Daily Archives: June 5, 2022

FBI agent Grayden Ridd had a confidential message for his informant. An FBI team had been given the green light by the Justice Department to ambush and derail a planned meeting between a reporter and a source, and the informants job was to let the FBI know when and where the meeting would take place.

The reporter whose meeting they planned to target was me.

It was January 2014, and I was an investigative reporter in the Washington bureau of the New York Times focusing on national security. The FBI wanted to stop me from obtaining documents that Id been told would reveal the details of massive spying operations by the National Security Agency. The FBI was convinced that I was in contact with someone they had secretly nicknamed the second Snowden, who was about to give me an archive that they feared could go far beyond what former NSA contractor Edward Snowden had leaked about the agencys spying operations the year before.

The FBIs plan to grab my source at our scheduled meeting was approved by top officials at the FBI and the Justice Department during the Obama administration, according to audio recordings I obtained of several phone conversations between Ridd and his informant. At the time, Eric Holder was U.S. attorney general and James Comey was FBI director.

Right now, they are on board, Ridd said in one phone conversation to plan the ambush operation, referring to top Justice Department and FBI officials. I have to periodically go up to the throne room and recommit them. We actually have a lot of buy-in and a lot of support, but I do need to feed the beast.

The FBI declined to comment and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. Holder did not answer a request for comment left with his office; Comey did not respond to a request for comment conveyed through his lawyer. Ridd did not respond to a request for comment placed with a relative or to a knock at the door ofhis homein Washington, D.C.

The FBIs attempt to identify and catch my source came as the Justice Department was waging a seven-year legal campaign against me in connection with a separate leak investigation. The Obama Justice Department had subpoenaed me and was demanding that I testify in court and reveal the confidential sources I had relied on for a chapter about a botched CIA operation in my 2006 book, State of War. I included the story in my book after the Times killed an article on the same topic under pressure from the White House and the CIA.

The attempt to derail my reporting on the purported NSA leaks came during a critical period in my legal battle with the Justice Department. In January 2014 just as the FBI was planning its ambush operation the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear arguments over my subpoena in the leak case involving the mismanaged CIA program. At the time, I was facing the possibility of going to prison for refusing to reveal my sources if the Supreme Court did not rule in my favor. But the Justice Department did not disclose to the Supreme Court that the FBI was simultaneously targeting my reporting on a completely separate story. The Justice Department and the FBI have also never acknowledged to me that they planned to conduct a raid at the scheduled meeting with my source.

The FBIs attempt to catch my source underscores the obsession over leaks to the press that has gripped the U.S. national security community in recent years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The FBI, CIA, and other agencies are now willing to take actions that would have been considered far outside the bounds of acceptable policy just a few years ago to prevent stories in the press that will embarrass powerful officials and reveal government wrongdoing.

The Trump administration went to even greater extremes than its predecessor to target the press. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo reportedly considered kidnapping WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who at the time was living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Yahoo News reported last September that former President Donald Trump even raised the possibility of assassinating Assange. Pompeo was reportedly obsessed with targeting Assange after a massive leak of CIA hacking tools, known as Vault 7. WikiLeaks published Vault 7 documents in 2017, revealing that the CIA had the ability to hack the computer systems built into a wide range of consumer products, including cars, televisions, and home appliances. In April 2017, Pompeo labeled WikiLeaks a hostile intelligence service.

I have previously been reluctant to write what I know about the FBIs scheme to ambush my source because the story is so complicated and confused that I am still not sure I fully understand it. But Michael Schmidt, my former colleague at the Times, made some elements of the story public when he wrote about the episode in his 2020 book, Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President. The CIAs reported discussion of kidnapping or even killing Assange finally convinced me that I should share what I know about how the FBI also tried to target my reporting.

In late 2013, I met a source who was disgusted by the massive scale of the NSAs surveillance operations and wanted to expose the full scope of the agencys global power, which the source claimed went far beyond what Snowden had revealed. He said he was considering providing me with the NSA documents to prove it. Our first meeting was designed to help him decide whether he could trust me enough to give me the documents.

