By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on December 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM in Current Affairs
The media are woefully ignorant on the subject of waterboarding and torture. Consider the coverage of former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, who is telling his story as an interrogator of Abu Zubaydah and insisting that waterboarding is an effective technique. ABC and CNN are repeating this absurd propaganda. However, if you read the transcript of his interview some key points are obscured in the media propaganda push: (part 1 and part 2):
- Kiriakou never witnessed the waterboarding. It was carried out by another group of individuals (nfi).
- None of the information provided by Zubaydah concerned threats inside the United States.
The ABC interview with Kiriakou provides some important insights into the whole question of the CIA’s role in using torture, which is now euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation”.
The media are woefully ignorant on the subject of waterboarding and torture. Consider the coverage of former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, who is telling his story as an interrogator of Abu Zubaydah and insisting that waterboarding is an effective technique. ABC and CNN are repeating this absurd propaganda. However, if you read the transcript of his interview some key points are obscured in the media propaganda push: (part 1 and part 2):
- Kiriakou never witnessed the waterboarding. It was carried out by another group of individuals (nfi).
- None of the information provided by Zubaydah concerned threats inside the United States.
The ABC interview with Kiriakou provides some important insights into the whole question of the CIA’s role in using torture, which is now euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation”. CIA case officers are not trained in “interrogation”. They are trained in recruitment. Recruiting and debriefing sources is more akin to romancing someone. You are not looking for a one night stand, you want a relationship.
So who did the CIA turn to for help with “enhanced interrogation”? It was either the military or former military working as contractors. Why? Because the military did train interrogators at Fort Huachuca and they were familiar with enhanced interrogation methods, including waterboarding.
Unfortunately, the media are helping perpetuate several myths about waterboarding. Last Sunday in the Washington Post, for example, reporters Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen claimed:
A U.S. soldier in Vietnam supervises the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. Bettmann/Corbis
“Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.
In general, the technique involves strapping a prisoner to a board or other flat surface, and then raising his feet above the level of his head. A cloth is then placed over the subject’s mouth and nose, and water is poured over his face to make the prisoner believe he is drowning.”
Wrong. Dead wrong. A friend of VIPS sent the following to Ray McGovern yesterday reminding us that:
As I’m sure you know, waterboarding was a common practice used by the Marines in the Philippines during the war 1898-1902 when thousands were killed. I recall seeing photos as well as drawings of it among the military records in the National Archives. But now, they are spinning waterboarding as a practice the U.S. only used to show our people what to expect from the enemy.
Incidentally, a photograph (see below) appeared on the front page of the Washington Post showing a U.S. smiling officer in Vietnam participating in the waterboarding of an alleged North Vietnamese cadre. On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran the photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding. The caption said the technique induced “a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.” The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier.
Hell, it would help if Washington Post reporters read their own damn paper. It is historical information, but real facts are better than uninformed opinions.
In this regard it is worth noting that waterboarding is torture as defined in the Convention Against Torture & Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention defines torture as:
. . . any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Writers and editors at the Post and other newspapers should also consult the following sections of this Convention:
- Article 2 - No Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Torture
- Article 3 - No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
- Article 4 - Acts of Torture Are Criminal Offenses
- Article 10 - Education & Information Regarding Prohibition on Torture Provided in Training
- Article 16 - Each State to Prevent Acts of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Since the United States is a signatory to this Convention, it is not up to President Bush to declare waterboarding is okay. It is not. It is torture. Plain and simple.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
How come Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or any Democrats have not commented on any of this?
Probably because at least Nancy Pelosi, along with both Republican and Democrat Senators and Congressmen, was given extensive briefings on foreign-located covert rendition/confinement sites, including detailed briefings of how “enhanced” interrogation techniques worked, as early as 2002-2003. She, and all of the members of Congress who received such briefings, agreed with the methodology. There are witnesses to that effect that attended the briefings, and these witnesses could be surfaced if Pelosi gets too far up on a high horse. This isn’t just an administration thing. The oversight committees were fully aware and complicit.
From what I’ve read elsewhere only the “Gang of Eight” were “fully” briefed.
That’s correct and because of the highly classifies nature of these briefings they are restricted by law from discussing what they were briefed on. Also remember that at the time congress was in republican hands. If any of these dem’s had gone public they would have been cricified by the right with the full support of the media.
exactly jerry … and considering this adminstration’s total politicizing of the DoJ you can bet any democrat who dared leaked the facts would have been prosecuted in a heart beat.
retired your assertion about ms pelosi “She, and all of the members of Congress who received such briefings, agreed with the methodology. There are witnesses to that effect that attended the briefings” leaves me baffled. i thought these were principle only briefings … no outsiders. and even if that was the case, i would find it hard to believe the testimony of another person who was obviously vetted by the adminstration. i find you statement to be rather far fetched … sorry.
