Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Collecting information from Americans raises ongoing civil liberties concerns.
Those documents also reveal that a significant number of employees in DHS’s intelligence office have raised concerns that the work they are doing could be illegal.
Under the domestic-intelligence program, officials are allowed to seek interviews with just about anyone in the United States. That includes people held in immigrant detention centers, local jails, and federal prison. DHS’s intelligence professionals have to say they’re conducting intelligence interviews, and they have to tell the people they seek to interview that their participation is voluntary. But the fact that they’re allowed to go directly to incarcerated people — circumventing their lawyers — raises important civil liberties concerns, according to legal experts.
That specific element of the program, which has been in place for years, was paused last year because of internal concerns. DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which runs the program, uses it to gather information about threats to the U.S., including transnational drug trafficking and organized crime. But the fact that this low-profile office is collecting intelligence by questioning people in the U.S. is virtually unknown.
The inner workings of the program — called the “Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program” — are described in the large tranche of internal documents POLITICO reviewed from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. Those documents and additional interviews revealed widespread internal concerns about legally questionable tactics and political pressure. The documents also show that people working there fear punishment if they speak out about mismanagement and abuses.
One unnamed employee — quoted in an April 2021 document — said leadership of I…A’s Office of Regional Intelligence “is ‘shady’ and ‘runs like a corrupt government.’” Another document said some employees worried so much about the legality of their activities that they wanted their employer to cover legal liability insurance.
Carrie Bachner, formerly the career senior legislative adviser to the DHS under secretary for intelligence, said the fact that the agency is directly questioning Americans as part of a domestic-intelligence program is deeply concerning, given the history of scandals related to past domestic-intelligence programs by the FBI.
Bachner, who served as a DHS liaison with Capitol Hill from 2006 to 2010, said she told members of Congress “adamantly” — over and over and over again — that I…A didn’t collect intelligence in the U.S.
“I don’t know any counsel in their right mind that would sign off on that, and any member of Congress that would say, ‘That’s OK,’” said Bachner, who currently runs a consulting firm. “If these people are out there interviewing folks that still have constitutional privileges, without their lawyer present, that’s immoral.”
DHS Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Kenneth Wainstein, a former federal prosecutor who took the helm of I…A last June, said in a statement that his office is addressing its employees’ concerns. An I…A spokesperson provided POLITICO with a list of steps the office has taken since September 2020 to address internal complaints, including conducting a number of new trainings and hiring two full-time ombudsmen.
In its statement, I…A did not address the domestic-intelligence program. But POLITICO reviewed an email, sent last August, saying that the portion of the program involving interviews with prisoners who had received their Miranda rights was “temporarily halted” because of internal concerns.
“The true measure of a government organization is its ability to persevere through challenging times, openly acknowledge and learn from those challenges, and move forward in service of the American people,” Wainstein said in his statement. “The Office of Intelligence and Analysis has done just that over the past few years ... Together, we will ensure that our work is completely free from politicization, that our workforce feels free to raise all views and concerns, and that we continue to deliver the quality, objective intelligence that is so vital to our homeland security partners.”
‘A loophole that we exploit’
A key theme that emerges from internal documents is that in recent years, many people working at I…A have said they fear they are breaking the law.
POLITICO reviewed a slide deck titled “I…A Management Analysis … Assistance Program Survey Findings for FOD.” FOD refers to I…A’s Field Operations Division — now called the Office of Regional Intelligence — which is the largest part of the office, with personnel working around the country. Those officials work with state, local and private sector partners; collect intelligence; and analyze intelligence. When the U.S. faces a domestic crisis related to national security or public safety, people in this section are expected to be the first in I…A to know about it and then to relay what they learn to the office’s leadership. Their focuses include domestic terror attacks, cyber attacks, border security issues, and natural disasters, along with a host of other threats and challenges.
The survey described in the slide deck was conducted in April 2021. A person familiar with the survey said it asked respondents about events of 2020. Its findings were based on 126 responses. Half of the respondents said they’d alerted managers of their concerns that their work involved activity that was inappropriate or illegal. The slide deck seems to try to put a positive spin on this.
“There is an opportunity to work with employees to address concerns they have about the appropriateness or lawfulness of a work activity,” it reads.
“Half of the respondents have voiced to management a concern about this, many of whom feel their concern was not appropriately addressed.”
Other documents laid out concerns related to a specific internal dispute about how the law applies to I…A’s interactions with American citizens.
Three legal texts govern I…A’s activities: Title 50 of the U.S. Code, which lays out laws about national security; Executive Order 12333, which details how the Intelligence Community works; and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which set up the Department of Homeland Security. The U.S. intelligence agencies governed by Title 50 face strict rules related to intelligence activity in the U.S. or targeting U.S. citizens. Internally, many I…A personnel have raised concerns that they get asked to take steps that are inappropriate for a Title 50 agency.
On Nov. 12, 2020, barely a week after Election Day, Robin Taylor, then the director of I…A’s Field Operations Division, emailed to multiple officials a summary of 12 listening sessions that an internal employee watchdog had held with division employees.
Taylor’s email included a few lines referencing employees’ concerns about the scope and appropriateness of their work.
“Many taskings seem to be law enforcement matters and not for an intelligence organization,” read one portion, referring to assignments. “How is any of this related to our Title 50 authorities? Even if we are technically allowed to do this, should we? What was the intent of Congress when they created us? ‘Departmental Support’ seems like a loophole that we exploit to conduct questionable activities.”
Later in that document came a line that was even more bleak: “Showing where we provide value is very challenging.”
Taylor, who is no longer at I…A, could not be reached for comment.