That initial meeting went well. We got along, and we agreed to get together again. The source had scheduled an upcoming trip to Brussels, so we agreed to meet in Belgium. I hoped he might be ready to hand over the documents.

I chose Bruges, a historic Belgian citywhere we would easily blend in among the crowds of foreign tourists. To be honest, I also chose Bruges because I wanted to visit the city; one of my favorite movies was In Bruges, the dark comedy starring Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson. The films plot, about two hitmen waiting for something to happen in the Belgian city, made Bruges seem like an appropriate backdrop for a secret meeting with the source.

After a quick internet search of bars and restaurants, I chose the Caf Rose Red in the citys center as the place for our meeting. It was likely to be packed with tourists.

The source and I would be joined at the meeting by an American lawyer who had originally introduced us. I had known the lawyer for several years. When I first met him, he was in private practice and occasionally handled legal matters for individuals involved in the governments national security apparatus. Later, he split his time between the United States and Europe; he told me that he was sometimes involved in international arms deals.

The lawyer seemed to be an adrenaline junkie, someone who had found a home on the dark side of international intelligence. I considered him primarily a go-between, someone who occasionally introduced me to people involved in national security matters both in the United States and overseas, as well as people involved in more questionable activities, such as arms deals and money laundering. I found his contacts helpful to my reporting; through him, I gained access and insights into the intelligence underworld.

But by the time of the planned meeting in Bruges in 2014, the American lawyer had begun to inform on me and my new source for the FBI, I later learned. I dont know exactly when he began to do so. (Ive tried throughout my career to protect my sources. While the FBI knows who the lawyer is, I will not name him, even though he betrayed me.)

As I prepared to travel to Bruges, I tried to take a few precautions to avoid detection. I planned to fly from Washington to Paris, then pay cash for a train ticket to Bruges. I hoped that would reduce the digital evidence of my travel. I didnt know that my efforts were pointless because the FBI was already closely tracking my movements based on information the American lawyer had fed them.

Just before I was scheduled to leave Washington, I received an anonymous email from an odd address that I had never seen before. The email contained a brief but stunning message. It said not to go to Bruges.

Uncertain who was behind the message, I canceled my travel plans.

Much later, I asked the American lawyer if he knew what had happened and whether he had sent the email. He admitted that he was responsible for the warning.

Eventually, he confessed to me that the FBI had been waiting in Bruges to trap my source. He said that the FBI knew about the meeting because he had told them about it, and that he had also told the FBI that the source wanted to provide me with NSA documents. He admitted that he had been informing on me.

He said that, based on the information he had provided, the FBI had sent a large team to Bruges to try to arrest my source. The FBI told the American lawyer that senior Justice Department officials wanted to grab the source when I was not there, so they asked the lawyer to find a way to try to prevent or at least delay my arrival in Bruges.

Before I got the anonymous email warning me not to come, the lawyer and his FBI handler brainstormed how to keep me from getting to Bruges. In one phone conversation, he told Ridd that he would have his assistant pick me up at the train and then pretend to have car trouble so that I couldnt get to the caf in time.

I will put, without sort of pulling back the curtain, I will put my colleague, who he has a great deal of confidence in, on him for logistical support, and tell him Hey, shell meet up with you, shell help make your arrangements and be your driver, and essentially put her on him to keep tabs on him, the American lawyer told Ridd. She would have strict instructions to essentially queer that whole deal, up to and including having the car break down.

But that wasnt good enough for Ridd, who wanted the American lawyer to stop me from traveling to Europe.

That is a good tool at a tactical level, Ridd responded when the American lawyer suggested having his assistant stage a car breakdown. But that doesnt save us from the wrath of the attorney general and headquarters. If he shows up in country, all hell is going to break loose and so, if at all possible, our primary goal needs to be to dissuade, to talk him out of it. We need for him to not be in Europe for that weekend, and when I say we, I really mean you, because, brother, youre turning out to be the one whos got to do it. The higher powers are going to have a conniption if he is in country or floating around Europe.

