The spending, which has soared in the past decade, can be hard to trace, of programs across multiple agencies. There’s also evidence it’s not always wisely spent. In Afghanistan, for instance, the military bought this year for Afghan pilots, most of whom still don’t know how to fly them.

Last year, legislators in the House drafted a bill that would require more transparency and evaluation of security and all foreign aid programs. The bill was championed by an unlikely coalition of Tea Party budget hawks and such as Oxfam America.

But the Obama administration successfully pushed to have security assistance exempted from the bill’s requirements, according to a letter obtained by ProPublica and interviews with Congressional staffers.

The Pentagon that it “strongly” opposed last year’s bill in a statement to Congressional staff laying out its “informal view” last December. “The extensive public reporting requirements raise concerns,” the letter said. “Country A could鈥otentially learn what Country B has received in military assistance.” Foreign governments would also “likely be resistant” to monitoring and evaluation from the U.S.  Staffers say the State Department had also resisted the bill’s increased oversight of security assistance. (The State Department declined our requests to discuss that.)

Two weeks later, the House a version that covered only “development assistance.” The bill never made it to a vote in the Senate.

The State and Defense Departments, which handle most security assistance, “really are scared,” said a House staffer who worked on last year’s bill.  “They’re afraid of transparency about what the money is funding, where the weapons are going, who is getting training.”

As it is now, the staffer said, “some reports come two or three years after the fact, and the data is not easily manipulable.”

Increased oversight of security assistance is needed, said Walter Slocombe, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, who recently led a government-sponsored on the issue. The problem is that “a lot of these programs have been developed ad hoc,” he said. “There’s not much coordination among agencies, though often they are trying to do more or less the same thing.”

New versions of the bill have been reintroduced in the and . This time, the administration’s stance isn’t clear. A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment, as did the Pentagon.

This year’s bill has a loophole for security spending: a waiver allowing the Secretary of State to exempt such programs if he deems it in the “national interest.”

Still, including security programs in the bill at all is “going to be a bit more difficult,” said an aide to one of the House bill’s co-sponsors, Gerry Connolly, D-Va. The exemption requires the State Department to tell Congress which programs it isn’t including, and why.

Lauren Frese, a State Department foreign assistance official said, “We support Congress’ objectives with the bill. It’s more a matter of making sure we’re not legislating something that isn’t aligned with what we’ve already got going on.” As the White House points out, it has already required agencies to be more transparent about spending on foreign aid.  Agencies must upload budget data to a central public dashboard, , though the site’s data is currently incomplete and information from the Defense Department is available only in . The bill would turn such directives into law.

The legislation also goes further. It would require the State Department to develop guidelines for monitoring and evaluating aid’s effectiveness across agencies.

In a in April, the House bill’s co-sponsor, Ted Poe, R-Texas, said that “Americans want to see [whether] the money that we’re sending to NGOs, the governments, et cetera is working or not working.”

Representative Connolly hopes the bill will help the public “better understand the rationale for aid, and the context: what a small, small part of the government’s budget it represents,” he told ProPublica. Indeed, foreign aid makes up only  of the federal budget.

Supporters of the bill say excluding security assistance would leave a huge gap.

In January, an independent advisory board to the State Department comprehensive reform of the whole concept of security assistance, calling for concrete objectives, better long-term monitoring, and a greater emphasis on non-military programs, such as programs to strengthen justice systems. (A few months later, the White House issued a policy directive that to take on many of the same issues.)

“Nobody looks at it systematically,” said , who worked on national security and international affairs for the Office of Management and Budget in the 1990s and has for a reduced military role in security assistance. That’s in part a reflection of how the landscape of programs has grown and fragmented in recent decades. Security assistance grew 227 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2012, to a peak of $26.8 billion, according to data collected by the Stimson Center, where Adams is a fellow. That growth comes largely from programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are beginning to be scaled back. This year’s budget still allocated more than $20 billion across State and Defense.

