Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Struggling San Bernardino wrote to Trump for help but ended up only raising local suspicions

Go to Original
By 

President Trump often invokes San Bernardino when he talks about the threat of terrorism.

But the city’s struggles with violence go far beyond the terrorist attack on Dec. 2, 2015, that killed 14 people at the Inland Regional Center. Its violent crime rate routinely ranks among the worst in the state. Last year, the city had the most homicides in two decades.
So when San Bernardino’s leaders heard that Trump was making comments about intervening in Chicago’s homicide problem, they sent him a letter asking for assistance.
“President Trump had gone to Chicago, or called out Chicago,” said City Manager Mark Scott. “We listened to that, and we were saying, ‘We’ll take help.’”
The letter was written by the mayor and signed by the city attorney, city manager, police chief and all City Council members.
But the written request has been extremely controversial in this city, where only about a quarter of residents cast their ballots for Trump. The letter was not discussed publicly by the council before it was sent, and it focused heavily on requesting federal assistance with marijuana enforcement only a few months after voters overturned a citywide ban on pot businesses.
Some residents also worry that Trump’s divisive rhetoric on immigration and crime in minority communities means that federal intervention will only incite fear in their diverse city.
The letter does not make many specific requests, and various city officials appear to interpret it differently.
In its most detailed section, the letter blames Obama-era guidelines that restrict federal marijuana enforcement for leaving cities, such as San Bernardino, vulnerable because of limited resources.
The request for Trump’s help came three months after voters approved Measure O, which created a regulatory and permitting system for marijuana businesses in the city. Before the vote, San Bernardino had banned such businesses, and a number of municipal leaders opposed the initiative.
“Voters adopted a local measure and then a statewide measure to regulate [marijuana]. That means that people in this community and people in the state want to see it bring revenue into the city and the community,” said Rocio Aguayo, a student at San Bernardino Valley College.
Instead of enforcing the will of the voters, she said, the mayor’s letter “is criminalizing us.”
Other residents said they worry the letter is inviting a federal crackdown that would threaten the trust between law enforcement and residents. They contend that federal action could spread fear among residents who are on edge because of the president’s efforts to increase deportations.
“We have a community where we have a lot of undocumented families. So there’s a lot of fear of what is the intent of the letter,” said Rocio Ruiz, an organizer with Inland Congregations United for Change that has brought attention to San Bernardino’s violence problem.
There were 62 homicides in the city in 2016 — a 41% increase from 2015 and the deadliest year in San Bernardino since 1995. There have been eight homicides so far this year.
Last week, Ruiz and several other people showed up at a public appearance of Mayor R. Carey Davis to voice their displeasure with the letter. The meeting turned heated as frustrated residents confronted the mayor and others.
Davis, who spearheaded the effort, declined repeated requests from The Times to discuss the letter.
Meanwhile, council members offered different ideas about the assistance they would like from the federal government.
Councilman Henry Nickel said he would welcome an “initial surge” in federal law enforcement to help boost the city’s depleted Police Department, while Councilman James Mulvihill only wanted to ask for financial support.
Councilwoman Virginia Marquez said she is open to any ideas the administration may have to help the city curb drugs and violence, though she did not have any specific requests in mind.
The city has not yet received a response to the letter, which was sent in mid-February. Still, Scott, the city manager, acknowledged that it had caused some confusion and frustration.
He said he believed that most officials who signed it did so because they want federal financial help for the city, which has been devastated by a prolonged bankruptcy. They didn’t anticipate that it would focus so heavily on marijuana, he added.
Scott mentioned that last year under the Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Justice approved a $2.8-million grant to help the city hire 11 new police officers. The hope, he said, was that by engaging Trump, the city might be better positioned for similar help in the future.
"It’s been interpreted as if we were saying send us the National Guard or something," he said. "That’s not what we were asking for. All the letter does is ask for a meeting."
On Monday, several residents confronted the council at its bi-monthly meeting, and the city attorney warned that council members might have violated the state’s open-meetings law by approving the letter without a public hearing.
"This letter is creating a lot of fear in our community," said Miriam Nieto of San Bernardino Generation Now, which aims to improve the city through civic participation. “If you meant for this letter to help our community, know that at the moment, it is not."
Councilman Fred Shorett said in retrospect that the way the letter was handled and written “was probably a mistake.”
But others defended it. "We need help," said Councilwoman Bessine Richard. "That’s the way I took the letter, that we need help…. We need money."
City Atty. Gary Saenz recommended a resolution requiring that any letter sent by a majority of the council in the future be placed on the agenda and discussed publicly before approval. The measure was adopted unanimously.

