• #cybersecurity Today — Darren Van Booven Interview — an episode of Sensei School’s Meet-A-Pro series

    Cybersecurity Today — An interview with Mr. Darren Van Boovenan episode of Sensei School’s Meet-A-Pro series.Mr. Darren Van Booven is a tech executive with over 20 years of experience. He has served in a number of senior executive positions, both in the US federal government as Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) at the U.S. House of Representatives and the private financial sector, including seven years as a counter-intelligence officer at the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Directorate of Operations.SENSEI SCHOOL’s MEET-A-PRO interview series with Darren Van Booven.At the #cia he has been responsible for carrying out nation state intrusion investigations, incident response activities, and countering technical threats against operations. He has also worked as a senior staff (...)

    #edtech #education #darren-van-booven

  • Pan Am Flight 103 : Robert Mueller’s 30-Year Search for Justice | WIRED

    Cet article décrit le rôle de Robert Mueller dans l’enquête historique qui a permis de dissimuler ou de justifier la plupart des batailles de la guerre non déclarée des États Unis contre l’OLP et les pays arabes qui soutenaient la lutte pour un état palestinien.

    Aux États-Unis, en Allemagne et en France le grand public ignore les actes de guerre commis par les États Unis dans cette guerre. Vu dans ce contexte on ne peut que classer le récit de cet article dans la catégorie idéologie et propagande même si les intentions et faits qu’on y apprend sont bien documentés et plausibles.

    Cette perspective transforme le contenu de cet article d’une variation sur un thème connu dans un reportage sur l’état d’âme des dirigeants étatsuniens moins fanatiques que l’équipe du président actuel.

    THIRTY YEARS AGO last Friday, on the darkest day of the year, 31,000 feet above one of the most remote parts of Europe, America suffered its first major terror attack.

    TEN YEARS AGO last Friday, then FBI director Robert Mueller bundled himself in his tan trench coat against the cold December air in Washington, his scarf wrapped tightly around his neck. Sitting on a small stage at Arlington National Cemetery, he scanned the faces arrayed before him—the victims he’d come to know over years, relatives and friends of husbands and wives who would never grow old, college students who would never graduate, business travelers and flight attendants who would never come home.

    Burned into Mueller’s memory were the small items those victims had left behind, items that he’d seen on the shelves of a small wooden warehouse outside Lockerbie, Scotland, a visit he would never forget: A teenager’s single white sneaker, an unworn Syracuse University sweatshirt, the wrapped Christmas gifts that would never be opened, a lonely teddy bear.

    A decade before the attacks of 9/11—attacks that came during Mueller’s second week as FBI director, and that awoke the rest of America to the threats of terrorism—the bombing of Pan Am 103 had impressed upon Mueller a new global threat.

    It had taught him the complexity of responding to international terror attacks, how unprepared the government was to respond to the needs of victims’ families, and how on the global stage justice would always be intertwined with geopolitics. In the intervening years, he had never lost sight of the Lockerbie bombing—known to the FBI by the codename Scotbom—and he had watched the orphaned children from the bombing grow up over the years.

    Nearby in the cemetery stood a memorial cairn made of pink sandstone—a single brick representing each of the victims, the stone mined from a Scottish quarry that the doomed flight passed over just seconds before the bomb ripped its baggage hold apart. The crowd that day had gathered near the cairn in the cold to mark the 20th anniversary of the bombing.

    For a man with an affinity for speaking in prose, not poetry, a man whose staff was accustomed to orders given in crisp sentences as if they were Marines on the battlefield or under cross-examination from a prosecutor in a courtroom, Mueller’s remarks that day soared in a way unlike almost any other speech he’d deliver.

    “There are those who say that time heals all wounds. But you know that not to be true. At its best, time may dull the deepest wounds; it cannot make them disappear,” Mueller told the assembled mourners. “Yet out of the darkness of this day comes a ray of light. The light of unity, of friendship, and of comfort from those who once were strangers and who are now bonded together by a terrible moment in time. The light of shared memories that bring smiles instead of sadness. And the light of hope for better days to come.”

    He talked of Robert Frost’s poem “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” and of inspiration drawn from Lockerbie’s town crest, with its simple motto, “Forward.” He spoke of what was then a two-decade-long quest for justice, of how on windswept Scottish mores and frigid lochs a generation of FBI agents, investigators, and prosecutors had redoubled their dedication to fighting terrorism.

    Mueller closed with a promise: “Today, as we stand here together on this, the darkest of days, we renew that bond. We remember the light these individuals brought to each of you here today. We renew our efforts to bring justice down on those who seek to harm us. We renew our efforts to keep our people safe, and to rid the world of terrorism. We will continue to move forward. But we will never forget.”

    Hand bells tolled for each of the victims as their names were read aloud, 270 names, 270 sets of bells.

    The investigation, though, was not yet closed. Mueller, although he didn’t know it then, wasn’t done with Pan Am 103. Just months after that speech, the case would test his innate sense of justice and morality in a way that few other cases in his career ever have.

    ROBERT S. MUELLER III had returned from a combat tour in Vietnam in the late 1960s and eventually headed to law school at the University of Virginia, part of a path that he hoped would lead him to being an FBI agent. Unable after graduation to get a job in government, he entered private practice in San Francisco, where he found he loved being a lawyer—just not a defense attorney.

    Then—as his wife Ann, a teacher, recounted to me years ago—one morning at their small home, while the two of them made the bed, Mueller complained, “Don’t I deserve to be doing something that makes me happy?” He finally landed a job as an assistant US attorney in San Francisco and stood, for the first time, in court and announced, “Good morning your Honor, I am Robert Mueller appearing on behalf of the United States of America.” It is a moment that young prosecutors often practice beforehand, and for Mueller those words carried enormous weight. He had found the thing that made him happy.

    His family remembers that time in San Francisco as some of their happiest years; the Muellers’ two daughters were young, they loved the Bay Area—and have returned there on annual vacations almost every year since relocating to the East Coast—and Mueller found himself at home as a prosecutor.

    On Friday nights, their routine was that Ann and the two girls would pick Mueller up at Harrington’s Bar & Grill, the city’s oldest Irish pub, not far from the Ferry Building in the Financial District, where he hung out each week with a group of prosecutors, defense attorneys, cops, and agents. (One Christmas, his daughter Cynthia gave him a model of the bar made out of Popsicle sticks.) He balanced that family time against weekends and trainings with the Marines Corps Reserves, where he served for more than a decade, until 1980, eventually rising to be a captain.

    Over the next 15 years, he rose through the ranks of the San Francisco US attorney’s office—an office he would return to lead during the Clinton administration—and then decamped to Massachusetts to work for US attorney William Weld in the 1980s. There, too, he shined and eventually became acting US attorney when Weld departed at the end of the Reagan administration. “You cannot get the words straight arrow out of your head,” Weld told me, speaking of Mueller a decade ago. “The agencies loved him because he knew his stuff. He didn’t try to be elegant or fancy, he just put the cards on the table.”

    In 1989, an old high school classmate, Robert Ross, who was chief of staff to then attorney general Richard Thornburgh, asked Mueller to come down to Washington to help advise Thornburgh. The offer intrigued Mueller. Ann protested the move—their younger daughter Melissa wanted to finish high school in Massachusetts. Ann told her husband, “We can’t possibly do this.” He replied, his eyes twinkling, “You’re right, it’s a terrible time. Well, why don’t we just go down and look at a few houses?” As she told me, “When he wants to do something, he just revisits it again and again.”

    For his first two years at so-called Main Justice in Washington, working under President George H.W. Bush, the family commuted back and forth from Boston to Washington, alternating weekends in each city, to allow Melissa to finish school.

    Washington gave Mueller his first exposure to national politics and cases with geopolitical implications; in September 1990, President Bush nominated him to be assistant attorney general, overseeing the Justice Department’s entire criminal division, which at that time handled all the nation’s terrorism cases as well. Mueller would oversee the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, mob boss John Gotti, and the controversial investigation into a vast money laundering scheme run through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, known as the Bank of Crooks and Criminals

    None of his cases in Washington, though, would affect him as much as the bombing of Pan Am 103.

    THE TIME ON the clocks in Lockerbie, Scotland, read 7:04 pm, on December 21, 1988, when the first emergency call came into the local fire brigade, reporting what sounded like a massive boiler explosion. It was technically early evening, but it had been dark for hours already; that far north, on the shortest day of the year, daylight barely stretched to eight hours.

    Soon it became clear something much worse than a boiler explosion had unfolded: Fiery debris pounded the landscape, plunging from the sky and killing 11 Lockerbie residents. As Mike Carnahan told a local TV reporter, “The whole sky was lit up with flames. It was actually raining, liquid fire. You could see several houses on the skyline with the roofs totally off and all you could see was flaming timbers.”

    At 8:45 pm, a farmer found in his field the cockpit of Pan Am 103, a Boeing 747 known as Clipper Maid of the Seas, lying on its side, 15 of its crew dead inside, just some of the 259 passengers and crew killed when a bomb had exploded inside the plane’s cargo hold. The scheduled London to New York flight never even made it out of the UK.

    It had taken just three seconds for the plane to disintegrate in the air, though the wreckage took three long minutes to fall the five miles from the sky to the earth; court testimony later would examine how passengers had still been alive as they fell. Nearly 200 of the passengers were American, including 35 students from Syracuse University returning home from a semester abroad. The attack horrified America, which until then had seen terror touch its shores only occasionally as a hijacking went awry; while the US had weathered the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, attacks almost never targeted civilians.