State oversees all foreign aid, including many programs traditionally thought of as “military,” like weapons sales, but the Pentagon expanded its portfolio of “” and special operations in the 1990s. After 9/11, Congress also legislated new programs related to the “war on terror,” such as the and the . With its Afghan programs, the Pentagon accounts for more than half of all security spending 鈥� not counting operations.

Last year, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta training and aid to partners as “low cost and small-footprint approaches” to military objectives.

The Pentagon’s increased role in foreign aid highlights a long-standing tension between the State Department and the military, which always has more cash on hand. “If you’ve got a $600 billion budget it’s easier to squeeze in a few million dollars here and there,” said Slocombe, who chaired the study for the State Department.

Countless examples from Afghanistan illustrate the problem of lack of both long-term planning and cooperation between agencies. In 2010, ProPublica and Newsweek the failures of the police training program, which had by then cost $6 billion. Responsibility shifted between agencies and contractors, and State and Defense squabbled “over whether the training should emphasize police work or counterinsurgency.” Last year, in one police facility built by the Army Corps of Engineers, the inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction found a well building being used . Another encampment, designed for 175 police, was occupied by just 12. The men for many of the buildings.

Other reports found the military that were destroyed or hadn’t been seen in years, and that , as Defense and USAID each expected the other to install it.

Afghanistan is an exceptional case, given the scale of the spending and wartime conditions. But it also has the scrutiny of a special inspector general and a large U.S. presence. Security assistance to other countries has far fewer eyes on it 鈥� or a clear idea of what the objectives for the aid are. Empowering local police and armies can have more severe political and human rights repercussions than digging wells. “It engages us with a bunch of countries where our interests are at best opaque,” said Adams.

Some programs for political and diplomatic reasons (as was long the case with ), while others are meant to build up a country’s ability to help the U.S. in its aims, such as countering terrorism or drug-dealing. In other words, giving a country what it wants, versus what the U.S. thinks it needs. (In fact, the Government Accountability Office found that branches on which programs are supposed to do what.)

In a February , the GAO said that few of the military’s training programs had looked carefully at long-term impacts. “Reporting on progress and effectiveness,” had in some cases “been limited to anecdotal information.” For example, while Yemen from two of the military’s new counterterrorism programs, due to security concerns the Pentagon has yet to evaluate whether that money’s had any effect.

The House bill’s sponsors believe it could help with these problems of planning and communication. The bill “is not designed to be hostile or adversarial for the Pentagon and State Department,” said Representative Connolly. “It’s designed to provide them with a more cogent rationale for these programs.”

The post Obama Administration Helped Kill Transparency Push on Military Aid appeared first on 天美视频.

With charges filed against NSA leaker Edward Snowden this June, the administration has brought a total of seven cases under the Espionage Act, which dates from World War I and criminalizes disclosing information 鈥�.鈥� Prior to the current administration, there had been only resulting in indictments in which the Espionage Act was used to prosecute government officials for leaks.

The administration has also targeted journalists. In May, it was revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly while investigating a potential CIA leak, and a Fox News reporter as part of a criminal leak case (outlined below). No journalist with a crime.

But the news prompted an outcry that Obama鈥檚 hard line on leaks could have a on investigative reporting that depends on inside sources. (In response, the Justice Department limiting when journalists鈥� records can be sought.)

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told us the government 鈥渄oes not target whistleblowers.鈥� () As they point out, government whistleblower protections shield only those who raise their concerns through the proper channels within their agency 鈥� not through leaks to the media or other unauthorized persons.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper : 鈥減eople in the intelligence business should be like my grandchildren鈥攕een but not heard.鈥�

Christie Thompson contributed to this story.

The post Charting Obama鈥檚 Crackdown on National Security Leaks appeared first on 天美视频.

What started the hunger strike?

It began after guards allegedly mishandled detainees’ Korans in a cell search in early February 鈥� but it’s certainly become about more than the holy books.

The military detainees have previously hidden “improvised weapons, unauthorized food and medicine” in the spines of the Korans, and that the February searches , conducted by Muslim translators. (Koran searches had hunger strikes before, in 2005.)