Standing Up for Our Communities: Why We Need a Police-Free Future

Go to Original
By Rachel Herzing

We are living in terrifying times. With each passing day, the Trump administration unleashes new waves of humiliation, degradation and repression. Many of us fear deportation, the evisceration of the social safety net, imprisonment or detention, ecological calamity, war and similar disasters. For those of us fighting against the violence of policing, the context was already grim. The predominance of suppression policing -- sometimes called "broken windows policing" -- with its mainstays of racial-profiling, sweeps, stop-and-search, ticketing and psychological and physical coercion and abuse, has made day-to-day contact with law enforcement dangerous. Add to these mundane policing practices the very real threat of dying at the hands of law enforcement agents, and the picture becomes even more bleak. Under the current White House, promises to intensify and expand an already vicious system are a signal of very dark days ahead. In a statement released during the first week in office, the Trump administration communicated its law-enforcement priorities. According to this statement, "The Trump Administration, will be a law and order administration. President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it."
The Trump regime's authoritarian tendencies should give us pause. When we consider the ways in which law enforcement has historically been used by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent, we need to take seriously the state responses we're likely to encounter in reaction to an increasingly large and dynamic anti-Trump protest movement. Whether we are considering the expansion of policing practices -- including profiling, stop and frisk, sweeps and militarized tactical engagements -- or crackdowns on protest and dissent, we know that the surest way to reduce the violence of policing is to reduce contact with the police.
If ever there were a time to fight for the elimination of policing from our communities it is now. Recent weeks have demonstrated just how powerful we are when we come together to resist repression. This groundswell of fight-back should embolden us to build the world we want to live in today, even in the face of violence and fear mongering.
I believe that we have a better chance of living healthy, stable, secure lives if we eliminate policing. Sometimes abolitionists are accused of having unrealistic visions of a future free of the prison industrial complex -- big dreams that may be beautiful but are not practical, visions that are idealistic but too far away from the here and now. My abolitionist praxis looks toward a policing-free future and is rooted in actions toward that end in the here and now.
Here are some ideas about ways to begin building for the abolition of policing today. These are not meant to be a set of prescriptive action steps and time frames. They are not comprehensive. They are simply one set of potential practical steps in a universe of good ideas to help us think about what is possible. And even for people for whom a world without policing is impossible to imagine, it is possible to take practical steps toward an ever-shrinking reliance on and relationship to law enforcement. The most important thing is to begin to take some steps today and to keep practicing moving in that direction.
Today
Take stock of your context. How cognizant are you about the reach, impact, or omnipresence of law enforcement in your daily life? What are your own habits and inclinations in engaging with law enforcement policies, practices and agents? What is your consciousness of the presence of mechanical and human tools of surveillance and law enforcement?
Examine your own relationships to law enforcement. What role do you understand cops to play in the world around us? Do they provide you with a feeling of security and confidence that someone will back you up in an emergency or when you feel afraid? Do you fear their authority or worry about being humiliated, coerced, or hurt by them? Do you experience some combination of relief and worry? Would it feel like common sense to call the cops if the neighbors were being too loud? If you had things stolen? If someone did you physical harm? Would it feel against your common sense to call on law enforcement agents in any situation?
Assess your vulnerabilities (both perceived and experienced) and your available resources. Regardless of whether or not your common sense would lead you to engaging law enforcement, what kinds of situations could you envision in which you would feel at enough risk that you would seek help or intervention? What would you hope to achieve by seeking that kind of support? What resources do you already have at your disposal -- people, networks, organizations, educational materials, financial resources, etc. -- that you could employ toward those ends? What kind of preparation or cultivation would you need to do to make those resources accessible and applicable to the situations in which you feel vulnerable or need help or intervention? What else do you need to bring closer or cultivate that is not currently within your reach?
Tomorrow
Begin (or continue) thinking about how to reduce as much contact with law enforcement as possible in your daily life. Drawing from your assessment of potential vulnerabilities and available resources may help you consider what you could do other than call the cops when trouble arises.
Prepare for emergencies when not in crisis. Who could you call immediately in a crisis? Commit at least a couple of those numbers to memory. Where would you go? What would you need (medication, etc.)? Who is physically close to you who could be called upon? Is there a set of neighbors you could rely on? Friends and family close by? Map additional resources that you could employ not only in supporting your own needs but that you could also suggest to others seeking help.