They were principal only briefings. The witnesses were Agency employees. I’m sorry that you find it hard to believe, but I have talked to people who were there. I find it easy to believe because I myself have done such oversight committee briefings in the past on other topics and have seen the same behavior from members of congress, that is, tell you to your face in closed session that your proposal is fine and then deny any prior knowledge of it when it comes out in the public domain.
From you say it works both ways. The mere fact that there is a pattern of divergent public - private communications tells me laws are being bent, if not broken. The witnesses giving classified testimony on the Hill are in a position to provide collective “loop feedback” of a given position, same as Rocky has a need for a document in the safe. From an outsiders perspective there is a faulty veneer of truth. Cloak (and dagger)room conversations are never heard on C-SPAN.
I keep wondering about the CIA attorneys who “designed and cleared” these “enhanced” techniques.
In this recently exposed rape case of a KBR employee the news keeps repeating that the men who raped her may not be able to be tried, because they are “contractors”.
During Blackwaters Erik Prince’s testimony in regard to the murders in Baghdad he seemed to mention “independent contractors” quite often.
Larry mentioned the other day that it is likely that “contractors” conducted the “enhanced” techniques not CIA officers.
So are all of these “contractors” out of the reach of U.S. law?
The ones in Iraq are. Don’t know about the others.
For an interested write up on this topic, see:
http://thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/2007/05/outsourced_dirt.html
from the May 2007 archives of The Spy Who Billed Me website.
Have we forgot about Poland?
Because they could be tried for treason, and the penalty for treason is death.
Right on point!
There is no reasonable deniability for this criminal president.
Larry wrote, “Recruiting and debriefing sources is more akin to romancing someone. You are not looking for a one night stand, you want a relationship.”
Off topic response: Except in the case of foreign national girlfriends/boyfriends. Then, because of the way the regs are written, you want a one night stand because you don’t have to report it to security.
Sorry, Larry, as one who had to read those stupid reports before I sent them in, I just couldn’t resist.
tsk tsk retired…..I bet you kiss and tell!!
No, actually, if you were the one that read the reports you had to agree to become a eunuch. Don’t tell anybody, I cheated on that one.
So this statement is correct?
“Pelosi knew they were torturing. No wonder impeachment is off the table, it would mean her resignation. She was BRIEFED in 2002.”
According to someone who actually sat in the briefings, yes.
“someone who actually sat in”
You mean Porter Goss, who was the ranking GOP guy on the House intel committee until Bush tapped him in 2004 to run the CIA. He’s the guy who brought Jose Rodriguez on board. (You know, the guy who trashed the torture tape AFTER the court ruling that forbade just that?) Goss and/or Rodriguez have been going around speaking “on background” to the press in a frantic effort to take attention away from themselves, as the tape destruction happened on their watch.
Pelosi has already said that while she was indeed at the late 2002 briefing, she’s also said that it wasn’t as detailed as the later briefing Jane Harman got in 2003, a briefing which caused Harman to write to the CIA protesting the techniques used (and Pelosi concurred with Harman’s protest).
Take the red pill and believe what you want, PW. Both Pelosi and Harmon saw videos of the sites and the techniques and they approved of them. Neither was the least bit indignant at the time of the briefings, which were relatively close to 2001. Their statements and letters are very carefully crafted and Harmon’s loss of memory on the details of what she heard and saw very convenient. If Pelosi and Harmon really felt strongly that the techniques were breaking the law, or immoral, why didn’t they take stronger action? Because in the closed briefings, they concurred. Politically, they had to. If someone like Kiriakous had surfaced and said that waterboarding only took 30 seconds and could save lives back in 2002 and 2003, Pelosi and Harmon would’ve been laughed out of their press conferences by most Americans who had the memory of 9/11 fresh in their minds. These ladies are saints. They are politicians.
Congress sets all laws regarding capture “on the high seas” or abroad.
“To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. To define and punish piracies and felonies commited on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations.
To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”
Doesn’t terrorism, if it is not a “state actor” and thus immune to Geneva Convetion, itself become a designated duty of Congress to address? They addressed pirates, who acted both independent and at times were thought to have colluded with some state actors.
These items are listed together by our Founders, Art.I, Sec8.
They have addressed this issue. In 2002 and 2003, they were briefed in detail on a potential solution to the problem of non-state terror actors (i.e., rendition) and they told the CIA to “go get’em.” Wisely, this was all done sub rosa. Now they can deny it, up to a point. If try to hold the Agency officers that they unleashed personally accountable, John Kiriakous’ bretheren who were at those briefings are going to start showing up in the news, and they know it.