Attorneys for hunger strikers say the detainees have offered to relinquish their Korans rather than have them searched. The military initially that option, but now , “if they choose not to have one, they choose not to have one.”

In any case, just about everyone 鈥� from the International Committee of the Red Cross to the 鈥� agrees the strike comes out of growing frustration and hopelessness among detainees. As we detail below, there are few indications that Gitmo will be shuttered or detainees transferred in the near future. The last detainee to leave Gitmo, last fall, .

General Kelly, of U.S. Southern Command, last month that detainees had watched Obama’s State of the Union address, and heard no mention of Guantanamo. “That has caused them to become frustrated and they want to … turn the heat up, get it back in the media,” Kelly said.

In an account in the New York Times last weekend, a Yemeni hunger striker named Samir Moqbel said he hoped “that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guant谩namo before it is too late.” (Moqbel had recounted his story by phone to his lawyers.)

Another detainee, a Saudi Arabian named Shaker Aamer, also recently wrote an op-ed.  “a bit of a professional hunger striker,” Aamer said “this one is a whole lot different.” Lawyers say the strike is far more widespread than the military’s count.

According to the military, two detainees have since the strike began.

Have there been clashes between guards and the prisoners?

Yes, most recently last weekend. In an on Saturday, soldiers in riot gear moved about 60 of the detainees from their communal living camp into individual cells. Guards fired four “less-than-lethal” rounds; they say some prisoners wielded makeshift weapons, constructed from broken broomsticks and  filled with rocks.

Military commanders that the once “compliant” detainees had been ignoring orders for months, “covering cameras, poking guards with sticks through fences, spraying U.S. forces with urine and refusing to lock themselves inside their cells for nightly sweeps.”

In January, there was on the facility’s new soccer field, which ended with guards shooting “one non-lethal round” at a group of detainees.

In  earlier this week, the military said the detainees were being placed on lockdown to allow for “round-the-clock monitoring.” In recent years, the communal living arrangement to “feel more like a dorm.” Now, the Miami Herald , those men are confined to their cells, without TV, legal documents, and the other things they were previously allowed.

In turn, detainees’ lawyers that prison guards became stricter in recent months, and that mail and personal items have been in cell searches.

An attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, Omar Farah, told ProPublica that he and other lawyers feared that the move to individual cells would cut off information about the strike. “The primary way we’ve been getting information is through prisoners’ accounts of one other.”

Are the strikers being mistreated?

At least one detainee that the hunger strikers are being punished, by being forced to drink potentially unsafe tap water and cold temperatures in their cells. The military disputes that, saying the tap water is safe and bottled water is available. On Monday, a federal judge he did not have jurisdiction to weigh in on the prisoner’s treatment.

What about force-feeding?

As of Wednesday, 15 detainees are being force-fed nutritional supplements through tubes inserted into their noses. The military says strikers “present” themselves for the procedure, though it also says .

Others have been tied down for feedings. Moqbel, in his account in the New York Times, said he was once last month. Now, he wrote, “Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know when they will come.”

The Red Cross and other groups ; they say prisoners to choose whether they eat. The U.S. military position is that it to let prisoners starve. A spokesman told the Miami Herald allowing a detainee to harm himself “is anathema to our values as Americans.”

How many prisoners are left at Gitmo?

1. Since 2002, a total of 779 people have been held there.

No one has been brought to Gitmo under President Obama. The last people to leave were two Uighur Muslims from China, who were in El Salvador last spring. Adnan Latif, a Yemeni, died in . He was the ninth detainee to die.

Does the U.S. consider the detainees still there all dangerous terrorists?

