DOCSLIB.ORG

Bill Keller Blames Leak Arrests That Preceded Wikileaks on Wikileaks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bill Keller Blames Leak Arrests That Preceded Wikileaks on Wikileaks BILL KELLER BLAMES LEAK ARRESTS THAT PRECEDED WIKILEAKS ON WIKILEAKS Bill Keller has another narcissistic column attacking Julian Assange. The whole thing is rubbish not worth your time, but I did want to unpack the complaint with which Keller ends his column. “A lot of attention has been focused on WikiLeaks and its colorful proprietors,” Aftergood told me. “But the real action, it turns out, is not at the publisher level; it’s at the source level. And there aren’t a lot of sources as prolific or as reckless as Bradley Manning allegedly was.” For good reason. The Obama administration has been much more aggressive than its predecessors in pursuing and punishing leakers. The latest case, the arrest last month of John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. terrorist-hunter accused of telling journalists the names of colleagues who participated in the waterboarding of Qaeda suspects, is symptomatic of the crackdown. It is this administration’s sixth criminal case against an official for confiding to the media, more than all previous presidents combined. The message is chilling for those entrusted with keeping legitimate secrets and for whistleblowers or officials who want the public to understand how our national security is or is not protected. Here’s the paradox the documentaries have overlooked so far: The most palpable legacy of the WikiLeaks campaign for transparency is that the U.S. government is more secretive than ever. [my emphasis] The Obama Administration has charged 6 people with some kind of espionage charge for leaking: Thomas Drake was indicted on April 10, 2010, just days after the release of the Collateral Murder video and before Bradley Manning first contacted Adrian Lamo; he was charged for purported leaks going back to February 2006 Shamai Leibowitz was first investigated in mid-2009, before Manning leaked anything to WikiLeaks; he was charged on December 4, 2009 and sentenced on May 24, 2010, the day the government was first learning about Lamo’s conversations with Manning Stephen Jin-Woo Kimwas indicted on August 19, 2010, around the time DOD first started trying to figure out what Manning allegedly sent to WikiLeaks; he is alleged to have leaked in June 2009 Manning was arrested on May 29, 2010 and will be formally charged this week for leaks allegedly starting in November 2009 Jeffrey Sterlingwas indicted on December 22, 2010, around the time the government was trying to pressure Manning into testifying about Assange; his leaks allegedly started in 2001 John Kiriakou was charged on January 23, 2012 for leaks dating back to 2007 All the non-WikiLeaks leaks allegedly took place before Manning’s. All were formally charged before Manning, and all but two men were arrested before Manning. And yet Bill Keller, in a demonstration of his typical reporting skill though not Newtonian physics, suggests that WikiLeaks caused the crackdown on leaks. WikiLeaks can’t be the reason the government has cracked down so harshly, because most of the crackdown preceded the key WikiLeaks publications. Perhaps Keller is just looking for some easy explanation for why Kiriakou got busted. As I have shown, the most logical way to establish the case against Kiriakou (short of the now legal acquisition of journalist call records using NSLs) was through the NYT article reporting Deuce Martinez’ role in interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And while Kiriakou’s recklessness–as a CIA guy who leaked a covert officer’s identity through apparently unencrypted email–rivals Manning’s, security expert Chris Soghoian has pointed out how shoddy (and far inferior to WikiLeaks’) the NYT’s own security is. The government is prosecuting leaks at a degree unheard of–and has been since before WikiLeaks. It is using new interpretations that strip journalists of the privacy expectations they once had. But along with that, journalists have taken a while to adjust to the new intrusiveness. The government deserves most of the blame for it. But the NYT seems to deserve more of the blame for shoddy security than WikiLeaks does. THE ANONYMOUS DOJ HANDMAIDEN OF POLITICAL WHIM Adam Liptak has an odd story on the increasing use of technology to pursue leaks. I find it odd for two reasons. In spite of the fact that he nods to technology and has Lucy Dalglish relate the same story I described here, in which a national security representative told her “they know” who journalists are talking to: “I was told in a rather cocky manner” by a national security representative, Ms. Dalglish recalled, that “the Risen subpoena is one of the last you’ll see.” She continued, paraphrasing the official: “We don’t need to ask who you’re talking to. We know.” He doesn’t talk about the means to get that information–neither the internet based collection methods nor the FBI’s new Domestic Investigation and Operations Guide rules which allow the government to get journalist call records without a subpoena in some cases. It seems important to explain that the new circumstances involve not just technology, but also a unilateral change in legal policy with regards to the communications of journalists (albeit one that mirrors a similar change for all other Americans). The government can prosecute more leaks now because the technology has enabled them to change the rules on journalists without, thus far, any significant outcry. The other funny part of the