I think we should dunk the terrorists in water and if they float they are terrorists and if they sink they are innocent.
-Mitt Huckabee
:-PPP
707 Hilarious !!
FYI, I just got a “breaking news” e-mail from Human Rights First:
GO HERE TO SEND A LETTER TO YOUR U.S. Rep.
I certainly hope that they are careful in how “U.S. custody” is defined. Mr. Murder’s comment above is correct. Congress could be issuing letters of marquee and reprisal to commercial and foreign actors to take over rendition and special interrogation.
Thanks Susan
[Larry, the first 3 story grafs are duplicated.]
So they knew fully, then. No wonder we’re hearing crickets from the Dem so-called leadership.
Step down. All step down.
Actually, Porter Goss (who’s the “anonymous” source for all of this) is not telling the whole truth here:
1) Pelosi was at one (1) briefing in late 2002. That briefing, per Pelosi, wasn’t particularly detailed — but a later one, which Jane Harman attended, was sufficiently disturbing to cause Harman to register a protest, in which Pelosi concurred. Of course, since the Dems were in the minority at the time, there wasn’t a lot else they could do about it.
2) Goss, who saw the 2002 and later briefings because he was the ranking GOP member of the House intel committee (just like Pelosi and Harman were the Dem members of the same committee), was tapped in 2004 to run the CIA. He brought with him a guy named Jose Rodriguez. It was Rodriguez who trashed the torture tapes in 2005 — under Goss’ watch — in direct defiance of a court order.
Think that Goss might want to deflect attention from that?
Think that he’s also aware of how easy it is to get liberals to chow down on their own?
Trust me, if Pelosi were on Goss’ side WRT torture, we wouldn’t be seeing Goss and his buddies do their damndest to try to derail her torture-tape probe with calculated smears. I fully expect before the month is out to see a bunch of hookers picked up from the Tenderloin district of San Francisco and paraded around as Pelosi’s lesbian lovers.
“Goss, who saw the 2002 and later briefings because he was the ranking GOP member of the House intel committee (just like Pelosi and Harman were the Dem members of the same committee), was tapped in 2004 to run the CIA. He brought with him a guy named Jose Rodriguez. It was Rodriguez who trashed the torture tapes in 2005 — under Goss’ watch — in direct defiance of a court order.”
For those who were actually there, we now know the limitations of PW’s access. Goss didn’t “bring Jose with him” when he became DCI. Jose is a career DO officer who, in fact, was still a bit in the doghouse when Goss arrived because of an earlier incident. Jose was appointed DDO because he was pretty much the only top level DO officer left when Goss and the Gosslings purged the senior DO ranks and the DDO and ADDO resigned in protest.
And who is your pro-Pelosi/Harmon “anonymous source”? Those who know me are cracking up at your assertion that I’m speaking for Porter Goss.
No Quarter:
Why was waterboarding justified for a “guy [who] is insane, certifiable, [with a ]split personality”?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html
The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light
By Barton Gellman,
a Washington Post staff writer who reports on intelligence and national security
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; C01
This article referered many times to:
THE ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE
Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11
By Ron Suskind
Simon & Schuster. 368 pp
(1) “Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries “in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3″ — a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail “what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said.” Dan Coleman, then the FBI’s top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, “This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.””
(2) “Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. “I said he was important,” Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. “You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?” “No sir, Mr. President,” Tenet replied. Bush “was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,” Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, “Do some of these harsh methods really work?” Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety — against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, “thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target.” And so, Suskind writes, “the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.””
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
I am wondering how many of these Hill folks have a “Memo to self” like Rockefeller had when discussing warrant-less wiretaps and DB mining; Talon etc….and what legal loophole they represent. He was complaining in that letter that he wanted to consult with his staff because he was not familiar with the technology but couldn’t due to the security classification.
In this case these folks that represent us don’t have the same excuse do they?
From a moral , legal and political standpoint it is clear that some methods of “extracting” information described are beyond the pale.
My main question at the moment is; How is it that this recently ex CIA agent is
“given permission” to speak on this topic but Valerie Wilson can’t not say she worked from this date to this date?
Sorry it doesn’t add up. John Kiriakou must be trying to get ahead of something he does not like.
Jose as well. I keep hearing Bush in my head saying “WE DO NOT TORTURE”. (like a bad tune) and now in Dolby 5.1 John Kiriakou saying we did…I KNOW Bu$h is lying and since the gang of 8 from 2001 to now are complicit , it is really hard to imagine this turning into anything more than a political food fight, despite the severity of what occurred. Are we going to hear the Novak refrain?