    The Pan Am 103 bombing seemed squarely aimed at the US, hitting one of its most iconic brands. Pan Am then represented America’s global reach in a way few companies did; the world’s most powerful airline shuttled 19 million passengers a year to more than 160 countries and had ferried the Beatles to their US tour and James Bond around the globe on his cinematic missions. In a moment of hubris a generation before Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the airline had even opened a “waiting list” for the first tourists to travel to outer space. Its New York headquarters, the Pan Am building, was the world’s largest commercial building and its terminal at JFK Airport the biggest in the world.

    The investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103 began immediately, as police and investigators streamed north from London by the hundreds; chief constable John Boyd, the head of the local police, arrived at the Lockerbie police station by 8:15 pm, and within an hour the first victim had been brought in: A farmer arrived in town with the body of a baby girl who had fallen from the sky. He’d carefully placed her in the front seat of his pickup truck.

    An FBI agent posted in London had raced north too, with the US ambassador, aboard a special US Air Force flight, and at 2 am, when Boyd convened his first senior leadership meeting, he announced, “The FBI is here, and they are fully operational.” By that point, FBI explosives experts were already en route to Scotland aboard an FAA plane; agents would install special secure communications equipment in Lockerbie and remain on site for months.

    Although it quickly became clear that a bomb had targeted Pan Am 103—wreckage showed signs of an explosion and tested positive for PETN and RDX, two key ingredients of the explosive Semtex—the investigation proceeded with frustrating slowness. Pan Am’s records were incomplete, and it took days to even determine the full list of passengers. At the same time, it was the largest crime scene ever investigated—a fact that remains true today.

    Investigators walked 845 square miles, an area 12 times the size of Washington, DC, and searched so thoroughly that they recovered more than 70 packages of airline crackers and ultimately could reconstruct about 85 percent of the fuselage. (Today, the wreckage remains in an English scrapyard.) Constable Boyd, at his first press conference, told the media, “This is a mammoth inquiry.”

    On Christmas Eve, a searcher found a piece of a luggage pallet with signs of obvious scorching, which would indicate the bomb had been in the luggage compartment below the passenger cabin. The evidence was rushed to a special British military lab—one originally created to investigate the Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot to blow up Parliament and kill King James I in 1605.

    When the explosive tests came back a day later, the British government called the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for combating terrorism, L. Paul Bremer III (who would go on to be President George W. Bush’s viceroy in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion of Iraq), and officially delivered the news that everyone had anticipated: Pan Am 103 had been downed by a bomb.

    Meanwhile, FBI agents fanned out across the country. In New York, special agent Neil Herman—who would later lead the FBI’s counterterrorism office in New York in the run up to 9/11—was tasked with interviewing some of the victims’ families; many of the Syracuse students on board had been from the New York region. One of the mothers he interviewed hadn’t heard from the government in the 10 days since the attack. “It really struck me how ill-equipped we were to deal with this,” Herman told me, years later. “Multiply her by 270 victims and families.” The bombing underscored that the FBI and the US government had a lot to learn in responding and aiding victims in a terror attack.

    INVESTIGATORS MOVED TOWARD piecing together how a bomb could have been placed on board; years before the 9/11 attack, they discounted the idea of a suicide bomber aboard—there had never been a suicide attack on civil aviation at that point—and so focused on one of two theories: The possibility of a “mule,” an innocent passenger duped into carrying a bomb aboard, or an “inside man,” a trusted airport or airline employee who had smuggled the fatal cargo aboard. The initial suspect list stretched to 1,200 names.

    Yet even reconstructing what was on board took an eternity: Evidence pointed to a Japanese manufactured Toshiba cassette recorder as the likely delivery device for the bomb, and then, by the end of January, investigators located pieces of the suitcase that had held the bomb. After determining that it was a Samsonite bag, police and the FBI flew to the company’s headquarters in the United States and narrowed the search further: The bag, they found, was a System 4 Silhouette 4000 model, color “antique-copper,” a case and color made for only three years, 1985 to 1988, and sold only in the Middle East. There were a total of 3,500 such suitcases in circulation.

    By late spring, investigators had identified 14 pieces of luggage inside the target cargo container, known as AVE4041; each bore tell-tale signs of the explosion. Through careful retracing of how luggage moved through the London airport, investigators determined that the bags on the container’s bottom row came from passengers transferring in London. The bags on the second and third row of AVE4041 had been the last bags loaded onto the leg of the flight that began in Frankfurt, before the plane took off for London. None of the baggage had been X-rayed or matched with passengers on board.

    The British lab traced clothing fragments from the wreckage that bore signs of the explosion and thus likely originated in the bomb-carrying suitcase. It was an odd mix: Two herring-bone skirts, men’s pajamas, tartan trousers, and so on. The most promising fragment was a blue infant’s onesie that, after fiber analysis, was conclusively determined to have been inside the explosive case, and had a label saying “Malta Trading Company.” In March, two detectives took off for Malta, where the manufacturer told them that 500 such articles of clothing had been made and most sent to Ireland, while the rest went locally to Maltese outlets and others to continental Europe.

    As they dug deeper, they focused on bag B8849, which appeared to have come off Air Malta Flight 180—Malta to Frankfurt—on December 21, even though there was no record of one of that flight’s 47 passengers transferring to Pan Am 103.

    Investigators located the store in Malta where the suspect clothing had been sold; the British inspector later recorded in his statement, “[Store owner] Anthony Gauci interjected and stated that he could recall selling a pair of the checked trousers, size 34, and three pairs of the pajamas to a male person.” The investigators snapped to attention—after nine months did they finally have a suspect in their sights? “[Gauci] informed me that the man had also purchased the following items: one imitation Harris Tweed jacket; one woolen cardigan; one black umbrella; one blue colored ‘Baby Gro’ with a motif described by the witness as a ‘sheep’s face’ on the front; and one pair of gents’ brown herring-bone material trousers, size 36.”

    Game, set, match. Gauci had perfectly described the clothing fragments found by RARDE technicians to contain traces of explosive. The purchase, Gauci went on to explain, stood out in his mind because the customer—whom Gauci tellingly identified as speaking the “Libyan language”—had entered the store on November 23, 1988, and gathered items without seeming to care about the size, gender, or color of any of it.

    As the investigation painstakingly proceeded into 1989 and 1990, Robert Mueller arrived at Main Justice; the final objects of the Lockerbie search wouldn’t be found until the spring of 1990, just months before Mueller took over as assistant attorney general of the criminal division in September.

    The Justice Department that year was undergoing a series of leadership changes; the deputy attorney general, William Barr, became acting attorney general midyear as Richard Thornburgh stepped down to run for Senate back in his native Pennsylvania. President Bush then nominated Barr to take over as attorney general officially. (Earlier this month Barr was nominated by President Trump to become attorney general once again.)

    The bombing soon became one of the top cases on Mueller’s desk. He met regularly with Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent heading Scotbom. For Mueller, the case became personal; he met with victims’ families and toured the Lockerbie crash site and the investigation’s headquarters. He traveled repeatedly to the United Kingdom for meetings and walked the fields of Lockerbie himself. “The Scots just did a phenomenal job with the crime scene,” he told me, years ago.

    Mueller pushed the investigators forward constantly, getting involved in the investigation at a level that a high-ranking Justice Department official almost never does. Marquise turned to him in one meeting, after yet another set of directions, and sighed, “Geez, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you want to be FBI director.”

    The investigation gradually, carefully, zeroed in on Libya. Agents traced a circuit board used in the bomb to a similar device seized in Africa a couple of years earlier used by Libyan intelligence. An FBI-created database of Maltese immigration records even showed that a man using the same alias as one of those Libyan intelligence officers had departed from Malta on October 19, 1988—just two months before the bombing.

    The circuit board also helped makes sense of an important aspect of the bombing: It controlled a timer, meaning that the bomb was not set off by a barometric trigger that registers altitude. This, in turn, explained why the explosive baggage had lain peacefully in the jet’s hold as it took off and landed repeatedly.

    Tiny letters on the suspect timer said “MEBO.” What was MEBO? In the days before Google, searching for something called “Mebo” required going country to country, company to company. There were no shortcuts. The FBI, MI5, and CIA were, after months of work, able to trace MEBO back to a Swiss company, Meister et Bollier, adding a fifth country to the ever-expanding investigative circle.

    From Meister et Bollier, they learned that the company had provided 20 prototype timers to the Libyan government and the company helped ID their contact as a Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who looked like the sketch of the Maltese clothing shopper. Then, when the FBI looked at its database of Maltese immigration records, they found that Al Megrahi had been present in Malta the day the clothing was purchased.

    Marquise sat down with Robert Mueller and the rest of the prosecutorial team and laid out the latest evidence. Mueller’s orders were clear—he wanted specific suspects and he wanted to bring charges. As he said, “Proceed toward indictment.” Let’s get this case moving.

    IN NOVEMBER 1990, Marquise was placed in charge of all aspects of the investigation and assigned on special duty to the Washington Field Office and moved to a new Scotbom task force. The field offce was located far from the Hoover building, in a run-down neighborhood known by the thoroughly unromantic moniker of Buzzard Point.

