By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on October 26, 2007 at 10:56 PM in Current Affairs
News today that Donald Rumsfeld is the target of a legal complaint filed in France accusing him of masterminding the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo gives Rummy a chance to walk in the shoes of Saddam Hussein. Like Saddam, Rummy insists he did nothing wrong and that he was simply pursuing the best interest of the American people. How you going to make an omelet without breaking some eggs? Right? I doubt if Rummy will wind up on the gallows in France, but the charges against him are real and are serious. And if karma and justice are linked, Rummy will be tried and convicted.
One thing is certain, Rummy is now part of an exclusive but growing club of Amcits who face legal peril in foreign lands because they participated (allegedly) in some kind of torture, disappearance, or other violation of international human rights. That means he won’t be going on any foreign junkets. Once outside the safe confines of the United States he can be snatched up and hauled off to France to face questioning.
Rummy’s role in promoting violations of the Geneva Conventions and encouraging the use of torture on prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq will receive more attention in the coming months. Especially when the movie, Taxi to the Darkside, is finally released to the general public.
This amazing and disturbing film tells the story of how some of our soldiers, with the full encouragement of civilian leaders, tortured prisoners. They tortured innocent men. And in the process of torturing these souls some of our soldiers beat helpless prisoners into a bloody pulp. The account of an Afghan taxi driver, wrongfully accused of terrorism and imprisoned at Bagram, will haunt you after you see this powerful work. He was beaten to death by young men you would be proud, at least before they engaged in torture, to have as a son.
Some U.S. soldiers were sadists and torturers. Some were and are heroes. The movie is not your typical diatribe indicting guys in uniform for beastly acts. The movie also reminds us that the military, by culture and tradition, is inhabited by men and women of honor, who condemn the unspeakable acts of colleagues and insist on accountability. But those held accountable are of little import. It is the failure to hold their political and military leaders responsible that sticks in your craw.
The movie documents that the so-called “abuses” in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are in fact a deliberate policy born in the squalid jail at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan. The United States of America, which led the way in the aftermath of World War II in punishing the Nazis and the Japanese for war crimes, for human rights abuses, for torture, and for murder, has now itself descended into depravity and barbarism. We now excuse torture, justifying it in the name of securing the homeland.
Hitler’s Germany, also used the siren call of protecting the homeland, to justify exterminating Jews because the very salvation of the German people and their racial purity was at stake. As long as the issue can be cast as one of survival, anything goes. Not so with Alex Gibney. Gibney, the director of Taxi to the Darkside, offers a jarring indictment of America’s fall from grace and embrace of evil. But he was raised right. His father was an interrogator in World War II and instilled in his son the understanding that humans, even in the filth of war, must retain their humanity and treat enemies with respect, regardless of their misdeeds.
When this movie gets out most thinking people will be unable to excuse Donald Rumsfeld’s crimes or pretend he was a doddering fool, oblivious of naked male pyramids and waterboarding, who just did not know what was going on. He knew. He helped set the table. He justified his actions as necessary evils in pursuing and stopping the terrorists. But in the end, he was the evil doer.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
I don’t think it will happen, but it would be highly ironic if Hillary Clinton used the powers that Cheney/Bush have amassed in the Unitary Executive and decided to do clean house and payback for every bit of BS that has been slung at her for the past 15 years.
Ship them boys right to the Hague and make the records of the the US government available to the prosecutors.
Revisit Limbaugh’s drug purchases. And on and on.
Bush better be handing out a lot of preemptive pardons come Jan 2009.
Larry - great article. So does this mean that if Alberto Gonzales and the little wife were to go to Europe for a vacation, Alberto could be picked up?
It is a real possibility.
LJ
Larry but do u real think that France will do something to a ex boss of the US DOD? i dont think so!
Tom Lantos, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee shold be picked up too when he ventures outside the USA. He’s a Holocaust survivor and recently told a group of Dutch officials visiting Guantanamo Bay that, “Europe was not as outraged by Auschwitz as by Guantanamo Bay”. “You have to help us because if it was not for us you would now be a province of Nazi Germany”.
Obviously, the old Jew doesn’t understand that two wrongs don’t make a right and he should retire or be forced to resign. What kind of person with attitudes like this can be expected to make responsible decisions for the USA? Furthermore, remarks such as Lantos’ do nothing to help USA and EU relations. The EU told Bush not to invade Iraq and now Europe is sticking it to him real good with the Dollar crashing at record lows against the Euro and the Pound.
