Inside the FBI: Anger, worry, work — and fears of lasting damage

 On Friday, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray sent a video message to those he leads, urging them to “keep calm and tackle hard.” (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky February 3 at 12:10 PM

In the 109 years of the FBI’s existence, it has repeatedly come under fire for abuses of power, privacy or civil rights. From Red Scares to recording and threatening to expose the private conduct of Martin Luther King Jr. to benefiting from bulk surveillance in the digital age, the FBI is accustomed to intense criticism.

What is so unusual about the current moment, say current and former law enforcement officials, is the source of the attacks.

The bureau is under fire not from those on the left but rather conservatives who have long been the agency’s biggest supporters, as well as the president who handpicked the FBI’s leader.

Republican critics charge that the birth of the investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and agents of the Russian government was fatally infected by the political bias of senior FBI officials — and President Trump tweeted Saturday that the release of a memo on the issue “totally vindicates ‘Trump.’ ”

Bureau officials say the accusations in the document produced by House Republicans are inaccurate and — more damaging in the long term — corrode the agency’s ability to remain independent and do its job.

The Russia probe got its start with a drunken conversation, an ex-spy, WikiLeaks and a distracted FBI.(Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

One law enforcement official summed it up bluntly: “There’s a lot of anger. The irony is it’s a conservative-leaning organization, and it’s being trashed by conservatives. At first it was just perplexing. Now there’s anger, because it’s not going away.”

[Release of disputed GOP memo on FBI surveillance unleashes waves of recrimination]

On Friday, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray sent a video message to those he leads, urging them to “keep calm and tackle hard.”

“You’ve all been through a lot in these past nine months, and I know that’s been unsettling, to say the least. And the past few days haven’t done much to calm those waters,” Wray said. “So I want to make sure that you know where I stand, and what I want us to do.”

Most FBI agents see their mission as fundamentally nonpolitical — ferreting out wrongdoing, even when that occurs inside political campaigns or government.

For decades, the FBI has been trusted to investigate corruption inside the government, even at the highest levels, including the White House. In the 1970s, the FBI’s probe of the Watergate break-in led to the resignation of President Nixon. In the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton came to detest then-director Louis Freeh, but their distrust did not lead to withering public attacks from the president himself.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the agency was retooled to focus primarily on preventing terrorism, and public confidence in its work grew. In the past two years, however, the probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state and a separate Russia investigation are testing whether the FBI can maintain the trust of Congress, the courts and the country.

Lawmakers from both parties weighed in on the Feb. 2 release of a disputed GOP memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Wray’s vision for leading the agency out of its current predicament is a return to the type of low-profile management favored by former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, according to several people who have spoken to him about the current challenges.

Wray’s predecessor, James B. Comey, was fired by Trump in May amid the ratcheting tensions of a criminal probe into the president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. At the time, Trump called Comey a “showboat” and a “grandstander.”

It makes sense, then, that his successor would want to keep his head down.

Wray’s defenders say there is a more strategic reason for the new director’s approach — by relying on long-standing law enforcement policies and procedures, he believes the FBI can navigate through the current political storms and get back to a position of widespread trust across the political spectrum, according to people familiar with his thinking.

“Following established process is important,” one person said. “Process can protect us.”

[With FBI statement on memo, Christopher Wray could now be in the president’s crosshairs]

That approach, though, is a subtle rejection of some of Comey’s most controversial decisions. Comey famously held a news conference in July 2016to announce he would not recommend any criminal charges in the probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. Then in October of that year, less than two weeks before the presidential election, he sent a letter to Congress informing them that the FBI was investigating new emails in the case.

Both moves were significant departures from normal Justice Department procedure, and Clinton and her supporters blame Comey for costing her the election.

Comey’s firing shocked the FBI’s workforce. In the aftermath, many employees posted pictures of him at their desks or other workspaces.

“In some offices, you’d go in and it was just, ‘Comey, Comey, Comey’ everywhere,” said one law enforcement official. “There’s still a lot of that, but not as much.”

