KC & Associates

Investigations Research Associates

Quinault Valley Guns & Blades / Urban Escape & Evasion Course

International Relations * Military * Terrorism * Business * Security

www.kcandassociates.org orders@kcandassociates.org

Kathleen Louise dePass Press Agent/Publicist .360.288.2652

Triste cosa es no tener amigos, pero ms triste ha de ser no tener enemigos porque quin no tenga enemigos seal es de que no tiene talento que haga sombra, ni carcter que impresione, ni valor temido, ni honra de la que se murmure, ni bienes que se le codicien, ni cosa alguna que se le envidie. A sad thing it is to not have friends, but even sadder must it be not having any enemies; that a man should have no enemies is a sign that he has no talent to outshine others, nor character that inspires, nor valor that is feared, nor honor to be rumored, nor goods to be coveted, nor anything to be envied. -Jose Marti

From the desk of Craig B Hulet? Targeted Killings & the Right to Know When Your Government Can Kill You NSA Whistleblower: Justice Department Covers Up Crimes of Obama, Bush Administrations Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Obama Signs FISA Warrantless Wiretapping Program Extension Into Law
Ex-CIA Agent, Whistleblower John Kiriakou Sentenced to Prison While Torturers He Exposed Walk Free

Obama Administration Excludes National Security Policies from Commitment to Transparency Obamas Im-No-Dick-Cheney Standard for Government Secrecy

Obama as Narcissistic Paranoid Suffering Hoplophobia; he Projects on to American Gun Owners his own Hatred for Them

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/05/08/nsa-whistleblower-justice-department-covers-upcrimes-of-obama-bush-administrations/ NSA Whistleblower: Justice Department Covers Up Crimes of Obama, Bush Administrations Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act In a recent segment from Current TVs show Viewpoint, host Eliot Spitzer interviewed three National Security Agency whistleblowers: William Binney, a former technical director; Kirk Wiebe, former senior analyst; and Thomas Drake, a former senior official. Each man talked about what he saw the NSA do when they were employees. Each of these whistleblowers directly explained the threats to civil liberties posed by the lawlessness of the NSA in the past decade. Much of what is shared in the segment was already shown, but since what the NSA did constitutes illegality and corruption that have gone unpunished, it is worth highlighting key points. Drake recounts that shortly after 9/11 he discovered that a legal regimethe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Actwas now being absolutely violated by NSA in league with the White House. FISA created a special court to provide warrants for wiretapping, but NSA was increasingly abusing its authority and was secretly and unconstitutionally eavesdropping on Americans. Drake knew if he remained silent he would be complicit. The vast capability of the NSA was increasingly being turned inside the US, Drake says. To surveil networks, emails, phone calls, etc. Hundreds of millions of calls from individuals in the United States were surveilled as part of Stellar Wind. The United States of America was turned into the equivalent of a foreign nation for the purposes of dragnet electronic surveillance, Drake adds. When Drake pushed back, he was told that the US was living in exigent circumstances. But isnt that what the FISA court was for? It allowed for authorities to engage in hot pursuit and then get a warrant 72 hours later. The answer to Drake was that if they went to Congress it would say no. Plus, the White House had approved the program. Therefore, an official asserted it was all legal. Drake was eventually told, after approaching several individuals with concerns, to stop asking questions and that he was turned into an enemy of the state

Now, the NSA is casting a wide net and capturing gargantuan and obscene amounts of data. It is building centers for databases (e.g. Bluffdale, Utah). It is swimming in data in such a way that only complicates efforts to fight the so-called war against terrorism. Binney details one of the real problems, which is that the FBI can make random queries into the NSA. FBI director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary committee that in order to prevent another Fort Hood incident, the FBI puts together a database with the Defense Department so it can get all emails and future emails. In essence, the FBI and NSA have been merging. The segment closes with this exchange: SPITZER: You see whats going on with the Justice Department these days. Were prosecuting Roger Clemens for steroid use. You guys are made into enemies of the state. Nobody on Wall Street has been held accountable. Do you begin to think something is amiss somewhere? BINNEY: Absolutely. Absolutely, yes. But the real problem I see is that the DoJ is covering up for all the crimes that this administration and the previous administration has been committing against every one of the public WIEBE: We have a Congress that isnt ensuring protections under the Fourth Amendment as well. We have a real problem on multiple fronts in government. [emphasis added] Not only is the Justice Department engaged in the act of shielding officials and corporate executives from prosecution for crimes, but Congress is not fulfilling its role as the Legislative Branch that is supposed to check the power of the Executive Branch by engaging in oversight. It is complicit and impotent. And as these whistleblowers have been targeted, Congress has not raised much of an objection at all to this conduct by the Obama Justice Department. The FBI raided the homes of Binney and Wiebe. The Justice Department under Obama decided not to go after Binney and Wiebe and went after Drake only. The Justice Department eventually pushed Drake to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge after the case against him collapsed. Meanwhile, the press has been largely silent as these sources, even though they provided scoops and great insight into the inner workings of lawlessness in government, are targeted for prosecution. The annual report on 2011 from the Justice Department shows secret surveillance under FISA went up. The FISA court did not deny a request to eavesdrop or spy, according to the privacy group known as EPIC: # of DOJ requests to the FISA court to eavesdrop on and/or physically search Americans/legal residents: 1,745 # of FISA court denials: 0

While national security letters (NSLs)a secret subpoena that the government can use to force the disclosure of records, banking or credit information of citizensdecreased, Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) points to a larger issue: Perhaps most notably, the governments use of Section 215 the so-called business records provision of FISA more than doubled in 2011. The DOJ filed 205 applications in 2011, up from 96 applications made in 2010. This is the same provision that Senators Wyden and Udall have warned us about: the Senators have said that when the American public finds out how the government has interpreted and is using the provision, the public will be stunned and angry. Given this, it is particularly concerning the government is relying on the provision much more frequently. Yes, right now, the Executive Branch has secret interpretations of laws that are not being shared with members of Congress. Members of Congress could be more vocal about this issue, but, to protect their careers or status in government, they are silent, and if they challenge this conduct at all, they do it privately. Finally, the secret surveillance the ever-expanding surveillance state is defended by the Obama administration in court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act but the government has tried to block any judicial review of the surveillance law. They have opposed the ACLU as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) moves through Congress, granting NSA even more power to collect information on US citizens. And, they have opposed the ACLU as they push Congress to reauthorize the probably illegal FISA law of which Congress refuses to conduct proper oversight. This is because, as Jay Stanley of the ACLU writes, there is a growing attitude among law enforcement that there ought to be a presumption that citizens communications be susceptible to eavesdropping. President Obama has helped this attitude become further entrenched in the daily operations of law enforcement. The reauthorization of the FISA law will mean the continued expansion of lawlessness between the NSA and other institutions or agencies of government. Employees will witness this and conscientiously object, but they can expect President Barack Obama to have Attorney General Eric Holder and the wider Justice Department come after them, as it has been clearly established We dont prosecute people for war crimes. We dont prosecute people for authorizing or legalizing torture. We dont prosecute people who engage in lawless covert operations. We dont prosecute people for warrantless wiretapping. We dont prosecute people for engaging in corporate crimes, even ones that collapse the US economy.

We DO prosecute people who blow the whistle on people who have committed any of the above.