Just think about how some people still hunt down nazi criminals. statute of limitations be damned.
There ARE crimes, such as murder, for which there is no statute of limitations. I think you find that there is not any statute of limitations on war crimes, Chris.
Pre-emptive pardons will not prevent prosecutions by other Nations or by an international body. In fact, pre-emptive pardons may facilitate prosecutions internationally.
It is my understanding, admittedly not that of an expert, that before an international tribunal will initiate prosecutions against the citizen of a particular nation, that particular nation must first make an effort to prosecute. If Bush pardons Rummy, et al, then that would open the door wide to prosecution by an international tribunal.
If my analysis is wrong, or overly shallow, please let us all know.
Doran, if memory serves, the international justice system will step in only if it is clear that the State will NOT prosecute its citizen. As long as the State is attempting to prosecute, the international justice system will not initiate prosecution.
I think the Democrats must have a very good reason for impeachment to be off the table. And what would be the point in them revealing all their cards now and spoiling a big surprise?
Fredo will be a hand on the Bush compound in South America some day…
Larry,
The person best able to address the torture topic is Valerie. She can describe what actually Company training for the handling of potential assets entails.
Torture reinforces an opponent’s bias and actually makes them more likely to harden or even drives them to give false information that puts other innocent lives at risk.
Targeting the wrong places and people creates collateral damage and new enemies.
As for Rumsfailed, he’s the Taxi Driver for Baghdad. He’s taken Saddam’s place, we’re the White Saddam there. Institutional endowment of torture, for no other reason than to do it, because we can, is abhorrent to the notion of America.
Aside from a potential crush on Jodi Foster, what else does our Taxi Driver control in his DoD capacity(he still has a Pentagon office).
If he’s named overseas for indictment and is in any way connected to the gov’t it establishes an ugly chain of liability that the Executive must address soon.
Think about holdings of his being forfeited on the market. He had divest roughly a billion to become Secretary of Defense… does Bechtel really want to surrender large portions of its holdings abroad? Several competitors would gladly overtake their assets and subservice them now.
Why would Valerie automatically be wise to torture topic? I’m not an expert on what Larry and crew did at the CIA, but there are so many facets, I doubt they all hijacked planes to panama to kill a president and topple Allende, etc etc.
I agree with the rest of your assessment about what torture can do. I examine my own experiences with overly oppressive tactics in my work place (nothing compares to torture) and can guess that it only hardens you to resist even more.
Hayden didn’t want to reveal secrets remember, like when he told us…”We use a technique like telling them we know all about them and describing enough to give them the impression that we know everything. Thus they feel overwhelmed as their story starts to break apart and they talk. This works.”
Larry, did you get to read the recent New Yorker article on “black sites”? what’s your take? thanks bro.
The Rumsfeld Indictment is long needed. I wish our country could see it for what it is, and arrest him, Cheney, Bush, Addelson, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Roger Ailes, Douglas Feith, MCRove, Libby, TraitorNovak, Powell, Fleischer, Snowe, Perino, McClellan, Myers, Pace, Bartlett, Gonzales, Tom Delay, FoxNews,…ok, you get the point.
I’d love to see a suit against FoxNews by the Wilsons for libel, against Kit Bond and Tom Davis for slander and defamation. Perhaps a liquidation of the Cheney assetts would be appropriate.
Do you honestly believe that the United States has never used torture before, and that it was not approved at very, very high government levels?
Rumsfeld is not the first, and he will not be the last, unfortunately.
Shirin,
It’s well documented that during the horrorshow of the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the 20th Century the U.S. Army not only committed massacres of civilians but engaged in torture as well. One tactic was to fill the victim’s stomach with water until it couldn’t hold any more. Note the similarity–”Iraq Insurgency,” “Philippine Insurgency.”
For some background on the neocon racism involved in all of this see Seymour Hersh:
http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2/arts208.html
Another interesting mention of ‘cultural theory’:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/ghosh
The Patai book is truly vile. Were it written about Jews or Blacks the man would not have been able to show his face. About Arabs and Muslims, well, even when the book was published in 1973 this could pass in polite society. And still does. Amazing.