The public attacks from the president have diminished morale inside the FBI, according to current and former officials. Among themselves, senior officials and rank and file frequently debate the best way forward. Several law enforcement officials said they agreed with Wray’s low-key approach, as a means of what one called “getting back to Mueller’s FBI.”

That is a sentiment not without irony because Mueller is now the special counsel leading the Russia investigation so despised by the president and his allies. On Saturday in his tweet, Trump said the “Russia Witch Hunt goes on and on . . . This is an American disgrace!”

Others express doubts about emulating Mueller’s detached approach, worried that Wray’s calculation not to publicly spar with the president may lead to a gradual erosion of the bureau’s reputation and clout. One law enforcement official expressed worry that they might not be able to return to an earlier era because, as he put it, “this Pandora’s box of politics has been opened, and we may never get rid of it.”

A HuffPost/YouGov poll last month found that 51 percent of the public say they have a fair amount of trust in the FBI — down 12 points from 2015. Most of that drop was driven by Republicans and independents, the poll found.

The so-called #ReleaseTheMemo campaign — a GOP effort to make public the four-page document produced by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI — is just the latest salvo in an escalating war on the credibility of federal law enforcement. On Friday, over Wray’s objection, Trump authorized the release of the Nunes memo and declared, “A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves and much worse than that.’’

[Here’s what you need to know about the Nunes memo]

The document — which Democrats said lacked appropriate context and seemed to be a pretext for conservatives to discredit the investigation into Trump — alleged the FBI misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in obtaining a secret warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

That was because, Republicans alleged, the bureau did not tell the court that they were relying in part on information they had received from an ex-British spy who was working for an opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Officials familiar with the matter, though, said the court that approved the warrant was aware some information in the request was funded by a political entity, even if that entity was not specifically named.

“That’s it?” Comey tweeted after the memo was released Friday. “Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs.”

Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department and the bureau are not new. He has called his own attorney general “beleaguered” and claimed the bureau’s reputation was “in tatters.” But in recent weeks, his claims have been magnified by Republicans on Capitol Hill and buttressed by the release of materials that call into question the actions of some agents.

Late last month, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said on Fox News there was “evidence of corruption — more than bias but corruption — at the highest levels of the FBI,” and pointed to texts between two key officials who were once assigned to both the Clinton and Trump probes suggesting a “secret society” at the FBI. Those messages about a “secret society” are now widely seen to be a joke, but that has not diminished Republicans’ fervor about what they see as malfeasance in federal law enforcement.

Next came days of wrangling over whether the memo should be released, with the Justice Department and Republicans trading barbs over whether the document might harm national security and if it was accurate. Trump ultimately sided with Hill Republicans, even over the advice of his own FBI director.

[How a classified four-page Russia memo triggered a political firestorm]

The Justice Department typically has a unique role in an administration: While it seeks to implement the president’s policy goals as a part of the executive branch, it conducts criminal investigations independently and without regard to the will of the chief executive. Trump has defied that norm. He asked Comey for a vow of loyalty, then inquired with Andrew McCabe, who replaced Comey after Trump fired him, for whom he voted.

The president’s approach has scrambled old alliances and created some odd new ones.
Privacy advocates — whose mission often centers on trying to rein in what they view as the FBI’s overbroad and unchecked surveillance powers — have found themselves defending the agency in the current fight, saying the GOP’s claims of privacy abuses lack a factual foundation.

“For a long time we’ve had a concern about the process for obtaining surveillance, a warrant to surveil an American citizen, and abuses in that process,” said Christopher Anders, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office. “And with Congressman Nunes’s memo raising concerns that there were abuses in that process, of course that’s something that would concern us. The memo itself, though, doesn’t prove the case. It doesn’t have the kind of evidence in it that you would need to see to say that there was an abuse of that authority.”

Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director, said some of the president’s behavior toward the Justice Department and the FBI might do lasting damage. While the president might now feel he wants the bureau under his firm control, Hosko said, he might regret that if a like-minded president took office and ordered investigations of Trump or his family.