Ultimately, the FBIs plans came to nothing. The source I was hoping to meet did not go to Bruges either, so the arrest didnt take place. The FBI team in Bruges waited and waited, according to the lawyer, frustrated and in vain. The plan turned into a debacle, Schmidt wrote in his book. The source never arrived at the caf, and the informant ended up getting drunk while waiting for him. When higher-ups at the bureau learned what had happened, they grew furious that an entire team had been sent to Belgium based on information from a man with little track record as a source who was also known to be double-crossing a reporter on the same matter.

The American lawyer later told me that he had also warned the source not to come to Bruges. I am still not sure about his motivations. I dont know whether he told me not to come because the FBI asked him to stop me or because he wanted to prevent the FBIs operation from succeeding. The American lawyer had introduced me to the source in the first place and had set up our introductory meeting. Why would he go out of his way to do that, only to turn around and set a trap with the FBI?

I never again heard from the source I was trying to meet, and I never obtained a cache of NSA documents from him. In fact, I am not sure whether he really had the documents or ever planned to give them to me.

When the lawyer confessed that he had been informing on me to the FBI, he apparently did not tell me the whole story. In his book, Schmidt reported that the lawyer also told the FBI that he had broken into one of my computers. He gave the FBI a flash drive that he claimed included data from a computer that I owned.

Schmidt wrote that the FBI never opened the flash drive, and that it sat untouched in a safe at the FBIs Washington Field Office. When officials sought approval from Holder to check the drives contents, the then-attorney general denied the request and was furious that it had been put in writing, Schmidt wrote. Schmidt also reported that the FBI cut its ties to the American lawyer, that two FBI agents involved in targeting my source and me were disciplined, and that one of those agents left the bureau. I do not know whether Ridd was one of the agents disciplined or what has happened to him since. The Justice Department briefly considered whether the American lawyer had violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for gaining access to my computer, according to Schmidt, but the bureau did not tell me about that possibility.

I may never know the truth, but I doubt that the flash drive the American lawyer gave the FBI actually contained any of my data. Schmidt writes that the lawyer told the FBI he could install spyware on my computer and that he had secretly copied a trove of documents from my computer when I invited him to my house in 2014. But I dont think he ever had the access or the skill to successfully hack my devices. My skepticism is based on my own experience with him. Soon after the FBIs attempt to arrest my source, the lawyer also gave me a flash drive, one that he claimed included NSA documents from the source. The flash drive could not be opened; the password he gave me didnt work. I became suspicious of the drive and whether it contained malware, so I turned it over to the New York Times security team for analysis. The security team couldnt find anything; they also talked to the American lawyer and questioned him about the drive.

I strongly suspect that the lawyer purposefully gave me a nonfunctional flash drive and that he probably played some kind of game with the drive he gave to the FBI as well. In his recorded calls with Ridd, the lawyer discussed putting a thumb drive containing secret documents in a microwave to destroy it before giving it to me. I have concluded that the American lawyer loved to play games with everyone, on all sides.

The lawyer told Ridd that he frequently lied to me and my colleagues at the Times. During the course of my career with Jim there have been a number of instances where Ive lent Jim assistance or Ive pointed him in a particular direction, and Im talking in years past, where it was mundane news reporting, the lawyer said. The moments that were important, I betrayed Jim.

In the run-up to the ill-fated operation in Bruges, he continued, the dishonesty had intensified. I, just bluntly Grayden, I lie my ass off every day, OK, when I have to deal with these guys. Everything about my relationship with Jim has become a lie, and it takes just one stick to fall down and then Im afraid that the whole house collapses on top of me, and it is incredible pressure for me.

But the recordings suggest that the lawyer often misled the FBI at the same time that he was informing on and lying to me.

In one conversation, the American lawyer told Ridd that I was planning to arrange with European intelligence services to show them any NSA documents I obtained from the new source. If he gets his hands on documents then presumably those documents are going to be stuck under the nose of people in Brussels and thats going to be a really bad thing, the lawyer said.

That was not true; it was one of several false or misleading statements the American lawyer made to his FBI handler. I wonder if the lawyer told the FBI that he had introduced me to the source, that he had set up our initial meeting, or that he told the source not to come to Bruges.

