theintercept--2020-01-07--Joe Biden, Five Years Before Invasion, Said the Only Way of Disarming Iraq Is “Taking Saddam Down”

Biden thanked Ritter for forcing senators to “ come to our milk , ” by which he meant forcing them to make a decision on what to do about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction program .
In 1998 , U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter resigned in protest and accused the international community of not giving him and his colleagues the support they needed to carry out their job in Iraq , which had agreed in 1991 to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile .
He was called to testify before the Senate in September 1998 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations committee , grilled him .
In the course of the questions , Biden made revealing remarks about where he stood on regime change in Iraq .
Former Vice President Joe Biden this week continued to maintain the fiction that he stood against the war in Iraq “ the very moment ” it began in 2003 .
The claim has been easily taken apart by fact checkers — Biden publicly supported the war before , during , and after the invasion — but a 1998 Senate hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confront Iraq over weapons of mass destruction .
Biden told Ritter that no matter how thorough the inspections , the only way to eliminate the threat was to remove Saddam Hussein .
“ The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place to deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program , which neither you nor I believe he ’ s ever going to abandon as long as he ’ s in place , ” Biden said , characterizing former President Bill Clinton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I believe , and many of us believe here , as long as Saddam is at the helm , there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out , root and branch , the entirety of Saddam ’ s program relative to weapons of mass destruction .
You and I both know , and all of us here really know , and it ’ s a thing we have to face , that the only way , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get rid of Saddam Hussein is we ’ re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it ’ s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down , ” Biden said .
“ You know it and I know it.
” Hussein , it turned out , did not have an active WMD program , but was hoping to keep Iran , his regime ’ s longtime foe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have one as a deterrent .
During questioning , Biden mocked Ritter as “ ol ’ Scotty boy ” and suggested that his demands — that the international community compel Iraq to cooperate with inspectors — if met , would give Ritter the unilateral authority to start a war in Iraq .
Biden argued that such decisions belonged to higher-level officials .
“ I respectfully suggest they have a responsibility slightly above your pay grade , to decide whether or not to take the nation to war , ” Biden said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s why they get paid the big bucks .
That ’ s why they get the limos and you don ’ t .
I mean this sincerely , I ’ m not trying to be flip.
” He ended by redeploying his unusual idiom in thanking Ritter .
“ The reason why I ’ m glad you did what you did : We should come to our milk .
We should make a decision , ” Biden said .
Biden ’ s earlier suggestion that “ taking Saddam down ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to the WMD program left little doubt where Biden would later come down on the issue .
Biden ’ s grilling of Ritter is important because it gives context to claims Biden later made : First , that when he voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq as a senator , he did not mean to vote for war , but hoped the resolution would empower inspectors to get back into Iraq and monitor the program .
And second , that he never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ NPR last year that former President George W. Bush “ looked me in the eye in the Oval Office .
He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program .
… He got them in and before you know it , we had ‘ shock and awe.
’ ” But according to Biden ’ s own statements in 1998 , he believed that Hussein could never be trusted to eliminate his program , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In October 2004 , by which time it had become clear there were no WMDs , Biden told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations , “ I never believed they had weapons of mass destruction.
” In fact , as Biden had said in 1998 , he believed not only that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction , but no amount of inspections or diplomacy could guarantee their removal .
That , he told Ritter , could only be done by “ guys like you in uniform to be back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son of a — taking Saddam down.
” Biden ’ s thought process puts critical hearings he held in 2002 as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in sharper context .
That summer , as the world was focused on the war in Afghanistan , from where the attacks of September 11 , 2001 , had been launched , Biden sought to begin “ a national dialogue ” on Iraq .
During a series of high-profile hearings , he feigned neutrality , but his earlier questioning of Ritter leaves no doubt where he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only way to disarm Iraq with confidence was to depose Saddam Hussein .
Biden , given his chairmanship , was a leading voice on foreign policy within the party .
He had voted against the first Gulf War , waged by Bush ’ s father , and wasn ’ t considered a knee-jerk hawk .
His support for the 2003 war made Democratic opposition ultimately untenable — even as Ritter , in the run up to it , loudly made the case against war , arguing that the WMD claims were overhyped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WMD claims .
In a classified hearing on September 24 , 2002 , at the urging of a staff member , Biden asked then-CIA Director George Tenet what evidence of WMDs the U.S. had “ technically collected.
” “ None , Senator , ” Tenet said , according to an account in the book “ Hubris , ” by Michael Isikoff and David Corn .
Biden , wondering if there was some highly classified evidence , asked Tenet , “ George , do you want me to clear the staff out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There ’ s no reason to , Senator.
” “ ‘ None , Senator ’ — that answer will ring in my ears as long as I live , ” the staffer later told the authors .
Later in that same hearing , Biden heard from two government witnesses who rejected the “ aluminum tubes ” claim that had been circulating , and would later become a centerpiece of Secretary of State Colin Powell ’ s presentation to the United Nations .
Biden , to be sure , was not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s terms , and throughout the fall , worked with Republican Sens .
Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization , that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program .
But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders , and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt , D-Mo.
, who pushed ahead with Bush ’ s broader resolution .
“ I was angry , ” Biden later said , according to “ Hubris.
” “ I was frustrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s political judgment.
” Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq , unlike some of his Republican colleagues .
In February 1998 , the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw war as unlikely .
Yet during the summer 2002 hearings , Biden claimed that “ one thing is clear , these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein , or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power.
” Given that he was already on record believing that the weapons could never effectively be dislodged from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ option : war .
Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution on October 11 , 2002 , three weeks after hearing from Tenet in the classified session .