Do research on the nearest places to seek shelter, on local crisis intervention teams, on resources for people in substance use or mental health crises. In addition to considering how to respond to emergencies, think through how might you also increase your capabilities to disengage from law enforcement when you're not in crisis.
Next Month
Don't try to go it alone. Build a team to call on. Get those people ready, share the information you have gathered, help them assess their own vulnerabilities and resources, and make clear commitments to each other. Read and study together a full range of non-law enforcement resources to engage should you need support or have an emergency. Document how you built your team so others can learn from it.
Research the trade-offs your city, county or state is making by prioritizing law enforcement responses. Are basic health and human services programs suffering? Are street harassment, stops and violence against people spending time in public space at high levels? Are fines and fees being issued at high levels? Is law enforcement being used to put a chill on community organizing or to intimidate community organizers? What kinds of campaigns and programs are providing meaningful de-escalation, community accountability or violence intervention responses? What efforts are at play to get cops out of schools or to reduce raids and sweeps, or to prevent people living outside from being harassed and displaced? What other kinds of efforts are going on in any of these areas? What organizations are working on these issues? What can you do to support shifts away from law enforcement intervention and toward practices and tools that make law enforcement more and more irrelevant?
Next Year
Get involved in organizing. Take steps to increasingly erode the power and reach of law enforcement. Push for measures that denaturalize and delegitimate the role that policing has in our lives. Intervene in the processes through which police budgets are decided to shift resources away from law enforcement and toward investments in life-affirming resources, programs and services, such as those you mapped wanting to be able to use.
Increasingly shrink the size of police forces. Push for cops to carry their own liability insurance, establishing a structured means by which they will incur financial penalties for doing harm. Demand that cops with histories of violence, killing and coercion be fired, ineligible for re-hire and ineligible for law enforcement jobs of any kind (including private security). Advocate for cops to be pushed out of schools, libraries and community centers. Propose no-call policies and noncooperation practices where you work, play and live that standardize practices to reject law enforcement intervention. Reject false solutions, such as community policing or community control of the cops, which reinforce and expand policing in favor of promoting solutions that shrink police forces to obsolescence. While engaging in these incremental steps aimed at eroding the power, scope and scale of policing, be vigilant to avoid advocating for anything that would entrench or legitimate policing or create obstacles that would be necessary to tear down later to reach your goals.
Continue to build out your team to incorporate ever-widening circles and networks of people willing to support each other in addressing harm or in times of crisis without engaging law enforcement. Keep reading and studying together and share tools, practices and models you have developed. Help amplify the community resources you mapped to help increase local knowledge about the range of supportive resources available to disengage from law enforcement.
In Ten Years
Scale up organizing demands. Work through statewide, regional and national networks and coalitions to advance campaigns and projects that may have been happening more locally. Push beyond reductions in policing to elimination. What elements of law enforcement can be done away with entirely? Tip the balance of power toward community health and wellbeing. Help strengthen responses to harm that do not rely on law enforcement intervention, such as community accountability and transformative justice approaches, which help community members to prevent, intervene in, and repair harm using resources existing within their communities. Raise the profile of groups doing that work well. Promote the sustainability of community-based resources that increase people's abilities to prevent, interrupt and repair harm and respond to crisis without law enforcement or similar intervention.
The Future
It is possible to create a future free of policing. That future offers the possibility of reduced harm at the hands of the state, as well as investing in means of addressing harm that increase the potential for behavior to shift and harm to be repaired rather than pushed to the side. A future free of policing requires care and support in crisis rather than suppression, denigration and violence. It also requires reconceptualizing who "belongs" in our physical environments rather than monitoring, profiling, stop and search and leading with suspicion. Instead, it requires participation and investment in social networks from friends, coworkers, families and neighbors, expanding ever outward while taking the chance to intervene and support each other in times of harm or crisis rather than passing responsibility onto unspecified authority figures. It requires study and practice and experimentation and trying and failing and trying again. And it requires consistently taking concrete steps in the direction of our vision over and over again, in a process potentially spanning many years. Taking those steps over the long haul is possible when we believe it's possible to create a future free of policing.

