More on Torture Tapes
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: 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 December 8, 2007 at 11:43 AM in Current Affairs
The blooming scandal surrounding the destruction of torture tapes is just beginning. The parade of current and former intelligence officers with something to say on the matter will include some very highly regarded Case Officers. For example, asking who ordered the tapes and who directed keeping them on hand will lead to Cofer Black, who headed the Counterterrorism Center at CIA until he moved to the State Department as the Coordinator for Counterterrorism in December 2002. Whether or not Cofer is complicit in any way, his positions as a Blackwater executive and advisor to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will make him irresistible to lazy reporters looking for colorful characters and simple story lines.
Cofer is highly regarded among most of his former colleagues and subordinates. I believe he is a solid professional but some of his past decisions puzzle me. There is no doubt that he worried about the growing Al Qaeda threat in the summer of 2001 and constantly raised the issue with then CIA Director George Tenet. Given that, why did he put the crazy Michael Scheuer in charge of the hunt for Bin Laden? Scheuer was a marginal analyst with zero experience in Islamic issues, did not speak Arabic, and surrounded himself with former Soviet analysts who were equally unqualified for the task of finding Bin Laden. Why would a guy with Cofer’s smarts and experience allow a clown like Scheuer to be in charge of such a sensitive, important matter? Cofer also did not ensure that the intelligence that arrived at CIA headquarters in January 2001 concerning the Al Qaeda operatives in the U.S. was shared with the FBI. Cofer was a hardcharger, high energy guy. I guess it could be just a simple matter of forgetting. Anyway, I digress.
And who replaced Cofer? Jose Rodriguez. Did Cofer tell Jose about the tapes? That’s another question Justice Department and Congressional investigators will ask.
And then there is the question of the DDO and ADDO. When the tapes were made Jim Pavitt was the Director of Operations (the guy in charge of the spies) and his Deputy was Stephen Kappes. But Stephen Kappes quit the CIA in a snit with CIA Director Porter Goss in November 2004, so he was not around in 2005 when the tapes were destroyed. Jose Rodriguez replaced Kappes. However, Kappes returned to the CIA with the current Director, Michael Hayden, and is the Deputy Director of the outfit. Stephen Kappes is likely to find himself in the hot seat answering some tough questions about the making of those tapes in the coming days. And Kappes must immediately recuse himself from any role in the current investigation of the matter at CIA.
Another personality likely to keep the media frenzy boiling is Kyle “Dusty” Foggo. Dusty replaced Buzzy Krongard, as the Executive Director of the CIA and was in that position when Jose Rodriguez allegedly moved unilaterally to destroy the tapes. Buzzy was Executive Director when the tapes were made. Jesus!! Can we get someone with a normal name–Bob, John, Mike, or Chuck?
I do not think this story is going to go away. The list of colorful characters, the subject of torture, and the perception that someone at the CIA is hiding something that might have relevance to the attacks on 9-11 is simply too juicy a morsel for the ravenous media to ignore.


















Bets on when we’ll see the influence of Gonzales emerge?
Cenk Uygur asks
Did the CIA Also Destroy Padilla Interrogation Tapes?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/07/did-the-cia-also-destroy-padilla-interrogation-tapes
….Jesus!! Can we get someone with a normal name–Bob, John, Mike, or Chuck?….
Why were so many quitting or being fired from August to November 2004? Also, the first name of the Doe plaintiff suing Pavitt and Goss contains four redacted letters. Does this lawsuit have something to do with these tapes or with the personnel that inflicted the torture? Has this case been settled? What was the outcome? Why arn’t we hearing any more about it?
congratulations on creating a Google One-of
Yours is the only refernce to “crazy Michael Scheuer”.
I have to agree with you that this story is not going to go away.
This is another black eye that the CIA as an institution does not need. The big questions I have: will the press recognize that it a handful of individuals, not “the CIA,” is responsible for the torture and subsequent destruction of these tapes — and will the press see this as a criminal act in both a moral and legal sense?
So far, the coverage has done little to persuade me that the press is going to give this story either the attention or analysis for which it begs.