I guess you are talking about Rafael Patai’s The Arab Mind. which, if it were not taken with such deadly seriousness, would actually be a hysterically funny satire on the western orientalist racism we get from the ilk of the absurd Bernard Lewis (who was actually quite a good historian once upon a time), and the even more absurdly self-important Thomas Friedman (overblown, puffed-up bag of hot gaseous substance that he is), et al.
I own a copy of the book, which I admit I have not read in its entirety because it takes entirely too much physical energy to fall onto the floor laughing hysterically and then rise up in righteous outrage only to fall laughing to the floor again, and then rise up again in outrage, and repeat ad infinitum. I keep it in my library, however, in case I ever gain too much weight to fit into my size fours, and need to embark on a weight loss program.
I didn’t find the book funny. Nor did Hersh I think:
“The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq. One book that was frequently cited was “The Arab Mind,” a study of Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as a taboo vested with shame and repression. “The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,” Patai wrote. Homosexual activity, “or any indication of homosexual leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private.” The Patai book, an academic told me, was “the bible of the neocons on Arab behavior.” In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged—”one, that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation.”
Not so funny, really.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear, so I will try to clarify:
The book itself is hysterical if read as satyr. In fact, it satyrises itself in addition to the entire genre of thinking to which it belongs.
The book is not hysterical if read as a serious academic work.
The fact that the book is taken seriously by so many, and particularly by so many in power is not funny.
The use to which the book has been put by the “commanders” of the “war on terror” - which is what Seymour Hersch was addressing (and GEEEEEZ, will someone PLEASE teach him how to pronounce Iraq and Iran?) - is not funny.
I guess my joke about the physical exercise involved in reading Patai’s book fell flat, at least with you.
Some of us have different takes on what is funny than others. A lot of us laughed until we fell out of our chairs over Colin Powell’s “intercepted communications” supposedly proving that Iraq had WMD’s. It was difficult to explain why it was so funny to wide-eyed, gullible Americans, who had so willingly taken it as evidence of a deadly threat to Life, Liberty And The American Way™.
Shirin,
When the Irish Catholics came to America they were the lowest of the low. A couple of Irish Vaudvillians did a popular act where the male actors appeared in drag as drunken Irish maids. The Irish audiences loved it because it took the sting out of the stereotype to see it acted by Irish actors. But the actors did it too long. A new generation was born who had seized the opportunities offered, however grudgingly, and were upwardly mobile. The act performed by the Vaudevillians was an unwelcome reminder of where they had BEEN, not where they were now. So one night the actors started their tipsy Irish maid act as usual and the audience REVOLTED. They booed, threw rotten fruit and vegetables, and in general told the actors to STUFF IT! The stereotype depicted on the stage had started as an insult, but had degenerated into an exercise in bad manners.
Isn’t it bizarre that credence was given to the notion that sexual humiliation and religious desecration would somehow soften up subjects of interrogation and soon have them gushing actionable intelligence.
The “gloves-off” innovators became expert not at extracting intelligence, but at making enemies.
Dr Stern in his comment below says:
“In retrospect, it smacks of a coordinated effort to lay the groundwork for a premeditated plan to construct a torture regime as a defining feature of this new “war”. Perhaps meaningful intelligence was never the intended product of this plan. Perhaps it was just fear and intimidation - at home as much as abroad.”
Especially for Arab Americans and others who support non neocon allied elements in the Middle East. Speak out for the children of Gaza? Demand that Israel supply the maps of its cluster bomb attacks in the final hours of the war last summer? Contribute to legal democratic forces in Lebanon that the administration, and many Democrats oppose? Speak out in a meaningful way as Americans against the destruction of our constitution and traditions of Liberty? Those images hang over us.
What I find even more bizarre, teaeopy, is that these clowns actually seem to think that only Arabs, due to their peculiar culture, react negatively to such things as sexual humiliation. Do they really believe that Americans are not also vulnerable to sexual humiliation, or that Americans do not feel negatively about it? Do they believe that it is something peculiarly unique about Arab culture and not something that is universally human to dislike being sexually humiliated?
Shirin,
Then for goodness sake don’t open Mein Kampf. “Turgid” doesn’t even begin to describe the effort required to read it.
” And if karma and justice are linked, Rummy will be tried and convicted.”