Brexit: Government suffers second defeat in Lords

The government has suffered a second Brexit defeat in the House of Lords as peers backed, by 366 votes to 268, calls for a "meaningful" parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal.

Go to Original

Ministers said it was disappointing and they would seek to overturn the move when the bill returns to the Commons.
Lord Heseltine, one of 13 Tory peers to rebel, said he had been sacked as a government adviser on regional growth.
The previous defeat was on the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens.
Lord Heseltine, 83, who served as a minister in the Thatcher government, said he was informed by the Conservative chief whip in the Lords he was to be sacked "from the five jobs with which I have been helping the government".
"This is entirely the right of the prime minister and I'm sorry that the expertise which I have put at the government's disposal over the last six years has now come to an end," he said.
"However, in the last resort, I believe, as I said in the House of Lords, the future of this country is inextricably interwoven with our European friends.
"It's the duty of Parliament to assert its sovereignty in determining the legacy we leave to new generations of young people."
Lord Heseltine had been brought in by former Prime Minister David Cameron to advise the government on a range of projects, including schemes in east London and Swansea.

'Deal or no deal'

After a three-hour debate on Tuesday, for the second time in a week peers amended the legislation that will authorise Theresa May to notify the EU of the UK's intention to leave and pave the way for official Brexit talks to begin.
The turnout in the Lords for the vote was the largest since 1831, according to Parliament's website.
The amendment, which was carried by a majority of 98, would require the final terms of the UK's withdrawal from the EU to be put to separate votes in the Commons and the Lords.
Some peers believe this would amount to a veto but ministers insist the UK would leave the EU anyway irrespective of whether it was approved or not.
As well as Lord Heseltine, 12 other Tory peers defied the government to vote in favour of the amendment, including former ministers Lord Deben and Viscount Hailsham.
The issue will now return to the Commons to be reconsidered by MPs, who have already rejected calls for the "meaningful vote" clause to be included in the legislation, saying verbal guarantees given by government on parliamentary scrutiny are sufficient.
The BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said ministers were adamant they wouldn't back down after the Lords defeat and it was genuinely hard to tell at this stage if MPs had the numbers in the Commons to defeat the government.
Speaking in favour of the amendment, QC and crossbench peer Lord Pannick said it would enable Parliament to exercise some "control" over the process of withdrawal and fulfil its duty to properly scrutinise.
"It must be for Parliament to decide whether to prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU," he said.
"It will guarantee that the government must come back to both Houses and seek approval for the result of negotiations."
But government minister Lord Bridges said once Article 50 had been triggered, the process of leaving the EU was irrevocable and the amendment was totally unclear on what would happen if the UK and the EU were not able to agree a formal deal on the terms of exit.
"We will leave with a deal or we will leave without a deal. That is the choice on offer."

'Not in the dark'

Parliament, he insisted, would not be left "in the dark" during the two-year process and would be able to shape future legislation on the incorporation of EU law and potential changes to immigration rules.
He also argued the amendment would tie Mrs May's hands and make her task in getting a good deal "more difficult from day one".
Reacting to the defeat, Brexit Secretary David Davis suggested peers were threatening the UK's aim of getting negotiations under way as soon as possible.
"It is clear that some in the Lords would seek to frustrate that process, and it is the government's intention to ensure that does not happen," he said.
"We will now aim to overturn these amendments in the House of Commons."
But Labour's Baroness Smith said that given the referendum campaign had been full of arguments about reasserting Parliamentary sovereignty, it was appropriate that Parliament should have the "final say" on the process.