After he confessed that he had betrayed me, the American lawyer told me that the FBI had also become very suspicious of him, and that he was resisting their efforts to get him to take a polygraph. The recordings of his conversations with Ridd detail his arguments with the FBI over the issue. The lawyer acted offended that the FBI would question his truthfulness and credibility.

If people are not comfortable with the veracity of my reporting, Grayden, it hits me very much the wrong way, the American lawyer told Ridd. Im sorry guys at [FBI headquarters] dont get it but somebody should let them know that Ive been around the block and Im a nice guy, and I have busted my ass for the benefit of the government on this. Either the reporting is good and the facts are good or theyre not, and if theyre not, we should all walk away.

It was a masterful performance.

Continued here:
The FBI Tried to Ambush My Source. Now I'm Telling the Whole Story. - The Intercept

The fate of thousands of arbitrarily detained men and women should not rest in the hands of Egypts security agencies, namely the National Security Agency and General Intelligence, Amnesty International said today following the release of four prisoners held for political reasons, based on recommendations by the recently re-activated Presidential Pardons Committee.

Over the last three days, the Egyptian public prosecution ordered the release of Abdelrahman Tarek (known as Moka), Kholoud Saeed and nine others, who had been arbitrarily detained from as early as 2018, following a statement from the Presidential Pardons Committee earlier this month that they submitted a list of over 1000 political prisoners to security agencies for review.

We welcome the long overdue release of those detained solely for exercising their human rights and the promise to free more. Yet thousands of opponents and critics continue to languish in Egyptian jails, while fresh arrests and prosecutions continue unabated, said Amna Guellali, Amnesty Internationals Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

Previous promises to release prisoners held for political reasons amounted to little more than disingenuous attempts to deflect international criticism of Egypts abysmal human rights record. To prove they are committed now, the Egyptian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release anyone detained solely for exercising their human rights, including politicians, journalists, lawyers and human rights defenders.

Amnesty International is calling on the authorities to adopt a rights-based approach and to end mass arbitrary detentions in line with their obligations under international human rights law and demands by independent Egyptian human rights groups.

Exclusions from pardons

On 5 May, following the re-activation of the Presidential Pardons Committee by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, eight Egyptian human rights NGOs called on the authorities to publicly clarify the criteria and timeline used to review prisoners files.

The groups expressed concern that prisoners of conscience and others held for political reasons could be excluded on discriminatory grounds, with security agencies in control of the decision-making process for releases.

Indeed,several committee members said that they would not consider releasing detained Muslim Brotherhood members.Several relatives whosubmitted requests for the committee to review their loved-ones detention told Amnesty International that two committee members demanded to see evidence that detainees did not belong to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Previous promises to release prisoners held for political reasons amounted to little more than disingenuous attempts to deflect international criticism of Egypts abysmal human rights record.

In a statement released on 9 May, Tarek al-Kholi, a member of the Presidential Pardons Committee and an MP, said that members of terrorist groups or those involved in violence would be excluded from pardons. This admission is highly alarming, considering the fact that thousands of individuals have been held in prolonged-pretrial detention in Egypt following baseless accusations of membership in a terrorist group. Among them is Youssef Mansour, a human rights lawyer, arbitrarily detained since 24 March 2022, pending investigations into membership in a terrorist group, solely due to his critical social media posts.

Thousands of others have been imprisoned on violence-related charges following grossly unfair, mass trials by emergency or military courts. On 29 May, an emergency court sentenced 25 political opponents, including politician Mohamed al-Kassas and former presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh to 10 and 15 years in prison respectively for trumped-up terrorism-related charges and spreading false news.

Security forces should play no role in reviews

On 6 May, Tarek al-Kholi confirmed that requests for release received by the Presidential Pardons Committee would be sent to security forces for review. Yet security forces, including the National Security Agency (NSA), should not be granted any authority over releases, as they have repeatedly barred the release of prisoners held for political reasons and targeted individuals affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood and other high-profile activists, who played a prominent role in the 25 January Revolution, for particularly punitive and discriminatory treatment in prison. Since December 2014, Anas al-Beltagy, son of imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood figure Mohamed al-Beltagy, has remained in prison despite being acquitted by courts in four separate trials. Each time a judge ordered his release, the NSA has barred it.

