Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

Thursday, May 10, 2018

TORTURE, INSANITY, AND NUKES



THE ABSURD TIMES


Torture does work: The man who confessed that recruited black panthers from Montana to join Al-Quaeda, Isis, and the Talaban under torture. Now really, how else would one get such a startling bit of information?


Torture and Insanity

This is the fourth attempt. If this does not work, it means that Microsoft has declared that this information is classified and to be kept secret. Perhaps by now, a lobbyist has managed to bribe someone in the Trump regime to let it out. We shall see. If we get that far, we will can think about the Iran vandalism (we could not call it a policy decision, for obvious reasons). Trump's decision there has given Israel the authority to bomb Syria viciously and in violation of all civilized behavior.
Even more so, it gives a valuable lesson to other countries: get your own nuclear weapons. If anyone thinks that North Korea is foolish enough to abandon nuclear weapons now, either they or North Korea is insane. Of course, both could be. Yet we have the history of Iraq which never had nukes, but Condelezza Rice kept talking about some mushroom cloud over a horizon and Colin Powell giving his chemical warfare presentation at the UN as examples. Even more, we have the case of Gaddafi who abandoned nuclear weapons in order to make peace with the west and we know how well that turned out. In fact, we know how well both turned out for the U.S. as well. Right now, we see the results of Iran suspending its program as Israel bombs Syria. The lesson all countries will take from this is obvious.
But what we need to talk about is the torture program advocated by the Trump people. Below is a discussion of this by Jeremy Scahill of the INTERCEPT. He is the one who broke the Blackwater story and made other crucial breakthroughs.
It is not clear how much more of this can even be tolerated. Gina Haspel is now nominated for Director of the CIA, yet she can not bring herself to say that torture is immoral. In other words, she disagrees with the Nuremberg decision and all the rules and judgments we made about Nazi Germany. There is really no other logical explanation of it, although this would be sharply contested by any establishment organ or figure.
The warning is clear: avoid at all costs any information sent via American mass media and the BBC is not much better. So far, we have been told that China people have millions of jobs here in the United States as a result of the work of Cocaine Mitch, Senate Majority leader. The term China people reminds one of the very old Flash Gordon movies where the Clay People would attack Flash, Dale, and Dr. Zarkoff (I guess we were at war with Germany at the time, so Russia was our ally?) There was really no chance of this person being even nominated, but the media tried its best to make it look so in order to generate interest and thus increase ratings.
We also learn, from a Trump supporter, one of the Africa People, that slavery was a choice. One tries to imagine the lines of natives from African lining up to catch a ship to Dixie in order to pick cotton and be whipped. Just sign on the dotted line. Are we really supposed to take this seriously?
Well, as the descendant of the Germany people, I can tell you that we got a raw deal during World War II. (I'm not saying who 'we" are, however.)
New these are terms we have come to expect and hardly flinch at these days. This is the Zeitgeist in the Age of Trump. He has released the inhibitions on the worst aspects of human nature, the sort of things used to keep poor white people thinking they are being attacked by even poorer people rather than the upper 1% or less of our population, the rich and greedy.
Many think there is not much difference between the two parties, and they are right. The only difference is that the Republican Party is evil and the democrats are bad. Until such a time as we can actually get beyond good and evil, we are stuck with a choice between evil or bad. We will not be safe at all until the Republicans are once again reduced to a small minority. We can only hope that Trump can do today what Goldwater and later Nixon did for their party in the past.
Now can we say that torture does not work? Nope. For example, Khaled Sheik Mohammed who was water boarded over 80 times finally came up with the statement that the Black Panther Party in Montana was working with Al-Quaeda, Isis, and the Talaban. I mean, things like that just don't pop into your head, do they?



