ProPublica's Reporting Error Shows Why The Government Must Declassify Details Of Gina Haspel's Role In CIA Torture

Furnished content.


Last week, we wrote a bit about Donald Trump's nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel. That post highlighted a bunch of reporting about Haspel's role in running a CIA blacksite in Thailand that was a key spot in the CIA's torture program. Soon after we published it, ProPublica retracted and corrected an earlier piece -- on which much of the reporting about Haspel's connection to torture relied on. Apparently, ProPublica was wrong on the date at which Haspel started at the site, meaning that she took over soon after the most famous torture victim, Abu Zaubaydah, was no longer being tortured. Thus earlier claims that she oversaw his inhumane, brutal, and war crimes-violating torture were incorrect. To some, this error, has been used to toss out all of the concerns and complaints about Haspel, even though reporters now agree that she did oversee the torture of at least one other prisoner at a time when other CIA employees were seeking to transfer out of the site out of disgust for what the CIA was doing.However, what this incident should do is make it clear that the Senate should not move forward with Haspel's nomination unless the details of her involvement is declassified. As Trevor Timm notes, ProPublica's error was not due to problematic reporting, but was the inevitable result of the CIA hiding important information from the public.

In its report, ProPublica was forced to use a combination of heavily censored CIA and court documents and anonymous sources to piece together what happened over a decade ago in the secret CIA prison Haspel ran. Many of the documents were made public only after years of Freedom of Information Act fights brought by public interest groups, while many other documents on Haspel's CIA tenure remain classified.These types of unintentional mistakes would be almost entirely avoidable if journalists did not have to read between the lines of ridiculous government redactions meant to cover up crimes.The most obvious example of this is the Senate's 500-page summary of the torture report it released in 2014. How many times is Haspel named in the torture report? We have no idea. The redactions on the report completely obscured the names of all participants in the torture program, including the CIA personnel involved, as well as their partners in crime from authoritarian dictatorships like Libya, Egypt, and Syria.At the time of the report's release, advocates proposed that CIA personnel should at least be identified by pseudonyms so that the public could understand how many people were involved and if a particular person was responsible for more than others. That proposal was rejected as well.

0 comments, click here to add the first

As Expected Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Unconstitutional SESTA Bill, Putting Lives In Danger

Furnished content.


This was not unexpected, but earlier today the Senate easily passed SESTA/FOSTA (the same version the House passed a few weeks ago) by a 97 to 2 vote -- with only Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul voting against it. We've explained in great detail why the bill is bad. We've explained in great detail why the bill won't stop sex trafficking and will actually put sex workers' lives in more danger, while also stomping on free speech and the open internet at the same time (which some see as a feature rather than a bug). The Senate declined to put any fixes in place.Senator Wyden, who had originally offered up an amendment that would have fixed at least one big problem with the bill (clarifying that doing any moderation doesn't subject you to liability for other types of content) pulled the amendment right before the vote, noting that there had been a significant, if dishonest, lobbying effort to kill those amendments, meaning it had no chance. He did note that because of the many problems of the bill, he fully expects that these issues will be revisited shortly.As for the many problems of the bill... well, they are legion, starting with the fact that multiple parts of the bill appear to be unconstitutional. That's most obvious in the "ex post facto" clause that applies the new criminal laws to activities in the past, which is just blatantly unconstitutional. There are some other serious questions about other parts of the bill, including concerns about it violating the First Amendment as well. It seems likely that the law will be challenged in court soon enough.In the meantime, though, the damage here is real. The clearest delineation of the outright harm this bill will cause can be seen in a Twitter thread from a lawyer who represents victims of sex trafficking, who tweeted last night just how much damage this will do. It's a long Twitter thread, but well worth reading. Among other things, she notes that sites like Backpage were actually really useful for finding victims of sex trafficking and in helping them get out of dangerous situations. She talks about how her own clients would disappear, and the only way she could get back in touch with them to help them was often through these platforms. And all that will be gone, meaning that more people will be in danger and it will be that much harder for advocates and law enforcement to help them. She similarly notes that many of the groups supporting SESTA "haven't gotten their hands dirty in the field" and don't really understand what's happening.That's true on the internet side as well. Mike Godwin highlights the history before CDA 230 was law and the kinds of problems that come about when you make platforms liable for the speech of their users.

In Cubby, a federal judge suggested (in a closely reasoned opinion) that the proper First Amendment model was the bookstore - bookstores, under American law, are a constitutionally protected space for hosting other people's expression. But that case was misinterpreted by a later decision (Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995), so lawyers and policy advocates pushed to include platform protections in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that amounted to a statutory equivalent of the Cubby precedent. Those protections, in Section 230, allowed platform providers to engage in certain kinds of editorial intervention and selection without becoming transformed by their actions into publishers of users' content (and thus legally liable for what users say).In short, we at EFF wanted platform providers to be free to create humane digital spaces without necessarily acquiring legal liability for everything their users said and did, and with no legal compulsion to invade users' privacy. We argued from the very beginning, about the need for service providers to be just, to support human rights even when they didn't have to and to provide space and platforms for open creativity. The rules we worked to put into place later gave full bloom to the World Wide Web, to new communities on platforms like Facebook and Twitter and to collaborative collective enterprises like Wikipedia and open-source software.

0 comments, click here to add the first