the Benghazi report issued yesterday by the Senate Intelligence Committee (the report itself was approved about a month ago, but was only declassified yesterday). Several news outlets, including The New York Times, have pointed out that the report is “broadly consistent with the findings of previous inquiries into the attack on Sept. 11, 2012.” Continue reading

Bradley Manning’s Top Charge to Remain

Earlier today, a military court judge dismissed a motion by Bradley Manning’s defense team to drop “aiding the enemy” from the list of charges against him.  Manning, who is now definitely facing life in military prison without the possibility of parole, is the U.S. Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking the information that eventually ended up on Wikileaks.  He was arrested in 2010 in Iraq and charged with 22 separate counts related to the release of over 700,000 documents to Wikileaks.  Though he plead guilty to 10 of the 22 counts back in February, Manning’s trial did not start until early last month.

The decision was left up to Colonel Denise Lind, the judge presiding over the case at Fort Meade in Maryland.  She rejected the motion based on the “accused’s training and experience and preparation,” as well as Manning’s knowledge that terrorist organizations would have access to the leaked documents on the Internet.  The defense’s motion claimed that the government had failed to show that Manning possessed “actual knowledge” that he was providing information to the enemy, and could only show that he unintentionally or accidentally gave terrorist organizations access to the documents.

I think it’s worth noting that there’s a pretty sharp difference between “knowingly” and “intentionally” aiding the enemy, a difference that the defense seems to have overlooked.  I agree that Manning’s intent probably wasn’t to provide al-Qaeda with sensitive government documents. The way he went about releasing the information wouldn’t make any sense if that scenario were true.  But at the end of the day, his intent isn’t what matters if you read Article 104, the charge which Manning’s defense appealed:

Any person who—
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.

What matters in regard to this charge is that Manning knowingly released classified government documents that he knew could indirectly reach terrorist organizations.  You can argue all day about whether or not Manning actually deserves to be charged under Section 104.  But if we’re going by the book, Judge Lind made the right call.

Putting aside the technical aspects of the case, journalists are all in a tizzy about what this means for investigative journalism.  Many are claiming that the Obama administration is trying to make an example of Manning by bringing the hammer down on a highly visible whistleblower.  They are concerned that the threat of life in prison without the possibility of parole will prevent others like Manning to come forward when they believe the government is doing something unethical or shady.  These are valid concerns.  There is a reason why freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy.  If we aren’t aware of what our representatives are doing, how can we vote them out of office if we disagree with their policies?

Still, I think the government has a legitimate concern as well.  Sure, we over-classify and give security clearances to far too many people, but that doesn’t mean it should be a free-for-all.  There is plenty of classified information that I’m sure I wouldn’t want to go public, and the government has a right to protect that information in the name of national security..  But the solution isn’t to throw Manning into prison for the rest of his life; it’s to fix the system.  Because of the aforementioned over-classification, the government has created a climate in which someone almost HAS to leak classified information to get to the bottom of any real stories.  Since we seemingly classify everything nowadays, what should be public and what should be classified gets lumped together and we see exactly what happened in Manning’s case.  And when we have an estimated 4 million people with top-secret security clearance, let’s not act too surprised when that happens.

Did Bradley Manning do something stupid?  I think he did.  Did terrorist organizations gain access to classified government documents because of his actions?  Undoubtedly.  But the government needs to realize that the guilt doesn’t lie solely with Manning.  If we’re really worried about protecting classified information, we need to start being selective in regard to what we classify and who we give clearance to.

Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

Ben Emmerson talks drones with Lawfare

UN Special Rapportuer for Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism Ben Emmerson spoke with Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes and Ritika Singh about his study of US drone policy, focused primarily on our operations in Pakistan (podcast available from Lawfare: see episode 31). I have expressed some skepticism of his objectivity in past posts (here and here), but also some optimism (here). Having just listened to Emmerson’s 40 minute discussion, I now have a great deal of respect for the man’s commitment to objectivity.