Liptak story is this anonymous lie from a DOJ official explaining DOJ’s selective enforcement of leaks. “The Justice Department has always taken seriously cases in which government employees and contractors entrusted with classified information are suspected of willfully disclosing such classified information to those not entitled to it,” a department official explained. “As a general matter, prosecutions of those who leaked classified information to reporters have been rare, due, in part, to the inherent challenges involved in identifying the person responsible for the illegal disclosure and in compiling the evidence necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.” This statement is, of course, utter horseshit. Take the Nicholas Schmidle story revealing key, top secret details of the Osama bin Laden raid, or the example of John Brennan speaking on the record about a topic that the government has told courts is a state secret. Those sources are pretty easy to find. The sources involved are pretty clearly John Brennan, James Cartwright, Ben Rhodes, Marshall Webb and … John Brennan again. All those men have Top Secret clearances which would make it easy for the government to get their call records. From there, the government would have the same kind of evidence they’ve got tying Jeffrey Sterling to James Risen. Only, the government is not going to prosecute those violations of secrecy. Not because they don’t have the evidence or couldn’t prove their case. But because these leaks serve a political purpose that people high up enough in the Administration has apparently deemed more valuable than all the claims they make–occasionally with good reason–about the importance of keeping national security information secret. And that, I suspect, is why this DOJ official has said this anonymously. Because it’s the other part of the equation, the one that undermines DOJ’s claim to be enforcing rule of law, that gets really embarrassing. DOJ won’t or can’t describe its full approach to leaks–which is to pursue those it can that are deemed embarrassing by the political powers that be, but to ignore those that are deemed useful. DOJ needs to keep this a secret, because admitting it would be to admit they are now the handmaiden of not the law, but political whim. Political whim, backed by intrusive new technologies and unilateral rule changes about the deference shown to journalists. HONORABLE MILITARY WHISTLEBLOWER: WHY DANIEL DAVIS IS AND BRADLEY MANNING IS NOT One of the hottest, and most important, stories of the last week has been that broken by Scott Shane in the New York Times, on February 5th, of Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis’ stunning report on the unmitigated duplicity and disaster that characterizes the American war in Afghanistan. It painted the story of a man, Davis, committed to his country, to his service and to the truth but internally tortured by the futility and waste he saw in Afghanistan, and the deception of the American public and their Congressional representatives by the Pentagon and White House. And then, late last month, Colonel Davis, 48, began an unusual one-man campaign of military truth-telling. He wrote two reports, one unclassified and the other classified, summarizing his observations on the candor gap with respect to Afghanistan. He briefed four members of Congress and a dozen staff members, spoke with a reporter for The New York Times, sent his reports to the Defense Department’s inspector general — and only then informed his chain of command that he had done so. Concurrent with Shane’s NYT article, Davis himself published an essay overview of what he knew and saw in the Armed Forces Journal. The one thing that was not released with either Shane or Davis’ article was the actual Davis report itself, at least the unclassified version thereof. The unclassified Davis report has now been published, in its entire original form, by Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn’t Want You to Read. The report is every bit as detailed, factually supported and damning as the articles by Shane and Davis portrayed. It is a must, but disturbing, read. If the American people care about economic waste and efficacy and morality of their foreign military projection, both the Obama Administration and the Pentagon will be browbeat with the picture and moment of sunlight Daniel Davis has provided.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The American Experience with Diplomacy and Military Restraint I
    PART I: THE AmERICAN EXPERIENCE WITH DIPLOMACY AND MILITARY RESTRAINT i. Orphaned Diplomats: The American Struggle to Match Diplomacy with Power Jeremi Suri E. Gordon Fox Professor of History and Director, European Union Center of Excellence, University of Wisconsin, Madison Benjamin Franklin spent the American Revolution in Paris. He had helped to draft the Declaration of Independence in the summer of 1776, one of the most radical documents of the eighteenth century—sparking rebellion on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Serving as a representative for the Continental Congress in France during the next decade, Franklin became a celebrity. He was the enlightened idealist from the frontier, the man of principled action who enthralled onlookers in the rigid European class societies of the 1770s and ’80s. Franklin embodied the American critique of Old World society, economy, and diplomacy. He was one of many American revolutionaries to take aim at the degenerate world of powdered wigs, fancy uniforms, and silver-service dinners where the great men of Europe decided the fate of distant societies. Franklin was a representative of the enduring American urge to replace the diplomacy of aristocrats with the openness and freedom of democrats.1 Despite his radical criticisms of aristocracy, Franklin was also a prominent participant in Parisian salons. To the consternation of John Adams and John Jay, he dined most evenings with the most conservative elements of French high society. Unlike Adams, he did not refuse to dress the part. For all his frontiers- man claims, Franklin relished high-society silver-service meals, especially if generous portions of wine were available for the guests.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Censorship and the First Amendment Robert A