“The battle is incredible, and who's riding to the defense of the FBI? The Democrats,” said Hosko. “It just makes no sense.”

Current and former law enforcement officials expect the struggle for control of the FBI to intensify.
“Republicans feel the White House is under siege and have suspicions that the FBI was not playing fair,’’ said one former senior Justice Department official. “Republicans think this is just part of the war they are fighting.”

The FBI and CIA Failed Coup Against Trump

If you go back and read carefully what Isikoff reported in September 2016 it appears that the CIA and the DNI (as well as the FBI) are implicated in spreading the disinformation about Trump and Russia.

by Colonel W. Patrick Lang-Feb 4, 2018

( February 4, 2018, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) Based on the memo released today by the House Intelligence Committee (read it here), current and former members of the FBI and the Department of Justice who signed off on applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will likely face contempt of court charges. Who? James Comey, Andy McCabe, Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rob Rosenstein. The effectively lied to a Federal judge. That is not only stupid but illegal.

Here are the critical points from the Nunes memo that you should commit to memory.:

• The Steele Dossier played a critical role in obtaining approval from the FISA court to carry out surveillance of Carter Page according to former FBI Deputy Director Andy McCabe.
• Christopher Steele was getting paid by the DNC and the FBI for the same information.
• No one at either the FBI nor the DOJ disclosed to the court that the Steele dossier was paid for by an opposition political campaign.
• The first FISA warrant was obtained on 21 October 2016 based on a story written by Michael Isikoff for Yahoo News based on information he received directly from Christopher Steele–THE FBI DID NOT DISCLOSE IN THE FISA APPLICATION THAT STEELE WAS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION.
• Christopher Steele was a long standing FBI “source” but was terminated as a source after telling Mother Jones reporter David Corn that he had a relationship with the FBI.
• The FBI signers of the FISA applications/renewals were James Comey and Andy McCabe.
• The DOJ signers of the FISA applications/renewals were Sally Yates, Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein
• Even after Steele was terminated by the FBI, he remained in contact with Deputy Attorney General Bruce Our, whose wife worked for FUSION GPS and was involved with the Steele dossier.

If you go back and read carefully what Isikoff reported in September 2016 it appears that the CIA and the DNI (as well as the FBI) are implicated in spreading the disinformation about Trump and Russia. Isikoff wrote:

U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue. . . .But U.S. officials have since received intelligence reports that during that same three-day trip, Page met with Igor Sechin, a longtime Putin associate and former Russian deputy prime minister who is now the executive chairman of Rosneft, Russian’s leading oil company, a well-placed Western intelligence source tells Yahoo News.

Who were the “intelligence officials” briefing the select members of the House and Senate? That will be one of the next shoes to drop. We are likely to learn in the coming days that John Brennan and Jim Clapper were also trying to help the FBI build a fallacious case against Trump.

The rats will start scrambling in earnest for the lifeboats. The Trump coup has failed.

Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many years. He is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam. 

Nunes_memo.pdf by Thavam on Scribd

We’ve got to get used to a nuclear-armed North Korea

Declassified footage of US nuclear tests. Source: YouTube

By Emma Richards | 2nd February 2018 

AFTER an exhausting 2017, a reminder that the world is nearly at an end wasn’t exactly the start we’d wanted for 2018. But that’s what we got.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the doomsday clock 30 seconds closer to midnight last week, warning the world that it is as close to catastrophe in 2018 as it has ever been.

Citing US President Donald Trump’s repeated threats of war against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Lawrence Krauss and Robert Rosner of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists wrote in a Washington Post column:

“The world is not only more dangerous now than it was a year ago; it is as threatening as it has been since World War II.”

SEE ALSO: US ‘gross violator of human rights’: North Korea responds to Trump’s State of Union

One look at the mounting war of words between the two leaders is enough to convince anyone that he may be right. After all, the fiery rhetoric has escalated from name calling, like “dotard” and “short and fat”, to threats of “fire and fury” and total destruction. And this frequent mudslinging can all be achieved in a mere 280 characters these days. Not necessarily a medium to which we should be entrusting the future survival of humanity.