Former Vice President Joe Biden this week continued to maintain the fiction that he stood against the war in Iraq “the very moment” it began in 2003. The claim has been easily taken apart by fact checkers — Biden publicly supported the war before, during, and after the invasion — but a 1998 Senate hearing sheds additional light on his determination to confront Iraq over weapons of mass destruction.
In 1998, U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter resigned in protest and accused the international community of not giving him and his colleagues the support they needed to carry out their job in Iraq, which had agreed in 1991 to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile. He was called to testify before the Senate in September 1998, where Biden, who was then the highest-ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations committee, grilled him. In the course of the questions, Biden made revealing remarks about where he stood on regime change in Iraq.
Biden thanked Ritter for forcing senators to “come to our milk,” by which he meant forcing them to make a decision on what to do about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction program.
Biden told Ritter that no matter how thorough the inspections, the only way to eliminate the threat was to remove Saddam Hussein. “The primary policy is to keep sanctions in place to deny Saddam the billions of dollars that would allow him to really crank up his program, which neither you nor I believe he’s ever going to abandon as long as he’s in place,” Biden said, characterizing former President Bill Clinton’s administration’s policy. “You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”
Hussein, it turned out, did not have an active WMD program.
During questioning, Biden mocked Ritter as “ol’ Scotty boy” and suggested that his demands — that the international community compel Iraq to cooperate with inspectors — if met, would give Ritter the unilateral authority to start a war in Iraq. Biden argued that such decisions belonged to higher-level officials. “I respectfully suggest they have a responsibility slightly above your pay grade, to decide whether or not to take the nation to war,” Biden said. “That’s a real tough decision. That’s why they get paid the big bucks. That’s why they get the limos and you don’t. I mean this sincerely, I’m not trying to be flip.”
He ended by redeploying his unusual idiom in thanking Ritter. “The reason why I’m glad you did what you did: We should come to our milk. We should make a decision,” Biden said.
Biden’s earlier suggestion that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee an end to the WMD program left little doubt where Biden would later come down on the issue.
Biden’s grilling of Ritter is important because it gives context to claims Biden later made: First, that when he voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq as a senator, he did not mean to vote for war, but hoped the resolution would empower inspectors to get back into Iraq and monitor the program. And second, that he never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
On the first claim, Biden told NPR last year that former President George W. Bush “looked me in the eye in the Oval Office. He said he needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program. … He got them in and before you know it, we had ‘shock and awe.’”
But according to Biden’s own statements in 1998, he believed that Hussein could never be trusted to eliminate his program, no matter how many inspectors were admitted.
In October 2004, by which time it had become clear there were no WMDs, Biden told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations, “I never believed they had weapons of mass destruction.”
In fact, as Biden had said in 1998, he believed not only that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no amount of inspections or diplomacy could guarantee their removal. That, he told Ritter, could only be done by “guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down.”
Biden’s thought process puts critical hearings he held in 2002 as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in sharper context. That summer, as the world was focused on the war in Afghanistan, from where the attacks of September 11, 2001, had been launched, Biden sought to begin “a national dialogue” on Iraq. During a series of high-profile hearings, he feigned neutrality, but his earlier questioning of Ritter leaves no doubt where he stood: Iraq had WMDs, and the only way to disarm Iraq with confidence was to depose Saddam Hussein. Biden, given his chairmanship, was a leading voice on foreign policy within the party. He had voted against the first Gulf War, waged by Bush’s father, and wasn’t considered a knee-jerk hawk. His support for the 2003 war made Democratic opposition ultimately untenable — even as Ritter, in the run up to it, loudly made the case against war, arguing that the WMD claims were overhyped.
Biden had reason to disbelieve the WMD claims. In a classified hearing on September 24, 2002, at the urging of a staff member, Biden asked then-CIA Director George Tenet what evidence of WMDs the U.S. had “technically collected.”
“None, Senator,” Tenet said, according to an account in the book “Hubris,” by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Biden, wondering if there was some highly classified evidence, asked Tenet, “George, do you want me to clear the staff out of the room?” Tenet told him no. “There’s no reason to, Senator.”
“‘None, Senator’ — that answer will ring in my ears as long as I live,” the staffer later told the authors. Later in that same hearing, Biden heard from two government witnesses who rejected the “aluminum tubes” claim that had been circulating, and would later become a centerpiece of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations.
Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.”
Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.
Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.
Yet during the summer 2002 hearings, Biden claimed that “one thing is clear, these weapons must be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein must be dislodged from power.” Given that he was already on record believing that the weapons could never effectively be dislodged from Saddam Hussein, that left only one option: war. Biden voted for the Iraq war resolution on October 11, 2002, three weeks after hearing from Tenet in the classified session.


theintercept--2020-01-06--TV Pundits Praising Suleimani Assassination Neglect to Disclose Ties to Arms Industry

Many of the pundits who appeared on national television or were quoted in major publications to praise the president ’ s actions have undisclosed ties to the defense industry — the only domestic industry that stands to gain from increased violence .
Since Friday , a loud chorus of voices has appeared in the media to celebrate President Donald Trump ’ s decision to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , a move that has sparked renewed tension in the Middle East , a new deployment of U.S. forces , and predictions of increased military spending .
Jack Keane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News and NPR over the last three days to praise Trump for the strike on Suleimani .
“ The president acted responsibly , ” Keane said during an appearance with Fox News host Lou Dobbs .
“ It should have happened a long time ago.
” Keane has worked for military companies , including General Dynamics and Blackwater , and currently serves as a partner at SCP Partners , a venture capital firm that invests in defense contractors .
Van Hipp , chair of the lobbying firm American Defense International , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — including Raytheon , Palantir , and General Atomics , the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper drone used in the Suleimani slaying — published an opinion column on Fox News ’ s website praising Trump and suggesting increased pressure on the Iranian government .
David Petraeus , the retired general who once commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan , was quoted by multiple outlets in support of the slaying .
“ This is a very significant effort to reestablish deterrence , ” he told Foreign Policy .
On Public Radio International , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been fairly impressively handled , ” and praised the Trump administration for moving “ to shore up our defenses and our offensive capabilities.
” He also appeared on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation.
” Petraeus , notably , works for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co. , the investment firm with holdings in several major defense contractors that is reportedly moving to “ build up its defense portfolio at a time when military budgets are skyrocketing.
” John Negroponte , a former State Department official who now serves as vice chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McLarty Associates , appeared on Fox News to dispute the claim by Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , that the strike represented a threat of war .
“ I think it ’ s an act of self-defense , ” countered Negroponte .
Jeh Johnson , former Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration , appeared on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” to offer measured support , countering progressive critics who have claimed that the strikes lacked legal and congressional authorization .
“ General Suleimani , ” Johnson said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , under his constitutional authority as commander in chief , had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization.
” Johnson joined the board of director of Lockheed Martin , one of the largest defense contractors in the world , in 2017 .
The part-time position pays him $ 310,000 a year in cash and stock awards , according to disclosures .
None of the defense contracting ties were disclosed on air for Keane , Hipp , Negroponte , Petraeus , or Johnson .
“ It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news commentary is coming from someone with a financial incentive tied to the topic they ’ re commenting on , especially when so many lives hang in the balance , ” says Gin Armstrong , a senior researcher with the Public Accountability Initiative , which tracks conflicts of interest .
“ The key question is why media outlets allow anyone with a financial interest in war — regardless of their previous military or government experience — to have access to their platforms at a critical time like this .
”

