More stories

  • in

    Avril Haines's unusual backstory makes her an unlikely chief of US intelligence

    Avril Haines, who now oversees all 16 US intelligence agencies, is unlike any of the spies who came before her, and not just because she is the country’s first female director of national intelligence.She is also the first intelligence chief to have to make an emergency landing while trying to cross the Atlantic in a tiny plane; the first to take a year out in Japan to learn judo; and surely the first anywhere in the world to have owned a cafe-bookstore that staged frequent erotica nights.“What’s interesting about Avril is that she’s just a voraciously curious person who will throw herself into whatever she’s doing,” said Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama’s former speechwriter and foreign policy aide who is a close friend of Haines.The Haines backstory makes her an unlikely spy, but proved no obstacle to getting bipartisan support. She was the first Biden nominee to be confirmed, with 84-10 Senate vote on Wednesday night.David Priess, a former CIA official now chief operating officer at the Lawfare Institute, said her unusual life story is an advantage in the world of espionage.“She has to be able to understand and to lead everyone from analysts to intelligence collectors to engineers to pilots to disguise artists to accountants,” Priess said.“Having that diverse set of experiences very much helps her to lead the very diverse and disparate intelligence community.”Haines’ period of lifestyle experimentation anyway ended decades ago, in 1998 when she started a law degree. Since then she has been a legal counsel in the Senate, state department and White House, the deputy director of the CIA and deputy national security adviser.Senate Republicans, who had confirmed her Trump-appointed predecessor, John Ratcliffe, despite his lack of any significant experience in intelligence and his exaggeration of his previous brushes with security work, had few excuses to oppose her.The main source of scepticism comes from human rights activists, over whether she might be too much of an insider, with too much baggage. She redacted the report on torture – some argue over-redacted it – and she codified a set of procedures and rules for the use of drone strikes in the assassinations of terror suspects.Early lifeThere is little in Haines’ early life to suggest a trajectory towards national security and intelligence. She grew up in an apartment on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, the daughter of a biochemist, Thomas Haines and a painter, Adrian Rappin. Rappin fell seriously ill with lung disease when Avril was 12, and she spent four of her early teenage years as her mother’s principal carer until her death in 1985.According to an account in Newsweek, the family was forced to give up their apartment under the relentless pressure of medical costs, and had to move around the homes of friends and relatives. By the time she left high school, the teenage Haines was so spent, she deferred college for a year and instead went to study judo at Tokyo’s Kodokan Institute, where she rose to a brown beltOn her return to the US, she studied theoretical physics at the University of Chicago and to help make ends meet, worked as a car mechanic, rebuilding car engines, and while at university, she was knocked off her bicycle by a car and left with a serious injury that continues to dog her.Undeterred, she plunged into her next dream project, restoring a second-hand plane and flying it to Europe. With her flight instructor she found a 1961 Cessna and rebuilt its navigation, communication and other electronic systems, before taking off from Bangor, Maine, with long-distance fuel tanks strapped to the fuselage.Not long into the flight, however, the Cessna began to take on ice and then both engines stopped. They had to glide low over the Labrador Sea, and were lucky to find a small airfield on the Newfoundland coast, where they made an emergency landing, and where they looked after for a week in the local community until the weather improved. Haines’ friends confirmed they believed the Newsweek account of the adventure to be accurate.One upshot of the failed adventure was that Haines married her instructor, David Davighi. They moved to Baltimore, and though the initial plan was for her to go back to school and for him to work as a pilot, another inspiration took them in a different direction entirely.They saw a newspaper advertisement for a bar-brothel that had been seized in a drugs raid and was being auctioned off. They bought it, selling the Cessna and going into debt to refashion it as Adrian’s Book Café, in honour of Haines’ mother.In Fells Point, a formerly dodgy area of Baltimore that was gentrifying, the shop succeeded, through hard work and innovations like erotic literature evenings upstairs in the former brothel, where Haines would read extracts.She defined the genre to the Baltimore Sun in 1995 as as “everything that’s repressed, guttural, instinctual, chaotic and creative.”