On Capitol Hill Wednesday, President Trump's nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel, announced she would not restart the CIA's interrogation program. But she repeatedly refused to call the CIA's post-9/11 treatment of prisoners "torture," and declined to state whether she believes torture is immoral. Haspel's comments came in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, as she made her case to become the first woman to head the agency. Haspel is a 33-year CIA veteran who was responsible for running a secret CIA black site in Thailand in 2002, where one prisoner was waterboarded and tortured in other ways. Haspel also oversaw the destruction of videotapes showing torture at the black site. At least two Republican senators have come out against her—Rand Paul and John McCain, who said her "role in overseeing the use of torture is disturbing & her refusal to acknowledge torture's immorality is disqualifying." But Haspel may still be confirmed with the help of Democratic lawmakers. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has already announced he will back Haspel. We speak with Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of The Intercept and host of the weekly podcast "Intercepted."
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: On Capitol Hill, President Trump's nominee to head the CIA, Gina Haspel, announced she would not restart the CIA's interrogation program. But she repeatedly refused to call the CIA's post-9/11 treatment of prisoners torture, and declined to state whether she believes torture is immoral.
Haspel's comments came in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee as she made her case to become the first woman to head the agency. Haspel is a 33-year CIA veteran who was responsible for running a secret CIA black site in Thailand in 2002, where one prisoner was waterboarded and tortured in other ways. Haspel also oversaw the destruction of videotapes showing torture at the black site.
This is Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California questioning Haspel.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: Do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I believe that CIA officers to whom you referred—
SENKAMALA HARRIS: It's a yes-or-no answer. Do you believe the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? I'm not asking, "Do you believe they were legal?" I'm asking, "Do you believe they were immoral?"
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I believe that CIA did—
SENKAMALA HARRIS: It's a yes-or-no answer.
GINA HASPEL: —extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country, given the legal tools that we were authorized to use.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: Please answer yes or no: Do you believe, in hindsight, that those techniques were immoral?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, what I believe, sitting here today, is that I support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: Can you please answer the question?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I think I've answered the question.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: No, you've not.
AMY GOODMAN: Gina Haspel's confirmation hearing was repeatedly interrupted by anti-torture protesters.
PROTESTER: The question is: What do you do to human beings in U.S. custody? Bloody Gina! Bloody Gina! Bloody Gina! Bloody Gina! You are a torturer! Bloody Gina!
AMY GOODMAN: Another protester who interrupted Haspel's hearing was retired 27-year CIA officer Ray McGovern. In dramatic video posted online, police can be seen dragging the 78-year-old McGovern out of the room, throwing him to the ground and dislocating his arm.
POLICE OFFICER 1: Stop resisting us!
RAY McGOVERN: I'm not resisting.
POLICE OFFICER 1: Yes, you are! Give me your—
RAY McGOVERN: No, I'm not! I'm lying on the ground.
POLICE OFFICER 1: Give me your arm! Give me your arm!
RAY McGOVERN: I'm lying on—
POLICE OFFICER 1: Give me your arm!
RAY McGOVERN: It's dislocated, man!
POLICE OFFICER 1: Give me your arm!
RAY McGOVERN: My left arm is—
POLICE OFFICER 1: Give me your arm!
RAY McGOVERN: My left arm is dislocated, damn it!
POLICE OFFICER 1: Give me your arm!
RAY McGOVERN: Don't you understand?
WITNESS: Stop hurting him!
POLICE OFFICER 1: Stop fighting.
RAY McGOVERN: Don't you understand? My left arm is—ahhh!
POLICE OFFICER 2: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
POLICE OFFICER 1: Stop fighting.
RAY McGOVERN: I'm not fighting. I'm on the ground.
POLICE OFFICER 2: Hold on, guys. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
RAY McGOVERN: And if you'd let me get my glasses on, I could see what's happening.
POLICE OFFICER 2: Let's get him up. Let's get him up.
WITNESS: You're hurting him!
POLICE OFFICER: Let's get him up first.
RAY McGOVERN: You guys are hurting me.
WITNESS: Stop hurting him!
RAY McGOVERN: I'm immobilized. I'm immobilized. You're going to dislocate my shoulder again. And, look, would you pick up my glasses, before you step on them?
AMY GOODMAN: A lawyer who spoke to Ray McGovern in jail said he's being held overnight and faces arraignment this morning. Ray McGovern, long time worked for the CIA, one of the top briefers for President George H.W. Bush years ago.
On Wednesday night, President Trump tweeted, "Gina Haspel did a spectacular job today. There is nobody even close to run the CIA!" he tweeted.
But at least two Republican senators have come out against Haspel: Rand Paul and John McCain. McCain said her, quote, "role in overseeing the use of torture is disturbing & her refusal to acknowledge torture's immorality is disqualifying." But Haspel may still be confirmed with the help of Democratic lawmakers. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has already announced he'll back Haspel.
For more, we're joined by Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of The Intercept, host of the weekly podcast Intercepted, author of the books Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield, and the Oscar-nominated film Dirty Wars.
Jeremy, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about what happened yesterday, and talk about Gina Haspel's record.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, first of all, I think that if we look at the fact that we're 17 years removed from 9/11, and we look at how this country has not come to terms with all of the acts of torture, kidnapping, extrajudicial killing, that was done with the veneer of legalism, put over it by very creative, albeit creative in a sort of evil way, lawyers in the Bush administration, what has resulted in not holding those torturers accountable is that one of them is now ascending to the highest post in the CIA.
And, you know, Amy, the CIA is generally prohibited from engaging in operations inside of the United States, and also prohibited from engaging in propaganda aimed at the American people. And yet, to me, this whole Gina Haspel nomination really seems like a CIA operation itself. You know, the CIA, throughout history, from its origins—and this was the case with its predecessor, the OSS—has had a mastery of coups and interventions and interfering in affairs of other nations and waging propaganda battles. Gina Haspel, when she was nominated for the CIA, was the recipient of an enormous amount of support from the CIA's social media accounts, Twitter and others. And it was a propaganda campaign that was aimed at all of us, at the American people. It was aimed at lawmakers, it was aimed at journalists, where they sort of tweeted a—and they did it over and over and over, and they even did it once Haspel was technically in charge of the CIA, where they're giving her biography, making her sound like some combination of like Lara Croft, Tomb Raider, with Jack Bauer. I mean, it was really kind of incredible.
