EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
John Brennan's Dangerous National Security Advice
In addition to passages on rendition and torture, Glenn linked to an NPR story attributing Obama's switch on counterterrorism issues -- particularly his infamous flip-flop on retroactive immunity for the telecoms that had illegally spied on Americans -- to Brennan.
What's important in that statement is Obama's reference to "the information I've received." He's advised on intelligence matters by John Brennan, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Like many intelligence professionals, Brennan says the FISA program is essential to the fight against terrorism.
By adopting Brennan's view, Obama improves his standing with the intelligence community; for someone looking ahead to a presidential administration, that's important.
So it was under Brennan's tutelage that Obama came to the following conclusion about Bush's illegal domestic surveillance program.
"That, in my mind, met my basic concerns. And given that all the information I've received is that the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security, as long as it has these [civil liberties safeguards] on them, I felt it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise," Obama said.
That's all very, um, interesting in retrospect, given what we've recently learned about Brennan's very complicit role in Bush's illegal program. The IG Report on the surveillance program revealed that from at least May 2003 until April 2005 (and possibly until Brennan retired in late 2005) intelligence centers that Brennan headed -- the Terrorist Threat Integration Center and the National Counterterrorism Center -- developed the threat assessments and a list of Al Qaeda affiliated organizations used in the program's targeting. While that section of the report is rather vague about how these threat assessments were used, it appears that John Brennan was either in charge of developing the information that substituted for "probable cause," and/or affirmed the urgency of the Al Qaeda threat to justify the program itself (though the assessments were approved by more senior people). For a period, it appears, John Brennan decided who would get wiretapped and who wouldn't (including organizations like Al Haramain, now suing for having been illegally wiretapped).
Spencer Ackerman asked Brennan last week about his role in the program. Brennan gave a response that Alberto Gonzales himself could have given:
I fulfilled all my responsibilities at NCTC that I was asked to fulfill. And there are a number of different programs, some of which have come out in the press, some of which have not. Some of the things that have come out in the press have been inaccurate in terms of the representations there. And when I look back in terms of my service at the NCTC and those places I believe I fulfilled those responsibilities to the best of my abilities.
These issues related to the so-called domestic surveillance programs and other things -- one of the things I mentioned, there's a lot of hyperbole and misrepresentations about what actually happened. And a lot of times people go down certain roads believing reports as facts. And that's not the case. So I'm not going to go into sort of what my role was in that instance because a lot of those activities are still considered classified and not in the public domain, irrespective of what the press reports might be out there.
For a guy who counseled Obama that this program was "important and useful to American security," Brennan's response is pathetically weak, making himself out to be a guy doing no more than "fulfilling his duties," rather than pushing the program on the presidential candidate as a big success, rather than (apparently) picking and choosing who got illegally surveilled.
There's something fundamentally wrong about the guy who pushed Obama to flip-flop on a campaign pledge now treating the program with this much false ambivalence.
Of course, Brennan may be down-playing his role in the illegal program out of more than just a desire to hide his complicity. After all, the IG Report itself is much more ambivalent about the program's benefit to counterterrorism.
The IGs also examined the impact of PSP information on counterterrorism efforts. Many senior IC officials believe that the PSP filled a gap in intelligence collection thought to exist under the FISA statute shortly after the al-Qa'ida terrorist attacks against the United States. Others within the IC, including FBI agents, CIA analysts and officers, and other officials had difficulty evaluating the precise contribution of the PSP to counterterrorism efforts because it was most often viewed as one source among many available analytic and intelligence-gathering tools in these efforts.
And much closer to home for Brennan, here's a telling detail about how the NCTC developed its threat assessments.
NCTC analysts involved in preparing the threat assessments told the ODNI OIG that only a portion of the PSP information was ever used in the ODNI threat assessments because other intelligence sources were available that provided more timely or detailed information about the al-Qaida threat to the United States. [my emphasis]
That is, the analysts who worked with Brennan at NCTC found that this surveillance program wasn't the best source of information on terrorist threats out there. Never mind, though, because Brennan was going to convince Obama to keep it anyway.
The centrality of Brennan in not just this program, but in the NCTC's collection and dissemination of information on threats--including those threats purportedly presented by US persons--is troublesome for another reason. A few weeks ago, peace activists in the Tacoma, WA area exposed a member of Fort Lewis' Force Protection Service who had infiltrated their groups and gained access to the list-serve they used to communicate with members via email. That information, collected by a military employee or contractor, was shared with the national network of agencies of which NCTC forms the core.
He admitted that he did pass on information to an intelligence network, which, as you mentioned earlier, was composed of dozens of law enforcement agencies, ranging from municipal to county to state to regional, and several federal agencies, including Immigration Customs Enforcement, Joint Terrorism Task Force, FBI, Homeland Security, the Army in Fort Lewis.
This is not supposed to happen. It's not supposed to happen because Posse Comitatus should prevent the military from this kind of domestic spying (though it is, after all, what NSA is doing as well). And it's not supposed to happen because Congress mandated that this kind of information sharing only take place after consultation with a Privacy and Civil Liberties Review Board. And this consultation (or not) with a board is an area where Obama has continued Bush's disdain for civil liberties. Not only has President Obama, thus far, failed to nominate anyone to serve on that board. But his Administration recently removed all mention of the board from the White House website. The Obama Administration continues to push this kind of information sharing. But they have, literally, disappeared all concern for civil liberties.