Obama Signs FISA Warrantless Wiretapping Program Extension Into Law WASHINGTON (AP) President Barack Obama has signed into law a five-year extension of the U.S. government's authority to monitor the overseas activity of suspected foreign spies and terrorists. The warrantless intercept program would have expired at the end of 2012 without the president's approval. The renewal bill won final passage in the Senate on Friday. Known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept. The law does not apply to Americans. When Americans are targeted for surveillance, the government must get a warrant from a special 11-judge court of U.S. district judges appointed by the Supreme Court. Known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the law allows the government to monitor overseas phone calls and emails without obtaining a court order for each intercept. The law does not apply to Americans. When Americans are targeted for surveillance, the government must get a warrant from a special 11-judge court of U.S. district judges appointed by the Supreme Court. Ex-CIA Agent, Whistleblower John Kiriakou Sentenced to Prison While Torturers He Exposed Walk Free Former CIA agent John Kiriakou speaks out just days after he was sentenced to 30 months in prison. January 30, 2013 | NERMEEN SHAIKH: A retired CIA agent who blew the whistle on the agencys Bush- era torture program has been sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison. John Kiriakou becomes the first CIA official to be jailed for any reason relating to the torture program. Under a plea deal, Kiriakou admitted to a single count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by revealing the identity of a covert officer to a freelance reporter, who did not publish it. Under the plea deal, prosecutors dropped charges brought under the Espionage Act. In 2007, Kiriakou became the first CIA official to publicly confirm and detail the Bush administrations use of waterboarding when he spoke to ABCs Brian Ross. JOHN KIRIAKOU: At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. And as time has passed and as September 11th hasyou know, has moved farther and farther back into history, I think Ive changed my mind, and I think that waterboarding is probably something that we shouldnt be in the business of doing. BRIAN ROSS: Why do you say that now?

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Because were Americans, and were better than that. NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Kiriakous supporters say he has been unfairly targeted in the Obama administrations crackdown on government whistleblowers. In a statement urging President Obama to commute Kiriakous sentence, a group of signatories including attorneys and former CIA officers said, quote, "[Kiriakou] is an anti-torture whistleblower who spoke out against torture because he believed it violated his oath to the Constitution. ... Please, Mr. President, do not allow your legacy to be one where only the whistleblower goes to prison." Prosecutor Neil MacBride, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, defended the governments handling of the case. NEIL MacBRIDE: As the judge just said in court, todays sentence should be a reminder to every individual who works for the government, who comes into the possession of closely held sensitive information regarding the national defense or the identity of a covert agent, that it is critical that that information remain secure and not spill out into the public domain or be shared with others who dont have authorized access to it. AMY GOODMAN: John Kiriakou joins us now from Washington, D.C. He spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and a case officer. In 2002, he led the team that found Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda. Hes father of five. In 2010, he published a memoir entitled The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIAs War on Terror. And were joined by one of John Kirakous attorneys, Jesselyn Radack. Shes the director of National Security & Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project, a former ethics adviser to the United States Department of Justice. We reached out to the U.S. attorneys office for the Eastern District of Virginia, but they declined our request for an interview. John Kiriakou, why are you going to jail? Explain the plea deal you made with the government. JOHN KIRIAKOU: Well, thanks, first of all, for having me and giving me the opportunity to explain. Im going to prison, ostensibly, for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I believe, and my supporters believe, that this, however, was not a case about leaking; this was a case about torture. And I believe Im going to prison because I blew the whistle on torture. Ive been a thorn in the CIAs side since that interview in 2007, in which I said that waterboarding was torture and that it was official U.S. government policy. And I think, finally, the Justice Department caught up with me. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Jesselyn Radack, let me just bring you into the conversation to explain what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is. Your client, John Kiriakou its been invoked in his case for the first time in 27 years? JESSELYN RADACK: Thats correct. In fact, there have only been two convictions under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which was enacted to prevent cases like Philip Agee, not

things like John Kiriakou. It was to prevent the revealing of covert identities for profit or to aid the enemy. In this case, John confirmed the name of a torturer to a journalist, which makes Neil MacBrides statement all the more hypocritical, because the biggest leaker of classified information, including sources and methods and undercover identities, has been the U.S. government. AMY GOODMAN: John Kiriakou, explain what it is that you were trying to expose. Explain what you were involved with. Talk about Abu Zubaydah, your involvement in the finding of him, and then the course you took, where your conscience took you. JOHN KIRIAKOU: Sure. In 2002, I was the chief of counterterrorism operations for the CIA in Pakistan, and my job was to try to locate al-Qaeda fighters or al-Qaeda leaders and capture them, to turn them over to the Justice Department and have them face trial. That was the originalthe original idea, not to have them sit in Cuba for the next decade. But we caught Abu Zubaydah. He was shot three times by Pakistani police as he was trying to escape from his safe house. And I was the first person to have custody of him, to sit with him. We spoke to each other extensively, I mean, talked about everything from September 11th to poetry that he had been writing, to his family. And then he was moved on to a secret prison after that. Once I got back to headquarters, I heard that he had been subject to harsh techniques, then euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation techniques," and I was asked by one of the leaders in the CIAs Counterterrorist Center if I wanted to be trained in the use of these techniques. I told him that I had a moral problem with them, and I did not want to be involved. So, fast-forward to 2007. By then, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International had reported that al-Qaeda prisoners had been tortured, and ABC News called and said that they had information that I had tortured Abu Zubaydah. I said that was absolutely untrue. I was the only person who was kind to Abu Zubaydah, and I had never tortured anybody. So, they asked me to go on their show and defend myself. I did that. And in the course of the interview, I said that not only was the CIAtorturing prisoners, but that it was official U.S. government policy. This was not the result of some rogue CIA officer just beating up a prisoner every once in a while; this was official policy that went all the way up to the president of the United States. NERMEEN SHAIKH: And so, what happened after that, in 2007, once you gave this interview? Can you explain what happened to you and to your family? JOHN KIRIAKOU: Sure. Within 24 hours, the CIA filed whats called a crimes report against me with the Justice Department, saying that I had revealed classified information, which was the torture program, and asking for an investigation with an eye toward prosecuting me. The Justice Department decided at the time that I had not revealed classified information, that the information was already in the public domain. But immediately, within weeks, I was audited by theIRS. Ive been audited by the IRS every single year since giving that interview in 2007. But a more important bit of fallout from that interview was that every time I would write an oped, every time I would give a television interview or give a speech at a university, the CIA would

file a crimes report against me, accusing me of leaking additional classified information. Each time, the Justice Department determined that I did not leak any classified information. In fact, I would get those op-eds and those speeches cleared by the CIAs Publications Review Board in advance. Then the CIA started harassing my wife, who at the time was a senior CIA officer, particularly over an op-ed I had written. They accused her of leaking classified information to me for the purpose of writing the op-ed. Well, I said I had gotten the information in the op-ed from two UPI reports and from a South American Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. And they would back off. But this sort of became our life. We would be under FBI surveillance. She would be called into the CIAs Office of Security. I would have trouble getting a security clearance when I went to Capitol Hill. It just became this pattern of harassment. AMY GOODMAN: So, John, why didnt you stop? JOHN KIRIAKOU: Because I think thatthat torture is something that needs to be discussed. I said this in 2007. This is something that we shouldabout which we should be having a national debate. And frankly, I have a First Amendment right to free speech. And, you know, writing an op-ed is not against the law. Giving a speech about the Arab Spring or about torture is not against the law. And I felt thatthat I didnt want to be cowed. I didnt want to be frightened into silence by theCIA. NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, John Kiriakou, you said that in these instances that youve named, you were actually charged with espionage, is that right? Can you talk about the significance JOHN KIRIAKOU: Yes. NERMEEN SHAIKH: of the Espionage Act? JOHN KIRIAKOU: Yes, the government initially charged me with three counts of espionage. Imit sounds silly maybe, but Im still personally offended by these espionage charges, which were dropped, of course. The espionage charge is used as a hammer by the administration to force people into silence. My espionage charge is related to a conversation that I had with a New York Times reporter. ANew York Times reporter approached me and said that he was writing a story about a colleague of mine, and would I grant him an interview. I gave him the interview. I said this colleague was a great guy, the unsung hero of the Abu Zubaydah operation, terrific officer. And the reporter said, "Do you know how I can get in touch with him?" And I said, "No, Ive been out of touch with him for a while, but I think I might have his business card." So I gave the reporter the business card. Now, mind you, this is a CIA officer who had never, ever been undercover. His business card showed that he was involved as a CIA contractor, and it had his personal email on it and his cellphone number. I gave the reporter the business card and was charged with two counts of espionage. I later gave the same business card to another journalist who was doing an article and was charged with a third count of espionage.