    The Scotbom task force had been allotted three tiny windowless rooms with dark wood paneling, which were soon covered floor-to-ceiling with 747 diagrams, crime scene photographs, maps, and other clues. By the door of the office, the team kept two photographs to remind themselves of the stakes: One, a tiny baby shoe recovered from the fields of Lockerbie; the other, a picture of the American flag on the tail of Pan Am 103. This was the first major attack on the US and its civilians. Whoever was responsible couldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

    With representatives from a half-dozen countries—the US, Britain, Scotland, Sweden, Germany, France, and Malta—now sitting around the table, putting together a case that met everyone’s evidentiary standards was difficult. “We talked through everything, and everything was always done to the higher standard,” Marquise says. In the US, for instance, the legal standard for a photo array was six photos; in Scotland, though, it was 12. So every photo array in the investigation had 12 photos to ensure that the IDs could be used in a British court.

    The trail of evidence so far was pretty clear, and it all pointed toward Libya. Yet there was still much work to do prior to an indictment. A solid hunch was one thing. Having evidence that would stand up in court and under cross-examination was something else entirely.

    As the case neared an indictment, the international investigators and prosecutors found themselves focusing at their gatherings on the fine print of their respective legal code and engaging in deep, philosophical-seeming debates: “What does murder mean in your statute? Huh? I know what murder means: I kill you. Well, then you start going through the details and the standards are just a little different. It may entail five factors in one country, three in another. Was Megrahi guilty of murder? Depends on the country.”

    At every meeting, the international team danced around the question of where a prosecution would ultimately take place. “Jurisdiction was an eggshell problem,” Marquise says. “It was always there, but no one wanted to talk about it. It was always the elephant in the room.”

    Mueller tried to deflect the debate for as long as possible, arguing there was more investigation to do first. Eventually, though, he argued forcefully that the case should be tried in the US. “I recognize that Scotland has significant equities which support trial of the case in your country,” he said in one meeting. “However, the primary target of this act of terrorism was the United States. The majority of the victims were Americans, and the Pan American aircraft was targeted precisely because it was of United States registry.”

    After one meeting, where the Scots and Americans debated jurisdiction for more than two hours, the group migrated over to the Peasant, a restaurant near the Justice Department, where, in an attempt to foster good spirits, it paid for the visiting Scots. Mueller and the other American officials each had to pay for their own meals.

    Mueller was getting ready to move forward; the federal grand jury would begin work in early September. Prosecutors and other investigators were already preparing background, readying evidence, and piecing together information like the names and nationalities of all the Lockerbie victims so that they could be included in the forthcoming indictment.

    There had never been any doubt in the US that the Pan Am 103 bombing would be handled as a criminal matter, but the case was still closely monitored by the White House and the National Security Council.

    The Reagan administration had been surprised in February 1988 by the indictment on drug charges of its close ally Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, and a rule of thumb had been developed: Give the White House a heads up anytime you’re going to indict a foreign agent. “If you tag Libya with Pan Am 103, that’s fair to say it’s going to disrupt our relationship with Libya,” Mueller deadpans. So Mueller would head up to the Cabinet Room at the White House, charts and pictures in hand, to explain to President Bush and his team what Justice had in mind.

    To Mueller, the investigation underscored why such complex investigations needed a law enforcement eye. A few months after the attack, he sat through a CIA briefing pointing toward Syria as the culprit behind the attack. “That’s always struck with me as a lesson in the difference between intelligence and evidence. I always try to remember that,” he told me, back when he was FBI director. “It’s a very good object lesson about hasty action based on intelligence. What if we had gone and attacked Syria based on that initial intelligence? Then, after the attack, it came out that Libya had been behind it? What could we have done?”

    Marquise was the last witness for the federal grand jury on Friday, November 8, 1991. Only in the days leading up to that testimony had prosecutors zeroed in on Megrahi and another Libyan officer, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah; as late as the week of the testimony, they had hoped to pursue additional indictments, yet the evidence wasn’t there to get to a conviction.

    Mueller traveled to London to meet with the Peter Fraser, the lord advocate—Scotland’s top prosecutor—and they agreed to announce indictments simultaneously on November 15, 1991. Who got their hands on the suspects first, well, that was a question for later. The joint indictment, Mueller believed, would benefit both countries. “It adds credibility to both our investigations,” he says.

    That coordinated joint, multi-nation statement and indictment would become a model that the US would deploy more regularly in the years to come, as the US and other western nations have tried to coordinate cyber investigations and indictments against hackers from countries like North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

    To make the stunning announcement against Libya, Mueller joined FBI director William Sessions, DC US attorney Jay Stephens, and attorney general William Barr.

    “We charge that two Libyan officials, acting as operatives of the Libyan intelligence agency, along with other co-conspirators, planted and detonated the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103,” Barr said. “I have just telephoned some of the families of those murdered on Pan Am 103 to inform them and the organizations of the survivors that this indictment has been returned. Their loss has been ever present in our minds.”

    At the same time, in Scotland, investigators there were announcing the same indictments.

    At the press conference, Barr listed a long set of names to thank—the first one he singled out was Mueller’s. Then, he continued, “This investigation is by no means over. It continues unabated. We will not rest until all those responsible are brought to justice. We have no higher priority.”

    From there, the case would drag on for years. ABC News interviewed the two suspects in Libya later that month; both denied any responsibility for the bombing. Marquise was reassigned within six months; the other investigators moved along too.

    Mueller himself left the administration when Bill Clinton became president, spending an unhappy year in private practice before rejoining the Justice Department to work as a junior homicide prosecutor in DC under then US attorney Eric Holder; Mueller, who had led the nation’s entire criminal division was now working side by side with prosecutors just a few years out of law school, the equivalent of a three-star military general retiring and reenlisting as a second lieutenant. Clinton eventually named Mueller the US attorney in San Francisco, the office where he’d worked as a young attorney in the 1970s.

    THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY of the bombing came and went without any justice. Then, in April 1999, prolonged international negotiations led to Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi turning over the two suspects; the international economic sanctions imposed on Libya in the wake of the bombing were taking a toll on his country, and the leader wanted to put the incident behind him.

    The final negotiated agreement said that the two men would be tried by a Scottish court, under Scottish law, in The Hague in the Netherlands. Distinct from the international court there, the three-judge Scottish court would ensure that the men faced justice under the laws of the country where their accused crime had been committed.

    Allowing the Scots to move forward meant some concessions by the US. The big one was taking the death penalty, prohibited in Scotland, off the table. Mueller badly wanted the death penalty. Mueller, like many prosecutors and law enforcement officials, is a strong proponent of capital punishment, but he believes it should be reserved for only egregious crimes. “It has to be especially heinous, and you have to be 100 percent sure he’s guilty,” he says. This case met that criteria. “There’s never closure. If there can’t be closure, there should be justice—both for the victims as well as the society at large,” he says.

    An old US military facility, Kamp Van Zeist, was converted to an elaborate jail and courtroom in The Hague, and the Dutch formally surrendered the two Libyans to Scottish police. The trial began in May 2000. For nine months, the court heard testimony from around the world. In what many observers saw as a political verdict, Al Megrahi was found guilty and Fhimah was found not guilty.

    With barely 24 hours notice, Marquise and victim family members raced from the United States to be in the courtroom to hear the verdict. The morning of the verdict in 2001, Mueller was just days into his tenure as acting deputy US attorney general—filling in for the start of the George W. Bush administration in the department’s No. 2 role as attorney general John Ashcroft got himself situated.

    That day, Mueller awoke early and joined with victims’ families and other officials in Washington, who watched the verdict announcement via a satellite hookup. To him, it was a chance for some closure—but the investigation would go on. As he told the media, “The United States remains vigilant in its pursuit to bring to justice any other individuals who may have been involved in the conspiracy to bring down Pan Am Flight 103.”

    The Scotbom case would leave a deep imprint on Mueller; one of his first actions as FBI director was to recruit Kathryn Turman, who had served as the liaison to the Pan Am 103 victim families during the trial, to head the FBI’s Victim Services Division, helping to elevate the role and responsibility of the FBI in dealing with crime victims.

    JUST MONTHS AFTER that 20th anniversary ceremony with Mueller at Arlington National Cemetery, in the summer of 2009, Scotland released a terminally ill Megrahi from prison after a lengthy appeals process, and sent him back to Libya. The decision was made, the Scottish minister of justice reported, on “compassionate grounds.” Few involved on the US side believed the terrorist deserved compassion. Megrahi was greeted as a hero on the tarmac in Libya—rose petals, cheering crowds. The US consensus remained that he should rot in prison.

    The idea that Megrahi could walk out of prison on “compassionate” ground made a mockery of everything that Mueller had dedicated his life to fighting and doing. Amid a series of tepid official condemnations—President Obama labeled it “highly objectionable”—Mueller fired off a letter to Scottish minister Kenny MacAskill that stood out for its raw pain, anger, and deep sorrow.

    “Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision,” Mueller began. “Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of ‘compassion.’”

    That nine months after the 20th anniversary of the bombing, the only person behind bars for the bombing would walk back onto Libyan soil a free man and be greeted with rose petals left Mueller seething.

    “Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law. Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world,” Mueller wrote. “You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution. You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who perished were gathered for identification—the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays; the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and children.”

    For Mueller, walking the fields of Lockerbie had been walking on hallowed ground. The Scottish decision pained him especially deeply, because of the mission and dedication he and his Scottish counterparts had shared 20 years before. “If all civilized nations join together to apply the rules of law to international terrorists, certainly we will be successful in ridding the world of the scourge of terrorism,” he had written in a perhaps too hopeful private note to the Scottish Lord Advocate in 1990.

