Who Obstructed Justice?
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 20, 2007 at 9:35 PM in Current Affairs
The key question surrounding torture tape gate is not who authorized the destruction of the tapes in 2005. Nope. The real priority is who in the Bush Administration knowingly lied to a Federal Judge in the spring of 2003. Either the CIA told DOJ the truth and DOJ lied or the CIA lied to DOJ or the White House directed DOJ to lie. It is that simple.
The fun started on 7 May 2003 during a CIPA (i.e., Classified Information Procedures Act) hearing presided over by Judge Leonie Brinkema. She ordered the government to determine if interrogations of suspected terrorists were recorded. Two days later, 9 May 2003, Judge Leonie Brinkema asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format”? The Department of Justice, based on info from the CIA, said “NO”. (see p. 4 of letter to Federal Judges by U.S. attorneys Novak and Raskin).
There are at least two felonies here–obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. Someone who worked for John Ashcroft, the Attorney General at the time, certainly was in touch with the U.S. Attorneys who fielded this question from Judge Brinkema. And the Department of Justice asked the C.I.A. I will bet you dollars to donuts that the White House also was in the loop on this. At least Harriet Miers, Gonzo, and Addington. Who would they talk to at the CIA?
George Tenet, Director? Yes. CIA General Counsel? Certainly. The guy in charge of spies in the field–the DDO Jim Pavitt? Probably. This was not some obscure legal point. This was a high priority matter. Someone (or several someones, i.e. a conspiracy) at the CIA or the Department of Justice lied. And Federal Judges like Brinkema don’t like being lied to. Gives them a case of the cherry ass.
When the CIA affirms to the court in November of 2005 that there are no tapes, that may have been a true statement at the time. If the tapes were destroyed in June or July then it was a factual statement. The real crime starts in 2003. Funny, but then Deputy Director of the CIA, John McLaughlin, has been quiet as a church mouse of late. Ditto for Tenet and Pavitt. With reason. Someone lied.


















White House involvement in the CIA’s decision to destroy videotapes documenting severe interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists could constitute as many as six crimes, according to constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Turley_At_least_six_crimes_in_1219.html
I believed this was big and it has legs but with what you’ve told us Larry, it’s even bigger. Thanks for the perspective.
Cee.
Good catch.
I love Turley! I remember when he wrote the following article back in 2002!
I didn’t see him on television for a loooooong time after that.
He’s baaaaack!
Camps for US Citizens?: Ashcroft’s Hellish Vision
Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty
Republished from: LA Times 08/14/02: Jonathon Turley
Original Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-turley14aug14.story [No longer available]
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft’s announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be “enemy combatants” has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.
Cee,
Common Dreams has copy of article from LA Times:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0814-05.htm
Thanks Nellie. I printed this out long ago.
Chertoff Concealed Role in Tape Destruction
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report
Wednesday 19 December 2007
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff advised the CIA between 2002 and 2003 that its agents had the legal authority to use techniques that included waterboarding on one of the agency’s so-called “high level detainees,” according to a little-known report published in January 2005.
That interrogation was videotaped and the tape later was destroyed
Chertoff was head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division when CIA officials inquired whether its agents could be charged with violating the federal anti-torture statute for employing interrogation methods such as waterboarding. The tactic causes detainees to slowly drown, and is generally terminated before the detainees die.
“The CIA was seeking to determine the legal limits of interrogation practices for use in cases like that of Abu Zubaydah, the Qaeda lieutenant who was captured in March 2002,” says a January 29, 2005, New York Times story. That story quoted unnamed sources who told the newspaper that “Chertoff was directly involved in these discussions, in effect evaluating the legality of techniques proposed by the CIA by advising the agency whether its employees could go ahead with proposed interrogation methods without fear of prosecution.”
During his Senate confirmation hearing in February 2005, Chertoff maintained that he provided the CIA broad guidance in response to its questions about interrogation methods and never specifically addressed the legality regarding waterboarding or other techniques.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/29/politics/29home.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Chertoff is busy again. Criticize the criminals while you can.
DHS finalizing plans to turn spy satellites on Americans
Quote
DHS finalizing plans to turn spy satellites on Americans
Published on Thursday, December 20, 2007. Congress has not been updated since civil liberties concerns delayed satellite spying
A plan to dramatically widen US law enforcement agencies’ access to data from powerful spy satellites is moving toward implementation, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expects to finalize a charter for the program this week, according to a new report.
Chertoff insists the scheme to turn spy satellites — that were originally designed for foreign surveillance — on Americans is legal, although a House committee that would approve the program has not been updated on the program for three months.
“We still haven’t seen the legal framework we requested or the standard operation procedures on how the NAO will actually be run,” House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson tells the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message477710/pg1
Baby Skynet. If you can Google Earth, it means that its been going on for sometime, probably since 9/11. Imagine the “destroyed tapes” from this program.