Back when he persuaded candidate Obama to flip-flop on a key campaign promise, Brennan appears to have oversold the benefits of the program (according to the IG Report). More importantly, when Obama flip-flopped, he promised to build more protections for civil liberties. Right now, he's not even fulfilling what Congress has mandated.
Glenn was right, last year, to oppose John Brennan for CIA Director. But in his current role as Deputy National Security Advisor, Brennan has not only sustained the Bush's domestic wiretap program, but he seems to be pushing a homeland security strategy that completely ignores civil liberties protections while constructing this massive, abusive -- and not terribly effective -- network of spying on American citizens.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



11 Comments so far
Show AllObamacain serves the same masters as Bush.
There is a semi-halucinatory edge to all of this similar to feverish incoherence. The battle that seems to be raging is for the right to determine who has the right to define verbiage that serves to define how the institutionalized forgetting will be conducted, how far back in history the curtain will be lowered, how opaque it should be and what aspects of marginalization woven into the rhetoric can still be manipulated to sustain that 'zero realm' from which profits are generated. The shiny coin of the realm is the minting of new vehicles capacitating denial. The wheels rather than being round clunk along on five sided rims - perhaps a description of a lunatic fringe, er.. i mean, rim.
"The Open Veins of Latin America" was written in three months, ninety nights "... show(s) that Latin America's present reality does not stem from some indescipherable curse"
"... that I have known the machinery of terror from the inside and that exile has not always been easy. I could celebrate that at the end of so much sorrow and so much death I still keep alive my capacity for astonishment at marvelous things and indignation at infamy, and that I continue to believe the advice of the poet who told me not to take seriously anything that does not make me laugh." 1983
Eduardo Galleano - We say No; 1992
It appears that the Dems have two purposes in extending the Cheney/Bush state secrets and domestic surveillance doctrine over ever larger parts of our society:
1. To promote their own authoritarian tendencies;
2. As insurance - if there is another onshore terrorist attack, the Dems do not want to be blamed for it.
Item 1 speaks for itself. As for item 2, the Repubs and reactionaries will blame the Dems anyway, if there is an attack, no matter what the Dems do. This has been going on since the McCarthy era. The Right demands that the Dems surrender. The Dems surrender, drop their guard and then the Right pounds them anyway. Yet somehow the Dems forget this everytime and go back for more. And so do the voters.
So, is it cowardice, is it authoritarianism masking as "centrism", is it an utter lack of principle, are Constitutional protections "quaint" and "obsolete"? Does it matter?
"So, is it cowardice..." Yes, all of the above.
"Does it matter?" No, we go down the tubes anyway you look at it."
Apparently the nation's "leadership" views "keeping Americans safe" from the threats of their own communications as a much higher priority than keeping them healthy. One might wonder exactly which Americans are being kept safe, but any such inquiry could, I suppose, also be construed as a threat.
The author needs to look at the larger picutre: This is a lot bigger than Brennan: What about Hillary and Robert "Uncle Bobby" Gates etc. etc. etc.?
Nothing about US policy has anything to do with "national defense or security". As many here know, our policies undermine security and create a climate of paranoia and fear. Our policies create more enemies, a sophisticated self-fulfilling prophecy. This vicious cycle ensures a climate of fear and un-ending profits for the private corporate interests that largely conduct the imperial war activities.
Since the old Soviet bogeyman is gone, we have a new one: "terrorism" and Muslims.
The US could more than defend itself on a quarter of the Pentagon budget
Talk about security and defense: how many Americans die from being murdered every year? How many Americans go bankrupt from health care costs? How many die from inadequate care? How many die on the road every year?
If I understand it right, Marcy Wheeler's second point about Brennan's influence within the Obama administration is subtle, but doubly important.
It is illegal and dangerous to civil liberties for American spies and spy agencies to involve themselves in domestic US politics, or the activities of civilian peace groups.
It is illegal and dangerous to civil liberties for active duty American military personnel to involve themselves in domestic US politics, or the activities of civilian peace groups.
Here, the national security spooks and the soldiers shared information - back and forth - about what a local antiwar group near Tacoma, Washington, was doing and/or was thinking about doing in the future. Moreover, this information was passed on "to an intelligence network..... composed of dozens of law enforcement agencies, ranging from municipal to county to state to regional, and several federal agencies, including Immigration Customs Enforcement, Joint Terrorism Task Force, FBI, Homeland Security, the Army in Ft. Lewis."
The Watergate break in, targeting links between the Vietnam era peace movement and the Democratic Party, was a classified, national security operation using spies and contractors. The COINTEL program, targeting components of the same antiwar movement, was a classified national security operation using spies, soldiers, FBI agents, and contractors, according to the Church Committee final report.
This shit was made illegal precisely because it is inherently dangerous to the civil liberties of American citizens, the freedom of association protected by the Bill of Rights.
What part of all this is so hard to understand?
Once the camel's nose gets inside the tent, next the head, and pretty soon the whole ass end will surely follow.
John Brennan was a major camel jockey on the Bush/Cheney watch, and now on Barack Obama's.
Bill from Saginaw
No one heard of the terror bullshit until Bush,Cheney,Condisneezy,Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and several others destroyed the buildings in New York. They know all about it. It was the repugs neo-nazi rightwingnuts Pearl Harbor. Perhaps a little sandboarding will get the truth.
Keep your enemies closer or familiarity breeds contempt?
Why do people still live in this country?
Because no one else will have them? Or perhaps because they want to make it a better country? It is enough to make one very sad!