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 (1089) on December 7, 2007 at 11:58 AM in Current Affairs
UPDATED:
Looks like the cat is out of the bag and the “new family jewels” were destroyed. What am I talking about? Today’s revelation in the NY Times that, “the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.”
During the Church Committee investigation of CIA misdeeds in 1975-76, “family jewels” was the euphemism for the list of unsavory secret activities–e.g., assassination, domestic spying, etc.–carried out by CIA officers that then CIA Director, William Colby, handed over to Congress. Those “jewels” tarnished the Agency’s reputation and its officers. Well, here we go again.
The news of the destroyed tapes is not on par with the “family jewels” of the seventies. But it does reinforce the “24″ image of CIA activities that the average layman (or woman) believes to be true. It’s not just Jack Bauer torturing folks to save America.
The truth on this will come out assuming that the Democrats press the investigation. At initial glance the CIA is hiding behind the lamest of excuses:
General Hayden’s statement said that the tapes posed a “serious security risk” and that if they had become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”
I do not dispute the possibility of retaliation by Al Qaeda against an undercover officer. In fact, it happened to Valerie Plame Wilson, but her identity was exposed by the Bush Administration. Then there is the question of tradecraft. Did the CIA officers participating in the interrogation/torture sessions allow themselves to be filmed so that they could be easily identified? I am skeptical. When the truth comes out I think we are likely to discover the people doing the questioning were contractors, not undercover Agency officers.
But let’s assume for a moment that undercover CIA officers actually were filmed. Are you telling me that CIA has not figured out how to edit videotapes and cover the faces and voices of their personnel? I’m sure there is a 14 year old computer geek out there somewhere with a MacBook Pro who is ready and willing to help the CIA do the necessary editing to protect their personnel. The Hayden excuse does not pass the bullshit test.
But anyway, according to the CIA, there wasn’t anything worth seeing. The tapes are no longer of any value.
Let’s be clear why these were destroyed–the chief of the Operations Division, Jose Rodriguez, understood that this was video evidence of torture. It was not the exposure of clandestine identities that had him fretting. It was the fear that CIA officers and contractors could be standing before a tribunal in the Hague trying to explain why the images of torture were not torture.
Then there is the potential embarrassment from showing that these extreme interrogation measures did not produce any intelligence of significance. If, for example, one of the tortured victims had spilled the beans about an impending attack on the White House or the financial towers of New York City you can be sure that evidence would be preserved and shared. At least those involved in this tawdry affair could justify violating international conventions by demonstrating that “lives were saved”. But that did not happen.
Jose Rodriguez will not be the only one walking the public plank on this issue. In fact, he did not undertake this mission without the permission or direction from higher ups. And when you are the Deputy Director of Operations, there are not a lot of people above you. Prominent names include George Tenet, John McLaughlin, Porter Goss, and John Rizzo. Darrel Plant has an insightful piece giving some important background on Rizzo, the acting CIA General Counsel.
Other intelligence officers likely to be asked tough questions include Cofer Black (now a senior official with Blackwater) and Ambassador Henry “Hank” Crumpton, who was Cofer’s deputy and subsequently served as the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism at State Department.
Be assured that lawyers in Washington are celebrating this as a holiday gift. I am sure many CIA officers will get a chance to use the insurance policies they bought, which helps defray legal expenses. I doubt that Jose Rodriguez will be a willing scapegoat. In fact, I would not be surprised if he kept some information back that would help exonerate him just in case this very contingency arose.
Happy Holidays.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
“contractors not undercover Agency officers”
And who are the contenders for the contractor position?
Seymour saying that Bush met and discussed the NIE release with Olmert before the release of the NIE
Bush had two meetings with Olmert — one on Monday, Nov. 26, and one on Wednesday, Nov. 28. But as Hersh makes clear, Bush discussed the NIE with Olmert at the first meeting before the conference, on Nov. 26 — two days before Hadley alleged that Bush first was briefed on the report. This revelation provides evidence that the Bush administration is misleading about when it first learned that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/hersh-bush-iran-2/
ahhh. the question does come to mind: what did the president know? and when did he know it?
also, iirc olberman commentary, (you can see it on crooks and liars), notes something important. bush had a big shift of his rhetorical tone in iirc mid august. (olberman may have cited fromkin of the wapo.)
but the big question is the watergate one above.