And then they selectively—the CIA—declassified documents, including one from a Hillary Clinton supporter, Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, that sought to exonerate Gina Haspel of any wrongdoing in the destruction of the CIA tapes, pinning all of the blame on her boss, Jose Rodriguez. The reason I'm bringing all of this up is because Gina Haspel is—has been embraced by Republican and Democratic nominees, everyone from John Brennan, who was sort of Obama's killer priest—you know, they always said, "Oh, John Brennan, it's like he's like priest-like. He has this great conscience." This man ran a global assassination program. Michael Hayden, Bush's former CIAdirector, I actually respect his intellectual honesty, because, unlike Brennan and Clapper and others, Hayden says, "I support torture, and torture works, and that's part of why I support Gina Haspel." What we saw yesterday was a CIA propaganda operation. Gina Haspel's answers were very carefully prepared, the way she refused to answer Kamala Harris's questions about the immorality of torture.
And, you know, one of the things I found was astounding was she said the CIA has historically not been in the business of interrogations. What on Earth is she talking about? And why wasn't she pressed on that? I believe that what she was doing was relying on a technicality, which is that the CIA traditionally outsources those interrogations, or they will have people like those mental health professionals, Mitchell and Jessen, who were essentially the ones that came in and said, "Here's how we can reverse-engineer the tactics that we use to train our own personnel to resist torture or to face torture. Let's reverse-engineer that and actually apply it in an offensive manner against prisoners."
So, the fact that—this hearing was a farce, where, unfortunately, some of the Democrats and all of the Republicans engaged in a collective endorsement of what is, in my view, quite clearly, a CIA propaganda operation. It's a coup of sorts to have someone like Gina Haspel, who has been involved with destroying evidence, torture, kidnapping, and refuses—refuses—to denounce any of it. I mean, it's incredible that 17 years after 9/11 and—and, I'm sorry, Obama plays a huge role in how this happened. The moment Obama said, "We need to look forward, not backward," was the moment that Gina Haspel was able to become a viable candidate for CIA. And, I mean, this is a very, very serious development and the result of a probably extralegal propaganda campaign and an operation aimed at the domestic American public.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go back to who you mentioned, Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California, questioning Gina Haspel at Wednesday's hearing.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: Would you agree that given this appearance of conflict or potential conflict around the classification or declassification of these documents, that—would you agree that Director Coats, instead, should have the responsibility for declassification decisions regarding your background?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I think one important thing is that this committee plays a unique role to review the classified record. And we have sent over every piece of paper we can lay our hands on about my classified record, all of my evaluations over a 33-year career. And I hope every senator has had the opportunity to look at that classified material.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: Indeed, I have.
GINA HASPEL: But there are—
SENKAMALA HARRIS: And I have another question for you, then, because I only have a few minutes left—I only have a few seconds left. The president has asserted that torture works. Do you agree with that statement?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I don't believe that torture works. I believe that in the CIA's program—and I'm not attributing this to enhanced interrogation techniques—I believe, as many people, directors, who have sat in this chair before me, that valuable information was obtained from senior al-Qaeda operatives, that allowed us to defend this country and prevent another attack.
SENKAMALA HARRIS: Is that a yes?
GINA HASPEL: No, it's not a yes. We got valuable information from debriefing of al-Qaeda detainees. And I don't—I don't think it's knowable whether interrogation techniques played a role in that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Jeremy, if you could respond to what Gina Haspel said, and also elaborate on what exactly she was responsible for at that CIA black site in Thailand?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, the CIA black site in Thailand was called Cat's Eye. And, you know, at the time, Gina Haspel was—I mean, they describe her as a mid-level officer in the CIA. But let's remember, this was the most closely guarded, sensitive program of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and they chose Gina Haspel—the CIA chose Gina Haspel to be in charge of one of the main black sites that the CIA was using when they would either kidnap individual—I mean, they call it "rendition," it's kidnap—when they would kidnap individuals, purchase them from warlords or receive them from allied forces either in the Middle East or in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And her job was to oversee the interrogation, the debriefing, as she puts it, of prisoners that were snatched off the battlefield.
And the rationale for it was, A, we need to find out who knows what about how 9/11 happened and who planned it, and, B, are there more attacks planned. And if you remember, at that time, 17 years ago, there was a lot of concern that there was going to be another attack. There was the whole anthrax thing going on. I mean, there was real hysteria. So, that is the part of it that they—that at yesterday's hearings everyone up the focus on. It was like, "Let's remember what was going on at that time." So, Haspel is sent there. And my understanding is that prior to her arriving there, there was some extreme torture used against prisoners. And then, during her time there, what they've publicly acknowledged is that at least one individual was waterboarded dozens and dozens of times.
AMY GOODMAN: And slammed against a wall and—
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, the whole focus has been on waterboarding, and Gina Haspel yesterday said, "Well, I will follow the U.S. Army Field Manual," which has been on the books for a long time, and remains on the books, of what DOD personnel are allowed to do during an interrogation. And that includes extreme sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, putting people in very confined spaces. I mean, let's remember, they would put people in boxes, the CIA would. They sometimes would place inside of those boxes insects and tell them they were poisonous. They would do walling, where they would have a chain on one side of the wall, the prisoner is attached to that chain on the other side of the wall, with a hole in it, and they could yank them and then slam them against a wall. And then you had, of course, waterboarding.
