 |
| Pix credit here |
The ABA Senior Lawyers Division (SLD) and the National Security Committee of the ABA International Law Section (ILS) recently hosted Mark
Zaid and Rob "Butch" Bracknell who spoke about the history of, legal status of, and issues surrounding what has come to be called "Havana Syndrome" but perhaps more accurately known as Anomalous Health Incidents. Great thanks to the remarkable Jonathan Meyer for chairing and organizing the event. Fascinating program for those interested in both the technology aspects, and the legal/political aspects (much of it arguably quite frustrating from a variety of perspectives, though perhaps not unexpectedly so) .
The event was held 26 June 2024. The VIDEO RECORDING of the presentation was just posted and may be accessed here. The TRANSCRIPT may be accessed with the Video and follows below.
The ABA SLD AND ILS describe the event this way:
Mark Zaid and Rob "Butch" Bracknell address the joint meeting of the International Committee of the ABA Senior Lawyers Division (SLD) and the National Security Committee of the ABA International Law Section (ILS) on Anomalous Health Incidents (sometimes referred to by the media as "Havana Syndrome"). Their comments are premised on the presumption that AHIs are caused by a malign state based capability being deliberately applied against American human targets in various overseas and domestic locations.
They will discuss the evidence underlying the presumption, the standards for "internationally wrongful acts,” possible treaty violations, and the measures a state may take under international law in response. They will also examine the responsibility of USG to protect US personnel from attacks by foreign actors, and the extent to which USG may have failed to do so, including complicity in obscuring the truth.
Our speakers will also take a brief look at whether US citizens acting under the scope of federal employment (diplomats, intelligence personnel, military) maintain a private right of action against a foreign sovereign in US courts, and will analogize law by analogy to determine at what point the attacks might rise to a level of "armed attack" sufficient to trigger a state's right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Speakers:
Robert “Butch” Bracknell is a retired Marine officer who worked for 9 years as a NATO civilian at Allied Command Transformation before transitioning to private practice and consultancy. He has a JD from Maryland Law, an LLM from Harvard Law, and an MSc from the University of Oxford. He resides in Norfolk, Virginia.
Mark S. Zaid is a Washington, D.C. national security attorney who has spent three decades handling cases involving classified information, security clearances, war crimes, terrorism and the Freedom of Information Act. He recently appeared as a witness before a Subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee on “Silent Weapons: Examining Foreign Anomalous Health Incidents Targeting Americans In The Homeland And Abroad”. He has a JD from Albany Law School and a BA from the University of Rochester.
Links mentioned in recording:
A. 60 Minutes episode (full episode): • Havana Syndrome evidence suggests who...
B. 60 Minutes episode (transcript): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/havana-s...
C. Congressional hearing video: https://homeland.house.gov/hearing/si...
D. Written testimony of the witnesses, including Mark Zaid's: https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content...
E. This unclassified NSA document given to Mark Zaid in 2014 is, in his view, incredible. Remember, this is pre-Havana: / 1
The transcript follows below. My own earlier essays may be accessed here: Cuba Sonic Weapons Affair (43)
0:00
Robert but becknell is a retired marine officer who worked for nine years as a NATO civilian Allied
0:06
command transformation before transitioning to private practice and consultancy he has a JD from Maryland
0:12
law an llm from Harvard Law and an MSC from the University of Oxford he resides in North Fork Virginia Mark as a
0:19
Washington DC National Security attorney has spent three decades handling cases involving classified information
0:26
security clearances war crimes terrorism and the Freedom of Information he recently appeared as a witness before
0:32
a subcommittee of the house Homeland Security committee on quote silent weapons unquote examining far anous
0:38
Health inss targeting Americans in the Homeland and abroad he has a JD from Albania law school and a ba from the
0:44
University of Rochester on that note Mark I think you're gonna adding first correct yes Jonathan this is this is
0:53
Andrew just a quick note that this is being recorded and will be uh posted to the internet in uh a day or so
1:01
yes so well Andrew I'm gonna before posted the internet we're going to share with this PP the senior lawyers division
1:06
and they'll edit it afterwards and then upload it to the um to YouTube so I I'll
1:12
I'll make that I'll be that layers on for you okay Andrew perfect yes it's going to be available on YouTube through
1:17
the senior lawyers division and once it's uploaded it'll be open to the public sounds great look everyone uh let
1:25
me give you an overview first of what we now call anomalous Health incident
1:30
I do not use the term Havana syndrome that is a media created designation
1:35
because frankly I I represent a ton of media Outlets uh at like Wall Street
1:41
Journal MSNBC political Daily Beast all these folks I've represented It's a lazy way to come up with a term that they
1:47
couldn't come up with this is no more Havana syndrome as it is Vienna syndrome
1:53
as it is Bogata syndrome as it is panoi syndrome as it is Tyson's Corner
1:58
syndrome because we we've had a number of incidents out in Tyson's and Reston
2:04
uh I have been working in the national security field for 30 plus years most of
2:10
my clients are spies there are spies I've done a ton of work in the international sphere with respect to
2:17
terrorism and war crimes uh Etc over the years uh we'll talk a little bit about
2:23
that but a little bit a decade or so ago a little bit more probably now I started
2:29
representing ing an NSA officer who had been the victim of an Ahi uh energy
2:37
directed weapon directed energy weapon or surveillance technology uh it is not
2:45
entirely clear what this has been it is either some sort of
2:51
microwave uh radio frequency or other type of directed energy we do not know
2:57
for sure what the motives are because we can trace the history of this
3:02
technology back decades the United States created most of them it has
3:08
certainly been enhanced by other powers and the major Powers all have some level
3:14
of Technology of this sort whether it's offensive or defensive and I will say
3:19
obviously we're not going to discuss anything classified in this environment most of this subject matter is
3:28
classified I hold a top secret clearance uh at times tssci I have had authorized
3:35
access to a wealth of information on this topic that I obviously can't say
3:41
the testimony that Jonathan mentioned that I gave uh last month I guess it was
3:46
in May you know most of my testimony and I'm happy to send a link to anyone if you are interested in reading it most of
3:54
it is excoriating the uh agencies to say or or
3:59
telling Congress that look I'm telling you the CIA in particular is lying about
4:05
what it knows concerning ahis and the American victims and their family
4:10
members because I have seen the documentation and I hate the fact that I
4:15
can't tell you what's in it because of the nature of the limitations that exist on those of us with clearances in
4:22
perpetuity but I can point you to where it is and I can bring my clients in to do it so like I said I started on on
4:29
this more than a decade ago with this NSA officer who back in the 90s mid 90s
4:34
in a location still classified was impacted by what we believed at the time
4:42
pre Havana to be some sort of microwave technology it's unclear as to whether or
4:48
not it was for surveillance purposes because if you look back in the history
4:53
and you research the Moscow signal back in the 50s to the 70s the Soviet Union
5:00
was bombarding our Embassy in Moscow with low-level microwave radiation every
5:06
single day and we knew about it for years there is an amazing Hearing in the
5:12
Senate back in I think 1979 that talks about uh an asked
5:18
question okay what did we know okay we figured it out I think in the 60s that
5:23
they were doing this because people were complaining about things and we were starting to pick it up on the detection
5:29