Since Friday , a loud chorus of voices has appeared in the media to celebrate President Donald Trump’s decision to assassinate Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a move that has sparked renewed tension in the Middle East, a new deployment of U.S. forces, and predictions of increased military spending.
Many of the pundits who appeared on national television or were quoted in major publications to praise the president’s actions have undisclosed ties to the defense industry — the only domestic industry that stands to gain from increased violence.
Jack Keane, a retired Army general, appeared on Fox News and NPR over the last three days to praise Trump for the strike on Suleimani. “The president acted responsibly,” Keane said during an appearance with Fox News host Lou Dobbs. “It should have happened a long time ago.” Keane has worked for military companies, including General Dynamics and Blackwater, and currently serves as a partner at SCP Partners, a venture capital firm that invests in defense contractors.
Van Hipp, chair of the lobbying firm American Defense International, which represents more than two dozen defense contractors — including Raytheon, Palantir, and General Atomics, the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper drone used in the Suleimani slaying — published an opinion column on Fox News’s website praising Trump and suggesting increased pressure on the Iranian government.
David Petraeus, the retired general who once commanded U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, was quoted by multiple outlets in support of the slaying. “This is a very significant effort to reestablish deterrence,” he told Foreign Policy. On Public Radio International, Petraeus declared that “this particular episode has been fairly impressively handled,” and praised the Trump administration for moving “to shore up our defenses and our offensive capabilities.” He also appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Petraeus, notably, works for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co., the investment firm with holdings in several major defense contractors that is reportedly moving to “build up its defense portfolio at a time when military budgets are skyrocketing.”
John Negroponte, a former State Department official who now serves as vice chair of the defense and aerospace lobbying firm McLarty Associates, appeared on Fox News to dispute the claim by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that the strike represented a threat of war. “I think it’s an act of self-defense,” countered Negroponte.
Jeh Johnson, former Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration, appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” to offer measured support, countering progressive critics who have claimed that the strikes lacked legal and congressional authorization.
“General Suleimani,” Johnson said, “was a lawful military objective and the president, under his constitutional authority as commander in chief, had ample domestic legal authority to take him out without an additional congressional authorization.”
Johnson joined the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, one of the largest defense contractors in the world, in 2017. The part-time position pays him $310,000 a year in cash and stock awards, according to disclosures. None of the defense contracting ties were disclosed on air for Keane, Hipp, Negroponte, Petraeus, or Johnson.
“It is imperative that viewers are aware when their news commentary is coming from someone with a financial incentive tied to the topic they’re commenting on, especially when so many lives hang in the balance,” says Gin Armstrong, a senior researcher with the Public Accountability Initiative, which tracks conflicts of interest. “The key question is why media outlets allow anyone with a financial interest in war — regardless of their previous military or government experience — to have access to their platforms at a critical time like this.”
In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, stock prices for major defense contractors soared on the expectation of further conflict. The Trump administration has won more than $130 billion in additional Pentagon spending, but analysts expect a renewed push for even greater levels of weapons spending.
One key area for military growth in government defense spending could be the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, a special account used to fund wartime operations. The OCO had been largely frozen in place and expected to flatline in the 2021 budget. The escalation in response to the Suleimani killing could change that, according to the Cowen Group, an investment bank that specializes in servicing defense contractors.
The OCO account “was likely on a lower trajectory over the next several years. We doubt that’s the case now,” the Cowen Group’s Roman Schweizer wrote in a memo to investors on Friday. “The U.S. will likely increase deployments of forces to the region in coming weeks and could make additional strikes depending on Iran’s response.”
It’s not the first time defense contractor pundits have failed to disclose their vested stake in the military policies they advocate. The Boston Globe reported on how defense contractors routinely retain former high-level officers to serve as lobbyists, even though few bother registering or complying with ethics disclosures. Keane, for instance, was tapped by the contractor AM General to pressure lawmakers to support a plan to purchase new Humvee vehicles from the company rather than refurbish older models.
Former military leaders play a decisive role in shaping public opinion around military escalation. In the buildup to the Iraq War, the Pentagon maintained a secret effort to deploy former generals and other high-ranking officials on television news programs to drum up support for the invasion. The New York Times, which reported on the communications campaign, noted that the military pundits maintained financial ties to defense contractors, a financial stake in the war policies they sought to promote.


theintercept--2020-01-06--Video Diary of Apocalypse: A Family Flees Australia’s Fires

U.S. Official Hints at Possible Plea Deal for Julian Assange
The U.S. ambassador to Australia said there could be a “resolution” to the Justice Department’s pursuit of Assange.


theintercept--2020-01-06--At Boston Immigration Court, ICE Must Now Justify Detaining Noncitizens — Reversing Decades of Prece

At Boston Immigration Court, ICE Must Now Justify Detaining Noncitizens — Reversing Decades of Precedent

For the first time in at least two decades , lawyers for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are required to justify the detainment of noncitizens who are awaiting court proceedings in New England .
In immigration proceedings , unlike in criminal courts , immigrants bear the burden of proving to the satisfaction of a judge that that they do not pose a danger or a flight risk — or else they are denied bond and locked up .
But a November decision by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts reversed the burden of proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why someone ought to be detained .
The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts last June and went into effect on December 13 .
The significance of the ruling , said ACLU of Massachusetts attorney Dan McFadden , is reversing a system that ’ s been in place since 1999 whereby the government did not have to prove anything to keep noncitizens in jail while their cases were decided — a process that sometimes takes several years .
“ I think that if our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ it has to mean that the government can ’ t put people in jail without showing that there ’ s a strong justification for taking away their liberty.
” The ruling applies only to the Boston immigration court , which covers all of New England except Connecticut ( which has its own immigration court ) .
Local immigration attorneys say the difference is palpable already .
“ It still doesn ’ t really feel quite real , ” said Matt Cameron , a Boston-based immigration attorney .
For years , Cameron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly to obtain every page of a client ’ s criminal record — even pertaining to charges that had been dropped — to prove that the client deserved their liberty .
“ I ’ m so trained that you just do not show up with anything less than an absolutely 100 percent complete case , because you only get one chance at a bond hearing .
You don ’ t get to do it again .
So , you know , I ’ m always very careful in making sure that I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if an ICE attorney is unable to prove the inverse — that a noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk — a noncitizen is likely to be granted release .
The ICE attorneys , unused to having to justify a noncitizen ’ s detention , at times appeared exasperated at the bond hearings Cameron attended , he said , “ because now they have to get every one of those records that we used to have to get , and they ’ re already stretched pretty thin.
” ACLU Massachusetts has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy over the last three weeks .
McFadden said they have noticed differences in the judges ’ adjudication of bond hearings .
“ The evidence at this point is early and anecdotal , but it appears that greater numbers of people are getting bond rather than being detained , and it appears that in many cases , the bond numbers have been lower , ” he said .
According to the court ’ s ruling , the Boston immigration court held hearings for 700 noncitizens between November 1 , 2018 , and May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hartford court ( where noncitizens continue to bear the burden of proof ) held such hearings in 77 cases .
The courts made decisions in 651 of the Boston and Hartford cases , and denied release on bond in 41 percent of them , with an average bond of $ 6,302 in Boston and $ 28,700 in Hartford .
The issue of bond in immigration hearings goes back to a 1999 case in which the Board of Immigration Appeals , an administrative body within the Justice Department , interpreted a statute that governs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the burden of proving to an immigration judge that they deserve release on bond .
The statute , 8 U.S.C .
§ 1226 ( a ) , allows for the federal government to detain noncitizens while their immigration proceedings are pending and includes a provision on bond , but it is notably silent as to which party bears the burden of proof , and what the standard of proof is .
In 2018 , the U.S. Supreme Court addressed bond hearing procedures in Jennings v. Rodriguez , where it decided that detained noncitizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ periodic bond hearings every six months .
But the court sidestepped the issue of who bears the burden of proof .
“ This is an issue that was expressly left open by the Supreme Court in its decision in Jennings in 2018 , where it decided certain issues of statutory construction but left open these types of constitutional questions , ” McFadden said .
In her 23-page ruling in the lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts , U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris also noted that the “ Supreme Court expressly declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedural protections.
” Following the ruling in Massachusetts , Cameron believes the issue could ultimately return to the Supreme Court because the underlying statute is so vague .
Detained immigrants have had success in the past challenging their pretrial detention using arguments similar to those lodged by the ACLU attorneys .
In 2018 , for example , the Massachusetts federal court ruled in the case of Pensamiento v. McDonald that “ requiring a non-criminal alien to prove that he is not dangerous and not a flight risk at a bond hearing violates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 27 decision , however , marks the first time a court has ruled that the bond system for detained noncitizens is unconstitutional as applied as a class to a whole immigration court — as opposed as to grant an individual noncitizen ’ s release .
The judge found that the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ 1999 policy violated both due process and the Administrative Procedure Act .
Moving forward , the federal government is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen is a danger , or by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard ) that they are a flight risk .
The ACLU has appealed Saris ’ s decision with respect to the standard of proof , arguing that the court should raise the bar by requiring the federal government to prove flight risk by clear and convincing evidence as well .
Saris ordered the Boston immigration court to consider a noncitizen ’ s ability to pay when deciding on bond , as well as to consider alternative conditions of release , like GPS monitoring .
Saris ’ s ruling applies both to noncitizens who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well as people who have already been denied bond .
( In the case of the latter , detained noncitizens may go to a federal court to request a new bond hearing by showing that they likely would have been granted bond under the new standard . )
“ We ’ re fundamentally not changing the nature of the system , which is still as oppressive as possible , ” Cameron said .
“ But at least this is an escape hatch , at least to allow people that should be @ @ @ @ @ @