That is how I feel about Kissinger. Hopefully they will be roomies…
I was assigned to work with Rumsfeld for a bit in the mid-1980s. Organizationally, he is quite talented. His problem is that he doesn’t have a sufficient moral compass to function above the middle management level. He would be fine as a management analyst who didn’t have the authority to implement his plans before they could be corrected for reality by someone who understood what America was all about. Regretably, we have all been witness to what happens when he is given full authority to carry out his brainstorms without proper oversight. Perhaps most disturbing is his ability to find and exploit multiple levels of corruptable subordinates. Before this administration, I would’ve never guessed his skill in that endevor.
Civil War general Ambrose Burnside was like that. When commanding the Army of the Potomac at Fredericksburg he threw his men at the Confederate high ground like pebbles at a brick wall. He had simply been promoted above his competence.
“…what America was all about.”
I believe you are referring to what America is SUPPOSED to be all about. What America is really all about in the context of this topic has been something quite different than that for a considerable period of time. The only significant difference between this administration and previous (and future) ones, both Republican and Democrat, is the stunningly brazen, in-everyone’s-face style with which this regime pursues what other administrations have gone after in more subdued ways.
This is, of course, good news, but its sad other countries have to clean up the filth of the US.
I have not seen much mention of this - maybe it is because my memory is faulty, or perhaps is is not important. But as I remember it, several talking heads were immediately promoting the idea of torture being a justifiable method to employ in the “war on terror” within a couple of days after 9/11.
I could be wrong on the timing, but not by a lot. I can recall how horrified I was at the suggestion, puzzled by any lack of serious counter-argument (perhaps because no one took these professional nuts seriously) and semi-secure in the knowledge that nothing would come of it. After all, it was common knowledge for many years that torture does not produce useful intelligence.
In retrospect, it smacks of a coordinated effort to lay the groundwork for a premeditated plan to construct a torture regime as a defining feature of this new “war”. Perhaps meaningful intelligence was never the intended product of this plan. Perhaps it was just fear and intimidation - at home as much as abroad.
Someone please wake me. I am having the worst nightmare of my life.
Deighved H Stern, MD
You are correct in your recollection. I also remember such discussions. Mainly on Fox News but on other channels as well.
It was at that time that I observed what I at that time thought was the crowning horror of my life. I saw a man whom I had previously considered a hero of mine, a man for whom I had considerable respect defend the idea that “under certain circumstances, one would be justified in the use of torture”. I was aghast! Could I have heard him right? Could I have misunderstood? No, it was Alan Derschiwtz (forgive the misspelling). ALAN DERSHIWITZ! The great defender of human rights saying “it’s OK to torture! Well, if the “circumstances” demanded it.
And remember Cheney, on I believe, Russertt’s Sunday AM show, talking about the possibility of the need to explore the “dark side” in our prosecution of the “WOT”. That comment is probably the root of the Darth Vader comparisons. And he has lived up to that image even more successfully than even I ever imagined.
Alan Dershowitz a “great defender of human rights”? ALAN DERSHOWITZ?!!!!! Are you joking?!
WHOSE human rights does this man defend? Certainly not the Palestinians’ - or maybe he just does not see Palestinians as human beings.
Oh, don’t let me get started on Alan Dershowitz as a “great defender of human rights”.
Larry,
I was commenting on this accountability of our leaders indirectly just last night.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2007/10/26/123221/85/529#c529
Tom please turn your talent to writing (0 / 0)
about something real. Edwards is a lost cause.
Most of us just don’t care what he says.
The only reason I put a comment up is that every day, or night there is always, ALWAYS a recommend diary about Edwards.
It short changes other authors who never get a good or important dairy posted to the recommended section.
That sucks.
How about writing about the Consitiution and where each and everyone of those above candidates stands?
Where do they stand on impeachment?
Where do they stand on criminal prosecution of all Bush appointees that have commited crimes? Will they enforce the rule of law? Will they go after the criminals? Will they restore of Consititution’s Greatness?
There is some very important issues that these people must answer and/or asked about.
If we elect some dumbass that “Can’t We Just Get Along” is their goal then this country, this nation, and our Constitution is a total lost.
Every freedom we enjoyed before, and our ability to pursue happiness is gone.
We need reason people, like give them “Hell Harry”, or Ted Roosevelt, or Franklin. Hell, General Patton had the backbone necessary to kick some ass and do the right thing.
“Demand the Truth!”