The mind would boggle, but all the boggle has been used up.
Naomi Klien writes and talks about Disaster Capitalism and The Shock Doctrine on the macro level, but republicans also practice on the micro level.
Larry Marcy Wheeler’s latest.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/whitehouse-rip
s-the-white-house/#comments
Contractors in Iraq torturing?
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/elmer.php?articleid=2959
In an interview last week with The Signal, a newspaper in Santa Clarita, Cal., Karpinski said she was “shocked” by the Israeli interrogator’s presence, and that the development struck her as “unusual.”
But a mounting body of evidence indicates that the presence of Israeli operatives working in Iraq is not at all unusual.
New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh told the BBC that his sources – which include high ranking Lebanese and Turkish officials – confirm the presence of Israeli agents in Iraq. Hersh said it is his understanding that one of the Israeli aims was to gain access to detained members of the secret Iraqi intelligence unit who specialized in Israeli affairs, the BBC reports on its website.
In an article last month, Hersh quoted a senior CIA official and Israeli intelligence officer describing how agents of Israeli’s Mossad intelligence service were active in Iraq, while Israeli commandos were training militants in the Kurdish areas of Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Hersh found this information to be “widely known” in the U.S. intelligence community.
That’ll go over well in the Arab world.
“will go over”???
Are we so stupid as to believe that it is NOT common knowledge in “the Arab World”? The unfortunate truth is that “We” are looked at as Israel’s enforcer/enabler. Hersh surely has no better resources than any foreign government, and don’t most Arab Intel Agencies have translators able to read US Newspapers . . . our own homophobic hypocritic Administration might have some left here . . .
Well, obviously. But to have it openly confirmed by a respectable American journalist just puts the icing on the cake.
Israel has been very involved in a number of aspects of the Iraq thing from the beginning. Remember, one of the things good ole Chalabi promised was to turn Iraq into an ally of Israel.
they ( CIA) said they destroyed them to hide the identity of these officers. as if Don’t we have the ability to pixel over the faces and change the voices. After all we are the most technologically advanced in movie production in the world. If hollywood can hide an identity so could the CIA. just doesn’t pass the believability test.
Larry is right, there is probably no “there” there. These detainees probably admitted killing kennedy , Hitler, or even fixing the world series etc etc…..
I can tell you now, if you tortured me, I’d sing like a frickin canary and sing any tune you wanted ( maybe out of tune ) but at the top of my lungs dancing the can can.
On April 8, 2005 Karpinski was formally relieved of command of the 800th Military Police Brigade, and on May 5, 2005, President Bush approved Karpinski’s demotion to colonel from the rank of brigadier general. Her demotion was not officially related to the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.
In October 2005 she published an account of her experiences, One Woman’s Army, in which she claims that the abuses were perpetrated by contract employees trained in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and sent under orders from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and that her demotion was political retribution.
Janis Karpinski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janis_Karpinski
i spent a few hours with janis this summer. she is not the problem. the problem is bush and cheney and rummy and cambone, (of whom some general in the pentagon said, “if the enemy was overrunning our position and i had only one bullet left, i’d use it on cambone), and sanchez, (he of the recent dimocratic radio rebuttal to w’s weekly address. f*cking disgusting nancy and harry).
there was better staffing at guantanamo than at abu g. not a war zone vs. a war zone. unflippingbelievable.
what never gets mentioned is the other brigadier general who was relieved of command, rick baccus, of the rhode island national guard. made the front page of the n.y. times. he was at gitmo. amnesty int’l. has a report out, and i’ve spoken with one of their staffers, that says baccus was strict about following the geneva convention, etc.
baccus is a hero in this thing. and of course the dims don’t call him as a witness. disgusting.
cont’d.
Contractors could also have filmed, thereby deciding to place questioners in view.
