Gordon Rayner and Duncan Gardham report in the Telegraph.co.uk that UK intelligence agencies are complaining that their officers are being diverted from intelligence work to prepare for lawsuits alleging human rights violations.  One’s view of this may depend on attitudes towards the alleged violations – and an assessment of the specific claims being litigated.

If one has no reservations about Anglo-American treatment of prisoners, it follows that that one might think “highly-trained officers are having to carry out clerical work instead of investigating possible terrorist plots.”

If one assumes that, in fact, the system has, in some cases, gone off the rails, and that it’s possible some of the plaintiffs have real claims, then “clerical work” seems more like part of the necessary tedium which accompanies litigation – and accountability.

At least one British judge believes that the intelligence services haven’t been sufficiently forthright:

one of the judges in the case, Lord Neuberger, removed from the ruling comments that suggested there was a “culture of suppression” within MI5 – a claim which was strongly denied by [Jonathan] Evans [Director General of MI5].

Intelligence officers diverted to deal with legal action from former detainees – Telegraph.

Rayner and Gardham report that intelligence officers

Intelligence officers have already had to scrutinise more than 250,000 documents identified as potentially relevant to the case involving Mr Mohamed and his co-claimants.

dvx online

Mr Evans has been at pains to stress that MI5 is entirely happy to assist the courts in any way it can. But the amount of man hours having to be diverted to the damages cases is regarded as regrettable by many in Whitehall.

If we examine this more closely, it’s not entirely clear how big a burden this is. We don’t know

(1) how many pages an average document is,

(2) how much duplication is in the dataset

(3) the definition of “intelligence officer” – does this refer to officers who are defendants in the case, who are reviewing the documents in order to prepare their own defenses? Or are they officers or analysts with the appropriate clearances reviewing them in order to determine which can be turned over without risk, which are relevant to the governing discovery orders, which of them – relevance aside – risk exposing sources and methods?

(4) If 250,000 have been reviewed, how many more need to be reviewed? This may be the most important question. If there are only, say, 500,000 unique documents, it’s hard to think that one of the best intelligence services in the world can’t evaluate 500K documents already in their files (that is, not new, raw intelligence which needs the highest level of scrutiny and cross-checking).

We’re unlikely to learn any time soon what sort of electronic discovery system MI5 is using to prepare for this litigation. The similarities between the intelligence process and the investigation/discovery process in litigation suggest that MI5 may have been able to use existing systems in this case; if their existing system isn’t flexible enough, we’d find it disturbing. And we’d like to know which litigation software system they selected.

Intelligence officers diverted to deal with legal action from former detainees – Telegraph.

From Government loses Binyam Mohamed torture appeal:

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has lost a bid to prevent the disclosure of secret information relating to the alleged torture of a UK resident.

Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed says UK authorities knew he was tortured at the behest of US authorities during seven years of captivity.

Mr Miliband had said releasing the material would harm national security.

But judges ruled the documents, which say his treatment was “cruel, inhuman and degrading”, should be released.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said the court would now publish a summary of what the CIA had told British intelligence officials about Mr Mohamed’s treatment in 2002.

Mr Mohamed was secretly flown to Morocco in 2002 having been arrested in Pakistan over a visa irregularity and handed to US officials.

There, he says, he was tortured while interrogators asked him questions about his life in London that could only have come from British intelligence officers.

Government loses Binyam Mohamed torture appeal via BBC News.

Michael Schwirtz reported in the The New York Times of 13 October, the death of Vyacheslav K. Ivankov.

Vyacheslav K. Ivankov, a Russian crime boss who survived tangles with the K.G.B., the F.B.I. and other violent criminals in a bloody career that spanned decades, was laid to rest at a Moscow cemetery. Hundreds attended the funeral.

Mr. Ivankov died on Friday in a Moscow hospital from complications stemming from a gunshot wound he received apparently in an assassination attempt in July. He was 69. His death has set off fears of a mob war in Moscow like those that bloodied the streets of major Russian cities in the 1990s.

For a Departed Mobster, Wreaths and Roses but No Tears.

Photo by Andrei Stenin/Reuters. The coffin of Vyacheslav K. Ivankov carried at Vagankovskoe Cemetery in Moscow.

In Russian Mafia in America: Immigration, Culture, and Crime

, James O. Finckenauer and Elin J. Waring hypothesized that “Yaponchick,” while a serious criminal, was not the leader of a large, sophisticated criminal organization – but rather portrayed as such by United States government officials and the press.  (Previous citation to Google Books; excerpt published on PBS/FrontLine website linked here).

Finckenauer and Waring aren’t likely to have been in a position to have known that Ivankov would be extradited to Russia for murder and then been acquitted; one’s general impression of the Russian judicial system is that acquittals don’t generally happen when the government wants a conviction.