Now, you know, the question was, though: Is this a moral? And Gina Haspel kept saying, "Well, it was legal." There's no record that Gina Haspel protested, expressed concern. And there is a record that at other sites—and, in fact, at that site later—that interrogators did sort of rebel and say, "Wait a minute. Are we really supposed to be doing this?" I mean, you know, as Trump became president, I've spent a lot of time over the past year, year and a half, studying World War II and the aftermath of World War II. And, of course, everyone has heard of the Nuremberg trials, where the Nazis were put on trial. And it was everyone from very high-ranking people all the way down to lower-ranking people. In fact, very recently, in the past years, the Israelis and the United States have both tried to apprehend people that were guards at facilities, people that weren't even accused of directly killing anyone. And the Nuremberg principles dictate that saying you were just doing your job is not a defense. And yet, that is the primary defense of Gina Haspel.
And, Amy, final point on this, in Japan, after World War II, the tribunal was called the Tokyo Trials. And, yes, they prosecuted very top-level people. They also prosecuted—this was U.S. prosecutors—they also prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding, for waterboarding American POWs. And I read the primary testimony of some of those soldiers. Ted Kennedy, actually, in 2006, on the floor of the Senate, read some of the testimony of American soldiers who had water sprayed up their nostrils, doused on their faces. Some of those people were executed. And among the charges they were executed for was waterboarding—not solely waterboarding, but waterboarding was one of the main charges. And others were sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. What's Gina Haspel's sentence? Oh, to be nominated as Central Intelligence Agency director.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let's go to Jack Reed, the Democratic senator of Rhode Island, questioning Gina Haspel.
SENJACK REED: If one of your operatives were captured, subjected to waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques, which you, I believe, supervised, would you consider that to be moral, since perhaps the other entity did not have legal restrictions, and good tradecraft, as you appeared to do when you were involved in it previously?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I don't believe the terrorists follow any guidelines or civilized norms or the law. CIA follows the law.
SENJACK REED: Excuse me, madam, you seem to be saying that you were not following civilized norms and the law or anything else, when you were conducting those self-same activities, if that's the analogy you're going to draw.
GINA HASPEL: Sir, I'm sorry, can you—I—
SENJACK REED: Very simple. You have an operations officer who is captured. He's being waterboarded. I've asked you, very simply: Would you determine that to be immoral and something that should never be done, condoned in any way, shape or form? Your response seems to be that civilized nations don't do it, but uncivilized nations do it, or uncivilized groups do it.
UNIDENTIFIED: The United States does it to the soldiers.
SENJACK REED: A civilized nation—a civilized nation was doing it, until it was outlawed by this Congress.
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I would never, obviously, support inhumane treatment of any CIA officers.
AMY GOODMAN: And let's turn to Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine questioning Gina Haspel.
SENSUSAN COLLINS: As a candidate, President Trump repeatedly expressed his support for waterboarding. In fact, he said we should go beyond waterboarding. So, if the CIA has a high-value terrorism suspect in its custody, and the president gave you a direct order to waterboard that suspect, what would you do?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I would advise—I do not believe the president would ask me to do that.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Gina Haspel doesn't believe that the president would ask her to do that. This is Donald Trump while he was running for president.
DONALD TRUMP: Don't tell me it doesn't work. Torture works. OK, folks? Torture—you know, have these guys: "Torture doesn't work." Believe me, it works, OK? And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it's not actually torture. Let's assume it is. But they ask me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That's the way I feel.
AMY GOODMAN: "I would go much stronger than waterboarding," says President Trump. Jeremy Scahill?
JEREMY SCAHILL: You know, my question for anybody watching or listening right now is: When you hear the phrase "speaking truth to power," you know, who do you think of? You think of people like Martin Luther King. You think of, you know, activists. You think of people of conscience. That is the phrase that lawmakers, you know, the people that introduced her, former CIA directors—they say, "Gina Haspel is the person that you want speaking truth to power." And there's this sort of hashtag #resistance view of Gina Haspel that exists, which is, "Well, Haspel already knows all of this stuff. She understands. She's been in the CIA for 30 years. She's going to be able to sort of do that dance with Trump and stand up to him." No. We already know how she views these. There were people that were interrogators that protested. There were CIA officers and State Department people who resigned. Gina Haspel followed the orders. And so, whether it is George Bush and Dick Cheney or it's Donald Trump, the track record of Gina Haspel is that she does what she's told, even if it's a heinous act of torture.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about the destruction of the videotapes? Explain what she did.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, first of all, Gina Haspel claimed, in this hearing, that there were 92 tapes and that it was 92 tapes of one individual. You know, Jason Leopold, who is a BuzzFeed news journalist that has done really incredible work FOIAing information—he and Marcy Wheeler have tracked this stuff more than anyone else—said that it was tapes of two individuals. Gina Haspel claims that they took the—that they had these recordings, that there was concern because the program—meaning the extraordinary rendition program and the black sites program—had started to seep out into the media. It was being reported on in The Washington PostNew York Times, Sy Hersh, other people. And they said, "Oh, well, we can't have these things leaked, because it's going to put at risk the agents in the field."
And Haspel and her boss, Jose Rodriguez, who openly brags—he goes on his book tours and stuff, openly brags that he jump-started the torture program, said it worked, etc. Haspel was his deputy at the time that these tapes were ordered destroyed. And Haspel had to actually draft the memo for Jose Rodriguez. Now, her defenders portray it as though she was like Rodriguez's secretary and was doing it. No, she was one of the people that ran the site where these tapes were filmed.
