Last night, along with the bill reopening the government, the Senate confirmed Stephen W. Preston, the top lawyer at the C.I.A., to move to the Pentagon to serve in the same role there. The vote slipped by unnoticed by most, but on close inspection, it revealed previously unreleased documents that lift the lid on an unusual standoff between Congress and the Obama Administration's C.I.A. At its core is a bitter disagreement over an apparently devastating, and still secret, report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting in detail how the C.I.A.'s brutalization of terror suspects during the Bush years was unnecessary, ineffective, and deceptively sold to Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, and the public. The report threatens to definitively refute former C.I.A. personnel who have defended the program's integrity. But so far, to the consternation of several members of the Intelligence Committee, the Obama Administration, like Bush's before it, is keeping the damning details from public view.

Preston's confirmation became a proxy skirmish in the fight. Obama reportedly hoped to get Preston confirmed before the congressional recess this past summer. Instead, Senator Mark Udall, a Democrat from Colorado, who is a member of both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Armed Services Committee, put a "hold" on Preston's confirmation until he answered a set of additional, and previously undisclosed, questions. A copy of these seven questions, and Preston's answers, obtained by The New Yorker (see here), sheds new light on the conflict.

The questions and answers make clear that Udall, who has pushed vigorously for the report's release, voted to confirm Preston only after he believed that the general counsel distanced himself from his own intelligence agency's defiant and defensive stance on the six-thousand-three-hundred page report, which cost forty million dollars to produce. Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, are pushing to declassify and publicly release it. But John Brennan, the agency's director, a career C.I.A. officer, and an Obama confidant, is apparently resisting disclosure, and challenging many of the report's conclusions.

American troops are gone from Iraq and will exit Afghanistan next year, but the United States' "War on Terror" isn't over: It has moved from boots on the ground to drones in the sky.

Deployed correctly, drones can be an effective tool in counterinsurgency warfare. Their exceptional surveillance capabilities are supposed to improve accuracy and limit civilian casualties in combat. That's the theory. The practice has been less antiseptic.

This week, reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International document in piercing detail how drones, President Obama's weapon of choice on "high-value" targets in Yemen and Pakistan, can sometimes be the United States' worst enemy.

Researchers found that strikes in remote villages often missed their mark, with disastrous results. In Pakistan, a 68-year-old woman tending crops was blown to bits in front of her grandchildren. In Yemen, five men were killed near a mosque; only three proved to be members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The other two were bystanders. One was a cleric who often preached against jihad.

A federal jury Wednesday concluded that Bank of America defrauded mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a lending program that fast-tracked mortgages ahead of the housing bust.

The jury's ruling sets Bank of America on course for a federal civil penalty to be determined by US District Judge Jed Rakoff.

The lending program was created by Countrywide, once a giant in subprime mortgages, prior to its 2008 acquisition by Bank of America.

The Justice Department alleged that Countrywide created the so-called "Hustle" program in 2007 as government-backed Freddie and Fannie were tightening their underwriting guidelines and loan purchase requirements in response to rising loan defaults.

Countrywide allegedly eliminated key checkpoints on loan quality and compensated employees solely based on loan volumes, leading to "rampant instances of fraud" while Countrywide informed the loan-finance firms that it tightened requirements, the Justice Department said in court papers.

US Attorney Preet Bharara praised Wednesday's verdict.

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is underway.

Retired generals and current senior commanders that have spoken with The Blaze say the administration is not only purging the military of commanders they don't agree with, but is striking fear in the hearts of those still serving.

The timing comes as the five branches of the U.S. armed forces are reducing staff due to budget cuts, and as U.S. troops are expected to withdraw from Afghanistan next year.

"I think they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or not tow the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis," a senior retired general told The Blaze on the condition of anonymity because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution.

"Even as a retired general, it's still possible for the administration to make life miserable for us. If we're working with the government or have contracts, they can just rip that out from under us," he said.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, said the White House fails to take action or investigate its own, but finds it easy to fire military commanders "who have given their lives for their country."

Jetsetters, take note: According to a front page article in Tuesday's edition of the New York Times, the United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is learning much more about airline passengers than just their meal preference.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to many, but Times reporter Susan Stellin revealed this week that the TSA has access to a trove of huge databases - both federally and privately run - which it uses to keep track of information about almost anyone traveling through American airspace.

Tax identification numbers, old travel plans, property records and even physical characteristics are contained in these databases, Stellin wrote, which is then shared among government agencies and often combined with other information on record elsewhere, including intelligence maintained by the likes of debt collectors and other private agencies whose profits depend on digging up personal information.

This mass data-mining is being used by Department of Homeland Security agencies like the TSA as a tool to monitor suspected terrorists and other criminals, and could assist in an agency-wide goal of trimming time off of the notoriously lengthy security pat-downs currently in place at airports across the country. But while representatives from the TSA touted these efforts to the Times as necessary implements in ensuring utmost safety, privacy advocates are asking for change.