AMY GOODMAN: What is it that you allege the CIA was doing for all of these years? Explain the torture program that you were trying to expose. JOHN KIRIAKOU: Sure. There werethere were something like 10 different techniques that were used in the CIAs torture program. They went from the benign, you know, where an officer would grab a prisoner by the lapels and give him a shake, all the way up to the really rough things that weve heard about, like waterboarding or, what I think is worse, sleep deprivation or the cold cell, where theyll put a prisoner naked in a cell chilled to 50 or 55 degrees, and then every hour or two throw ice water on him. I actually think those last two are worse than waterboarding. But, again, these are techniques that we have condemned other countries for throughout history. The Japanese did this during the Second World War. The Belgians did it in Africa earlier in the century. The Chinese and the Vietnamese did it. This isthese are techniques that we have always said were crimes against humanity. And then it was the it was though after September 11th everything changed, and we somehow had license to do the same things we had been condemning. I thought that was wrong. You know, Director Petraeusformer Director Petraeus made a statement in October when I agreed to take a plea to make these other charges go away, and he said that my conviction shows that we have to take our oaths seriously. Well, I took my oath seriously. My oath was to the Constitution. On my first day in the CIA, I put my right hand up, and I swore to uphold the Constitution. And to me, torture is unconstitutional, and its something that we should not be in the business of doing. NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Kiriakou, I want to play for you comments President Obama made four years ago, shortly before he took office, about whether CIAofficials involved in torture should be prosecuted. He appeared on the ABC NewsThis Week. PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: I dont believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure thatfor example, at the CIA, youve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I dont want them to suddenly feel like theyve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So no 9/11 Commission with independent subpoena power? PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: You know, we have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that, moving forward, we are doing the right thing. NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was President Obama speaking four years ago to ABC. John Kiriakou, your response to what the presient said? JOHN KIRIAKOU: I supported the presidents response. I remember that interview, and I thought, "OK, hes right. There are wonderful, talented, hard-working men and women at the CIA who need to be protected." But at the same time, its one thing to look forward; its another thing to look forward just for the torturers. Its just not fair. Its not fair to the American people. If were going toif were going to make prosecutions or initiate prosecutions, those

prosecutions cant just be against the people who blew the whistle on the torture or who opposed the torture. You know, we haventwe havent even investigated the torturers, as Jesselyn said. We havent initiated any actions against the people who conceived of the torture and implemented the policy, or against the man who destroyed evidence of the torture, or against the attorneys who used specious legal arguments to justify the torture. If were going to move forward, lets move forward, but you cant target one person or two people who blew the whistle. NERMEEN SHAIKH: John Kiriakou, youve also spoken about witnessing new Foreign Service officers being confirmed, Foreign Service officers who were previously with the CIA and participated in acts of torture. Could you explain what happened and explain its significance? JOHN KIRIAKOU: Yes. When I was a senior investigator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was approached by a journalist who said that he had evidence that the CIA was misusing its cover agreement with the State Department to place people involved in the torture program under State Department cover so that their names could not be exposed in the press. And if those names were exposed in the press, the people giving the names would be subject to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So, again, this was a violation of the CIA-State Department cover agreement. I sent a letter under Senator John Kerrythen-Senator John Kerrys signature, asking the CIA for clarification. I got a response about six weeks later that was classified top-secret, so I was not permitted to see the response. I did not have a top-secret clearance at the time. And a colleague of mine told me that the letter essentially said, in very strongly worded language, to mind my own business. AMY GOODMAN: Were going to go to break. When we come back, we want to ask you about President Obamas nominee to become the next head of the CIA, John Brennan, because as you talk about the administration, were talking actually about administrations, from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Our guest is about to go to jail. His name is John Kiriakou. Hes about to serve two-and-a-half years in jail. This will be one of his last interviews before he goes to prison. Were joined also by Jesselyn Radack, who is one of his attorneys. Stay with us. Top Federal Prosecutor of Corporate Crime Resigns By BEN PROTESS Lanny A. Breuer, the federal prosecutor who led the Justice Departments response to corporate crime in the wake of the financial crisis, announced on Wednesday that he is stepping down after nearly four years in the post. As head of the Justice Departments criminal division, one of the most senior roles at the agency, Mr. Breuer tackled corporate bribery and public corruption. But it was his focus on Wall Street that received the most attention, from supporters and critics alike. While he has come under fire for a dearth of prosecutions on Wall Street in response to the crisis, Mr. Breuer also oversaw an aggressive crackdown on money-laundering and interest-rate manipulation at some of the worlds biggest banks. In two weeks last month, he joined a nearly $2 billion case against HSBC for money-laundering and a $1.5 billion settlement with UBS for

rate-rigging. Next week, he is expected to take a similar rate- rigging action against the Royal Bank of Scotland. I think the criminal division is a fundamentally different place than it was four years ago, Mr. Breuer said in an interview on Tuesday. Its the highlight of my professional career. His departure, effective March 1, was widely expected. Mr. Breuer had told friends for weeks that he was ready to leave the public sector. While he has not announced his next step, it is expected that he will return to private practice. He was previously a partner at Covington & Burling, a white-shoe law firm. By virtue of his perch at the Justice Department in Washington, Mr. Breuer became the face of Wall Street prosecutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But when few such cases materialized, critics like the Occupy Wall Street protesters turned on him, portraying him as an apologist for banks at the center of the mortgage mess. In contrast, he drew praise for the sweeping crackdown on rate-rigging in the banking industry, which has largely involved international benchmark rates. In a rate manipulation case last month, Mr. Breuers team secured a major payout from UBS and a guilty plea from the banks Japanese unit, making UBS the first big global bank in more than two decades to have a subsidiary plead guilty to fraud. Mr. Breuer, who announced the action after rejecting a last-minute plea from the banks chairman, also filed criminal charges against two former employees at the bank. The deal sent a strong signal that the authorities wanted to hold banks responsible for their wrongdoing. Following the UBS model, the Justice Department is now pursuing a guilty plea from a Royal Bank of Scotland subsidiary in Asia over its role in the interest rate manipulation scandal, people briefed on the matter said. That settlement, which could come as soon as next week, is likely to include more than $650 million in fines imposed by American and British authorities, two other people with direct knowledge of the matter said. In an interview, Mr. Breuer said the rate-rigging case amounted to egregious criminal conduct. He struck a similar tone about two other major financial cases the convictions of executives from Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, a now-defunct mortgage lender, and the 110-year prison term imposed on R. Allen Stanford for his Ponzi scheme. Mr. Breuer has also focused on money-laundering, creating a task force in 2010 that has levied more than $3 billion in fines from banks, including the record fine against HSBC. He stopped short of indicting HSBC after some regulators warned that doing so could destabilize the global financial system. Gary Cameron/ReutersLanny A. Breuer has led the Justice Departments criminal division for nearly four years in the wake of the financial crisis.

Mr. Breuer argued that the charges he did not bring for example, against Goldman Sachs and other banks suspected of fraud after selling toxic mortgage securities to investors could not have been proved. It was not for a lack of trying, he said, noting that United States attorneys across the country, after reviewing the same evidence he did, also declined to act. Its important for me to hold the financial institutions accountable, he said. Theres never been a time that a prosecutor said we should bring a securitization case and I said no. Under Mr. Breuer, the division has also increasingly used a 1977 law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to prosecute corporate bribery. He also helped run the Justice Departments investigation of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in the company paying $4.5 billion in fines and other penalties and pleading guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the rig explosion in 2010. In a statement, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. praised Mr. Breuer. Lanny has led one of the most successful and aggressive criminal divisions in the history of the Department of Justice, he said. Mr. Holder stood behind Mr. Breuer when questions arose about his involvement in the botched gun-trafficking case known as Operation Fast and Furious. The pair, who were both largely cleared after an inspector general investigation, worked together at Covington. For years, Mr. Breuer moved in and out of government. The son of Holocaust survivors who fled Europe and settled in Queens, he landed at the Manhattan district attorneys office after graduating from Columbia Law School. In between stints at Covington, he worked as a White House special counsel, defending President Bill Clinton amid federal investigations and impeachment proceedings. In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Breuer reflected on his unusual path to the Justice Department. The fact that I got to go from Elmhurst, Queens, to the criminal division is remarkable, he said. Defense Nominee Hagel, How Will Witnessing Machine-Gunning of an Orphanage Affect Your Work at the Pentagon? Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearings in the Senate are a chance for the truth about a lost war and Americas war-making future. January 31, 2013 | Hes been battered by big-money conservative groups looking to derail his bid for secretary of defense. Critics say he wants to end Americas nuclear program. They claim hes anti-Israel and soft on Iran. So you can expect intense questioning -- if only for theatrical effect -- about all of the above (and undoubtedly then some) as Chuck Hagel faces his Senate confirmation hearings today. You can be sure of one other thing: Hagels military service in Vietnam will be mentioned -- and praised. Its likely, however, to be in a separate and distinct category, unrelated to the pointed questions about current issues like defense priorities, his beliefs on the use of force abroad, or the

Defense Departments role in counterterrorism operations. You can also be sure of this: no senator will ask Chuck Hagel about his presence during the machine-gunning of an orphanage in Vietnams Mekong Delta or the lessons he might have drawn from that incident. Nor is any senator apt to ask what Hagel might do if allegations about similar acts by American troops emerge in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Nor will some senator question him on the possible parallels between the CIA-run Phoenix Program, a joint U.S.-Vietnamese venture focused on identifying and killing civilians associated with South Vietnams revolutionary shadow government, and the CIAs current targeted- killing-by-drone campaign in Pakistans tribal borderlands. Nor, for that matter, is he likely to be asked about the lessons he learned fighting a war in a foreign land among a civilian population where innocents and enemies were often hard to tell apart. If, however, Hagels military experience is to be touted as a key qualification for his becoming secretary of defense, shouldnt the American people have some idea of just what that experience was really like and how it shaped his thinking in regard to todays wars? Chuck Hagel on Murder in Vietnam "In Chuck Hagel our troops see a decorated combat veteran of character and strength -- they see him as one of their own," President Obama said as he nominated the former Republican senator from Nebraska to become the first former enlisted service member and first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense. He went on to call him the leader that our troops deserve. Chuck Hagel and his younger brother, Tom, fought together in Vietnam in 1968. The two are believed to be the only brothers to have served in the same infantry squad in that war and even more remarkably, each ended up saving the other's life. With Chuck, our troops will always know, just as Sergeant Hagel was there for his own brother, Secretary Hagel will be there for you, the president said. Largely unnoted was the falling out the brothers had over the conflict. After returning home, Tom began protesting the war, while Chuck defended it. Eventually, the Hagel brothers reconciled and even returned to Vietnam together in 1999. Years before, however, the two sat down with journalist and historian Myra MacPherson and talked about the war. Although their interpretations of what they had been through differed, its hard not to come away with the sense that both witnessed U.S. atrocities, and that Chuck Hagels vision of the war is far more brutal than most Americans imagine. That his experience of Vietnam would include such incidents should hardly be surprising, especially given the fact that Hagel served in the 9th Infantry Division under one of the most notorious U.S. commanders, Julian Ewell, known more colorfully as the Butcher of the Delta. The Hagel brothers, MacPherson recounts in her moving and important historyLong Time Passing: Vietnam and the Haunted Generation, argued over whether American troops were murdering people. Chuck disagreed at first, pointing instead to the depredations of Vietnamese revolutionary forces. Tom reminded his brother of the CIAs Phoenix Program which, with an estimated body count of more than 20,000 Vietnamese, too often turned

murderous and was no less regularly used by corrupt Vietnamese government officials to settle personal grudges. There was some of that, Chuck finally granted. Tom then raised an example that hit closer to home -- the time, after an enemy attack, when a sergeant from their unit took out his frustrations on a nearby orphanage. Remember the orphanage, Chuck That sergeant was so drunk and so pissed off that he crawled up on that track [armored personnel carrier] and opened up on that orphanage with a fifty-caliber machine gun, Tom said. When Chuck started to object, MacPherson writes, his brother was insistent. Chuck, you were there! Down at the bottom of the sandhill. Skeptically, Chuck asked his brother if he was saying the sergeant had slaughtered children in the orphanage. Tom granted that he didnt know for sure, because none of us went in to check. Chuck responded, In any war you can take any isolated incident But the war Tom Hagel detailed to MacPherson wasnt one punctuated by a few isolated incidents. He would talk about officers ordering the mutilation of enemy dead and soldiers shooting up and burning down a village, about how helicopter gunships and napalm decimated large areas of the countryside, about the lethality of indiscriminate weapons fire and about coming upon the bodies of women and children when firefights were over. He also recounted, in detail, a July 1968 assault on a hardcore enemy village in which their unit took part. After the battle had ended, he said, a lieutenant shot and killed a civilian in cold blood. Were collecting all the NVA [North Vietnamese Army] bodies and this woman walks out of a hootch. He just shot her dead, Tom recalled. The Hagel Hearings: Americas Last Best Chance for the Truth Recently, MacPherson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in support of Chuck Hagels bid to serve as Secretary of Defense: His experience has taught him the physical and mental toll of combat. He would surely think twice before sending young men and women into unnecessary, stupid, or unwinnable conflicts... One thing I know: Chuck Hagel will stand up to whatever is thrown at him. Tom Hagel has recently talked about his brother in similarly glowing terms. Hes going to do a great job, hell be totally committed to it, he told Politico. I think he will bring special sensitivity for enlisted personnel to the job, because, of course, of his experiences as an enlisted person in Nam. While he ultimately voted to authorize the war in Iraq -- despite grave misgivings -- there is a perception that, in the future, Hagel would be reticent to plunge the United States into yet more reckless wars and a strong belief exists among his supporters that he will stand up for Americas sons and daughters in uniform. On one subject, however, Hagels Vietnam experience shows him in a lesser light: sensitivity to the plight of the men and women who live in Americas war zones. In this area, his seeming unwillingness to face up to, no less tell the whole truth about, the Vietnam War he saw should raise serious questions. Unfortunately, its a blind spot not just for him, but for official Washington generally, and probably much of the country as well.

Its worth noting that the Hagel brothers left Vietnam just as their commanding general, Julian Ewell, launched a six-month operation in the Mekong Delta code-named Speedy Express. One whistleblowing veteran who served in that operation told the Armys top generals that Ewells use of heavy firepower on the countryside resulted in a My Lai each month (a reference, of course, to the one massacre most Americans know about, in which U.S. troops slaughtered more than 500 civilians, most of them women, children, and elderly men). That veterans shocking allegations were kept secret and a nascent inquiry into them was suppressed by the Pentagon. A later Newsweek investigation would conclude that as many as 5,000 civilians were killed during Speedy Express. A secret internal military report, commissioned after Newsweek published its account, suggested that the magazine had offered a low-end estimate. The document, kept secret and then buried for decades, concluded: While there appears to be no means of determining the precise number of civilian casualties incurred by US forces during Operation Speedy Express, it would appear that the extent of these casualties was in fact substantial, and that a fairly solid case can be constructed to show that civilian casualties may have amounted to several thousand (between 5,000 and 7,000). During the war, efforts by U.S. senators to look into Speedy Express were thwarted by Pentagon officials. More than four decades later, no senator is ever going to launch an investigation into what actually happened or the Pentagon cover-up that kept the American people in the dark for decades. Theoretically, the Hagel hearings do offer the Senate a belated chance to ask a few pertinent questions about the Vietnam War and the real lessons it holds for todays era of continuous conflict and for the civilians in distant lands who suffer from it. But any such hope is, we know, sure to die a quick death in that Senate hearing room. Chuck Hagels views on the Vietnam War underwent a fundamental shift following the release of audio tapes of President Lyndon Johnson admitting, in 1964, that the war was unwinnable. That "cold political calculation" caused Hagel to vow that he would "never, ever remain silent when that kind of thinking put more American lives at risk in any conflict." But what about lives other than those of Americans? What about children in shot-up orphanages or women who survive a murderous crossfire only to be gunned down in cold blood? Chuck Hagel may well be, as Mr. Obama contends, the leader that our troops deserve. But dont the American people deserve a little honesty from that leader about the war that shaped him? In these few days, the senators considering his nomination have an opportunity, perhaps the last one available, to get some answers about a war whose realities, never quite faced here, continue to dog us so many decades later. Its a shame that they are sure to pass it up in favor of the usual political theater.

Court Rejects CIAs Drone Secrecy Arguments Because Obama, Brennan & Panetta Made Statements By: Kevin Gosztola Friday March 15, 2013 2:36 pm

(Photo: drsmith7383; Edited: JR / Truthout) A federal appeals court has ruled the CIA cannot continue to deny in court that it has no intelligence interest in drones strikes carried out by the United States government. The appeals courts ruling reversed a lower court decision, which found the CIA did not have to acknowledge it had any records on drone strikes. The ruling by the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to force the release of government records on the use of drones for targeted killings. The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records in January 2010. The CIA issued a Glomar response, which means they refused to confirm or deny that the agency had any records. A district court affirmed the response and granted summary judgment in September 2011. The ACLU submitted an appeal in March 2012. Judge Merrick B. Garland wrote in the decision the question before the court was whether it was logical or plausible for the CIA to contend that it would reveal something not already officially acknowledged to say that the Agency at least has an intelligence interest in drone strikes.

Given the extent of the official statements on the subject, we conclude that the answer to that question is no. A statement by President Barack Obama, made during a Google+ Hangout in January 2012, statements from then-counterterrorism adviser John Brennan during a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center on April 30, 2012, and remarks made by then-CIA director Leon Panetta at the Pacific Council on International Policy in 2009 were all cited as official acknowledgments that the United States has participated in drone strikes. The acknowledgments made it implausible and illogical for the CIA to maintain that it would reveal anything not already in the public domain to say that the Agency at least has an intelligence interest in such strikes. The defendant is, after all, the Central Intelligence Agency, wrote Garland. As the judge noted, Obama has publicly acknowledged that the United States uses drone strikes against al Qaeda. Brennan made statements that left no doubt that some agency operates drones. It strains credulity to suggest that an agency charged with gathering intelligence affecting the national security does not have an intelligence interest in drone strikes, even if that agency does not operate the drones itself. Highlighted explicitly in the ruling was an answer Panetta gave to a question about remote drone strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan. [O]bviously because these are covert and secret operations I cant go into particulars. I think it does suffice to say that these operations have been very effective because they have been very precise in terms of the targeting and it involved a minimum of collateral damage. . . . I can assure you that in terms of that particular area, it is very precise and it is very limited in terms of collateral damage and, very frankly, its the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership. Displaying the proper contempt for the CIAs argument in this lawsuit, Garland stated, It is hard to see how the CIA Director could have made his Agencys knowledge of and therefore interest in drone strikes any clearer. And given these statements by the Director, the President, and the Presidents counterterrorism advisor, the Agencys declaration that no authorized CIA or Executive Branch official has disclosed whether or not the CIA . . . has an interest in drone strikes is at this point neither logical nor plausible. The ACLUs lawsuit sought access to categories of documents involving drone strikes that other agencies, like those in the Armed Forces, might have had. Because the CIA believed this might reveal the CIAs interest in drone strikes or whether it had documents on drone strikes, the CIA prevented requests for any and all records. Furthermore, to whether the CIA has documents or not, the judge stated, It beggars belief that it does not also have documents relating to the subject. In the above-quoted excerpt from the CIA Directors Pacific Council remarks, the Director spoke directly about the precision of targeted drone strikes, the level of collateral damage they cause,

and their usefulness in comparison to other weapons and tactics. Given those statements, it is implausible that the CIA does not possess a single document on the subject of drone strikes. Unless we are to believe that the Director was able to assure his audience that drone strikes are very precise and . . . very limited in terms of collateral damage without having examined a single document in his agencys possession, those statements are tantamount to an acknowledgment that the CIA has documents on the subject. In short, although the President and Messrs. Brennan and Panetta did not say that the CIA possesses responsive documents, what they did say makes it neither logical nor plausible to maintain that the Agency does not have any documents relating to drones. [emphasis added] The ACLUs Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case, reacted, This is an important victory. It requires the government to retire the absurd claim that the CIAs interest in the targeted killing program is a secret, and it will make it more difficult for the government to deflect questions about the programs scope and legal basis. It also means that the CIA will have to explain what records it is withholding, and on what grounds it is withholding them. For years, government officials from the Obama administration and from outside the administration, who possess knowledge of the CIAs drone program, have made drone claims on the record or anonymously. They have made selective disclosures that function as propaganda because they have typically aimed to explain and justify targeted killing operations. Or, the statements have served the purpose of showing the Obama administration understands the power being wielded and measures are being taken to establish rules and there is no reason to worry about power being abused. A most recent example of this was a New York Times story presenting a kind of official government account of the decision-making process that led to the targeting and killing of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who the administration now claims was a senior operator in Al Qaeda. He was killed by a CIA drone without charge or trial. He was placed on a kill list before he was assassinated. The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights put out a response to this story, In anonymous assertions to The New York Times, current and former Obama administration officials seek to justify the killings of three U.S. citizens even as the administration fights hard to prevent any transparency or accountability for those killings in court. This is the latest in a series of onesided, selective disclosures that prevent meaningful public debate and legal or even political accountability for the governments killing program, including its use against citizens. At the end of Sunshine Weekjust after President Barack Obamas crooked jest that he is not Dick Cheney so his administrations secrecy on drones is acceptablefinally, there is a court decision that checks the power of an agency clearly abusing its secrecy powers. Finally, a bit of sanity in defense of freedom of information from a few appeals court judges.

White House Still Disingenuously Presents Release of Visitor Logs to Public as Transparency Achievement By: Kevin Gosztola Friday March 15, 2013

Flickr Creative Commons-licensed Photo by Trevor McGoldrick The administration of President Barack Obama, when boasting about Obamas record on openness and transparency, regularly cites how it is now releasing White House visitor logs. It has been an achievement the administration explicitly mentions during Sunshine Week, a week where journalists and open government advocates celebrate transparency in government. During an event this week, Lisa Ellman, a chief counselor for the Open Government Partnership, stated, For the first time in history, the White House posted visitor logs, salaries, and ethics waivers online. White House spokesperson Eric Schultz told the Washington Post, Obama was the first president to release White House visitor records. In Obamas 2010 State of the Union, he spoke about being transparent about who visits the White House. He said, We face a deficit of trust deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve. Grinning, he said during a January Google+ Hangout event this year, This is the most transparent administration in history and I can document how that is the case. Everything from every visitor that comes into the White House is now part of the public record thats something that we changed. However, it is not something the White House or Obama administration took the initiative to change. Organizations like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Judicial Watch filed lawsuits because the administration refused to release visitor logs. The White House is releasing the records voluntarily and still maintains the Freedom of Information

Act does not apply to the visitor logs, which means the next presidential administration could easily decide to not release them to the public. Visitor logs, according to CREW chief counsel Ann Weissmann, contain only that information the Secret Service needs to ensure no visitor to the White House poses a risk to the safety or security of any of its occupants. They are valuable in the sense that they can reveal the kind or level of influence an individual visitor might have. On January 9, 2009prior to Obamas inauguration, the US District Court for DC ruled the visitor logs must be disclosed. CREW was seeking records of nine conservative religious leaders as well as records of visits by Stephen Payne, who was caught on videotape attempting to sell access to top White House officials in return for contributions to the Bush presidential library. The Bush administration had previously lost the lawsuit after US Chief District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth found hiding the identities of people who visit the White House from the public undermines the FOIAs goal of fostering openness and accountability in government. Even though Obama was now president and had made significant open government pledges, the administration would not release visitor logs. CREW filed two lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security, which had custody of the records. One lawsuit, filed in June of 2009, sought records of coal company executives visits to the White House and another lawsuit, filed in July of 2009, sought records of health care executives who had visited the White House. According to Weissmann, who litigated the lawsuits for records, CREW settled litigation, which began under the Bush administration and continued through the Obama administration, when the White House offered to not only provide CREW with its requested records but to post on the White Houses website on an ongoing basis nearly all visitor records subject to very limited and reasonable expectations. Records after September 2009 would be posted. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, filed a lawsuit to force the release of visitor logs between January and September 2009. A judge ruled on August 17, 2011, the records are subject to FOIA and should be disclosed unless they can be withheld under one of the laws exemptions. On October 14, 2011, the Obama administration appealed the ruling. It chose to maintain the position of President George W. Bushs administration: that the visitor logs were presidential records not subject to FOIA. Major media outlets filed briefs in support of Judicial Watch in May 2012. They expressed concern that, Reversal of the decision below may encourage federal agencies to seek to place millions of documents outside of FOIAs ambit based on no more than their say-so, even in the face of express statutes and judicial orders directly to the contrary. Permitting such an end-run around FOIA would significantly reduce the quantity and quality of information available to the media and, consequently, to the public at large, severely undermining the goal of an informed public that sits at the core of our democracy.

Federal appellate court judges heard argument on releasing the visitor logs in September 2012. (There does not appear to have been a ruling by the court yet.) Meanwhile, even as it continues to appeal the decision and fight mandatory disclosure under FOIA, the White House continues to make voluntary releases of the logs. On February 22, 2013, a post on the White House blog described: In September 2009, the President announced thatfor the first time in historyWhite House visitor records would be made available to the public on an ongoing basis. Today, the White House releases visitor records that were generated in November 2012. Todays release also includes visitor records generated prior to September 16, 2009 that were requested by members of the public in January 2013 pursuant to the White House voluntary disclosure policy. This release brings the total number of records made public by this White House to more than 3 millionall of which can be viewed in our Disclosures section. Yet, as Daniel Schuman, policy counsel and director for the Sunlight Foundation, stated during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing, The White House has significant discretion about which logs to release, and it is unclear how a future president would behave. Theres also significant opportunity for avoiding disclosure, such as meetings at coffee shops across the street from the White House. We believe the rules regarding disclosure of visitor logs should be fleshed out and enacted into law. Of course, to truly track the exertion of influence by special interests, we need comprehensive lobbying reform. As thoroughly demonstrated, this should not be something the Obama administration is able to promote as an example of their commitment to transparency and openness. An achievement are not typically fought in court in efforts that could make it easy for the achievement to be unraveled completely. And this post is a rebuttal to any Obama official that touts this achievement, even as they are litigating against transparency in US courts. The reality is the claim of being the most transparent administration ever is puffery, as in advertising. It is as true as a claim by a corporation that their product is 100% favored by Americans. From invoking state secrets privilege to pursuing a record amount of leaks prosecutions to refusing to release the legal basis for targeted killing operations in official Office of Legal Counsel opinions to doing nothing about the fact that a majority of federal agencies are violating freedom of information law to the Justice Department defending government agencies whenever they oppose FOIA requests, the commitment to open government is exceedingly questionable because in many instances the administrations actions do more to preserve secrecy than instill transparency.

Obama Administration Excludes National Security Policies from Commitment to Transparency

By: Kevin Gosztola Wednesday March 13, 2013

President Barack Obama meeting with senior advisors A chief counselor for the White Houses Open Government Partnership spoke at a Sunshine Week event on Monday and declared, President Obama understands our governments obligation to serve the American people to the best of our ability. He has made clear that citizens deserve accountability, and the opportunity to participate in their government and that this will make our government better. The statement from Lisa Ellman came during a week where the press, civil society organizations and United States citizens are celebrating open government and the publics right to know. It stood in sharp contrast to what was outlined by human rights and counterterrorism investigator, United Nations Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson. In a recent report, he mentioned the US government has adopted an unjustifiably broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege in US courts. The CIAs secret detention, rendition and torture program of the Bush-era CIA, according to the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR) has adopted a concept of state secrets that has often been invoked to obstruct the search for the truth. Secrecy, which obstructs the truth, has deprived individuals, particularly torture victims, of justice and accountability. A clear example is the case of Khaled El-Masri, who was kidnapped by the CIA as he tried to enter Macedonia. He was flown to Afghanistan where he was detained in a secret CIA black site known as the Salt Pit for over four months, during which time he was severely and repeatedly beaten. The EHCR found Macedonia had been responsible for Masris unlawful detention, enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment, and for his transfer out of Macedonia to locations where he suffered further serious violations of his human rights. The court concluded, The blanket invocation of state secrets privilege with reference to complete policies, such as the United States secret detention, interrogation and rendition program

or third-party intelligence (under the policy of originator control) prevents effective investigation and renders the right to a remedy illusory. In publicly stated policy, President Barack Obamas administration has sought to improve openness and transparency in government, however, there has been a wide gap between what values the Obama administration claims they are committed to upholding and what the administration does in practice. It also seems the Obama administration has increasingly allowed national security policy to be excluded from this commitment to openness and transparency. During the event in which Ellman spoke, she stated: The Obama Administration understands that when the rules of a society are transparent when theres a clear and advertised set of laws and regulations regarding how to start a business, what it takes to own property, how to go about getting a loan that these are the things that make a society function well. When the public has access to information on government budgets and processes, this is what allows citizens to engage and to improve how their governments function. When officials are held accountable to their actions and citizens feel confident in the public system, this is what makes a nation prosper and grow. [emphasis added] The rules of society should be transparent, but one cannot help but notice what Ellman describes all seems to apply to citizens wanting to start a small business. This is open government for consumers or private owners of property. This does not suggest an open government policy that gives citizens the ability to know if officials are upholding human rights and not corruptly maneuvering to get around adhering to the rule of law. Even so, the Sunlight Foundation recently highlighted how the US continues to keep some of its most important laws behind a paywall. Many public safety standards must be paid for before you can even know what they are, after being developed in partnership with private standards developing organizations (SDOs). This is accomplished through incorporation by reference, where public law refers the reader to a private booklet and says you have to do whatever the booklet says. The Office of the Federal Register asked for comments on whether private rules should be free to the public in February 2012. Since then, theres been no action. FOIA & National Security Exemptions Returning to national security policies and the agency operations of national security and intelligence agencies, the Associated Press has reported that, though the Obama administration answered more requests from the public to see government records under the Freedom of Information Act last year, more than ever it is now citing legal exceptions to censor or withhold the material in order to protect national security and internal deliberations. Around 603,000 FOIA requests were submitted last year, about a five percent increase. According to the AP, When the government withheld or censored records, it cited exceptions built into the law to avoid turning over materials more than 479,000 times, a roughly 22 percent increase over the previous year. It cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223

timesa jump from over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obamas first year in office. The CIA became more secretive and nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored (compared with 49 percent in 2011). The following agencies invoked national security exceptions: The Pentagon, Director of National Intelligence, NASA, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Communications Commission and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs. Remarkably, the AP mentioned it could not determine whether the administration was abusing the national security exemption or whether the public was asking for more documents about sensitive subjects. This shows there are very little ways for a citizen to prove the government is abusing or manipulating the FOIA process. In courts, a citizen or group (like the American Civil Liberties Union) can sue for access to documents or records they believe should be available to the public, but a judge typically takes the governments invoking of so-called national security seriously and will rule in favor of the government. The Center for Effective Government (CEG) points out in its report on Obamas transparency record that over-classification and declassification issues have only persisted. It also criticizes the administration for allowing agencies to have secret rules or legal interpretations that the public is not allowed to know. Secret Law The Obama administration has presided over a growing body of secret law. Keeping records showing the legal basis for placing a suspected terrorist on a kill list has been defended in court in a FOIA lawsuit advanced by the ACLU. Secret interpretations of the Patriot Act to grant it even more expansive authority to conduct surveillance has been concealed by the administration. The Obama administration has refused to support releasing FISA court rulings at least in part or in some other form, which would bring some modicum of transparency to warrantless surveillance. The Justice Departments legal opinions on when it has the authority to use GPS tracking were almost entirely censored from documents provided to the ACLU in response to a FOIA request. And Obama issued cybersecurity policy directive that purportedly wrestled with when the US government can and cannot engage in cyber warfare, which remains classified. President George W. Bush issued sixty-six national security directives. At least thirty of them are still classified. Obama has issued twenty directives. Only five of them are public. Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News has urged Obama to release a summary account of each of the national security directives Bush signed, which remain secret: Of the 54 National Security Presidential Directives issued by the (George W.) Bush Administration to date, the titles of only about half have been publicly identified. There is descriptive material or actual text in the public domain for only about a third. In other words,