Agreed - the Press will paint the “CIA” has the Bad Guys while the real Admin Bots slip through like mercury avoiding any responsibility and links to the real “Bad Guys” in this Administration. It will take YEARS and huge cajones to clean up the filth left by this Administration - and had not it been for the revolt of the REAL Patriots in the Intel Community, Bush would have bombed Iran in time for the slow news slot during the Christmas lull.
Some one PLEASE wake up Nancy . . . and find a few REAL Reporters!
Hopefully, someone like David Schuster will get a
hold of this story.
Buzzy Cookie Dusty - I’m in total agreement.
Larry - what are your thoughts about 9-11? Do you believe the government version of events? I know there are some really far-fetched, laughable theories out there and I have always dismissed those. However, I must say, I still think there are legitimate ones.
As Mr. Murder always says, follow the money.
A.B. Buzzy Krongard was the Vice Chairman of Deutsche Bank when 9-11 happened. That is the same bank involved with the mysterious “put options” placed against United and American Airlines.
I think what has happened is that someone has finally pulled that one loose string and things are starting to unravel. I get the feeling the NIE is only the beginning.
I would rather someone from the McClatchy papers snag on to this. David won’t do much footwork amd research needed for this. Nor do I think he has the inside connections of McClatchy reporters. So far they seem to get things right and keep on them. MSNBC is cutting back so you can be sure if it doesn’t have blonde, blue eyed girl involved it won’t get the resources required. The Post should take the lead but the way their editors present stories (Obama rumored to be a Muslim; as if that is a smear.)you don’t know if they are praising or castigating.
Are you sure that Buzzy was at the bank at that time?
thank you for pointing this out. Buzzy left in March 2001, I believe. It was Mayo Shuttak (sp?) that resigned so promptly from Deutsche Bank (AKA ALex Brown) after 9-11. Sorry, my bad.
We’ve been hearing:
A) This was done to protect the identities of the interrogators or B) this was done to protect the interrogatars from prosecution.
While both are possible, there is also the matter of the necons trying to destroy CIA in order to prevent things like facts coming out that do not support their policies and to give more, large no-bid contracts to their pals in the private sector (who, of course, in turn keep the GOP filled with political campaign cash and who have no oversight and are not held to account when they mess up. One also has to wonder if private contractors can spy on ordinary Americas who don’t agree with the neocon policies and either take action or report it to their neocon buddies… but I’m digressing again. Seems to me that Black has drank the coolaid, but I could be wrong). One of the first news reports about the torture memos scandal made it fairly clear that CIA was asking the WH, “What exactly is, and is not allowable?” They’d been stuck with failed policy decisions so many times in the past that it was simply smart to get a ‘get out of jail free card’ from WH counsel before proceeding.
Other examples of recent years rifts between CIA and conservatives, neocons or other branches of governemnt:
• Novak claiming that the whole Plame affair was a CIA setup.
• Wall Street Journal claiming that the NIE was a setup by the 17 intelligence agencies to make Bush & Co. look bad.
• CIA, believing him to be an Iranian spy, raiding Ahmad Chalabi’s offices with the DoD or Pentagon tipping him off beforehand.
• WH and others constantly blaming CIA for Iraqi WMD claims, SotU speech, etc. when it was clear that VP’s office was pushing for the conclusions it wanted
And I’m sure there are more.
Larry sure catch just a bit of an attitude towards Micheal Scheuer. What has he done that has pissed you off so much? I am just a poor peasant but everytime I have heard Scheuer much of what he says makes sense. He has repeatedly corrected folks who try to say that all people in the middle east hate us because of our freedom and liberty (christ all mighty
how many times have we heard the Bush administration and the neocons repeat this horseshit). Micheal
Scheuer has said that many people in the middle east hate our policies in the middle east and our military bases protecting our access to their oil.
Osama Bin Laden recommended his books for greater understanding. Wonder if that made Scheuer’s book sales go up or down?
What’s your beef?
Have you read Marcy Wheelers post that I linked at your site yesterday?
