Man who waterboarded 9/11 mastermind slams CIA report on torture

The man who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the so-called mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, told Megyn Kelly on Tuesday that the CIA's program of using enhanced interrogation techniques did not amount to torture, despite recent accusations in a Senate-issued report.
"If it was torture, I would be in jail," James Mitchell said on "The Kelly File." "This thing was investigated over and over. I was told by the highest law enforcement agency in the land that we were going to walk right up to the edge of the law, and that all of the things we had included in that list were legal."
Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist, said in the days following the Sept. 11 attacks, the country was gripped with fear that new attacks were forthcoming and both the public and the U.S. government were desperate to prevent them.
"(The CIA) had ongoing information to suggest that (terrorists) were trying to smuggle nuclear weapons into the U.S.," Mitchell said. "There was all this anthrax stuff going on, there was credible evidence to suggest that there was another wave of attacks coming and we couldn't have it happen."
Mitchell added: "They tried to decapitate us last time, they tried to destroy our civilization. And people were clamoring to do everything and anything they could that was legal, to take it right up to the line and save American lives. Because that's what our government is supposed to do: save American lives."
Mitchell, who said he found waterboarding "repulsive at times" but said he did it out of a duty to protect the U.S., criticized the Senate report, saying it's "easy" in hindsight to second-guess the tactics used after 9/11, more than 13 years after the attacks.
"In my view, the CIA analysts and the CIA targeters are incredible," he said. "To do this, to besmirch them, I think, is beyond the pale."

Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'

A federal judge has declared parts of President Obama's immigration executive actions unconstitutional, in the first court opinion to tackle Obama's controversial policy changes.
In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch.  
"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," the judge wrote.
The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits.
Rather, Schwab issued his opinion in response to a criminal case against Honduran illegal immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who was previously deported in 2005 -- and was caught in the U.S. again earlier this year.
He already has pleaded guilty to "re-entry of a removed alien," but the court subsequently examined the impact of Obama's immigration actions on the case.
For that review, Schwab left open whether the actions might apply to Juarez-Escobar but determined the executive actions themselves were unconstitutional.
He wrote that the action goes beyond so-called "prosecutorial discretion" -- which is the "discretion" the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants.
Obama's policy changes would give a reprieve to up to 5 million illegal immigrants, including those whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents and who meet other criteria.  
Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that this "systematic and rigid process" applies to a "broad range" of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a "case-by-case basis."
Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become "quasi-United States citizens."
He also cited Obama's argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: "Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive." 
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion. 
"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time." 
Critics of the administration's policy, though, hailed the opinion. 
"The President's unilateral executive action suspending the nation's immigration laws for roughly five million illegal aliens has received its first judicial test, and it has failed," John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, said in a statement.
Other direct legal challenges to Obama's immigration actions, including one by two-dozen states, remain pending before the federal courts.