    Some 20 years later, in an era when counterterrorism would be a massive, multibillion dollar industry and a buzzword for politicians everywhere, Mueller—betrayed—concluded his letter with a decidedly un-Mueller-like plea, shouted plaintively and hopelessly across the Atlantic: “Where, I ask, is the justice?”

    #USA #Libye #impérialisme #terrorisme #histoire #CIA #idéologie #propagande

  • En refusant de défendre Julian Assange, les médias révèlent leur véritable nature * Caitlin JOHNSTONE - 1 er Janvier 2019 - Le Grand Soir _

    Mardi dernier [juillet 2018 - NdT], un grand avocat du New York Times, David McCraw, a averti une salle pleine de juges https://www.courthousenews.com/judges-hear-warning-on-prosecution-of-wikileaks que la poursuite de Julian Assange pour les publications de WikiLeaks créerait un précédent très dangereux qui finirait par nuire aux principaux médias d’information comme NYT, le Washington Post et les autres médias qui publient des documents gouvernementaux secrets.

    « Je pense que la poursuite contre lui constituerait un très, très mauvais précédent pour les éditeurs », a déclaré M. McCraw. « Dans cette affaire, d’après ce que je sais, il se trouve dans la position d’un éditeur classique et je pense que la loi aurait beaucoup de mal à faire la distinction entre le New York Times et WikiLeaks. »

    Vous savez où j’ai lu ça ? Pas dans le New York Times.

    « Curieusement, au moment d’écrire ces lignes, les mots de McCraw n’ont trouvé aucun écho dans le Times lui-même », a écrit l’activiste Ray McGovern pour le média alternatif Consortium News. « Ces dernières années, le journal a montré une tendance marquée à éviter d’imprimer quoi que ce soit qui pourrait risquer de lui couter sa place de favori au premier rang du gouvernement. »

    Alors examinons un peu tout ça. Il est maintenant de notoriété publique que le gouvernement équatorien cherche activement à livrer Assange pour être arrêté par le gouvernement britannique. C’est ce qu’a d’abord rapporté RT, puis confirmé de façon indépendante parThe Intercept, et c’est aujourd’hui à la connaissance du grand public et rapporté par des médias grand public comme CNN. Il est également de notoriété publique que l’asile d’Assange fut accordé par le gouvernement équatorien en raison de la crainte d’une extradition vers les États-Unis et de poursuites pour des publications de WikiLeaks. Tout le monde, du président Donald Trump au ministre de la justice Jeff Sessions en passant par le secrétaire d’État Mike Pompeo, en passant par Adam Schiff, membre de la commission du renseignement de la Chambre des Représentants, et jusqu’aux membres démocrates du Sénat US, a fait des déclarations publiques indiquant clairement que le gouvernement américain veut faire sortir Assange du refuge de son asile politique et l’emprisonner.

    Le New York Times en est conscient et, comme en témoignent les commentaires de McCraw, il est également conscient du dangereux précédent qu’une telle poursuite créerait pour tous les médias. La rédaction du New York Times est consciente que le gouvernement américain, en poursuivant un éditeur pour avoir publié des documents importants qui avaient été cachés au public, rendrait impossible pour le Times de publier le même type de documents sans craindre les mêmes répercussions juridiques. Elle est consciente que les manœuvres à l’encontre d’Assange constituent une menace existentielle bien réelle pour la possibilité d’un véritable journalisme et de faire rendre des comptes au pouvoir.

    On pourrait donc s’attendre à une avalanche d’analyses et d’articles d’opinion du New York Times condamnant énergiquement toute action contre Julian Assange. On pourrait s’attendre à ce que tous les médias aux Etats-Unis sonnent l’alarme ; d’autant plus que la menace vient de l’administration Trump, sur qui des médias comme le New York Times font volontiers circuler des mises en garde alarmantes. On pourrait s’attendre à ce que tous les commentateurs de CNN et NBC désignent Assange comme le cas le plus clair et le plus flagrant de la tristement célèbre « guerre contre la presse libre » de Trump. Si l’on laisse de côté les questions de moralité, de compassion et de droits de la personne autour de l’affaire Assange, on pourrait penser que, ne serait-ce que pour une simple raison d’intérêt personnel, ils le défendraient haut et fort.

    Et pourtant, ce n’est pas le cas. Et le fait qu’ils ne le font pas révèle leur véritable nature.

    Théoriquement, le journalisme a pour but d’aider à informer la population et à demander des comptes aux autorités. C’est pourquoi c’est la seule profession explicitement nommée dans la Constitution des États-Unis, et c’est pourquoi la liberté de la presse a bénéficié de telles protections constitutionnelles tout au long de l’histoire des États-Unis. Aujourd’hui, la presse ne protège pas Julian Assange parce qu’elle n’a pas l’intention d’informer le public ni de demander des comptes à la puissance publique.

    Il ne s’agit pas de suggérer l’existence d’une grande conspiration secrète parmi les journalistes américains. C’est un simple fait que les ploutocrates possèdent la plupart des médias d’information et embauchent les gens qui les dirigent, ce qui naturellement créé un environnement où la meilleure façon de faire avancer sa carrière est de rester perpétuellement inoffensif envers l’establishment sur lequel les ploutocrates ont bâti leurs empires respectifs. C’est pourquoi vous voyez des journalistes ambitieux sur Twitter se démener pour être les premiers à balancer une phrase concise favorable au programme de l’élite chaque fois que l’actualité leur en fournit l’occasion ; ils sont conscients que leur présence dans les médias sociaux est évaluée par les employeurs potentiels et leurs alliés pour mesurer leur degré de loyauté. C’est aussi la raison pour laquelle tant de ceux qui aspirent à devenir journalistes attaquent Assange et WikiLeaks chaque fois que c’est possible.

    « Tous ceux qui souhaitent entrer dans l’élite culturelle doivent maintenant soigner leurs médias sociaux afin d’éviter les controverses », a récemment déclaré le journaliste Michael Tracey. « Ils finiront par intérioriser l’évitement de la controverse comme une vertu, et non comme une imposition de la société. Le résultat, c’est une culture d’élite conformiste et ennuyeuse. »

    Un excellent moyen pour un journaliste en herbe d’éviter la controverse est de ne jamais, jamais défendre Assange ou WikiLeaks sur les médias sociaux ou dans n’importe quel média, et en aucun cas de laisser penser qu’il pourrait un jour publier des documents du même tonneau que ceux de WikiLeaks. Une excellente façon de faire ses preuves dans le métier est de rejoindre tous ceux qui rédigent de très nombreux articles de diffamation sur Assange et WikiLeaks.

    Les médias grand public et ceux qui s’y épanouissent n’ont pas l’intention de secouer le cocotier et de perdre les privilèges et les relations qu’ils ont durement acquis. Les médias conservateurs continueront à défendre le président américain et les médias libéraux continueront à défendre la CIA et le FBI. Les deux contribueront à faire progresser la guerre, l’écocide, l’expansionnisme militaire, la surveillance et la militarisation de la police, et aucun ne divulguera quoi que ce soit qui puisse nuire aux structures de pouvoir qu’ils ont appris à servir. Ils resteront en toutes circonstances les défenseurs inoffensifs et incontestés des riches et des puissants.

    Pendant ce temps, les médias alternatifs défendent férocement Assange [pas tous, pas tous - NdT]. Aujourd’hui même, j’ai vu des articles de Consortium News, World Socialist Website, Disobedient Media, Antiwar et Common Dreams dénoncer la persécution du plus important militant de la transparence gouvernementale vivant aujourd’hui. Les médias alternatifs et les auteurs indépendants ne sont pas liés par une servitude envers l’ establishment, l’importance de WikiLeaks est donc claire comme l’eau de roche. On n’est jamais autant aveuglé par les comportements pernicieux du pouvoir que lorsque c’est le pouvoir signe votre chèque de paie.

    Les médias de masse aux Etats-Unis et dans le monde entier se sont totalement discrédités en ne défendant pas un éditeur qui a le pouvoir de faire rendre des comptes et de faire la lumière sur la vérité, pour informer le public. Chaque jour qui passe où ils ne condamnent pas sans équivoque toute tentative de poursuivre Assange est une preuve de plus, parmi tant, que les médias commerciaux sont au service du pouvoir et non de la vérité. Leur silence est un aveu tacite qu’ils ne sont rien d’autre que des sténographes et des propagandistes des forces les plus puissantes de la terre.

    Caitlin Johnstone
    Traduction « j’allais le dire de façon moins élégante » par VD pour le Grand Soir avec probablement toutes les fautes et coquilles habituelles

     #assange #julian_assange #internet #nsa #censure #activisme #etats-unis #médias #new-york-times #cia #fbi #écocide #WikiLeaks #journalistes

  • C.I.A.’s Afghan Forces Leave a Trail of Abuse and Anger - The New York Times

    NADER SHAH KOT, #Afghanistan — Razo Khan woke up suddenly to the sight of assault rifles pointed at his face, and demands that he get out of bed and onto the floor.

    Within minutes, the armed raiders had separated the men from the women and children. Then the shooting started.

    As Mr. Khan was driven away for questioning, he watched his home go up in flames. Within were the bodies of two of his brothers and of his sister-in-law Khanzari, who was shot three times in the head. Villagers who rushed to the home found the burned body of her 3-year-old daughter, Marina, in a corner of a torched bedroom.