Lib Dems defeated

And former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg urged MPs to "find the nerve" and ensure the requirement for a Parliamentary vote remained in the bill.
"I would urge MPs of all parties, including Brexiteers who campaigned to leave on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, to stop Parliament being neutered.
"Parliament has a long history of ratifying treaties. What is the government scared of? If they cannot bring back a deal they are prepared to put before MPs, then it cannot be a deal that is good enough for Britain."
Earlier, a Lib Dem amendment calling for a second referendum on the terms of exit was comfortably defeated by 336 votes to 131.
Without a commitment to a second vote, the Lib Dems took the rate step of opposing the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill at its third and final reading although peers overwhelmingly approved the bill and sent it back to the Commons.
Theresa May has said she wants to trigger Article 50 by the end of March but the Commons is unlikely to have an opportunity to consider the changes made by the Lords until the middle of next week as four days have been set aside for debate on the Budget.

Hawaii to file first court challenge to new Trump travel order

Go to Original
By Dan Levine

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/hawaii.pdf

The state of Hawaii said it will ask a federal court on Wednesday for an emergency halt to President Donald Trump's new executive order restricting travel from six Muslim-majority countries, becoming the first state to challenge the ban in court.
In a court filing on Tuesday, Hawaii said it would seek a temporary restraining order against the new travel ban. Hawaii's suit against the original executive order was put on hold.
The Trump administration this week issued the new executive order that supplanted an earlier, more sweeping one which had been challenged in court by several states in addition to Hawaii.
The new order is much more narrowly tailored than the first one issued in January. It keeps a 90-day ban on travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen but excludes Iraq, and applies the restriction only to new visa applicants.
"To be sure, the new executive order covers fewer people than the old one," Neal Katyal, one of the lead attorneys for Hawaii, said in an interview with CNN. He said the new travel ban still "suffers from the same constitutional and statutory defects."
"We are confident that the president's actions are lawful to protect the national security of our country," the Justice Department said in a statement.
In a joint filing, Hawaii and the U.S. government asked for oral arguments in the case to be held March 15, a day before the new travel order is set to take effect.
Separately, in a case brought by Washington state against the first Trump travel order, the Justice Department on Tuesday said it would voluntarily dismiss its own appeal of a Seattle federal court ruling that had suspended the order.
Washington state did not oppose the administration's request to end its appeal, the filing said.
Immigration advocates said the new ban still discriminates against Muslims and fails to address some of their concerns with the previous directive. Legal experts said the new ban would be harder to challenge because it affects fewer people living in the United States and allows more exemptions to protect them.
Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson on Monday said his office was evaluating whether it would challenge the new order and would likely decide this week.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month had blocked Trump's first order, saying Washington state would likely be able to prove that it violated constitutional protections.

That appeals court ruling has not been withdrawn and its legal reasoning can still be cited as precedent in future cases, Washington attorney general spokesman Peter Lavallee said on Tuesday.

Trump v US intelligence: growing feud puts NSA's legislative priority at risk

Reauthorization of measure permitting sweeping surveillance in danger as intelligence community has been blamed for leaks about Trump and Russia

Go to Original
By  and 
The escalating feud between Donald Trump and US intelligence is now putting the top 2017 legislative priority of the intelligence agencies at risk.
At the end of the year, a broad legal authority permitting sweeping surveillance is set to expire. The National Security Agency considers the authority, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa), pivotal to fighting terrorism and stopping espionage. Civil libertarians consider the measure – the wellspring of the NSA’s Prism and “upstream” mass communications-data collection – unconstitutional.