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 25 Article 2 Issue 1 Symposium on Censorship & the Media 1-1-2012 Self-Censorship and the First Amendment Robert A. Sedler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Robert A. Sedler, Self-Censorship and the First Amendment, 25 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 13 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol25/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES SELF-CENSORSHIP AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ROBERT A. SEDLER* I. INTRODUCTION Self-censorship refers to the decision by an individual or group to refrain from speaking and to the decision by a media organization to refrain from publishing information. Whenever an individual or group or the media engages in self-censorship, the values of the First Amendment are compromised, because the public is denied information or ideas.' It should not be sur- prising, therefore, that the principles, doctrines, and precedents of what I refer to as "the law of the First Amendment"' are designed to prevent self-censorship premised on fear of govern- mental sanctions against expression. This fear-induced self-cen- sorship will here be called "self-censorship bad." At the same time, the First Amendment also values and pro- tects a right to silence.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa Catherine M
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 20 | Issue 4 Article 4 8-1-1993 Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa Catherine M. Coles Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Land Use Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Coles, Land Reform from Post-Apartheid South Africa, 20 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 699 (1993), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol20/iss4/4 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAND REFORM FOR POST-APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA Catherine M. Coles* I. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 700 II. LAND SYSTEMS IN COLLISION: PRECOLONIAL AND COLONIAL LAND SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AFRICA. 703 A. An Overview of Precolonial Land Systems. 703 B. Changing Rights to Landfor Indigenous South African Peoples Under European Rule. 706 III. THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF RACIAL INEQUALITY AND APART- HEID THROUGH A LAND PROGRAM. 711 A. Legislative Development of the Apartheid Land Program. 712 B. The Apartheid System of Racial Zoning in Practice: Limiting the Land Rights of Black South Africans. 716 1. Homelands and National States: Limiting Black Access to Land by Restricting Citizenship. 716 2. Restricting Black Land Rights in Rural Areas Outside the Homelands through State Control. 720 3. Restricting Black Access to Urban Land..................... 721 IV. DISMANTLING APARTHEID: THE NATIONAL PARTY'S PLAN FOR LAND REFORM............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Paper (PDF)
    Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Discussion Paper Series Leading the Way to Better News: The Role of Leadership in a World Where Most of the “Powers That Be” Became the “Powers That Were” By Geoffrey Cowan Shorenstein Center Fellow, Fall 2007 University Professor and Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership, University of Southern California February 15, 2008 #D-44 © 2008 President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. Abstract During the past several years, as traditional news operations have faced sharp declines in circulation, advertising, viewership, and audiences, and as they have begun to make a seemingly unrelenting series of cuts in the newsroom budgets, scholars and professionals have been seeking formulas or models designed to reverse the trend. During those same years, many of the major news organizations that dominated the landscape a generation ago, those that David Halberstam called “The Powers That Be,” have lost their leadership role and been absorbed by other companies. This paper argues that while there is good reason to worry about the decline in what might be called “boots-on-the-ground” journalism, there are reasons to be hopeful. While most of those concerned with the topic have urged structural changes in ownership, this paper argues that the key is leadership. To understand the demands on leaders, it is essential to understand which of three motives is most important to the publication’s owners: profits, influence, or personal prestige. Each motive presents distinct challenges and opportunities. Looking at the fate of a number of large media organizations over the past decade, the paper argues that the most important model for success is outstanding leadership that combines a talent for business, entrepreneurship and innovation with a profound commitment to great journalism.