    The men who raided the family’s home that March night, in the district of Nader Shah Kot, were members of an Afghan strike force trained and overseen by the Central Intelligence Agency in a parallel mission to the United States military’s, but with looser rules of engagement.

    #milices #CIA

    • Notorious CIA-Backed Units Will Remain in Afghanistan

      Last fall, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, asked the court’s Pre-Trial Chamber to open a formal investigation into the possible commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by parties to the war in Afghanistan, including US persons.

      Bensouda’s preliminary examination found “a reasonable basis to believe” that “war crimes of torture and ill-treatment” had been committed “by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan and in secret detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, principally in the 2003-2004 period, although allegedly continuing in some cases until 2014.”

      Bensouda noted these alleged crimes “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but rather “part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘actionable intelligence’ from detainees.” She concluded there was “reason to believe” that crimes were “committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies … which would support US objectives in the conflict in Afghanistan.”

      #impunité #crimes #Etats-Unis

  • Pompeo Response to Holiday Card FOIA
    Le chef de la CIA vous envoie ses meilleurs voeux pour Noël .

    Téléchargez le document complet : https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4343224/Pompeo-Response-to-Holiday-Card-FOIA.pdf

    P.S. Cet homme a été remplacé par une femme sans doute plus efficace que lui. On n’a pas eu de message de Noël de sa part. On s’en félicite.


    Haspel has attracted controversy for her role as chief of a CIA black site in Thailand in 2002 in which prisoners were tortured with enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

    #USA #CIA #wtf

  • Four more ways the #CIA has meddled in Africa - BBC News

    Article de 2017

    The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has a long history of involvement in African affairs, so Sunday’s reports that the 1962 arrest of Nelson Mandela came following a CIA tip-off don’t come as a huge surprise.

    #Afrique #Etats-Unis

  • #Black_sites Turkey

    In a near-repeat of the CIA’s ‘#extraordinary_renditions’, the regime of Turkish president Erdoğan is kidnapping dozens of members of the Gülen movement from around the world. Victims are now raising a serious accusation: secret torture sites are part of the repression. A team of nine media organizations from eight countries, coordinated by CORRECTIV, investigates.

    #Turquie #torture #prisons_secrètes #répression #enlèvement #persécution #extradition #CIA
    cc @isskein @fil

    • Angriffe, Empörung, Schadenfreude – Die Reaktionen auf unsere Recherche #BlackSitesTurkey

      Unsere Recherche über das weltweite Entführungsprogramm des türkischen Geheimdiensts schlägt hohe Wellen: die türkische Regierungspresse rückt uns in die Nähe von angeblichen Terroristen, viele deutsche Politiker äußern sich empört. Auch in Saudi-Arabien wird die Recherche #BlackSitesTurkey aufmerksam verfolgt: viele sind erleichtert, dass sich nach dem Mord an dem saudischen Journalisten Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul internationale Medien mit den Verbrechen der Regierung von Präsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan beschäftigen.

      Neun von CORRECTIV koordinierte internationale Medien enthüllten in dieser Woche das ganze Ausmaß des staatlichen Entführungsprogramms der Türkei: der türkische Geheimdienst entführt aus Ländern wie dem Kosovo oder Malaysia Anhänger der Gülen-Bewegung. Dutzende Opfer sind so bereits in türkischen Gefängnissen gelandet. Einige von ihnen warten noch Monate später auf eine Anklage. Zugleich deckten wir ernstzunehmende Hinweise auf einen zweiten, bisher unbekannten Teil der Unterdrückungsmaschinerie auf: einige Opfer berichten, dass sie in der Türkei in geheime Folterstätten verschleppt und dort monatelang misshandelt worden seien.

      Unsere Fragen zu diesen Vorwürfen ließ die türkische Regierung unbeantwortet. Die Reaktion folgte einen Tag nach der Veröffentlichung. Die pro-ErdoğanZeitung Yeni Şafak titelte am Mittwoch: „Sie sind zum Angriff übergegangen“.
      Angriff auf die Förderer

      Es folgt ein krudes Pamphlet, in dem CORRECTIV Nähe zur PKK und zur Gülen-Bewegung vorgeworfen wird. Auch dass CORRECTIV Projektfinanzierung von der Open Society Foundations von George Soros erhalten hat, ist für die Zeitung ein Vorwurf. Auch die Brost Stiftung sowie die Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung hält die Zeitung als Förderer von CORRECTIV für erwähnenswert.

      Am Donnerstag legte die Zeitung noch einmal nach: CORRECTIV sei auch vom „tiefen Staat“ in Deutschland finanziert.

      Auch die Tageszeitung Avrupa Sabah widmete ihre Titelseite am Mittwoch der Recherche #BlackSitesTurkey. Die Recherche sei eine von Can Dündar gesteuerte Schmierenkampagne. Dündar ist Chefredakteur von #ÖZGÜRÜZ, der türkischen Schwesterredaktion von CORRECTIV. Dündar musste wegen seiner Recherchen die Türkei verlassen. Weder an der Recherche noch an der Veröffentlichung von #BlackSitesTurkey waren Dündar und die Redaktion von #ÖZGÜRÜZ beteiligt.
      Screenshot Zeitung Sabah

      Sonst griffen türkische Medien die Recherche nicht auf. Allerdings übersetzte der türkische Dienst des Fernsehsenders Euronews sie ins Türkische. Die Öffentlichkeit in der Türkei, der kaum noch unabhängige Medien zur Verfügung stehen, kann sich damit über die Recherche informieren.

      Auch in der deutschen Politik fand die Recherche erhebliches Echo. Der Grünen-Abgeordnete Omid Nouripour sagte, dass es früher bereits Geheimgefängnisse in der Türkei gegeben habe. „Wenn es jetzt wieder welche gibt, dann ist das ein Riesen-Skandal und gehört auf die Tagesordnung der internationalen Gemeinschaft,“sagte der Politiker. Auch die Europaabgeordnete Eva Sommer von der EVP-Fraktion kritisierte das Entführungsprogramm der Türkei. „Das ist etwas, was wirklich untragbar ist.“

      Unsere Kollegen von Frontal21 haben diese und weitere Stimmen aus der deutschen Politik zusammen getragen. Das ZDF-Magazin war einer von insgesamt neun Medienpartnern der Recherche, zu denen unter anderem auch die Zeitungen Le Monde, El Pais und Haaretz zählten.
      Freude in Saudi-Arabien

      In Schweden, wo die Nachrichtenagentur TT zu den Recherchepartnern von #BlackSitesTurkey zählte, reagierte die größte Tageszeitung des Landes mit einem deutlichen Kommentar.

      Der Autor verurteilte die Verfolgung von Kritikern der Erdoğan-Regierung. „Die Ermordung eines Journalisten in Istanbul durch Saudi-Arabien wurde richtiger Weise von Erdoğan verurteilt. Aber seine eigene Bilanz bei Menschenrechten ist zum Haare sträuben.“

      Damit bezieht sich die Zeitung auf Jamal Khashoggi. Der saudische Dissident und Journalist wurde im Oktober im saudischen Konsulat in Istanbul auf brutale Weise ermordet. Mitglieder des US-Senats sagten nach einer Vorstellung von CIA-Erkenntnissen über den Mord, dass der saudische Kronprinz Mohammed bin Salman, kurz MBS, tief in den Mord vertrickt gewesen sei.

      Der türkische Präsident Erdoğanhatte die Ermordung Khashoggis geschickt für seine Außenpolitik genutzt und Saudi-Arabien sowie den Kronprinz MBS stark unter Druck gesetzt.

      Anhänger der saudischen Königsfamilie reagierten daher erfreut über die Recherche #BlackSitesTurkey, die die Aufmerksamkeit wieder auf die Menschenrechtsverletzungen in der Türkei richtet.

      Ein Twitter-Nutzer versah ein Video, in dem unser Chefredakteur Oliver Schröm über die Recherche spricht, mit arabischen Untertiteln und fügte zudem unseren Trailer zur Recherche hinzu. Das so gestaltete Video wurde über 50.000 Mal aufgerufen.


  • Les #espions qui venaient d’#Hollywood - L’essentiel - Télérama.fr

    Hollywood, nid d’espions ? Avec ce documentaire étonnant, Julia et Clara Kuperberg explorent une réalité plus romanesque que la fiction. Après avoir réhabilité la place prépondérante des femmes dans la naissance du cinéma (1) , les deux réali­satrices s’attaquent une fois encore à un sujet méconnu : le rôle des stars hollywoodiennes pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Dès la fin des années 1930, Marlene Dietrich, Cary Grant, Lesley Howard ou John Ford ont joué les agents secrets pour le #MI6 anglais ou l’#OSS (ancêtre de la #CIA). Profitant de leur notoriété pour voyager en toute liberté, approchant les puissants, cachant, comme Joséphine Baker, des microfilms dans la doublure de leurs vêtements. Des rumeurs couraient, mais il aura fallu la déclassification des archives nationales de Washington, en 2008, pour qu’émergent des noms et des faits.

  • The CIA’s communications suffered a catastrophic compromise

    #Espionnage et #cybersécurité : des dizaines d’agents de la #CIA arrêtés ou exécutés... sur simple clic #Google !