For the first time in at least two decades, lawyers for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are required to justify the detainment of noncitizens who are awaiting court proceedings in New England.
In immigration proceedings, unlike in criminal courts, immigrants bear the burden of proving to the satisfaction of a judge that that they do not pose a danger or a flight risk — or else they are denied bond and locked up. But a November decision by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts reversed the burden of proof, instead calling on ICE to establish why someone ought to be detained.
The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts last June and went into effect on December 13.
The significance of the ruling, said ACLU of Massachusetts attorney Dan McFadden, is reversing a system that’s been in place since 1999 whereby the government did not have to prove anything to keep noncitizens in jail while their cases were decided — a process that sometimes takes several years. “I think that if our Constitution means anything,” McFadden said, “it has to mean that the government can’t put people in jail without showing that there’s a strong justification for taking away their liberty.”
“It still doesn’t really feel quite real,” said Matt Cameron, a Boston-based immigration attorney.
The ruling applies only to the Boston immigration court, which covers all of New England except Connecticut (which has its own immigration court). Local immigration attorneys say the difference is palpable already.
“It still doesn’t really feel quite real,” said Matt Cameron, a Boston-based immigration attorney. For years, Cameron said, he has had to work quickly to obtain every page of a client’s criminal record — even pertaining to charges that had been dropped — to prove that the client deserved their liberty. “I’m so trained that you just do not show up with anything less than an absolutely 100 percent complete case, because you only get one chance at a bond hearing. You don’t get to do it again. So, you know, I’m always very careful in making sure that I don’t do it halfway.”
Now, if an ICE attorney is unable to prove the inverse — that a noncitizen poses a danger or a flight risk — a noncitizen is likely to be granted release.
9/ BEFORE IMM JUDGE: Counsel, I don't see a police report for this 1994 shoplifting case ME: We tried. It's not available [Bond denied] AFTER IJ: DHS, I'm not seeing evidence of this shoplifting conviction you're alleging. DHS: We tried. It's not available [Bond granted] — Matt Cameron (@matt_cam) December 30, 2019
The ICE attorneys, unused to having to justify a noncitizen’s detention, at times appeared exasperated at the bond hearings Cameron attended, he said, “because now they have to get every one of those records that we used to have to get, and they’re already stretched pretty thin.”
ACLU Massachusetts has been monitoring the implementation of the new policy over the last three weeks. McFadden said they have noticed differences in the judges’ adjudication of bond hearings.
“The evidence at this point is early and anecdotal, but it appears that greater numbers of people are getting bond rather than being detained, and it appears that in many cases, the bond numbers have been lower,” he said.
According to the court’s ruling, the Boston immigration court held hearings for 700 noncitizens between November 1, 2018, and May 7, 2019, and the neighboring Hartford court (where noncitizens continue to bear the burden of proof) held such hearings in 77 cases. The courts made decisions in 651 of the Boston and Hartford cases, and denied release on bond in 41 percent of them, with an average bond of $6,302 in Boston and $28,700 in Hartford.
The issue of bond in immigration hearings goes back to a 1999 case in which the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative body within the Justice Department, interpreted a statute that governs pretrial detention to mean that noncitizens bear the burden of proving to an immigration judge that they deserve release on bond. The statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), allows for the federal government to detain noncitizens while their immigration proceedings are pending and includes a provision on bond, but it is notably silent as to which party bears the burden of proof, and what the standard of proof is.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed bond hearing procedures in Jennings v. Rodriguez, where it decided that detained noncitizens do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings every six months. But the court sidestepped the issue of who bears the burden of proof.
“This is an issue that was expressly left open by the Supreme Court in its decision in Jennings in 2018, where it decided certain issues of statutory construction but left open these types of constitutional questions,” McFadden said. In her 23-page ruling in the lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris also noted that the “Supreme Court expressly declined to address whether the Constitution required these procedural protections.”
Following the ruling in Massachusetts, Cameron believes the issue could ultimately return to the Supreme Court because the underlying statute is so vague.
Detained immigrants have had success in the past challenging their pretrial detention using arguments similar to those lodged by the ACLU attorneys. In 2018, for example, the Massachusetts federal court ruled in the case of Pensamiento v. McDonald that “requiring a non-criminal alien to prove that he is not dangerous and not a flight risk at a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause.” Saris’s November 27 decision, however, marks the first time a court has ruled that the bond system for detained noncitizens is unconstitutional as applied as a class to a whole immigration court — as opposed as to grant an individual noncitizen’s release. The judge found that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 1999 policy violated both due process and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Read Our Complete Coverage The War on Immigrants
Moving forward, the federal government is required to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a noncitizen is a danger, or by a preponderance of the evidence (a lower standard) that they are a flight risk. The ACLU has appealed Saris’s decision with respect to the standard of proof, arguing that the court should raise the bar by requiring the federal government to prove flight risk by clear and convincing evidence as well.
Saris ordered the Boston immigration court to consider a noncitizen’s ability to pay when deciding on bond, as well as to consider alternative conditions of release, like GPS monitoring.
Saris’s ruling applies both to noncitizens who have not yet had their bond hearings, as well as people who have already been denied bond. (In the case of the latter, detained noncitizens may go to a federal court to request a new bond hearing by showing that they likely would have been granted bond under the new standard.)
“We’re fundamentally not changing the nature of the system, which is still as oppressive as possible,” Cameron said. “But at least this is an escape hatch, at least to allow people that should be released to be released.”


theintercept--2020-01-06--U.S. Border Agency Says It’s Not Singling Out Iranians. This Family Waited 11 Hours and Was Asked Ab

U.S. Border Agency Says It’s Not Singling Out Iranians. This Family Waited 11 Hours and Was Asked About Iranian Heritage.