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the 72nd United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 19, 2017. Source: Reuters/Lucas Jackson

But it’s not only the name calling that has the scientists worried. There have been credible reports suggesting the White House might be gearing up for a pre-emptive strike on the reclusive regime, fearing that Kim might just be crazy enough to launch a kamikaze mission and strike first.

But to consider Kim a lunatic with loose fingers is an insanity all of its own.

Is he a narcissistic man drunk on power? Absolutely. Does he have a chilling disregard for the suffering of his people? Yes, Sir. Is he disturbingly creative with how he kills off family members? No doubt about it.

But a madman eager to go out in a blaze of glory, he is not.

SEE ALSO: CIA warns North Korea ‘will not rest’ with nuclear tests

The tactics he is using now are nothing new in the North Korean book of diplomacy. They are the same tactics used by his father back in the 90s to bring Clinton to the negotiating table. Play hard, talk big, and then allow yourself to be talked back from the brink at a price. His toys are bigger these days, but the game is pretty much the same.

Understanding this, and understanding that North Korea’s nukes aren’t going anywhere, will be the first step to cooling the situation. The high-pressure atmosphere created by the escalating threats is only edging us closer to a point at which nuclear war could break out by accident, as the Atomic Scientists pointed out.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un provides guidance on a nuclear weapons program in this undated photo released by North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang September 3, 2017. Source: KCNA via Reuters

The Bulletin described how “hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative actions by both sides have increased the possibility of nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.” Given what happened in Hawaii last month, that isn’t too hard to believe. With each country on tenterhooks, human error is a real possibility.

If there’s one thing any narcissistic dictator wants to avoid above all else, it is the destruction of their own regime, and Kim is more than aware that any strike from him would be suicide. The nuclear weapons are a bargaining chip, they are the Ace in his hand, but that is all. If launched, they become useless and his demise is guaranteed.

As scary as it may be to live in a world in which North Korea has nuclear weapons, we can all take solace in the fact that Kim’s nukes are only useful to him if they’re not used. Let’s hope Donald Trump understands this too.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not reflect the views of Asian Correspondent

Greeks rally in Athens over Macedonia name row

ATHENS (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of Greeks rallied outside parliament in Athens on Sunday to protest against the use of the term Macedonia in any settlement the government pursues with the ex-Yugoslav Republic to end a decades-old name row.

Lefteris Papadimas, Vassilis Triandafyllou-FEBRUARY 4, 2018

The two countries have agreed to step up negotiations, mediated by the United Nations, this year to settle the dispute, which has frustrated the aspirations of Greece’s small northern neighbour to join NATO and the European Union.

Thoroughfares in central Athens turned into a sea of people waving blue and white Greek flags in what locals said was the largest gathering in decades, easily outdoing rallies against austerity foisted by lenders on the crisis-hit country.

Greece objects to Macedonia’s name because it has its own region called Macedonia, and argues that its neighbour’s use of the name, along with contentious articles in its constitution, imply territorial claims over Greek land.

Protesters hoisted a giant Greek flag over the demonstration with a crane on Sunday. They held banners reading “Hands off Macedonia!” and chanted the national anthem.

“I‘m here for Macedonia. Macedonia is ours, it’s part of Greece. We won’t let them take it from us,” said 72-year old Persefoni Platsouri clutching a Greek flag.

The case evokes strong emotions among Greeks who consider Macedonia, the ancient kingdom ruled by Alexander the Great, to be an integral part of their homeland and heritage.

Talks also reopened at a sensitive time for a country which is struggling to emerge from its worst debt crisis in decades and to regain sovereignty over economic policy-making after years of austerity mandated by international lenders.

“HISTORICAL LIE”

People take part in a rally against the use of the term "Macedonia" in any settlement to a dispute between Athens and Skopje over the former Yugoslav republic's name, in Athens, Greece, February 4, 2018. Eurokinissi/via REUTERS

Among Sunday’s speakers was world-renowned Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who said the eight-year economic crisis had not wiped Greece’s history from people’s memories.