Often we’ll use info we think may be pertaining to one region or country, in other ones with these nebulous groups. AQ Khan(or someone near) being outed as a mole, for instance…
Most often it’s a case of smoke where there is fire. The simplest explanation works best when it comes to addressing if a law was broken.
no kidding Donovan. gone with the wind is bull compared to what I can make up as I am doing the mambo with a mambo wearing Carmen Miranda’s tutsi fruitsi hat.
Not only that, but we have the German kid who the interrogators knew within days was not a terrorist, but was held for five years on a single suspect “I’ve got a secret” Army general’s say-so. When he was finally released back to Germany, the cops didn’t even cuff him as requested by our staff.
So, not only were they doing bad things in our name, they weren’t even good enough to get anything for it.
Then there’s this link to the story of Al-Zubaydah where the top-level Saudis are implicated pretty deeply.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2007/12/6/192315/477
The Hague is too good for these guys, but it is where they will be headed, the entire cabal. Even if it takes fifty years they will get there. All one has to do is look at Pinochet.
There is only one way to end this bullshit: in the next administration, you should become DCI!!!
More on the video tapes
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001868
Scott Hortons interview with Scott Ritter on the NIE report
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/06/scott-ritter-4/
Bleats of “security risk” = asscovering for bu$hler the torturer’s security. Period.
Ole…I thought for a minute you were talking about Rudy…and his vast security problems…
Well, I guess, it all applies.
It applies b/c they all use it.
“Executive privilege,” “national security,” “classified,” security risk.” All prime asscover.
Scott Hortons interview with Scott Ritter on the NIE report. Important listen
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/06/scott-ritter-4/
Scott “the notion that Iran had a nuclear weapon program is an assertion, it is unfounded with hard evidence”
Scott Ritter hits Hillary Clinton for voting yes on the Kyl Lieberman amendment.
Hey, isn’t that what I’VE been saying from the beginning of this - that it is a mere allegation that Iran actually had a nuclear weapons program to terminate. That Scott Ritter is a very smart guy!
Yes, and Hillary ought to be pilloried for voting yes on Kyl-Lieberman. I see it as an expression of her true position.
I remember Ritter screaming at the top of his lungs on TV before this war that there was no WMD’s and it was all a lie. the media conveniently ignored him and proceeded to smear him as a kook and a pedophile .
He has been vindicated over and over,yet no respect for him from MSM.
Such a good point. I was following everything Scott Ritter was saying before the invasion. He was on the Diane Rehm show and Talk of the Nation. Along with Brezinski, General Zinni, retired CIA analyst, etc etc. Plenty of warning before the invasion.
Although the evening T.V. news was filled to the brim with the Bush administrations “pack of Lies”
Will Jane Harman be shown the door?
“Rep. Jane Harman of California, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and one of only four members of Congress informed of the tapes’ existence, said she objected to the destruction when informed of it in 2003.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyL3au-RZxEcch2P9ymXa
J9mroogD8TCAIDO0
Hayden Says CIA Videotapes Destroyed
kathleen, the link doesn’t work.
i have no use for jane harman. but, in the account i read, she objected and put it in writing to the cia.
My question is what level of depravity did these tapes showed. There already is plenty for Al Qaeda to retaliate for, and plenty of CIA people whose identities are know, or whose cover is so thin (”political officer”) as to be worthless. Al Jamadi (the man who died while being hung from the ceilling from his hands tied behind his back) had a family. Frankly, if I were one of them my project would be to find some justice. So far though there is no evidence of that.
One imagines that the most effective pressures are psychological. One imagines that torturing children in front of their parents would be about as hard as it could get. Wives in front of their husbands. That sort of thing.
And there have been mentions of the torture of children since Abu Ghraib story broke.
Seymour Hersh: “Some of the worse that happened that you don’t know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib which is 30 miles from Baghdad [...]
The women were passing messages saying “Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened”. Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it’s going to come out.
It’s impossible to say to yourself how do we get there? who are we? Who are these people that sent us there?”
Now were the boys raped for information they were thought to have, or information a family member was thought to have? A family member present at the interrogation. They were looking for WMD. Children would not have had that information. Their parents might.
Hard questions, but something extreme must have been on those tapes. Given the barbarity we know about, what could it be?