, some including U.S. citizens , were detained and questioned at the U.S.-Canada border over the weekend , heightening concerns that the Trump administration ’ s recent actions in the Middle East could have serious consequences for Iranians living in the United States .
Among those swept up in the ordeal , trapped in the no man ’ s land of a U.S. border office , was a young medical student and her family .
In an interview with The Intercept on Sunday , Crystal , who asked that her last name not be used for fear of retaliation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held for nearly half a day while subjected to questions about their relationship to Iran .
Crystal and her brother are American citizens , born and raised in the U.S. Their parents are dual citizens of the U.S. and Iran .
The family had driven to Vancouver for a vacation and were on their way back to the States on Saturday afternoon when their trouble began .
It was approximately 2 p.m. when they pulled up to a port of entry near Blaine , Washington .
“ We go frequently , ” Crystal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a huge problem.
” This time was different .
While still in their vehicle , Crystal said a Customs and Border Protection officer asked her parents if they were born in Iran .
“ Did you immigrate , or are you a refugee ?
” she recalled the officer asking .
“ What is your occupation ?
When is the last time you went to Iran ?
” The officer picked up a phone and made a call .
“ At that point , we knew we were going to get pulled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer handed the family their passports and directed them to pull into a parking area .
“ Why are you pulling us aside ?
” Crystal ’ s mother asked .
“ Is it just because we ’ re from Iran ?
” According to Crystal , the officer ’ s reply was both apologetic and ominous .
“ I ’ m sorry , ” she recalled him saying .
“ It ’ s just a really bad time for you guys right now .
Go ahead and pull to the side.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crystal thought to herself .
“ It ’ s always going to be a bad time for us , if that ’ s the case.
’ ” The family parked their car , handed over their keys , and walked inside .
More than 11 hours would pass before they emerged again .
Word of what was happening at the Peace Arch Border Crossing began to spread on Sunday , when Hoda Katebi , an Iranian American writer , activist , and community organizer , tweeted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] ‘ report ’ all Iranians entering the country deemed potentially suspicious or ‘ adversarial ’ regardless of citizenship status.
” Katebi ’ s tweet was followed by a press release , also posted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations ’ office in Washington state , which reported that “ more than 60 Iranians and Iranian-Americans of all ages ” had been detained at the crossing on Saturday .
In addition to the reported detentions , the press release said that the national order to “ report ” suspicious or “ adversarial ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBP .
The alarming reports of intensified border screenings came just days after the Trump administration ’ s assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani and amid swirling fears of a potentially cataclysmic new war on the horizon .
Katebi ’ s tweet quickly went viral .
Masih Fouladi , CAIR ’ s executive director in Washington state , spent much of the day collecting testimony and fielding calls from reporters .
“ As an Iranian-American , this is my worst nightmare for my community here in the United States ; having federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their country reminds me of the horrific incidents of Japanese American incarceration , ” he wrote in an email to The Intercept .
“ This administration functions by causing chaos with no long term vision of how their precedents impact the image of our country to communities of color living here and to the billions of people who are observing this administration ’ s actions from abroad.
” Rather than immediately address the claims coming out of Washington state , CBP was silent for much of the day .
Finally , late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement denying that any policy of special border scrutiny had been put in place for travelers of Iranian heritage , including U.S. citizens and permanent residents .
“ Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false , ” the statement said .
With a reference to CBP ’ s parent agency , the Department of Homeland Security , the statement added , “ Reports that DHS/CBP has issued a related directive are also false.
” The border enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intercept , writing that due to the “ current threat environment , CBP is operating with an enhanced posture at its ports of entry to safeguard our national security and protect the America [ sic ] people while simultaneously protecting the civil rights and liberties of everyone.
” According to the agency , wait times at the Blaine port of entry “ increased to an average of two hours on Saturday evening , ” though some individuals “ experienced wait times of up to four hours due to increased volume and reduced staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers are not permitted to use national origin alone when choosing to send an individual to so-called secondary screening , it is one factor they are encouraged to consider in combination with others , including more subjective criteria such as suspicious behavior .
On Saturday , Homeland Security updated its National Terrorism Advisory System to include potential responses to Suleimani ’ s killing among current threats to the U.S. emanating from Iran .
In an interview with the New York Times , former CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske indicated that the update could increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Iran to be sent to secondary screening .
Though The Intercept was unable to independently confirm whether a specific national order has been issued subjecting Iranians to heightened screenings at U.S. ports , Katebi said the Homeland Security source of that information has proven reliable in the past .
And despite the government ’ s categorical denials , by Sunday evening multiple news outlets had collected independent accounts of Iranian-born Americans — including pregnant women and children — held at the Blaine port of entry , seemingly because of their Iranian heritage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover up their outrageous treatment of Iranian Americans at the border , ” said Ryan Costello , policy director of the National Iranian American Council .
“ We ’ ve heard from numerous citizens who were held for hours and subjected to extensive questioning .
A lot of people are worried with war on the horizon and Iranian Americans being subjected to discriminatory treatment.
” in Blaine was already full when Crystal and her family walked in .
“ There was at least 60 of us , ” she said .
Her family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain for an hour and a half before having their first conversation with an officer .
They handed over their passports and began their long wait .
“ We didn ’ t get interviewed for probably like eight hours , ” Crystal said .
The space was filled with families .
Many had U.S. or Canadian passports .
“ I knew there was young kids because I could hear them crying , ” Crystal said .
“ There was a lot of old people.
” She laid down on the floor and tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one toilet for all of us , and it was filthy .
It ran out of toilet paper .
It ran out of paper towels .
There were no outlets — nobody could charge their phones , ” she said .
“ People can ’ t even cry , ” she added .
“ There ’ s no tissues.
” As the hours ticked away , Crystal and her family members began to notice that men were receiving most of the questioning .
In Iran , she explained , military service is compulsory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that didn ’ t mean that the men held in the Blaine waiting room had access to Iranian military secrets .
Crystal recalled speaking to one man who had only served in the military for a couple weeks .
“ I don ’ t even know anything , ” the man told her .
“ I just went to the base .
I don ’ t consider that military service.
” Some of the men were asked if they were part of the “ IRG , ” Crystal recalled .
“ A lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what the acronym stood for .
Apparently , it stands for Iranian Revolution Group or something.
” ( The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a powerful branch of the Iranian military ; Suleimani had been in charge of its elite Quds Force . )
The questions were asked at a counter , Crystal explained , so answers were easy to hear .
In addition to seeking military service information , officers seemed acutely interested in educational history and family contacts .
“ I even heard one lady be asked , ‘ Write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their email addresses , ’ ” Crystal said .
The ordeal in Blaine happened to coincide with an Iranian pop concert in Vancouver on Saturday night , which meant an increased number of Iranians crossing the border .
At some point after the sun went down , Crystal said , border officers began turning people away .
The port had seemingly hit capacity .
“ They were turning people away at the border on both sides , the Canadian side and the USA , ” she explained .
“ There was just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Crystal said , it seemed that the officers had been given a task they didn ’ t know how to handle .
The shifts changed three times while her family was being detained , she said , and each time the new crew of personnel had to get caught up on what they had been asked to do .
“ They didn ’ t even know why they had pulled us over , ” she said .
“ We kept asking them questions .
And they literally were like , ‘ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorry .
It shouldn ’ t be that long.
’ But it took 11 and a half hours before we left.
” While she was being detained , Crystal missed a flight she had scheduled in the U.S. By midnight , the family ’ s frustration reached a boiling point .
“ We were like , ‘ We didn ’ t do anything wrong , ’ ” Crystal said .
“ ’ We ’ re American citizens .
You took our passports away from us .
Give us our passports .
Let us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our home , ” Crystal said .
“ I ’ ve only lived here , never lived anywhere else .
I ’ m probably more American than Iranian.
” The officers never asked Crystal or her brother any questions .
Instead the focus was on her father , who at one point pleaded that at least his family be released .
“ My dad literally went up to them and was like , ‘ Let them go , ’ ” she said .
“ ’ They ’ re American citizens , born and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with Iran , let them go.
’ ” Sometime around midnight , while Crystal was asleep on the floor , her mother got the attention of a newly arrived shift supervisor , explaining that her family had been detained longer than anyone else .
The supervisor intervened , and at 1:30 a.m. , the family was permitted to reenter the United States .
“ Overall , ” Crystal said , “ it ’ s just been crazy .
I mean , my parents had come to America so I would never have @ @ @ @ @ @