“If we give in, we are leaving the doors wide open for a tragic historical lie to come through and stay forever,” the 93-year old leftist, a symbol of resistance against the 1967-1974 military junta, told a cheering crowd.

Talks between the two countries have been inconclusive since the Balkan state broke away from Yugoslavia in 1991.

Due to Greece’s objections, Macedonia was admitted to the United Nations with the provisional name “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” in 1993, which remains its official title in international organisations. A majority of countries in the world refer to it simply as Macedonia.

Greece’s leftist-led government has proposed a compound name, with a geographical qualifier, which would be the only name that could be used for the country.

But opinion polls in recent weeks have shown a majority of Greeks oppose the use of “Macedonia” in any solution. About 300,000 people turned out at a demonstration on Jan. 21 in Thessaloniki, capital of Greece’s Macedonia region.

The issue has also strained relations between Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’ Syriza party and his small coalition ally, the right-wing Independent Greeks. The coalition government controls 154 seats in the 300-seat parliament.

The Macedonia issue helped bring down Greece’s conservative government in 1993; the same party, now in opposition, has criticised Tsipras’ administration for its negotiating tactics.

Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias said last week that Greece is preparing proposals which would be the basis of negotiations for a settlement with its neighbouring country.

“Here are the borders. This is Macedonia ... Macedonia is Greek, no one can take this name, no one can use it,” said protester Rania Mainou, pointing on a map.

Pence Plan to Target Aid for Christians in Iraq Sparks Concern

Aid experts fear the Trump administration’s focus on Christians and other religious minorities could do more harm than good.

By Rhys Dubin, Dan De Luce-January 17, 2018, 11:24 AM

The Trump administration has decided to steer humanitarian aid funding to Christian and other minority communities in Iraq, against the advice of some officials at the State Department and others at the United Nations, who initially feared the move could backfire.

The administration, prompted in part by Vice President Mike Pence’s strong links to Christian advocacy groups, recently clashed with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) over how to spend aid funds in Iraq, insisting more resources be channeled to Christian communities and other minority groups in the Nineveh Plains. The administration rejected UNDP’s assessment — and that of some officials at the State Department — that the aid should be focused on more populated areas around the war-damaged city of Mosul.

In the end, the two sides struck a compromise. A portion of UNDP funds will be redirected away from Mosul and other areas where U.N. and U.S. officials feared the Islamic State might return and transferred to villages in the Nineveh Plains, home to Christian and other minority groups.

“In counterterrorism terms, there’s no question — Mosul is the highest priority. Many of us are worried that violent extremism could emerge again in the city if the areas that have been destroyed aren’t stabilized as quickly as possible,” a senior Western official told Foreign Policy. “If this happens, the military gains that have been won by the Iraqis and coalition are at risk — in fact, they could be lost altogether.”

(Map designed by C.K. Hickey. Source: Dr. Michael Izady, Columbia University)

Even before the recent disagreement with UNDP, proposed aid for religious minorities had sparked a fractious debate inside the administration. Some State Department officials, and others at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), disagreed with the administration’s initial approach, fearing that an increasingly direct and public emphasis on religious minorities, and Christians in particular, could fuel sectarian divisions in the country and single out already at-risk communities.
Since Donald Trump entered office a year ago, the issue has gotten high-level attention. Vice President Pence has spoken frequently about the importance of direct U.S. support for religious minorities in the Middle East, and current USAID Administrator Mark Green — long an advocate for minority communities — has made these efforts a centerpiece of his tenure.

U.S. leaders have also increasingly targeted the United Nations for specific criticism. Last October for instance, at an event organized by the advocacy group In Defense of Christians, Pence announced that the State Department would no longer fund “ineffective” U.N. relief efforts and would instead funnel aid directly through USAID.

“Christianity is under unprecedented assault in those ancient lands,” Pence said. “While faith-based groups with proven track records and deep roots in these communities are more than willing to assist, the United Nations too often denies their funding requests.”