Too little time. ‘did these tapes show’
please forgive the typos
“There already is plenty for Al Qaeda to retaliate for.”
Except that by all credible accounts very few of the torturees have had anything at all to do with Al Qa`eda. That is particularly the case in Iraq where by all credible accounts almost none of the arrestees have any real connection to the real Al Qa`eda, and very few are connected to the Al Qa`eda knock-offs that make up a very small percentage of the so-called “insurgency”. Even the U.S. military has admitted that some 80% of Iraqi detainees were picked up by “mistake”. It also seems clear that only a small percentage of the prisoners who have been held for years at Guantanamo, many if not all of whom have been tortured, have no connection to Al Qa`eda or terrorism of any kind.
There are a few accounts of children being tortured or at least severely abused at Abu Ghraib in front of their fathers. Those accounts are likely not the whole story.
And then there is the Americans’ habit of detaining - kidnapping, really - children, and wives, parents, other relatives of wanted individuals when they could not find the wanted person, and holding them hostage - a very serious violation of human rights law. As far as I know they are still holding as hostages the wife and children of `Izzat Ad Douri, and it has been at least four years or so since they kidnapped them. (This is, by the way, yet another example of “shared values” with Israel, which is still holding teenagers it kidnapped in Lebanon to use as “bargaining chips”.
Wow! “Family values” in action!
AIPAC judge sets April 29 date
mail E-mail News Brief
mail Tell the Editors
Published: 12/06/2007
An April 29 trial date was set in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers.
Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., told prosecutors and defense lawyers that the date he set Thursday was final, sources said.
Ellis’ office confirmed the date, at least the fifth such date since Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its Iran analyst, were indicted in August 2005. The pretrial phase has dragged on largely because of arguments over the government’s reluctance to share evidence with the defense.
Rosen and Weissman are accused under a 1917 statute that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.
Ellis has allowed the defense to subpoena top Bush administration figures in the case, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
The judge has anticipated a trial of four to six weeks, which raises the prospect that it could overlap with AIPAC’s annual policy conference scheduled for the beginning of June.
Separately, the prosecution announced three expert witnesses it would call to show that the classified information allegedly handled by Rosen and Weissman damaged the national interest: Maj. Gen. Paul Dettmer, the Pentagon’s assistant deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; William McNair, a CIA official; and Dale Watson, the FBI’s former executive assistant director for counterterrorism and counterintelligence, who headed the agency’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The defense has not announced its experts.
NOW MORE TIME FOR ISRAEL TO HAVE THEIR WAY WITH IRAN. If the American people are never given the information that Rosen and Weismann “allegedly” handed classified intelligence having to do with Iran to Israeli officials…they have plenty of time to make a case for pre-emptively striking Iran.
They plan to do it too and drag us down
Binyamin Netanyahu, the popular rightwing opposition leader, was asked whether Israel should launch its own military operation. “We always prefer international action, led by the United States, but we have to ensure that we can protect our country with all means,” he told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz today.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2224052,00.html
Henry “Hank” Crumpton at State Dept until February 2007.
http://www.ewi.info/aboutewi/staff/index.cfm?title=Staff&l1=About%20EWI&l2=Staff&view=detail&eid=479
Where is he now?
Never heard of him until you asked.
In From the Cold and Able to Take the Heat
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 12, 2005; Page A17
Last month, Henry “Hank” Crumpton, a revered master of CIA covert operations, formally came in from the cold.
Crumpton gained almost mythical fame after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — always anonymously. He is the mysterious “Henry” in the Sept. 11 commission report, which notes he persistently pressed the CIA to do more in Afghanistan before Osama bin Laden’s terrorist spectaculars. Two key proposals to track al Qaeda were turned down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/11/AR2005091101062.html
I had seen reference to him in my reading and since Larry mentioned him…”Where are they now can” is a part of a “hobby” of mine.
While these are serious charges, am I the only one intrigued by the timing of this release? Earlier this week, the intelligence community released the NIE which said that Iran has had no nuclear weapons program for four years. This annoyed Cheney and other neocons. Since we know they have no trouble turning on intelligence agencies when they are uncooperative, might this be a bit of payback by Cheney?