devices and they monitored it every day as to what the levels were but they never told the people inside the embassy
5:38
that they were being bombarded by microwaves Henry Kissinger actually called his counterpart in around
5:45
1975 and we know this because he they recorded it all right we have the transcript of the conversation where he
5:52
was telling his counterpart hey I'm coming over to visit Moscow please shut
5:57
off your microwave bombardment he didn't use those words please shut off whatever this is that you're doing so that I'm
6:05
not affected one of our ambassadors believed uh that his spouse died and
6:10
there have been a number of CIA Personnel whose spouses have developed cancer uh over the years uh because much
6:18
of this historically now and in the last 10 years has been where they get hit at
6:24
home not at work and they're who's at home their family they're pets there are
6:31
pets that have been impacted by this uh dog brains that have been dissected by
6:37
the US government to determine whether or not there was some inflammation or other type of brain
6:45
injury that could be detected so post Havana everything changed because
6:52
previously all of these incidents that we knew about were Intel related they were IC officers uh there were some
7:00
Military Officers at the embassies they typically were not diplomatic
7:05
Personnel Cuba changed all that all of a sudden and even since we never have seen
7:11
multitude dozens of real diplomats of our folks and the Canadians down in
7:19
Havana who were impacted by whatever this was I represent I don't know about
7:24
eight or eight of them I think uh and know of many others post
7:30
particularly uh in 2019 and to 21 there are hundreds of other incidents
7:39
might not all be the same thing particularly among CIA Personnel
7:46
many of whom I represent now I rep people at CIA Dia NSA dni FBI State
7:55
Commerce uh I'm probably forgetting some USA if I hadn't say that one and others
8:01
who believe they have been impacted across the world majority of them have been overseas but a large number have
8:08
also been domestic in various different locations Washington DC Northern
8:14
Virginia uh I've got one case we believe to be in Hawaii the common theme has
8:21
almost always been Russia doesn't mean that there aren't other foreign powers
8:26
that could be involved but multitude or the majority of the folks inside our
8:32
intelligence Community were working on Russian operations and many of them
8:38
would have been known to the Russians that either they were in a position that
8:44
that would have been likely or that they were engaging with them so that they would know so we don't know if there
8:51
were necessarily spies anywhere inside our system we don't know if if another foreign power hacked into a system or
8:57
stole classified information um but so much nowadays for any of you
9:03
who work in the Intel World know so much of it is on the surface now especially
9:09
because of right you can't be a spy like you used to be with fake names and passports I mean a lot of fake names but
9:16
you know facial recognition software right anyone's gone to Europe lately you
9:21
don't even show your passport at Customs because it's all facial recognition so that makes it difficult for my spy
9:26
clients to do their jobs the way they're and ancestors did predecessors did back in the you know 40s and 50s that we see
9:33
in spy films and spy novels so I've been working uh with these individuals for a
9:40
number of years uh to try and do five things one make sure that they get
9:47
proper health care that was a huge problem in the beginning where no one was paying any attention to them make
9:53
sure that the government pays for their health care make sure that their careers
9:59
don't suffer as a result if they are medically or physically incapacitated by what occurred to them
10:06
and they can't work that's one thing but so that they don't suffer a stigma by
10:12
way of being a victim or being perceived as crazy as some have been portrayed
10:18
that they suffer from mental health issues that this isn't real it's psychosomatic I can tell you there's no
10:25
way this could be psychosomatic because particularly none of these people talked to one another and they happened in
10:33
different countries and if any of you saw the 60 Minutes broadcast that I was in back in April you know there is
10:41
evidence of identifying Russian intelligence Russian Military Intelligence Officers being
10:48
geolocation data being in the same location as to where some of my clients
10:55
have identified they were hit on the exact date sometimes even you know at the almost
11:02
exact time um the cellular geolocation uh where they're monitoring
11:09
uh all sorts of tracking and this is all non-governmental that's doing it so I
11:14
you know one has to believe that hope the government has the certainly has the ability and but has also done this as
11:22
well uh and then I've been dealing with Congress for the last decade uh to try
11:27
and get different legislation pass to make sure that they get the health care taken care of um they can get some
11:35
compensation uh as well uh and also that which was something I did not have on my
11:41
radar until the Havana Act was passed um there's a lot of problems with it uh I I
11:48
will tell you outright as I tell my own clients I cannot tell you for certainty
11:54
that any one of my clients are absolutely a victim of some directed energy
11:59
or by a foreign power I can only give you the evidence that suggests why we
12:04
believe that and there are clearly some who probably are suffering from something other than some directed
12:12
energy whether it be some environmental factor or something genetic and the timing just happened uh or whatever it
12:19
might be uh some had food poisoning at the time but there are dozens and dozens
12:25
of cases that I will tell you in the classified Arena the government is incredibly concerned about because of
12:32
either what was portrayed in the 60 Minutes episode of tying a foreign adversary to those incidents uh as well
12:40
as what the technology was uh this technology dissipates it's not like you
12:46
can go to the house three days later and see if there's something still there
12:52
right this isn't uranium or plutonium where you bring a Geer counter it reacts
12:57
at the time and are several instances and evidence of where computer screens
13:04
went haywire during an incident or cell phone batteries I've never seen right
13:10
we've all had cell phones for two two plus decades the cell phone battery expanded outside of the phone because of
13:17
what the wave of energy was bombarding it or you have children including
13:23
infants who have suffered and been diagnosed with having traumatic brain injuries in the same way their parents
13:31
have because they were subject to a hit an incident inside their home um there
13:39
there is so much evidence out there and the technology as I mentioned in the beginning exists you can just Google it
13:47
and see the US patents that were given to different contractors and scientists
13:52
over the years regarding this type of offensive and defensive technology you
13:59
can Google the solicitations that the US government has put out there publicly
14:04
calling for proposals to help the US government develop additional offensive
14:11
and especially defensive or detection capabilities if it doesn't exist why are
14:17
we doing that it's kind of a no-brainer type question um I think with that I'll
14:25
turn over to to Butch to talk about some of the other issues and then I can jump
14:30
in to talk about you know why aren't we or will we Sue these foreign governments
14:36
in US courts uh Butch will go over some of the things of what if this is
14:41
happening what are the violations around the world and then you know I can go into so many different areas depending
14:48
on what anyone has an interest in that you can ask so that's probably going to be more valuable period of time so I
14:54
think thank thank you so much Mark I'm going to turn it over to to um Robert but back now now but one quick question
15:00
mark and that just deals with a not question may you can address it afterwards when which um finishes and
15:07
summarizes and that deals with the detection capabilities from my understanding a simple bug detector has
15:13
ultrasound capabilities if the Smoking Gun is the utilization of ultra high
15:18
frequency and theoretically an ultra high frequency detector would do the job I mean if your Co coincident
15:24
coincidentally coincides with binaural sound a horrible hiss or buzzing in years and your radio frequency detector
15:31