Shortly afterward, USAID unveiled plans to provide additional aid to minority communities in northern Iraq over and above the funds committed to the United Nations. This separate effort calls for up to $35 million in assistance for minority communities in the Nineveh Plains, as well as an additional $20 million in humanitarian and other funds from the State Department.

The issue pits the Trump administration’s desire to take more assertive action to safeguard Christian communities in the Middle East against its broader goal of bolstering stability in Iraq after the defeat of the Islamic State. If the policy backfires, current and former officials say, it could undercut Washington’s already limited influence in Baghdad at a time when it is keen to counter Iran’s role in the region.

“Christians make up a tiny percentage of the population, and if they get a disproportionate percentage of aid, that’s going to look bad,” said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA officer focused on Iraq and currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “It looks like the U.S. isn’t committed to the general rebuilding and stabilization of Iraq. It will look like it’s more committed to its own special interests.”

The administration’s feud with aid officials over the past two months centered on a proposed tranche of $150 million in stabilization funding for the UNDP in Iraq. Originally designated as a blank check to be spent as the agency saw fit, U.S. officials intervened to renegotiate the terms, eventually settling on a deal that forced $55 million to be used explicitly for minority religious communities. A second tranche of $75 million would then be contingent on new monitoring and evaluation measures.

The move raised eyebrows throughout the aid community. “Taking $55 million and putting it into an area where there’s no chance that the Islamic State is going to come back doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” the Western official said. With stabilization funding — designed to address the potential resurgence of the Islamic State — “what you want to do is focus on the areas where they might come back,” the official told FP.

Others within the administration and some members of Congress, however, argued that Christian and Yazidi communities in the country faced an existential threat that the United States had a responsibility to address. The Christian population in Iraq has dwindled dramatically, from an estimated 1.4 million people before 2003 to fewer than 250,000 in 2016.

The Islamic State in particular singled out minorities for especially brutal treatment. The group’s fighters systematically expelled Christian communities from their territory in Iraq and massacred and enslaved thousands of Yazidis — a small community based in northern Iraq and Syria whose faith is a mix of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam. Activists and human rights monitors described the campaign as genocidal.

“These communities were hit the hardest,” said Philippe Nassif, the executive director of In Defense of Christians. “[The Islamic State] didn’t just kill people — they dug up olive groves and removed the roots of the trees. They wanted to wipe out any presence of Yazidis and Christian communities so people couldn’t come back.”

GOP congressional leaders and White House officials eventually grew frustrated at what they considered to be a slow and insufficient response from diplomats and aid workers, despite the Trump administration’s publicly stated goal of helping Christians and minorities on the ground. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill came to believe that, barring a direct legislative effort from Congress, the State Department and USAID would refuse to change course. “I would say in the past year or so, the pressure has increased further,” said Sarhang Hamasaeed, the Middle East program director at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “There are direct questions about how to show in measurable terms what specifically has been done for minorities.”

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), for instance, introduced the Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act of 2017. The bill, which passed the House but eventually stalled in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was designed essentially to remind agencies of their legal authority to designate aid for “ethnic and minority individuals and communities with the greatest need” in Iraq and Syria.

Smith and like-minded lawmakers have pushed the issue heavily in Congress. “This has been a steady drum beat with this crowd,” said a Democratic congressional aide.

For their part, former aid officials say there are no statutes or regulations barring agencies from funding religious groups, as long as aid is not used to proselytize or discriminate based on faith. “USAID has been dealing with faith-based groups for a while — it couldn’t do its work without them,” a former senior USAID official told FP.

After months of combat in Iraq that razed towns and displaced millions of people, Washington’s aid effort is designed to cover a wide range of needs among civilians and is not focused on only one community, said Thomas Staal, a counselor at USAID. “What we’re seeing is that there is a need for a holistic approach.”

Nevertheless, Staal, who traveled to Iraq in December, acknowledged that Christian communities had expressed concern about preferential aid policies. “A significant amount [of aid] is going to Nineveh but not all of it,” he told FP. “If the U.S. focuses all their assistance on Christians, that puts a target on their back.”