    Au moins 30 agents « neutralisés », des dizaines d’autres démasqués. La CIA a payé un lourd tribut au renseignement entre 2009 et 2013. L’Agence américaine possédait des serveurs de communication « cachés » sur #Internet. Les services iraniens et chinois avaient trouvé la « formule magique » pour récupérer leurs adresses. Explications

    #Etats-Unis #Iran #Chine

  • Tech firms make millions from Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, report finds

    Amazon, Palantir and Microsoft provide tools that aid surveillance, detention and deportation, according to report Silicon Valley technology corporations including Amazon, Palantir and Microsoft make millions from US immigration enforcement, according to a new report. They provide tools that aid surveillance, detention and deportation of individuals targeted by Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, according to a paper published Tuesday by a coalition of immigrant rights groups. The report (...)

    #CIA #algorithme #migration #surveillance #Microsoft #Palantir #Amazon #AWS

  • Palantir, l’embarrassant poisson-pilote du big data

    L’entreprise américaine de visualisation de données travaille avec des dizaines de services de police ou de renseignement, dont la DGSI. Une liste de clients où figurent la National Security Agency (NSA) américaine et la police de Los Angeles. Un financement initial obtenu auprès de la CIA, les services extérieurs des Etats-Unis. Un cofondateur, Peter Thiel, qui siège au conseil d’administration de Facebook et a l’oreille du président américain Donald Trump, pour qui il avait publiquement pris (...)

    #Palantir #DGSI #CIA #NSA #Facebook #algorithme #backdoor #sécuritaire #surveillance #BigData (...)


  • C.I.A. Drone Mission, Curtailed by Obama, Is Expanded in Africa Under Trump

    The C.I.A. is poised to conduct secret drone strikes against Qaeda and Islamic State insurgents from a newly expanded air base deep in the Sahara, making aggressive use of powers that were scaled back during the Obama administration and restored by President Trump.

    Late in his presidency, Barack Obama sought to put the military in charge of drone attacks after a backlash arose over a series of highly visible strikes, some of which killed civilians. The move was intended, in part, to bring greater transparency to attacks that the United States often refused to acknowledge its role in.

    But now the C.I.A. is broadening its drone operations, moving aircraft to northeastern Niger to hunt Islamist militants in southern Libya. The expansion adds to the agency’s limited covert missions in eastern Afghanistan for strikes in Pakistan, and in southern Saudi Arabia for attacks in Yemen.

    Nigerien and American officials said the C.I.A. had been flying drones on surveillance missions for several months from a corner of a small commercial airport in Dirkou. Satellite imagery shows that the airport has grown significantly since February to include a new taxiway, walls and security posts.

    One American official said the drones had not yet been used in lethal missions, but would almost certainly be in the near future, given the growing threat in southern Libya. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the secretive operations.

    A C.I.A. spokesman, Timothy Barrett, declined to comment. A Defense Department spokeswoman, Maj. Sheryll Klinkel, said the military had maintained a base at the Dirkou airfield for several months but did not fly drone missions from there.

    The drones take off from Dirkou at night — typically between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. — buzzing in the clear, starlit desert sky. A New York Times reporter saw the gray aircraft — about the size of Predator drones, which are 27 feet long — flying at least three times over six days in early August. Unlike small passenger planes that land occasionally at the airport, the drones have no blinking lights signaling their presence.

    “All I know is they’re American,” Niger’s interior minister, Mohamed Bazoum, said in an interview. He offered few other details about the drones.

    Dirkou’s mayor, Boubakar Jerome, said the drones had helped improve the town’s security. “It’s always good. If people see things like that, they’ll be scared,” Mr. Jerome said.

    Mr. Obama had curtailed the C.I.A.’s lethal role by limiting its drone flights, notably in Yemen. Some strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere that accidentally killed civilians, stirring outrage among foreign diplomats and military officials, were shielded because of the C.I.A.’s secrecy.

    As part of the shift, the Pentagon was given the unambiguous lead for such operations. The move sought, in part, to end an often awkward charade in which the United States would not concede its responsibility for strikes that were abundantly covered by news organizations and tallied by watchdog groups. However, the C.I.A. program was not fully shut down worldwide, as the agency and its supporters in Congress balked.

    The drone policy was changed last year, after Mike Pompeo, the C.I.A. director at the time, made a forceful case to President Trump that the agency’s broader counterterrorism efforts were being needlessly constrained. The Dirkou base was already up and running by the time Mr. Pompeo stepped down as head of the C.I.A. in April to become Mr. Trump’s secretary of state.

    The Pentagon’s Africa Command has carried out five drone strikes against Qaeda and Islamic State militants in Libya this year, including one two weeks ago. The military launches its MQ-9 Reaper drones from bases in Sicily and in Niamey, Niger’s capital, 800 miles southwest of Dirkou.

    But the C.I.A. base is hundreds of miles closer to southwestern Libya, a notorious haven for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups that also operate in the Sahel region of Niger, Chad, Mali and Algeria. It is also closer to southern Libya than a new $110 million drone base in Agadez, Niger, 350 miles west of Dirkou, where the Pentagon plans to operate armed Reaper drone missions by early next year.

    Another American official said the C.I.A. began setting up the base in January to improve surveillance of the region, partly in response to an ambush last fall in another part of Niger that killed four American troops. The Dirkou airfield was labeled a United States Air Force base as a cover, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential operational matters.

    The C.I.A. operation in Dirkou is burdened by few, if any, of the political sensitivities that the United States military confronts at its locations, said one former American official involved with the project.

    Even so, security analysts said, it is not clear why the United States needs both military and C.I.A. drone operations in the same general vicinity to combat insurgents in Libya. France also flies Reaper drones from Niamey, but only on unarmed reconnaissance missions.

    “I would be surprised that the C.I.A. would open its own base,” said Bill Roggio, editor of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Long War Journal, which tracks military strikes against militant groups.

    Despite American denials, a Nigerien security official said he had concluded that the C.I.A. launched an armed drone from the Dirkou base to strike a target in Ubari, in southern Libya, on July 25. The Nigerien security official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified program.

    A spokesman for the Africa Command, Maj. Karl Wiest, said the military did not carry out the Ubari strike.

    #Ubari is in the same region where the American military in March launched its first-ever drone attack against Qaeda militants in southern Libya. It is at the intersection of the powerful criminal and jihadist currents that have washed across Libya in recent years. Roughly equidistant from Libya’s borders with Niger, Chad and Algeria, the area’s seminomadic residents are heavily involved in the smuggling of weapons, drugs and migrants through the lawless deserts of southern Libya.

    Some of the residents have allied with Islamist militias, including Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which operates across Algeria, Mali, Niger and Libya.

    Dirkou, in northeast Niger, is an oasis town of a few thousand people in the open desert, bordered by a small mountain range. For centuries, it has been a key transit point for travelers crossing the Sahara. It helped facilitate the rise of Islam in West Africa in the 9th century, and welcomed salt caravans from the neighboring town of Bilma.

    The town has a handful of narrow, sandy roads. Small trees dot the horizon. Date and neem trees line the streets, providing shelter for people escaping the oppressive midday heat. There is a small market, where goods for sale include spaghetti imported from Libya. Gasoline is also imported from Libya and is cheaper than elsewhere in the country.

    The drones based in Dirkou are loud, and their humming and buzzing drowns out the bleats of goats and crows of roosters.

    “It stops me from sleeping,” said Ajimi Koddo, 45, a former migrant smuggler. “They need to go. They go in our village, and it annoys us too much.”

    Satellite imagery shows that construction started in February on a new compound at the Dirkou airstrip. Since then, the facility has been extended to include a larger paved taxiway and a clamshell tent connected to the airstrip — all features that are consistent with the deployment of small aircraft, possibly drones.

    Five defensive positions were set up around the airport, and there appear to be new security gates and checkpoints both to the compound and the broader airport.

    It’s not the first time that Washington has eyed with interest Dirkou’s tiny base. In the late 1980s, the United States spent $3.2 million renovating the airstrip in an effort to bolster Niger’s government against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, then the leader of Libya.

    Compared with other parts of Africa, the C.I.A.’s presence in the continent’s northwest is relatively light, according to a former State Department official who served in the region. In this part of Niger, the C.I.A. is also providing training and sharing intelligence, according to a Nigerien military intelligence document reviewed by The Times.

    The Nigerien security official said about a dozen American Green Berets were stationed earlier this year in #Dirkou — in a base separate from the C.I.A.’s — to train a special counterterrorism battalion of local forces. Those trainers left about three months ago, the official said.

    It is unlikely that they will return anytime soon. The Pentagon is considering withdrawing nearly all American commandos from Niger in the wake of the deadly October ambush that killed four United States soldiers.

    #CIA #drones #Niger #Sahel #USA #Etats-Unis #EI #ISIS #Etat_islamique #sécurité #terrorisme #base_militaire

    • Le Sahel est-il une zone de #non-droit ?