According to Stellin, the TSA is now not just conducting routine background and criminal checks on airline ticket holders, but also relying on these massive databases to identify any potential red flags. With computers - not humans - calling the shots, though, it could change the face of travel to one where everyone and everything is suspect, until the system ensures them otherwise.

"I think the best way to look at it is as a pre-crime assessment every time you fly," Identity Project consultant Edward Hasbrouck told the Times. "The default will be the highest, most intrusive level of search, and anything less will be conditioned on providing some additional information in some fashion."

Two years ago, the UK dismantled their national ID scheme and shredded their National Identity Registry in response to great public outcry over the privacy-invasive program. Unfortunately privacy protections have been less rosy elsewhere. In Argentina, the national ID fight was lost some time ago. A law enacted during the military dictatorship forced all individuals to obtain a government-mandated ID.

Now, they are in the process of enhancing its mandatory National Registry of Persons (RENAPER) with biometric data such as fingerprints and digitized faces. The government plans to repurpose this database in order to facilitate "easyaccess" to law enforcement by merging this data into a new, security-focused integrated system. This raises the specter of mass surveillance, as Argentinean law enforcement will have access to mass repositories of citizen information and be able to leverage existing facial recognition and fingerprint matching technologies in order to identify any citizen anywhere.

- From the EFF's must read article: Biometrics in Argentina: Mass Surveillance as a State Policy

The above passage was written in early 2012, but I had never taken the time to look into Argentina's burgeoning and extremely creepy biometric database until now. It takes on increased importance to Americans now that Apple has rolled out its iPhone 5NsA.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has a division for particularly difficult missions. Called "Tailored Access Operations" (TAO), this department devises special methods for special targets.

That category includes surveillance of neighboring Mexico, and in May 2010, the division reported its mission accomplished. A report classified as "top secret" said: "TAO successfully exploited a key mail server in the Mexican Presidencia domain within the Mexican Presidential network to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

According to the NSA, this email domain was also used by cabinet members, and contained "diplomatic, economic and leadership communications which continue to provide insight into Mexico's political system and internal stability." The president's office, the NSA reported, was now "a lucrative source."

© M.Swiet Productions/Getty

Landmark island-wide 'Right to Know' bill passes council, moves on to Mayor's desk.

Since the 1990s, there's been trouble in Paradise. Biotech companies - including Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta - have used the fragile Hawaiian ecosystem on the island of Kaua'i to test and refine their pesticides, herbicides, and other agrichemical products. Some of these testing fields, 15,000 acres in total, are near schools, homes, hospitals and waterways, putting many residents on the tiny island at risk of exposure.

Following the landmark passage of a bill by the Kaua'i County Council this week, Kaua'i residents are one step closer to greater peace of mind. A new law passed Wednesday would require the largest biotech companies to report and publicly disclose the pesticides and genetically engineered crops used on the island, and would prohibit all pesticide use near schools, medical facilities, parks and waterways that flow into the ocean. Kaua'i County would also be required to study and report on the environmental and health impacts of pesticides and GE crops.

Measure 2491, which passed the Council in a 6-1 vote, and now must be signed by Kaua'i's mayor, Bernard Carvahlo, is seen as an enormous victory for anti-GMO activists and Hawaii residents alike.

So much attention concerning the intelligence community lately has been focused on the NSA. There has been a bit of looking at the FBI as well, but for the most part the CIA has been left untouched -- even though when the Washington Post released details of the US's black budget (thanks to Ed Snowden), it surprised many people to discover that the CIA still has a significantly larger budget than the NSA.

Late last week, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer had a fantastic article revealing some details of a still-classified report put together by the Senate Intelligence Committee which apparently rips the CIA to shreds over its torture program, both in how ineffective the program was, but also in how the CIA tried to avoid any real oversight from Congress.

At its core is a bitter disagreement over an apparently devastating, and still secret, report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documenting in detail how the C.I.A.'s brutalization of terror suspects during the Bush years was unnecessary, ineffective, and deceptively sold to Congress, the White House, the Justice Department, and the public. The report threatens to definitively refute former C.I.A. personnel who have defended the program's integrity. But so far, to the consternation of several members of the Intelligence Committee, the Obama Administration, like Bush's before it, is keeping the damning details from public view.

The CIA, apparently, has been "defiant and defensive" in response to the massive report (over 6,000 pages, and which apparently cost $40 million to produce). CIA boss John Brennan has apparently been especially aggressive in trying to challenge the report and in blocking it from being declassified.

Fox News employees set up a series of dummy accounts to rebut critical blog posts, according to a new book.

NPR media reporter David Folkenflik writes in his forthcoming book Murdoch's World that the network's public relations staffers set up "sock puppet" accounts to fill comments sections of "negative or even neutral" blog posts in the mid-to-late '00s with "pro-Fox rants."

The reporter says Fox employees set up wireless broadband connections that couldn't be traced to back to the network to help cover their tracks, and one employee used an AOL dial-up connection.