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/whitehouse-rips-the-white-house/
Thanks for your professional insights. I learn a great deal here.
Great audio interview with Scott Ritter.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/whitehouse-rips-the-white-house/
Use the NoQ search engine to read more about Scheuer / Larry’s comments.
I’ll just add this from Lawrence Wright’s 2007 Pulitzer-winning book, “The Looming Tower”:
[FYI, Alec Station was the FBI's headquarters on Al Qaeda (and back in 1996-97 staffed solely by the legendary FBI agent Dan Coleman, who is to me a REAL hero for his huge success in getting the African embassy bombing suspects to talk without any torture, just through skillful, relationship-building interrogation methods -- Wright gets into Coleman's career in depth, as does Jane Mayer at The New Yorker.)]
Kathleen For what it is worth:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/brodner/2007/09/michael-seuer.html
Scheuer was replaced as Chief of Alec Station in mid-1999 by Rich B. AFAIK, Rich B. headed Alec Station until December 2001 when he became the Chief of the reopened Kabul Station.
On July 10, 2001 Tenet, Black and Rich B. gave NSA Rice an urgent briefing on the possibility of a terrorist attack. Also in attendence were counterrorism czar Clarke and Deputy NSA Hadley. For reasons that have never been explained to the American public, the FBI evidently was not asked to participate in this meeting despite being the agency with jurisdiction. Furthermore, why would high ranking CIA officials give Rice an urgent briefing yet not tell the FBI that al Qaeda operatives were in the US?
We know what Stephen Hadley and Rice did with the information from that “urgent briefing” 0
I guess you can’t ask the guy from the FBI who took the Port authority job that died on 911.
The Looming Tower devotes a lot of ink to John O’Neill — a complicated man who sure had a laser focus on Al Qaeda. (That’s such a great book + very entertaining. I keep it at my desk as a reference because the index is superb, and there are great end notes + a list of all the people Wright interviewed.)
It is a good book. It is interesting that John O’Neill had a very difficult time getting traction with the critical parts of his investigations.
What an incredible story.
Here are my questions.
Who has the copy of the tapes?
Who has the transcript of the tapes?
There may not be a copy (which would surprise me) but nobody said anything about transcripts or transcriptions or summaries yet. I could have missed that. A transcript would be a easier to retain in a stealth fashion or just by accident.
But nothing matters to Bush and company, they think they have their own law, above the real law. And nothing matters to a quiescent Congress because they don’t even know the law or their obligations as they show every day they fail to initiate impeachment hearings.
Great information and analysis source here. Thanks.
Larry, I posted this information on your post over at TPM Cafe, regarding the publication in 2003 by Gerald Posner in “Why America Slept” — The final chapter of Posner’s book is titled “The Interrogation” and it contains a detailed description of the Zubaydah interrogation shortly after he was taken into custody in Pakistan, and moved to Afghanistan for questioning and medical care. In his description, Posner mentions that the process was all video taped — and the level of description leads me to one of two conclusions, either (A) he received a showing of the video, or, (B) he had a good note-taker present at such a showing.
At the end of the book, in Acknowledgements, Posner offers many thanks to those who helped him — Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, James Woolsey, and Lauri Mylrole — an interesting collection of informants if I have ever seen such. My point being that this collection of “people who helped me” listed in a major book published in 2003, rather underscores the assumption that the knowledge the tapes existed was well broadcast four years ago — and we could assume that putting that out was a message that Posner’s informants wanted out four years ago. Please comment.
The meat of Posner’s story is that high ranking Saudi Royals and the head of the Pakistani Airforce had knowledge of 9/11 before it happened, and once CIA had the information from Zubaydah, and it was passed on to the Saudi’s and the Pakistani’s all of these figures died in strange accidents, etc. If that was what was on the tapes (and I have no way of knowing if it was really there) what was the point of getting it out in the US and World Press in 2003, and then refocusing on it with this latest, CIA destroyed the tapes story this week? What is the motivation for again highlighting information about Saudi and Pakistani foreknowledge of 9/11?