      La CIA a posé ses valises dans la bande sahélo-saharienne. Le New-York Times l’a annoncé, le 9 septembre dernier. Le quotidien US, a révélé l’existence d’une #base_de_drones secrète non loin de la commune de Dirkou, dans le nord-est du Niger. Cette localité, enclavée, la première grande ville la plus proche est Agadez située à 570 km, est le terrain de tir parfait. Elle est éloignée de tous les regards, y compris des autres forces armées étrangères : France, Allemagne, Italie, présentes sur le sol nigérien. Selon un responsable américain anonyme interrogé par ce journal, les drones déployés à Dirkou n’avaient « pas encore été utilisés dans des missions meurtrières, mais qu’ils le seraient certainement dans un proche avenir, compte tenu de la menace croissante qui pèse sur le sud de la Libye. » Or, d’après les renseignements recueillis par l’IVERIS, ces assertions sont fausses, la CIA a déjà mené des opérations à partir de cette base. Ces informations apportent un nouvel éclairage et expliquent le refus catégorique et systématique de l’administration américaine de placer la force conjointe du G5 Sahel (Tchad, Mauritanie, Burkina-Faso, Niger, Mali) sous le chapitre VII de la charte des Nations Unies.
      L’installation d’une base de drones n’est pas une bonne nouvelle pour les peuples du Sahel, et plus largement de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, qui pourraient connaître les mêmes malheurs que les Afghans et les Pakistanais confrontés à la guerre des drones avec sa cohorte de victimes civiles, appelées pudiquement « dégâts collatéraux ».

      D’après le journaliste du NYT, qui s’est rendu sur place, les drones présents à Dirkou ressembleraient à des Predator, des aéronefs d’ancienne génération qui ont un rayon d’action de 1250 km. Il serait assez étonnant que l’agence de Langley soit équipée de vieux modèles alors que l’US Air Force dispose à Niamey et bientôt à Agadez des derniers modèles MQ-9 Reaper, qui, eux, volent sur une distance de 1850 km. A partir de cette base, la CIA dispose donc d’un terrain de tir étendu qui va de la Libye, au sud de l’Algérie, en passant par le Tchad, jusqu’au centre du Mali, au Nord du Burkina et du Nigéria…

      Selon deux sources militaires de pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest, ces drones ont déjà réalisé des frappes à partir de la base de Dirkou. Ces bombardements ont eu lieu en Libye. Il paraît important de préciser que le chaos existant dans ce pays depuis la guerre de 2011, ne rend pas ces frappes plus légales. Par ailleurs, ces mêmes sources suspectent la CIA d’utiliser Dirkou comme une prison secrète « si des drones peuvent se poser des avions aussi. Rien ne les empêche de transporter des terroristes de Libye exfiltrés. Dirkou un Guantanamo bis ? »

      En outre, il n’est pas impossible que ces drones tueurs aient été en action dans d’autres Etats limitrophes. Qui peut le savoir ? « Cette base est irrégulière, illégale, la CIA peut faire absolument tout ce qu’elle veut là-bas » rapporte un officier. De plus, comment faire la différence entre un MQ-9 Reaper de la CIA ou encore un de l’US Air Force, qui, elle, a obtenu l’autorisation d’armer ses drones (1). Encore que…

      En novembre 2017, le président Mahamadou Issoufou a autorisé les drones de l’US Air Force basés à Niamey, à frapper leurs cibles sur le territoire nigérien (2). Mais pour que cet agrément soit légal, il aurait fallu qu’il soit présenté devant le parlement, ce qui n’a pas été le cas. Même s’il l’avait été, d’une part, il le serait seulement pour l’armée US et pas pour la CIA, d’autre part, il ne serait valable que sur le sol nigérien et pas sur les territoires des pays voisins…

      Pour rappel, cette autorisation a été accordée à peine un mois après les événements de Tongo Tongo, où neuf militaires avaient été tués, cinq soldats nigériens et quatre américains. Cette autorisation est souvent présentée comme la conséquence de cette attaque. Or, les pourparlers ont eu lieu bien avant. En effet, l’AFRICOM a planifié la construction de la base de drone d’Agadez, la seconde la plus importante de l’US Air Force en Afrique après Djibouti, dès 2016, sous le mandat de Barack Obama. Une nouvelle preuve que la politique africaine du Pentagone n’a pas changée avec l’arrivée de Donald Trump (3-4-5).

      Les USA seuls maîtres à bord dans le Sahel

      Dès lors, le véto catégorique des Etats-Unis de placer la force G5 Sahel sous chapitre VII se comprend mieux. Il s’agit de mener une guerre non-officielle sans mandat international des Nations-Unies et sans se soucier du droit international. Ce n’était donc pas utile qu’Emmanuel Macron, fer de lance du G5, force qui aurait permis à l’opération Barkhane de sortir du bourbier dans lequel elle se trouve, plaide à de nombreuses reprises cette cause auprès de Donald Trump. Tous les présidents du G5 Sahel s’y sont essayés également, en vain. Ils ont fini par comprendre, quatre chefs d’Etats ont boudé la dernière Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Seul, le Président malien, Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, est monté à la tribune pour réitérer la demande de mise sous chapitre VII, unique solution pour que cette force obtienne un financement pérenne. Alors qu’en décembre 2017, Emmanuel Macron y croyait encore dur comme fer et exigeait des victoires au premier semestre 2018, faute de budget, le G5 Sahel n’est toujours pas opérationnel ! (6-7) Néanmoins, la Chine a promis de le soutenir financièrement. Magnanime, le secrétaire d’Etat à la défense, Jim Mattis a lui assuré à son homologue, Florence Parly, que les Etats-Unis apporteraient à la force conjointe une aide très significativement augmentée. Mais toujours pas de chapitre VII en vue... Ainsi, l’administration Trump joue coup double. Non seulement elle ne s’embarrasse pas avec le Conseil de Sécurité et le droit international mais sous couvert de lutte antiterroriste, elle incruste ses bottes dans ce qui est, (ce qui fut ?), la zone d’influence française.

      Far West

      Cerise sur le gâteau, en août dernier le patron de l’AFRICOM, le général Thomas D. Waldhauser, a annoncé une réduction drastique de ses troupes en Afrique (9). Les sociétés militaires privées, dont celle d’Erik Prince, anciennement Blackwater, ont bien compris le message et sont dans les starting-blocks prêtes à s’installer au Sahel (10).


  • #Cloud_Act : un député dénonce « l’#ingérence numérique » des #États-Unis dans la #vie_privée des Français - Politique - Numerama

    Depuis le 23 mars 2018, les États-Unis sont dotés dans leur arsenal juridique d’une nouvelle loi intitulée Cloud Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act). Avec cette législation, il s’agit pour Washington de disposer des outils adéquats pour contraindre les firmes américaines à fournir des données stockées sur des serveurs, en cas de mandat ou d’assignation en justice.

    Y compris lorsque lesdits serveurs se trouvent dans des pays étrangers.

    #Palantir : l’œil américain du #renseignement français

    Le big data constitue aujourd’hui « le pétrole » des services de renseignements. Depuis 2016, une société américaine liée à la #CIA, Palantir, travaille pour le renseignement intérieur français, la DGSI. Y a-t-il un risque de fuite de données ? Enquête sur l’une des start-up les plus puissantes du monde.


  • #Dick_Marty - Un grido per la giustizia

    Dopo gli attentati dell’11 settembre 2001, il governo americano stipula degli accordi segreti con i governi europei per combattere il terrorismo. Sono accordi che prevedono che la #Cia abbia pieni poteri per rapire e torturare delle persone sospette. Una violazione flagrante dei trattati internazionali, dello stato di diritto e delle leggi dei paesi europei, e uno schiaffo ai diritti dell’uomo. Quando il Washington Post nel 2005 rivela questo patto segreto, il Consiglio d’Europa incarica il parlamentare svizzero Dick Marty di indagare. Questo documentario è la storia di questa indagine e il ritratto di una persona fuori dal comune.

    Un racconto dettagliato e ricco di testimonianze che ci porta dentro ad una spy story degna delle più fantasiose sceneggiature: per Dick Marty la sete di verità è stata il motore di una ricerca minuziosa, condotta con pochi mezzi e con la pazienza di unire un tassello all’altro, sbrogliando una matassa più che ingarbugliata. Si sente davvero di poter contare qualcosa, quando ci si trova davanti a un gigante come i servizi segreti americani? Sarà proprio lui - l’ex procuratore pubblico con “Una certa idea di giustizia”, come recita il titolo del suo libro appena pubblicato per Favre - a portare la propria testimonianza anche nella parte in studio di questa puntata, unendo così il racconto più umano alla ricostruzione dei fatti.

    Nel documentario :

    «Io se dovessi sapere e tacere mi sentirei complice. Allora preferisco dire, denunciare, gridare, e non essere complice pur sapendo che il mio grido magari serve a poco»

    «Siamo sulla Terra per compiere qualcosa, non semplicemente per far passare il tempo. Ho l’impressione che finché uno ha la capacità di indignarsi di fronte all’ingiustizia, ci si sente vivi e si ha ancora il coraggio di guardarsi nello specchio»

    «Denunciare. E’ il compito di ogni testimone di un’ingiustizia. E ritengo complici tutti coloro che di fronte a un’ingiustizia stanno zitti. Ritengo che la rivolta di chi assiste all’ingiustizia permette di far progredire la nostra civiltà»

    #justice #terrorisme #film #documentaire #CIA #torture #prisons_secrètes #anti-terrorisme #war_on_terror #USA #Etats-Unis #ennemi_combattant #Convention_de_Genève #extraordinary_renditions #transferts_aériens #Black_sites #Pologne #Roumanie #Abu_Omar (imam disparu à Milan) #Aviano #Italie #Guantanamo #zero_zone #extra-territorialité #torture_codifiée


    #Dick_Marty, une très rares personnes pour laquelle j’ai vraiment un profond respect...