Another document, with notes from listening sessions that the Ombudsman — an internal sounding board for employee concerns — held with Field Operations Division employees in late October of 2021, shows that concerns about Title 50 persisted into the Biden administration.
“I…A and FOD leadership don’t seem to understand how Title 50 applies to FOD, which causes conflicts,” the document says.
The document also suggests that some in the division feel that when it comes to determining their legal boundaries, they’re on their own.
“The liability for negative consequences of field employees’ activities in the field falls on them, even if they received supervisor and G4 approval for their activities,” the document states. “Employees recommended I…A provide field employees with professional liability insurance.”
In response, an I…A spokesperson pointed to I…A’s Intelligence Oversight Guidelines.
“Whether supporting a National or Departmental mission under Title 50 or Title 6, I…A’s activities are conducted according to its Intelligence Oversight Guidelines which appropriately restrict the collection, maintenance, and dissemination of U.S. persons information and place additional emphasis on preserving the privacy and civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. persons,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
The spokesperson also said I…A has implemented new training on intelligence legal authorities. And Steve Bunnell, DHS’s former general counsel, returned to the department to advise Wainstein and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on “the strategic direction of the organization and identify any areas of significant risk.”
Fears of Retaliation
The Management Analysis and Assistance Program survey slide deck from April 2021 details another prevalent concern: retaliation against people who speak out. Many employees didn’t even want to fill out a survey on working conditions because they feared being punished for sharing negative views, according to the document.
“Numerous narrative comments, as well as inquiries prior to taking the survey, indicate the members of the workforce did not want to provide feedback due to fear of retaliation,” it reads.
Taylor’s Nov. 12, 2020, email about listening sessions also painted a grim picture.
“Are these sessions pointless?” opened a section listing participants’ main concerns. “Some believed that the feedback would be used against them in their performance evaluations,” that section added.
And it reflected a low view of the division’s leaders.
“One individual said that FOD [Field Operations Division] leadership is ‘shady’ and ‘runs like a corrupt government,’” the document said, later suggesting that people who raise concerns could be punished with contentious assignments. “If you speak out, you’ll find yourself on the SW border or in Portland, recalled by FOD HQ, or moved,” it said. “If HQ finds out that you’ve spoken to others outside the Division (e.g. OCG, Ombuds), you’ll get in trouble.”
“OCG” appears to be a typo of the acronym for DHS’s Office of General Counsel. “Ombuds” refers to I…A’s ombudsman.
And employees didn’t see evidence that managers faced any punishment for engaging in retaliation. The document summarizing the Ombudsman’s October 2021 listening sessions reflects this.
“FOD and I…A leadership are not held professionally accountable — including for retaliation against employees, inexperience leading to poor decision-making, and a lack of transparency — and are not addressing issues revealed in crisis events they presided over.”
An I…A spokesperson said in a statement that the office has set up mandatory whistleblower protection training for all supervisors and managers, and also requires annual refresher training on the issue. This was one of many changes at I…A since September 2020, according to the statement. The office has also added “additional employee feedback mechanisms” so people working there can share concerns candidly and anonymously, according to the statement. And the office has “refreshed Intelligence Oversight training” for new hires, and has added monthly trainings on the topic that all employees can join. Live training is also available on request, according to the statement.
“I…A leadership clearly and repeatedly underscores the expectation that all I…A employees are empowered to express concern and professionally challenge their leadership, the Office of General Counsel, I…A’s Ombudsmen, and the Intelligence Oversight Officer without fear of retaliation,” the statement added.
Politicization
Another major concern: political pressure. An Intelligence Community Climate Survey Analysis for FY 2020, during the Trump administration, found that a “significant number of respondents cited concerns with politicization of analytic products and/or the perceptions of undue influence that may compromise the integrity of the work performed by employees. This concern touches on analytic topics, the review process, and the appropriate safeguards in place to protect against undue influence.”
The same document said that “a number of respondents expressed concerns/challenges with the quality and effectiveness of I…A senior leadership” including “inability to resist political pressure.”
The mistrust is pervasive, the document says.
“The workforce has a general mistrust of leadership resulting from orders to conduct activities they perceive to be inappropriate, bureaucratic, or political,” it reads. “They don’t believe they received convincing justification for these actions and the assuring words of leadership that we are operating within our authorized mission ring hollow when we are abruptly told to stop what we’re doing, leadership is removed, and outside investigators are brought in to audit our actions.”
Chad Wolf, who headed the Department of Homeland Security during the last year of the Trump administration, told POLITICO via email that I…A’s challenges have “largely stemmed from lack of proper leadership and a clearly defined mission.”
“I…A is part of the Intelligence Community but operates in a domestic environment and within a Department with specific operational, law enforcement based responsibilities,” he continued. “That is a unique role for a relatively young Department. The concept of I…A is sound but how it is put into practice and operationalized has proven difficult.”
From Trump to Biden
Some of the office’s problems appear to have continued under the Biden administration.
In an email on March 14, 2022, Deputy Under Secretary for Intelligence Enterprise Operations Stephanie Dobitsch passed along results from a survey of U.S. Intelligence Community employees focused on analytic objectivity and process. The survey was taken from Spring 2020 through May 2021, spanning much of the last year of the Trump administration and the first four months of Biden’s term. It shows that in numerous areas, people working at I…A were more concerned about their workplace than people working at other U.S. intelligence agencies. Those areas included “Experiences with Distortion/Suppression of Analysis.”
Dobitsch added in her email to multiple officials about the survey that “[p]rotecting bureaucratic interests surfaced as an important factor in the most significant distortion or suppression experience.” She added that I…A has “come a long way” in improving its analytic processes since the survey was conducted.