Mr. Murder mentioned the FOIA requests.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “The Legal Rights of Guantanamo Detainees” this morning, Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, repeatedly refused to call the hypothetical waterboarding of an American pilot by the Iranian military torture. “I’m not equipped to answer that question,” said Hartmann.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/11/graham-waterboarding-iran/
It’s now officially OK for our enemies to torture American POWs.
“I’m not equipped to answer that question,” said Hartmann.
Mr Murder pointed out that Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann is Cheney’s guy, if I recall correctly.
WTF! Does he need a note from his teacher to answer the obvious?
So, Larry, is Kiriakou delivering disinformation on behalf of the Administration? Conceding the obvious (that waterboarding is torture) while selling the American people on the proposition that torture works?
It’s certainly interesting that a man who is talking openly about methods has not been reeled in.
Reeled in? Are you kidding? After he was so perfectly fly-casted out?
Politically Kiriakou is a Godsend to both sides if the tapes are released or leaked. For the administration, he earnestly offers the choice of thirty seconds of discomfort (his words) for the guys that brought us four hours of airline security checks at Christmas as oppposed to thousands of American lives saved. For the Democrat-controlled Congress, he serves as a focal point for torture that distracts attention away from the fact that several of the key majority leaders in both houses were briefed and agreed with rendition and the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques.
Merry Christmas!
Does he get to use his flies?
Merry to you too.
I have been wondering the same thing.
When you state that the agency would have turned to “…either the military or former military working as contractors…[because] the military did train interrogators at Fort Huachuca and they were familiar with enhanced interrogation methods, including waterboarding.” I am left to wonder if you are…
• indicating that Army personnel or those of other branches were TAUGHT such techniques, or
• that they were familiarized with them and taught that they were wrongful, and were out of bounds.
I spent the better part of five years at Fort Huachuca, though I left in late 1976 and returned only briefly for an electronic warfare course. While I cannot put my hands on an appropriately dated Field Manual or other material from USAICS, I am reasonably certain that techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were recognized as a violation of Army regulations as as criminal acts at that time.
Am I wrong? Do you mean that interrogator training changed post Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al? I just wondered if you or another former member of the agency, a comparable agency, or an attendee at USAICS could clear up the apparent ambiguity in your statement.
Retired, I agree with you that Kiriakou is very convenient. Though I see plenty of suspicion, I have yet to see any blogger go on record that this is disinformation. I’m hoping Larry will do so.
Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t believe Kiriakou to be misinformation, quite the contrary. I believe him to be a well chosen, conveniently-timed source of carefully-crafted nuggets of information that he himself believes to be true and that would be almost impossible to disprove. Unless, that is, you had another Agency employee who had actually been trained in and employed the “enhanced” interrogation techniques that had been cleared by the Agency to publicly offer a different story. The surfacing of this latter employee is highly unlikely, they would never be cleared to speak. Director Hayden just sent a warning email to all current and certain former Agency employees today to make that point. In the information war, carefully constructed and delivered “truth” is a most powerful weapon.
Is it just me, or does Michael Hayden bear a striking resemblance to The Mekon? (http://www.dandare.org.uk/)
The Mekon
Now tell me they weren’t separated at birth.
There are non-state actors who have taken themselves outside the usual “polite” acts of warring states as defined by international treaty. They are, for all intents and purposes of fighting against them, in the same position as the pirates of old. The problem with our present administration is the TIME it seems to take for legal determinations as to the status of prisoners in this combat against these “pirates.” After “questioning” they are left in a legal limbo. The other problem is the degree of otherwise illegal activity conducted in detention facilities. We do not want or need this kind of illegality becoming the norm in our domestic prisons. Trying to sort out the necessary rigor to use against self declared enemies is difficult for any civil and polite society. So far in this period, the ogres within our society are winning the arguments about tactics and methods. It is very near to turning our society into one which accepts “ogres” as our protectors. That will rapidly turn into ogres as our directors. Although it may appear as being too late we must reach our congress with the message that we do not want to become a nation directed by ogres.
Retired, the best disinformation is perfectly true. Like the skilled magician, it misdirects attention to what he wants you to see. But all one needs to do to see the trick is to look elsewhere.
There are places in Kiriakou’s story where he’s shaky. ABC, at least, failed to pin him on specifics that might have unraveled.
The magician analogy is pretty good. Now, how do we get the MSM to look at the left hand while the magician is saying, “In my right hand I hold…”
We can’t let grandma skate.
