Sen. Ron Wyden

(update below)

Ahead of the confirmation of Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan to the position of CIA director, US Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has sent a letter to Brennan asking him to provide Congress access to “secret legal opinions outlining the government’s ability to target and kill Americans believed to be involved in terrorism.”

Wyden, who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, by law is supposed to provide oversight and have access to classified legal opinions, but, as he shares, the Obama administration has refused to provide him access to a copy of secret legal opinions for targeted killings:

…I have asked repeatedly over the past two years to see the secret legal opinions that contain the executive branch’s understanding of the President’s authority to kill American citizens in the course of counterterrorism operations. Senior intelligence officials have said publicly that they have the authority to knowingly use lethal force against Americans in the course of counterterrorism operations and have indicated that there are secret legal opinions issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that explain the basis for this authority. I have asked repeatedly to see these opinions, and I have been provided with some relevant information on the topic, but I have yet to see the opinions themselves…

Wyden explained that the decision by the Obama administration to claim intelligence agencies may kill American citizens while at the same time refusing to provide Congress with access to all legal opinions explaining the administration’s understanding of the authority is “alarming and indefensible.”

…There are clearly some circumstances in which the President has the authority to use lethal force against Americans who have taken up arms against the United States, just as President Lincoln had the authority to order Union troops to take military action against Confederate forces during the Civil War. But it is critically important for Congress and the American public to have full knowledge of how the executive branch understands the limits and boundaries of this authority so that Congress and the public can decide whether this authority has been properly defined and whether the President’s power to deliberately kill American citizens is subject to appropriate limitations. I have an obligation from my oath of office to review any classified legal opinions that lay out the federal government’s official views on this issue, and I will not be satisfied until I have received them. So, please ensure that these opinions are provided to me, along with the other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and our cleared staff, and that we receive written assurances that future legal opinions on this topic will also be provided… [emphasis added]

Wyden also criticized the fact that he has been “asking for over a year for the complete list of countries in which the intelligence community has used its lethal counterterrorism authorities.” The “intelligence community” has refused to provide a complete list.

…[E]very member of the Senate Intelligence Committee should know (or be able to find out) all of the countries where United States intelligence agencies have killed or attempted to kill people. The fact that this request was denied reflects poorly on the Obama Administration’s commitment to cooperation with congressional oversight…

What this indicates is the Obama administration and US intelligence agencies could be engaged in any number of “counterterrorism” operations in any number of countries and they could be assassinating people extrajudicially in those countries. The Obama administration and intelligence agencies will not inform Congress on the extent of such operations, even though under law they are supposed to keep Congress informed.

Touareg rebels join forces in northern Mali, December 5, 2012 (Photo by Magharebia)

France and eight other countries, including the United States, are escalating an intervention in the African country of Mali. The offensive, according to French authorities, is being mounted to target Islamic extremists or al Qaeda-linked rebels who have “grabbed more territory in Mali, inching closer to the capital.”

CBS News reported the ”United States is providing communications and transport help for an international military intervention aimed at wresting Mali’s north out of the hands of Islamist extremists.” Though the mission is taking place in a “lawless desert in weakly governed country,” French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said the operation was “gaining international backing. The US was providing communications and transportation support.

On January 12, “US officials” told CBS “they had offered to send drones to Mali.” Drones excel in weakly governed and lawless deserts and lawless parts of countries it seems such parts are where the US likes to use drones the most.

The Wall Street Journal reported, “France asked Washington late last week to deploy unmanned aerial drones and aircraft that could be used to refuel French fighter planes in the air. Paris also asked the US to provide satellite imagery and share intercepts of militants’ communications.”

According to WSJ, unnamed US officials told the newspaper the role of America “would be non-lethal in nature, focused on intelligence collection and providing other support to French and any allied African forces.” But drones were used to carry out strikes in Libya in 2011 and mission creep could easily lead to a situation where military drones were not just providing non-lethal tactical support to enable French military operations.”

Also, Tom Vanden Brook of USA TODAY reported, “US military warplanes assisted French forces battling Islamic extremists in two African countries over the weekend, according to the Pentagon, highlighting the growing threat of al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the region.” The US is apparently providing support for French troops in Somalia as well. (In fact, on Sunday, Obama submitted a statement to Congress briefing them on US military involvement in a failed French hostage rescue mission.)

Aaron Swartz, who led the groundswell of activism that defeated SOPA/PIPA (Photo by selfagency)

Three major newspapers ran stories this morning on the suicide of Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who the government was aggressively prosecuting for allegedly “hacking” into JSTOR to liberate some academic articles and make them more widely available to the world. Swartz was set to go on trial in April.

The Wall Street Journal reported, “Just days before he hanged himself, Internet activist Aaron Swartz’s hopes for a deal with federal prosecutors fell apart.” The newspaper notes he “allegedly used the computer network at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to download nearly five million articles from a fee-charging database of academic journals.”

Swartz’s lawyer, Elliot Peters, discussed “a possible plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann last fall.” Heymann would not accept a plea bargain if Swartz did not plead guilty to every count he faced—13 felonies. Peters tried last Wednesday to force a compromise and Heymann would change his position.

As the New York Times described, Swartz realized “he would have to face a costly, painful and public trial.” He could have been in jail for 50-plus years and fined around $4 million.

His girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, told the New York Times, “The case was draining his money, and he would need to ask for help financing his defense; two of his friends had recently been subpoenaed in the case. Both situations distressed him.” He did not want to ask other people for money.

Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), government prosecutors enjoy wide discretion. Typically, a prosecutor would push for a punishment proportional to the harm done by the crimes alleged. In Swartz’s case, it is clear this did not happen. JSTOR declined to press charges, but the government pursued the case anyway.

On July 19, 2011, his indictment was unsealed. United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz declared in a statement, “Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.”

Steven D. Ricciardi, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service in New England, contended, “The New England Electronic Crimes Task Force has taken an aggressive stance in the investigation of computer intrusions and other cybercrimes…Through this task force, the Secret Service and our partners on the Cambridge and MIT Police Departments demonstrate the importance of cooperation among law enforcement to focus resources and respond effectively to investigate and prevent this type of fraud.”

In September 2012, a “superseding indictment” expanded his charges from four to thirteen felonies. The government may have been willing to seek only seven years in jail at trial, according to the WSJ. It may have bargained that down to “six to eight months in exchange for a guilty plea.” However, Swartz did not want to go to jail at all.

Peters told WSJ: ”I think Aaron was frightened and bewildered that they’d taken this incredibly hard line against him…He didn’t want to go to jail. He didn’t want to be a felon.”

According to the WSJ, he started dating Stinebrickner-Kauffman in June 2011, one month before he was indicted on four counts. She “lived with him in Brooklyn for a few months.” In the week before his suicide, he was experiencing pain that was “too much to contemplate,” she said, and having “depressive episodes.” He also concluded “MIT wasn’t going to stand up for him.” It was a “tragedy” that MIT would not stop the government’s prosecution.