Dobitsch was connected to one of I…A’s biggest recent controversies: the decision in the summer of 2020, during the last year of the Trump administration, to direct I…A’s intelligence collectors to treat the protection of all public monuments, memorials, and statues as part of their mission.
On July 1, 2020, Dobitsch emailed out a “job aid” — meaning, an instruction document — from the office’s Intelligence Law Division about “I…A’s activities in furtherance of protecting American monuments, memorials, and statues and combating recent criminal violence.” At the time, Dobitsch was acting deputy under secretary for intelligence enterprise operations. Her email came at a tumultuous moment when people around the country had been tearing down statues of some American historical figures. In her email, Dobitsch told recipients to reach out to herself “or the attorneys” with any questions or concerns.
A few weeks later, on July 23, Dobitsch sent another email lamenting leaks about I…A’s activities related to Portland, Oregon, where large groups of people protesting the George Floyd murder surrounded the federal courthouse and clashed with police. She also praised the work I…A was doing there, and strongly defended it as fully within the office’s authority.
But problems were brewing. The following week, on July 30, The Washington Post reported that I…A had published intelligence reports on journalists covering the events in Portland. The next day, the Post reported that I…A had viewed protesters’ messages on the Telegram app, including communications about protest routes and avoiding police. DHS then used that information in intelligence reports that it shared with partners, according to the Post.
And on August 1, news broke that the then-head of I…A, Brian Murphy, was being ousted from that role. A top lawyer from the office, Joseph Maher — who would later go on to work on the Jan. 6 select committee — replaced him. And two weeks later, on August 14, Maher sent a message to the I…A workforce rescinding the job aid that Dobitsch had sent out.
“We have determined that in applying I…A’s collection and reporting authorities to ‘threats to damage or destroy any public monument, memorial, or statue’ [emphasis added] rather than to the narrower category of ‘threats to damage, destroy, or impede Federal Government Facilities, including National Monuments and Icons,’ the subject Job Aid created confusion where it was supposed to provide clarity,” read the message. “Although there is more than one view regarding I…A’s authorities in this area, we consider the narrower interpretation to better align with the threats of concern to I…A.”
It read as a major walk-back of the job aid that had been sent just a few weeks earlier — and an example of the kind of reversals that fuel employees’ fears about the quality of legal guidance they’re receiving. Dobitsch has since been hired permanently into the role that she held in an acting capacity during the Portland scandal.
Spencer Reynolds, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School and a former DHS intelligence and counterterrorism attorney, told POLITICO that I…A’s mission makes it uniquely susceptible to political pressure.
“In recent years, the office’s political leadership—Democrat and Republican—has pushed I…A to take a more and more expansive view of its mandate, putting officers in the position of surveilling Americans’ views and associations protected by the U.S. Constitution,” he emailed. “There’s a tendency to use the office’s power to paint political opponents—be they left-wing demonstrators or QAnon truthers—as extremists and dangerous. This has had a disastrous impact on morale—most people don’t join the Intelligence Community to monitor their fellow Americans’ political, religious, and social beliefs. At the same time, leadership has sidelined I…A’s oversight offices, leaving employees with little recourse.”
The I…A statement said the office has brought on a research director tasked with ensuring I…A’s products are free from political interference.
The office has also hosted sessions with an ombudsman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence focused on identifying, resisting, and reporting political pressure, according to the statement. The office has also “embedded Intelligence Oversight Personnel with I…A’s Open Source Intelligence team and widely communicated 24/7 points of contact for the Intelligence Law Division and Intelligence Oversight Officer.”
Domestic intelligence collection
The documents also cast light on the virtually unknown program run by the office that, in the views of some experts, raises civil liberties concerns: the Overt Human Intelligence Collection Program, abbreviated internally as OHIC.
POLITICO reviewed a document from 2016 detailing how the program should work, as well as emails from last year about pausing part of the program. These emails show that even though the program has been running for years, officials overseeing it still feel more guardrails may be needed to protect Americans’ rights.
Under the rules outlined in the document, the program’s intelligence-gathering can’t be done secretly. I…A employees are supposed to receive special training on collecting human intelligence, or HUMINT — meaning, intelligence that comes directly from people rather than from satellite images, intercepted emails, or other sources. Those collectors, after notifying their supervisors, arrange interviews with people they’d like to talk to. They can reach out to anyone, including government employees, people in the private sector, and — importantly — “[p]ersonnel in DHS administrative detention, FSLTT [Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial] law enforcement confidential informants, and personnel serving any type of criminal sentence who are incarcerated or on parole.”
DHS administrative detention includes immigrant detention centers around the country, as well as Customs and Border Protection facilities on the border.
I…A intelligence collectors can interview “willing sources who voluntarily share information,” the document says. Before asking questions, collectors must “explicitly state” that they work for DHS, that participation is voluntary, that the interviewer or interviewee can end the interview at any time, and that the interviewee has no special rights to review or control how I…A uses the information shared. Interviewers must also tell interviewees that they “will not exercise any preferential or prejudicial treatment in exchange for the source’s cooperation,” the document says.
There’s also a lot the interviewers can’t say, according to the document. They can’t make “any promises” in exchange for information, including promises of help with criminal justice or immigration proceedings. They also can’t imply that they hold “any sway over the deliberations of a judge, either criminal or immigration, or any government official with responsibilities related to the subject of the interview.” And they can’t “[c]oerce, threaten, or otherwise intimidate the source or any person or object of value to the source.” They also can’t “[t]ask the source to conduct any activities.”