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
She sponsors this thought crime bill and now we have the news about the missing tapes.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rep._Harman_asked_to_preserve_CIA_1210.html
Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat who warned the CIA in 2003 against destroying tapes of its agents using so-called harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists, now says the agency brushed off her concerns over the tapes’ preservation with a curt, “very unsatisfactory” response.
Whether the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee pushed for more information on the interrorgation methods that sparked her initial concern remains an open question. Democrats are accusing the CIA of keeping them in the dark about plans to destroy videotapes, and Harman acknowledges that her memory is fuzzy regarding a classified briefing she participated in just after taking over for Nancy Pelosi as top Democrat on the committee.
“I can’t really reconstruct the meeting — again, which was highly classified — because I took no notes. It was five years ago and this feeble grandma just ain’t that good,” Harman told NPR’s Robert Siegel Monday.
I always been curious as to why Con.Pelosi quickly changed the chair. Reyes being appointed is an interesting appointment considering his recent coments about Jose. Harmon attended a NPC gathering and was talking about “the need for a legal framework” for the current state of affairs. If I wan’ted to be in a position of deniablity I would not want to stick around or just recently read into a program.
Then there’s the ‘5th element’ of government where elected constitutional officials make laws without any understanding or knowledge of the sausage thry’re grinding out. I’ve wondered what would make heads of Departments threaten to resign enmass. What is worse that violating the 4th? Domestic renditions anyone? …oops
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/only-few-saw-the-key-fisa-court-rulings-2007-12-11.html
It’s the Little Old Lady from Pasadena. Right, Jane. You don’t remember telling us that “enhanced” techniques were OK as long as they saved American lives and prevented another 9/11, just like Nancy did in the prior briefing? Well I’ll tell ya, sweetheart, we remember very well, and some of us did take contemporaneous notes and squirrel them away. Just let your buddies currently on the committee try and haul us up now and hold us unilaterally accountable for what you told us to do. If you think Kiriakou had an interesting story to tell, wait until we show up on Brian Ross’ doorstep.
OH Please do I can’t wait for that one to be seen on C-SCPAN…I listened to the Iran Contra hearings from start to finish, this would be far more revealing. Thanks for your insight Retired.
Fine. Let the chips fall where they may, Retired.
It was the Dems who stuck up for Valerie Plame when your Bush buddies you seem intent on protecting threw her to the wolves. Republicans were (and to this day some still are) trying to pretend she was just a file clerk. Or have you forgotten that?
Funny..I don’t take Retired’s comments as leaning one way or the other…I think you are correct about Porter Goss. He was made to clean up after Bush in return for the appointment…or something…do you know where he is now?
It appears from an artical I read by Larry, that he voted for Bush in 2000…and I think he has defended Ms Wilson, as so many others people have regardless of what political views they may hold… I don’t even think of the people that refer to Ms Wilson as a “file clerk” to be Republicans. To me they are just treasonous criminals. Can we agree on that?
No, I am by no means pro-Republican. I was a colleague of Valerie’s, and I think what was done to her and her family by this administration was not only a betrayal of her personally but of every American intelligence officer who risks his or her life more often then many realize to try and get accurate information back to decision makers. I have said this many times on this blog. And we do agree on one thing: let the chips fall where they may. Let those who were actually at those briefings, including the working level intelligence officers who were actually giving the briefings and received direct, face-to-face feedback from members of the oversight committees, both Republican and Democrat, tell their story without fear of reprisal and budget cutting by vengeful members of Congress and the administration. That is the threat, no matter who is in power, and that is why we have always kept silent. Perhaps until now.
I want hearings; the first person I want called up and put under oath is Senator Jay Rockefeller followed by the remaining 99 US Senators. I want each one asked what did you know, when did you know it and who did you tell.
I think that would be the end of this ridiculous rant about waterboarding three damn terrorists….
Why should the senators be the first? They were complicit and acquiescent, but that merely makes them accomplices to the crime. It’s not the three damn terrorists, it’s us. If it’s such a trifling matter, why not embrace it openly? Why hide like cowards behind lawyers and Bill Clinton-like doublespeak? Ask your heroes that, and the reply will be telling. They are not as ballsy as you like to believe them. They are, all of them, including the senators, willing to do whatever makes them feel good, provided they never have to be held accountable.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001887
If the people who conducted the “enhanced techniques” for torture were “contractors”. The way Blackwater’s Erik Prince made it sound at the Blackwater hearing “contractors” are out of reach of US law.
Tyler Drumheller on Hardball…waterboarding
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
Welcome home…funny it was no home like I’d ever known….Karpinsky indicated that this was true although at the time it appeared that she was investpissed at having to be out of the loop. Have her orders ever been made public? Sanchez would know.
Does it matter who the CIA attorneys were who “designed and cleared” these “enhanced techniques”?