Dozens of Iranian families , some including U.S. citizens, were detained and questioned at the U.S.-Canada border over the weekend, heightening concerns that the Trump administration’s recent actions in the Middle East could have serious consequences for Iranians living in the United States. Among those swept up in the ordeal, trapped in the no man’s land of a U.S. border office, was a young medical student and her family.
In an interview with The Intercept on Sunday, Crystal, who asked that her last name not be used for fear of retaliation, described how she and her family were held for nearly half a day while subjected to questions about their relationship to Iran.
Crystal and her brother are American citizens, born and raised in the U.S. Their parents are dual citizens of the U.S. and Iran. The family had driven to Vancouver for a vacation and were on their way back to the States on Saturday afternoon when their trouble began.
It was approximately 2 p.m. when they pulled up to a port of entry near Blaine, Washington. “We go frequently,” Crystal explained. “It’s never been a huge problem.” This time was different. While still in their vehicle, Crystal said a Customs and Border Protection officer asked her parents if they were born in Iran. “Did you immigrate, or are you a refugee?” she recalled the officer asking. “What is your occupation? When is the last time you went to Iran?” The officer picked up a phone and made a call.
“Why are you pulling us aside? Is it just because we’re from Iran?”
“At that point, we knew we were going to get pulled over,” Crystal said.
The officer handed the family their passports and directed them to pull into a parking area. “Why are you pulling us aside?” Crystal’s mother asked. “Is it just because we’re from Iran?” According to Crystal, the officer’s reply was both apologetic and ominous. “I’m sorry,” she recalled him saying. “It’s just a really bad time for you guys right now. Go ahead and pull to the side.”
“‘Are you serious?” Crystal thought to herself. “It’s always going to be a bad time for us, if that’s the case.’”
The family parked their car, handed over their keys, and walked inside. More than 11 hours would pass before they emerged again.
Word of what was happening at the Peace Arch Border Crossing began to spread on Sunday, when Hoda Katebi, an Iranian American writer, activist, and community organizer, tweeted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been “ordered to detain [and] ‘report’ all Iranians entering the country deemed potentially suspicious or ‘adversarial’ regardless of citizenship status.” Katebi’s tweet was followed by a press release, also posted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ office in Washington state, which reported that “more than 60 Iranians and Iranian-Americans of all ages” had been detained at the crossing on Saturday. In addition to the reported detentions, the press release said that the national order to “report” suspicious or “adversarial” Iranians was conveyed by a source at CBP.
The alarming reports of intensified border screenings came just days after the Trump administration’s assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani and amid swirling fears of a potentially cataclysmic new war on the horizon. Katebi’s tweet quickly went viral.
Masih Fouladi, CAIR’s executive director in Washington state, spent much of the day collecting testimony and fielding calls from reporters. “As an Iranian-American, this is my worst nightmare for my community here in the United States; having federal agents question American citizens about their loyalty to their country reminds me of the horrific incidents of Japanese American incarceration,” he wrote in an email to The Intercept. “This administration functions by causing chaos with no long term vision of how their precedents impact the image of our country to communities of color living here and to the billions of people who are observing this administration’s actions from abroad.”
Rather than immediately address the claims coming out of Washington state, CBP was silent for much of the day. Finally, late Sunday afternoon, the agency issued a statement denying that any policy of special border scrutiny had been put in place for travelers of Iranian heritage, including U.S. citizens and permanent residents. “Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false,” the statement said. With a reference to CBP’s parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the statement added, “Reports that DHS/CBP has issued a related directive are also false.”
The border enforcement agency elaborated in an email to The Intercept, writing that due to the “current threat environment, CBP is operating with an enhanced posture at its ports of entry to safeguard our national security and protect the America [sic] people while simultaneously protecting the civil rights and liberties of everyone.” According to the agency, wait times at the Blaine port of entry “increased to an average of two hours on Saturday evening,” though some individuals “experienced wait times of up to four hours due to increased volume and reduced staff during the holiday season.”
While CBP officers are not permitted to use national origin alone when choosing to send an individual to so-called secondary screening, it is one factor they are encouraged to consider in combination with others, including more subjective criteria such as suspicious behavior.
On Saturday, Homeland Security updated its National Terrorism Advisory System to include potential responses to Suleimani’s killing among current threats to the U.S. emanating from Iran. In an interview with the New York Times, former CBP Commissioner Gil Kerlikowske indicated that the update could increase the potential for an individual with ties to Iran to be sent to secondary screening.
Though The Intercept was unable to independently confirm whether a specific national order has been issued subjecting Iranians to heightened screenings at U.S. ports, Katebi said the Homeland Security source of that information has proven reliable in the past. And despite the government’s categorical denials, by Sunday evening multiple news outlets had collected independent accounts of Iranian-born Americans — including pregnant women and children — held at the Blaine port of entry, seemingly because of their Iranian heritage.
“CBP is clearly lying to cover up their outrageous treatment of Iranian Americans at the border,” said Ryan Costello, policy director of the National Iranian American Council. “We’ve heard from numerous citizens who were held for hours and subjected to extensive questioning. A lot of people are worried with war on the horizon and Iranian Americans being subjected to discriminatory treatment.”
The processing office in Blaine was already full when Crystal and her family walked in. “There was at least 60 of us,” she said. Her family got in line, where they would remain for an hour and a half before having their first conversation with an officer. They handed over their passports and began their long wait.
“We didn’t get interviewed for probably like eight hours,” Crystal said.
The space was filled with families. Many had U.S. or Canadian passports. “I knew there was young kids because I could hear them crying,” Crystal said. “There was a lot of old people.” She laid down on the floor and tried to sleep. “There was only one toilet for all of us, and it was filthy. It ran out of toilet paper. It ran out of paper towels. There were no outlets — nobody could charge their phones,” she said.
“People can’t even cry,” she added. “There’s no tissues.”
As the hours ticked away, Crystal and her family members began to notice that men were receiving most of the questioning. In Iran, she explained, military service is compulsory for men at age 18. But that didn’t mean that the men held in the Blaine waiting room had access to Iranian military secrets. Crystal recalled speaking to one man who had only served in the military for a couple weeks. “I don’t even know anything,” the man told her. “I just went to the base. I don’t consider that military service.”
Some of the men were asked if they were part of the “IRG,” Crystal recalled. “A lot of the men didn’t even know what the acronym stood for. Apparently, it stands for Iranian Revolution Group or something.” (The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a powerful branch of the Iranian military; Suleimani had been in charge of its elite Quds Force.)
The questions were asked at a counter, Crystal explained, so answers were easy to hear. In addition to seeking military service information, officers seemed acutely interested in educational history and family contacts. “I even heard one lady be asked, ‘Write down all of your siblings’ names and their email addresses,’” Crystal said.
The ordeal in Blaine happened to coincide with an Iranian pop concert in Vancouver on Saturday night, which meant an increased number of Iranians crossing the border. At some point after the sun went down, Crystal said, border officers began turning people away. The port had seemingly hit capacity. “They were turning people away at the border on both sides, the Canadian side and the USA,” she explained. “There was just too many of us.”
“It’s just been crazy. I mean, my parents had come to America so I would never have to go through this.”
In general, Crystal said, it seemed that the officers had been given a task they didn’t know how to handle. The shifts changed three times while her family was being detained, she said, and each time the new crew of personnel had to get caught up on what they had been asked to do. “They didn’t even know why they had pulled us over,” she said. “We kept asking them questions. And they literally were like, ‘We’re sorry. We’re sorry. It shouldn’t be that long.’ But it took 11 and a half hours before we left.”
While she was being detained, Crystal missed a flight she had scheduled in the U.S. By midnight, the family’s frustration reached a boiling point. “We were like, ‘We didn’t do anything wrong,’” Crystal said. “’We’re American citizens. You took our passports away from us. Give us our passports. Let us go home.’”
“America is our home,” Crystal said. “I’ve only lived here, never lived anywhere else. I’m probably more American than Iranian.”
The officers never asked Crystal or her brother any questions. Instead the focus was on her father, who at one point pleaded that at least his family be released. “My dad literally went up to them and was like, ‘Let them go,’” she said. “’They’re American citizens, born and raised here, never had anything to do with Iran, let them go.’”
Sometime around midnight, while Crystal was asleep on the floor, her mother got the attention of a newly arrived shift supervisor, explaining that her family had been detained longer than anyone else. The supervisor intervened, and at 1:30 a.m., the family was permitted to reenter the United States.
“Overall,” Crystal said, “it’s just been crazy. I mean, my parents had come to America so I would never have to go through this.”