The document doesn’t refer specifically to how interviewers should handle conversations with people who are jailed and awaiting trial. It doesn’t prohibit interviews with them. And the document doesn’t require that interviewers contact their lawyers before reaching out to prospective interviewees who are jailed and awaiting trial. A person familiar with how the program operates said I…A does not require its intelligence collectors to reach out to the lawyers of interview subjects who are incarcerated and awaiting trial.
Potential interview subjects in these situations face unique legal risks and opportunities when dealing with government officials. And there’s a standard practice for law enforcement officials when they want to talk to someone awaiting trial about topics related to their legal situations: These officials first ask for permission from their lawyers. In fact, legal ethics rules require that lawyers seeking to communicate with people who have lawyers talk to those people’s counsel, rather than the people themselves.
Adding another wrinkle to the I…A interviews with jailed people: The instruction document indicates that a law enforcement officer must be present when these interviews take place. It’s unclear what, if anything, keeps those officers from sharing what they overhear with prosecutors or investigators, or using it themselves — especially if interviewees’ lawyers aren’t aware that the conversations are happening and, therefore, can’t warn their clients of potential risks.
Bachner, the former DHS official, said incarcerated people likely feel alarmed when approached by U.S. intelligence officials who want to question them and may feel compelled to cooperate even if told otherwise.
“If you’re a prisoner and somebody says that, you’re scared,” she said.
She added that the practice raises a host of other questions.
“What do they do with that information they collect, and is it legal?” she said. “Where do they store that information?”
In I…A, there are also concerns about the program. In August 2022, an I…A official emailed personnel there telling them to temporarily stop interviewing jailed people who were awaiting trial and had been read their Miranda rights.
“[Office of Regional Intelligence] leadership is asking collectors to temporarily halt all engagements/debriefings/interviews of mirandized individuals who are in pre-trial/pre-conviction detention [bold and italics in original text],” wrote Peter Kreitner, the acting deputy chief of a team in I…A’s Office of Regional Intelligence.
Kreitner noted that the pause came in the wake of a meeting with DHS’s Intelligence Law Division and I…A’s Intelligence Oversight Office, an internal watchdog.
“This decision is out of an abundance of caution with the intent to clearly identify and define the procedures for collection activities of this nature,” Kreitner’s email continued, adding that “a final decision and follow-on guidance will be issued.”
Professor Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, who specializes in criminal procedure, said that having government officials interview jailed, pre-trial people without their lawyers present is “precarious.”
“When they go in to talk to somebody, the ordinary course is to get the permission of that person’s lawyer once they’ve been formally charged, period,” she said.
“There’s also the appearance of not adhering to our ordinary practices of protecting people’s constitutional rights,” Levenson continued. “And that’s a broader concern. That’s why I applaud those who say, ‘Let’s put a pause on this and see what we’re doing, see what the normal rules are, and see what the limitations would be on doing these interviews without going through counsel.’”
Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, said DHS’s human-intelligence program raises serious concerns.
“DHS should not be questioning people in immigration or criminal detention for ‘human intelligence’ purposes without far stronger safeguards for their rights,” Toomey said. “While this questioning is purportedly voluntary, DHS’s policy ignores the coercive environment these individuals are held in. It fails to ensure that individuals have a lawyer present, and it does nothing to prevent the government from using a person’s words against them in court.”
Another element: People facing criminal charges often share information with the government in hopes of receiving leniency at sentencing. By participating in intelligence interviews without their lawyers’ guidance, those opportunities could evaporate. And the policy specifically says I…A collectors can’t provide any help to the people they interview in exchange for information.
Much remains unknown about the program and its impact — both on the people its collectors question and on any benefits it provides for U.S. national security.
“‘Collecting’ and ‘HUMINT’ are two words that should never be associated with I…A, never,” said Bachner. “It should be ‘analytics’ and ‘state and local support.’ That’s what should be associated with I…A.”
I…A did not provide comment specifically on the overt HUMINT collection program. It is not known how many people conduct interviews under the program, how many people they interview per year, and how many of those interviewees are incarcerated.
The partial halt of the human-intelligence collection program as described in Kreitner’s email, coming amid the further concerns about the legality of I…A’s activities expressed in internal surveys, underscores the challenges facing Wainstein and other I…A leaders. And, according to Reynolds, the former I…A lawyer now at the Brennan Center, the office needs to take meaningful steps to reassure the public and congressional watchdogs.
“I…A needs to refocus its approach, stop basing its intelligence activities on the constitutionally protected views of Americans, and stop treating vandalism and fistfights as terrorism,” he said. “It needs meaningful engagement with its oversight offices and to listen to its personnel when they voice their concerns.”
READ MORE 
Ukrainian servicemen fire a 2S5 Giatsint-S self-propelled howitzer towards Russian troops outside the frontline town of Bakhmut, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Donetsk region, Ukraine March 5, 2023. (photo: Anna Kudriavtseva/Reuters)
If Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin's claim is true, it would mean Russian forces now control nearly half the city in their costly push to secure their first big victory in several months.
But as one of the bloodiest battles of the year-long war ground on amid the ruins, Ukrainian defenders remained defiant.
Last week they appeared to be preparing for a tactical retreat from Bakhmut, but Ukrainian military and political leaders now speak of hanging on to positions and inflicting as many casualties as possible on the Russians.
The General Staff of Ukraine's armed forces said in its Wednesday morning report: "The enemy, despite significant losses, continues to storm the town of Bakhmut."
Prigozhin said his fighters, who have been spearheading the Russian assault on Bakhmut, had now captured the city's east.
"Everything east of the Bakhmutka River is completely under the control of Wagner," Prigozhin said on Telegram.