is going off the roof that could be a little sign of the fact that some bad stuff is going on sorry just uh so
15:37
sometimes offthe shelf technology can be utilized to help detect when that kind of technology is being deployed yeah so
15:44
let let me give you a few bullet points there before we turn it over to Butch so you are absolutely correct some of
15:50
this technology is at our commercial level so one of my clients who was
15:56
attacked in China her mom came to visit her because of what her
16:02
health condition was and brought an off-the-shelf Radio Shack uh remember
16:07
Radio Shack Radio Shack detection device of energy and it was going off the
16:15
charts uh there there is also the notion of this sound let me let me just address
16:22
this real quickly because there is out there especially the people who say this is psychosomatic and Cuban intelligence
16:29
points to the fact of well there's this notion of uh there's a recording you can
16:34
find it online of what one of I think they're one of my clients actually recorded the sound they thought was what
16:43
was piercing and injuring them it turned out to be a cricket I mean it's and it's it's loud freaking Cricket I mean it
16:49
hurts your ears to actually listen to it and and I'm sure that that was a common Cricket that was heard in Havana uh and
16:56
there were you know millions of these creatures that's not what they're talking about because the sound that
17:02
they hear none of us can hear any of us who have tenus or tenius I do annoying
17:11
247 it's loud if I grit my teeth it gets louder none of you can hear it other
17:17
than me uh the fry effect f y the guy who created still he lives by me here in
17:24
pomac uh the fry effect was proven for microwaves back in the 60s that it
17:30
causes sound in your inner ear that is not external it's only internal and it
17:36
is damning and loud in fact they you want to talk about mansurian candidate right the old
17:43
Frank Sinatra film I think they redid it back in the early 2000s um they the US
17:48
government and other governments experimented with microwaves because you can make people hear voices inside their
17:56
head and the thought was can we command you to do things can we take control of
18:01
you or can we make you look CRA to be crazy or drive you crazy I mean there is
18:07
so much on this topic that can be do dove dived into um that would take
18:15
us forever to do and is outside the international law section so with that okay I switch over go ahead which it's
18:21
all your thank you Mark which it's all yours so before I do anything I want I want to tell everybody here that I'm as
18:27
giddy as a school girl be on a panel with Mark Zade he's one of my favorite guys in DC I love his practice I love
18:34
how he shows up for his clients and you can tell I mean look at the guy he believes everything he's he's uh
18:40
sometimes when you hear people say oh he believes everything he's saying that they don't mean that it's compliment I mean is it a compliment because Mark is
18:47
uh that's the the passion that he brings to um to representing the clients against this uh the Ahi syndrome uh here
18:55
so Mark I appreciate being on the panel with you uh I just thank you through social media through your media
19:01
appearances everything you do U I'm just like hey I know that guy and he is great so it's really great second is if any
19:08
while I'm while I'm uh kneeling at the Temple of Mark Zade uh if y'all haven't seen he referenced to 60 Minutes piece
19:15
if you haven't seen the 60 Minutes piece yet you you should it's online 60 Minutes has all their episodes online
19:22
and I've seen it a couple of times now and it's really just a great uh you know it's typical 60 minutes it's pretty good
19:27
investigative journalist ISM I thought 60 Minutes back slid a little bit for a few years but I think they're kind of back to where they used to be when we
19:34
all thought of 60 Minutes as a gold standard in in in Prime Time investigative journalism and that piece
19:40
that Mark had on uh on Ahi on 60 Minutes is worth watching once or twice it's really quite good the third point I'll
19:48
make before I dive in on my piece here is is a point that Mark made about the water shed event of of these things uh
19:55
the effects turning to diplomats um most people would say that folks in the IC
20:00
when you join that line of work um you're taking certain risks you understand what those risks are uh and
20:06
there's all kinds of risks that people in the IC undertake all the time that either you know about or you don't know
20:12
about maybe you've seen a Jason Bourne movie and that's your the extent of your knowledge about it but they undertake
20:17
those risks they they understand those risks and they're willing to suffer those risks the military is kind of the
20:22
same in that you know you're signing up for risk I was in Marines for 22 years um you know you're signing for certain
20:29
risks to your personal you know you don't think they're going to be this kind of risk you think it'll come in the form of a grenade or a bullet or
20:35
something like that but you know that you're signing up for Extraordinary risks diplomats also know that but
20:41
diplomats have historically you know in uh civilized societies there are special
20:47
treaties that protect diplomats the inviability of their premises and persons and their papers are a big deal
20:54
uh because diplomacy can't happen um when when those when those key
20:59
assumptions about relationships and treatments are violated it really causes diplomacy to break down and that's
21:05
really really dangerous when countries really when Nations really only have three ways of talk of dealing with each
21:11
other and that's through making War you know through diplomacy or through development economics and so forth you
21:18
take away one of those tools by kneecapping diplomacy uh your two your three-legged stool just Falls over so
21:23
I'm really I really do think that the the fact that diplomats being targeted now openly is a significant historical
21:33
turn everything I'm I'm going to say is predicated on the assumption that these
21:38
anomalous Health incidents are are being caused by um adversary States or Bad
21:43
actors controlled or tolerated by adversary states that people are being
21:49
targeted on purpose because of what they do or who they are uh and that is what's causing causing the anomalous uh Health
21:56
inance the the effects I can't say that for certain I think Mark can I'm comfortable with everything Mark just
22:01
said um I think that there's probably a factual basis for everything Mark just said I've read his his Congressional
22:07
testimony and as Mark said you can read his uh Congressional testimony as well uh it's publicly available uh and um
22:15
Jonathan I don't know if you had the link to it or we had the document but if we could put it in the comments uh for folks to be able to see it or a link to
22:21
it that would be super yeah I'll find while you're talking I'll I'll find it and put it in the chat box yeah and then
22:26
folks can just pull up the link and then you can save it as a PDF and get to it when you get to it but um so Mark Mark
22:32
has a a well-founded factual basis for that I'm going to speak of it as though it's hypothetical I don't disbelieve it
22:37
I just don't have access to the same information that Mark does what I'm going to do is treat as the the allegations that have made in the media
22:44
as true for the purpos of looking at it from an international uh an international um law angle um so where
22:52
diplomats are being targeted there's no question it's clearly a violation of the V Vienna convention on diplomatic relations the most uh relevant article
23:00
of course is 22 which uh requires Nations to acknowledge that diplomatic
23:06
uh premises and diplomats uh the premises are inviable and that states have a special duty to protect diplomats
23:13
while they are on foreign territory for the purposes of conducting diplomacy um
23:18
article 22 sub2 says the receiving state is under special duty to take all appropriate steps protect the premises
23:24
of the Mission Against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the Peace of the missions or impairment
23:30
of its dignity um so where these anom where the where a foreign mission where a US
23:37
mission is being targeted specifically that's a clear viation of article 22 and
23:42
where diplomats and other accredited Personnel or people who may be in what's an entt status administrative and
23:48
Technical status um assigned to an embassy often military um or other government actors
23:55