* Article 2 - No Exceptional Circumstances Warranting Torture
* Article 3 - No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
* Article 4 - Acts of Torture Are Criminal Offenses
* Article 10 - Education & Information Regarding Prohibition on Torture Provided in Training
* Article 16 - Each State to Prevent Acts of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Since the United States is a signatory to this Convention, it is not up to President Bush to declare waterboarding is okay. It is not. It is torture. Plain and simple.
Does any of this apply if you are a “contractor”?
Mr Murder, have you recently read article 3 of the Geneva Convention 1949? Maybe it does all boil down to “territory”. Check it out & give me your read on that little detail. Isn’t that the nutshell of POTUS’ argument? What are you picking up on that trumps his narrow interpretion of “territory”? The administration seems to view that as their ace in a hole. Whether those judgements are the purview of congress or the executive branch is an interesting side argument, however given the peek behind the curtain view that retired provided us, it would appear that formality has taken place in committee. Are you saying Article 1-sec8 on the Constitutional trumps Geneva?
Are you telling me Bush is in compliance with Geneva?
If so, why doesn’t he sign onto the World Court?
It appears Article I actually compliments Geneva.
Congress is tasked the role, as pertaining to “the high seas” provided it remains compliant with other agreed upon under Article V of our Constitution “…and all treaties made…” so that would make Bush illegal on 2 counts.
One he is taking the role of Congressional authority under Article I as the Deciderer, the other he is in violation of Treaty which Article V says is the land’s law.
Some thoughts as this story continues to evolve.
John Kiriakou says that waterboarding Zubaydah that one time worked to turn him around. I don’t believe this leads to the conclusion that force worked so therefore more force will work more better. In context, it worked as an expiditer because it was part of a process of resetting Zubaydah’s mental perspective about his relative position, and who he could expect to rely on to survive.
Meanwhile, waterboarding is still torture. This presents a problelm for the U.S. if it wants to aspire to moral leadership. It also presents a fundamental credibility problem for Bush. He keeps repeating the obvious illogic that we use ‘harsh’ techniques, but we don’t torture, therefore the ‘harsh’ techniques are not torture.
This continued insistence on having it both ways - torturing, while claiming that torture isn’t torture - is going to have a polarizing effect, especially as we move into the election cycle.
What Bush is basically telling us is that it’s OK to drink out of the toilet, because the water source that fills it is clean.
FOXNEWS is now calling it “Extreme Interrogation”.
Oh, that makes it better, then.
Can’t wait to see it on ESPN…
I think it paid off being persistent in linking Larry’s website over at FDL for the last several weeks.
In fact I was politely hammered by some commenters
the other day for linking to this site so often. Several commenters charged me with “advertising” for Larry, instead of what I am committed to doing passing information and insights on.
Persistence can pay off.
Anyway over at FDL Scarecrow (wonderful blogger) is focused on Larry’s CIA friends and their insights to the tapes.
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/12/cia-wont-take-the-fall-for-bushs-torture-policies/#comments
Some observations.
As Larry has said the majority of the MSM outlets are spinning Kiriakou’s take on the “enhanced torture” (so is he) as necessary and effective. Kiriakou is everywhere and large part of the MSM is spinning the “enhanced” torture as effective and necessary.
The Iraq war (what is happening on the ground) has basically disappeared the last three months on the MSM (this has been a steady process over the last year, it is all campaign campaign campaign, tapes, NIE, killings at malls, churches.
Anyone notice that there was not even a whisper about the 6th delay of the Aipac espionage trial in the MSM. One time I heard Chris Matthews whisper one of the delays. There should be no doubt that the Israeli lobby still maintains plenty of influence as far as if and when anything having to do with this espionage investigation and delayed trial is allowed into the mainstream
Anyone notice that there was not even a whisper about the 6th delay of the Aipac espionage trial in the MSM.
I hadn’t. This new delay gives them more time to slaughter people in Gaza that they haven’t killed from lack of medical care, food and water.
Thanks for the reminder. You made me remember something. Nancy Pelosi threw Jane Harman under the bus regarding her ties to AIPAC.
Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat’s Relationship with AIPAC
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069,00.html
I am not sure whether that investigation was completed or not. This Aipac espionage trial delay gives Israel more time to push for or conduct a pre-emptive strike on Iran. If and when Americans become aware (the MSM has barely reported anything about this invesigation and upcoming trial) that Franklin, Rosen, Weissman, (maybe Pollack, Satterfield and others) were passing classified intelligence having to do with Iran to Israeli officials. Maybe just maybe the American people will realize that Israel has not been such a good friend to the US.
