RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Johnson writes: "A Senate panel may be stealthily trying to give federal law enforcement a new tool to go after the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and its U.S. collaborators."

Senator Richard Burr, the chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (photo: Al Drago/The New York Times)
Senator Richard Burr, the chairman, and Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. (photo: Al Drago/The New York Times)


Senate Intel Slips Sentence Into Bill That Could Lead to Spying on US Citizens

By Tim Johnson, McClatchy DC

13 September 17

 

Senate panel may be stealthily trying to give federal law enforcement a new tool to go after the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and its U.S. collaborators.

A one-sentence “Sense of Congress” clause was tacked onto the end of a massive 11,700-word bill that was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee and is likely to come before the full Senate later this month.

The clause says that WikiLeaks “resembles a non-state hostile intelligence service” and that the U.S. government “should treat it as such.”

The intended target might not be Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks who has been holed up at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London since 2012. Federal law enforcement, experts say, is likely targeting anyone collaborating with his organization.

And this language would help investigators secure the authorization needed to surveil those U.S. citizens thought to be associated with WikiLeaks, said Robert L. Deitz, a lawyer who has held senior legal posts at the CIA, the National Security Agency and at the Pentagon’s intelligence offices. Requests to spy on citizens go to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and, at least theoretically, they are difficult to obtain.

“You need to show that someone is an agent of a foreign power,” said Deitz, who teaches at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia.

CIA Director says WikiLeaks is a ‘hostile intelligence service’

In his first public remarks since becoming CIA director, Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks a ”non-state hostile intelligence service.”

“It’s possible that Assange has colleagues in this country that they need to focus on,” Deitz said, noting that such action can only be done under court order.

Some mystery surrounds how the clause was added to the Intelligence Authorization Act 2018, the motivations for its inclusion and its intended impact. The office of Sen. Richard Burr, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the intelligence committee, declined to offer details.

“We don’t discuss committee deliberations,” spokeswoman Rebecca Glover said.

But the language in the bill tracks closely with remarks by CIA Director Mike Pompeo April 13 in his first public speech after taking the job.

Speaking at a Washington think tank, Pompeo said: WikiLeaks “walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. … It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

WikiLeaks, which espouses what it calls radical transparency, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. government for nearly a decade. Earlier this year, it began publishing what it called the biggest ever leak of confidential CIA documents.

The group played an outsized role in the 2016 presidential campaign. In July, the group released thousands of emails obtained after a hack of the Democratic National Committee. In the weeks before the Nov. 8 election, it divulged thousands more emails hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, embarrassing her campaign.

According to press reports, a grand jury in the eastern district of Virginia began weighing evidence against Assange and his organization at least four years ago and produced a sealed indictment. The Justice Department has never confirmed those reports. Assange has said he fears extradition to stand trial in the United States on espionage charges based on earlier leaks, including of classified internal military logs of the war in Afghanistan in 2010, and secret State Department cables later that year.

Assange’s U.S. lawyer, Barry Pollack, said he does not believe the secret FISA court should accept the “sense of Congress” clause in any legal argument presented by federal authorities seeking surveillance authority on a U.S. citizen.

“Will some intelligent(cq) agent make that argument to a court and will a court accept that argument? The honest answer is, who knows?” Pollack said.

Pollack, who represents Assange, but not WikiLeaks, said he believes the group does not have paid employees in the United States.

Divisions cleave sectors of the Republican party regarding WikiLeaks. One Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, said he spent three hours with Assange in his embassy refuge in London on Aug. 17, and suggested that President Donald Trump should pardon him.

Rohrabacher said Assange assured him that Russia was not behind the DNC hack or the disclosure of the emails, refuting the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Trump has not spoken publicly about WikiLeaks since the CIA director declared it to be a hostile entity. He has repeatedly criticized leakers inside his administration and called on the Justice Department to launch probes to stop the unauthorized release of information. But in the heat of the presidential campaign, amid WikiLeaks publication of Podesta’s emails, Trump told an Oct. 10, 2016, rally in Pennsylvania, “I love WikiLeaks.”

As the Senate takes aim at WikiLeaks, dissenting senators voiced worry that the clause inserted in the intelligence authorization act could ricochet and harm traditional journalists.

A Sept. 7 report to the full chamber from the 15-member intelligence committee included views of two Democratic senators who criticized what they termed the vagueness of the clause on WikiLeaks.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California declared that she is “no supporter of WikiLeaks,” which she said had done “considerable harm” to the United States. But the clause on the group is “dangerous” because it “fails to draw a bright line between WikiLeaks and legitimate news organizations that play a vital role in our democracy,” according to her remarks for the record.

Another, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, condemned WikiLeaks’ publications of U.S. classified information but said the clause could chill the actions of investigative reporters inquiring about secrets.

“My concern is that the use of the novel phrase ‘non-state hostile intelligence service’ may have legal, constitutional, and policy implications, particularly should it be applied to journalists inquiring about secrets,” Wyden said in his remarks.

Indeed, experts on U.S. intelligence actions said the Senate bill’s phrasing on WikiLeaks is both novel and vague, leaving uncertainty about what may ensue.

Steven Aftergood, a senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, said in a blog post Monday that U.S. agencies, faced with a conventional hostile intelligence agency, might “seek to infiltrate the hostile service, to subvert its agenda, and even to take it over or disable it.”

“Whether such a response would also be elicited by ‘a non-state hostile intelligence service’ is hard to say since the concept itself is new and undefined,” Aftergood wrote.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+5 # ReconFire 2017-09-13 18:15
Sen. Kamala Harris of CA. declared that she is "no supporter of WikiLeaks". What's the matter, does the truth hurt?
I declare Kamala Harris is no progressive. Like Booker, she is a fraud and doesn't deserve progressive's support. The "classified" info should not have been classified and the American people deserve to know the truth. Any politician who doesn't get this is not a progressive in my book.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2017-09-14 06:34
Kamala Harris is useful as a window into the establishment agenda, a testament to the machine's reliance on identity politics and packaging. She's had her Hamptons anointment and now has permission to tell US what we want to hear.

But that cynical maneuvering can be turned against the system too. If an appealing but manufactured candidate fosters these ideas they will eventually take on a momentum that can't be denied. At the same time I believe that once the primaries begin Sanders, or any authentic progressive, will quickly overtake what's going to be a crowded field.

So let's enjoy the spectacle of neoliberals competing for progressive support. THAT hasn't happened in a while, and it tells us two things: 1) they know what we want, even if they don't intend to give it to us, and 2) progressives have leverage. Standing up to the machine, throwing a wrench into the 2016 election, has forced them to factor us in. The battle is joined!

I know there are Democrats who really wanted Clinton to win and may see Sanders in a negative light. They have been playing out their anger for almost a year now and it is time to move on. Get behind the progressives. It's time to unite, time to win.

The establishment sees Sanders as their main problem -- but they underestimate the movement. I rejoice to see the true left organizing. There are many intelligent, passionate, effective activists working very hard to exploit this moment on our behalf.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN