Saturday, December 13, 2014

Congress sends Obama $1.1 trillion spending bill


WASHINGTON — Congress cleared a $1.1 trillion spending bill for President Barack Obama's signature late Saturday night after a day of Senate intrigue capped by a failed, largely symbolic Republican challenge to the administration's new immigration policy.


The vote was 56-40 in favor of the measure, which funds nearly the entire government through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. It also charts a new course for selected shaky pension plans covering more than 1 million retirees, including the possibility of benefit cuts.


The Senate passed the bill on a day Democrats launched a drive to confirm two dozen of Obama's stalled nominees to the federal bench and administration posts, before their majority expires at year's end.


Several Republicans blamed tea party-backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for giving the outgoing majority party an opportunity to seek approval for presidential appointees, including some that are long-stalled.


It was Cruz who pushed the Senate to cast its first vote on the administration's policy of suspending the threat of deportation for an estimated four million immigrants living in the country illegally. He lost his attempt Saturday night, 74-22, although Republican leaders have vowed to bring the issue back after the party takes control of the Senate in January.


"If you believe President Obama's amnesty is unconstitutional, vote yes. If you believe President Obama's amnesty is consistent with the Constitution, vote no," he said.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rebutted instantly, saying Cruz was "wrong, wrong, wrong on several counts," and even Republicans who oppose Obama's policy abandoned the Texan.


The spending bill, which cleared the House on Thursday, was the main item left on Congress' year-end agenda, and exposed fissures within both political parties in both houses.


It faced opposition from Democratic liberals upset about the repeal of a banking regulation and Republican conservatives unhappy that it failed to challenge Obama's immigration moves.


While the legislation assures funding for nearly the entire government until next fall, it made an exception of the Department of Homeland Security. Money for the agency will run out on Feb. 27, when Republicans intend to try and force the president to roll back an immigration policy that removes the threat of deportation from millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.


The legislation locks in spending levels negotiated in recent years between Republicans and Democrats, and includes a number of provisions that reflect the priorities of one party or the other, from the environment to abortion to the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.


One, which drew vehement objections from the Democrats, would repeal a regulation imposed on banks in the wake of the near economic collapse of 2008. Critics called it a bailout for large financial institutions, but more than 70 House Democrats voted for it previously, and Obama made clear he didn't view it as a deal-killer.


The pension provision was a bipartisan agreement that opens the door for the first time to benefit cuts for current retirees covered by multi-employer funds in shaky financial condition.


Supporters said it would protect retirement income to the maximum extent possible without also endangering the solvency of the government fund that guarantees multi-employer plans. Critics said it posed a threat to the pension recipients, and that it could also become a precedent for other pensioners.


Immigration was at the heart of the day's events in the Senate.


Cruz seized on the issue late Friday night when he tried to challenge the bill. That led swiftly to the unraveling of an informal bipartisan agreement to give the Senate the weekend off, with a vote on final passage of the bill deferred until early this coming week.


That, in turn, led Reid, D-Nev., to call an all-day Senate session devoted almost exclusively to beginning time-consuming work on confirmation for 13 judicial appointees and 11 nominees to administration posts.


The list included Carolyn Colvin to head the Social Security Administration and Vivek Murthy as surgeon general.


As the day wore on, senators were forced to spend hour after hour on the Senate floor to cast their votes. One, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., sat at her desk quietly for awhile reading a book.


By evening, cocktail hour in the East, strains of Christmas carols could be heard from behind the closed doors of rooms that surround the chamber.


Republicans tried to slow the nomination proceedings, but several voiced unhappiness with Cruz, a potential presidential candidate in 2016.


"I've seen this movie before, and I wouldn't pay money to see it again," said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., recalling Cruz' leading role a year ago in events precipitating a 16-day partial government shutdown that briefly sent GOP poll ratings plummeting.


Cruz, in turn, blamed Reid, saying his "last act as majority leader is to, once again, act as an enabler" for the president by blocking a vote on Obama's policy that envisions work visas for an estimated 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally.


Reid blamed a "small group of Senate Republicans" for the turn of events.


Asked if Cruz had created an opening for the Democrats, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah said, "I wish you hadn't pointed that out."


Hatch added, "You should have an end goal in sight if you're going to do these types of things and I don't see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people."


The GOP leader, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, made no public comment on the events, even though Cruz suggested Friday night McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, should not be entirely trusted to keep their pledge to challenge Obama's immigration policy.


"We will learn soon enough if those statements are genuine and sincere," Cruz said.


_____


Associated Press writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.



Retiring Ramstein medical officer's 50 years of service recognized


During a career spanning more than half a century with the military, John Mace has rubbed shoulders with some big names and ensured servicemembers and civilians got the care they needed. He has been a close-up witness to history as freed American hostages and survivors of high-profile attacks streamed through the doors of his clinics.


While he’s mainly worked out of the spotlight as a special operations medical officer for the 86th Medical Group at Ramstein Air Base, his efforts haven’t gone unnoticed.


Two of the Air Force’s top generals made a special trip to Ramstein for his retirement ceremony on Friday. It was a final flourish to a career spent focused on the health of others.


“As operations officer, I am more or less trying to make sure the clinic takes good care of every patient that walks through the door,” Mace said in a telephone interview a few days before his retirement. He goes above and beyond, he said. “to make sure they feel like family.”


“It’s been a great honor to do this job all these years,” said Mace, who turns 73 later this month. “Most guys my age are retired, and some are 6 feet under.”


Attending Mace’s retirement ceremony was Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, head of European Command, NATO’s supreme allied commander, and former head of U.S. Air Forces in Europe.


“John lives to help others, build teams, and he takes immense personal pride in witnessing others surpass their own expectations,” Breedlove said, according to prepared remarks.


“I owe you my health, my career, and my outlook on life itself,” he added. “You are a true friend.”


Gen. Mark A Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff and former commander at USAFE, also was on hand Friday for the ceremony attended by Air Force staff.


While active-duty and civilian retirements in the military happen every day, it’s rare for four-star commanders to make a point of showing up for the farewell of a midlevel civilian staffer.


Mace retired from active duty in 1985 as Air Force master sergeant after 25 years of service that began with a brief stint in the Army. He stayed on with the Air Force as a civilian, working in executive medicine in Wiesbaden and later at Ramstein ,where he has served as an operations officer at one of the Air Force’s largest ambulatory care facilities outside the U.S.


Over the years, Mace has handled treatment for troops and their families, wounded servicemembers and American civilians freed from captivity.


When the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut was bombed in 1983, killing more than 200 servicemembers, Mace was on the flight line to meet surviving Marines transiting through Germany. He also was on hand when passengers from the hijacking in 1985 of a TWA flight were released and transferred to U.S. medical facilities in Germany.


“People were in shock. We brought them to a medical center in Wiesbaden for the night to make sure they were OK,” said Mace, a North Carolina native.


And when hostages passed through Mace’s medical unit in Wiesbaden, he’d learn about their experiences firsthand. One of them was Associated Press journalist Terry Anderson, who was released by his Iranian-backed captors in Lebanon in 1991.


“It was interesting to hear how they coped with that long captivity. They all had their own story,” Mace said. “And they all had low cholesterol, of course.”


When Mace first met a newly released Anderson, he delivered him to a distinguished visitor suite, where a health exam was conducted before his eventual return to the U.S.


“He said, ‘John you know what my biggest problem is? The press is asking me to put together a full-day schedule of the things I want to do.’


“For six years, he had no choice in anything. So for him to now come up with an itinerary for the press just totally downed him,” Mace recalled.


After the Wiesbaden clinic closed in the early 1990s, Mace made the move to Ramstein.


During his long tenure with the Air Force, Mace says, much has changed in military life, and he has a certain nostalgia for the old days, when serving in Germany came with few frills or entertainment opportunities on base.


“Back in the beginning, there was more camaraderie and we were more united. At best we had A BX and commissary on the base, not the conveniences we have now, so we stuck together,” he said.


Now, with budgets getting cut, services downsizing and some benefits getting trimmed, his parting message to colleagues is for the military community to stick together.


“Today we need to close ranks,” he said. “All branches of service, the Guard, the retired force, the civilian work force, we’re a massive, humongous family. But we are not united as we once were. We need to be concerned for each other and solidly united.”


vandiver.john@stripes.com



CIA’s mistaken detention destroyed German man’s life


ULM, Germany (TNS) — Khalid al Masri is a broken man today. A decade after the CIA snatched him by mistake, flew him half way around the world in secret, and questioned him as part of its detention and interrogation program, he’s yet to recover.


He’s abandoned his home. He no longer is part of the lives of his wife or children. Friends can’t find him. His attorneys can’t find him. German foreign intelligence will only say he’s “somewhere in a Western-leaning Arab nation.”


When his Ulm attorney and confidant Manfred Gnjidic last saw him, he was broke, unkempt, paranoid and completely alone. He’d been arrested twice and sent once to a psychiatric ward, once to jail. He was in deep need of psychological counseling but with no hope of the extensive help he needed.


Masri’s case is one of the 26 instances detailed in the Senate Intelligence Committee report when the Central Intelligence Agency snared someone in its web of secret dungeons by mistake, realized its error after weeks or months of mistreatment and questioning, and then let them go. But the report, made public Tuesday, does not recount what that mistake meant to Masri’s life.


“I was stunned by the torture report,” Gnjidic said. “They had known and privately admitted for years that they had made a mistake regarding Khalid,” who is a German citizen.


And yet the CIA, which realized its error within weeks of Masri’s January 2004 detention, remained silent, as did the Senate Intelligence Committee, which learned of the mistake in 2007.


“For a decade, a decade in which his life has been shattered, he’d asked for . . . an apology, an explanation, a chance to go ahead with his life,” Gnjidic said. “They knew this, they admitted this and they didn’t share this with him?


“How cowardly must they be, how weak must they be, to fear apologizing when they knew they were completely in the wrong?”


Masri’s CIA detention, which combined with Macedonia intelligence detention that Gnjidic believes was at the request of the CIA, totaled 35 days by CIA count, but closer to four months by Masri’s.


The Senate report does not discuss his treatment in detention. But Masri has insisted over the years that he was tortured. He’s described being shackled to the ceiling while naked, unable to sit for days, existing on nothing, in the dark, a scenario that appears to be common in the torture report. A European court ruled in 2012 that he’d been sodomized and drugged.


The shadow cast by that detention saw him labeled by German media as an “Islamist extremist.”


Neighbors shunned him. Potential employers turned him away. In 2010, the German national newspaper Bild ran a story about him under a headline asking “Why do we allow ourselves to be terrorized by such a man?”


The article went on to state that “for months the Islamist who claims to be a victim of CIA torture has terrorized the federal government, parliament and the public.” His terrorism of the federal government apparently was in asking for redress and an explanation for what had happened to him.


As Gnjidic notes, and the Senate report makes clear, those answers were available to Masri years before he finally broke. A grocer and a mechanic before he was detained, he was arrested the first time in 2007 for setting fire to a store over a dispute over a broken iPod. His second arrest came when he attacked the mayor of Ulm in 2009, reportedly over the city’s approval of a permit for a legal brothel.


But the truth of his case was evident just days after CIA agents stuffed Masri’s head into a hood and chained him to the floor of an aircraft that took him from Europe to Afghanistan in January 2004. The CIA officers tasked with getting at his terror connections soon expressed doubts about whether he had any.


In emails contained in the Senate report, CIA officers in Afghanistan noted that Masri, who’d been on a cheap bus vacation to Macedonia, “seemed bewildered on why he has been sent to this particular prison . . . adamant that (CIA) has the wrong person.” The officers agreed with this, as did their “RDG,” an acronym that is not otherwise defined in the report.


He’d been picked up, after 23 days of similarly pointless interrogation in Macedonia, because counterterrorist Alec Station officers reported that “al Masri knows key information that could assist in the capture of other al-Qaida operatives that pose a serious threat of violence or death to U.S. persons and interests and who may be planning terrorist activities.”


As the CIA became convinced it had the wrong guy, the question became what to do with him. Their decision was simple, fly him back to Macedonia, dump him on a roadside, hand him 14,500 euro (about $17,000 at the time) and tell him to make his way back home.


According to the Senate report, the CIA inspector general concluded in a secret report on Masri’s detention that “available intelligence information did not provide a sufficient basis to render and detain Khalid al Masri.” The inspector general concluded that the “agency’s prolonged detention of al Masri was unjustified,” according to the Senate report.


On Oct. 9, 2007, the Senate report said, the CIA informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that it had “lacked sufficient basis to render and detain al Masri” and that the judgment by operations officers that Masri was associated with terrorists who posed a threat to U.S. interests “was not supported by available intelligence.”


That finding was never made public, however, and there were no consequences for those who made the mistakes. The Senate report notes that the CIA argued against punitive action because “the Director strongly believes that mistakes should be expected in a business filled with uncertainty and that, when they result from performance that meets reasonable standards, CIA leadership must stand behind the officers who make them.”


Neither the report nor the available CIA documents discuss what to do about the victim of that mistake.


In subsequent years, German officials insist that the CIA made investigating Masri’s claims impossible by refusing to provide information. In the United States, the case he pressed over his torture failed, with the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear it in October 2007 — the same month the Senate was informed that there had been no valid reason for his detention.


U.S. attorneys in their briefs to the Supreme Court never confirmed or denied his allegations, but said hearing the case could jeopardize American security secrets.


In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ordered Macedonia to pay Masri 60,000 euros, at the time about $80,000, saying he’d been sodomized, drugged, flown to Kabul via Baghdad against his will and that his surrender by Macedonian authorities to the United States exposed him to “a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”


The CIA refused to comment for this story. CIA Director John Brennan did not address and was not asked about the mistaken detentions in a televised news conference he held on Friday.


Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, represented Masri in his U.S. case, and still represents him in case pending before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He said every American should pay attention to Masri’s case because it’s a perfect example of the cost of allowing an intelligence agency run wild, without even minimal legal restraints.


“If you’re looking to show criminal conspiracy, look at this case,” he said. “His case is important in determining what went wrong. … Masri brought his case, he told his story, and they knew it was true. Yet he never received redress. He never received an apology. He never even received acknowledgment. His case gives you an idea of the level of lawlessness, the magnitude of this atrocity. His life was devastated. And the United States didn’t care.”


———


©2014 McClatchy Washington Bureau



Friday, December 12, 2014

Servicemembers teach self defense as part of sex assault prevention training in Bahrain


VIDEO, GALLERY




Note: This article has been corrected.


MANAMA, Bahrain — U.S. Marines from the Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team based here have designed a curriculum that teaches defensive techniques as a last resort to prevent a sexual assault.


It’s the first time at Naval Support Activity Bahrain that a self-defense course has been included as part of the installation’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program.


Lt. Tony Wolfe, one of the base victim advocates, said he has never seen a class like this in his 19-year Navy career. “That’s why I thought this was so great and wanted to get involved in this, because it has so much potential,” he said. He wants to see the self-defense course integrated into other SAPR training.


Officials have been developing the course since October, fine-tuning the curriculum and gauging basewide interest through demonstrations and pilot classes. The first official class was taught earlier this month.


“What I like about this is that it’s interactive,” said Katie Scarbrough, who oversees the 59 victims’ advocates on base.


The instructors, trained through the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, teach more than basic self-defense maneuvers — like what to do when you’re put in a choke hold. They also teach techniques aimed specifically at preventing sexual assault. One involves fending off someone who is on top of you; another, how to break away from someone who has his or her legs wrapped around you.


“We want to empower people with another option if they are in a situation like that,” said James Mandley, the base coordinator for sexual-assault response.


Petty Officer 2nd Class Keyrstyn Wilson said she was going to tell everyone about the course. “Especially women, my size or smaller than me ... don’t really have an advantage over a guy.”


simoes.hendrick@stripes.com

Twitter: @hendricksimoes


Correction: Correction: An earlier version of this report misspelled the name of Keyrstyn Wilson.




Did mysterious pipeline blast in 2008, not Stuxnet, open new cyberwar era?


WASHINGTON — The pipeline was outfitted with sensors and cameras to monitor every step of its 1,099 miles from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. Yet the blast that blew it out of commission didn't trigger a single distress signal.


That was bewildering, as was the cameras' failure to capture the combustion in eastern Turkey. But investigators shared their findings within a tight circle. The Turkish government publicly blamed a malfunction, Kurdish separatists claimed credit, and BP Plc had the line running again in three weeks. The explosion that lighted up the night sky over Refahiye, a town known for its honey farms, seemed to be forgotten.


It wasn't. For western intelligence agencies, the blowout was a watershed event. Hackers had shut down alarms, cut off communications and super-pressurized the crude oil in the line, according to four people familiar with the incident who asked not to be identified because details of the investigation are confidential.


The main weapon at valve station 30 on Aug. 5, 2008, was a keyboard.


The revelation "rewrites the history of cyberwar," said Derek Reveron, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.


Before 'Stuxnet'?


Countries have been laying the groundwork for cyberwar operations for years, and companies have been hit recently with digital broadsides bearing hallmarks of government sponsorship. Sony's network was raided by hackers believed to be aligned with North Korea, and sources have said JPMorgan Chase & Co. blamed an August assault on Russian cyberspies. Security researchers just uncovered what they said was a campaign by Iranian hackers that targeted commercial airlines, looking for vulnerabilities that could be used in physical attacks.


The Refahiye explosion occurred two years before Stuxnet, the computer worm that in 2010 crippled Iran's nuclear- enrichment program, widely believed to have been deployed by Israel and the U.S. It turns out the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline hackers were ahead of them. The chief suspect, according to U.S. intelligence officials, is Russia.


The sabotage of the BTC line — which follows a route through the former Soviet Union that the U.S. mapped out over Russian objections — marked another chapter in the belligerent energy politics of Eurasia. Days after the explosion, Russian fighter jets dropped bombs near the line in neighboring Georgia. Alexander Dugin, an influential advocate of Russian expansionism and at the time an adviser to the Russian parliament, was quoted in a Turkish newspaper declaring the BTC was "dead."


The obituary was premature, but the attack proved to U.S. officials that they were right to be concerned about the vulnerability of pipelines that snake for hundreds of thousands of miles across Europe and North America. National Security Agency experts had been warning the lines could be blown up from a distance, without the bother of conventional weapons. The attack was evidence other nations had the technology to wage a new kind of war, three current and former U.S. officials said.


"The timing really is the significance," said Chris Blask, chairman of the Industrial Control System Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which works with utilities and pipeline companies. "Stuxnet was discovered in 2010 and this was obviously deployed before that. This is another point on the timeline" in the young history of cyberwar.


U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Russian government was behind the Refahiye explosion, according to two of the people briefed on the investigation. The evidence is circumstantial, they said, based on the possible motive and the level of sophistication. The attackers also left behind a tantalizing clue.


Although as many as 60 hours of surveillance video were erased by the hackers, a single infrared camera not connected to the same network captured images of two men with laptop computers walking near the pipeline days before the explosion, according to one of the people, who has reviewed the video. The men wore black military-style uniforms without insignias, similar to the garb worn by special forces troops.


"Given Russia's strategic interest, there will always be the question of whether the country had a hand in it," said Emily Stromquist, an energy analyst for Eurasia Group, a political risk firm based in Washington.


Nikolay Lyaschenko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, didn't respond to two emails and a phone call.


Quietly solving the mystery


Eleven companies — including majority-owner BP, a subsidiary of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan, Chevron and Norway's Statoil — built the line, which has carried more than two billion barrels of crude since opening in 2006.


It starts in Azerbaijan, traverses Georgia and then enters Turkey, ending at the port city of Ceyhan. It was routed south to circumvent Russia, a blow to that country's aims to reassert control over Central Asia, a major pipeline deliberately built outside Russian territory to carry crude from the Caspian.


Traversing strategic, politically unsettled terrain, the line was built to be one of the most secure in the world. The 3- foot 6-inch diameter pipe is buried underground and punctuated by fenced valve stations designed to isolate sections in case of emergency and to contain leaks.


According to investigators, every mile was monitored by sensors. Pressure, oil flow and other critical indicators were fed to a central control room via a wireless monitoring system. In an extra measure, they were also sent by satellite.


The explosion, at around 11 p.m. on a warm summer night, was spectacular. Residents described feeling the heat a half mile away, and patients at a nearby hospital reported hearing a thunderous boom.


Almost immediately, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, an armed separatist group in Turkey, claimed credit. It made sense because of the PKK's history of bombing pipelines. The Turkish government's claim of mechanical failure, on the other hand, was widely disputed in media reports. Hilmi Guler, then Turkey's energy minister, said at the time there was no evidence of sabotage. Neither he nor officials at the Energy Ministry responded to requests for comment.


Huseyin Sagir, a spokesman for Botas International Ltd., the state-run company that operates the pipeline in Turkey, said the line's computer systems hadn't been tampered with. "We have never experienced any kind of signal jamming attack or tampering on the communication lines, or computer systems," Sagir said in an email. He didn't respond to questions about what caused the explosion. BP spokesman Toby Odone referred questions to Botas.


The BTC was shut down because of what BP referred to in its 2008 annual report simply as a fire.


The investigators — from Turkey, Britain, Azerbaijan and other countries — went quietly about their business. The first mystery they set out to solve was why the elaborate system in place to detect leaks of oil or a fire didn't work as planned.


Instead of receiving digital alerts from sensors placed along the line, the control room didn't learn about the blast until 40 minutes after it happened, from a security worker who saw the flames, according to a person who worked on the probe.


As investigators followed the trail of the failed alarm system, they found the hackers' point of entry was an unexpected one: the surveillance cameras themselves.


The cameras' communication software had vulnerabilities the hackers used to gain entry and move deep into the internal network, according to the people briefed on the matter.


Once inside, the attackers found a computer running on a Windows operating system that was in charge of the alarm- management network, and placed a malicious program on it. That gave them the ability to sneak back in whenever they wanted.


The central element of the attack was gaining access to the operational controls to increase the pressure without setting off alarms. Because of the line's design, the hackers could manipulate the pressure by cracking into small industrial computers at a few valve stations without having to hack the main control room.


The presence of the attackers at the site could mean the sabotage was a blended attack, using a combination of physical and digital techniques. The super-high pressure may have been enough on its own to create the explosion, according to two of the people familiar with the incident. No evidence of a physical bomb was found.


Having performed extensive reconnaissance on the computer network, the infiltrators tampered with the units used to send alerts about malfunctions and leaks back to the control room. The back-up satellite signals failed, which suggested to the investigators that the attackers used sophisticated jamming equipment, according to the people familiar with the probe.


Investigators compared the time-stamp on the infrared image of the two people with laptops to data logs that showed the computer system had been probed by an outsider. It was an exact match, according to the people familiar with the investigation.


'An act of terrorism'


Years later, BP claimed in documents filed in a legal dispute that it wasn't able to meet shipping contracts after the blast due to "an act of terrorism."


The explosion caused more than 30,000 barrels of oil to spill in an area above a water aquifer and cost BP and its partners $5 million a day in transit tariffs during the closure, according to communications between BP and its bankers cited in "The Oil Road," a book about the pipeline.


Some of the worst damage was felt by the State Oil Fund of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which lost $1 billion in export revenue while the line was shut down, according to Jamala Aliyeva, a spokeswoman for the fund.


A pipeline bombing may fit the profile of the PKK, which specializes in extortion, drug smuggling and assaults on foreign companies, said Didem Akyel Collinsworth, an Istanbul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. But she said the PKK doesn't have advanced hacking capabilities. "That's not their modus operandi," she said. "It's always been very physical, very basic insurgency stuff."


U.S. spy agencies probed the BTC blast independently, gathering information from foreign communications intercepts and other sources, according to one of the people familiar with the inquiry. American intelligence officials believe the PKK — which according to leaked State Department cables has received arms and intelligence from Russia — may have arranged in advance with the attackers to take credit, the person said.


The U.S. was interested in more than just motive. The Pentagon at the time was assessing the cyber capabilities of potential rivals, as well as weaknesses in its own defenses. Since that attack, both Iran and China have hacked into U.S. pipeline companies and gas utilities, apparently to identify vulnerabilities that could be exploited later.


As tensions over the Ukraine crisis have mounted, Russian cyberspies have been detected planting malware in U.S. systems that deliver critical services like electricity and water, according to John Hultquist, senior manager for cyber espionage threat intelligence at Dallas-based iSight Partners, which first revealed the activity in October.


Russian hackers also targeted sensitive documents related to a NATO summit in September, hitting dozens of computers belonging to the Ukrainian government and others, according to an iSight report.


In the U.S., "it is only a matter of the 'when,' not the 'if,' that we are going to see something dramatic," Michael Rogers, director of the NSA and commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, told the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 20. "I fully expect that during my time as the commander we are going to be tasked to help defend critical infrastructure."


Three days after the BTC blast, Russia went to war with Georgia, and Georgian Prime Minister Nika Gilauri accused Russia of sending the jets to bomb the BTC near the city of Rustavi. The bombs missed their presumed target, some by only a few feet, and the pipeline remained undamaged. The keyboard was the better weapon.


Reported with assistance from Ercan Ersoy in Istanbul.



Congress passes defense budget with troop benefit cuts


WASHINGTON – Congress approved a defense authorization bill Friday, setting priorities for the military and clearing the way for cuts to troop benefits next year.


The bill passed a final 89-11 vote in the Senate, and lays out plans for military personnel, equipment such as the A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft, and the war in Iraq and Syria. It sets the servicemember pay raise at 1 percent, and tightens up housing allowances and Tricare pharmacy coverage as the Department of Defense grapples with mandatory caps on its spending in the coming years.


The cuts were requested by the Pentagon and White House and finally approved in the National Defense Authorization Act despite opposition in the House. Military brass had lobbied for deeper cuts but the bill takes some first steps toward what many in Congress believe will be years of reductions in personnel costs, unless lawmakers can strike a deal to lift the budget caps designed to deal with the national debt.


Congress on Friday was also debating a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations bill that doles out the money for the NDAA priorities. A Senate vote was expected by Saturday.


The NDAA calls for a $495.5 billion base defense budget and $63.7 billion for overseas military operations related to the war. Here are the key changes to benefits:



  • Servicemembers have gotten 1.8 percent pay raises but the NDAA allows President Barack Obama to continue with a plan to reduce the increase to 1 percent.

  • The military’s basic housing allowance covers 100 percent of rental costs for troops and the bill brings that down to 99 percent. The Pentagon wants to slow inflation increases in the coming years until it pays only 95 percent of costs, with troops covering the remaining amount.

  • It will increase Tricare out-of-pocket costs for prescription medicines by $3 per year, which puts off any decision of more copay increases after 2015 but still tracks with a Pentagon plan to increase troop contributions by $30 over a decade.


Meanwhile, the bill offers some protections for the A-10, known as the Warthog, which is much loved by infantry troops but slated for retirement by the Air Force.


A group of senators including John McCain, R-Ariz., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., championed the aircraft and waged a campaign over the past six months to keep it flying. They say the A-10 is the most capable at close air support operations in war zones and that it saves American lives.


The $495 billion NDAA blocks the retirement but allows the service to reduce maintain and flying time for dozens of Warthogs to save money.


It also bars the Army from transferring Apache helicopters from the National Guard to its active-duty units, while allowing the Navy to spend $450 million on EA-18G Growler aircraft and continuing buying three littoral combat ships.


The $63.7 billion Overseas Contingency Operations portion of the bill increases funding for troops in Iraq, and greenlights an Obama administration plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels against the Islamic State.


The NDAA vote in the Senate came Friday despite some opposition from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who opposed public lands legislation that was tacked onto the bill and unrelated to national defense.


Coburn said the package of about 60 national park items, which sets aside vast new tracts of public land, could cost the federal government hundreds of millions per year. But his attempt to delay the NDAA and remove the items was rejected.


tritten.travis@stripes.com

Twitter: @Travis_Tritten



Senate report confirms CIA had 'black site' at Gitmo, hid it from Congress


(Tribune News Service) — In 2004, as the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to let Guantánamo captives consult lawyers for the first time, the CIA spirited some men who now face death-penalty trials from a clandestine lockup at the U.S. Navy base — and didn’t tell Congress.


Two years later, even as President George W. Bush announced at the White House Rose Garden that the spy agency had transferred its most prized captives to Guantánamo for trial, the alleged al-Qaida terrorists were still under control of the CIA.


The release of 524 pages of the 6,700-page Senate Intelligence Committee report confirms for the first time that the CIA used Guantánamo as a "black site" — and continued to run the prison that held the alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and 13 other men even as the Pentagon was charged to prosecute them.


It also offers graphic details that the U.S. government has hidden from view in the pretrial hearings of six captives it seeks to execute — about the sexual torture and post-traumatic stress disorder of the alleged USS Cole bomber and why a sickly looking accused 9/11 conspirator sits on a pillow at court proceedings.


But it does not resolve whether the spy agency that systematically hid its prized interrogation program from court and congressional scrutiny has ceded control to the U.S. military of the secret facility where the men are imprisoned. And, if so, when?


“I would find it hard to believe that they let go. Throughout this entire program, the CIA is running from the law at every turn,” Navy Cmdr. Brian Mizer said. He calls the revelation that his client, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the accused planner of the USS Cole bombing, “had a tube inserted into his anus” tantamount to rape.


The CIA argues that there was a sound medical reason to use “rectal rehydration” on its captives in 2004 at a secret site that the report suggests was not Guantánamo. In one instance, the CIA “rectally infused” a “food tray” of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins into captive Majid Khan. Now at Guantánamo, he pleaded guilty to being an unwitting courier of cash used to fund a terrorist bombing of a Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, in exchange for the possibility of eventual release.


In the instance of Nashiri, a footnote in the report says, his “rectal feeding” was carried out in a secret site a month after he was taken away from Guantánamo.


“They weren’t rehydrating him,” says Mizer of Nashiri’s tube insertion, which was described as administered on a table with his feet raised higher than his head. “He was being punished for being on a short-lived hunger strike.”


Defense lawyers, some of whom have seen classified evidence in the USS Cole and 9/11 cases, call this week’s disclosure “the tip of the iceberg.” They want access to the entire report. But they argue that what has been disclosed so far provides fodder for coming legal challenges that ask Guantánamo judges, members of the U.S. military, to either dismiss the case or downgrade it from a capital case on grounds of outrageous government conduct or pretrial punishment — by the CIA.


Since the 2011 and 2012 arraignments, the death-penalty trials have been grappling with how to handle the mostly hidden role of the CIA in the cases — even as the agency tried to muzzle defense lawyers.


In an illustration of this, an agent outside the court remotely cut the sound to the public in January 2013 when an attorney for the alleged 9/11 mastermind began to argue an unclassified motion seeking information about the black sites described in this week’s Senate report.


Now the report shows that Guantánamo had two of those secret CIA black sites — code named Maroon and Indigo — from September 2003 to April 2004 that held at least five detainees.


They were Nashiri, alleged 9/11 deputy Ramzi bin al Shibh, two unidentified captives and, a fifth man who would subsequently die mysteriously after being dropped off in Libya during Moammar Gaddafi’s rule — a one-time U.S. military prisoner whose detention, unlike the others, was disclosed to the International Red Cross.


A Libyan, his name was Ali Mohammed al Fakheri, but the CIA called him Ibn Shaykh al Libi, the name he apparently used when captured by Pakistani security forces, according to leaked Guantánamo detainee profiles. He has been identified as a captive who was sent to Egypt for interrogation, and under torture falsely linked Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, something he recanted once in CIA custody.


The U.S. would go on to invade Iraq in 2003, with Fakheri’s tortured, recanted statements as justification. In the same month that the first photos of prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, were broadcast by 60 Minutes, the five were flown from Guantanamo.


Why? As the report explains, there were elaborate internal Bush administration talks, including consultation with the solicitor general about the rights Guantánamo captives might receive once the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Rasul v Bush that gave captives there access to lawyers two months after the CIA cleared out its captives.


Fakheri would be repatriated to Libya sometime later. He died in a Tripoli lockup in 2009 — the Libyans said he committed suicide — days after refusing to talk to a Human Rights Watch investigator who discovered him there.


Fourteen other CIA prisoners, including those who had been held there before, were brought to Guantánamo for eventual trial in September 2006. They “were housed in a separate building from other U.S. military detainees and remained under the operational control of the CIA,” according to the report.


A Pentagon spokesman disputed that on Thursday. “President Bush announced on Sept. 6, 2006,” said Army Lt. Col. Myles Caggins III by email, “that the high-value detainees were at Guantánamo under the custody and control of the Defense Department.”


When not in pretrial hearings, they are segregated at Camp 7, a facility so secret that its location on the base and even its cost of construction are considered classified.


Navy Capt. Tom Gresback said Thursday that Rear Adm. Kyle Cozad, the commander of prison operations, runs “all the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay” for the U.S. Southern Command, led by Marine Gen. John Kelly.


Grezback would not say if the commanders answer to the CIA, too, or, if not, when that changed. He also specifically declined to answer “due to operational security” whether the U.S. military or CIA recently assigned female soldiers to touch the former black site captives — a controversy that has stirred unrest inside the secret prison.


In 2009, military spokesmen likewise could not say why a sickly looking Saudi 9/11 defendant was sitting on a pillow at the war court. This week, a footnote in the Senate report provided a possible answer.


In 2003 or 2004 CIA captive Mustafa al Hawsawi was diagnosed as suffering “chronic hemorrhoids, an anal fissure and symptomatic rectal prolapse” at an unidentified black site code-named Cobalt, and CIA leadership was alerted to “excessive force” allegations in the use of so-called rectal feedings of detainees.


Hawsawi defense attorney Walter Ruiz said Wednesday that Hawsawi had no health problems before he was captured by the CIA in 2003 and held in a system that, he noted, citing the report, used “sleep deprivation, diet manipulation and found the use of rectal examinations to be effective as a form of behavior control.”


He noted that one portion referenced a need for Hawsawi to get emergency surgery while held in a secret CIA prison, and the host country would not provide it. The attorney, a reserve Navy commander when called to active duty, added that since Hawsawi got to Guantánamo in 2006 he has “gotten no proper medical care since he’s been here in regards to that.”


While the CIA had its secret prisons at Guantánamo, according to the Senate report time line, first Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller then Army Brig. Gen. Jay Hood ran the detention operations.


Records maintained by the Miami Herald show that a number of prominent members of Congress were on official visits at Guantánamo while the CIA had its parallel prison operation: Republican Sens. Lindsay Graham and John McCain on Dec. 10, 2003; Democratic Sen. Carl Levin on Feb. 19, 2004; Democratic Rep. Jane Harman with Republican Rep. Ray Lahood on Oct. 13, 2003.


Also visiting was Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson on Dec. 21, 2003. He was the only one to respond to a Herald inquiry and said that he was in the dark about the CIA facility at the time, didn’t inspect it and wasn’t briefed on it. “No. I visited the temporary detention facility at Gitmo,” the senator said Wednesday by email through an aide, Ryan Brown.


The report suggests all of Congress was kept in the dark about the dark site.


“Because the Committee was not informed of the CIA detention site at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, no member of the Committee was aware that the U.S. Supreme Court decision to grant certiorari in the case of Rasul v. Bush, which related to the habeas corpus rights of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, resulted in the transfer of CIA detainees from the CIA detention facility at Guantánamo Bay to other CIA detention facilities.”


The CIA’s spokesman, Dean Boyd, also declined to say when — if ever — the agency relinquished control of Guantánamo’s most secretive prison.


A footnote in the Senate report says that in early December 2006, three months after the CIA brought its prisoners back to Cuba, then-Director Michael Hayden visited Guantánamo’s “High-Value Detainee Detention Facility” — something not reflected in the prison’s official list of dignitary visits.


And there is no suggestion in the footnote that the CIA had relinquished control of it.


©2014 Miami Herald. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.



WWII POW movie 'Unbroken' prompts calls for boycott in Japan


TOKYO — Angelina Jolie's new movie "Unbroken" has not been released in Japan yet, but it has already struck a nerve in a country still fighting over its wartime past.


And the buzz on social networks and in online chatter is decidedly negative over the film that depicts a U.S. Olympic runner who endures torture at a Japanese World War II prisoner-of-war camp.


Some people are calling for a boycott of the movie, although there is no release date in Japan yet. It hits theaters in the U.S. on Dec. 25.


Others want that ban extended to Jolie, the director — unusual in a nation enamored with Hollywood, especially Jolie and her partner Brad Pitt, who both have reputations as Japan-lovers.


The movie follows the real-life story of Louis Zamperini as told in a 2010 book by Laura Hillenbrand. The book has not been translated into Japanese, but online trailers have provoked outrage. Zamperini, played by Jack O'Connell, survived in a raft for 47 days with two other crewmen after a plane crash, only to be caught by the Japanese and sent to a prisoner-of-war camp.


Especially provocative is a passage in the book that refers to cannibalism among the troops. It is not clear how much of that will be in the movie, but that is too much for some.


"But there was absolutely no cannibalism," said Mutsuhiro Takeuchi, a nationalist-leaning educator and a priest in the traditional Shinto religion. "That is not our custom."


Takeuchi acknowledged Jolie is free to make whatever movie she wants, stressing that Shinto believes in forgive-and-forget.


But he urged Jolie to study history, saying executed war criminals were charged with political crimes, not torture.


"Even Japanese don't know their own history so misunderstandings arise," said Takeuchi, who heads his research organization, the Japan Culture Intelligence Association.


Hollywood films that touch on sensitive topics for the Japanese have had a troubled history here.


Theaters canceled screenings of the Oscar-winning 2009 "The Cove" about the bloody dolphin hunts in the town of Taiji after the distributor was deluged with threats from people who said the movie denigrated the "culture" of eating dolphins although most Japanese have never eaten dolphin or whale meat.


Roland Kelts, a journalist and expert on Japanese culture, called the outburst over "Unbroken," like the frenzy over "The Cove," ''banal and predictable."


"None of them have even seen the film, and while it is based on one man's story, it's a feature, not a documentary. There are plenty of movies that depict the brutality and inhumanity of war," he said.


Jolie said recently on a promotion tour in Australia that she wanted to depict a human story, one that gives hope, noting that war "brings out the extremes," both the good and the bad, in people.


Japan has not always been averse to Hollywood portrayals of World War II.


Clint Eastwood's 2006 "Letters From Iwo Jima," which focused sympathetically on a gentle commander, played by Ken Watanabe, was favorable received here.


Japanese directors have made their share of movies critical of war. Akira Kurosawa made "No Regrets for Our Youth," as well as "Ran" and "Seven Samurai." Kihachi Okamoto's "The Human Bullet" and Kon Ichikawa's "The Burmese Harp" relay powerful anti-war messages.


But the release of "Unbroken" comes at a time some in Japan are downplaying the country's colonization of its Asian neighbors and the aggressive act carried out by the Imperialist Army during World War II.


For example, some politicians dispute the role of Japanese soldiers in the Rape of Nanjing, which began in 1937, in which 300,000 Chinese were killed. They say that is a vast overcount.


Similarly, they reject historical studies that show women from several Asian countries, especially Korea, were forced into prostitution by the Japanese military. Some oppose the term "sex slave," which the U.N. uses, preferring the euphemistic "comfort women."



In unprecedented live TV conference, CIA chief challenges torture report


LANGLEY, Va. (Tribune News Service) — During an extraordinary televised news conference Thursday, CIA Director John Brennan conceded that detainees underwent “abhorrent” interrogation methods and retreated from previous assertions that the techniques played a direct role in obtaining vital intelligence on terrorists.


But he refused to call the techniques torture and insisted that the harsh treatment meted out to suspected terrorists in secret cells hidden across the world, as described in a Senate Intelligence Committee report made public Tuesday, should not besmirch the reputation of the hundreds of CIA employees who worked diligently to protect Americans.


“In a limited number of cases, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent and rightly should be repudiated by all, and we fell short when it came to holding some officers accountable for their mistakes,” Brennan said. “It is vitally important to recognize, however, that the overwhelming majority of officers involved in the program at CIA carried out their responsibilities faithfully and in accordance with the legal and policy guidance they were provided.”


CIA officials said they couldn’t recall a similar instance when a director of the notoriously secretive CIA appeared in a nationally televised news conference in which he responded to questions from reporters assembled at CIA headquarters in suburban Washington.


But the appearance underscored the extraordinary pressure the agency finds itself under after the release of the Senate report, which recounted in excruciating detail how the CIA supervised the use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other humiliating and abusive techniques on at least 39 of the 119 suspected terrorists who had been kept in secret captivity.


In his presentation, Brennan acknowledged the accuracy of many of the Senate report’s findings, even as he sought to justify them as an understandable response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. He faulted the committee for not interviewing any CIA employees. Still, he said, “although we view the process undertaken by the committee … as flawed, many aspects of their conclusions are sound and consistent with our own prior findings.”


“The CIA was unprepared to conduct a detention and interrogation program,” he said. “Our officers inadequately developed and monitored its initial activities. The agency failed to establish quickly the operational guidelines needed to govern the entire effort.”


Perhaps his most startling assessment of the CIA’s interrogation program came near the end of his formal presentation before questions were allowed, when he seemed to break ranks with the repeated contention by the agency and former Bush administration officials that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques — EITs — had produced vital intelligence that led to terrorist leaders, disrupted plots and saved lives.


Brennan said that the agency’s own reviews fell short of establishing definitively that the enhanced interrogation techniques had led detainees to make the revelations.


“Let me be clear, we have not concluded that it was the use of EITs within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them,” Brennan said. “The cause-and-effect relationship between the use of EITs and useful information subsequently provided by the detainee is, in my view, unknowable.”


That comment in particular elicited praise from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who has sparred repeatedly with Brennan over the program and who took to Twitter during his speech to offer a counter narrative to his assertions.


In a statement, Feinstein called the director’s assessment “a welcome change from the CIA’s position in the past that information was obtained as a direct result of EITs.”


At the same time, she disagreed with Brennan’s assertion that it also was “unknowable” whether the information required to halt terrorist attacks could have been obtained from other sources.


“The report shows that such information was obtained from other means,” Feinstein said. “Nonetheless, it is an important development that Director Brennan does not attribute counterterrorism successes to coercive interrogations.”


Feinstein’s statement marked a significant shift away from the rancor and friction that have prevailed between the CIA and its congressional oversight committee over the report and the agency’s monitoring of computers used by the Democratic staffers who compiled it.


At the White House, spokesman Josh Earnest said that President Barack Obama retains “full confidence” in Brennan, who was a senior CIA official at the time of the interrogation program but insists he wasn’t directly involved.


Obama “wakes up every morning pleased to know that John Brennan and the men and women of the CIA are at work, using their skills and expertise to protect the American people,” and that Obama “continues to rely on his advice to this day,” said Earnest.


Brennan held his news conference in the marbled lobby of CIA headquarters, where 111 stars carved into one wall represent the number of CIA officers who have given their lives since the agency’s founding in 1947. Twenty-one of those officers have died since the fight against terrorism was launched after the 9/11 attacks.