The typical balance of power on Capitol Hill over surveillance is such that opponents of renewing Section 702 face strong political headwinds. The measure was reauthorized with minimal challenge in 2012.
Now the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee has thrown reauthorization into question after extensive leaking about Trump and Russia that the president and his Capitol Hill allies have blamed on the US intelligence community. 
Asked at a Tuesday press conference about the renewal of section 702 in light of ongoing leaks concerning Trump and Russia, Devin Nunes said, “I think it’s very problematic.”
He continued: “I’ve expressed this concern to the IC [intelligence community]. We have sent them many followup questions as it relates to intelligence that’s been collected. And we expect prompt answers. I think we also expect unprecedented answers from them of the information that we’re going to be asking for.”
First passed in 2008 to give legal cover to George W Bush-era warrantless surveillance, Section 702 permits the NSA to collect communications and associated data from targets it reasonably believes to be non-Americans overseas suspected of contact with a foreign power, even if they are in communication with Americans. The surveillance does not require a court order specifying its targets, purposes, or time frame; only the re-approval of the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
NSA interception of communications between Russian officials or suspected operatives and Trump’s associates would not necessarily involve using Section 702. The NSA or FBI can acquire such communications under the terms of the original 1978 Fisa law. Because of a provision in the law about understanding the foreign-intelligence value of the intercepted communications, neither agency would necessarily have to purge references to Americans.
It is not only the NSA that values Section 702 ardently. FBI director James Comey last year called the surveillance activities permitted by Section 702 “far more important” than the bulk domestic phone-records data program that Congress curtailed in 2015. The FBI is permitted to warrantlessly search through the NSA’s troves of foreign-focused data with few restrictions.
Last week, as the House judiciary committee began hearings over the expiring provision, the Trump administration told Reuters it favors Section 702 reauthorization.
“We support the clean reauthorization and the administration believes it’s necessary to protect the security of the nation,” an anonymous official said.
Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, testified that he agreed Section 702 is the “crown jewels” of US intelligence and the intelligence community “also sees it that way, the entire community”.
Throughout Barack Obama’s presidency and the Edward Snowden leaks, the vast majority of national-security-focused Republicans embraced the measure without reservation, with Republicans on the intelligence committee leading the way.
Nunes himself has been a full-throated defender of Section 702. Last year, he and colleague Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia took point in opposing a civil-libertarian effort to block it through an amendment to a defense-spending bill.
Citing the then-recent case of Orlando nightclub murderer Omar Mateen, Nunes and Westmoreland circulated a letter to colleagues claiming the loss of 702 would deprive the intelligence community of “the authorities it needs to detect and stop terrorist attacks.”
But since then, Nunes has become a crucial ally to Trump. Nunes served on Trump’s transition team, a closeness that has raised questions about Nunes’ independence as his committee investigates Trump associates’ ties to Russia.
Nunes has ardently defended Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and implied without evidence that the intelligence agencies abused their surveillance powers in leaking accounts of Flynn’s December conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak that proved to be his downfall.
Trump has blamed the intelligence agencies for the leaks, in particular the FBI and NSA, and his administration has suggested that career intelligence officials are in league with former Obama officials. He has recently taken to claiming, baselessly, that Obama ordered Trump to be surveilled, an act that would be illegal if true. 
“There is no evidence to support that claim” of Obama ordering Trump to be wiretapped, a US official told the Guardian over the weekend.
But Nunes has given the accusation credence. His committee on 1 March added the “possible leaks of classified information” that Trump wants investigated to its inquiry on Russian measures to interfere with the 2016 election, which the intelligence agencies publicly assessed in January were for Trump’s benefit.
“Typically we’ve had great trust with our intelligence agencies,” Nunes said on Tuesday.
“And I continue to have that trust, but we have to verify, in fact, that all of the tools that are in place, that we oversee, are being used ethically, responsibly and by the law. And if anybody has abused those, we want to know about that. And that’s part of the reason why it’s important for us to know whether or not, as some press reports have indicated, the Department of Justice or any other agency tried to get the warrant on anybody related to the Trump campaign or any other campaign for that matter.”
Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the authority under Section 702 would be preserved when asked by the Guardian on Tuesday about Nunes’ comments. But he did not rule out potential reforms to the law if necessary.
“Section 702 has been a far more impactful and important counterterrorism program and tool,” Schiff said during a press conference on Capitol Hill.
“That doesn’t mean though that we shouldn’t explore whether there are ways to improve any of the protections in existing law or whether there are any changes that we need to make to the structure of the program.”
Schiff said the intelligence committee had been engaged in periodic briefings with members, given the law is poised to sunset this year. Should any questions come up in the same context that are pertinent to the Russia investigation, he added, they “ought to be answered so members understand how the program works [and] that it’s conducted in a lawful way.”