Twice on national TV I have heard Bush say (Paraphrasing) “if you don’t give me what I want then the next time we are attacked it is not my problem.” Timing leaks is an art form with these guys. Payback how?
I have read a few others bring this up at another blog. Is this payback?
But remember that Larry has shared that it is more likely those that tortured were “contractors”. Maybe CIA wants these contractors exposed? Just supposin
“Maybe CIA wants these contractors exposed? Just supposin”
There is public testimony that “contractors” were used in the Abu Grab interegations. I would be intreseted in knowing what the CIA rank and file thinks of these “contractors”. Mr.Murder made the point that former CIA “green badgers” are being offered some big$ to “consult”, but I think there is a distinction to be made between these people and and use of private third parties by the CIA or DOD to get around certian legal requirements. Does a dog have fleas?
“Payback how?”
Well, the intelligence agencies did not give the Iran report Cheney and Co. wanted, so now they disclose this to embarrass them, and possibly launch a criminal investigation. Maybe next time those analysts standing up to the Neocons may be more cooperative.
Again, this is just a guess.
This does not affect the analysts. This “scandal” involves the Director of Operations, not the Director of Intelligence. They are worlds apart. One other name I should have included in the rundown–Buzzy Krongard.
LJ
What a pity his brother had to say Bye Bye over at the State Dept today. Don’t fall far from the tree do they?
Actually, if Porter Goss was DCI when Jose torched the tapes, then Dusty was ExDir. Dusty, by the way, is still under indictment with the next court hearing scheduled for 18 December. There is still a possibility that his trial may be moved to DC, despite the first denial of a change of venue before Brent was convicted, because the San Diego judge supposedly said that a change of venue to DC now makes sense.
That is the problem - the Media paints it as a “CIA” Fuck Up when the actual motive was removed from Intell to an Operational action designed to sheild the Administrations involvement. Should we believe that Bush Bots weren’t reporting/responding to WH influence? Can we believe Bush “didn’t know” in the same manner that he “just found out about the new NIR”????
Please wake up NANCY . . . investigate, interrogate, impeach.
The tapes were enaring their FOIA dates.
Sy Hersh had seen some of them.
That’s why they were destroyed.
You could not have ‘John Israel’ (contract interrogator’s name, guess the country) on tape doing what he did to Iraq boys and girls. The families of whose parents were inadvertenly snatched up in a wide sweep of false positives.
Strangely, it seems that people desperate for money will say anything about someone else in order to get a cash reward. Especially in in ethnic regions like the capitol city and its surrounding towns.
By the way, the turkee flight to Iraq, where Bush cut a plastic bird for photo ops, had a window of time he was there to match a drive by to Abu Gharib.
You really think Rumsfailed would not let the boy king act the fool in meeting some captives face to face? Bush probably said enough in those moments to insure he’d forever want to erase any record of what was done there.
It isn’t too far an assertion to make. There was a time window in which to do it.
The tapes were nearing their FOIA dates.
Sy Hersh had seen some of them.
That’s why they were destroyed.
You could not have ‘John Israel’ (contract interrogator’s name, guess the country) on tape doing what he did to Iraq boys and girls. The families of whose parents were inadvertently snatched up in a wide sweep of false positives.
Strangely, it seems that people desperate for money will say anything about someone else in order to get a cash reward. Especially in in ethnic regions like the capitol city and its surrounding towns.
By the way, the turkee flight to Iraq, where Bush cut a plastic bird for photo ops, had a window of time he was there to match a drive by to Abu Gharib.
You really think Rumsfailed would not let the boy king act the fool in meeting some captives face to face? Bush probably said enough in those moments to insure he’d forever want to erase any record of what was done there.