Several dozen top CIA officials — the backs of their heads to the cameras — sat in front of Brennan in an apparent bid to humanize an agency that operates in the shadows and has come — as a result of the Senate report — under the most withering fire it has faced since congressional probes in the 1970s.


“We are not a perfect institution. We’re made up of individuals, and as human beings, we are imperfect beings,” Brennan said.


Brennan began by recalling the chaos and terror of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent period in which the CIA scrambled to hunt down those responsible and avert what intelligence reports warned were more strikes in the United States planned by al-Qaida.


The agency wasn’t prepared to undertake the detention and interrogation program when it was ordered to do so by President George W. Bush, he said. Moreover, the agency failed to discipline some personnel “for their mistakes,” he said.


But he rejected a conclusion that the CIA deliberately misled the Bush White House, Congress and the public about the program’s effectiveness.


“We take exceptional pride at speaking truth to power,” he said.


“To be clear, there were instances where representations … about the program that were used or approved by agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise or fell short of our tradecraft standards,” he said. “However, the study’s contention that we repeatedly and intentionally misled the public and the rest of the U.S. government rests on the committee’s view that detainees subjected to EITs did not produce useful intelligence, a point on which we still fundamentally disagree.”


Brennan called for an end to the bitter dispute over the program, which detained at least 119 people — at least 26 without cause — at black sites between 2002 and 2007. At last 39 were subjected to torture.


“My fervent hope is that we can put aside this debate and move forward to focus on issues relevant to our current security challenges,” he said.


That may be wishful thinking.


While the Republican-controlled Congress that opens in January is unlikely to take any further action, and the Obama administration is unlikely to reopen a criminal investigation closed in 2012, some Democrats, human rights groups and a United Nations special investigator are calling for criminal prosecutions.


Moreover, some U.S. allies are facing calls to disclose their cooperation with the CIA.


“As the Senate report shows, the CIA used methods that have long been understood to amount to torture. If we don’t hold officials accountable for ordering that conduct, our government will adopt these methods again in the future,” Anthony Romero, the American Civil Liberties Union’s executive director, said in a statement issued after Brennan spoke. “The fact that President Obama’s CIA director believes that these methods remain a policy option for the next administration shows why we need a special prosecutor.”


White House correspondent Lesley Clark contributed to this report.


©2014 McClatchy Washington Bureau. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.



Thursday, December 11, 2014

House passes $1.1 trillion spending bill over Democrats' objections


WASHINGTON — Swapping crisis for compromise, the House narrowly approved $1.1 trillion in government-wide spending Thursday night after President Barack Obama and Republicans joined forces to override Democratic complaints that the bill would also ease bank regulations imposed after the economy's near-collapse in 2008.


The 219-206 vote cleared the way for a final showdown in the Senate on the bill — the last major measure of a two-year Congress far better known for gridlock than for bipartisan achievement.


Hours before the vote, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi delivered a rare public rebuke to Obama, saying she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace legislation that she described as an attempt at blackmail by Republicans.


The White House stated its own objections to the bank-related proposal and other portions of the bill in a written statement. Even so, officials said Obama and Vice President Joe Biden both telephoned Democrats to secure the votes needed for passage, and the president stepped away from a White House Christmas party reception line to make last-minute calls.


In addition to the government funding, the bill sets a new course for selected, highly shaky pension plans. It also sets up a clash for February between Republicans and Obama over his decision to remove the threat of deportation from about 4 million immigrants living in the country illegally.


Despite the day's drama, 57 Democrats supported the bill, including the party's second-ranking leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who doubles as the chair of the Democratic National Committee.


The outbreak of Democratic bickering left Republicans in the unusual position of bystanders rather than participants with the federal government due to run out of funds at midnight.


Even so, there was no threat of a shutdown in federal services — and no sign of the brinkmanship that marked other, similar episodes. Instead, the House passed a measure providing a 48-hour extension in existing funding to give the Senate time to act on the larger bill.


Said a relieved Speaker John Boehner, "thank you and Merry Christmas."


Hours before the mid-evening final vote, conservatives had sought to torpedo the measure because it would leave Obama's immigration policy unchallenged. Boehner patrolled the noisy, crowded House floor looking for enough GOP converts to keep it afloat.


He found them — after the vote to move ahead on the bill went into overtime — in retiring Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan as well as Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana.


Even so, Republican defections required Boehner and supporters of the measure to seek Democratic votes for passage. "Remember this bill was put together in a bicameral, bipartisan way," he said. Officials in both parties said Pelosi was fully informed of the bill's contents before it was released to the public, and did not signal her opposition.


If there was political drama in the House, there was something approaching tenderness in the Senate, where several lawmakers are ending their careers. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., choked up as he delivered a farewell speech from his desk, and Republicans and Democrats alike rose to applaud him.


There was little if any controversy over the spending levels in the $1.1 trillion measure, which provided funding for nearly the entire government through the end of the budget year next Sept. 30. It locked in cuts negotiated in recent years between the White House and a tea party-heavy Republican rank and file.


The only exception is the Department of Homeland Security. It is funded only through Feb. 27, when the specter of a shutdown will be absent and Republicans hope to force the president to roll back an immigration policy that promises work visas to an estimated 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally.


When Congress convenes in January, Republicans will have control of the Senate for the first time in eight years and will hold their strongest majority in the House in more than eight decades.


A provision in the big bill relating to financially failing multi-employer pension plans would allow cuts for current retirees, and supporters said it was part of an effort to prevent a slow-motion collapse of a system that provides retirement income to millions.


"The multi-employer pension system is a ticking time bomb," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., who negotiated the agreement privately with Democratic Rep. George Miller of California, who is retiring after 40 years in Congress.


The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. estimates that the fund that backs multi-employer plans is about $42.4 billion short of the money needed to cover benefits for plans that have failed or will fail.


Miller said the legislation would give retirees the right to vote in advance whether to enter a restructuring that could cut their benefits. He, Kline and others said the alternative to the legislation might be an even deeper reduction in benefits.


The legislation drew a mixed reaction from unions and the opposition of the AARP, but the White House written statement on the legislation did not mention it as a concern.


The White House did raise objections to a provision that would roll back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry after the economic near-collapse of 2008, and to a separate element of the bill that would permit wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.


Democrats cited the same issues, but Boehner on Wednesday rejected their request to jettison either or both of the provisions. Republicans noted that 70 members of the Democratic rank and file supported easing the bank regulations on a stand-alone vote in October of last year.


Remarkably, there was relatively little controversy about the spending levels themselves that form the heart of the bill.


Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher, Erica Werner, Alan Fram and Charles Babington contributed to this report.



'Silent Nemo': Navy's swimming spy 'fish' may be operational next year


VIRGINIA BEACH (Tribune News Service) — It looks like a fish, sort of. It swims like a fish, again, if you squint. It's even named after a fish — OK, a Disney one. Navy war toy creators are hoping that's enough to get the little swimmer into unwelcoming territory undetected to spy on enemies and protect U.S. ships and ports from harm.


Project Silent Nemo is underway this week at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, Va., where a team of civilian engineers and young military officers are testing the capabilities of a 5-foot, 100-pound underwater robot that's designed to look and swim like a bluefin tuna.


The robotic fish glided through the harbor Thursday as sailors took turns controlling it with a joystick. It can also swim autonomously. It's black dorsal fin poked above water as its tail wiggled back and forth, propelling it almost silently.


The underwater robot was developed by the Office of Naval Research and is being tested by the Chief of Naval Operation's Rapid Innovation Cell — a group of young Navy and Marine Corps officers who have been asked to figure out how to put emerging technologies to use in the military. The same group has been playing around with 3D printers and augmented reality glasses.


The idea of deploying robots that mimic biological traits of living creatures is not new, but until recently it existed mostly in the realm of science fiction. The Navy thinks Silent Nemo — also known as GhostSwimmer — could be operational within the next year.


"This is an attempt to take thousands of years of evolution, what has perfected since the dawn of time, and try to incorporate that into a mechanical device," said Jerry Laderman, a 27-year-old Marine captain who's leading the project. "The idea is to ... essentially reverse engineer what nature has already done."


Existing underwater unmanned vehicles are torpedo shaped and propeller driven. The natural swimming motion of a fish makes far less noise and is more difficult to detect.


"The first time I saw it, I thought it was a living fish," Laderman said. "It looks alive. It's crazy."


The Navy envisions someday deploying an entire fleet of robotic fish to patrol harbors and swim into contested waters. The underwater robots could be used to search for sea mines or inspect the hull of a ship for damage -- two critical tasks that often put humans in harm's way.


For now, the fish is still just a prototype, content to glide quietly through friendly waters.


Dianna Cahn contributed to this report.


©2014 The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Va.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.