    [Show full text]
  • S Ombud Encourage a NYT Pre-Sentencing
    WILL NYT’S OMBUD ENCOURAGE A NYT PRE- SENTENCING MEMO FOR BRADLEY MANNING, TOO? When I first read Scott Shane’s long profile of John Kiriakou, I thought, “how interesting that the NYT is doing a piece that exposes the government’s double standards just in time for the sentencing of Kiriakou, one of their sources.” That’s not to say I’m not glad to see the piece: the profile did more to raise the scandal of Kiriakou’s prosecution than just about anything short of a 60 Minutes piece might. And I’m much less interested in Shane’s references to his own role in Kiriakou’s indictment Mr. Kiriakou first stumbled into the public limelight by speaking out about waterboarding on television in 2007, quickly becoming a source for national security journalists, including this reporter, who turned up in Mr. Kiriakou’s indictment last year as Journalist B. [snip] After Mr. Kiriakou first appeared on ABC, talking with Brian Ross in some detail about waterboarding, many Washington reporters sought him out. I was among them. He was the first C.I.A. officer to speak about the procedure, considered a notorious torture method since the Inquisition but declared legal by the Justice Department in secret opinions that were later withdrawn. Then I am by this passage. In 2008, when I began working on an article about the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I asked him about an interrogator whose name I had heard: Deuce Martinez. He said that they had worked together to catch Abu Zubaydah, and that he would be a great source on Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicted: the New York Times and the Bias Question Epilogue CSJ-10
    CSJ‐ 10‐ 0034.2 PO Conflicted: The New York Times and the Bias Question Epilogue New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller’s rebuttal ran adjacent to Ombudsman Clark Hoyt’s column on the Times’ website on February 6, 2010. Neither Hoyt’s column nor Keller’s response ran in the paper. Keller opened by offering a quick and forceful endorsement of the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner. Then Keller argued that the decision to keep Bronner in Jerusalem was made out of respect for open‐minded readers who, he said, Hoyt improperly implied were not capable of distinguishing reality from appearances. He noted that the paper’s rulebook properly gave editors wide latitude to act in conflict of interest cases. Indeed, he continued, a journalist’s personal connections to a subject could contribute depth and texture to their reporting. As examples, he cited C.J. Chivers, Anthony Shadid, and Nazila Fathi. However, he chose not to go into detail about their biographies. Nor did he write about columnist Thomas Friedman and the instances in which he was touched by the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict. Instead, Keller observed that, as a reader, he could discern nothing in these journalists’ reporting that betrayed their personal feeling about the issues they covered. Finally, he closed with the argument that the paper had to be careful not to capitulate to partisans on either side of a conflict. To submit to their demands would rob the paper of experienced journalists like Bronner, whereas in fact the partisans were incapable of fairly evaluating him. This did not mean, he said, that he was denying the significance of Bronner’s family connections to Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Obama Administration and the Press Leak Investigations and Surveillance in Post-9/11 America