So should only frontrunners get press and blog coverage? We’ll be in sadder shape if that happens.
This war and the tragedies of this war may finally begin to dawn on some people after viewing this film. I only wish people like Colin Powell would have stepped forward before things got so bad. The generals who retired to expose this mess have been marginlized by the corporations running the vast media. Is it too late to save our country and its reputation.? I don’t know but somebody has to pay for this mess. Starting with Rumsfield and Gonzales sounds good to me but please don’t stop there.
Colin Powell DID step forward, and played the role he has always played in the past. Anyone remember his role in the coverup of the My Lai massacre?
ABSOLUTELY!
Didn’t know you were that old, Shirin, but thanks for pointing out the 400 kg gorilla in ex-Democrat Powell’s living room!
To date, Powell has been the most successful MSM itieration of the, “Magic Negro,” before he squandered his inflated reputation in front of the UN and became a poltical punch line…
Inflated reputation - yes, that says it quite well.
Taxi to the dark side? More like a limo…
All this means is that Rummy will never again be able to set foot in France - much to his loss. There will never be an extradition from the U.S. to France, for Rummy - he’s just to powerful and connected.
So France will be able to try Rummy “in absentia” - and more truth will be revealed, thank goodness; but be assured, all, that Rummy will die comfortably, of old age, in his own bed, and will never have to answer for his crimes.
Just when Sarkozy made it seem okay to eat French fries again in the White House, they’re rocked by unwelcome news out of France. Let’s see, that leaves tater tots, hash browns, baked potatoes, …
one can only hope rummy and all these MURDERERS will meet their maker in the after life. God will be pissed.
I can hear it now…
God: “what have you done that is pleasing in my sight?”
Rummy: I freed the eyerackies from the bondage of tyrany and from the ever bothersome bondage of breathing”
God:”WTF? hey Satan, get hitler up here to give another one of these assholes a ride across the river STYX.”
There are no gods, so that won’t happen.
They all remember Pinochet.
Great thread Larry.
I’m sure the name Hans Scharff rings a bell with a few posters here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Scharff
Here’s Larry’s buddy/colleague Milt Bearden NYT piece on interrogation via Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/09/milt_bearden_on.html#more
And an excellent article from Col. Lang
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0707/p09s02-coop.htm
http://www.frif.com/new2004/squa.html
DEATH SQUADRONS: The French school
“DEATH SQUADRONS also shows how, during the 1960’s, the French were instrumental in training U.S. officers at Fort Bragg on counter-insurgency techniques that were later used by the U.S. military in Vietnam”…”Moreover, the film probes the French role in training U.S. armed forces, covetous of the Europeans’ superior expertise, on counterinsurgency methods later unleashed in Vietnam ”
So why did the US need to learn the brutal techniques used in Algiers???
Hearty dose of Irony there, considering that the French had so recenty done SO well with their tactics in Algeria and Indochina.
Much like using Liz Taylor for your Marriage Counselor…
Larry,
I’m starting to think that the only real cleansing of this cesspool would be a “people power” revolution from outside the existing power structure and a public reckoning ala Nuremberg with the criminality that’s now being integrated into our public policy at every level.
We’re too far gone for a Lee Hamilton/James Baker co-production;neither party, as thoroughly complicit as they are in these outrages against the Constitution and morality,would agree to or would survive the kind of scrutiny and truth-telling required.
I’m afraid you’re right. We’re also a long way from the sort of event that would thoroughly discredit this crew with the vast majority of the American people and convince them how thoroughly immoral and un-Constitutional their actions have been.
Ah.. we can only hope - heard on the radio there are also charges brought against Rummy in Norway and Argentina.
By the way - just how many cells do they have available in the Hague??
They’ll need quite a few.
Logically, any investigation into Rumsfeld’s (alleged) torture policies will draw in Cheney and Bush. Since the investigations will not be conducted by our DOJ, there is a good chance that someone with integrity will be trying to get answers and information. Of course, all attempts at getting information stateside will be stonewalled if this is done with Bush still in the WH.
Even so, there is enough information abroad to give an investigation steam.
I wonder if the compound in Uruguay is large enough for all the Blackwater folks Bush is going to need for “security” in the long run?