Bill would let ‘Grow the Army’ officers retire with full pension




WASHINGTON — Some Army officers would not be forced to retire at their previous enlisted rank under a House bill introduced in the final days of the congressional session.


The bill, sponsored by Reps. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., and Tim Walz, D-Minn., allows soldiers who built most of their careers in the enlisted ranks to retire with commissioned officer pay and benefits after serving just four years as an officer, instead of the standard eight years.


The Army is shrinking after quickly expanding its ranks in 2007 to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan. Noncommissioned officers who ascended during that time are facing forced retirements at their enlisted rank, cutting deeply into pensions.


“Soldiers deserve to retire with the rank they have earned and corresponding benefits they’ve been promised, and anything less devalues the sacrifices they have made for our country,” Thompson said in a released statement.


The “Grow the Army” program increased the number of active-duty soldiers to 570,000 in 2010; many NCOs stepped forward for commissions as Army officers.


The Obama administration has proposed reducing that to 450,000, which could force the retirement of up to 30 percent of its commissioned officers, according to Thompson and Walz.


Their bill, called the Proudly Restoring Officers of Prior Enlistment Retirement Act, protects soldiers who have put in 20 years of service and at least four years as an officer from losing a “large cut in their retirement,” the congressmen said.


It might be a hit idea with soldiers, but the bill has very little chance of becoming law for now.


The 113th Congress is set to end this week and legislation not forced through for last-minute votes will die. Lawmakers were focused on passing critical budget bills Thursday.


Thompson and Walz could reintroduce the bill next year. Both were re-elected in November.


tritten.travis@stripes.com

Twitter: @Travis_Tritten




Hagel OKs Navy plan to modify troubled littoral combat ship fleet












The Navy is phasing in littoral combat ships such as the USS Freedom to replace aging Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, Avenger-class mine countermeasure ships and Osprey-class coastal mine hunters.






WASHINGTON — Struggling to overcome nagging problems with its littoral combat ship, the Pentagon on Thursday announced that the Navy will upgrade the program and build a more lethal fighting vessel that can better survive today's volatile security threats.


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has approved the Navy's plan to build a new small surface combatant ship, which will have better air defense radar and electronic warfare systems and improved sonar, torpedo defenses and armor protection.


The decision comes in the wake of persistent criticism about the cost and viability of the $34 billion littoral combat ship program, including design and construction problems and budget overruns. Earlier this year, Hagel cut the planned littoral ship buy from 52 to 32, and ordered a review of the program.


The so-called LCS ships were designed to be smaller, faster, more versatile and able to operate in littoral waters, which are more shallow and close to shore. They are comparable in size to a Coast Guard cutter. Hagel toured one of the ships, the USS Freedom, in June 2013, when he was in Singapore. The USS Freedom was first of the littoral ships to deploy overseas.


But critics, including a Congressional Research Service report issued last year, questioned whether the ships could withstand battle damage and whether they were sufficiently armed to perform their missions.


On Thursday, Hagel issued a statement saying the new small surface ship "will offer improvements in ship lethality and survivability, delivering enhanced naval combat performance at an affordable price." Upgrading the littoral ship rather than developing a whole new ship design, he said, is the most cost effective option.


Hagel said the Navy will still buy a total of 52 ships, but it will be a mix of littoral combat ships and the new smaller surface vessels. The final numbers have not been determined.


Production of the new ship will begin no later than 2019.




Senate panel votes to limit use of ground troops against Islamic State



WASHINGTON — A Senate panel approved a war powers bill Thursday limiting the Obama administration’s ability to use ground troops against the Islamic State.


Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who pushed to impose limits on military operations in Iraq and Syria said they feared another open-ended conflict following 13 years of war following 9/11. But many — mostly Republicans — said ruling out such forces may hinder the nation’s ability to defeat the extremists.


The bill is likely to die as Congress prepares to end its session this week. But the 10-8 vote was the first indication of how lawmakers may eventually weigh in on a new authorization for the use of military force, which many on Capitol Hill believe is necessary.


“Let’s be honest, I don’t think we would have gotten anybody to crystalize their ideas … unless we started this process,” said committee chairman Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.


The bill would prohibit President Barack Obama from deploying large-scale ground forces for combat but makes some exceptions. The troops could be sent in to rescue Americans, collect intelligence, direct airstrikes and conduct operations planning.


“The massive deployment of ground forces in the Middle East ends up creating more enemies than it ends up killing,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “I think that is an air-tight, take-it-to-the-bank lesson from over the past 10 years.”


The authority of the president to wage war would also expire after three years, meaning the Congress would be required to revisit the conflict following the election of the next president.


Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tried to insert an amendment limiting the war to within the geographic boundaries of Iraq and Syria, but the measure failed.


The bill would allow strikes against the Islamic State and associated groups, and Paul noted it could be interpreted as an authorization to strike at up to 60 radical groups in 30 nations.


“There is tendency for executives from both parties to abuse these resolutions and make them mean anything they want,” he said.


Fellow Republicans rejected limitations on the war effort through the authorization for the use of military force, saying the decision on ground troops should be left up to the president and military commanders.


“I agree with everyone who says we really don’t want to use ground troops there,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. “It is fine for the president to say it. He can change his mind any time he warrants it, but putting [a restriction] in an AUMF is not the way to go.”


Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the Senate on Tuesday and requested that the chamber leave the option for ground troops open. Obama has continued to maintain he will not allow another land war in Iraq, but commanders have signaled it may be necessary to defeat the Islamic State.


“Why would we authorize the use of force if we are not fully committed to victory?” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis.


tritten.travis@stripes.com

Twitter: @Travis_Tritten



Navy authorized to use new laser weapon for self-defense on USS Ponce


WASHINGTON — Sailors have been authorized to use a cutting-edge laser weapon in self-defense, Navy officials said Wednesday.


The Laser Weapon System, or LaWS, has been onboard the USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf since September. Over the past few months, the Navy has been testing it in an operational environment for the first time to see how it performs in real-world conditions, attacking small surface vessels and unmanned aerial vehicles similar to those that could pose a threat to American ships in the region.


The system has gone after mock targets both mobile and stationary.


“This is the first time in recorded history that a directed energy weapon system has ever deployed on anything,” Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, the chief of naval research, told reporters at the Pentagon.


For the remainder of the laser’s yearlong deployment, sailors will continue experimenting with the system and learning new tactics that could be used in future combat.


Earlier this week, the Navy posted a YouTube video showing the laser in action.


“It’s working even beyond our expectations,” Klunder said.


The system is performing so well in fact that U.S. military leaders have given the captain of the Ponce permission to use it if the ship is threatened, according to Klunder.


Pentagon officials are concerned that Iran or a terrorist group could use drones or small attack boats against American naval vessels.


“If we have to defend that ship today, we will destroy a threat if it comes inbound ... And we have the [rules of engagement] to support that,” Klunder said.


He didn’t lay out the rules of engagement, but did note that the Navy won’t target individuals with the laser because doing so would violate the Geneva Conventions. However, laser operators are allowed to kill people by destroying threatening ships or aircraft.


Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the deputy commander of ship design, integration and naval engineering at Naval Sea Systems Command, said the laser is fully operational and integrated into the Ponce’s radar systems.


“We haven’t actually engaged a threat [yet],” Klunder said, “but the reality is, it’s ready.”


harper.jon@stripes.com

Twitter: @JHarperStripes



US to give back pay to troops who have flown Syria air operations


49 minutes ago




WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is giving hundreds of troops thousands of dollars in back pay for flying airstrike and surveillance missions over Syria since mid-September because of an oversight in danger pay guidelines, defense officials said Wednesday.


Acting Assistant Defense Secretary Stephanie Barna signed a new memo this week designating the airspace over Syria as a dangerous location so that troops can now receive additional money when they fly through there.


Until this week, U.S. forces could receive imminent danger pay for serving on the ground in Syria as well as a number of other war zone locations, but the Syrian airspace was not listed. Under the new guidance, troops flying through the airspace can now receive $7.50 per day, up to a maximum of $225 a month.


According to Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, the Pentagon estimates that about 600 servicemembers per week are entitled to the pay, and it will cost the Pentagon about $18,000 each month.


While a number of fighter jets carry one pilot or a pilot and weapons officer, other aircraft such as the E-2 early warning aircraft or other sophisticated surveillance planes can have from four to a dozen or more crewmembers, depending on the mission.


"The Department recognized that there was an imminent threat of physical harm to service members conducting operations above Syria and we wanted to ensure that they received the additional compensation they deserve," said Christensen, adding that the change was requested by U.S. Central Command, endorsed by the Joint Staff, and approved by the Pentagon.


Troops routinely receive the stipend if they serve, for example, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Yemen and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. The list has evolved over many years, with countries added as they became more dangerous hot spots. And military leaders do periodic reviews of the list.