    Dans l’interview de présentation du film sur Dick Marty...

    Giornalista: «Tra giustizia e legalità, Lei dove si mette?»
    Dick Marty: «Io sarei dalla parte di Antigone e non di Creonte.»
    Giornalista: «Antigone che vuole dare sepoltura a suo fratello...»
    Dick Marty: «... violando la legge. La legge del potente. Sono chiaramente dalla parte di Antigone. E’ vero che nella maggior parte delle cose si è necessariamente dalla parte della giustizia. Però ci sono dei momenti cruciali in cui devi ribellarti. E questi atti di ribellione hanno fatto progredire l’umanità. E se ci fossero state più ribellioni... penso al tempo del Terzo Reich... forse avremmo evitato delle catastrofi umanitarie terribili.»
    Giornalista: «Ribellarsi non è facile però...»
    DM: «Certo, bisogna saper staccarsi dal gruppo. Bisogna saper gridare la propria rivolta, la propria verità. E questo chiede un certo impegno»

  • Palantir : livre-t-on nos secrets à nos alliés américains ?

    Une société américaine d’analyse de données, Palantir, travaille pour le compte des services antiterroristes français, et des entreprises stratégiques, comme Airbus. Existe-t-il des risques de fuites de données vers les États-Unis ? Enquête sur l’une des start-up les plus puissantes du monde. 23 mai 2018. Une cinquantaine de patrons de géants du numérique sont invités par le chef de l’État, Emmanuel Macron, lors d’une réunion baptisée Tech for good. Parmi eux, un homme aux cheveux en bataille : Alexander (...)

    #Airbus #CambridgeAnalytica #Boeing #Palantir #Facebook #Paypal #algorithme #Predpol #criminalité #écoutes #données #métadonnées #web #surveillance #BigData #NSA #CIA (...)

    ##criminalité ##FBI

  • Botched #CIA Communications System Helped Blow Cover of Chinese Agents – Foreign Policy

    It was considered one of the CIA’s worst failures in decades: Over a two-year period starting in late 2010, Chinese authorities systematically dismantled the agency’s network of agents across the country, executing dozens of suspected U.S. spies. But since then, a question has loomed over the entire debacle.

    How were the Chinese able to roll up the network?

    Now, nearly eight years later, it appears that the agency botched the communication system it used to interact with its sources, according to five current and former intelligence officials. The CIA had imported the system from its Middle East operations, where the online environment was considerably less hazardous, and apparently underestimated China’s ability to penetrate it.


  • #Torture of terror suspect at #CIA black site operated by current director #Gina_Haspel detailed in newly declassified cables | The Independent

    The role of Ms Haspel in overseeing torture methods such as waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning that was outlawed once Barack Obama became president, was the focus of much of the questioning she faced earlier this year before she was eventually confirmed 54-45 by the Senate as CIA Director.

    Given that Donald Trump has often talked of his desire to restart the use of such methods, Ms Haspel, a 30-year-veteran of the agency was asked whether she agreed with the president.

  • #Israel is arming #neo-Nazis in Ukraine | The Electronic Intifada

    Israel’s military aid to Ukraine and its neo-Nazis emulates similar programs by the United States and other NATO countries including the UK and Canada.

    So obsessed are they with defeating a perceived threat from Russia that they seem happy to aid even openly Nazi militias – as long as they fight on their side.

    This is also a throwback to the early Cold War, when the #CIA supported fascists and Hitlerites to infiltrate from Austria into Hungary in 1956, where they began slaughtering Hungarian communist Jews and Hungarian Jews as “communists.”


  • Deux pays européens condamnés pour avoir hébergé des prisons de la #CIA - rts.ch - Monde

    La Cour avait été saisie par deux prisonniers de #Guantanamo qui affirmaient avoir été détenus au secret dans ces pays entre 2004 et 2006. Leurs requêtes avaient été examinées publiquement par la Cour en juin 2016.

    Dans deux arrêts distincts, la Cour a condamné les autorités roumaines et lituaniennes, pour plusieurs violations des droits de l’homme dans ces #prisons de l’agence de renseignement américaine.

    Parmi les droits violés : l’interdiction de la #torture, le droit à la liberté et à la sûreté des requérants, celui au #respect de la #vie_privée, et leur droit à un recours effectif.

  • Etats-Unis : mort de Luis Posada #Carriles, héros cubain des anticastristes - Amériques - RFI

    Un tueur de civils n’est pas un #terroriste si le pays d’origine des civils est un pays ennemi selon #RFI

    Arrêté en 1976, il est accusé d’être derrière l’attentat contre le vol 455 de la compagnie Cubana Aviacion qui a fait 73 morts. Un rôle confirmé depuis peu suite à la déclassification de documents secrets de la #CIA.

    Luis Posada Carriles parvient à s’enfuir et à rejoindre les #Etats-Unis. Accusé d’être un terroriste par le Venezuela et Cuba, il est au contraire adulé par la communauté cubaine anticastriste aux Etats-Unis. Preuve de sa #notoriété, la radio anticastriste américaine « La Poderosa » a souhaité respecter une minute de silence sur son antenne après la nouvelle de son décès.

    CUBA PIZZI : Le Ben Laden d’Amérique latine est mort | Le Club de Mediapart

    Luis Posada Carriles était un terroriste d’origine cubaine, que la grande presse mondiale définit simplement comme un « anti-castriste notoire ». Il est parti à l’âge de quatre-vingt-dix ans et sans payer pour tous ses #crimes. Jusqu’au bout, il a été protégé par le gouvernement des Etats-Unis, en particulier par la CIA et la famille Bush.

    Son nom est devenu célèbre lorsqu’on a su qu’il était l’un des auteurs intellectuels de l’explosion de l’avion de Cubana de Aviación, le 6 octobre 1976, avec 73 passagers à bord, peu après son décollage de l’aéroport Seawell des Barbades. Il fut capturé au Venezuela, où il travaillait pour les services de sécurité de ce pays. Après quelques brèves années de prison, la CIA l’aida à s’enfuir et l’amena en Amérique centrale pour qu’il apporte sa collaboration à la guerre de terreur que Ronald Reagan et son vice-président George Bush père menaient contre le gouvernement sandiniste du Nicaragua dans les années quatre-vingt.

  • La prison de Guantanamo fait face au vieillissement de ses prisonniers afp/ebz - 26 Mai 2018 - RTS

    Quand ils sont arrivés à Guantanamo, ils étaient des combattants dans la force de l’âge, capturés peu après les attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Plus de 15 ans plus tard, les détenus ont vieilli, et la prison doit s’adapter.

    Cette semaine, la Maison Blanche s’est rendue à l’évidence : en l’absence de volonté politique de régler la situation des 40 derniers prisonniers de Guantanamo, certains d’entre eux risquent d’y finir leurs jours.

    « Le centre de détention pour les détenus de grande valeur connaît des problèmes structurels et des pannes de système qui, si on ne les règle pas, pourraient représenter un risque pour les gardiens et les détenus », a indiqué la Maison Blanche dans une lettre aux élus du Congrès pour leur demander des fonds supplémentaires pour Guantanamo.

    « Il ne répond pas non plus aux besoins d’une population qui vieillit », précise le document.

    Pas d’information sur les détenus
    Le Pentagone ne publie pas d’informations sur les détenus de Guantanamo mais certains documents publiés par WikiLeaks et le New York Times permettent d’en savoir un peu plus sur eux.

    L’âge moyen des prisonniers est de 46 ans et demi. Le plus âgé est le Pakistanais Saifullah Paracha, qui aura 71 ans en août.

     #guantanamo #torture #etats-unis #prison #usa #cuba #us #terrorisme #guantánamo #cia #états-unis #prisons #vieillissement #personnes_âgées #hospice #fin_de_vie #maltraitance #civilisation #camp_de_concentration #camps #Histoire

    Adaptation des espaces
    «  Certains des espaces destinés aux rencontres avec les avocats sont maintenant équipés de rampes pour chaises roulantes », indique l’avocat d’un détenu. Des poignées ont été installées dans les toilettes pour aider les prisonniers à se relever.

    Le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) visite Guantanamo environ quatre fois par an pour s’assurer que la prison répond aux critères internationaux et pour évaluer la façon dont les prisonniers sont traités.

    « Nous sommes activement engagés dans un dialogue avec les autorités américaines » sur les besoins médicaux des détenus, indique à l’AFP un porte-parole du CICR à Washington, Marc Kilstein.

    Les détenus âgés souffrent fréquemment de maladies chroniques qui peuvent être exacerbées par le confinement : insuffisances cardiaques, diabète, maladies du foie, problèmes cognitifs.

  • The Latest : Human rights groups decry confirmation of Haspel

    C’est miraculeux, en deux heures et l’espace d’une nomination, on passe du statut de #tortionnaire à celui de partisan d’interrogatoires « rugueux »...

    2:10 p.m.

    The Senate is set to vote Thursday to confirm #Gina_Haspel as the first female director at the #CIA.

    Haspel’s nomination to lead the spy agency revived a debate on its now-banned #torture program. She is expected to be confirmed after several Democrats joined most Republicans in saying they would back President Donald Trump’s nominee.


    4:15 p.m.

    Human rights groups are lamenting the Senate confirmation of Gina Haspel to be CIA director because of her direct involvement in the spy agency’s harsh detention and interrogation program.

    #MSM #flagorneurs_du_pire #sans_vergogne #Etats_Unis