It isn’t too far an assertion to make. There was a time window in which to do it.
apologies for the double post… first one wasn’t spellchecked
Although I don’t discount the idea that the destroyed tapes might have revealed some rough if not torturous interrogation techniques, I think it is not absurd to entertain another motivation than fear of exposure of unsavory interrogation practices to account for their destruction. Since the argument that the identities of the interrogators might be exposed proposed as justification for their destruction seems pretty flimsy (given that identities on such tapes can be easily disguised), perhaps it is arguable that sensitive revelations on the tapes were the true reason for their destruction. Somewhere up thread another poster supplied a link to a partial exposition of a theory proposed by Gerald Posner that one of these interrogations resulted in exposing top members of the Pakistani government and the Saudi royal family as being involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. Please see this link for a fuller exposition from a recent posting by Posner on HuffingtonPost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html
It doesn’t sound at all foolish to me that tapes containing this sort of information would be too hot to handle. Saudis provided much of the muscle for the attack, quite likely much of the monetary support, and certainly ideological support for Al Quaida. Pakistan’s intelligence service had supplied them with a safe haven from which to operate under the protection of the Taliban regime, whose ascendancy they had facilitated. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the U.A.E. were the only governments who had extended diplomatic recognition to the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The reputed incriminating evidence on the interrogation tapes may have already been used to bring the Saudis and the Pakistanis to heel, and part of whatever deal that was made was that the evidence of their involvement would conveniently “disappear”. You couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle entirely; too many people would know of the existence of these revelations for that to happen. So this disposal of the evidence would have to be accounted for in some way, through a cover story from the powers that be, as hinky as it may seem. Too unflattering for all parties for this information to be left available. Anyway, an alternative explanation worth considering.
Larry and all,
I know you folks don’t agree with me often or at all. You know me well enough by now to I do not accept the offical versions of the stories that we’ve been told.
dispute the possibility of retaliation by Al Qaeda against an undercover officer.
I don’t either. Whoever al-Queda is. They seem to have the same agenda as the neocons.
In fact, it happened to Valerie Plame Wilson, but her identity was exposed by the Bush Administration.
See above about agendas.
Then there is the question of tradecraft. Did the CIA officers participating in the interrogation/torture sessions allow themselves to be filmed so that they could be easily identified? I am skeptical.
Me too. They can always run to slice and dice SITE to fix the tape to make their case.
The Hayden excuse does not pass the bullshit test.
This Hayden?
NSA DIRECTOR, GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN CONTRADICTS HIS 2002 TESTIMONY TO THE JOINT INQUIRY OF CONGRESS:
January 22, 2006 - General Michael Hayden, in defending the illegal NSA Surveillance Program, stated:
“We’re not violating the law … Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States.”
October 17, 2002 - Lieutenant Michael Hayden said the following:
“In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the al-Hazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salim, as well as Khalid al-Mihdhar, in our sights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/nsa-director-haydenone-_b_14361.html
I’m thinking that the people being tortured where saying things off script and implicating people that we aren’t supposed to be looking at.
Whoa, Larry. Either they are more concerned citizens voicing their concerns these days, or the word got out that you (as opposed to anyone on the evening news) actually know wtf is going on! I can’t remember ever being the 40th before (course, that could be old age…). Anyhoo. Someone before me mentioned Marcy’s Sheldon Whitehouse posts. I think that his research and declassification of the three opinions by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, which were classified by the Bush gang, demonstrates what’s really at stake here. In claiming that Article II of the Constitution gives the President the power to decide what his power is under Article II (yep, you read that right!), Bush has kept from the world his de facto SUSPENSION of the Constitution of the United States. No wonder he’s not bothered by Musharef’s analogous acts in recent weeks. Shrub is fully in favor of that kind of dictatorial power. What are we gonna do now?
Surely someone kept a copy of these tapes as “insurance and a get-out-of-jail-free type of thing?
The NIE may have shut down the US directly attacking Iran, but if Israel attacks Iran, then US is automatically involved?
Bush going to Middle East in January.
AIPAC
We may be in enormous financial debt to China, but it looks as if Israel calls the shots, I think I finally see the light.
Sy Hersch - saw him speak at Rice University last November. He said that IRAN was the holy grail for the Bush Administration. IRAQ was only practice.
I just wish that someone would teach Sy how to pronounce Iran and Iraq. Hint: Neither one has anything to do with eyes.