WikiLeaks CIA Dump Gives Russian Hacking Deniers the Perfect Ammo

Go to Original
By ISSIE LAPOWSKY AND LILY HAY NEWMAN.



NEVER ACCUSE WIKILEAKS of getting its timing wrong. Last fall, the group perfectly paced its steady drip of John Podesta’s emails to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Now, as the capital thrums with chaos, it has unleashed a cloud of confusion that makes it hard for experts to discern the facts and easy for non-experts to see whatever they want.

Days after President Trump baselessly tweetedthat the Obama administration had wiretapped Trump Tower, a theory that first emerged on conservative talk radio, Wikileaks released its latest treasure trove revealing just how extensive the Obama administration’s surveillance capacity was. One nugget of particular interest to Trump supporters: a section titled “Umbrage” that details the CIA’s ability to impersonate cyber-attack techniques used by Russia and other nation states. In theory, that means the agency could have faked digital forensic fingerprints to make the Russians look guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
Nothing in the documents connects the CIA to any Trump Tower wiretaps, which may or may not have ever existed at all anyway. Nor does the leak provide any evidence of a CIA scheme to pin the DNC hack on the Russians. But in the internet age, it doesn’t need to.
Within hours, right wing media outlets like Infowars were already floating the possibility that the CIA had staged the Russian hacks just to undermine President Trump. Alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulis wrote a handy guide for readers on his website, emphasizing the CIA’s ability to imitate the Russians as bullet point No. 1. On Twitter, conservative radio host Bill Mitchell took a more folksy approach:
It's looking more and more to me like Obama's CIA planted drugs in Russia's trunk...
“I don’t look at it as fact or fiction (although Wikileaks has been exceptionally accurate in the past),” Mitchell said via Twitter direct message. “I see it as just another data point in the mountain of evidence the Obama Admin was neck deep in wiretapping and surveillance.”

Mitchell is right about one thing. The Obama administration was hoarding a lot more information about software security flaws than it ever let on. According to the leaks, the CIA logged iOS and Android vulnerabilities which it could exploit to circumvent encryption, but never shared that information with Americans. The public has a right to be scandalized. “I suspect many will be outraged by this development, and will assume that the CIA used these techniques broadly to surveil American citizens through their TVs, smartphones, computers, and other devices,” says Jeff Williams, chief technology officer and cofounder of Contrast Security.

But while the scope of the intelligence community’s spying capabilities may stun, the news about the country’s ability to forge evidence shouldn’t, because it isn’t really news at all. The tools described in Umbrage are already publicly known and available. One is based on a prevalant espionage virus widely known by hackers called Shamoon, and another adapts malware likely developed by Chinese state-sponsored hackers. The tools can cover hackers’ tracks or make attacks look like they come from other sources. One document shows CIA agents discussing how to prevent Iranian anti-virus software from flagging the tool. As in a murder trial where a dirty cop could plant a weapon to frame an innocent person, intelligence agencies could plant evidence to mislead the US public. Devious? Definitely. But it’s not new. Robust digital forensic investigations already expressly scrutinize this possibility.
“On a network like the internet there is always a greater possibility of somebody impersonating somebody else,” says Darren Hayes, a digital forensics researcher at Pace University.
That may be obvious to security experts. But the American public isn’t made up of security experts—not even close. It’s made up of people who are—rightly—afraid the government is messing with them. Americans struggle to sort through the confusing, often contradictory information speeding toward them. It’s information made more confusing by both its technical details and a polarized media environment that often prioritizes sensation over facts and clear thinking. As long as you’ve got enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt, you’ve got yourself a story. FUD. It’s a helluva drug.