The river bisects Bakhmut, which sits on the edge of a swathe of Donetsk province that is already largely under Russian occupation. The city centre is on the west side of the river.
Prigozhin has issued premature success claims before and Reuters was not able to verify his latest one.
But in Stockholm, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg struck a pessimistic note. Speaking before an European Union defence ministers' meeting, he said Russia was throwing more troops into the battle.
"They have suffered big losses, but at the same time we cannot rule out that Bakhmut may eventually fall in the coming days," Stoltenberg said.
This would not necessarily be a turning point in the war, he added, but it showed "we should not underestimate Russia, we must continue to provide support to Ukraine".
The Ukrainian military said earlier the main task of its troops in Bakhmut was to cause as many casualties as possible among the Russians and grind down their fighting capability.
DEVASTATED CITIES
Russia, which claims to have annexed nearly 20% of Ukraine's territory, says that taking Bakhmut would be a step towards seizing the whole of the eastern industrial Donbas region, made up of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces.
Western analysts say Bakhmut has little strategic value although its capture would be a boost to President Vladimir Putin and his military after a series of setbacks in what they call their "special military operation" in Ukraine.
Kyiv says the losses suffered by Russia there could determine the course of the war, with decisive battles expected when the weather improves and Ukraine receives more Western military aid, including heavy battle tanks.
The months of warfare in the east have been among the deadliest and most destructive since Russia invaded in February last year, adding Bakhmut's name to a list of devastated cities such as Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk.
A Ukrainian military drone showed the scale of destruction in Bakhmut, filming apartment blocks on fire and smoke billowing from residential areas.
Iryna Vereshchuk, a deputy Ukrainian premier, said fewer than 4,000 civilians - including 38 children - out of a pre-war population of some 70,000 remained in the city, now largely in ruins after months of bombardment.
"The situation in the city is difficult. The enemy actively storms our positions. However, they don't have any success and suffer colossal losses," a Ukrainian border guard said in a video released by the State Border Service.
"The city stands, because Bakhmut was, is, and will be Ukraine."
Luhansk Governor Serhiy Haidai said Russia's strategy in eastern Ukraine was to take the remaining areas of Donetsk and Luhansk that it does not control.
"As for tactics - they understand that they are not able to make any rapid advance, so they have one tactic - they advance where they can. If they see that there is any success somewhere, they throw all the reserves into it," he told Ukrainian TV.
MORE SHELLS
In Stockholm, EU defence ministers were meeting to discuss further arms supplies to Kyiv. Shipments of battle tanks and artillery are already in the pipeline but it could take months before they can be put into action on the front lines.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov said Kyiv urgently needed huge supplies of artillery shells to mount a general counter-offensive against Russia's army.
He urged EU members to support an Estonian plan for joint procurement of munitions.
Ukraine is burning through shells faster than its allies can manufacture them and Reznikov said Kyiv wanted 90,000-100,000 artillery rounds per month.
He said he supported a proposal by Estonia for EU countries to club together to buy 1 million 155-millimetre shells for Ukraine this year at a cost of 4 billion euros ($4.22 billion).
"We need to move forward as soon as possible," Reznikov told reporters before the meeting.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said it would take time for industry to ramp up capacity to meet higher demand.
READ MORE 
A protester scuffle with Police officers in riot gear during an anti-racism protest, in Brussels, on June 7, 2020, as part of a weekend of 'Black Lives Matter' worldwide protests against racism and police brutality in the wake of the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man killed while apprehended by police in Minneapolis, US. (photo: Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP)
As it turns out, the situation was not uncommon. Oftentimes, Schwartz says, "the information from lawsuits goes back and forth from the city attorney's offices, but that information doesn't make its way over to the police department, officers and officials."
Schwartz describes "silos" that exist between police departments and the attorneys who represent offices in civil suits. She says attorneys sometimes withhold information from police departments because they're afraid that details of prior wrongdoing will create increased legal liability. Other times, the information isn't passed on because attorneys assume the details aren't valuable — "that it is just a plaintiff trying to make a buck," Schwartz says.
In her new book, Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable, Schwartz examines the legal protections — including qualified immunity and no-knock warrants — that have protected officers from the repercussions of abuse. She makes the case that true reform will require local police departments to gather and analyze information about the lawsuits brought against them — and to assume the cost of any settlements.
When local governments require police departments to pay settlements against their officers, it can create a financial incentive for reform: "If departments knew that they would have extra resources if they decreased the size of settlements and judgments in these cases, they might have an incentive to take better care and account of what their officers are doing," she says.
Interview highlights
On the origins of policing differing by location in the U.S.
You might imagine that policing in the United States has a single origin story, but there's actually multiple origin stories based on geography. In the South, policing was really an outgrowth of slave patrols, ... immediately and initially focused on the subjugation of Black people. In the South and the Southwest, the Texas Rangers were sort of the initial police law enforcement entity, and they, in their role, ended up killing thousands of Mexicans, Mexican Americans and indigenous people. In the North, police were really modeled on the London policing apparatus, and those police officers also abused their power. But in the North, there was more focus and attention on immigrants and other members of the working class. But in each of those origin stories, subjugation and violence against disempowered groups is a constant.
On policing in the North
I think that the expectation, certainly for those who have not researched in this area, was that the South was this place of real racial misconduct, violence, horror inflicted by the Ku Klux Klan and by law enforcement, and that the North was somehow a safer, kinder place for Black people to live. And I think that was a belief that inspired the Great Migration and inspired Black Americans to move to the North. But looking at the history of policing in the 20th century in America, you come quickly to learn that police in the North had plenty of their own problems as well, and were using unconstitutional force, arresting people and assaulting people, particularly those Black Americans who came from the South to the North.