sometimes us doj sometimes usaid sometimes uh maybe Department of Commerce you might have commercial AAS
24:02
and things like that they are not true diplomats uh within the meaning of the vien conventions but they are still uh
24:08
within the Ambit of the protection so really clearly to me it includes uh non- diplomats who might be performing duties
24:14
inside the embassy including military personnel including mixed categories of people who sign up for Extraordinary
24:20
risks but not these types of risks um second is regardless of the Vienna
24:25
convention regardless of his Provisions even if that didn't exist an adversary State intentionally targeting us
24:31
personnel with novel Technologies for the purpose of harming them clearly constitutes and this is a term of order
24:37
international law an internationally wrongful act which is more or less what it exactly what it sounds like uh it
24:42
occurs when an act or Omission is attributable to a state under international law and constitutes a
24:48
breach of an international obligation of the state but to establish this you have to be willing to attribute the act and I
24:56
I don't think Mark I'm I'm anticipating mark agree with me when I when when I assert that attribution here is a really
25:02
really big deal because it complicates everything right and some of the reasons that the United States may have been koi
25:08
in the past I'm using koi as the most generous term I don't think Mark would use the same term koi I think he might
25:13
use a stronger term but where they may have uh been um obtuse about who's doing
25:20
this and for what purposes is it when you acknowledge that you are basically
25:26
it's it's a it's a soft accusation and it can be really really complicating for international this this tension between
25:32
what we'll acknowledge and what will what what indignities will allow to be uh visited on our people it's as old as
25:39
you know it's as old as time time itself we have always kind of allowed harms to
25:45
happen to people because of this greater idea of of Interstate relationships and not wanting to put States in a box not
25:53
and wanting to preserve room for diplomacy and preserve room for other actions it unfortunate um I don't even
25:59
know that it's a healthy tension but it is certainly not an un unknown tension um the third thing that I'll say uh here
26:07
is this to me this constitutes gry Zone conflict you hear a lot of people talking about gry Zone conflict and
26:12
hybrid conflict um it's not hot War it's not States uh going at each other in
26:18
international armed conflict and it's not a total state of Peace it's something in between um we're hearing a
26:23
lot about gry Zone and hybrid conflict in the Russia Ukraine conflict right now specifically in terms of sabotage a lot
26:29
of a lot of really important things are catching on fire in Russia all the time for reasons that no one can really say
26:35
and now things are starting to catch on fire in Europe uh in Germany recently this week I believe um that are C
26:41
catching on fire in very unexplained ways and this is an aspect of hybrid or gry Zone conflict this is just another
26:48
manifestation of that no matter what it's unprivileged under international law so the question for me is when does
26:54
a level of attack against us Personnel rise to the level of an armed attack triggering to write a self-defense under
26:59
article 51 of the UN Charter I am hesitant to to be too quick on the trigger there's a lot of folks out there
27:05
who would say we're already there I'm not so sure about that I think U when you when you when you acknowledge that
27:13
um an act has risen to the level of an armed attack within the meaning of the UN Charter that automatically triggers
27:19
the right not necessarily the obligation but the right of a state to engage in article 51 self-defense you have now
27:26
tripped a trip wire had could have that could spiral out spiral out of control
27:31
pretty quick I like to look at other types of applications of Novel
27:37
Technologies in ways that are like armed conflict but aren't exactly armed conflict I think the most obvious um
27:44
analog is cyber attacks and the bar in Cy for cyber attacks is pretty high if you look at rule 69 of the talin manual
27:50
there's uh the talin manual group of experts was convened by the NATO Cooperative cyber defense center of
27:56
excellence and tan EST uh the history between tyin and the between the estonians and the Russians
28:03
will tell you everything you need to know about why the estonians took on this project and was very very interested in convening the talin manual
28:10
which lays down uh baselines um of international law they aren't rules hard and fast they are expert
28:16
analyses uh which states May reference when they try to figure out what is the law applicable to conflict in cyber well
28:23
to applicable to cyber space specifically with regard to conflict between states and cyberace space so
28:29
rule 69 of talin 2.0 they're now working on 3.0 1.0 was was such a wild success
28:34
that they manufactur 2.0 and they're now working on 3.0 with a with a really esteemed group of experts rule 69 says
28:41
that a cyber quote a cyber operation constitutes a use of force when its scale and effects are comparable to
28:47
non-cyber operations rising to the level of use of force well that tells us not
28:53
much only that a cyber operation can be akin to a non-cyber operation when it comes to adding up to the equipment of
28:59
armed attack but it doesn't say what that level is but what it does signal is that scale and effects are really really
29:05
important scale when you use the word scale necessarily connotation is it
29:12
can't be isolated incidents it has to have scale anything in business if you talk about scale you're talking about
29:18
big amounts of products not uh not uh one-offs you know not um what is the word I'm looking for when you design one
29:25
of something um not prototypes not protypes but when you're manufacturing something at scale so scale and effects
29:32
the fact that those are two of the trigger words for determining it tell us it has to be something more than a here
29:37
and there so Marcus told us about a substantial number but when does that substantial number constitute a scale
29:45
and effect that are sufficiently sufficient in severity number and
29:50
frequency that it adds up to an armed attack and if they're stretched out over time does that mitigate the scale and
29:57
effects when it comes comes to adding up to an armed attack sufficient to trigger article 51 in my view article 51 is a
30:04
big deal the right of national self-defense under the UN Charter is a big deal and we should be cautious is
30:10
not the right word we should be circumspect and deliberate about when we say things are adding up to a level of
30:17
um severity a level of scale and effects which are sufficient to trigger trigger article
30:22
51 where's the line between a few attacking a few people which we we could
30:28
all agree does not trigger um it is not an armed Attack under article 51 but if
30:33
an if a foreign if an adversary attacks with rocket and artillery fire a
30:38
battalion or Brigade and causes 40% uh um casualties in a battalion or Brigade
30:44
is that an armed attack I think almost everyone would say yes to that so it you give a Continuum between a few people
30:51
and a battalion and Brigade sustaining 40% casualties we don't know where that line is but we know it exists somewhere
30:58
on that Continuum I use the analogy of attacking the USS Liberty the USS Liberty attack everybody knows about it
31:04
Mark was it 1968 68 60 67 it was the 67 War yeah the
31:10
1967 attack on us uh USS Liberty clearly controversial clearly um there's a lot
31:17
of good history out there as to whether the Israelis knew what they were doing and were sending a signal or whether it really was a pure accident um it's
31:25
whether the resolution of that question is irrelevant to to the point that it w well it might not be irrelevant if it
31:30
were intentional would certainly augur more towards armed attack than if it were accidental or a case of mistaken uh
31:36
enemy identification kind of thing but it clearly wasn't enough you know how I know because we didn't go to war against Israel um attacking the ma the USS main
31:45
was an incident similar in scale and effects to the attack on the USS Liberty and did trigger a war it triggered a war
31:52
that we wanted anyway and we're looking for a reason to get into but it did trigger a war and Pearl Harbor of course
31:57
to scale and of Pearl Harbor were so significant we so mind-numbingly um