CIA Witch Hunt Cartoon

Federal, state health insurance sites brace for 2015 sign-up deadline

President Obama's healthcare reform push faces the biggest test of its second year in existence Monday, the deadline for customers to choose an insurance plan for 2015. 
Midnight Pacific time is also the deadline for current enrollees to make changes that could reduce premium increases ahead of the new year.
HealthCare.gov and state insurance websites are preparing for heavy online traffic before the deadline, which gives consumers in the East until 3 a.m. Tuesday to enroll.
Wait times at the federal call center started creeping up around the middle of last week, mainly due to a surge of current customers with questions about their coverage for next year. Many will face higher premiums, although they could ease the hit by shopping online for a better deal. Counselors reported hold times of 20 minutes or longer for the telephone help line.
About 6.7 million people now have coverage through Obama's signature law, which offers subsidized private insurance. The administration wants to increase that to 9.1 million in 2015. To do that, the program will have to keep most of its current enrollees while signing up more than 2 million new paying customers.
People no longer can be turned down because of health problems, but picking insurance still is daunting for many consumers. They also have to navigate the process of applying for or updating federal subsidies, which can be complex for certain people, including immigrants. Many returning customers are contending with premium increases generally in the mid-to-high single digits, but much more in some cases.
Consumers "understand it's complicated but they appreciate the ability to get health insurance," said Elizabeth Colvin of Foundation Communities, an Austin, Texas, nonprofit that is helping sign up low-income residents. "People who haven't gone through the process don't understand how complicated it is."
Last year's open enrollment season turned into a race to salvage the reputation of the White House by fixing numerous technical bugs that crippled HealthCare.gov from its first day. With the website now working fairly well, sign-up season this year is a test of whether the program itself is practical for the people it is intended to serve.
New wrinkles have kept popping up, even with seemingly simple features of the Affordable Care Act.
For example, most current customers who do nothing will be automatically renewed Jan. 1 in the plan they now are in. At this point, it looks like that is what a majority intends to do.
While that may sound straightforward, it's not.
By staying in their current plans, people can get locked into a premium increase and miss out on lower-priced plans for 2015.  Not only that, they also will keep their 2014 subsidies, which may be less than what they legally would be entitled to for next year.
Doing nothing appears to be a particularly bad idea for people who turned 21 this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington group that advocates for low-income people.
Researchers at the center estimate that 21-year-olds will see a 58 percent increase in the sticker price for their premiums just because they're a year older. An age-adjustment factor used to compute premiums jumps substantially when a person turns 21. A 20-year-old whose premium was $130 per month in 2014 will see the premium climb to $205 a month in 2015, solely because of that year's difference.
Tax-credit subsidies can cancel out much or even all of the impact. But if consumers default to automatic renewal, their tax credits will not be updated and they will get the same subsidy as this year.
"Even in the best possible scenario of how many people we can expect to come in, we will still see a substantial number of people defaulting," said Judy Solomon, a health care policy expert at the center. She worries that some young adults may get discouraged and drop out.
Reviews of HealthCare.gov and state health insurance exchanges are mixed.
An Associated Press-GfK poll this month found that 11 percent of Americans said they or someone else in their household tried to sign up since open enrollment began Nov. 15. Overall, 9 percent said the insurance markets are working extremely well or very well. Twenty-six percent said the exchanges are working somewhat well, and 39 percent said they were not working well. The remaining 24 percent said they didn't know enough to rate performance.
So far it has been a frustrating experience for Marie Bagot, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. She and her husband are in their 60s, but not yet old enough for Medicare. The husband, who works as a chef, will turn 65 around the middle of next year and qualify for Medicare. Bagot said they were happy with their insurance this year under Obama's law.
"As you get older, you worry about your health," she said. "I was very pleased with the price we got."
But Bagot said she received a notice from her insurer that her current plan will not be available next year in her community. The closest alternative would involve a premium increase of more than $350 a month, even with their tax credit subsidy. After days of trying to find a comparable plan through the federal call center and after visiting a counselor, Bagot said she opted to keep their current coverage, while hoping costs go down after her husband joins Medicare.
"I cannot afford it, but I'm going to try to," she said.
Monday is not the last chance for consumers like Bagot. Open enrollment doesn't end until Feb. 15.

Warren's present-tense denial adds to speculation she will run in 2016

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a rising Democratic star, fueled speculation Monday that she might run for president in 2016.
While the freshman senator said “I am not running for president” four times during an interview with NPR’s “Morning Edition,” political insiders argue that Warren’s use of the present tense leaves open the possibility she might launch a 2016 campaign.
Speculation about a White House run by Warren, whose populist, anti-Wall Street rhetoric has captured the interest of many disaffected Democrats, has been circulating for months in Washington and across the country.

“I am not running for president.”- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Her opposition to the $1.1 trillion spending bill that Congress passed last week -- over a provision that weakens the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill -- appears to have attracted even more support.
And her remarks Monday likely will do little to stop or slow those who see her as a better candidate or at least a strong challenger to Hillary Clinton, the clear front-runner in her likely bid for the party’s 2016 nomination.
More than 300 former campaign staffers and organizers for President Obama have signed a letter urging Warren to run.
They say in a letter released last week that they want someone who will "stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests."
The letter was released by Ready for Warren, a grassroots group promoting a potential campaign.
And MoveOn.org has recently announced that it was starting a draft Warren campaign and promoting her in early presidential states Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Friends and family of Sydney hostages tell intense tale of captivity