On how the Fourth Amendment is used as a shield for officers
I focus in the book on the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is often the basis for civil rights claims against law enforcement officers. It covers claims of unlawful arrest, unlawful searches, as well as the use of force. If you think of the phrase "unreasonable searches and seizures" and what you think that might mean, certainly when I listen to that phrase and think about what it might mean, I think about the perspective of the individual. If I was sitting in my living room doing nothing wrong and police officers barged into my home and shot me, I would think that that was patently unreasonable. I had done nothing wrong. But the way in which the Supreme Court interprets "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment is focused far more on what the police officer was thinking at the time, whether it was reasonable for them to search, arrest or use force. And the Supreme Court, in multiple opinions, has authorized, allowed, condoned officers to use force or arrest or search someone who has done nothing wrong. So long as they thought that what they were doing was reasonable in the moment, that officer has not violated the Constitution.
On how the officer's race is often inconsequential in abuse cases
The data that we have available suggests that people who are victims of police misconduct are disproportionately Black and Latino and indigenous. There's not the same evidence suggesting that the race of the officer determines whether or not they use inappropriate force or engage in misconduct in other kinds of ways. And I think that that observation indicates the deeper systemic issues with police misconduct and brutality. I think at a different time in police reform conversations, it was imagined that hiring a more diverse police force would solve the problems in policing. And we can see that certainly that alone does not solve the issues, particularly because there is a deeper systemic pathology that leads to this kind of violence.
On rethinking — rather than defunding — the police
I think that police do serve an important role in our society. I think that there are a lot of good police officers out there, and my focus — and it's a place where I hope we can reach agreement — is that police do sometimes abuse their power. They do sometimes act in ways that violate the Constitution — and we should have a system that works to create accountability and justice in those circumstances. When you talk to police officers, when police officers are surveyed about this, good officers want bad officers to be punished as well. They want a fair system, but a system that actually does provide justice to victims of misconduct. ...
I do think that there are important ways to to think about policing, to rethink policing, to do things like limiting traffic stops, to do things like having mental health professionals respond to people who are in mental health crises. I think that we can work to try to make all of those kinds of changes. And my hope is that we could do that without then getting into a fight about defund or abolition. Let's try to make these changes and see how our system can improve.
READ MORE 
Hundreds of people march to protest ‘Cop City’ in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday. (photo: Steve Eberhardt/Zuma Press Wire/Rex/Shutterstock)
Move follows violent weekend clash at proposed construction site of Georgia police training facility in forest
As a “week of action” against “Cop City” unfolds, the charges amplify alarm from activists and experts that Georgia authorities would rely on charging demonstrators with domestic terrorism as a way to suppress opposition.
To them, the pursuit of such charges – paired with correspondingly strident rhetoric from police and politicians – represents an attempt to redefine largely peaceful environmental activism as dangerous opposition worthy of criminal charges. Six activists were arrested in January and charged under Georgia’s domestic terrorism statute, marking the first time state law had been used this way in the history of environmental movements in the US.
An Atlanta attorney representing some of the activists, Eli Bennett, told the Guardian in January that the state’s statute was “overly vague”, adding that pursuing charges amounted to “trying to turn a political movement into a criminal organization”.
The clash came less than two months after police shot and killed environmental activist Manuel Paez Terán, known by their chosen name “Tortuguita”, who had been one of dozens of demonstrators camped at the site in protest against the project. The multimillion-dollar project on at least 85 acres of land, largely financed by the Atlanta Police Foundation, is nestled in the South River forest – known by activists as the “Weelaunee forest” – and would sit in an area bordering a Black working-class neighborhood. The site had once been a state prison farm.
Dozens of officers from the Atlanta and DeKalb county police departments, the Georgia bureau of investigation (GBI), the Georgia state patrol and possibly the FBI swept through the forest with the goal of clearing activists when Paez was killed, the Guardian has reported. Officials claimed that Paez had shot at a state trooper first “without warning”, although they have yet to release evidence to back that claim, the Guardian has reported.
The unprecedented killing of an environmental activist by US police escalated tensions between activists and authorities, thrusting the movement that had started in 2021 into the national and international spotlight. Police have arrested 18 activists on Georgia’s “domestic terrorism” charges, raising concern among activists over whether demonstrations this week would result in further arrests.
On Sunday, police say a group of protesters dressed in black left the South River music festival and entered the construction site at about 5.30pm.
Video footage released by the Atlanta police department showed that the protesters tossed molotov cocktails as well as large bricks and set off fireworks at police officers while they attempted to ignite construction equipment.
Atlanta’s police chief, Darin Schierbaum, described the clash as a “coordinated, criminal attack against officers”, adding: “Actions such as this will not be tolerated. When you attack law enforcement officers, when you damage equipment – you are breaking the law.”
In a statement, police said that they detained 35 people, noting that officers “exercised restraint and used non-lethal enforcement to conduct arrests”. Of the 23 people charged on Monday, all but two were described as being from outside the state of Georgia, the Atlanta news station WSB-TV reported.
On Saturday, demonstrators – including environmental activists, clergy and families – gathered for peaceful protests, marching and chanting “stop Cop City”, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Local organizers led tours of the forest to highlight the need for land preservation.
Beyond the police training facility, which would be the largest in the US, a movie studio is also proposed to be built on 40 acres of forest land. A lawsuit from environmental activists has blocked that project at the moment.
Local pastor Chad Hale told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution he was disappointed that Atlanta’s city council approved the project. “For us to get more and more militarized is not a good direction – it’s the most uncreative way to approach crime,” he said.