“Erotica has become more prevalent because people are trying to have sex without having sex,” Haines said. “Others are trying to find new fantasies to make their monogamous relationships more satisfying … What the erotic offers is spontaneity, twists and turns. And it affects everyone.”Change of directionThe bank offered more launches to expand the franchise but by then, Haines had changed direction again. Community organising had got her interested in the law and in 1998 she enrolled at Georgetown University, where she came to specialise in human rights and international law.To Haines’ detractors, those were ironic choices in light of her later associations with two of the biggest stains on the US record after 9/11: torture and drones.Much of her work in the Obama national security council involved writing up a “playbook” which codified criteria for drone strikes, which the administration relied on increasingly to target leading members of terrorist groups.Her former colleagues however, insist that Haines played an important role in limiting the use of drones, challenging top officials in the Obama administration to prove that a target represented a genuine threat.“Avril really spearheaded the efforts that impose limits on the use of drones, the standard for avoiding civilian casualties, a more controlled process for determining who could be targeted,” Rhodes said.“Many people didn’t want those rules written down, because they thought by specifying things that would limit their options,” another former senior official, who did not want to be named, said. “I’ve seen her speak to power over and over and over again, in situations where I’ve seen many other people chicken out.”Obama administrationThere are other criticisms of Haines’ tenure as deputy CIA director. She arrived in 2013 when the Obama administration was still bogged down in dealing with the aftermath of its predecessor’s use of torture against terror suspects.In 2015, Haines had to decide what to do about CIA officials who had hacked into the computers of Senate intelligence committee staffers who had been compiling a comprehensive report on torture, and even drummed up spurious criminal cases against them. She overrode the advice of the CIA inspector general and recommended against disciplinary action.“No one was held accountable for that and Haines apparently thinks that is an okay resolution to the matter,” Daniel Jones, the Senate report’s lead author who was one of the targets of the CIA reprisals. “Many people have nothing but great things to say about her, but that is a massive blind spot which is kind of unforgivable.”When the Senate report by Jones and his team was finished, it was Haines who had the job of redacting it. By the time she was done, only 525 pages of the 6,700 total were released.“When Obama came into office he signed an executive order that explicitly stated that you could not classify information that was simply embarrassing,” Jones said. “I feel strongly that she advocated for redactions that were not consistent with Obama’s executive order.”Haines’ role in the torture report, on the other hand, has probably strengthened her standing in the intelligence community, where she might otherwise be viewed as an outsider without experience in the field.What counts even more though, is her previous relationship with the president, something none of her predecessors had. That alone could make her one of the more powerful directors of national intelligence.“I was in the PDB [president’s daily brief] every morning with her for the last couple of years [of the Obama administration] when she was deputy national security adviser, and so was Biden,” Rhodes said. “Presumably now as DNI, she could be the person briefing Biden every morning on intelligence matters.” More