Let’s face it, there is something inherently appealling abouttorture to these miscreants. The sadistic bastards can hardly hide their glee.
http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Torquemada.html
Refusing to confess at the first hearing, saw heretics being remanded to the prisons for several months. The dungeons were situated underground, so that the outcries of the subject might not reach other parts of the building. In some medieval cells, the inauspicious were bound in stocks or chains, unable to move about and forced to sleep standing up or on the ground. In some cases there was no light or ventilation, inmates were generally starved and kept in solitary confinement in the dark and allowed no contact with the outside world, including that of their own family. In 1252, Pope Innocent IV officially authorised the creation of the horrifying Inquisition torture chambers. It also included anew perpetual imprisonment or death at the stake without the bishops consent. Acquittal of the accused was now virtually impossible. Thus, with a license granted by the pope himself, Inquisitors were free to explore the depths of horror and cruelty.
http://www.geocities.com/christprise/holy-inquisitions.html
These attempts at human rights prosecution are valuable even if unsucessful. Scumbags like Kissinger, Pinochet and Bush may face a realistic chance of being held accountable for their crimes when they travel abroad. More and more, they will become prisoners in their own country. The downside is, we’ll be stuck with them staying here all the time. Unless we start enforcing human rights law and the Constitution too.
Let’s hope this is the start of a trend against other figures in the Bush administration, such as Bush and Cheney themselves. That they’ll all join a list of figures who can’t leave the country without risking prison.
If Der Fuhrer Bush allows elections and don’t enact Martial Law he will be putting himself and the rest of his Nazi’s in jeopardy of being labeled as enemy combatants under the MCA of 2006.
Granting pardons will not prevent this from occurring and I for one don’t believe that he will put himself at risk of arrest.
It would be to dangerous for him to allow elections to go forward because of this. The same applies if impeachment were to go forward.
I think impeachment was taken off the table because of this also. They gave him a power no one should have, neither Republican Presidents or Democratic Presidents.
Once they gave him this power he now had his Enabling Act. The Enabling Act to Hitler is no different the the MCA of 2006 to the Decider.
I’m glad to see that someone in the International Community is stepping up and doing, or attempting to do the right thing.
My two cents worth.
God Bless.
Taxi to the Dark Side?
Why not a Limo to the Gallows?
Not only would I pay a month’s income to drive same, I’d pony up a year’s pre-tax for the privilege of kicking the handle to the trap door…
LOL @ FCD. I cannot add a thing!
Does anyone know when Taxi to the Dark Side will be released? The link showed the trailer, but I didn’t see a release date.
France may be serving their usefulness in this shoddy game, Larry, but they are another nasty piece in the nasty puzzle of imposing Hitler’s model.
It is o.k. to ridicule someone for offering an outlandish account that denies the slaughter of Armenians at the hand of Turkey, but to jail them creates a greater transgression than the arguer.
The fiction called the holocaust, I have to be careful here, with so many tempramental folks watching - the pure theory [effectively baseless] argument formula’d around American WWII propaganda and now labelled the Holocaust is upheld by Austria and ruthlessly defended. To which end, if anyone disagrees with Lipstadt’s presentation of events and promotes their dissenting views widely can, and possibly will, be jailed. [In fairness to Lipstadt, she does not endorse the witchhunt on dissenters]
That is a summary of Hitler’s ethos. The very part of Hitler’s deceit which eroded any intellectual comeback against his crazy policies are being witnessed in France and Austria, by jailing dissenters. Where and what next is beyond criticism? As we see with the holocaust, supporting evidence is not required when the subject matter is emotionally compelling - it fits the bill emotionally, as it were.
My interest is why France have been used for the purposes you have kindly outlined, Larry. They have been served up as the bogie-man - anti-american, by Bush. Is this another play on patriotism and an attempt to devalue any say Europe might have?
[...] Andrew Sullivan mentions the case and a good post on the subject can be found at No Quarter, where Larry Johnson writes, “One thing is certain, Rummy is now part of an exclusive but growing club of Amcits who face legal pe…” [...]
Homemade Porn Clip
Its interesting, THX
pace trailers canada
cosmetics in
best retirement plans
http://plenari.iespana.es/clock5627.html business presentation script
http://donvoe.aokhost.com/card1057.html slave bracelet jewelry
http://donvoe.seitenclique.net/casino1623.html back bay hotels in boston
arguer…
Applying a finance company might surely help buyers to fix all existing outstanding credit cards and variant old bank bills too….