And she said, openly, in the hearing, which actually contradicted a lot of what her defenders said about her—she said she absolutely supported destroying the tapes. Now, and then she's asked during the hearing—now, mind you, this is someone who is up for CIA director. She is asked, "Why didn't you preserve a copy of it in a secure way? OK, we understand that you wanted to destroy any tapes that may have been not held securely. Why didn't you preserve a copy?" She says, "Oh, I'm not a technical person." Huh? You're not a technical person, and you're going to be the director of the CIA? This is what I'm saying. This whole thing is a PSYOP against us.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let's turn to Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California questioning Gina Haspel yesterday.
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: Were you an advocate for destroying the tapes?
GINA HASPEL: Senator, I absolutely was an advocate, if we could within and conforming to U.S. law and if we could get policy concurrence to eliminate the security risk posed to our officers by those tapes. And the consistent legal—
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: And you were aware of what those tapes contained?
GINA HASPEL: No, I never watched the tapes.
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: No, but you—
GINA HASPEL: But I understood that our officers' faces were on them and that that was very dangerous at a time when there were unauthorized disclosures that were exposing the program.
SENDIANNE FEINSTEIN: But it also exposed how the program was conducted.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So that's Gina Haspel responding to questions by Feinstein. I wanted to ask, Jeremy, given what you said earlier about the history of the CIA and their not only participation in programs of torture, but also intervening in other countries, overthrowing various governments, whether anyone in the CIA would not be complicit in what Gina Haspel has been complicit in, or variations of the same. And then, second, the point that Trump made about, you know, waterboarding and worse. What about the fact that the CIA, for worse things than waterboarding, principally rendered—or, as you say, kidnapped—detainees and sent them to places like Syria, Iraq, Jordan, etc., where they knew the torture would be much more brutal?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, first of all, yes, there are people who worked in the CIA—a lot of people who worked in the CIA that I don't think you could say, "Oh, these people are responsible for torture." But even if we want to look at sort of—and I'll answer that question directly in a second. But even if you want to look at sort of grades of involvement, Gina Haspel is like at the top. You know, she was one of the people who was running one of the early sites where the United States was doing this. So, it's clear that—and the fact that she refuses to call it immoral or to say that the tactics that the senators were specifically citing was torture—she kept saying, "Well, you know, we got this valuable information. Uh, it's a mystery. I don't know. Maybe it was attributable to that, maybe it wasn't."
But, you know, in general, the CIA is divided into two big camps. I mean, there's lots of little nuance, but two big camps: the analytical side and the operations side. The operations side is sort of the dark side, the Dick Cheney view of it. Those are the people that were conducting the operations that Gina Haspel was involved with. Then you have people that are on the analytical side. And those were the people that the neocons said was like a liberal think tank. They would have been the people that were pushing back internally against, for instance, the information that was put in front of Colin Powell when he went to the United Nations to sell the Iraq War for the Bush administration. Ray McGovern, who was dragged out of that hearing and had his arm dislocated, you know, this is a man who's almost 80 years old. Ray McGovern came out of the analytical division at the CIA. Glenn Carle, another person who was also a CIA interrogator—he actually was on the operations side—was against torture and spoke out about torture.
So, you know, I certainly don't mean to be heaping any praise on the CIA. But to directly answer your question: of course. And there were people that were very seriously protesting, including people who were in the same position as Gina Haspel after her, who were saying, "Uh-uh, this is not right."
AMY GOODMAN: What do you feel is the critical question that wasn't asked, as we wrap up?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I think that the Democrats should have shut the entire thing down and refused to participate anymore until Gina Haspel answered the question about is waterboarding torture, and not get into some legalistic thing of what John Yoo, a man who would justify all manner of torture and say, "Well, anything short of killing them is not actually torture"—
AMY GOODMAN: Who's at UC Berkeley Law School.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Who's at—yeah, ironically. Look—
AMY GOODMAN: Jay Bybee, federal judge.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yes, also. I mean, they had all these—
AMY GOODMAN: John Brennan.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Exactly, right. And, you know, Hitler also had a lot of lawyers that could make things legal. And people say, "Oh, you're comparing the United States to Nazi Germany." No, they're doing it. They're doing it by using the very excuse that war criminals the world over attempt to use. So, I think they should have pushed her on the idea that: Do you think that just doing your job is an excuse? Your conscience plays no role in this? You know, have you ever heard of a conscientious objection? But the fact—and I think John McCain, as discredited as he is on a lot of issues, the man was tortured and understands this issue and has made the point that the United States prosecuted Japanese war criminals for doing these same things. His point was good. It is totally disqualifying, no matter what you think, if you're a Republican, Democrat, not to say that was immoral.
AMY GOODMAN: And she gets to classify or declassify the documents. She's in charge of the CIA right now, right? Acting director.
JEREMY SCAHILL: She is. And I also—and the other point—I mean, look, this was all they talked about yesterday, for the most part, this and then, you know, Marco Rubio and others sort of saying, "Oh, we love the CIA, and you're all so great." They didn't talk about any other issues. Gina Haspel at one point mentions the relationship between the Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA has never been closer. I mean, to me, the elephant in the room of all of this is that the CIA and the U.S. military's darkest elements, they're in a golden era right now. I mean, Trump is an ideal person for them. All of this stuff about the deep state is trying to destroy Trump—establishment neocons hate the man, but they love what's going on right now. And, unfortunately, they're in an alliance increasingly with liberals.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, I want to thank you for being with us, co-founder of The Intercept, host of the weekly podcast Intercepted, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary ArmyDirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield and The Assassination Complex.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions,