32:02
vicious that it had to be an armed attack similarly rule 71 of the T manual says an act that seriously injures or
32:09
kills a number of personnel or that causes significant damage to or destruction of property would satisfy
32:14
the scale and effects requirement of an armed attack are the physiological effects sufficient to make measure up to
32:20
serious injuries sufficient to satisfy scal and effects um I you know Mark probably I know Mark has some of his
32:26
clients has some horror stories about the about the uh severity of their injuries for sure um cancer is no joke and if
32:33
these things are if these attacks are causing cancer in people um that's just you know that's like a it's a slow slow
32:39
motion version of an armed attack um how many people have to suffer brain damage before scaling effects is satisfied is
32:45
it a 100 is it a thousand is it 10,000 I don't know it's a Continuum um the
32:50
factors that the tellin manual looks at are severity immediacy so remember I was talking about stretching it out in time
32:57
that takes that aers away from some of the immediacy directness invasiveness
33:02
measurability of effects military character State involvement and presumptive legality none of these are
33:09
sufficient by themselves but they aggregate uh into a um into a Quantum of
33:16
severity that may or may not trigger an article 51 self-defense right um and
33:21
that maybe the factor behind the administration soft play this Administration and previous administration soft play on this is
33:27
finding elated factors really closes down in administration's decision space so I'm stop there um and I will turn it
33:34
back over to Mark I think Mark you I think you were gonna talk about remedies I think it's one quick question
33:40
will turn over to Mark just one question you mentioned the Liberty twice I don't think the israelies would intentionally
33:45
attack a US allied ship in the 67 War so I don't understand the direct link
33:51
between that and OB effect you're saying was a direct attack so pass the threshold theoretically I'm just trying
33:56
to understand the Liberty an forgive me but that's if you yeah no what if it was
34:02
you're talking you're talk talkinging about a direct effect versus a cumulative effect I'm talking I'm talking about applying the eight factors
34:08
there to the US Liberty and saying that the attack on us Liberty even if it were an intentional attack probably not
34:15
sufficient to trigger uh to to constitute an armed attack sufficient to uh in in light of historical prent
34:22
probably not enough to uh to uh trigger in article 51 one before before you turn
34:28
it right right back over to Martin and that is we did that program on crossing the line of wall Warn and sober engagement with with Phil O'Neal and
34:34
it's an interesting question because beg the question the funeral effects can
34:41
constitute an armed attack to invoke article 51 and how long is the time period I mean we know the Russians are
34:46
excellent what you call gray area operations yeah correct you can nether confirm or deny you know on the same
34:52
area it's beneath the threshold so what happens a c of damage raises Rises to the point where is a violence of article
34:58
51 do we what's what's the strategy to to I mean the no touch technology is a
35:03
great example as you mentioned here if our aders what's what's is it a cumulative effect of Damages I mean
35:09
that's you know it's kind of like the war against terrorism in a way not just cyber conflict you know unless you have
35:14
direct attribution to a to a principle an a principle you know and the theal effect of of small attacks over and over
35:21
again when does it cross the threshold I'm sorry yeah that was my intruction yeah you're posing a question that that
35:27
I don't have an answer for other than to say it's there are eight factors and ultimately international law in these in
35:33
this circumstance it's a guide it's not a decisional tool really um rarely does it produce you know hard decisions it's
35:41
ultimately an international political issue as to what when you know when does if if an Administration says we
35:48
believe that this has tripped the trip wire I can you I can I can I can make a beautiful
35:53
argument using facts applied against those eight factors to say yes or no on either want any one of those some some
35:59
are so clearly not um sufficient that you could never make that argument but
36:04
anything that's somewhere in the middle between a 25th and 75th percentile you can make that argument I don't exactly know where the line is we have to look
36:11
to history and precedent and other similar circumstances to say well yes here but no here and yes here but that
36:17
was wrong and an overreaction and so forth those those are the factors that heads of state consider when they make
36:23
decisions about whether to invoke article thank you Robert in other words if we had a Cyber attack theoretically knocked out part of our infrastructure
36:30
melted out nuclear reactors obviously that clear that cross the threshold right and that would triggle article 51
36:35
perhaps I mean if it was if if it was clear line of attribution to a foreign
36:40
adversary attribution remains remains a problem because then you'd have to show your cards about how you knew who the
36:46
adversary was and how you determin that it was him if it was a nuclear if you just took nuclear uh if you took four
36:53
nuclear power plants offline um that's probably not enough if you in if you
36:58
inspired a Chernobyl like uh crisis in each of the four probably you know maybe
37:04
yes because youve said off a slow release nuclear bomb in each one of those so that's thank you thank you
37:10
Robert that was excellent Robert Mark it's it's your your turn of about thank you Robert extraordinary so in in
37:15
following up or elaborating on that much of what which is saying that that is
37:21
part of what the problem is with this case with respect to attribution now I will say the degree of evidentiary
37:28
attribution is predominantly in the classified sphere so we we can't touch upon
37:33
that but the way I've described this is from an evolutionary standpoint this
37:40
technology has developed over time and the intent is incredibly
37:47
important what this has historically been as was used as a surveillance
37:52
technique and and many on this call session you know be familiar with if you
37:58
go to the Spy Museum here in DC I'm on The Advisory Board of the Spy Museum and
38:03
there is a I think this one's a reproduction I think the original is up at nsa's cryptology Museum the Great
38:10
Seal of the United States from our Embassy in Moscow which was given to our ambassador as a gift and for something
38:17
like seven eight years no one realized it had a bug in it a listening device
38:23
because the listening device was not
38:29
capturable or detectable by way of conventional technical devices at the
38:35
time meaning right you know like you always would see in Star Trek with the tricorder you know running a thing on
38:41
you know let's or guer counter you know nothing that they scanned the the the wooden seal showed anything because it
38:49
was triggered by energy by radio frequencies or microwaves that they
38:55
would Beam at the embassy and it would turn the device on so that the device could listen in and the person on the
39:02
other end listened whoever it was listened to our ambassador and conversations in the ambassador's office
39:09
for almost a decade before finally they figured out that the device was in there
39:14
that is part and partial to what we're dealing with today but it it has evolved
39:20
technologically obviously tons of things have advanced nowadays what we're not
39:25
sure of is is it the human who's the Target or the cell phone that's the
39:31
Target that they're trying to extract information from the cell phone the cell phone being on the body so obviously the
39:38
human is collateral damage my position would be that up until Havana and post
39:45
Havana whatever was being done was basically if you're familiar and and
39:50
fond of spy versus spy from Mad Magazine this was a spy versus spy technique Not
39:57
only was it for extraction of information it was also a way to incapacitate the enemy
40:07
without ostensibly really harming them because if you did it at low levels
40:12
you'd get nauseous you'd have problems with your vision you'd have problems with your balance you you feel sick you
40:19
go home you don't go to work boom that's awesome two days out uh you know from work but something had changed in
40:28