Finally, and I can’t off-hand locate my source, apparently the FBI did a very detailed study of Zubaydah’s diary, recovered in some sort of safe house, and their analysis was reported out as Zubaydah was quite nuts…his importance in al-Qaeda was quite hyped up by CIA, and hyped in public statements made by GW Bush. I know I have read long published translations of the Zubaydah diary someplace — and yep, he sounded a little nutty to me too — but I am not qualified to certify nuttiness. Nonetheless, the FBI analysis of this material did, apparently, downgrade the importance of the place of Zubaydah in the al-Qaeda hierarchy. So which is correct — the initial CIA analysis of the interrogation, or the FBI take on the diary?
At the end of the book, in Acknowledgements, Posner offers many thanks to those who helped him — Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, James Woolsey, and Lauri Mylrole
Oh.
The mention of Mushaf Ali Mir by Abu Zubaydah as the ISI’s contact man with bin Laden is surprising for the following reasons. First, the Pakistani army, which has always controlled the ISI, never associates officers of the air force and the navy with its sensitive covert operations. Second…
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EI17Df07.html
Given that, why did he put the crazy Michael Scheuer in charge of the hunt for Bin Laden? Scheuer was a marginal analyst with zero experience in Islamic issues, did not speak Arabic, and surrounded himself with former Soviet analysts who were equally unqualified for the task of finding Bin Laden.
Because they didn’t want anyone to stop 9-11.
Close down Alec station? During Porter Goss’s tenure wan’t it?
During the later part of the Clinton administration there was alot of consternation about the money spent with nothing to show for it.
I don’t buy for one minute that these “tapes” were destroyed. I doubt any tape was involved at all. Its probably all recorded digitally and up loaded somewhere and will probably make it’s way to YouTube before you know it. People who can do this kind of depraved shit love to film themselves. these so called tapes are probably in the Ether along with those 10 million emails that disappeared.
One basic fact:Once ANYTHING has been sent along email, it is there ( somewhere) forever. just because you hit delete, doesn’t make it so.
just ask those assholes who download child porn or meet underaged kids online, they to probably thought deleted meant delete.
I think we’ll find the press has no appetite for this matter. I think we’ll also find that the House and Senate leadership don’t either. It’s too much work, it’s far too embarrassing and performing due diligence on this would undoubtedly be viewed as, “too trying for an already beleaguered American populace that just wants to heal its wounds.
“It’s time to end all this partisan bickering, look the other way and get back to governing by ignorance. The American people simply aren’t interested in justice or the truth. They don’t want to be bothered with all this crime stuff.”
The press will nod in agreement, “You can’t handle the truth and wouldn’t want to if you could!”
This will go away in short order. They’ll have one or two days of worthless “hearings” and that will be it. Thus far, they’ve managed to whitewash every single scandal that didn’t involve sex with Democrats. Iran-Contra is a good example. After all, how many criminals from Iran-Contra went on to get jobs in BushCO?
This is how “oversight” functions in this country.
After all, how many criminals from Iran-Contra went on to get jobs in BushCO?
Most. Even if they were not so lucky they work at a stink tank that feeds the monster. Nice critter to keep under the stairs no?
Why do you think our great Nation is so fucked? The Iran/Contra criminals never paid for their crimes. They should be rotting in jail as we speak.
Poindexter got a promotion of sorts..into the world of Talon and such….Mr Murder made the comment regarding the former governor of N.Y. Rockerfeller , and how there is historical telemetry of people and power in relation to the formulation and execution of all facets of U.S. policy.
Look at the BCCI scandel. Who is on Kissengers client list? Why does he drop in at the white house?
What relationship to the CPA did he have? Bremer? The current model of military-industrial contracting has several goals. We are witnessing the final stages of some key requirements to in obtaining these goals. Prior to this administration most of this was always under the surface. Bush has just been taking orders…Why else would he be so adament about being the “decider”. Must have been a rude awakening to find out the first day on the job he wasn’t.
I’m not a conspiricy nut just letting the canvas speak for it self. I would just love to see who is flying into the Bohnemian Club of late.
Like I said, is it any wonder that our Nation is fucked?
