WikiLeaks publishes CIA director's emails

The 'hacktivist' website posted what looks like a draft security clearance application from CIA Director John Brennan's personal email account.

CIA Director John Brennan listens during a news conference at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va.

The WikiLeaks organization posted material Wednesday from what appears to be CIA Director John Brennan's personal email account, including a draft security clearance application containing personal information.

The material presumably was taken in a compromise of Brennan's email account by a hacker who told The New York Post he is a high school student protesting American foreign policy. The hacker claimed he posed as a Verizon employee and tricked another employee into revealing Brennan's personal information.

Brennan was seeking a security clearance while applying for a job as White House counterterrorism adviser. It was not immediately clear whether any national security information was compromised in the release of the clearance application, which includes his wife's Social Security number and the names of people Brennanworked with over a long prior career at the CIA.

A CIA statement called the hack a "crime."

"The Brennan family is the victim," the agency said in an unattributed statement, in keeping with agency policy. "This attack is something that could happen to anyone and should be condemned, not promoted. There is no indication that any the documents released thus far are classified. In fact, they appear to be documents that a private citizen with national security interests and expertise would be expected to possess."

The documents all date from before 2009, when Brennan joined the White House staff; before that, he was working in the private sector. Aside from the partially completed clearance application, none of the documents appears to be sensitive.

In a section of his security clearance application covering foreign contacts, Brennan writes that in August 2007: "I have had lunch twice and dinner once with Alan Lovell, a U.K. colleague with whom I worked closely during the last three years of my government career. Alan is currently posted at the U.K. Embassy in Washington."

Brennan's "government career" to that point consisted of decades at the CIA. It's not clear what Lovell's role was at the British Embassy. The State Department in 2009 listed Lovell as a "counselor" in the British Embassy. His LinkedIn profile currently lists him as working at the British Ministry of Defense.

The documents include a partially written position paper on the future of intelligence, a memo on Iran, a paper from a Republican lawmaker on CIA interrogations and a summary of a contract dispute between theCIA and Brennan's private company, the Analysis Corporation, which had filed a formal protest after losing a contract dealing with terrorist watch lists.

In a post-election memo, purportedly written to Obama, Brennan laid out a pragmatic roadmap on dealings with Iran. His suggestions are similar to the carrot-and-stick approach the administration would eventually use in nudging Tehran toward joining negotiations over slowing the momentum of its growing nuclear reactor program.

"The United States has no choice but to find ways to coexist — and to come to terms — with whatever government holds power in Tehran," Brennan said in the three-page memo. He added that Iran would have to "come to terms" with the U.S. and that "Tehran's ability to advance its political and economic interests rests on a non-hostile relationship with the United States and the West."

In the memo, Brennan advised Obama to "tone down" rhetoric with Iran, and swiped at former President George W. Bush for his "gratuitous" labeling of Iran as part of a worldwide "axis of evil." Brennan also said the U.S. should establish a direct dialogue with Tehran and "seek realistic, measurable steps." Although he didn't specifically call for the regime of financial sanctions that the Obama administration, along with Europe, Russia and China, pushed against Iran, Brennan told the president-elect to "hold out meaningful carrots as well as sticks."

A 2008 letter from then-Sen. Kit Bond to colleagues describes Bond's proposal to curb CIA interrogation techniques in a less restrictive way than requiring the agency to adhere to the Army field manual, which was what Obama ultimately did.

A related document appears to be legislation reflecting Bond's proposal, which would have prohibited the agency from engaging in interrogation techniques prohibited by the Army field manual, rather than restricting it to only those techniques allowed by the manual.

But there is no way to know why Brennan had the letter or what his views on it were. He has defended brutal CIA interrogations as having produced good intelligence while supporting Obama's decision to ban them.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.