Havana uh and post it's for one thing it became highly public so whoever the
40:35
perpetrator or perpetrators are it is clear now that whatever they're doing
40:42
even if the intent is to extract information surveillance or data it's
40:48
having a harmful sometimes severe I had a client die recently uh first one that
40:54
we know of uh of cancer and in her like 40s I mean sure that happens all the
41:01
time but again how often does it happen to Ahi victims and we can show what we
41:07
believe to be an increased number of people suffering from uh health effects
41:14
that is outside the realm of what they would for our age range normally
41:20
uh it is now known that whatever they're doing is harming people so that it would
41:26
meet what I would say is what Butch is outlining this is an act of War I mean they're
41:33
coming on to us soil and engaging in it I've got clients and there are dozens of
41:40
cases that we can identify um all right so what do we do about that let me talk
41:46
one from an international standpoint can we Sue this foreign government or governments uh here in the
41:53
United States or elsewhere well I started my career 30 plus years ago representing many of the families of the
42:00
PanAm 103 lockerby bombing I went to school with two of the victims at Rochester uh many of them were on a
42:07
Syracuse study abroad program I grew up on Long Island someone from my own town was on the plane a lot of personal
42:13
connections that was my focus when I got out of law school we sued Libya for the
42:18
bombing in 1993 we had sovereign immunity problems we argued it was essentially just as
42:26
with ships where the designation of the ship the uh spot however the carrier you
42:33
know the flag of the ship that that's literally floating territory of the ship
42:38
well of the country well established under international law we said the same thing about airplanes if for those who
42:44
remember PanAm big American flag on the tail that's no doubt why they were uh
42:49
attacked uh rather than Delta United Eastern whoever it might have been at the time flying overseas this was an
42:57
attack on America and that so that should have constituted American soil State Department hated that argument we
43:03
fought with them incessantly they filed briefs against us actually in court against that argument uh
43:10
so I rewrote the law uh I lobbied Congress for three years H and I would
43:17
say about 90% of uh of what is now uh 28 USC 1605 A7 was what I wrote for the pan
43:27
103 families that stripped those states on the terrorist sponsorship list that
43:33
the state department designates at the time it was seven states you know Iraq
43:39
Iran Cuba Syria Sudan Libya and I think I'm missing one I
43:46
can't can't I have to think about it offand uh and those States change right Iraq was taken off the list um Libya was
43:54
taken off the list um Cuba was off and then put back on the list um Soviet
44:00
Union Russia not on the list so we were able to sue successfully Libya as a
44:06
result of that because we got past the sovereign immunity issue now there is even though there's what I
44:14
think nine if I'm remembering exceptions under the statute for sovereign immunity uh based on having litigated
44:21
that for years and knowing unless something has changed dramatically in the last few years that I haven't paid attention to
44:27
if I wanted to sue the Russians Russia for the attacks
44:33
on my clients in Vienna Austria I I can't meet any exception
44:40
that would legally survive from a viability standpoint uh because Russia would have
44:46
sovereign immunity it's not one of the seven and even or or whatever numbers on the list now three or four uh even then
44:54
I don't even think because of the way we wrote it it it probably wouldn't even
44:59
apply because we specified specific types of incidents torture extal killing
45:06
aircraft sabotage genocide war crimes I we'd have to be Innovative about the
45:12
argument that said for those now I well I'll take one
45:19
step back I knew of some lawyers who wanted to sue Cuba because Cuba is now again on the list but I don't believe
45:26
Cuba was responsible for this doesn't politically
45:31
ideologically uh intelligent wise make sense that the Cuban government in
45:37
2016 would attack America given what reopened between our two Nations I mean
45:45
my clients who were there with the embassy were ecstatic uh it it was such an incredible
45:52
Rush of how amazing it was of the Rel of the reopening of Cuba Obama President
45:59
Obama goes down to visit Etc so whether there were hardliners in the Cuban
46:05
government sure uh who would benefit from severing our relationship the
46:11
Russians obviously I mean we hate we saw what just happened recently with Putin sending uh submarines down to Cuba as a
46:19
show of strength given what's going on with Ukraine um but so I don't believe the facts are there so I have not sued uh
46:26
Cuba how about suing Russia here in the United States well when the Congress was
46:33
enacting The Sovereign immunities act in 1974-75 right as it happened most of it
46:40
was to deal with commercial transactions more countries were engaged in commercial activities as if they were
46:46
private entities and it shouldn't be fair that Nigeria could default on a a
46:51
cement contract uh just like another another company could without being able
46:57
to be sued and at the last minute right when they were doing the legislation uh
47:02
there was a car accident of a diplomat here in DC a drunk driving case where a
47:09
prominent doctor was either killed or severely injured by a drunk Diplomat so
47:14
they added in A5 to 16005 which said if the incident happens
47:21
in the United States at tort in the United States it was totally meant to deal with car crashes and for those who
47:28
remember back in 1997 there was a Georgian Diplomat who killed a young
47:33
girl in dupon circle I represented her family we sued the government the
47:38
Republic of Georgia for that incident because it was here in the United States
47:43
no sovereign immunity so I could sue Russia or anyone any other country for
47:51
the attacks here in the United States but going back to what which Butch was talking about attribution do I have
47:58
absolute proof it was Russia no at least not that I'm
48:03
comfortable with from a legal standpoint uh and I sure as hell aren't going over to Moscow nowadays uh to do depositions
48:11
uh whether or not Russia would default as they normally would do who knows um
48:17
but I'm not ready to expend that kind of energy so there there is at least a recourse for the violations of
48:24
international law and domestic law uh here in the United States if we could
48:29
secure proper evidence which again is predominantly classified I think with
48:35
that you know anyone who has a question whether you want to put it in the chat box uh or just turn your camera on or
48:41
just turn your unmute your mic and and ask away uh and I know we're we'd be
48:47
happy to answer hey Mark I want to say if you do decide to Sue russer there is no way I'm volunteering to go over there
48:53
to affect service of process yeah not going to do it I don't want know I don't want to be the new Britney
48:59
grinder no I there's no way I was in Russia in the Soviet Union in 1988 and
49:05
uh that was once enough for me it was a great trip but I'm and Georgia as well not going back there but I'll tell you
49:11
you know the ways in which you serve it's amazing how you can serve foreign countries and people ask well how how
49:17
did you get service over Libya you know what I did I sent them certified mail and someone actually signed the form and
49:24
mailed it back to us I don't know if they would do that
49:29
now but that's what they did back then you know this the Russians generally
49:36
default um they got sued for Raul wallenberg's disappearance when they were the Soviet Union and they defaulted
49:42
and then they came in and they were able to get the case kicked the problem about default judgments under sovereign immunity Provisions is the country can
49:49
reopen the case the defendant at any time and then just come in you know ask for you know what the position is of the
49:56
US government uh with these cases uh Etc I mean I've handled a number of them over the years
50:03
and if you get a judgment Mark how do you even execute it like against what money yeah so you know it's always my my
50:09
colleagues who have handled many of the terrorism cases particularly about Iran you know when we amended The Sovereign
50:15
immunities act this became an industry and frankly I I didn't like it because
50:20