Family and friends of several hostages taken by gunman Man Haron Monis inside a Sydney cafe recounted the fear and terror the hostages experienced with Guardian Australia Tuesday.
No one paid attention to Monis at the café and the only time anyone heard anything from him is when he took his shotgun and held it up in fury yelling at patrons to stand with their hands raised.
Monis told customers he was a representative of ISIS and there were bombs in the building. Minutes later, a customer approached the already locked doors of the café but was deterred by Monis.
The customers alerted the police and the operation began.
Meanwhile, Monfis reportedly was yelling at his captives spreading messages of fear while they cried. Monfis finally got someone to listen to him.
The gunman surrounded himself with the staff members, the paper reports. He used them to control messages to social media. He directed them what to do and what to say.
Hostages called media outlets across Australia to relay Monfis’ demands; a live on-air broadcast with Australian prime minister Tony Abbot, a public declaration that this was an act of terror from ISIS and a black Islamic State flag.
None of his demands were met.
Videos of Monfis controlling the staff members were deleted from YouTube early on. A woman is reading a prepared statement and the “director” of the video reportedly spoke confidently to those on camera.
A Sydney lawyer, Julie Taylor, was one of the hostages forced to speak.
“My name is Julie Taylor, I’m a barrister in Sydney, this is a message for Tony Abbott. We are here with … ummm … our brother, who has asked for three simple things, and the first is that Tony Abbott calls him, live in the media, to have a short conversation. If he does that five of us will be allowed to go. We can’t understand why that hasn’t happened.”
Taylor continued to relay the demands of Monis on the video.
With the situation dragging, Monis reportedly realized his message was not getting out.
One hostage told Guardian Australia that Monis was getting “angrier and angrier.”
Monis did allow the captives to take drinks of water and for one woman to take her medication.
Monis granted bathroom breaks and made sure there was an escort to those who needed to use the restroom.
Two men who asked to go to the bathroom asked a staff member if they pressed the green button at the base of the door, would it open. The employee was unsure.
The men took a risk and made a run for it. They pressed the button sliding the open doors and made their escape, the café employee went through the fire door sparking two more to do the same later.
As night fell, the power was cut. An agitated Monis was only getting more furious.
Details emerged after the rescue operation that one hostage attempted to grab Monis’ gun. Gunshots were heard, which prompted police to move in.
When the dust cleared, Monis was found dead on the ground with two victims, 38-year-old Katrina Dawson and 34-year-old Tori Johnson, the manager of the café.

Sony Pictures hack takes yet another weird twist

The Sony Pictures Entertainment hack has taken yet another weird twist with hackers apparently offering to withhold data stolen from the company’s employees.
On Sunday the group claiming responsibility for the crippling Nov. 24 hack offered not to release some email correspondence from Sony Pictures' employees. The group urged employees to contact them if they don’t want their correspondence released.
There was no way to determine how many, if any employees, had supplied their details.
The post, which claimed to be from the shadowy Guardians of Peace, or GOP, group, appeared on file sharing sites Pastebin and Friendpaste, according to the website Recode.
“Message to SPE Staffers,” it read. “We have a plan to release emails and privacy of the Sony Pictures employees. If you don’t want your privacy to be released, tell us your name and business title to take off your data.”
Sunday’s message also contained links to several file sharing sites for obtaining the group’s latest leaks. Clearly keen to maintain the pressure on Sony, the group vowed to release “larger quantities of data,” which it described as “a Christmas gift,” reiterating a similar GOP message posted on Saturday.
Experts have noted the resolve of the attack’s perpetrators, who seem intent on prolonging Sony’s pain.
“Whoever it is, they must feel like they are immune to retaliation,” Jim Lewis, director and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FoxNews.com, in an email. “They are also really motivated to keep it up this long – most of these incidents are more like smash-and-grab.”
Sunday’s post is the latest in a flurry of cyber assaults aimed at Sony Pictures, which have included leaks of confidential data and unreleased movies, as well as threats against Sony employees. The producers of James Bond films have also acknowledged that an early version of the screenplay for the new movie "Spectre" was among the material stolen in the massive Sony Pictures cyberattack.
“Sony is receiving repeated body blows from the breach, which is perhaps indicative of the intention to damage the reputation of the company,” wrote Chris Boyd, malware intelligence analyst at Malwarebytes Labs, in an email to FoxNews.com. “Typically a big company breach is all about stealthy data theft and low profile operations, however in this case the motivation appears focused on creating crippling headlines - it could almost be the beginning of a Bond film itself.”
The finger of suspicion has already been pointed at North Korea over the hack, although Sony Pictures recently denied a report that it was poised to blame Pyongyang for the attack. The studio’s forthcoming film “The Interview,” starring Seth Rogen and James Franco as journalists enlisted to assassinate dictator Kim Jong-un, has outraged North Korea.
There has also been plenty of speculation that the cyberattack was an inside job.
With the shockwaves from the hack still reverberating, Sony Pictures has reportedly demanded that at least three media outlets stop reporting stories based on documents obtained by hackers.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Lewis told FoxNews.com that the attack has also shone a spotlight on hackers’ use of file sharing sites such as Pastebin.
While Saturday and Sunday’s GOP posts have been removed from Pastebin, a GOP message titled  “Gift of Sony for the 8th day: GOP at Christmas (2),” which apparently corresponds to Sunday's Pastebin message, is still available on Friendpaste.
A spokesman for Pastebin told FoxNews.com that it received two requests about the posts related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). "We always comply with such request when the items in question contain sensitive data," he added, in an email to FoxNews.com.
Friendpaste was unavailable for comment.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story from FoxNews.com. A spokeswoman for the FBI, which is investigating the hack, told FoxNews.com that its probe is ongoing.