  • in

    Joe Biden picks veteran diplomat William Burns as CIA director

    The veteran diplomat William Burns is to become the new director of the CIA, Joe Biden announced on Monday, in an “apolitical” appointment that marks a clear break with the partisan use of intelligence under Donald Trump.The US president-elect hailed Burns as an “exemplary diplomat” and said that the American people will be able to “sleep soundly with him as our next CIA director”. If confirmed, Burns would become the first leader in the agency’s history whose career was spent at the US state department.A former ambassador to Russia and Jordan, Burns led the US delegation in secret talks in 2013 with Iran over its nuclear programme. He has served under Republican and Democratic presidents and is expected to gain some bipartisan support. In 2014 he retired from the foreign service to run the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace.Burns is a well-regarded figure in diplomatic circles, known for his intellect, deep experience of foreign affairs and analytical gifts. In 2017 he wrote a stinging opinion piece calling out Vladimir Putin’s “aggressive meddling” in the US presidential election of the previous year – something Trump refuses to acknowledge.Another recent blogpost was prescient. Burns predicted that Trump was unlikely to accept a “traditional bipartisan commitment to effective transition” if he lost the 2020 race to Biden. “The costs of confusion, mixed signals, and bureaucratic turmoil could be very high,” he wrote.Burns has been a staunch critic of the Trump administration’s often erratic and isolationist foreign policy. He has stressed the importance of international alliances, in particular with European allies and with Nato, and has called for the rebuilding of the US foreign service.“He shares my profound belief that intelligence must be apolitical and that the dedicated intelligence professionals serving our nation deserve our gratitude and respect,” Biden said in a statement. “Ambassador Burns will bring the knowledge, judgment, and perspective we need to prevent and confront threats before they can reach our shores,” he added.Biden has a good working relationship with Burns over foreign policy issues, dating back to the Obama administration and to when Biden was chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee. Burns was said to have been a candidate for US secretary of state. Biden chose Anthony Blinken instead.If confirmed by the Senate, Burns would succeed Gina Haspel. As the first female CIA director, Haspel guided the agency under Trump during a period of unprecedented turbulence. Trump and his Republican allies frequently portrayed the CIA as part of the “deep state”, intent on wrecking his presidencyTrump fired several career intelligence professionals in favour of loyalists, including some with little to no experience in the field. He also accused US spy agencies and their British counterparts of “illegally spying” on his 2016 presidential campaign.Burns has received three Presidential Distinguished Service Awards and the highest civilian honours from the Pentagon and the US intelligence community.A graduate of La Salle University in Philadelphia with advanced degrees from Oxford University, he joined the foreign service in 1982 and before being named ambassador to Russia in 2005 served as a top aide to secretaries William Christopher and Madeleine Albright as well as director of the policy planning office.In 2010 confidential diplomatic cables written by Burns and fellow US diplomats in Moscow were leaked. They revealed Burns’s gloomy assessment of Russian democracy under Putin and the ambassador’s literary talents. One cable described a wedding Burns attended in 2006, hosted by the Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov.“Ramzan … danced clumsily with his gold-plated automatic stuck down in the back of his jeans,” Burns reported wryly. “After the dancing and a quick tour of the premises, Ramzan and his army drove off back to Chechnya.”During a 33-year diplomatic career Burns was a close adviser and confidant to Christopher, Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.In his 2019 book The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal, Burns called for a revamp of US diplomacy, while recalling his days in the field, including the early stages of the Obama administration’s Iran deal in 2013. More

  • in

    Trump-Russia investigation: former CIA chief interviewed by US attorney

    The former CIA director John Brennan was interviewed on Friday by US attorney John Durham’s team, as part of its inquiry into the investigation of Russian election interference in 2016.The interview took place at CIA headquarters and lasted eight hours, said Nick Shapiro, Brennan’s former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser.“Brennan was informed by Mr Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review,” Shapiro said in a statement.Brennan led the CIA as it and other agencies arrived at the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump.Durham is continuing to examine how US intelligence officials reached that assessment, which Trump has long resisted.Brennan appeared voluntarily and has said he welcomed the chance to be questioned and had nothing to hide.“I look forward to the day when the truth is going to come out and the individuals who have mischaracterized what has happened in the past will be shown to have deceived the American people,” Brennan told MSNBC in May.Brennan offered Durham details on efforts to “understand and disrupt” Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election, and answered questions related to a “wide range of intelligence activities” undertaken by the CIA in the run-up to November 2016, Shapiro said.Brennan also answered questions about the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that blamed Russia for the interference. A spokesman for Durham declined to comment.Attorney general William Barr last year appointed the US attorney for Connecticut to examine decisions made by officials as they investigated ties between Trump and Russia.Exhaustive reports by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee have detailed extensive ties between Russians and Trump associates during the 2016 campaign.But Barr has challenged the idea that the FBI had sufficient basis to open its counterintelligence investigation and empowered Durham to look at other agencies too.Brennan questioned why the CIA’s findings and tradecraft were being scrutinized, given that Mueller and the bipartisan Senate report validated the conclusions on Russian interference, Shapiro said.“Brennan also told Mr Durham that the repeated efforts of Donald Trump and William Barr to politicize Mr Durham’s work have been appalling and have tarnished the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice, making it very difficult for Department of Justice professionals to carry out their responsibilities.”A spokeswoman for the justice department declined to comment.Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump, testified before Congress in 2017 that he personally warned Russia against interfering in the election and was so concerned about its contacts with Trump’s campaign he convened top officials to focus on the issue.He told the House intelligence committee it “should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 present election process”, though he said he didn’t have enough information to know if it was colluding with the Trump campaign.“But,” he said, “I know there was a basis to have individuals pull those threads.”Mueller found that the Trump campaign embraced Russia’s help and expected to benefit from it, though he did not allege a criminal conspiracy.Durham brought his first criminal charge last week, against a former FBI lawyer accused of altering an email related to secret surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page. The attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to a false statement charge. More