it became all about money which is fine you know we're lawyers we all want money and and it's a civil lawsuit that's what
50:26
the damages are going to be it's going to be monetary so Iran was sued
50:32
countless times by Terror American terrorists victims all default judgments
50:37
never showed up Iraq showed up once and then when Saddam Hussein was still in
50:43
power and then defaulted Syria would always default pretty much everybody Libya to its credit literally the only
50:49
country that would come in and defended itself hired American lawyers uh but they have had tremendous problems
50:56
executing on these judgments because diplomatic property you cannot uh attach
51:03
and most of what these countries have since they're on the terrorist list so they don't have em even if they have an
51:09
embassy can't touch it if they have Antiquities uh some of my colleagues have tried to attach Antiquities that
51:16
were on display on loan to museums some have tried to attach the funds that the
51:21
US government had Frozen for many years off limits uh at one point the lawyers
51:28
for the brothers to the rescue shoot down in 1996 I think it was the Cubans shot down
51:35
a little prop plane killed a few people on board uh they defaulted when they were sued and now because we have a lot
51:43
of relations with Cuba even in the worst of times because of people going back and forth uh because that was always
51:49
allowed and money going back and forth so the phone companies have to pay Cuba
51:56
to allow for AT&T Verizon Etc they they pay just like they pay any country uh to
52:03
be able to have phone Communications so the families tried to seize the
52:08
payments that were going from AT&T to Cuba but the way it worked was actually
52:15
a because they were sanctioned country AT&T would pay the United States government and then the US government
52:21
would transfer the funds to Cuba so when it went to the US government can't touch that
52:27
any longer um there was What's called the Flatow amendment in
52:32
1997 or eight um flattau Alyssa flattau was killed in Israel in a bus bombing a
52:39
terrorist attack wasn't targeted for her as an American it was targeting Israelis happened to be Americans on the bus uh
52:46
her family sued uh Iran uh as I recall and probably others
52:52
default judgment they lobbied to help execute and was again as much as my
52:58
heart goes out to the Flatow family and any of the victims of terrorism I didn't this is we wanted to make sure that
53:05
terrorist countries suffered consequences that was
53:10
criminally if possible that was militarily if possible that was Civ if
53:17
possible it was all meant to punish them the Flatow amendment allowed those who
53:22
got default judgments let's say it was 150 million
53:28
compensatory and $800 million punitive you could take the judgment to
53:34
the treasury Department wave the punitive damages which generally
53:40
international law doesn't allow for anyway and you'd get 110% of the
53:45
compensatory Dam damages from all of our pockets every one of us on this call
53:52
from the US Treasury so they would get 165 million which is awesome that they got it but we
54:01
American taxpayers compensated them not not the terrorist state which just to me
54:08
defeated the entire purpose of what we were trying to achieve hey Jonathan real quick before
54:13
we go to Q&A uh the last thing I wanted to mention is somebody's gonna ask this so I'll go ahead and throw it out there right now someone always good when you
54:20
talk about State liability for wrongful acts and so forth what about the icj uh
54:25
yeah theoretically it's available if anybody's looking I invite your attention to the case the United States
54:30
diplomatic and Consular staff in thean it's the US versus Iran case uh out of
54:36
the uh overrunning of the embassy in the hostage situation in 1979 uh uh the court found that the
54:42
militants and students who seized the embassy were agents of the government because the government had approved and supported their actions uh transforming
54:50
the occupation of the embassy and Detention of hostages into official acts of the state Ergo um conceivably even if
54:57
some of these attacks were being undertaken by proxy groups um if you could show in the icj that they were
55:04
under essentially effective control of the state that you could still um get State liability um there's about a
55:10
thousand reasons why there's an icj case is not going to happen here not the least of which is the United States has
55:16
to opt only the United States can bring it uh the United States has to opt into it in the United States probably has
55:21
hold on a lot of the evidence that would be required to be shown in the icj that they have no interest in showing anybody at any any time so the icj is probably
55:28
not going to happen it's a theoretical form it's a useful form in some circumstances I think it's really useful
55:34
for for solving questions like riparian rights between states I don't think it's useful in National Security uh heavy
55:41
cases like this one in the US versus Iran there was a lot of unclassified evidence that you could get to in that
55:47
case I don't think that that's even remotely possible in this case so when we start talking if someone asked about
55:52
the icj theoretically possible practically I think it's foreclosed Mark any thoughts on that yeah I mean my
55:58
final couple thoughts on this for one thing to that specifically think of this case ahis as an iceberg you only see the
56:07
top onethird of it right it was beneath the water part that hit the Titanic in
56:12
sunker not what they saw above water and what's what's below water and I've
56:17
probably only gone like 30 meters below for even my dive into the classified world uh is all beneath it the final
56:25
thing is because there are so many political both internally here domestic
56:33
but also International and because this could be construed in my view as an act of War well so what are we going to do
56:40
about that I'll also throw out it's not clear whether or not we the United States have engaged in this type of
56:46
activity upon the adversary hopefully not to the point of of harming people
56:53
but from again the device extraction uh St standpoint and the collateral impact that might have on human beings uh and
57:01
again because we developed the technology in the first place uh I I do have some concerns about that so I don't
57:08
anticipate the US government's going to be a doing thing anytime soon what what is going to have to address this at some
57:14
point because the technology go back to what Jonathan started out in the beginning this this is this is becoming
57:22
quickly technology that anybody could almost Buy commercially already hey some
57:28
guy in Germany was prosecuted a few years ago for taking his microwave rigging it so he could have
57:35
the door open with the microwave still beaming and he he he he directed it
57:41
towards his neighbor to harm them with microwaves right I mean he got
57:47
prosecuted for that for like attempted murder or something like that um I think the only way this is going to be
57:53
addressed at some point in time is actually going to be you a new international treaty about the use of
57:59
directed energy microwaves radio frequency as to H when and how it's
58:05
allowed to be used much in the same way we have with respect to um you know with
58:11
with genocide war crimes uh chemical weapons biological weapons you know am I
58:18
optimistic that's happening anytime soon at the UN no um but the only way this is
58:25
going to probably be controlled globally is going to come
58:31
from an international treaty as to what is allowed what is not allowed with respect to the use of energy when it
58:39
comes to human beings or non-human beings like we were talking about right I mean we already have that right you
58:44
know you know you can put pulses up em em whatever EMF whatever the heck it is
58:51
uh pulses up emps emps up into the atmosphere and you know shut down our system
58:56
you know not harm the people but you know planes falling out of the sky though that would obviously cause harm
59:01
but all of all of that exists already and none of that that I know of is is under any type of
59:08
control that was extraordinary both Mark and and but but I I have one quick question parenthetical and actually I'm
59:15
agreeing with what you said about the icj in order to utilize that as a forum then the countries or States involved
59:22
would have to reveal information that's probably classified so it'll never happen again it's it's the no touch
59:27