Demonstrations by the Defend the Atlanta Forest campaign, as well as by other racial justice groups such as Black Voters Matter and the Movement for Black Lives, are expected to continue in Atlanta throughout the week. In a statement to WSB-TV, the group Defend the Atlanta Forest described “Cop City” as an illegitimate project that was “widely opposed by Atlantans”.
“It continues to be widely opposed by Atlantans,” the group’s statement added. “The civil rights violations committed by police today reaffirms that this cop training facility should never be built.
“We stand steadfast in our conviction to build a new world in which all people are safe from police terror.”
READ MORE 
People gather along a road during an Israeli army raid in Jenin. (photo: Jaafar Ashtiyeh/AFP)
At least 11 people wounded, including two with serious injuries, the Palestinian health ministry says.
Two of the wounded people had serious injuries, the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.
Witnesses told AFP news agency that a house was besieged by the Israeli forces and hit with rockets. Footage circulating on social media showed helicopters over a column of military vehicles entering the city.
Israeli authorities said one of the Palestinian men they killed was behind the shooting of two brothers from an illegal settlement near the Palestinian village of Huwara last week.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said troops had “eliminated” the gunman who last month killed two Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
Al Jazeera’s Sara Khairat, reporting from Ramallah, said that another raid by Israeli forces was also carried out on Tuesday evening in another refugee camp south of Nablus.
The army entered a building in the Askar refugee camp and arrested three men, including two sons of a 49-year-old man killed in Jenin.
Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, called the use of rockets in Jenin on Tuesday an act of “all-out war”, Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.
Abu Rudeineh accused the Israeli government of being “responsible for this dangerous escalation which threatens to inflame the situation and destroy all efforts aimed at restoring stability”.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken overnight reiterated calls for both sides to de-escalate tensions in the West Bank, and the violence is also expected to be raised by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin when he visits Israel this week.
However, there has been no sign of any let up in the violence, ahead of the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the Jewish Passover festival.
Overnight on Monday, Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians in the village of Huwara, the scene of a violent rampage last week by dozens of settlers seeking revenge for the shooting of the two Israelis as they sat in their car.
Israeli army and border police forces dispersed crowds of what the military described as “a number of violent rioters” in Huwara. Videos shared on social media showed a group of black-clad youths attacking a Palestinian car before its driver managed to pull away.
“My wife was sitting in the back and she hugged our daughter to cover her,” said Omar Khalifa, who had just finished shopping at a supermarket and was in the car with his family when they were attacked.
“We could have lost her. There was real danger to our lives.”
Other footage appeared to show Israeli soldiers dancing together with Jewish settlers in the town on what was the Jewish festival of Purim. “Huwara has been conquered, gentlemen!” a voice is heard saying in Hebrew.
Israel’s military did not address a question about the footage of its soldiers dancing with settlers when it responded to a request for information on the incident from Reuters.
Last week, settlers torched dozens of cars and houses in Huwara after two brothers were shot by a Palestinian gunman as they sat in their car at a checkpoint nearby.
The rampage, described as a “pogrom” by a senior Israeli commander, triggered worldwide outrage and condemnation, which was increased when ultra-nationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has responsibility for aspects of the West Bank administration, said Huwara should be “erased”. Smotrich later offered a partial retraction.
Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said that Israel’s violent repression will do little to quash Palestinian resistance.
“The idea that you can simply contain Jenin by more violence has proven to be wrong over the years and decades. The refugee camps and the cities that the Israeli attack the most, where it killed the most, have turned to be the most important symbols of Palestinian resistance,” Bishara said.
“Hebron or Gaza or Jenin and others have proven to be the most resistant, the most steadfast, and we’re going to continue to see more Israeli raids, more Palestinian resistance, the cycle will continue.”
Settlers have killed at least five Palestinians in 2023 so far, while Israeli forces have killed at least 68 Palestinians this year. In the same period, 13 Israelis and one Ukrainian woman have been killed in apparently uncoordinated attacks.
READ MORE 
Tucker Carlson, host of 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' poses for photos in a Fox News Channel studio, in New York. (photo: Richard Drew/AP)
In legal filings made public Tuesday as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against the right-wing channel, a trove of private text messages, emails, and deposition transcripts offered a new look at how the sausage is made behind the scenes at the channel — and it is ugly.
The filings expose the face of the network, Tucker Carlson, as a fraud. They show that Rupert Murdoch rejected conspiracy theories about Dominion, despite allowing them to be promoted on his network. And they show the contempt that hosts like Sean Hannity have for some of their colleagues who tried to tell the truth about what actually transpired in the 2020 election.
The legal filings total hundreds and hundreds of pages. Journalists will unquestionably be sifting through them for days and weeks to come. But here are some immediate takeaways:
- Carlson “passionately” hates Trump: In a number of private text messages, Carlson was harshly critical of Trump. In one November 2020 exchange, Carlson said Trump’s decision to snub Joe Biden’s inauguration was “so destructive.” Carlson added that Trump’s post-election behavior was “disgusting” and that he was “trying to look away.” In another text message conversation, two days before the January 6 attack, Carlson said, “We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can’t wait.” Carlson added of Trump, “I hate him passionately.” The Fox host said of the Trump presidency, “That’s the last four years. We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There isn’t really an upside to Trump.”
- Murdoch rejected conspiracies: In his January deposition, Murdoch was repeatedly asked about various electronic voting conspiracy theories — and he rejected all of them. “You’ve never believed that Dominion was involved in an effort to delegitimize and destroy votes for Donald Trump, correct?” a Dominion lawyer asked at one point. “I’m open to persuasion; but, no, I’ve never seen it,” Murdoch replied.