In the discussion Emmerson admits to having initially approached the subject from not only a human rights perspective, but also with the preconception that the US was not at war at all. His views on these issues have become both tempered by his investigation and discussions with officials in Pakistan and the US, and also quite nuanced. Once example of this can be found in his explanation of his comments earlier this year in which he is broadly quoted as saying that Pakistan has not consented to US drones attacks on its soil. His elaboration of how he came to this position is quite interesting, and well worth listening to (it starts at minute 23).

Far from simply accepting the assertions of Pakistan’s civilan officials that they have repeatedly protested against drone strikes, Emmerson starts his analysis from the passage of a law restricting consent to the use of drones by officials of the Pakistani government. Since the US and the international community are interested in promoting democracy and the rule of law, Emmerson argues, such a restriction, passed by the elected representatives of the Pakistani people should set the basis of consent. To allow back-room deals to trump a duly enacted law would be anathema to the promotion of democracy.

Emmerson then preempted the ever-realist Wittes’ rebuttal that the democratic government of Pakistan is not the effective government with regard to matters of national security and foreign affairs by pointing out that while Pakistan is clearly a flawed democracy, it is also by the same token a fragile democracy that should be nurtured rather than subverted in the name of expedience.

Another point made by Emmerson which displays his objectivity and thoughtfulness relates to the perception that drones could unduly high civilian casualties. Emmerson cited  UNAMA statistics kept over the last decade on civilian casualties from various kinds of ordinance. And while that data clearly shows that drone attacks in Afghanistan tend to cause substantially fewer civilian casualties than attacks by fixed-wing air craft, the perception of the the majority of Afghans is the exact opposite: that drones are prone to killing innocents. He therefore wonders (without concluding) whether drone warfare is in the long run more harmful than other means of achieving similar ends.

Other points warrant mention as well, but in all, I am very impressed with Ben Emmersion’s intellectual honesty and objectivity. I now truly look forward to his report, due to be produced in September.

Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy & Research

 

Court of Appeals upholds denial of FOIA request seeking Bin Laden photos

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia yesterday decided to uphold a district court ruling that the US did not have to release photos of taken during and after the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The photos were sought by a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, under a Freedom of Information Act request. The court found, however, that since the photos were used to conduct facial recognition to verify the body as Bin Laden, releasing the photos could endanger intelligence methods.

While I do not dispute that ruling, I am happy about the outcome on another ground altogether. John Bennett, director of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, described the photos in a declaration to the court as “quite graphic, as they depict the fatal bullet wound to and other similarly gruesome images of his corpse.” And according to the Appeals Court,

“As the district court rightly concluded, however, the CIA’s declarations give reason to believe that releasing images of American military personnel burying the founder and leader of al-Qaida could cause exceptionally grave harm.”

To my mind, this decision validates an important reason for the Freedom of Information Act: informational transparency. Congress did not pass it to give the media free access to salacious material to boost their ratings.

As citizens of an open democracy, Americans have a right to information about their government and its activities. But where the government has a legitimate reason for withholding a document, even if it is on grounds such as diplomatic “embarrassment,” as happened in the Bradley Manning Wikileaks case, a FOIA request should as a matter of policy only be granted if there is a legitimate informational purpose. Judicial Watch could identify no cognizable information contained in the pictures that was not already publicly known. Thus, releasing the photos would not serve FOIA’s purpose of informational transparency, only the media’s purpose of generating buzz.

A vastly undervalued aspect of protecting our rights as citizens of an open society is to avoid abusing those rights. One example of the dangers that fear of unwarranted disclosure can cause can be found in the case of the CIA interrogation tapes. Fearing that these tapes may at some point become public, the CIA destroyed them. The courts yesterday thus did us a favor in protecting the government from unnecessary disclosure of gruesome photos, helping to ensuring that the government can do its job without fear that anything and everything will wind up on Fox, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.

Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy & Research