No. In fact, about half the detainees have been approved for release. Here’s the government’s of people held at Gitmo, as of last November:

• 56 have been cleared for transfer to their own or a third country. Last fall, the State Department made public.
• 30 Yemenis have been cleared to be sent back to Yemen, but are being held because of an unstable security situation there.
• 24 people have “possible prosecution pending.”
• 46 are being held in indefinite detention under the 2001 authorization for military force: they’ve been deemed too dangerous to release, but are not facing prosecution.
• Seven are facing trial by military commissions. That includes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.
• Three were in military commissions and are serving out their sentences or fulfilling plea bargains. (Four others were also convicted but transferred to their home countries.)

The U.S. won’t release the names of those it considers hunger strikers, and it’s not always clear which category detainees fall into. Some of those who have spoken through their lawyers are on the cleared-for-transfer list (Moqbel, of the New York Times , is not, though he claims he is among the group of Yemenis who may be transferred.)

Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald she has been told that the 9/11 defendants and the rest of the 16 “high-value” detainees, who were brought to Gitmo from the CIA’s black-site prisons, are not participating in the hunger strike. They are held in a separate, secret section of the camp. (See the Herald’s “” for descriptions of where the detainees are held.)

Why haven’t the people cleared for transfer been released?

Over the past few years Congress effectively prohibited bringing detainees to the U.S. and made it difficult to send them to other countries, by an assurance that the individual would never pose a threat to the U.S. in the future.

Difficult, but not impossible 鈥� there are waivers in the legislation that allow the president to get around the restrictions in certain cases. Human rights groups are the administration to use those waivers, but Obama has yet to do so. Four detainees since the law on overseas transfers went into effect, but in each case, it was to fulfill a court-ordered release or a military commission plea agreement, which Congress allowed. (The Supreme Court the men at Gitmo have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.)

As for the Yemenis still at Gitmo, Obama a moratorium on transfers to Yemen after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of 2009. There are also fears about recidivism 鈥� a this year from the Director of National Intelligence estimates that 16 percent of released detainees have “reengaged” in militant activities. (Most of them were released under President George W. Bush.)

Other countries have also called for the release of their citizens. The president of Yemen, which has worked closely with the U.S. on drones and counterterrorism, recently referred to Gitmo as “.”  Britain has also for the release of one of the hunger strikers, Shaker Aamer, who has British residency. The UN commissioner for human rights has  that “indefinite incarceration” at Gitmo “is in clear breach of international law.”

Why hasn’t Obama closed Gitmo?

The White House he “remains committed” to closing Gitmo, but those plans in the face of congressional opposition.

One of Obama’s was an executive order to shut down the prison within a year. He continued military detention or trial in military commissions, but temporarily suspended the commissions and required a review of the status of the Gitmo detainees.

In a speech a few months later, Obama “the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained,” and had “set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

Since then, lawmakers have passed restrictions and the administration has dropped many of its visible efforts to shut down Gitmo.

This January, the State Department shut down the office responsible for detainee resettlement. Even if transfer restrictions were loosened, to the prisoners who are being held indefinitely. A new for the detainees was created in 2011, though it . Military commissions , with some changes — , including questions about government .

What can outside observers see at Gitmo?

Not much beyond what the military wants them to see.

The competing claims about water quality, numbers of strikers, and the Koran searches underscore the limited, often one-sided, information that gets out. Detainees communicate mostly through their lawyers. The military controls access to the prison.  It recently stopped commercial flights to the base, a decision and . For a few weeks recently, reporters were of the prison.

A Reuters photographer his tightly-monitored visit, and what he was and wasn’t allowed to shoot (totally fine: signs saying “No Photos.” Not fine: detainees’ faces.) Carol Rosenberg, of the Miami Herald, also on reporting from Gitmo, which she’s been doing for 11 years. She’s to speak to a detainee.

The Red Cross has access to prisoners and has been to Gitmo during the strike, though its findings are . Last week, the group’s president called the legal situation of prisoners there “”

How much does Guantanamo cost?

A lot. A recent report from the Government Accountability Office said the prison costs, on average, , not including military personnel. A 2011 put the annual cost per prisoner at $800,000 鈥� as much as 30 times what it costs to keep someone in federal prison.