Yea, but ain’t it fun? For instance during the Regan years we went from manufacturing to a service industry which required and gave momentum to the information economy which assited in creating the MSM echo chamber where an independent press is rendered sterile. What I find fasinating is the intentional compression of the middle class over the last 30 years as political economic force. Remember “debt does not matter” depends on where you are in the food chain. I don’t think we are fucked just yet, just on our way to walmart or costco.
Yeap, Nice read on the facts.
[...] from Larry Johnson, Larisa Alexandrovna, Marcy Wheeler, Robert Baer and Massimo Calabresi; Wheeler has also compiled a [...]
Cofer Black was compromised for his fiscal interest in developing a new wing of foreign policy for his contract company.
Thus he appointed Condi satellites to the most important Mid East policy positions, knowing that’s where our focus would be after the Cold War.
Scheuer was an expert on the Mid East like Condi was an expert on the Soviet Union. Both couldn’t speak the language of their supposed expertise spheres. The policy was consistent in its lack of ability.
As for the “missing tapes” they are not missing. Nothing ever vanishes, everything is watched and recorded.
Two words will solve the missing tape conundrum:
Sy Hersh.
Cofer’s handling of counterterror was predetermined, contingent on his hiring people Condi wanted in place.
Then when she moved up to SoS he’d get the inside track on all of the deals between the contractors and gov’t. After he’d help undermine the original mission statement and personnel infrastructure at the Company, he could profit off the new deals.
Wonder if the rates went up.
….Case officers typically buy liability insurance to pay for lawyers in case their activities come to light. And concern about crossing a legal line on interrogation has been heightened with recent exposure given to cases of alleged torture.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692571,00.html
has boosh make the US a pawn for everybody els? Probably.
Page 1 of 2
A new Chinese red line over Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar
The conference on the Middle East in Annapolis in the United States last week seemed to be an exercise in self-delusion. Robert Fisk, who has chronicled the Levant for the past 31 years for the British media, somberly noted, “The Middle East is currently a hell disaster and the president of the United States thinks he is going to produce the crown jewels from a cabinet and forget Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran - and Pakistan, for that matter.”
But in the days that followed, crown jewels did indeed begin to
tumble out of President George W Bush’s cabinet. What awaits determination is whether Bush orchestrated it, or just let it happen.
In any case, the morning after the Annapolis shindig, we learnt that Syria and the US had a common choice in General Michel Suleiman (who also happens to be close to Hezbollah) for the unfilled Lebanese presidency. And then we saw on Sunday Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz entering the conference hall of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit in Doha flanked by Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. The GCC, flag-carrier of US regional strategy for three decades, had never before invited Iran to its meetings.
By Monday morning, the Bush administration had released declassified extracts of the sensational National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian nuclear problem, a report lying in the cabinet in the Oval Office in the White House for some time. The White House said on Wednesday that Bush was told in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons program. And now we learn that Bush will be packing his bags for his first-ever visit in his presidency to the Holy Land and Palestine.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL07Ak02.html
[...] Silvestre Reyes touted the exploits of Jose Rodriguez (the man blamed for destroying the “torture tapes“) as “the genesis” of the show “24.” Harper’s Ken Silverstein [...]
If I were to look for more torture tapes the best place to check is George’s DVD collection. I understand he took a great interest in the “interrorgations”, at one point suggesting that a suspect with a gunshot wound shouldn’t get pain relief. I’m sure he gets off viewing these tapes (especially the “snuff videos” where someone expires while being “interogated”).
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/
Right after he fumbles with perjury before Congress, the evidence tampering on interrogation tapes emerges. He is alleged to have intefered with an investigation of Blackwater re: arms smuggling. It would appear to abe an example of action concistent with purging tapes that also seem to implicate contractor abuse(in more than meaning of the word).
Hmmmm.
Cookie: He is alleged to have intefered with an investigation of Blackwater re: arms smuggling
Blackwater has the largest private stock pile of heavy weapons of any “U.S.” corp. They recently had a team of “airborne” drop in on an event in San Diego. Why?