Police name Marine major as suspect in Okinawa hit-and-run




CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — Okinawa police say a Marine Corps major assigned to Camp Courtney has admitted his involvement in a hit-and-run accident that left a 67-year-old man unconscious in Okinawa city.


Maj. John Jeonghoon Ahn, 40, was identified by prefectural police Wednesday as the driver who allegedly struck a moped from behind on Highway 75 north around 5 a.m. on Dec. 4.


Police said Ahn was traveling to work from his home on Camp Kinser. They matched a side mirror found at the scene to Ahn’s car. Police claim he later confessed, telling them that he fled out of fear.


Police officials said there was no indication of alcohol involvement.


The driver of the moped, Seiki Kamimura, of Okinawa city, remained unconscious in a local hospital Thursday, police said. They have yet to refer the case to the Naha public prosecutor’s office.


Ahn is in U.S. military custody pending charges, police said.


Marine Corps officials did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.


burke.matt@stripes.com




Cyber Command trying to get running start, add staff


FT. SHAFTER, Hawaii — The fledgling U.S. Cyber Command is trying to hit the ground running, aware that it’s playing catchup with often archaic equipment, dealing with constantly evolving threats and trying to justify its existence amid budget cuts and force reductions.


The cyber force is expected to be fully in place by the end of 2016 with a staff of 6,000, said Lt. Gen. James McLaughlin, deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command. Roughly 2,400 have been hired since fiscal year 2013 began, and they are now in teams that have at least “initial operating capability,” McLaughlin said Wednesday at the annual TechNet Pacific conference.


“That’s something that’s in play right now,” he said.


McLaughlin said the Cyber Mission Force was being formed into 133 teams.


“They’re basically tactical units,” he said.


He said he couldn’t provide much detail about where the teams will be placed, but said half would be used for defensive measures. At least part of the other half will presumably focus on offensive measures in the cyber realm.


“A few of the combatant commands — based on just the scope of responsibility and base of operation — have more of the teams than others, but every combatant command is being supported,” he said.


“We’re just beginning to have these teams formed,” he said. As each team is established, representatives of combatant commands have met with U.S. Cyber Command and set a short list of priorities, he said.


U.S. Cyber Command treats cyberspace as a warfare domain in the way the services regard air, sea and land.


“The real challenge for some of the teams is because of the infancy of the domain,” McLaughlin said.


He compared creating these fledgling cyber teams with building an F-22 fighter jet squadron.


“They’ve been checked out on the F-22, and they’d shown up at their unit, and the whole unit is mainly new lieutenants who’d just been checked out on the F-22,” he said. Their commander hadn’t “grown up as an offensive fighter,” nor had the unit been trained as an entity and certified to go into combat, as would normally be done with such a squadron.


”He didn’t have a training environment where they train every day so that you could certify individuals, certain elements of the team and the entire squadron,” he said. “Those things don’t exist yet in cyber, but we’re creating it as fast as we can.”


U.S. Cyber Command is looking to hire more people to fill those higher-level gaps.


“We need additional people to work the command and control, those intermediate-level set of tasks either in our combatant commands or in our service components that really translates senior-commander intent into plans and then into operations that the lead commander can then control,” he said.


The command’s domain includes the vast array of linked computer systems within the Defense Department, parts of which are arcane, archaic and exposed.


When a new cyber threat is announced, it can take weeks for technicians to even determine what parts of the network are running software that’s vulnerable.


“We don’t have weeks,” he said. “A lot of what we’re doing today is reacting to what happened, so we spend a lot of our time chasing our tails in the cyber command.”


He said the command’s goal is to get ahead of such threats, perhaps through the analysis of big data from the network that will reveal anomalies to prevent outside incursions before they happen.


McLaughlin acknowledged that pressure is on the cyber command to justify its hiring binge and increased budget at a time when most other areas in the Defense Department have dealt with cutbacks.


“This is the year of ‘prove it,’” he said.


olson.wyatt@stripes.com



Wednesday, December 10, 2014

CIA fights back after release of 'one-sided,' 'poorly done' torture report


WASHINGTON — Top spies past and present campaigned Wednesday to discredit the Senate's investigation into the CIA's harrowing torture practices after 9/11, battling to define the historical record and deter potential legal action around the world.


The Senate intelligence committee's report doesn't urge prosecution for wrongdoing, and the Justice Department has no interest in reopening a criminal probe. But the threat to former interrogators and their superiors was underlined as a U.N. special investigator demanded those responsible for "systematic crimes" be brought to justice, and human rights groups pushed for the arrest of key CIA and Bush administration figures if they travel overseas.


Current and former CIA officials pushed back, determined to paint the Senate report as a political stunt by Senate Democrats tarnishing a program that saved American lives. It is a "one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation — essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America," former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.


Hayden was singled out by Senate investigators for what they said was a string of misleading or outright false statements he gave in 2007 about the importance of the CIA's brutal treatment of detainees in thwarting terrorist attacks. He described the focus on him as "ironic on so many levels" as any wrongdoing predated his arrival at the CIA. "They were far too interested in yelling at me," Hayden said in an email to The Associated Press.


The intelligence committee's 500-page release concluded that the CIA inflicted suffering on al-Qaida prisoners beyond its legal authority and that none of the agency's "enhanced interrogations" provided critical, life-saving intelligence. It cited the CIA's own records, documenting in detail how waterboarding and lesser-known techniques such as "rectal feeding" were actually employed.


The CIA is now in the uncomfortable position of defending itself publicly, given its basic mission to protect the country secretly. Its 136-page rebuttal suggests Senate Democrats searched through millions of documents to pull out only the evidence backing up pre-determined conclusions. "That's like doing a crossword puzzle on Tuesday with Wednesday's answer's key," the CIA said in an emailed statement.


Challenging one of the report's most explosive arguments — that harsh interrogation techniques didn't lead to Osama bin Laden — the CIA pointed to questioning of Ammar al-Baluchi, who revealed how an al-Qaida operative relayed messages to and from bin Laden after he departed Afghanistan. Before then, the CIA said, it only knew that courier Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti interacted with bin Laden in 2001 when the al-Qaida leader was accessible to many of his followers. Al-Kuwaiti eventually led the U.S. to bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.


Poring over the same body of evidence as the investigators, the CIA insisted most of the 20 case studies cited in the Senate report actually illustrated how enhanced interrogations helped disrupt plots, capture terrorists and prevent another 9/11-type attack. The agency said it obtained legal authority for its actions from the Justice Department and White House, and made "good faith" efforts to keep congressional leaders informed.


Former CIA officials responsible for the program echoed these points in interviews.


John McLaughlin, then deputy CIA director, said waterboarding and other tactics transformed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into a U.S. "consultant" on al-Qaida.


Tenet, the director on Sept. 11, 2001, said the interrogation program "saved thousands of Americans lives" while the country faced a "ticking time bomb every day."


Vice President Dick Cheney also pushed back. And former top CIA officials published a website — ciasavedlives.com — pointing out decade-old statements from Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller in apparent support of agency efforts. The two Democrats spearheaded the Senate investigation.


The intelligence committee's Republicans issued their own 167-page "minority" report and said the Democratic analysis was flawed, dishonest and, at $40 million, a waste of taxpayer money. Feinstein's office said Wednesday most of the cost was incurred by the CIA in trying to hide its record.


If the sides agreed on one thing, it was the CIA suffered from significant mismanagement problems early on. The agency and its Republican supporters said those failings were corrected.


"We have learned from these mistakes," current CIA Director John Brennan said.


President George W. Bush approved the program through a covert finding in 2002 but wasn't briefed by the CIA on the details until 2006.


Obama banned harsh interrogation tactics upon taking office, calling the treatment "torture." But he has shown little interest in holding accountable anyone involved, a sore point among human rights groups and his supporters on the left.


Lawyers representing former CIA detainees have introduced cases in Europe and Canada, though to little success thus far. Undeclared prisons existed in Poland, Romania and Lithuania, among countries.


Twenty-six Americans, mostly CIA agents, were convicted in absentia in Italy of kidnapping a Muslim cleric in Milan in 2003, limiting their ability to travel for fear of extradition. The former CIA base chief in Italy was briefly detained in Panama last year before being returned to the U.S.


The potential prosecution of CIA officials explains somewhat the agency's aggressive response. For months, it reviewed the Senate report to black out names or information that might allow foreign governments, investigating magistrates and human rights lawyers to identify individuals. It demanded the elimination of pseudonyms in part so foreign courts wouldn't be able to connect evidence to a single individual.


"I'm concerned," said John Rizzo, former CIA general counsel who is frequently mentioned in the report. He said he may think twice about traveling to Europe, noting, "For better or worse now, I'm a high-profile, notorious public figure."


AP Intelligence Writer Ken Dilanian contributed to this report.