CIA interrogations report: Where is Katie Couric getting her news?

In September of 2008, Katie Couric asked Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin one of the most famous questions of the campaign. In an interview Couric asked, “When it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazine did you regularly read…?” In 2008, Katie Couric’s question to then-Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was the journalistic equivalent of the shot heard 'round the world.
Fast forward to 2014. Americans are asking Couric, who now serves as Yahoo’s Global News anchor, the same question. Where is Katie Couric getting her news?
In a 6 minute and 17 second video for Yahoo! News on the Senate Democrats’ Intelligence report on CIA interrogations, Couric does not mention a crucial fact. After failing to acknowledge that Senate Republicans put out their OWN report, Couric says, in the last 12 seconds of the piece, that Republicans “plan on releasing” their own report too. 
Did Couric fail to mention the Republican report because she erroneously assumed it wasn’t out? Oddly, she refers to the report in the future tense.

Republican senators published their take on CIA interrogations on Tuesday. How could Couric miss half the story?

Republican senators published their take on CIA interrogations on Tuesday. How could Couric miss half the story? The Yahoo! Global News anchor seems to have erroneously assumed that the Democrats’ report was the only one issued by the Senate committee. She even called the Democrats’ report “the Committee’s report.”
Just what news websites, papers and magazines is Couric reading? How could she miss one side of an important story?
Yahoo! News’ Director of Public Relations Andrew Kirk told me via email that the anchor used the term “the committee” for the Senate Democrats’ report because the Democrats are the majority party of the Senate. Kirk also said, “It was framed this way by several other publications including the New York Times.”
Ironically, Yahoo! News calls the House Republican majority report on Benghazi the “House GOP report” when referring to the majority committee’s report.
Asked why the double standard for calling the Senate Democrats’ majority reports “the Committee’s report” and the House Republicans’ majority report “the House GOP report,” Kirk didn’t have an answer.
Couric’s report for Yahoo! News also includes analysis from former Newsweek investigative reporter, now Yahoo News' chief investigative correspondent, Michael Isikoff who says “the Committee” concluded the enhanced intelligence gathering techniques “were not effective” despite the Republicans’ report which said they were effective.
Isikoff never mentions the Republicans’ report. Instead, he also seems to have assumed that the Democrats’ report is the full committee’s view. He fails to mention Republicans’ disagreement with the Democrats’ view.
In that famous interview with Palin in 2008, Couric pushes her to talk specifics about which publications she reads to get her worldview: “what ones specifically, I am curious…can you name a few…?” Couric asks.
We have to ask Couric the same question after Wednesday’s Yahoo! News report: what newspapers and magazines are you reading, Katie? You need a more well-rounded worldview if you want to report on today’s top stories.
Yahoo! News’ Kirk wouldn’t say if Couric’s error would be corrected.