Sunday, February 11, 2018

IRAN



THE ABSURD TIMES











By now, the fascination (or pick a word) with Trump seems to be dead, so we can go on to other things.

This is despite all the reporters going out and digging up people that still support him, even people of color.  All it really indicates is how degenerate the human species is.  I am often reminded of what is supposedly a quote from Mark Twain as delivered by Hal Holbrook in that Twainish voice: "Man, we are told, is the reasoning animal.  Now I wonder who found that out." 

So, Israel is claiming that one of it's jets was shot down over Israeli airspace: in other words, the Golan Heights.  Actually, that is actually Syrian airspace, but repetition serves for truth these days and so it is.

This interview, below, is over a speech Nikki Haley made, not at the UN where she would have been laughed off the platform, but at a U.S. Military base.  See, the military is happy to see here because, if they are nice enough, they may get to march in a parade and salute the Donald.

We can forget about all the vets who are homeless, suffering from PTSD, missing limbs, and so on.  Some vets, believe it or not, after being welcomed into the military, are in danger of being deported.  Since they came here without being born here, but instead snuck over the border at the age of 3 or 4 years old, the evil and illegal aliens, we have no further use for them.  We want a parade.  Maybe a wall and a parade? 

Anyway, it takes a bit of history to follow this interview with Colin Powell's assistant, the guy who helped him write the speech that got us into Iraq in the first place.  Even this guy has taken to using Gore Vidal's phrase "The United States of Amnesia." 

So, how did it happen?  Well, we wanted to get "communists" out of Afghanistan.  (Never mind that the USSR was never really Marxist.  We needed an enemy and they supplied one for us).    So, we subsidized an bunch of crazy Jihadists (Hey, they believed in God and we Believed in God and the USSR was officially atheist, despite all the Russian Orthodox Churches) to attack them.  Our star player was Bin Laden, a fact so conveniently forgotten.)   He managed to get some place to crash into some building in New York and that gave the Chicken Hawks a chance to attack Afghanistan, and from there to Iraq.

Then there was Saddam Hussein, very valuable in waging war against Iran.  However, he had an uncomfortable way of helping Palestinians, so he had to go.  We started out by claiming that he had nuclear weapons, but we knew that was not true.  We do not attack countries with nuclear weapons.  We finally settled on weapons of mass destruction.  Actually, Bin Laden thought of Saddam as an infidel.

Well, we decided that Saddam had to go.  The rest is explained in the interview:

Fifteen years ago this week, Secretary of State General Colin Powell gave a speech to the United Nations arguing for war with Iraq, saying the evidence was clear: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It was a speech Powell would later call a blot on his career. Is President Trump doing the same thing now with Iran? We speak to Powell's former chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson. He recently wrote a piece titled "I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It's Happening Again."


Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to look at the growing threat of war against Iran. In recent weeks, senior members of the Trump administration have repeatedly tried to churn up U.S. support for a war against Iran, while President Trump has reiterated his threats to pull the U.S. out of the landmark 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Last month, President Trump issued a waiver to prevent the reimposition of U.S. sanctions against Iran, but warned he would not do so again unless the nuclear deal is renegotiated. The waiver must be reissued every 120 days to avoid the sanctions from kicking back in.
His warning came after U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley spoke at the Anacostia-Bolling military base in Washington, D.C., in front of pieces of metal she claimed were parts of an Iranian-made missile supplied to the Houthis in Yemen, which the Houthis allegedly fired into Saudi Arabia. This is Ambassador Haley speaking December 14th.
NIKKI HALEY: Behind me is an example of one of these attacks. These are the recovered pieces of a missile fired by Houthi militants from Yemen into Saudi Arabia. The missile's intended target was the civilian airport in Riyadh, through which tens of thousands of passengers travel each day. I repeat, the missile was used to attack an international civilian airport in a G20 country. Just imagine if this missile had been launched at Dulles Airport or JFK or the airports in Paris, London or Berlin. That's what we're talking about here. That's what Iran is actively supporting.
AMY GOODMAN: Weapons experts widely criticized Ambassador Haley's speech, saying the evidence was inconclusive and fell far short of proving her allegations that Iran had violated a U.N. Security Council resolution. But to our next guest, Haley's claims were not only inconclusive, they were also oddly reminiscent of the false claims about weapons of mass destruction the George W. Bush administration used to sell the public on the war with Iraq.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005, during which time he helped prepare Powell's infamous speech to the U.N. claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Powell's speech was given 15 years ago this week, February 5th, 2003.
SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL: One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents. Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eyewitness accounts. We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.
AMY GOODMAN: That was then-Secretary of State General Colin Powell speaking February 5th, 2003, before the U.N. Security Council. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, his chief of staff, has since renounced the speech, which he helped write. Well, his new op-ed for The New York Times is headlined "I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It's Happening Again."
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about what—how you felt at the time, how you came to understand the evidence that General Colin Powell, who himself said—called this speech, later, a blot on his career—how you put this speech together, and the echoes of it, what you hear today, in Ambassador Haley's speech.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Amy, we put the speech together with, arguably, the entire U.S. intelligence community, led by George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, literally at Powell's right hand all the time, seven days, seven nights, at Langley and then in New York, before we presented.
When I saw Nikki Haley give her presentation, certainly there was not the gravitas of a Powell, not the statesmanship of a Powell, not the popularity of a Powell. What I saw was a John Bolton. And remember, John Bolton was her predecessor, in terms of being a neoconservative at the United Nations representing the United States. I saw a very amateurish attempt.
But nonetheless, these kinds of things, when they're made visual and the statements are made so dramatically, have an impact on the American people. I saw her doing essentially the same thing with regard to Iran that Powell had done, and I had done, and others, with regard to Iraq. So it alarms me. I don't think the American people have a memory for these sorts of things. Gore Vidal called this the "United States of Amnesia," with some reason.
So, we need to be reminded of how the intelligence was politicized, how it was cherry-picked, how we moved towards a war that has been an absolute catastrophe for the region, and even, long-term, for Israel's security and the United States' perhaps, with a deftness and with a fluidity that alarmed me then. It really alarms me now that we might be ready to repeat that process.
And your previous speaker, on North Korea, there's another target. This president has so many targets out there that he could avail himself of at almost any moment, that we have to shudder at the prospects for war and destruction over the next three years of Donald Trump's term.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the pieces of metal she was talking about?
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: I can't imagine how anyone could haul some metal in front of the TV cameras and assert, the way she did, with the details she did—some of which was false, just flat false—and expect anyone within any expertise, at least, to believe it. Open parenthesis, (The American people don't necessarily have that expertise), close parenthesis.
Look at her statement about "this could have been shot at Dulles, or it could have been shot at Berlin." Had it been shot at Dulles or Berlin, it would have stopped well short, somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean or even shorter. These missiles are not long-range missiles. These missiles are very inaccurate missiles. They have a CEP of miles. That means that, unlike a U.S. nuclear weapon, which would hit within a 10-meter circle or less, it would hit within a mile or two circle. They don't know where it's going to hit when they shoot it. It's not very accurate, in other words.
So the things that she was presenting there, she was presenting with a drama, that even if what she was saying fundamentally was true, that the Houthis got it from Iran and shot it at Saudi Arabia, it simply was so exaggerated that one just looks at it and says, "I can't believe that the United States is represented by that woman."
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, it's very interesting that you have this moment now in U.S. history where the Republicans—some of them—are joining with President Trump in trying to discredit the intelligence agencies. And yet you go back to 2003, when you have a fierce criticism of the intelligence agencies, saying they were being used to politicize information, which, oddly, is what President Trump is saying, in a very different context.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: You would have a lot of sympathy if you asked me if I have some doubts about the U.S. intelligence agencies, all 17 of them now, definitely. But let me tell you what I've done over the last 11 or 12 years, on two university campuses with really brilliant students, in terms of enlightening myself, gaining new insights into what happened not only in 2002 and '03, but what's been happening ever since and, for that matter, what happened ever since Richard Nixon, with regard to the intelligence communities.