Unless the new Attorney General dismisses this whole Aipac espionage case which the Israeli lobby has been pushing hard for.”
Justin Raimando’s latest
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12042
Peace? Israel doesn’t need it or want it…. From the Israeli perspective, things are going just swimmingly, thank you: no need to upset the apple cart.
They also have a SURPLUS! We don’t.
Last update - 16:41 04/12/2007
Finance Ministry announces budget surplus of NIS 7.7 billion for 2007
By Motti Bassok, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service
Tags: tax authority, state budget
The Finance Ministry published statistics Tuesday indicating that the government has a budget surplus of NIS 7.7 billion for first 11 months of 2007. The reason for the surplus was higher revenue than expected and low expenses. In the corresponding period last year, the government budget’s surplus stood only at NIS 2.3 billion.
And
Last update - 17:04 17/11/2007
Study claims Jewish poverty rate in the U.S. is higher than in Israel
By Ruth Sinai, Haaretz Correspondent
In fact, the Jewish poverty rate in the United States is higher than that in Israel. In Israel 24 percent of the population is considered poor, but about half is not Jewish.
New York also has a high rate of Jewish poverty. “Usually the words ‘Jewish poverty” are seen as a contradiction in terms, says William Rapfogel, CEO of the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty. “It’s not. More than a quarter of the members of the world’s richest Jewish community live close to the poverty line.”
A survey conducted for the federation five years ago showed that 350,000 Jews in New York City and state live close to the poverty line. The highest poverty rate is in Brooklyn. Ultra-Orthodox families make up 27 percent of those living below the poverty line, 23 percent are Russian speakers under the age of 65, 21 percent are Russian speakers over 65, 13 percent are non-Russian speakers over 65 and 16 percent are unemployed or handicapped.
[...] Waterboarding and Torture (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) The media are woefully ignorant on the subject of waterboarding and torture. Consider the coverage of former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, who is telling his story as an interrogator of Abu Zubaydah and insisting that waterboarding is an effective technique. ABC and CNN are repeating this absurd propaganda. However, if you read the transcript of his interview some key points are obscured in the media propaganda push: … • Kiriakou never witnessed the waterboarding. It was carried out by another group of individuals (nfi). • None of the information provided by Zubaydah concerned threats inside the United States. [...]
OT
Before the invasion of Iraq I listened to the Diane Rehm show almost everyday. She had a long list of experts, analyst, historians who questioned the validity of the intelligence about Iraq, the wisdom and need of such a pre-emptive invasion.
The last several weeks she has been slipping in regard to hammering away at the critical issues facing this nation. She has not had one program on the tapes, the NIE report or what is taking place in Iraq on the ground
Disappointing! I have always felt Diane was one of the best things going in the MSM (do not always agree but so what).
Check out Diane’s schedule this week. Seems to be missing some hot and critical issues.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
check this image out at FDL
egregious December 12th, 2007 at 5:33 am
33
In response to STTPinOhio @ 19
Good point. “Waterboarding” sounds like something your kids try to talk you into doing with them on vacation at the beach.
I assume you’ve seen this post then.
Sorry here is the link
“Is waterboarding like snowboarding?”
http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/11/waterboarding-is-that-like-snowboarding/
Waterboarding: Charlie Don’t Surf
‘Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice. He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised “hundreds” of waterboarding exercises. Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that “waterboarding is a torture technique – period”.
The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim’s mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.
Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. “How much the victim is to drown,” Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, “depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject.
“A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch.”‘
Just another “tipping point.”
For good or for ill.
I watched this guy John Kiriakou on Wolf Blizter’s situation room yesterday and i got to say, he didn’t seem credible at all. His timing and message were a little too convenient for my taste. he seemed like a very bad actor ( Jeff Gannon like) talking about how this “Enhanced interigation” saved lives but not saying where or when did it save lives. And his guilt about doing it was beyond fake. why don’t they hire real actors like Al Pachino or something like him to do the talk circuit?
I have also heard that Abu Zubaydah was mentally ill, why no questions on Abu Zubaydah’s sanity from Wolf? Is Abu delusional or the “criminal mastermind” we have all been sold since 911? Not a follow up question, nothing.
Stephen Colbert has it right, our media is nothing but a dictation device, no real reporting is being done. some guy de jour we never heard of comes out and says something and they print it as if it were the truth handed down from God and us mere mortals slop it up from the trough that is the MSM.
I smell B.S……
A glance at troop welfare:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/bloodbrothers3/
It has been confirmed that waterboarding was employed on those videotapes — here is some leaked footage that has been uncovered, perhaps from the CIA?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcXl1y_mQw
Can’t wait for the kiddies to mimic this ala Jackass.