there are dozens of undisclosed Presidential directives that define U.S. national security policy and task government agencies, but whose substance is unknown either to the public or, as a rule, to Congress Whistleblowers & Prosecutions of Leakers Ellman touted the signing of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act last year and also declared, When it was clear that Congress would not provide protections for intelligence community whistleblowers, the President took executive action, issuing a landmark directive that extended whistleblower protections to the intelligence and national security communities for the first time. The directive, however, contained no legal enforceability or mechanism for whistleblowers to challenge the decision of any national security or intelligence agency to fire them in court. Stephen M. Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center, pointed out, The Directive fails to provide whistleblowers with any new enforceable legal rights. In fact, the Directive specifically states that it does not create any right or benefit for whistleblowers. This section renders the Directive toothless. We are concerned that national security employees may think that this Directive gives them some much-needed protections when it does not. This toothless measure came in October 2012 just less than a month before Election Day. Essentially, this was Obama pushing the reset button on his administrations record of allowing or even championing the zealous pursuit of national security whistleblowers. It also was a copout or slickly deceptive maneuver because Congress had passed a whistleblower protection bill that excluded national security or intelligence agency whistleblowers. According to unnamed House aides, the exclusion was coordinated between both Democratic and Republican Party leaders in the House and with the Senate and White House. They decided the language should not be included in the bill because they did not have the political will to sort out how to protect national security secrets and also afford intelligence officials protection. Moreover, as the public has become increasingly critical of its failure to take the kind of actions that should be expected from an administration that prides itself in being what it considers the most transparent and ethical administration ever in the United States, it has mentioned transparency and open government policies even less. This decline has coincided with a distancing from even the most minor commitments or pledges of transparency. In conclusion, a culture of secrecy pervades intelligence agencies and government is filled with sycophantic bureaucrats indoctrinated to serve the national security state. Obama has no intention of challenging the secrecy culture in intelligence agencies, which creates a work environment that enables corruption. These agencies do not want whistleblowers talking anymore than Obama wants people from his White House talking. The agencies and Obama do not want to have to address corruption because it interrupts the continuity of government or it undermines the operations of an ever-expanding Surveillance State. The result is the Obama administration must manage expectations on transparency and openness because they know there is only so much that can be permitted before the truly corrupt inner

workings are revealedthe kind of of inner workings that WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning shined a light on with the selection, disclosure and publication of secret government information. This is why the Obama administration has effectively allowed a war on WikiLeaks, a media organization dedicated to global transparency, to persist. It is why the Justice Department uses law as a sledgehammer to make examples of leakers. Offending codes of silence cannot be allowed. Targeted Killings & the Right to Know When Your Government Can Kill You By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday March 14, 2013

Senator Ron Wyden during CIA director John Brennans confirmation hearing The notion that any presidential administration or Executive Branch agency can keep secret official interpretations of the law is indefensible. A few members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives understand this and are pushing to find out information about President Barack Obamas targeted killing program that the public has a right to know. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, at a Sunshine Week event at George Washington University, declared, Every American has a right to know when their government believes it has a right to kill them. He highlighted how he had worked for the past two years to obtain information on the legal basis for targeting and killing alleged terror suspects, both US citizens and foreign persons, and had submitted at least seven requests for information. Access to documents, which he had a right to read as a lawmaker (especially one on the Senate Select Committee of Intelligence), was obstructed while, at the same time, Obama continued to talk about valuing transparency and openness in government. Only when the administration needed to confirm a nominee did senators have power to force documents to be provided.

Wyden said he intends to try and have a significant portion of the Office of Legal Counsel opinions on when the US can legally authorize targeted killing operations released to the public. He does not accept the argument in favor of secrecy that asserts the legal interpretation is intertwined with details of secret operations. After reading them, Its pretty clear now they involve the law. The senator put the need for the official interpretation of the law to be made public into perspective: If the CIA or the NSA interprets a law in an unusual fashion, it might well stay secret for years and that is what has happened in the past. If you look at the scandals of the 60s and 70s, the spying scandals as well as Iran-Contra, the warrantless wiretapping and coercive interrogation programs of the past decadeMuch of that involves officials secretly deciding that the law didnt mean what most people thought it meant, and, in order to prevent mistakes and abuses from occurring, I believe that Congress and the public have to insist that the Executive Branchs official interpretation of the law be publicly known. People in the Executive Branch, he suggested, are worried that providing the documents may set a precedent that would undermine the presidents ability to get candid legal advice. That concern is not valid because what senators and those in the public are seeking is the official policy that is being relied upon to justify and authorize decisions made in secret operations. He noted the Obama administration still refuses to provide a list of countries where lethal force has been used. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and other representatives sent a letter to Obama calling on him to release, in unclassified form, the full legal basis of Executive Branch claims around: killing targets without geographical limits; high-level officials with the authority to approve kill lists; the definition of whether capture is feasible; the meaning of imminent threat; the suggestion that killing American citizens and others would be legitimate under the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the inherent right to national self-defense. The letter stated: Authorizing the killing of American citizens and others has profound implications for our Constitution, the core values of our Nation, our national security and future international practice. The Executive Branchs claim of authority to deprive citizens of life, and to do so without explaining the legal bases for doing so, sets a dangerous precedent and is a model of behavior that the United States would not want other nations to emulate. Transpartisan support is building. David Keene, former chairman of the American Conservative Union and David Cole, legal affairs correspondent for The Nation, penned a column for the Los Angeles Times where they addressed the crucial importance of transparency in government, especially when the president claims the power to kill [Americans] without charges or trial, by directing the launching of a remote-control drone.

Keene and Cole mentioned eleven memos the Justice Department has drafted but refuse to release, even in redacted form, and demanded the president inform the public of the ground rules that govern his claimed authority to have Americans killed. * What is the assumed rationale behind the secrecy? I was confronted with it yesterday when I appeared on Huffington Post Live for a segment on Obama and transparency. Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel.net, Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and I all were invited to lob criticisms at former National Security Council flak Tommy Vietor, who would try and address them. Continuing to carry water for the Obama administration (even though he said multiple times he no longer works for the administration), he talked about drones: I worked in national security issues mostly. So a lot of the information I was dealing with was sensitive or classified or could jeopardize certain things. The primary concern we had was sources and methods and what that means is, if someone publishes something that says according to intercepted emails, that the individuals emails we just interceptedbe they some member of Al Qaedathat they would then know. And: Drones a decade ago were cutting edge, very secret technology. Weve come a long way in a decade. There used to be a time when administrations didnt even talk about their use in hot battlefields like Afghanistan. So what I guess Id tell people to look at is look at the way drones were discussed in 2008, compared to now. Take a look at speeches by Harold Koh or Eric Holder, where he talked about the targeting of US citizens. Take a look at remarks by John Brennan made at the Wilson Center where he talked in great detail about the targeting and criteria and processes the administration used to target al Qaeda members. Also, the administration has declassified the fact that drones take lethal action, they take kinetic strikes, in Somalia and Yemen. That used to be secret. Finally: Barack Obama never said I will livestream from the Sit Room. The PDB [presidential daily briefing] will be on my website every day. Right, there are sensitive deliberative counterterrorism discussions that should remain secret because we dont need people on the other side of those discussions to know who is being targeted, how, when, where and why Here is where I interrupted Vietor to tell him that nobody is asking the president for a livestream so not only is it absurd to suggest this in order to deride open government advocates but it is also a red herring. The fact that there is more information known now than five years ago is not a legitimate defense for keeping official legal interpretations secret. It is not even a legitimate defense for not

releasing information on the killings of US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan and Awlakis 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. They are dead, the operations should have little bearing on the success of current operations and theres a public interest in seeing documentation on what led government to decide it had the authority to kill these specific individuals or what the official reaction was after Khan and Abdulrahman were killed when they were not reportedly supposed to be targeted. Speeches by high-ranking officials are not an acceptable substitute for transparency. In each case, the speeches have only raised more questions that may have never been asked if the public was able to see the legal basis as officially drafted for use by the president to give him the authority to kill. Also, nobody is asking for suspected terrorists emails. The Obama Justice Department is not fighting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in court over the release of documented communications between leaders of Al Qaeda. They want the legal basis and some details around the criteria for putting individuals on to the secret kill list. Vietors comments are similar to remarks made by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, who was incensed by the fact that Wyden and a few other senators wanted the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, a law that legalized President George W. Bushs warrantless wiretapping program. Wyden sought the release of FISA court rulings for reasons similar to the reasoning behind his quest to have targeted killing memos released. Feinstein concocted this idea that Wyden and others wanted to make public the names of people subjected to National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance. She suggested that what the senators trying to reform the law wanted to do is really destroy the program so it would no longer be an intelligence tool available. This is no different from Vietors comments that rest upon the unfounded fear that information not even being sought will somehow become public. In most cases, the only reason any of this information will become public is if spokespeople like Vietor anonymously provide this information to members of the press. Obamas Im-No-Dick-Cheney Standard for Government Secrecy By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday March 14, 2013 Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, upset about not being provided with memos containing the legal justification for targeted killing operations, such as drone strikes, was apparently told by President Barack Obama not to worry because he is not Vice President Dick Cheney. POLITICO reports: [N]ear the outset of his closed-door session with the Senate Democratic conference on Tuesday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) confronted the president over the administrations refusal for two years to show congressional intelligence committees Justice Department Office of