This from the guy who reviewed torture policy for DOJ-CIA.
SO I can really rest assured…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119812248622741723.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news
I’m starting to feel like Will Smith in Enemy of the State!
I heard DHS is tracking Santa’s sleigh this year instead of NORAD.
Larry, I believe Chertoff has dual citizenship with another, um, *cough*, country. Along with many, many other neocons.
Might consider doing a piece on that.
As if Chertoff “really” belongs in the Mediterranean! By the way, does he look like Tweety Bird or is it just me?
Tweety is cute.
It seems a great time to paint, “F**K BUSH!” or other pithy sentiments atop white-colored vehicles (delivery trucks, RV’s) in the middle of the night, just to keep the little Rodneys in the Peep and Snoop Departments hunched over their consoles.
Too bad that Taggers are, as a group, so illiterate. Imagine what a contribution of a few cases of black spray paint would do in this effort. Sort of like the Freeway Blogger gone Vertical.
Larry,
You want to bet dollars to donuts that these same White House lawyers are part of the team that changed EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 and EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292?
All so they could silence the CIA by outing Plame ans all her follow spys?
*spies
Excellent pick up, Larry. It looks like the pieces are slowing coming together. It is so sad that so much damage has been done throughout the world by this handful of traitorous buzzards… They will give their mother over to the devil to save their own sweet ass when the time comes. They have no honor, and no mercy should be shown to any of them…
Well, mercy maybe. But no quarter, definitely!
I agree with you! Moving much too slowly!
If there are any copies around perhaps, giving one to Robert Greenwald who made ‘Iraq for Sale’, Michael Moore, the ‘right’ people at the UN, CNN International (according to Eurpoeans they have much more meat than American CNN) and CBC, BBC, And Australian Broadcasting - and somehow having all them agree to show them in a 2-3 day window of time, the Interantional pressure may help Congress get off their collect fat tushes and we can be rid of our problems.
If this wonderfully happens I am sure we will be hearing about the building expansion at the Hague!
I have a question of time lines regarding that pesky U.S. attorneys Novak and Raskin filing with the court.
If the following artical is correct, as reported, would it not stand to reason that they were briefed after the Judge asked about the tapes and not in 2004? These squatters at 1600 would have heard the Blackberrys going off well prior to Novak and Raskin filing with the court. So did Hayden give false testimony to the Senate?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121900699.html
Hmmm Larry, as you’ve been saying, “torture is here - and that’s official”. Well actually it isn’t. This would be classed as a conspiracy and that would make us conspiracy theorists and plain potty.
The official truth invariably pays lip service to some important person in whose interest the truth be known. This means the truth can be utter fabrication and as journo’s are [generally] corporate chattle, I guess us conspiracy theorists are the only ones with balls enough to point out utter fabrication.
Thank goodness for the bloggers. Ok you meet the odd right or left wing nutter, but if you want a double serve of truth…..pure unadulterated with a cherry on top, thats the place to go.
Good article Larry, but we know when the going gets tough, the good and the true always grab a big cup of ’shut the fuck up’.
Cee, look they spent a fortune on those snoop satellites & apparantly they didn’t work too well in Iraq locating the point of origin for suicide car bombers, etc. So why let ‘em go to waste? Might as well aim ‘em at their fellow Americans. & don’t worry about any viable resistance from the dems, once Mikey explains how proficient they are in gun grabbin’ they’ll rubber stamp it. Plus it’s already going on.
look they spent a fortune on those snoop satellites & apparantly they didn’t work too well in Iraq locating the point of origin for suicide car bombers, etc.
If they used them for that, they couldn’t divide Iraq according to plan.
So why let ‘em go to waste? Might as well aim ‘em at their fellow Americans. & don’t worry about any viable resistance from the dems, once Mikey explains how proficient they are in gun grabbin’ they’ll rubber stamp it. Plus it’s already going on.
I totally agree. The dem voters won’t say a word because their party is doing it so it must be okay.
Btw…Kosovo is heating up again.
Cee, the 4th Amendment has been just about totally eviscerated, that’s why the dems always talk about “privacy” i.e. intimating the rights of the people in the 9th Amendment, rather than “security of the people….” in the 4th Amendment. Out of curiosity did you object to the millions of roving wire tapes used in the Clinton Administration? Note:the only pres canidate objecting to this crap is Ron Paul.
Damn right I did. I think I even commented on this list about how far back this invasion of our privacy has gone.