“Leaked footage?” Is that some type of pun? This is an obvious fabrication. Come on, if you guys are going to fake something, you can do better than that. Another red pill moment.
Congress is also tasked with establishing tribunal procedure.
Another item Bushco. is blocking in violation of the COnstitution so as to restrict political oversight.
None of the Decider’s powers are granted him in the Constitution re:tribunals, renditions, etc.
Even if a personw ere to be held “in an American territory” for a loophole to apply re: Gtimo, that the eprson even got there via rendition is itself illegal.
So that should not have standing either. Illegal action that gets to a point you find some neutral or vague claim of authoirty is not allowed, again under Article V as it applies to International Law.
You have to obey the law every step of the way.
[...] of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. Bettmann/Corbis. Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post. Via Larry Johnson NoQuarter. As I’m sure you know, waterboarding was a common practice used by the Marines in the Philippines [...]
Without a formal War Declaration no War Powers could be claimed.
The above Article for Law of Land with respect to Treaties is Article VI(Supremacy of Federal Laws), not Article V(Amendments).
If it was to challenged you must make the claim that absolute authority resides in the actual War Appropriations. This would be a matter paid for “but no appropriation of money to that use shall be longer than two years.”
Article I, Sec. 8
Could we thus sue for peace at the two year mark(since past) since no formal War Declaration is made but we still issue money for it?
The current item seems to be that the POTUS is protecting America from danger, for the Judicial review justification.
In the same Article I Sec. 8 listing, it notes calling forth “militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions;”
so we would have to meet a benchmark of calling the militia, in full compliance with upholding American law and international law(Article VI) for these unitary Executive powers to meet the conditions of expanded authority? That only if one or all of the three was needed(law enforcement, insurrection, invasion, which would of course adhere Geneva standards in the third case).
Sorry for spelling errors above, my spellcheck opened for a separate window.
Since the Congress is tasked maintenance of an Army, and militia activated requires pay as well, unless these items are paid for(not written on a future IOU as Dubya has done) would we be in violation of the Constitution from a literalistic perspective?
Earlier in the Section it tasks various ways of revenue maintenance, but unless it was to explicitly state so (with regard to both militias and maintenance of the Army) could we contend that anything aside from actual paid in full status was itself failing to uphold an obligation for the Constitution?
States don’t have money to help pay militia at this time, the Federal gov’t doesn’t in terms of cleared and paid for money that isn’t borrowed from China. All 50 states aren’t on notice either, it appears as close they could be to claiming ‘protection of the public’ as means of expanding the Executive’s authority and avoiding oversight would be to meet the standards of “calling the militia forward” which is another 1st Article power granted Congress.
Saw Michael Baker on MSNBC this morning and what’s-his-name last night on Abrams. The latter stated that he believes waterboarding to be torture (now, but not back then). Baker on the other hand said it was just a matter of what was legal, and talk of what is good and evil (and by extension what is ethical?) is irrelevant. Hence my screen name.
More on the John Kiriakou Interview and “Enhanced Interrogation”…
Posted by Damozel | According to ABC News, the CIA is pretty upset with John Kiriakou. (ABC) They reportedly aren’t going to prosecute him for revealing classified information, cooler heads having prevailed, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t upset a…
“The Dread Pirate Bin Laden
How thinking of terrorists as pirates can help win the war on terror.”
By Douglas R. Burgess Jr.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp
Read this today in a football archive that links the above story.
International law has quite a precedent in dealing with piracy, even in addressing state sponsorship of those acting outside borders…
This matches every demand we have in dealing with the topic at this time:
Imagine that, by adhering tot he International Court we could actually strenghthen and reinforce Democracy. Something George W. Bush is more than pleased claim is his vision, like Johnny Appleseed, tossing Napalm, White Phosphorous, Rendition and Torture, anti personnel minds packaged similar to various relief items, and targeting of civilians all over the world. Like some legendary good tidings from am an in burlap with fruity presents for every village he wanders upon.
It takes a Village Idiot. Burlap would make fine clothing for the Boy King, seeing as now the Emporer Wears No Clothes…
Alas, all the logic that could propel such prosecution of terror is disabled by Bushco. and its policy in protecting certain persons such as Mr.Kissinger:
Et tu, AWOL?
[...] any evidence at all that Kiriakou is telling the truth. Larry Johnson has already expressed his doubt that Kiriakou is telling the [...]
tournois de poker gratuites
Exceptions poker scaricabili gratis poker per pc gratis tournois de poker gratuites ganancias casinos paginas internet poquer on line
wan optimizers compared…
I\’ve found that in our network WAN accelerators have made a big difference…