According to an article by independent news site Mada Masr, which is blocked in Egypt, a source close to the committee who asked to remain anonymous said security agencies will not allow the release of prominent activist Alaa Abdel-Fattah, a dual Egyptian-British national on a hunger strike for 60 days, who has been unjustly jailed since September 2019, or activist Ahmed Douma, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a grossly unfair trial over his participation in anti-government protests.

The releases of those held solely for exercising their human rights must also be unconditional. Amnesty International has learned that several of those released in April were warned by the NSA not to engage in any activism, or else face re-arrest. At least two were instructed to report weekly to the NSA for monitoring.

The Egyptian authorities must also immediately instruct security forces and prosecutors to stop arbitrarily arresting and detaining critics. Since April 2022, authorities have arrested three journalists Mohamed Fawzi, Hala Fahmy and Safaa al-Korbagi and detained them for sharing posts on social media deemed critical by the authorities, on accusations of membership in a terrorist group and/or spreading false news.

To ensure meaningful progress on the scourge of mass arbitrary detention in Egypt, sustained joint action is needed by the international community to privately and publicly press on the Egyptian authorities to release all those arbitrary detained in Egypt regardless of their political affiliation, and to put an end to the crackdown on peaceful dissent, said Amna Guellali.

Background

On 26 April 2022, during an Iftar attended by some opposition figures, President Abdelfattah al-Sisi called for the reactivation of the Presidential Pardons Committee to re-examine individuals detained for political reasons or for failure to pay debts. The move followed the release on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr of around 30 men and women held for political reasons. The committee is composed of two MPs, a former minister and two independents.

The Egyptian authorities have arrested tens of thousands of men and women since the military ousted former president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, many of whom remain unjustly imprisoned in conditions that violate the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.

Read more:
Egypt: Exclude security agencies from reviewing releases of jailed critics - Amnesty International

US National Security Advisor (NSA) Jake Sullivan on Monday expressed support for Turkey's continued direct talks with Sweden and Finland to resolve concerns over their applications for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). During a phone call with his Turkish counterpart Dr Ibrahim Kalin, NSA Sullivan also shared concerns over the ongoing aggression waged by Russia in Ukraine. The leaders further deliberated over respective efforts to enable Ukrainian agricultural exports to reach global markets, US National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said in a statement.

Separately, NSA Sullivan highlighted the importance of refraining from an escalation in Syria to preserve existing ceasefire lines and avoid any further destabilisation. He also urged Dr. Kalin to continue dialogue and diplomacy to"resolve any disagreements" in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Abandoning their long-standing military neutrality, Finland and Sweden finally forwarded their membership applications to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) on May 18 despite stern opposition from Turkey and Russia. All 30 members of the international military bloc are needed to approve the bid for Sweden and Finland to join NATO. However, Hungary and Turkey have objected to the membership applications in what can be described as an attempt to gain political concessions driven by their national interests.

During the phone call with NSA Sullivan, Turkey's Dr. Kalin responded to this American counterpart by maintaining that Ankara looked forward to "concrete steps" by both the Nordic nations to eliminate what it refers to as Kurdish "terrorist organisations" in order to gain Turkey's support for ascension to NATO. It is to note, that Turkey has refused the joining, accusing Sweden and Finland of "nuzzling" Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) militants "to their bosom", a claim both Nordic countries have denied. Further, Turkey has also remained at odds withFinland andSweden after theyhalted arms export to Ankara in 2019. Dr. Kalin emphasised that the West-led intergovernmental alliance must "internalise values and principles on security and counter-terrorism," the Turkish presidency said in a statement.

This comes a day after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on May 28 maintained that he intended to block the membership applications unless there are vivid steps to alleviate Ankara's security concerns. "We cannot say yes to countries that support terror joining NATO," he remarked at a presser, as quoted by Hurriyet. He further accused European allies of NATO of committing a "mistake" by supporting Sweden and Finland.

Follow all the Russia-Ukraine War News and Headlines onRussia-Ukraine WarLIVE Updates

View original post here:
US backs Turkey's continued talks with Sweden & Finland to fix concerns over NATO bid - Republic World