techn technology and gray area operations even trying to analogize cyber you know in that area but I think
59:34
me is great difficulty so I see lar one other comment and I'll sorry lar I one
59:41
quick and that is you mentioned the freay effect with microwave technology experimented in the 60s you Associated
59:47
sound with microwave pulse but microwave in order to deploy microwave technology in a miniaturized state it's usually a
59:54
pretty large devices it's hard to miniaturize and place behind plaster board in a hotel room you know or in a
1:00:00
land fixture which or in a an air conditioning where surveillance technology used to be placed years ago if you wanted listening devices or
1:00:06
optical surance devices so I again I understand what you're saying the frea effector call sound but buy between the
1:00:13
parties I think also ultrasound sound from ultrasound and I think that was mentioned but it was spun away from
1:00:18
perhaps for reasons that that we're not to discuss on this forum yeah so look on
1:00:24
that you know back in the day when Frey came up with all this in the 60s a lot of times these guys all self-
1:00:29
experimented on themselves they they would create this huge device and they would walk in front of it and go oh my
1:00:35
God ow you know and and literally just document it all um think of it this I I will tell you
1:00:43
the answer to your question is classified but think of this way right
1:00:48
think of the Super S think of the computers that that started out with the US government in the 50s and 60s and
1:00:55
think how much more powerful our cell phone is than every computer the US
1:01:01
government had at the time or even the technology of cell phones in our lifetime of what we have seen so just
1:01:09
apply that to the technology of the criticism is always no you would need
1:01:14
too big a device too much power to be able to do a handheld uh device weapon
1:01:21
Tech whatever you want to call it um Maybe not maybe not
1:01:26
Larry put a question in in the chat that I'll I'll read part of it because people will be watching on the recording the
1:01:34
notion of can we sue the US on a theory of facilitation or complicity uh with
1:01:39
the understanding there's a lot of evidentiary hurdles look I have I've spent my career suing
1:01:45
the US government I I do it all the time I don't I wouldn't hesitate to sue the US government uh it is a problem with uh
1:01:54
sovereign immunity for the US government as well you know as many of you probably know uh the US government unless it
1:02:01
waves immunity it is immune uh so you got to go through certain procedures to
1:02:06
see if it would even fall within an exception I will say uh interestingly
1:02:12
the Canadian diplomatic victims from Havana have in fact sued the Canadian
1:02:18
government because the Canadian system is different than ours and they were able to basically say you had knowledge
1:02:25
of the that this was occurring you didn't take steps to protect us and now we have been
1:02:31
injured uh and that lawsuit is still ongoing it it wouldn't work here in the
1:02:38
United States uh so the best I've been able to do so far our Freedom of
1:02:43
Information Act lawsuits of which I've done like seven I think to get access to
1:02:49
the classified information to have it Declassified we've actually been successful a number of in a number of
1:02:56
these cases of getting out information that has been incredibly helpful uh and
1:03:02
is now publicly available uh and if I I I will say I do believe the US
1:03:10
government Bears a significant degree of responsibility for what is transpired to
1:03:16
our people because I can tell you right out they they knew about it much as with
1:03:22
the H Moscow signal and didn't warn people and uh there were a lot of people that
1:03:28
were injured uh with that they had no idea of the threat
1:03:33
they were facing I mean who would think this is one thing you know and I'm sure a whole bunch of you guys on this have
1:03:40
served overseas with the US government uh served in the military you know if you got assigned to go to Afghanistan or
1:03:47
Iraq you didn't bring your spouses or your family with you of course not it's a military zone it's a danger area or
1:03:54
certain countries where I've had client in um Sudan or other countries where
1:04:00
maybe we're not at war with but it's too dangerous Algeria uh they live they they
1:04:05
literally had I don't know if they do it now but when I had a client there who was the defense atache couldn't leave
1:04:10
their compound without military escort but you go to Vienna
1:04:16
Austria oh hell yeah you're bringing your family with you you kidding me one of the most beautiful cities in the
1:04:22
world what a great post but that is a spy capital of the world World Mexico City Mexico City's a little bit more
1:04:28
dangerous nowadays uh from just regular crime uh but you wouldn't you weren't
1:04:33
anticipating that your children and your pets would be victimized by whatever
1:04:40
this is because while it's targeted they would bathe a room in a house from a
1:04:46
line of sight and it would impact whoever is in that room whoever it might be sometimes there were people I have
1:04:54
one client who was injured in China and couldn't they're from um the Department
1:05:00
of Commerce they were a foreign commercial Ser Service Officer um right
1:05:05
they're there to do trade deals with China Kath wner I'm sorry kathen wner yeah cat W yes yeah cat she was on she
1:05:13
was on the original 60 Minutes episode back in 2017 I think we did it 18 whatever year
1:05:19
it was um we couldn't figure out she you know she's like 30 years old why in the
1:05:25
world would an adversary hit a foreign commercial Service Officer makes no
1:05:30
sense Until you realize who lived in her apartment right before her and let's
1:05:38
just say it was a US intelligence officer and and we think she probably just got hit by mistake they you know
1:05:45
they just didn't realize in the same way it's like well I mean look Intel agencies make mistakes all the time I I
1:05:51
repped some of the CIA Personnel who were disciplined for the Chinese Embassy
1:05:58
bombing in Yugoslavia in Belgrade back in 98 seven something like that um the dod
1:06:07
turned to the CIA to get targeting points they ran out of places to Target
1:06:12
and they asked the CIA for some and these CIA analysts who were not targeters looked at an old map of
1:06:19
Belgrade and thought and identified a if I remember correctly a Serbian
1:06:26
Munitions Warehouse except they didn't realize that the Chinese government had bought
1:06:32
the warehouse and turned it into their Embassy and we killed I think one person
1:06:37
uh in in the embassy and you know the Chinese it goes to what you were saying but right should the Chinese have could
1:06:43
they have reacted from a military standpoint was that an attack it I'm sure they still think it was deliberate
1:06:49
but as far as we're concerned it was a complete accident or the shoot down of Iran flight uh two um 655 in July of
1:06:59
1988 which probably precipitated the bombing of panm 103 we killed 290
1:07:05
innocent people on an Iranian plane uh was that an act of war no it was a screw
1:07:11
up com you know enormous screw up uh in fact they sued the United States here in
1:07:16
the United States um lost uh on um what
1:07:22
was the IM I'm trying to remember what immunity grounds if was but we ended up settling with them and we gave them I
1:07:28
believe $250,000 uh per victim which is not it's
1:07:33
a lot of money for them in Iran not a lot of money for the panm 103 families we got them $10 million per per victim
1:07:41
uh just 15 no not even probably about uh five 10 years
1:07:47
later anybody else have any questions about any of this any questions please
1:07:53
feel free to ask com but and if not I'm gonna extend my thanks to
1:08:00
both Mark Z and Robert but bnell for an extraordinary presentation hopefully this will be uploaded to YouTube by the
1:08:07
sld senior lawyers division after being edited and mark the same things you put in the chat if you send it me by email
1:08:13
I'll ask if they upload it to the YouTube Robert Butch thank you so much and Mark and the comments were right on
1:08:20
point and um it was an extraordinary presentation and I'll say same bad time same that Channel at least next month 3M
1:08:28
instead of 4 thank you both so much Jonathan thanks for the opportunity Mark it's an honor good to see you always a
1:08:34
pleasure my friend thank you everyone thank you both so much and thank you Robert again it's
1:08:39
extraordinary take care cheers man
No comments:
Post a Comment