The Pentagon a $150 million overhaul of the facility this year.

DISCUSSION: What do you think about the situation at Guantanamo? What should the U.S. do with the detainees there?

The post Hunger Strikes And Indefinite Detention At Gitmo appeared first on 天美视频.

In a natural disaster or other emergency, one of the first things you’re likely to reach for is your cellphone. Landlines . More than 30 percent of American households now .

Despite that, cell carriers have successfully pushed back against rules on what they have to do in a disaster. The carriers instead insist that emergency standards should be voluntary, an approach the Federal Communications Commission has gone along with.

After Hurricane Katrina, for instance, carriers a federal rule that would have required them to have 24-hours of backup power on cell towers. In another instance, an FCC program to track crucial information during an emergency 鈥� such as which areas are down and the status of efforts to bring the network back 鈥� remains . Nor is the information collected made public.

After Sandy, when thousands looking for service, many had no idea where they could get a signal. AT&T and Sprint, among the major carriers, on what portion of their network was down.

The emergency issue has been part of a trend in of the telecommunications industry. Since 2010, more than 20 states limiting their regulation of telecoms.

“The FCC is very concerned about the nature of their overall authority and whether rules would survive a court challenge,” says Harold Feld, senior vice president of , a technology advocacy nonprofit. “So their approach is to push and nudge and come up with things that would be more acceptable to the industry.”

“Traditional carriers had reliability requirements, and reporting requirements,” says Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a former technology adviser to President Obama. “We treat wireless and broadband much differently.”

An FCC spokesperson declined to comment on emergency planning issues beyond pointing announced last week, to study the response by networks to Hurricane Sandy and other recent disasters.

Katrina also generated concern over emergency communications plans, but did not lead to binding rules. Instead, the FCC that the industry work with them to create emergency preparations checklists 鈥� voluntary best practices, rather than requirements.

The FCC’s voluntary was also created in the wake of Katrina. The agency does not say which carriers are participating in the system, and says it the data that is reported because it is considered “sensitive, for national security and/or commercial reasons.” The FCC also hasn’t determined to what extent it can share information with state and local governments.

Carriers “actively report” to the database, and also work with the Department of Homeland Security , according to Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice-president of regulatory affairs at CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry group. “It’s clearly a balance,” he says, between “working with the government on getting information to them” and “trying to stand up the networks.”

Others argue that a voluntary system isn’t enough to inform the public or hold companies accountable. “When it’s voluntary, what are the expectations about the accuracy of information?” Feld says. “It’s a whole other thing to have to give a serious, mandatory assessment to a federal agency.”

Another instance where a voluntary initiative met pushback from carriers is a new system of , beamed out from cell towers in a disaster area to anyone with a capable phone within reach. Most carriers are participating, gradually with the ability to receive WEAs.

But the carriers recommendations that they should be able to target the alerts more precisely, and .

First responders in Western states in particular, where counties can be enormous, would like the ability to issue more local warnings, according to and , both emergency planning experts. Botterell also noted that cities could benefit from the ability to blast messages to a radius of just a few blocks, citing New York City’s . “Worrying about lighting up the whole county creates a disincentive to use it at all,” says Botterell.

The industry had that not all carriers had the technological capability to offer that kind of precise targeting. The Telecommunications Industry Association that “geotargeting rules that are more stringent” than county-level could “stifle innovation, delay the roll-out [of the program] and reduce voluntary participation.” (Some carriers are now working with local officials to offer more flexible targeting, according to Bristow.)

Carriers have long along these lines 鈥� that disasters each present unique scenarios and that companies need to stay flexible as technologies change. The carriers say it is in their best interest to keep networks running, and point to the quick deployment of portable towers after Sandy and examples like AT&T and T-Mobile customers to roam between networks.

Feld, of Public Knowledge, says that the “technological flexibility argument is true, but it’s not a show-stopper. We have to balance flexibility against the need to have real emergency planning.”

The post How Cellphone Companies Have Resisted Rules for Disasters appeared first on 天美视频.