If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
From the Newsdesk
The new technology at the root of the NSA wiretap scandal
By Jon Stokes | Published: December 20, 2005 - 12:38PM CT
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5808.html
Cee, I don’t have any problem sending email within Europe. But something happens to email I send to the States. Fortunately, my Italian ISP lets me know when an email to the USA can’t be delivered. I assume it’s being intercepted or like you said, “captured” in some way. So what actually is happening? Does captured and screened mean it’s delivered after the screening or does it not get delivered at all?
Sometimes it is delivered. Other times not.
I don’t know why. Maybe you typed one of those bad words.
Did you ever see the list of words that would make you a target?
A list of 1,700 suspicious words have been listed on the Cipherwar site, for inclusion in e-mail, telephone or fax communications on Jam Echelon Day. The trigger words include hackers, encryption, espionage, secret service and Bletchley Park.
But Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, believes that sprinkling keywords within communications will not have an impact on the high-tech spy network.
“The Echelon system works on a very sophisticated system of word relationships, rather than strictly on keywords,” said Davies. “Powerful artificial-intelligence software is used to judge the relationship between words, and analyze strings of words.”
http://www.news.com/Activists-target-U.S.-surveillance-system/2100-1001_3-270655.html
read the book “nowhere to hide” and you’ll see just how far they have already gone.quite frightening.
we are commodity to these bastards , thats all, consumers and we are being fattened up for the feast.
Author please? There are several titles by that name. Thanks.
sorry I spaced…No place to hide by Robert O’Harrow
http://books.google.com/books?id=5gKOfsDAYsgC&dq=no+place+to+hide&pg=PP1&ots=fJL-vzqU9X&sig=KQmY5GwAQB-BIjehdltoS_T9yrM&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=no+place+to+hide&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail
Thanks. Add that to the stack.
I work in IT and monitor an email server. My server is collecting about 20,000 spam emails a day. It’s like driving thru Kansas on warm summer night and believing you get through it with the wipers intact. The fact that 85% of email is crap and contains “seek and infiltrate” virals, is like the Powell Doctrine applied to the internet.
The “delivery headers” on these emails have gotten really funky in the last 2 years .Very few, if any, off the shelf solutions are available to combat 100 % of this. Microsoft Vista has an anti-piracy feature which requires it to “phone home” every 6 months and validate.
Out of 5 different vendor solutions, recently, only one found the infection on a compromised machine we had. That’s like a drug company marketing a pill to “cure” the “marker” they let out. The shear volume of spam increases the odds of infection.
So lets us say today you are in New York and within a 6 month period you are next in San Diego or Germany .The net effect of having to “check in” and the gleaning of any email routing table info, on the machine checking in, gives you a roadmap from A to B and the communication end points that occurred in between. If you think that it is only the Telco’s that are being “asked” to “be patriotic” consider the market share for Operating Systems that use the internet…..Add the Voice Recognition and you can correlate independent tracking points. Add the surveillance cameras, satellite and GPS emissions and you can get a biometric identification to go with the French Fries you did not know you ordered. Virtual Border fences move with the target and international borders, to use John Yoo’s term, are made “quaint”.
The real question this election cycle, given that this Genie is out of the bottle, is who we can trust the monster Bush has created, to use in the Constitutions defense and not for the profits of these global corporate carpet baggers who are spreading “democracy”.
Roving wiretaps during the Clinton Administration.
Any links? Any facts to back that claim?
Didn’t think so!
In 1998, in Austin, Texas, while George Bush was governor, I discovered little tapes inside a closet in the bedroom of my private home and inside the medical kit in the back-seat of my car. After the divorce, I reported this and other things about what was done to me during this divorce to the ACLU. They told me that it wasn’t that I didn’t have a case but that they were too busy to help me. A few nights ago, I was watching, “The Sopranos” and low and behold, when Pussy handed over the tape to the FBI agent he was working with, it was the exact same kind of tape that I found inside my private home.
Those Clintons were after you!
No. Clinton was in the White House — Washington, DC. This took place within five miles of the Texas governor’s house.
Sounds like Dumbya has some experience with wire tapping then, no surprise considering Rove was his main man for all those years.
correction: wire taps NOT tapes, although same concept
Wasn’t Chertoff one of the guys helping Kerrick ‘investigate’ 9-11 and secure ground zero?
Who would ever have thought, nay imagined, that he’d destroy evidence?
:-X
[...] Who Obstructed Justice? (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter) [O]n 7 May 2003 during a CIPA (i.e., Classified Information Procedures Act) hearing … Judge Leonie Brinkema … ordered the government to determine if interrogations of suspected terrorists were recorded. Two days later, 9 May 2003, Judge Leonie Brinkema asked, “whether the interrogations are being recorded in any format”? The Department of Justice, based on info from the CIA, said “NO”… There are at least two felonies here–obstruction of justice and lying to a federal law enforcement official. [...]
…..But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world…..
…..RE: PRINCESS DIANA. When NSA extends the big drift net out there, it’s possible that they’re picking up more than just her conversation concerning land mines. What they do with that intelligence, who knows?…..