  • in

    Who Doesn’t Love the Sacred Freedom to Spy?

    In July, Yahoo News revealed that US President Donald Trump issued a secret order in 2018 authorizing the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct offensive cyber operations against various nations deemed to be adversaries of the US. Trump generously invited the CIA “to both conduct cyber operations and choose its target, without the White House’s approval.” 

    Bobby Chesney, writing for the website Lawfare, describes the order as a “blanket authorization for the CIA to conduct cyber operations against certain named adversaries—Russia, China, North Korea and Iran—and potentially others.” Chesney remarks that some commentators cited expressed concern “that the reduced external scrutiny of CIA covert activities and the sped-up timeline for approvals will result in undue or unwise risk-taking.”

    The UAE’s Deal With Israel Is a Sham

    READ MORE

    According to the authors of the Yahoo article, the directive was “driven by the National Security Council and crafted by the CIA” but not subjected to political review. They cite a “former U.S. government official” who called the order “very aggressive.”

    The article tells us that once it had the authorization, the CIA went into action. “Since the [order] was signed two years ago, the agency has carried out at least a dozen operations that were on its wish list,” Yahoo reports. 

    Here is today’s 3D definition:

    Wish list:

    The designation of actions whose implementation by any normal human being is theoretically unrealistic, unaffordable or that would be considered immoral if carried out, but which can be immediately converted into an operational action plan by those who are given unlimited resources and held to zero accountability

    Contextual Note

    The scope of this secret order should not be underestimated. Yahoo cites “former officials” who explain that “it lessened the evidentiary requirements that limited the CIA’s ability to conduct covert cyber operations against entities like media organizations, charities, religious institutions or businesses believed to be working on behalf of adversaries’ foreign intelligence services, as well as individuals affiliated with these organizations.”

    That is a serious innovation that potentially redefines and constrains the very idea of freedom of expression. According to Yahoo, the new powers granted to the CIA “open the way for the agency to launch offensive cyber operations with the aim of producing disruption — like cutting off electricity or compromising an intelligence operation by dumping documents online — as well as destruction, similar to the U.S.-Israeli 2009 Stuxnet attack, which destroyed centrifuges that Iran used to enrich uranium gas for its nuclear program.

    Not only does this mean that the CIA may do whatever it chooses with no oversight and absolute impunity, but it also means that it can decide what type of expression can be suppressed and which people or groups can be either silenced or disrupted. Theoretically, the CIA’s brief is confined to overseas operations, but by including the right to target everything from media and charities to “individuals affiliated with these organizations,” the scope of such opaque operations appears limitless.

    Historical Note

    At a moment in history when the Democratic Party, despite a lack of any serious evidence, has not stopped its four-year-old campaign of complaining about real or imaginary Russian meddling in US elections via social media, this story about US meddling apparently proved embarrassing enough for its preferred media to largely ignore it.  

    Embed from Getty Images

    And yet the fact that Donald Trump, the incarnation of political evil, granted the CIA the power not just to disseminate propaganda or spread lies — as Russia is accused of doing — but to conduct “aggressive offensive cyber operations” against media, charities and individuals suspected of any form of complicity with an adversary should shock any American who still believes in democratic principles and that antique notion of “fair play.”