theintercept--2020-01-05--Secret Iranian Spy Cables Show How Qassim Suleimani Wielded His Enormous Power in Iraq

I since the 1979 Iranian Revolution , few Iranian leaders have achieved the global profile attained by Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , the military commander killed in an American airstrike on Thursday .
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq , Suleimani emerged as the United States ’ s most capable adversary in that country .
His American counterpart at a key point during the occupation , Gen. David Petraeus , described Suleimani as “ a truly evil figure ” in a letter to Robert Gates , then the U.S. defense secretary .
Over the years , Suleimani gained a reputation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a network of ideologically driven militia proxies across the Middle East .
A more nuanced portrait of Suleimani emerges from a leaked archive of secret Iranian spy cables obtained by The Intercept .
The documents were generated by officers from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security , or MOIS , stationed in Iraq between 2013 and 2015 , when the Iranian war against the Islamic State was at its height , and Suleimani was running the show .
The reports reveal how Suleimani was perceived in some corners of the Iranian intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not always align with the carefully crafted public image of the general as an indomitable strategist .
While the Iranian-led war against ISIS was raging , Iranian spies privately expressed concern that the brutal tactics favored by Suleimani and his Iraqi proxies were laying the groundwork for major blowback against the Iranian presence in Iraq .
Suleimani was also criticized for his own alleged self-promotion amid the fighting .
Photos of the Iranian commander on battlefields across Iraq had helped build his image as an iconic military leader .
But that outsized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure of terror for many ordinary Iraqis .
Some of the cables chronicle Suleimani ’ s battlefield appearances and meetings with senior Iraqi officials , while others describe the activities of his militia proxies in Iraq .
As commander of the elite Quds Force , the external operations arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , Suleimani belonged to a more powerful institutional rival of Iran ’ s intelligence ministry .
In some documents , intelligence officers criticize Suleimani for alienating Sunni Arab communities and helping to create the circumstances that justified a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A 2014 MOIS document lamented that , partly because Suleimani broadcasted his role as commander of many of the Iraqi Shia militias fighting ISIS , Iraqi Sunnis blamed the Iranian government for the persecution that many were suffering at the hands of these same forces .
The document discussed a recent assault by Iran-backed forces against ISIS fighters in the Sunni farming community of Jurf al-Sakhar .
The attack had included a number of Shia militia groups , including a notorious outfit known as Asaib ahl al-Haq .
The militias succeeded in routing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon gave way to a generalized slaughter of locals , transforming the sweetness of Iran ’ s triumph into “ bitterness , ” in the words of one case officer .
“ It is mandatory and necessary to put some limits and borders on the violence being inflicted against innocent Sunni people in Iraq and the things that Mr. Suleimani is doing .
Otherwise , the violence between Shia and Sunni will continue , ” the MOIS report continued .
“ At the moment , whatever happens to Sunnis , directly or indirectly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Iran even when Iran has nothing to do with it.
” That same document speculated that Suleimani ’ s public promotion of his role in the war was geared toward building political capital in Iran , possibly for a future presidential bid .
But it also contained subtler insights into the Quds Force commander ’ s character and how he saw himself .
The document noted Suleimani ’ s affection for former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu , once a close ally of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan .
For a time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind Turkey ’ s foreign policy .
“ Mr .
Suleimani has an old relationship with Ahmet Davutoglu and always compares his role in Iranian foreign policy to that of someone like Davutoglu in Turkish politics , ” the secret report said .
However , Suleimani ’ s self-perception had evolved over time , according to the report , and by 2014 , with the Iranian proxy war against ISIS in full swing , he had begun to see himself less as a political ideologue and more as a military and intelligence chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Turkey ’ s powerful intelligence apparatus .
The intelligence ministry report does not contain further details about Suleimani ’ s relationships with senior Turkish officials .
But the apparent shift in his self-perception tracks with developments in the region .
Just as Fidan was helping direct a Turkish proxy war in Syria , Iran was ramping up a similar effort in Iraq .
In late 2014 , according to the leaked documents , an expansive program was already underway to send Iraqi Shia militia fighters to Iran for training , equipment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program in which the Revolutionary Guards played a critical role .
These Shia militia fighters went on to fight the Islamic State , but also stood accused at times of waging an indiscriminate sectarian war inside Iraq and undermining the country ’ s elected government .
Iran ’ s secret intelligence documents contain insights into how this training campaign was organized , while also shedding light on the idiosyncratic reasons that some Iraqis sought the support of Suleimani and the Revolutionary Guards .
In a September 2014 meeting at the Iranian consulate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Iranian spy that he wanted his fighters to operate under Iranian control , rather than being directed by the Iraqi army or the Popular Mobilization Units , or PMUs , formed to fight ISIS .
His concerns seemed primarily ideological .
The commander told his Iranian interlocutor that he already had 600 well-trained fighters and planned to grow his militia in the near future .
He was anxious , however , that his troops might lose their ideological discipline without Iranian guidance .
Many volunteers in the PMUs “ might not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ some commanders and even soldiers ” in the Iraqi security forces were said to drink alcohol .
The commander asked the Iranian spy to “ coordinate for these soldiers to come under the command of Iran , ” worrying that his fighters ’ morale and discipline would be harmed otherwise .
According to the report , the request was enthusiastically granted .
But some Iraqis appear to have romanticized the Revolutionary Guards , and some militia fighters sent to Iran for training found the experience did not meet their lofty expectations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Iran to receive training are not happy with the cultural situation in Iran , ” another commander whose troops had already undergone training in Iran told an intelligence ministry spy , according to a different report from the same month .
This commander complained that “ brothers in [ the Revolutionary Guards ] only pray the usual five times a day , ” and that the Iranian fighters were not as zealous in their religious practices as the Iraqi trainees had expected .
These Iraqi militias wound up playing a significant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against ISIS .
Following Suleimani ’ s death , some of them are now finding themselves in the U.S. military ’ s crosshairs .
Within 24 hours of the strike that killed the Quds Force leader , another strike took place north of Baghdad , reportedly killing and wounding several members of an Iran-backed militia .
There are strong signs that this campaign is just beginning .
Late Friday , the State Department announced that it was designating Asaib ahl al-Haq , which had taken part in the 2014 massacre in Jurf al-Sakhar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctioning several of its leaders .
In the short term , it is almost certain that violence will escalate in the Middle East .
Late Saturday , U.S. President Donald Trump made a provocative threat to bomb 52 selected targets inside Iran if it retaliates for the killing of Suleimani , including Iranian cultural sites .
But Iran may not even need to respond with violence to impose a price for the death of the Quds Force commander .
In response to widespread outrage over the strike that killed Suleimani , Iraqi Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the MOIS documents as having a “ special relationship ” with Iran — and who enjoyed Suleimani ’ s personal backing when protests demanded his ouster this past fall — pledged on Friday to convene parliament to review the status of American troops in Iraq .
By Sunday , the parliament had voted to expel the U.S. military from the country .
If the Iraqi government does make U.S. troops leave in response to Suleimani ’ s killing , it will be another chapter in what is by now a familiar story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq , this latest act of aggression may be a tactical success for the United States that winds up delivering a strategic victory to Iran .