Oh, I know what they do with it. They come on your I/M and tell you they “read cards” and then proceed to tell you personal things about yourself that no-one else could possibly know. That’s what they do with it.
On 12-20 at 23:31, Ron England asks;
“You want to bet dollars to donuts that these same White House lawyers are part of the team that changed EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 and EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292?”
I place my money on David Addington, described by Jane Meyer in an 3July06 New Yorker article as the “Hidden Power”.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/20925
It is of the greatest significant, at least to me, that five days after the beginning of the Iraq Invasion on March 20, 2003–President Bush signed Executive Order 13292 which amended 12958, The changes are stunning. The final line-in/line-out version of Executive Order 13292, showing the changes made to the earlier EO 12958, seems to make it clear that the war powers began to flow into the VP’s office.
It looks like to me that EO 13292, more than any other mechanism, has given rise to the imperial VP and a unconstitutional and soulless foreign policy. And the more that I think about it, the more I am convinced that the neoconservative weltanschauung that gave us EO 13292 is the same as the one that gave us the 1998 essay “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By which we do not mean Nous).
“By which we do not mean Nous”. I can only interpret such to connote “soulless”.
But the most recent NIE does give me hope.
Just to be a picky nitter that I am, let’s call “tapes” “recordings”. That way we don’t dismiss ones on the various servers they haven’t figured out how to find yet. Patriots may have renamed the file and are hiding them for a new justice department to investigate. When you see a criminal appointed and confirmed for AG, I can understand your reticence to reveal anything right now. The blow torch that is this administration cares nothing about any laws, so you best hide the facts from them so they aren’t destroyed again.
I can’t imagine how you folks in and from CIA can tolerate what is going on? Like any group in our country, there are a mixed bag of folks, but to have a government using you and abusing you must be a bit hard to stomach after a while. After years, what next? Are you going to help if they declare martial law?
slightly off topic…..
Wexler’s cheney impeachment petition 11:00 MST 12/21/07
124,000 and adding about 800-900 per hour.
Also just listened to Wexler on Blog radio from last night great speaker we should get behind this effort big time. its rather long but covers a lot of ground
listen to it here……
http://www.BlogTalkRadio.com/fpc/2007/12/21/The-Impeachment
I believe that by the time he takes this petition to the judiciary committee the second week of january
at this rate he could have between 400-500,000 signatures.
You know I have and continue to preach that Impeachment of this administration is the last and only hope for the saving the republic.
By Impeaching Cheney first Wexler’s theory that since no one likes Cheney it would be more acceptable than going after Bush and not be attacking (God help us) the leader of the free world.
Another interesting development is he along with two other Dems on the juducuary committee wrote an op piece which they tried to get the big papers, NYT WApo latimes, and USA Today etc to print, which of course they refused (so much for equal time and free speech).
Once the petition started getting signatures, these papers started get letters and emails asking why they wouldn’t print their oped and now some are starting to re-consider.
He suggests that anyone who rep is on the committee especially Democrats, to contact them and ask if they will sign a letter that Wexler will draft to Conyers asking him to have hearings.
Also any letters to the editors asking them to print
Wexler’s op ed would be helpful.
For your info here is a list of the Dems on the judiciary committee…
Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th
Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd
Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th
Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th
Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th
Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th
Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th
Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th
Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th
Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th
Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th
Hon. Sutton
(D) Ohio, 13th
Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th
Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27
Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd
Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th
Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th
Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th
Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th
Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th
RE: Hon. Wasserman Schultz, she gave an interview on the Ed Schultz Radio and said she would not do it. Political expediancy and lock stock with Conyers.
Let her know how much you care! We can do both.
Cheney must have pictures on both of them….
Hmm, who obstructed justice? How many guesses do we get?
IS THIS ODD?
What did the Cheney Junta of Right Wing Crypto-Fascists learn from Watergate? BURN THE TAPES!
For the remainder of the Cheney/Bush Junta’s term, assuming that they actually intend to cede the Unitary Executive on 1/20/09, there will be a continuing preoccupation with sanitizing all the records that might be used against them once they no longer hold the reins of power in a death grip. A veritable orgy of document destruction….tapes, hard drives, servers, logs, any records that could haunt their leisure years and their “legacy.”
And Little W will then issue blanket pardons to all Wingers/Neocons who participated in the wholesale distruction of our Constitution. The Democrats, with few exceptions, have no spine for the patriotic defense of our Republic against its true enemies….
What the hell is Impeachment for, if not to protect America from the continuing criminal conspiracy that used to be the Republican Party.
Impeach them, after intensive hearings, and then prosecute the whole bunch under the Ricco Statutes. Probably a good idea to seize their passports immediately following the the swearing in of Pres. Edwards or Pres. Clinton.