    Lawfare calls it “a major story.” But the revelation doesn’t seem to have shocked many people in the mainstream US media. Bonnie Kristian in Newsweek picked up the story and worried, with good reason, that the unaccountable actions of the CIA “could tip the balance of U.S. relations with one of these targeted nations into outright war.” Fox News also reported it, with a tone of general approval, seeing it as part of a “strategy to bolster the government’s defenses against foreign adversaries.” 

    The major outlets identified as the “liberal mainstream” preferred to let the story rot on the sidelines. The New York Times apparently thought it wasn’t news fit to print. The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC treated the story with benign neglect, having more urgent news to promote. This may seem paradoxical since these outlets will usually jump on any item that reveals Trump to be a dangerous wielder of absolute power. In this case, he specifically overturned a safeguard the previous administration had put in place.

    In its permanent campaign to undermine President Trump, the liberal media might have been tempted to pounce on the story for another reason linked to electoral politics. Siladitya Ray, in an article for Forbes, cites a former State Department attorney and national security expert, Rebecca Ingber, who complains of Trump’s hypocrisy. “It’s rich that the President who claims the ‘deep state’ is working to undermine him is happy to delegate such broad authority to cause destruction — it’s almost as though he’s not *really* all that concerned with tight presidential control over the national security state when it’s not about his own personal interests,” Ingber tweeted.

    Ingber is right to point to the paradox, but she unwittingly reveals why the liberal media preferred to ignore the story. The big four mentioned above (The Times, The Post, CNN and MSNBC) have become active promoters of the intelligence community, to the point of complicity, if not hero worship. The two cable TV channels employ former heads of the CIA (John Brennan) and National Intelligence (James Clapper) as their “experts” on everything to do with intelligence, including assessing risks coming from abroad. This of course means that the last thing they would be inclined to warn about or even deign to mention is accrued power to the intelligence agencies.

    In an article for Axios, Zach Dorfman, who is the lead author of the Yahoo story, offers what he sees as the historical perspective. “The big picture: Some officials emphasize that Trump-era shifts in U.S. offensive cyber operations are part of a natural evolution in U.S. policies in this arena, and that many changes would have been granted under a new Democratic administration as well,” he writes.

    This can be interpreted in two ways. One reading is that Dorfman wants us to believe that we have entered a troubled period of history in which people’s democratic rights have been canceled and therefore action may be needed to return to true democracy. The other is the idea that we simply must accept the fatality of a “natural evolution.” 

    This suggests that it has little to do with Trump. Any responsible president from either party would, for the sake of security, do the same thing. It’s the logic of what Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter in the Harvard Business Review describe as “the entrenched duopoly at the center of our political system: the Democrats and the Republicans (and the actors surrounding them), what collectively we call the political-industrial complex.”

    By now we know how this plays out. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader at the time, remarked in 2017 about what Americans believe concerning the political economy. “We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is,” she said. National security merits a similar remark: We’re cybercriminals, and that’s just the way it is.

    Dorfman’s second conclusion is probably close to the truth — or, as Trump likes to say when referring to embarrassing facts, “It is what it is.” Any president would do the same thing. It’s the system that requires it, not the chief executive. The same is certainly true in Moscow. Some may describe that as proof of the fact that it is pretty much a level playing field, which is probably true. It’s just that it’s a very brutal sport.

    *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • in

    US intelligence agencies under pressure to link coronavirus to Chinese labs

    Senior Trump administration figures said to be demanding evidence on virus’s origins Coronavirus – latest updates See all our coronavirus coverage Donald Trump is under pressure with more than 1 million Americans infected and 60,000 dead from the virus. Photograph: Carlos Barría/Reuters Senior figures in the Trump administration have put pressure on US intelligence agencies […] More

  • in

    In Deep review: Trump v intelligence – and Obama vs the people

    In Deep review: Trump v intelligence – and Obama vs the people Pulitzer-winner David Rohde dismisses the Deep State theory – but also shows government does pursue entrenched interests Donald Trump speaks at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in January 2017. Photograph: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images The 2016 election left the US gaping at a brewing […] More