I n the four decades since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, few Iranian leaders have achieved the global profile attained by Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the military commander killed in an American airstrike on Thursday. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Suleimani emerged as the United States’s most capable adversary in that country. His American counterpart at a key point during the occupation, Gen. David Petraeus, described Suleimani as “a truly evil figure” in a letter to Robert Gates, then the U.S. defense secretary. Over the years, Suleimani gained a reputation as a fearsome military leader who controlled a network of ideologically driven militia proxies across the Middle East.
A more nuanced portrait of Suleimani emerges from a leaked archive of secret Iranian spy cables obtained by The Intercept. The documents were generated by officers from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS, stationed in Iraq between 2013 and 2015, when the Iranian war against the Islamic State was at its height, and Suleimani was running the show.
The reports reveal how Suleimani was perceived in some corners of the Iranian intelligence establishment, and the picture that emerges does not always align with the carefully crafted public image of the general as an indomitable strategist. While the Iranian-led war against ISIS was raging, Iranian spies privately expressed concern that the brutal tactics favored by Suleimani and his Iraqi proxies were laying the groundwork for major blowback against the Iranian presence in Iraq. Suleimani was also criticized for his own alleged self-promotion amid the fighting. Photos of the Iranian commander on battlefields across Iraq had helped build his image as an iconic military leader. But that outsized image was also turning him into a figure of terror for many ordinary Iraqis.
Some of the cables chronicle Suleimani’s battlefield appearances and meetings with senior Iraqi officials, while others describe the activities of his militia proxies in Iraq. As commander of the elite Quds Force, the external operations arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Suleimani belonged to a more powerful institutional rival of Iran’s intelligence ministry. In some documents, intelligence officers criticize Suleimani for alienating Sunni Arab communities and helping to create the circumstances that justified a renewed American military presence in Iraq.
A 2014 MOIS document lamented that, partly because Suleimani broadcasted his role as commander of many of the Iraqi Shia militias fighting ISIS, Iraqi Sunnis blamed the Iranian government for the persecution that many were suffering at the hands of these same forces. The document discussed a recent assault by Iran-backed forces against ISIS fighters in the Sunni farming community of Jurf al-Sakhar. The attack had included a number of Shia militia groups, including a notorious outfit known as Asaib ahl al-Haq. The militias succeeded in routing the Islamic State, but their victory soon gave way to a generalized slaughter of locals, transforming the sweetness of Iran’s triumph into “bitterness,” in the words of one case officer.
Photo: AP
“It is mandatory and necessary to put some limits and borders on the violence being inflicted against innocent Sunni people in Iraq and the things that Mr. Suleimani is doing. Otherwise, the violence between Shia and Sunni will continue,” the MOIS report continued. “At the moment, whatever happens to Sunnis, directly or indirectly, is seen as having been done by Iran even when Iran has nothing to do with it.”
That same document speculated that Suleimani’s public promotion of his role in the war was geared toward building political capital in Iran, possibly for a future presidential bid. But it also contained subtler insights into the Quds Force commander’s character and how he saw himself. The document noted Suleimani’s affection for former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, once a close ally of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. For a time, Davutoglu was considered the intellectual force behind Turkey’s foreign policy.
“Mr. Suleimani has an old relationship with Ahmet Davutoglu and always compares his role in Iranian foreign policy to that of someone like Davutoglu in Turkish politics,” the secret report said. However, Suleimani’s self-perception had evolved over time, according to the report, and by 2014, with the Iranian proxy war against ISIS in full swing, he had begun to see himself less as a political ideologue and more as a military and intelligence chief comparable to Hakan Fidan, the head of Turkey’s powerful intelligence apparatus.
The intelligence ministry report does not contain further details about Suleimani’s relationships with senior Turkish officials. But the apparent shift in his self-perception tracks with developments in the region. Just as Fidan was helping direct a Turkish proxy war in Syria, Iran was ramping up a similar effort in Iraq.
In late 2014, according to the leaked documents, an expansive program was already underway to send Iraqi Shia militia fighters to Iran for training, equipment, and ideological preparation. It was a program in which the Revolutionary Guards played a critical role. These Shia militia fighters went on to fight the Islamic State, but also stood accused at times of waging an indiscriminate sectarian war inside Iraq and undermining the country’s elected government.
Iran’s secret intelligence documents contain insights into how this training campaign was organized, while also shedding light on the idiosyncratic reasons that some Iraqis sought the support of Suleimani and the Revolutionary Guards.
In a September 2014 meeting at the Iranian consulate in Basra, an Iraqi militia commander told an Iranian spy that he wanted his fighters to operate under Iranian control, rather than being directed by the Iraqi army or the Popular Mobilization Units, or PMUs, formed to fight ISIS. His concerns seemed primarily ideological. The commander told his Iranian interlocutor that he already had 600 well-trained fighters and planned to grow his militia in the near future. He was anxious, however, that his troops might lose their ideological discipline without Iranian guidance.
Many volunteers in the PMUs “might not even pray,” he said, and “some commanders and even soldiers” in the Iraqi security forces were said to drink alcohol. The commander asked the Iranian spy to “coordinate for these soldiers to come under the command of Iran,” worrying that his fighters’ morale and discipline would be harmed otherwise. According to the report, the request was enthusiastically granted.
But some Iraqis appear to have romanticized the Revolutionary Guards, and some militia fighters sent to Iran for training found the experience did not meet their lofty expectations. “Unfortunately, those who we send to Iran to receive training are not happy with the cultural situation in Iran,” another commander whose troops had already undergone training in Iran told an intelligence ministry spy, according to a different report from the same month. This commander complained that “brothers in [the Revolutionary Guards] only pray the usual five times a day,” and that the Iranian fighters were not as zealous in their religious practices as the Iraqi trainees had expected.
These Iraqi militias wound up playing a significant, if controversial, role in the war against ISIS. Following Suleimani’s death, some of them are now finding themselves in the U.S. military’s crosshairs. Within 24 hours of the strike that killed the Quds Force leader, another strike took place north of Baghdad, reportedly killing and wounding several members of an Iran-backed militia. There are strong signs that this campaign is just beginning. Late Friday, the State Department announced that it was designating Asaib ahl al-Haq, which had taken part in the 2014 massacre in Jurf al-Sakhar, as a foreign terrorist organization and sanctioning several of its leaders.
In the short term, it is almost certain that violence will escalate in the Middle East. Late Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump made a provocative threat to bomb 52 selected targets inside Iran if it retaliates for the killing of Suleimani, including Iranian cultural sites. But Iran may not even need to respond with violence to impose a price for the death of the Quds Force commander. In response to widespread outrage over the strike that killed Suleimani, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, who is described in the MOIS documents as having a “special relationship” with Iran — and who enjoyed Suleimani’s personal backing when protests demanded his ouster this past fall — pledged on Friday to convene parliament to review the status of American troops in Iraq. By Sunday, the parliament had voted to expel the U.S. military from the country.
If the Iraqi government does make U.S. troops leave in response to Suleimani’s killing, it will be another chapter in what is by now a familiar story: Like the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, this latest act of aggression may be a tactical success for the United States that winds up delivering a strategic victory to Iran.