If Ivankov was sufficiently well-connected that the Russian government was willing to risk losing face being seen conspiring a weak case in order to extradite and then release him, it seems fair to infer that he was, in fact, fairly high up in Russian criminal-political circles.

NB: to follow this story with some nuance, readers are advised to read Trent Stamp’s Take. TST is the blog of Trent Stamp (scroll down for bio), the founder of Charity Navigator. Many of comments are thoughtful and illuminating – suggesting that Stamp’s created a small community with shared concerns about nonprofit governance.

Link to Stamp’s most recent post – “Red Cross Debacle: Day Two.”

Stephanie Strom has been covering the ARC and other nonprofits for the Times for a couple of years. This is from her Thursday piece (November 29th), Firing Stirs New Debate Over Red Cross:

Nonprofit experts said that the Red Cross needed to move quickly to fill its top job, but that its culture, which is averse to change, coupled with the missteps of over more than a decade, would make it a difficult job to fill.

“You need someone like Colin Powell to step in,” said Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University who does an annual survey of confidence in charities. “But there aren’t that many national figures like that who’ll take the job, and within that pool, there aren’t any who know anything about disaster relief, let alone blood. And who would take this job under these circumstances, anyway?”

I’m not certain what Professor Light means by “like Colin Powell” – particularly because Secretary Powell’s conduct prior to the invasion of Iraq has given many of his admirers pause.

We’d like to suggest six candidates to lead the Red Cross, and one structural change.

Candidates for the top post

Four people, any of whom would be outstanding in the top post:

• Dr. Irwin Redlener, pediatrician, author of Americans At Risk, founder, with Paul Simon (not the senator) of the Children’s Health Fund, and head of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University (The Children’s Health Fund has four stars from Charity Navigator

  ); (A cursory review of the ARC’s history suggests that Dr. Redlener might be the first Jewish person to head the Red Cross);

• Craig Fugate head of emergency services for the State of Florida (post about Fugate background coming later in the day);
• William Bratton, currently the Chief of Police in Los Angeles; he’s also been head of the NYC Transit Police, Boston’s transit police equivalent, and Police Commissioner for the City of New York. Some may remember that he was forced out – despite outstanding successes – by then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Bratton has a history of doing impressive things without telling reporters about them: patrolling subways by himself and in uniform in the middle of the night, and he has a history of rescuing dogs and volunteering in animal shelters. This is in contrast to, for instance, a recent Cabinet member who made regular trips to Walter Reed to visit wounded soldiers – but made sure lots and lots of reporters knew about it.
• Paul Maniscalco, former Deputy Chief of New York City’s Emergency Medical Service, co-author of “Understanding Terrorism and Managing the Consequences,” and currently on the faculty at George Washington University.

Disclosure: I’ve done unpaid consulting for Dr. Redlener, and hope I don’t unduly flatter myself by claiming him as a friend; I’ve corresponded with Craig Fugate, and pestered him with research questions, but we’ve never met; Bratton and I have several friends in common, and we’ve met – the first time walking our respective dogs in Central Park. We talked for an hour and it wasn’t until the next day that I knew who I’d met. Paul Maniscalco’s wife and I were colleagues at an investigative firm, and became friends.

Appoint an Inspector General – either in addition to, or in place of, the Ombudsman

ARC clearly has integrity and ethics issues – nationally and in regional and local branches. A strong Inspector General System – with authority over the national organization and the affiliates – would go a long way towards restoring trust.

Two oustanding candidates for ARC’s first Inspector General

Clark Kent Irvin – former IG for the Department of Homeland Security and before that the IG of the United States Department of State. And the author of Open Target: Where America Is Vulnerable to Attac,an account of his work – and frustrations – as Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Bunnatine (“Bunny”) Greenhouse -  the chief contracting officer for the Army Corps of Engineers – with a stellar record – until she complained about Halliburton’s no-bid contracts – and lost her job.

Using Mr. Ervin  or Ms. Greenhouse as an Inspector General (or  auditor, etc.) would immediately send a message that the ARC is serious about integrity and transparency – by hiring someone who puts integrity ahead of career.

This must be one of those “absent-minded” professors we’re always hearing about. Because he’s apparently not one of the “treehugging liberal elite,” either.

Celeste Monforton points out that Professor Rick Honaker of the University of Kentucky recently wrote an Op-Ed – but didn’t disclose that his professorship, and his department, take money from mining interests – and made broad and extravagant claims regarding the introduction of H.R. 2768:

In “New Mining Bill Premature,” printed in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Professor Rick Honaker says it is incomprehensible” that Congress is attempting to place new safety requirements on coal operators. * He claims new mandates will “serve no useful purpose” and will “only undermine the efforts of those trying to implement” the 2006 MINER Act. That’s some tough criticism.