Despite the strident rhetoric from Pence and some lawmakers, in the end the administration’s approach does not represent a radical departure for humanitarian aid programs, said Jeremy Konyndyk of the Center for Global Development, who worked as director of USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance under the Barack Obama administration.

“There’s not an indication that it’s compromising program integrity in some way,” Konyndyk said. “It’s not setting off red lights for me.”

Still, a perception that America is favoring one religious community over another could antagonize the Iraqi government and further damage U.S. credibility, former officials said.

“We best serve our own interests and Iraq’s interests when we don’t engage in accentuating sectarian divisions,” said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official and now director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Alterman said he was not privy to the details of the aid program, but the approach could carry risks. “Explicitly supporting Christian communities in Iraq because they are Christian would accentuate those divisions,” he said.

Why it’s best to ignore Israeli lawsuit over Lorde’s canceled show

“Israel’s unapologetic disregard for freedom of speech won’t wash with New Zealanders,” say activists reportedly sued by Mossad-linked group for writing open letter calling on Lorde to cancel her Tel Aviv show. (Kathryn Parson)

Ali Abunimah Activism and BDS Beat 1 February 2018

Two New Zealand activists have responded to reports they are being sued by an Israeli group linked to the Mossad spy agency over an open letter they wrote in December calling on pop singer Lorde to cancel a gig in Tel Aviv.

Justine Sachs and Nadia Abu-Shanab say that they have only heard about the lawsuit through media. “We have not received any summons or other formal notice,” they state. “On this basis, as far as we are concerned, this ‘case’ has no legitimacy.”

The lawsuit is supposedly being filed in Israel under a 2011 law that allows people to sue those who call for a boycott of Israel or its illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land.

It is reportedly being filed on behalf of three Israeli teenagers who claim they suffered emotional injury because Lorde canceled her concert, and are asking for $13,000 in damages.

“We all loved Melodrama, but really?” Abu-Shanab and Sachs write, referencing Lorde’s Grammy-nominated album.

“Despite how ridiculous this all seems, it’s an important time to reflect” on how “Israel is attempting to suppress those who dare criticize their human rights abuses,” the activists say.

They point out that Shurat HaDin – the group behind the lawsuit – has a history of unsuccessful litigation around the world.

“These lawsuits went nowhere because they have no legal means nor jurisdiction to control what people can and cannot say about Israel abroad,” Abu-Shanab and Sachs state. “Israel’s unapologetic disregard for freedom of speech won’t wash with New Zealanders either.”

“With our open letter to Lorde we joined a chorus of millions of people across the world who are calling for justice and peace in Israel/Palestine,” the pair write, “people [who] know the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign is a legitimate, nonviolent strategy to pressure Israel into ending its occupation and apartheid regime. No intimidation tactics can or will stifle this growing movement.”

Days after Abu-Shanab and Sachs published their 21 December open letter in New Zealand’s The Spinoff, Lorde canceled her show in Tel Aviv, calling it “the right decision.”

Legally dubious

Now a commentary by a law professor, also in The Spinoff, casts further doubt on the viability of the Israeli legal assault on Sachs and Abu-Shanab.

The University of Otago’s Andrew Geddis notes that even under the Israeli law, it will be very difficult for the plaintiffs to demonstrate damages, let alone the thousands of dollars claimed.

“I mean, maybe Israeli teens really are super, super sensitive to emotional distress, but given that pre-sale tickets to the Tel Aviv show reportedly cost $82 there’s a hell of a difference between the price paid for the pleasure of seeing Lorde and the now claimed pain of not getting to see her,” he writes.

But even if an Israeli court were to agree to Shurat HaDin’s claims, it is extremely unlikely that any judgment would be enforceable in New Zealand.

Geddis points out that there is no treaty between Israel and New Zealand for the automatic enforcement of legal judgments, so the plaintiffs would have to come to New Zealand and effectively sue all over again there.

Ignore it

According to Maria Hook, an international law expert consulted by Geddis, the Israeli plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that “the Israeli courts had personal jurisdiction over the defendants [the open letters’ authors]. In essence, this means the defendants were personally present in Israel at the time the case was initiated or that they submitted to the court’s jurisdiction by taking a step in the proceeding.”