I know this seems like a small matter in view of the on-the-ground situation, but it is like a nail running across one’s cornea to hear it, and it is particularly painful to hear from someone who actually has something worthwhile to say. Kind of destroys the moment.
Ear rock. Etc.
Israel considering strike on Iran despite US intelligence report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2224052,00.html
Have to get this strike in before this trial. If and when it happens. This is the 6th time it has been delayed
AIPAC judge sets April 29 date
mail E-mail News Brief
mail Tell the Editors
Published: 12/06/2007
An April 29 trial date was set in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers.
Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., told prosecutors and defense lawyers that the date he set Thursday was final, sources said.
Ellis’ office confirmed the date, at least the fifth such date since Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its Iran analyst, were indicted in August 2005. The pretrial phase has dragged on largely because of arguments over the government’s reluctance to share evidence with the defense.
Rosen and Weissman are accused under a 1917 statute that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.
Ellis has allowed the defense to subpoena top Bush administration figures in the case, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
The judge has anticipated a trial of four to six weeks, which raises the prospect that it could overlap with AIPAC’s annual policy conference scheduled for the beginning of June.
Separately, the prosecution announced three expert witnesses it would call to show that the classified information allegedly handled by Rosen and Weissman damaged the national interest: Maj. Gen. Paul Dettmer, the Pentagon’s assistant deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; William McNair, a CIA official; and Dale Watson, the FBI’s former executive assistant director for counterterrorism and counterintelligence, who headed the agency’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The defense has not announced its experts.
Waiting in Texas:Surely someone kept a copy of these tapes as “insurance and a get-out-of-jail-free type of thing?”
.
While Hayden said there were only “two” tapes, it is very difficult to believe this is it. When one considers the possible distibution list and Cheney saying “everything leaks eventually”, (The Wilsons?)I can’t imagine anyone watching these would not want some “Potomac Two Step” chips to play with…considering the possible legal jeopardy of being involved. Alot of effort by this RICO crowd has been in providing immunity from prosecution…from gov’t to Blackwater to telco’s to the justice dept…same effort.
So how many people might have seen these tapes?
Someone at NQ made reference to Sy Hersh seeing them no? If true, there’s more where them came from…JerseyJeffersonian’s post is not to far of the track to not be at least a line of inquiry.
Open source info in the US is echoed to death. Is there any correlation to be found in the international world of Open source as it relates to the Saudi’ and Pakistan?
I can’t be certain that the audio-video recordings were not destroyed. I can’t be certain that the original or a copy or copies was/were not kept in the personal custody of one or more persons, but that seems unlikely given the extremely sensitive nature of the interrogations and due to security protocols that must have applied.
The recordings of the sessions could be in the possession of the CIA or a cooperating agency and yet be unrecognizable to even experts looking for them, given today’s digital tools and human creativity. It will be important for Congressional committees and other investigators (law enforcement?) to ask the right questions. There should be logs documenting what was done, whatever it was.
It should be possible to investigate the reported destruction of the recordings without endangering national security. I hope we don’t hear the State Secrets defense invoked yet again.
Larry,
I seriously think that what the Republicans have done to the United States in the past seven years is tantamount to treason against the Constitution…/sigh…we have failed, and this whole torture debacle is just an outward sign of our failure to retain the Republic.
I shudder to think what else we’ll discover when this is over in a few years…G-d, truth commissions, or trials…which do we pick…makes me cry.
The CIA Scandal: Elements …
Posted by Damozel (photo by Martina*) | To quote The BooMan Tribune, this scandal really looks like it might become the BIG ONE for the Bush Administration. The following note discusses some of the commentary that particularly struck me as I worked my …
[...] Torture Tapes (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) Let’s be clear why these were destroyed–the chief of the Operations Division, Jose Rodriguez, understood that this was video evidence of torture. It was not the exposure of clandestine identities that had him fretting. It was the fear that CIA officers and contractors could be standing before a tribunal in the Hague trying to explain why the images of torture were not torture. Then there is the potential embarrassment from showing that these extreme interrogation measures did not produce any intelligence of significance. [...]
[...] the CIA, now out of there, Larry Johnson, makes the whole thing about destroying the damning tapes really interesting [...]