On closer look, I notice that neither the op-ed itself nor the professor’s byline mentions his university department’s financial connection to mining industry—an industry that also strongly opposes HR 2768. These ties include a large financial endowment established by the mining industry, called the Mining Engineering Foundation. The Foundation was created in 1983 with a $1 million endowment, which included a hefty donation of $500,000 from Mr. Catesby Clay, president of Kentucky River Coal.** Interest from the fund now provides financial support to school’s mining engineering department.

- snip -

In Dr. Honaker’s case, his byline states:

“Rick Honaker is the Mining Foundation Distinguished Professor and chairman of the University of Kentucky department of mining engineering.”

I’ve since learned that Dr. Honaker’s distinguished professorship is affiliated with the Mining Engineering Foundation, (not the Mining Foundation.) This led me to the information about the group’s financial support of Professor Honaker’s department.

- snip -

Notes:

*In the posted version of Rick Honaker PhD’s op-ed, the yellow highlighted phrases are mine (for emphasis.)

**Mr. Clay was recently honored

by the Kentucky Coal Association.

Celeste Monforton’s post at The Pump Handle.

It’s disturbing that the Lexington Herald-Leader couldn’t (or wouldn’t) figure this out for itself – it’s axiomatic that readers are entitled to know who’s speaking – or on whose behalf a speaker works.

If Professor Honaker ever testifies under oath, and makes, or has made, a practice of this omission, he’s laid an elegant foundation for some interesting cross-examination. To quote the noted trial lawyer David Lewis, “Bias is never collateral.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that Honaker is right about the legislation in question. But now, having concealed his financial ties, he’s made a permanant and public record of misleading by omission. If he’s an honest scholar, he’s unfairly damaged his own reputation.

Philip Rucker of the Washington Post reports that Mark Everson, late of the IRS, more recently head of the American Red Cross, has resigned. He’d only been with the Red Cross since May of this year. From Rucker’s piece :

American Red Cross president and chief executive Mark W. Everson resigned today because he engaged in a personal relationship with an employee.

Everson, who previously was commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, took over the Red Cross on May 29 as the federally chartered disaster-relief agency struggled to restore a reputation damaged by its response to Hurricane Katrina. He oversaw a broad restructuring plan for the $3.4 billion organization.

Everson’s resignation is effective immediately. He was engaged in a personal relationship with a subordinate female employee, agency spokeswoman Suzy C. DeFrancis said. A senior executive at the Red Cross informed the board of directors about the affair about 10 days ago and the board asked Everson to resign, DeFrancis said.

The Red Cross is unique and holds a particular public trust – it has a charter established by Congress, FCC-allocated radio frequencies – the unauthorized use of which is a crime – it’s quasi-governmental.

Adultery is not, I think, generally an issue of public concern – but with a subordinate, and when it’s against the rules – asking for Eveson’s resignation seems wise action by the Red Cross board. It’s safe to say that the Red Cross has great potential; this sort of conduct, at minimum, is a distraction from critical work.

Trent Stamp points out that “this makes at least 4 ARC presidents who have been forced out in the last 6 years.” (Link to post)

Stamp is the president of Charity Navigator – a well-regarded promoter of good practices and transparency among nonprofits. In July Stamp called Everson on appointing a longtime aide as the Red Cross ombudsman.

(There’s nothing inherently wrong with bringing subordinates and colleagues with you to a new employer – in fact, it’s often useful, where people have existing trust and working relationships. But not as an ombudsman, inspector general, or outside monitor. And it’s disturbing that Everson couldn’t have done those sums himself).

While Rucker of WaPo says that the Red Cross board learned of this ten days ago – looks like the decision may have been made today – we found this release  dated today -  announcing that Everson would preside over the 12/3 Florence Nightingale awards ceremony. Suggesting that the board’s decision happened after the Nightingale announcement.

Perhaps not  – we’ve also found an earlier version on the Red Cross website dated November 20th.

I don’t understand it.

But – Michael Chertoff has started a blog. And, after a recent  post, David W. Stephenson, of Stephenson Strategies, made a comment that actually made it through DHS screening.

I’m not sure he could have gotten the comment onto a commercial flight, though, unless it was in checked luggage.

Check out Mirabile dictu! My comment on Chertoff’s blog was ok’d

,  on Stephenson blogs on homeland security 2.0. 

Stephenson is co-author, with Eric Bonabeau, of Expecting the Unexpected: The Need for a Networked Terrorism and Disaster Response Strategy, in the February 2007 issue of Homeland Security Affairs . 

We’ve blogged about this article before – but it’s good enough that I’m happy to shill for it more than once – as I am about HSAJ’s parent organization, the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Homeland Defense & Security.

Between Stephenson, Bonabeau, and Professor Brian Steckler of NPS, I’ve been persuaded of the utility of wireless networks in emergencies – although it’s my contention that, organized from the bottom up – we need more than one system. More about system redundancy and about NPS soon.