And then Shurat HaDin would face the tall order of trying to get New Zealand’s high court to agree to enforce a foreign judgment that effectively condemns two New Zealand citizens for exercising freedom of expression guaranteed under their country’s bill of rights.

Geddis’ conclusion is that the threat of the lawsuit “is more political theater than a realistic effort to recover any real purported ‘loss’ from the open letter’s authors.”

“If the case is ever brought before an Israeli court, those authors should simply ignore it,” he advises, “because if they do try to participate then they run the risk of enabling any judgment to be enforced here in New Zealand.”

In short, as long as Abu-Shanab and Sachs do nothing – and they have already said they see the case as having no legitimacy – then Geddis says they are beyond the reach of Israel’s legal bullying.

And if Shurat HaDin really does come after the activists, there is no doubt they will be able to count on the backing of New Zealand’s strong Palestine solidarity community and supporters all over the world.

Israel begins telling African migrants to leave

Netanyahu accuses US Jewish billionaire George Soros of being behind the campaign against the forced deportations

Israel's notorious Holot detention centre in the Negev desert (AFP)

 

Sunday 4 February 2018

Israel began warning thousands of African migrants on Sunday that they must leave by the end of March, officials said, under a plan that could see them jailed if they refuse.

On 3 January, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced implementation of a plan to deport about 38,000 migrants who had entered the country illegally, mainly Eritreans and Sudanese.

The controversial plan gives them until the end of next month to leave voluntarily or face jail and eventual expulsion.

Immigration authority spokeswoman Sabine Haddad told AFP that officials began issuing migrants letters on Sunday advising them that they had 60 days in which to leave the country voluntarily.

For now, the notices are being given only to men without families, officials said.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz said "anyone recognised as a victim of slavery or human trafficking, and those who had requested asylum by the end of 2017 but haven't gotten a response" would also be exempt for now.

It added that this left the number subject to near-term deportation at "between 15,000 and 20,000 people".

Read more ►

Mass expulsion under way as Israel plans to deport 40,000 Africans

The authority is offering those who agree to leave a grant of $3,500, a flight ticket and help with obtaining travel documents.

Should they not leave by the deadline, the grant would be reduced and "enforcement measures" would be taken against them and anyone employing them, the authority says.

Israel refers to the tens of thousands of African migrants who entered the country illegally from neighbouring Egypt as "infiltrators".

Israeli officials tacitly recognise that it is too dangerous to return Sudanese and Eritreans to their troubled homelands, but local media say the notices do not specify where departing migrants would be sent.

Aid workers and media have named Uganda and Rwanda, although both countries deny being a destination for migrants being expelled involuntarily.

Public opposition to the plan has been slow to build, but some Israeli airline pilots have reportedly said they will not fly forced deportees.

Academics have published a petition and Israeli Holocaust survivors wrote an open letter to Netanyahu last month pleading with him to reconsider.

Netanyahu on Sunday accused US Jewish billionaire George Soros of being behind the campaign against the forced deportations, Haaretz also reported.

"George Soros is also funding the protests. Obama deported two million infiltrators and they didn't say anything," he said at the weekly Cabinet meeting.

The UN refugee agency has called on Israel to scrap the plan, calling it incoherent and unsafe.

A 2016 UN commission of inquiry into Eritrea's regime found "widespread and systematic" crimes against humanity, and said an estimated 5,000 people flee the country each month.

The International Criminal Court has indicted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide linked to his regime's counter-insurgency tactics in the Darfur conflict. 

Millions face water shortages in Cape Town

Tom ClarkeScience Editor-4 Feb 2018

What would happen if the water simply ran out? That’s the nightmarish reality facing four million people in Capetown, which may soon be forced to turn off its taps.

Draconian restrictions have already been introduced after a combination of drought and population growth brought reservoir levels dangerously low. Now, officials are warning that supplies could simply dry up by mid April.

And Cape Town isn’t the only city in this predicament.

Read More