- Top hosts probably ” went too far”: In an email to Fox News chief executive Suzanne Scott, Murdoch conceded that some of his top hosts probably crossed the line in the aftermath of the 2020 election. “Maybe Sean [Hannity] and Laura [Ingraham] went too far,” Murdoch wrote Scott, in an apparent reference to election denialism after Trump’s loss.
- Fury at Fox News’ decision desk: Murdoch lashed out in an email on November 7, 2020, over an imminent decision by Fox News to project that Biden would become the next president. “CNN declares and FOX coming in minutes,” Murdoch wrote to former New York Post editor-in-chief Col Allan. “I hate our Decision Desk people! And pollsters! Some of the same people I think. Just for the hell of it still praying for Az to prove them wrong!,” he said in reference to Biden’s victory over Trump.
- Murdoch wanted to “help” his friend Jared Kushner: In his deposition, Murdoch was asked why he divulged confidential campaign ad information to Kushner. “I was trying to help Mr. Kushner,” Murdoch said. “he’s a friend of mine.”
- Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham discussed their power: In a group text message, the Fox News prime time bloc, concerned about losing viewers and upset about the direction the network was going, talked about flexing their muscle. “I think the three of us have enormous power,” Ingraham texted, adding that they have “more power than we know or exercise.” She continued, “we should think about how together we can force a change.” Hannity said he had to hop on calls but urged Ingraham to “keep thinking.” Carlson said that “the first thing” they needed to do is “exactly what we want to do.” Carlson added in another message to the group, “We are all officially working for an organization that hates us.”
- Hannity and Doocy mocked Fox’s journalists: In a series of November 2020 text messages, Hannity and Steve Doocy attacked the reporting from their colleagues on the so-called “straight news” side of the network. “‘News’ destroyed us,” Hannity complained. “Every day,” Doocy replied. “You don’t piss off the base,” Hannity said. “They don’t care. They are JOURNALISTS,” Doocy texted back. Hannity said he has “warned” people at the network “for years” and there is “NOTHING we can do to fix it.”
- Bartiromo refused to call Biden President-elect: In text messages to Steve Bannon, after the election had been called for Biden, Bartiromo said she had instructed her staff to not refer to the Democrat as President-elect. “I want to see massive fraud exposed … I told my team we are not allowed to say pres elect at [all]. Not in scripts or in banners on air. Until this moves through the courts,” Bartiromo wrote, saying she is “scared … sad.” Bannon said she is a “fighter” and that the movement needed her. “Ok,” Bartiromo replied.
- Fox D.C. chief decried “existential crisis” at network: More than a month after the 2020 election, then-Fox News DC Managing Editor Bill Sammon decried the network’s coverage of false election claims in private messages to a colleague, fearing it had become an “existential crisis” for the right-wing channel. “It’s remarkable how weak ratings makes good journalists do bad things,” Sammon wrote then-political editor Chris Stirewalt. Stirewalt replied, “It’s a real mess.”
READ MORE 
A green sea turtle and fish swimming among coral in Sipidan Island, Malaysia. (photo: David Fleetham/VW PICS/Universal Images Group)
Wording on the High Seas Treaty agreement was reached Saturday at the United Nations in New York City after a marathon 38 hours of talks. The negotiations began in 2004.
The landmark treaty, which has not yet been ratified, aims to put 30% of the world's ocean area into protected areas to preserve marine life and allow it to recuperate. More than 8% of marine species are now on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, meaning they're threatened or endangered.
That includes some species of whales, dolphins, manatees, tuna, basking sharks and turtles.
Here's what to know about the new High Seas Treaty:
What is the new treaty for the world's oceans?
An agreement on the High Seas Treaty, which has been under discussion since 2004, was reached on Saturday at U.N. headquarters in New York.
Costal nations' legal authority extends to 200 nautical miles off their shores, an area known as the "exclusive economic zone." The treaty would not interfere in those areas but instead would cover the two-thirds of Earth's open oceans considered international waters.
Negotiations had taken decades in part because of disagreements over funding, fishing and mineral rights.
The treaty, if ratified, would:
- Put 30% of the world's seas into Marine Protected Areas.
- Direct more money into marine conservation.
- Create new rules for seafloor mining.
What will the High Seas treaty replace?
The previous U.N. ocean treaty – the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea – was signed in 1982. It established "the high seas," international waters that are open to fishing, shipping and research by all nations.
It also protected about 1.2% of that area to provide refuges for marine life.
Since then, overfishing, climate change, and dredging and ocean mining for minerals have all damaged the health of the world's oceans. In 1980, the world's population was 4.4 billion. Today it's 8 billion.
What would the new protected areas in the ocean mean?
The agreement organizes and in some cases limits what can be done in the protected areas, which have not yet been mapped or established. That would include:
- Fishing limits.
- Setting routes for fishing lanes.
- Regulation and oversight of deep-sea mining.
When would the treaty take effect?
The treaty language was hammered out by the United Nations' 193 member states. The process of getting the treaty formally adopted is expected to take years. The United States especially has historically been slow to approve environmental treaties.
Why is it important to protect the world's oceans?
The world's oceans are crucial to all life on Earth. They cover 70% of the planet's surface, provide half our oxygen, contain 95% of global wildlife and soak up carbon dioxide.
Because no one controls or owns the high seas, it has been "first come, first served" for their riches. Oceans provide 17% of the production of global animal protein and hold 97% of all Earth's water. Almost 90% of global trade is conducted on sea routes.
The treaty language agreement is a victory "for global efforts to counter the destructive trends facing ocean health, now and for generations to come,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.