Legal Counsel memos justifying the use of lethal force against American terror suspects abroad Obama apparently responded, This is not Dick Cheney were talking about here. He argued his administration was more open to oversight than that of President George W. Bush, whom many Democratic senators attacked for secrecy and for expanding executive power in the national security realm. He also said, as if it was some kind of valid justification for secrecy, he was not involved in drafting such memos. This is the Trust Us defense for secrecy. It is in line with what Attorney General Eric Holder said to Republican Representative Ted Cruz when he was asked about whether it would be legal to target American citizens on United States soil. Holder said it would be inappropriate. But, the trustworthiness of an administration should never justify keeping official interpretations of the law secret. Who is deciding whether the administration is trustworthy? In this case, it is Obama, a key beneficiary of keeping the legal basis for targeted killing secret. Secrecy ensures there is no scandal or controversy he has to confront as president. Incidentally, Cheney has praised Obamas use of drones. I think its a good program and I dont disagree with the basic policy that the Obama administration is pursuing, he said in an interview on CBS This Morning in February. He also endorsed the drone strike against Anwar alAwlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen, saying he was clearly part of al-Qaeda. Cheney also said in a January 2011 interview on NBC, In terms of a lot of the terrorism policies the early talk, for example, about prosecuting people in the CIA whove been carrying out our policies all of thats fallen by the wayside. I think hes learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. Natasha Lennard of Salon appropriately characterized this reported remark from Obama: Its the sort of defense Dick Cheney would probably use, were he not already Dick Cheney. Aside from the fact that the Obama administrations shadow drone wars are comparable to Bushera programs of rendition and wiretapping in terms of secrecy and extrajudicial executive action, the presidents reference to the former V.P. is in itself troubling. It invokes the same race-tothe-bottom, at least the other guy is worse logic that saw many dejected liberals trudge reluctantly to the voting booths for Obama last November. What a sad political epoque when not being literally the worst, not being Dick Cheney is a defense. [emphasis added] Arent drones a part of a race-to-the-bottom for American empire? It is politically untenable and increasingly difficult on a practical level to occupy countries and wage open-ended conflicts. Within the framework of the Global War on Terrorism, drone warfare has been adopted as the alternative. And officials, including Obama, have said we can either have large-scale occupations or we can use flying killer robots to target and kill people in any country where we deem it necessary to launch such strikes.

Drone Wars are better than Wars for Occupation, where nation-building is likely to falter as it did in Iraq. Obama is better because he is not Dick Cheney. This is the false choice. There is no other option framed in the debate. The American people and more importantly, the citizens of countries being bombed by dronescan either have an openly proud tyrant who dictates national security policy or a cold, calculating pragmatist who is perceived to have a better moral center than Dick Cheney. And, what is worse? A powerful person telling citizens they have no right to know because they fervently believe that all hell will break loose if they allow any transparency or a powerful person who purports to favor transparency and openness telling citizens they do not have a right to know because he or she is not that powerful person who has contempt for open government?

HOPLOPHOBIA EXPLORED
"RAGING AGAINST SELF DEFENSE"
A Psychiatrist Examines the Anti-Gun Mentality by Sarah Thompson, M.D. This is the original article that started the debate on gun rights as a medical issue. Col. Jeff Cooper coined the term "hoplophobia," but it was Dr. Thompson who initially examined it from a medical point of view.

Permission is granted to distribute this article in its entirety, so long as full copyright information and full contact information is given for JPFO. Copyright 2000 Sarah Thompson, MD

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality By Sarah Thompson, M.D. righter@therighter.com

"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you." "If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games." "I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns." "I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me." How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

Defense Mechanisms Projection About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1 How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him. Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate

without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him. Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6 All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways. Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them. This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8 (This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.) Denial Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence. Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has

been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder. Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable. Reaction Formation Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister. Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them. This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues. Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.

In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.

Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill". Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17 Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control. Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit. Defense mechanisms distort reality Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my email correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.

People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21

The Common Thread: Rage In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood. Identity as Victim If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:

(1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims." (2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims." (3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization. Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-

Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality. Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim? I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure. In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs. Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24 Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gangridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless. Victimhood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless and therefore dependent.

Anti-gun groups love victims! From my observations, pro-victimhood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities. If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free. The psychological price of being a victim In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression. But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life. So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy". Say NO to being a victim! But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people.

Communicating with anti-gun people How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind. Anger and attacks do not work Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive. It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions. Be Gentle You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day. As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life.

Reversing Irrational thoughts The Mirror Technique One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him

see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position. Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses. Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies. It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership. The "What Would You Do?" Technique Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so. Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people who should not be trusted with guns!

Defusing Emotional reactions The "You Are There" Technique Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts. One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at

the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?" Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses. The Power of Empathy Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person. Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur. Not very pleasant, is it? This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work. Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent. This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children". You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work!

Corrective Experiences Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing. For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions. If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers. As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably. For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach. First-hand experience Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience. First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to

show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety. Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into antigovernment rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk! Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand. Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces. In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast. But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner. Why these techniques do not always work You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the

forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered. You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31 Conclusion By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety. Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun.

2000, Sarah Thompson. Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, www.utgoa.org and also writes The Righter, www.therighter.com, a monthly column on individual rights. Notes 1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999. 2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2. 3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20. 4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433.

5 Brenner 1973. P. 91. 6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432. 7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137. 8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000. 9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.] 11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150187. 12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. 13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433. 14 Brenner 1973, p. 85. 15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [fascism exalts nature, animals and environment]. 16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54. 17 Brenner 1973, p. 92. 18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219. 19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410. 20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12. 21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093.

22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). http://www.jewishworldreview.com 23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12). 24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/TerrorTortureandResistance.html 25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. http://www.naacp.org/president/speeches/90th%20Annual%20Meeting.htm 26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. http://uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html 27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a. 28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5. 29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37. 30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217. 31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Published by Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. P.O. Box 270143 Hartford, WI 53027 Phone (262) 673-9745 http://www.jpfo.org

Craig B Hulet was both speech writer and Special Assistant for Special Projects to Congressman Jack Metcalf (Retired); he has been a consultant to federal law enforcement DEA, ATF&E of Justice/Homeland Security for over 25 years; he has written four books on international relations and philosophy, his latest is The Hydra of Carnage: Bushs Imperial War-making and the Rule of Law - An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire. He has appeared on over 12,000 hours of TV and Radio: The History Channel De-Coded; He is a regular on Coast to Coast AM w/ George Noory and Coffee Talk KBKW; CNN, C-Span ; European Television "American Dream" and The Arsenio Hall Show; he has written for Soldier of Fortune Magazine, International Combat Arms, Financial Security Digest, etc.; Hulet served in Vietnam 1969-70, 101st Airborne, C Troop 2/17th Air Cav and graduated 3rd in his class at Aberdeen Proving Grounds Ordnance School MOS 45J20 Weapons. He remains a paid analyst and consultant in various areas of geopolitical, business and security issues: terrorism and military affairs. Hulet lives in the ancient old growth Quinault Rain Forest.