    The Obama Administration and the Press Leak investigations and surveillance in post-9/11 America By Leonard Downie Jr. with reporting by Sara Rafsky A special report of the Committee to Protect Journalists Leak investigations and surveillance in post-9/11 America U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists. A CPJ special report by Leonard Downie Jr. with reporting by Sara Rafsky Barack Obama leaves a press conference in the East Room of the White House August 9. (AFP/Saul Loeb) Published October 10, 2013 WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An “Insider Threat Program” being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues. Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press— compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Depauw University Department of Political Science International Terrorism
    DePauw University Department of Political Science International Terrorism POLS 390A Sunil K. Sahu [email protected] Spring 2017 Asbury 108A TTh 10:00-11:30 Hours: M 2:00-4:00, TTh 4:00-5:00 and by appointment Asbury 117 Web site: http://fs6.depauw.edu:50080/~sahus/ SYLLABUS A Short Description: President Trump’s January 29, 2017 controversial Executive Order to temporarily ban Muslims from seven majority-Muslim nations (Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) from entering the United States is part of the new administration’s pledge to wage a more aggressive campaign against terrorist groups worldwide. Terrorism has been a major security concern for the United States and NATO allies for more than fifteen years. While the U.S. fought two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) following the 9/11 attacks, killed Osama Bin Laden (in 2011), and significantly degraded al Qaeda, a new terrorist group, ISIS, more violent and brutal than al Qaeda, proclaimed a worldwide caliphate in June 2014 and now controls parts of Syria and Iraq. This course is designed to understand the phenomenon of contemporary terrorism, its cause, consequence, and the security challenge it poses to Western democracies, especially the United States. I have multiple objectives in this course. First, we will examine various definitions of terrorism and distinguish between political suicide, religious fanaticism, fighting for political freedom, and state-sponsored terrorism. Second, we will study the difference between state-sponsored terrorism during and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union employed terrorism as a form of low-intensity warfare to advance its interests at the expense of the United States and other Western democracies.
    [Show full text]
  • WHEN CIVILIANS ARE TARGETS What Will It Take to Stop the Carnage?
    Winners of the Overseas Press Club Awards 2017 Annual Edition DATELINE WHEN CIVILIANS ARE TARGETS What will it take to stop the carnage? DATELINE 2017 1 President’s Letter / dEIdRE dEPkE here is a theme to our gathering tonight at the 78th entries, narrowing them to our 22 winners. Our judging process was annual Overseas Press Club Gala, and it’s not an easy one. ably led by Scott Kraft of the Los Our work as journalists across the globe is under Angeles Times. Sarah Lubman headed our din- unprecedented and frightening attack. Since the conflict in ner committee, setting new records TSyria began in 2011, 107 journalists there have been killed, according the for participation. She was support- Committee to Protect Journalists. That’s more members of the press corps ed by Bill Holstein, past president of the OPC and current head of to die than were lost during 20 years of war in Vietnam. In the past year, the OPC Foundation’s board, and our colleagues also have been fatally targeted in Iraq, Yemen and Ukraine. assisted by her Brunswick colleague Beatriz Garcia. Since 2013, the Islamic State has captured or killed 11 journalists. Almost This outstanding issue of Date- 300 reporters, editors and photographers are being illegally detained by line was edited by Michael Serrill, a past president of the OPC. Vera governments around the world, with at least 81 journalists imprisoned Naughton is the designer (she also in Turkey alone. And at home, we have been labeled the “enemy of the recently updated the OPC logo).