What happens is you get people like Tenet, you get people like John Brennan, you get people like John McLaughlin, you get people like Chris Mudd, for example—Phil Mudd, who was head of counterterrorism for George Tenet and who tried at the last minute to get me to put even more stuff into his presentation about the connections between Baghdad and al-Qaeda. You get people like that who are at the top. That screens all the many dedicated, high-moral, high-character professionals down in the bowels of the DIA, the CIA, the NSA and elsewhere. That screens their views, which are often accurate—I'd say probably 80 percent of the time very accurate—from the decision makers. So what you get is you get people like Tenet and McLaughlin and Brennan, who shape whatever they can to fit the policies that the president wishes to carry out. The intelligence, therefore, gets corrupted. So, in that sense, I am still down on the, quote, "U.S. intelligence community," unquote.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it's really interesting, because a number of the people you mention from the past are the current commentators on television.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Yes, yes. John McLaughlin—John McLaughlin lied to the secretary of state of the United States on more than one occasion during the preparation for the 5 February, 2003, U.N. Security Council.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to President Trump speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in September.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don't think you've heard the last of it. Believe me. It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran's government end its pursuit of death and destruction. It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained. And above all, Iran's government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors.
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, respond to President Trump, and talk about the clock being put ever closer to midnight.
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: That agreement, the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement between the U.N. Security Council permanent members, Germany, Iran, that agreement is probably the most insidious and likely way to war with Iran. The Obama regime, in a very, very difficult diplomatic situation, achieved the best it could. That best is a nuclear agreement that keeps Iran from a nuclear weapon and gives us over a year of time, should they try to secretly break out of it, to inspect and find and to stop, even if we had to bomb. So it is an agreement unparalleled in regard to stopping Iran's search for, if it ever had the desire to, a nuclear weapon.
If Trump undermines that, if this administration undermines that, then there is no—and they are moving fast to do that—there is no other alternative, if you look at it. Now, my colleagues and some of my opponents in this will say, "Oh, no, that doesn't necessarily mean war." It certainly does, if you continue this march towards Iran's—unacceptability of Iran's having a nuclear weapon, because then we will have intelligence telling us that Iran is—I know the Foundation for Defense of Democracy and others will never let this rest. We will have everyone telling us that Iran, whether they are or not, is going after a nuclear weapon, once the agreement is abrogated. That means the only way you assure the American people and the international community, the region—Saudi Arabia is salivating for a war with Iran, with American lives at the front—that means the only way you stop Iran, under those circumstances, is to invade—500,000 soldiers and troops, you better have some allies, 10 years, $4 [trillion] or $5 trillion. And at the end of that 10 years, it looks worse than Iraq did at the end of its 10.
That's what you're looking at over the long haul, if you say this agreement is no good and abrogate it, because if it's still unacceptable, that Iran not get a nuclear weapon, the only way that you assure that is by invasion. Bombing won't do it. All bombing will do is drive them underground. They will develop a weapon. They'll work with the North Koreans and so forth. We know they have worked with the North Koreans in the past. And they will develop one. And then they'll be like Kim Jong-un: They'll present us with the fait accompli.
Nuclear proliferation is a real threat right now. And I agree with the Bulletin of Atomic—the Atomic Scientists Bulletin that the hands on the Doomsday Clock are now at two, two-and-a-half minutes or so from midnight. We are more in danger of a nuclear exchange on the face of the Earth than we were in probably any time since 1945. And that includes the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and the Berlin crisis that more or less preceded it. This is a dangerous time, and we have a man in the White House who is a dangerous president.
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Wilkerson, on Wednesday, Defense Secretary James Mattis defended a Pentagon request to develop new so-called low-yield nuclear weapons, telling reporters the U.S. needed a more complete range of nuclear options. And this comes as the Trump administration has unveiled its new nuclear weapons strategy, which involves spending at least $1.2 trillion to upgrade, they say, the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Your response?
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Make that about two to three, maybe even four, trillion dollars, because that's what the cost overruns will be, and that's what we'll spend over the next 10 to 15 years to do this. And we do not need it. Just look at some of the components of this. We're looking at a B-21 bomber for the Air Force, for example, that's going to be so expensive the Air Force won't even tell the Congress how much it's going to cost. We're looking at a nuclear-tipped cruise missile for that bomber, which negates the need for the bomber. It's redundant, but we're going to do it anyway.
This is to assuage the military-industrial complex in America that deals with nuclear weapons. This is to spend lots of money and keep lots of nuclear scientists and others in their jobs. I understand that, but I don't condone this kind of money being spent. This is to respond to the Russians, whose military doctrine now includes using small-yield nuclear weapons, should they be invaded by NATO. It's written in their doctrine. This is to further perturbate the situation with the Chinese, who are taking Mao Zedong's nuclear philosophy and throwing it out the window and thinking, "Oh, maybe we better build lots more nuclear weapons so we can ride out a first strike and retaliate." This is all because of the United States. It's all because of what's happening in the world post-Cold War, that we all thought was going to be more peaceful and is turning out to be more catastrophically dangerous.
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Wilkerson, Trump just tweeted, "Just signed Bill"—he's talking about the spending bill. "Our Military will now be stronger than ever before. We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more. First time this has happened in a long time." Your last 10-second response?
LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Yeah, not the first time. Ronald Reagan did it, '82, '83, '84. And he did it on politicized intelligence about the Soviet Union. We knew it was falling apart at that time, but that didn't go along with his arms buildup. That's exactly what Trump is doing. And he's using the military to gain more votes.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much for being with us. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson served as the secretary—as the chief of staff of the secretary of state, of Colin Powell, from 2002 to 2005.
That does it for our show. A very happy birthday Mohamed Taguine!
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.