[...] No Quarter has a run down on who was in charge of what at the CIA from 2002 forward, More on Torture Tapes And then there is the question of the DDO and ADDO. When the tapes were made Jim Pavitt was the [...]
From Empty wheel over at FDL
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/09/nancy-pelosi-congressional-leaders-secretly-do-expect-the-spanish-inquisition/#comments
“Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional
source familiar with Pelosi’s position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage — they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice — and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.”
So who were the “agency” lawyers who designed and cleared these techniques?
Kathleen, here’s a well-informed, fascinating post from over at FDL:
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/09/sunday-morning-sillies-sad-sacks-has-beens-and-butlicks/#comment-1139731
Jose Rodriguez “the model for Jack Bauer?” Whovever made that comment doesn’t know Jose at all. He is reasonably intelligent, nicely-mannered, a low profile bureaucrat and has a law degree, by the way. But “Jack Bauer?” Not a chance.
Perfect cover for a Jack Bauer, retired.
Well, his lovely wife probably thought of him that way.
Is this related? I wonder what “squad” these geeks that did this were really from.
The Wall Street Journal reports: ‘Investigators learned that [Office of Special Counsel head Scott Bloch, who has been under investigation since 2005] erased all the files on his office personal computer late last year. They are now trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, lawyers close to the case said … Bypassing his agency’s computer technicians, Mr. Bloch phoned for Geeks on Call, the mobile PC-help service … Bloch had his computer’s hard disk completely cleansed using a “seven-level” wipe: a thorough scrubbing that conforms to Defense Department data-security standards. The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later.’”
Also, one has to ask why it took so long to get clearance for Justice investigators to look into some of these issues.
Joe Biden says a special counsel should be appointed to investigate the destruction of evidence regarding the torture tapes. One of Joe Biden’s constituents is the father of Nick Berg. Delawarearians want the truth about what happened to Nick Berg and they want the truth about the man who supposedly killed him!
mikegorse at huffpo mentions a DoJ pdf, located here:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf
and mikegorse says
WTF? These appear not to have anything to do with Moussaoui’s missing torture tape.
I am not a lawyter, but having been an intelligence bureaucrat for a bit of time before I retired, I can see how some of my colleagues may have parsed the US Attorney’s request in order to avoid giving up interrogation tapes that may still exist even to this day. Just as a an example, if the US Attorney asked for interrogation tapes of “enemy combatants,” one way around this is that some of those rendered into special interrogation may not have been considered “enemy combatants.” Indeed, there may be several tapes of interrogations still existing that do not reveal any of the so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques or reveal interrogator identities that have been retained for a variety of reasons, including instructing trainee interrogators how to successfully use other, nonphysical interrogation techniques involving positive psychological reinforcement. It must be realized that field operations officers spend their lives breaking the laws of the countries that they are targetted against on a daily basis. This type of lifestyle, over time, leads to the ability to rationalize actions that others who have not had such experiences would probably consider to be incredibly out of whack.
Well, that’s an ah-ha moment for me, R. Thanks.
Since bu$hler has destroyed all familiar terminology, I guess the USA’s request has to include every conceivable alternate term for “enemy combatant.” And for “enhanced.” Etc.
Another true example of bu$hCo’s ability to gum everything to death.
I believed that the Bush administration may have learned this from President Clinton. Bill was my tutor, and he was, and still is, the master. Bush pales in comparison.
I take it your point is you’re a die-hard Clinton hater…otherwise?
No, not at all. I worked for Clinton. I recognize his ability to parse, obfuscate and rationalize, which is much more elegant and superior to that of George Bush.
Besides, I do not hate. If I see merits and flaws in an individual, I acknowledge both. The fact that I may recognize and point out a flaw in an individual that I may admire for other qualities makes me a poor politician by current American standards, but not a hater.
Do you hate? If so, who? Why? Do you find hate consuming more and more of your power for compassion in spirit and deed? Give it some thought.
I’m just wondering what your point is. I don’t really think that you’re all that “consumed” with my compassion, spirit, or deeds.
In fact, I find your comment, insincere. At Xmas time, no less.
nice site d00d…
heres mine…