    [Show full text]
  • The New York Times 2014 Innovation Report
    Innovation March 24, 2014 Executive Summary Innovation March 24, 2014 2 Executive Summary Introduction and Flipboard often get more traffic from Times journalism than we do. The New York Times is winning at journalism. Of all In contrast, over the last year The Times has the challenges facing a media company in the digi- watched readership fall significantly. Not only is the tal age, producing great journalism is the hardest. audience on our website shrinking but our audience Our daily report is deep, broad, smart and engaging on our smartphone apps has dipped, an extremely — and we’ve got a huge lead over the competition. worrying sign on a growing platform. At the same time, we are falling behind in a sec- Our core mission remains producing the world’s ond critical area: the art and science of getting our best journalism. But with the endless upheaval journalism to readers. We have always cared about in technology, reader habits and the entire busi- the reach and impact of our work, but we haven’t ness model, The Times needs to pursue smart new done enough to crack that code in the digital era. strategies for growing our audience. The urgency is This is where our competitors are pushing ahead only growing because digital media is getting more of us. The Washington Post and The Wall Street crowded, better funded and far more innovative. Journal have announced aggressive moves in re- The first section of this report explores in detail cent months to remake themselves for this age. First the need for the newsroom to take the lead in get- Look Media and Vox Media are creating newsrooms ting more readers to spend more time reading more custom-built for digital.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Watches the Watchmen? the Conflict Between National Security and Freedom of the Press
    WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO I see powerful echoes of what I personally experienced as Director of NSA and CIA. I only wish I had access to this fully developed intellectual framework and the courses of action it suggests while still in government. —General Michael V. Hayden (retired) Former Director of the CIA Director of the NSA e problem of secrecy is double edged and places key institutions and values of our democracy into collision. On the one hand, our country operates under a broad consensus that secrecy is antithetical to democratic rule and can encourage a variety of political deformations. But the obvious pitfalls are not the end of the story. A long list of abuses notwithstanding, secrecy, like openness, remains an essential prerequisite of self-governance. Ross’s study is a welcome and timely addition to the small body of literature examining this important subject. —Gabriel Schoenfeld Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law (W.W. Norton, May 2010). ? ? The topic of unauthorized disclosures continues to receive significant attention at the highest levels of government. In his book, Mr. Ross does an excellent job identifying the categories of harm to the intelligence community associated NI PRESS ROSS GARY with these disclosures. A detailed framework for addressing the issue is also proposed. This book is a must read for those concerned about the implications of unauthorized disclosures to U.S. national security. —William A. Parquette Foreign Denial and Deception Committee National Intelligence Council Gary Ross has pulled together in this splendid book all the raw material needed to spark a fresh discussion between the government and the media on how to function under our unique system of government in this ever-evolving information-rich environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibits Attached to Arguments on Admissibility, Declaration of Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad, and Declaration of Zahra Ahmed Mohamed
    BEFORE THE AFRICAN COMMISSION FOR HUMAN & PEOPLES’ RIGHTS 49th ORDINARY SESSION: APRIL-MAY 2011 COMMUNICATION NO. 383/2010 In the matter between: MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SALEH AL-ASAD and DJIBOUTI EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO ARGUMENTS ON ADMISSIBILITY, DECLARATION OF MOHAMMED ABDULLAH SALEH AL-ASAD, AND DECLARATION OF ZAHRA AHMED MOHAMED EXHIBITS The United Republic of Tanzania Departure Declaration Card, 27 December 2003…….A Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, On the Record: U.S. Disclosures on Rendition, Secret Detention, and Coercive Interrogation (New York: NYU School of Law, 2008)………………………………………………………………………………..B Letter to the Attorney General of Djibouti, 31 March 2009…….….…..…….…….….…C United Nations Human Rights Council, 13th Session, Joint Study on Global Practices in Relation to Secret Detention in the Context of Countering Terrorism, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/42 (19 February 2010)………………………………………………………. D Republic v. Director of Immigration Services, ex parte Mohammed al-Asad (Habeas Corpus petition), High Court of Tanzania, 17 June 2004………………………………...E Amnesty International, United States of America: Below the radar- Secret flights to torture and ‘disappearance,’ 5 April 2006……………………………………………….F Prepared Remarks of Treasury Secretary John Snow to Announce Joint U.S. and Saudi Action Against Four Branches of Al-Haramain in the Financial War on Terror, JS-1107, 22 January 2004…………………………………………………………………………..G Henry Lyimo, Guardian (Dar es Salaam), Yemenis, Italians Expelled, 30 December 2003…………………………………………………………………………………...….H Roderick Ndomba, Daily News (Dar es Salaam), Dar Deports 2,367 Aliens, 30 December 2003……...……………………………..………………………………………………….I International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody, 2007…………………………..……….……...J International Seismological Centre Earthquake Data…………………………………….K U.S.
    [Show full text]