Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. 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,







Saturday, April 14, 2018

Syria and "Mission Accomplished"



THE ABSURD TIMES





Syria and 'Mission Accomplished'

Just to counter the video we got from American Media, about 10 minutes or so into this clip is the faces of those liberated from American "Rebels" and their reaction.  Unfortunately, I could not just clip the one shot of about 2 minutes, but you can fat forward if you have the tools and resources. 


Now, for the transcript of the video: this is the most sane analysis or report on what is really going on there that I have been able to find anywhere.  It reminds me of what I might expect from Horkheimer or Adorno if they were around.  I am just going to post it without further comment:

As the United Nations Security Council holds an emergency session over the growing prospect of a war between Russia and the U.S., after President Trump threatened U.S. strikes in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, we get response from Syrian-Canadian writer Yazan al-Saadi. "Let's remind everyone that the U.S. is striking Syria already. You have more than 2,000 soldiers on the ground. There are bases." He adds, "For me, as a Syrian, I see it as an occupation, just like how I see the Russians are an occupation on the country." Regarding the alleged chemical attack in Syria, he says, "This ignores the fact that most deaths are happening through conventional means," such as airstrikes.


Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We begin today's show in Syria, where Syrian government forces have taken full control of the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, in a major victory for President Bashar al-Assad. The capture of Eastern Ghouta followed a Russian-brokered deal that saw the last remaining rebel fighters granted safe passage to a rebel-held area in northern Syria. Human rights groups estimate some 1,700 civilians were killed in heavy fighting, after Syrian forces, backed by Russia, launched an offensive on Eastern Ghouta in February. The U.N. says food, water and medicine are in short supply for those left behind. This is U.N. humanitarian adviser Jan Egeland.
JAN EGELAND: There is, by our count, still at least 100,000 people in Douma, and they need desperately our help. We have been prevented from going there. We have had very little supplies to there. And now, hopefully, there is finally an agreement between the armed actors.
AMY GOODMAN: Eastern Ghouta's fall comes as the U.N. Security Council is set to meet in an emergency session today over the growing prospect of a war between Russia and the U.S., after President Trump threatened U.S. strikes in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma last Saturday. This is Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya.
VASILY NEBENZYA: The immediate priority is to avert the danger of war.
REPORTER: Sir, you just mentioned that you want to avert the danger of war. The danger of war between the U.S. and Russia?
VASILY NEBENZYA: Look, we cannot exclude any possibilities, unfortunately, because we saw—we saw messages that are coming from Washington. They were very bellicose. They know we are there. I hope, I wish there was dialogue through appropriate channels on this to avert any dangerous—any dangerous developments.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as President Trump tweeted Wednesday, quote, "Get ready Russia, because [missiles] will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!'" Then, on Thursday, Trump appeared to back off slightly from his aggressive stance, tweeting, "Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all!" That last tweet came after Trump missed a self-imposed deadline of 48 hours to announce major decisions on Syria in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma on Saturday.
Those comments came as the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said Russia has evidence the attack was fabricated. French President Emmanuel Macron has said he has "proof" that Syria's government carried out the attack. And NBC News cited two unnamed U.S. officials who said blood and urine samples taken from a victim and smuggled out of Douma show signs of poisoning from a nerve agent and chlorine gas.
On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary James Mattis said the U.S. is still investigating the attack. This is Mattis being questioned by Hawaii Democratic Congressmember Tulsi Gabbard.
REPTULSI GABBARD: What would the objective of an attack on Syria be? And how does that serve the interests of the American people?"
DEFENSE SECRETARY JAMES MATTIS: I don't want to talk about a specific attack that is not yet in the offing, knowing that these are decisions—this would be predecisional. Again, the president has not made that decision.
AMY GOODMAN: For more on Syria, we go to Beirut, Lebanon, where we're joined via Democracy Now! video stream by Yazan al-Saadi, a Syrian-Canadian writer and researcher.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Yazan. Your response to all the latest developments in Syria?
YAZAN AL-SAADI: Thank you very much for having me. One thing I wanted to say is how surreal this is, even this interview, because, Amy, the first time I was on Democracy Now! was almost a year ago, this exact situation appearing. And so—so it just struck me, and I feel I have to say that Karl Marx was right: History repeats. And it was a tragedy, a farce, and it's even more absurd.
There's just so much to say. I mean, my first comment I would like to really point out is this weird discussion happening in the U.S. as if in attack on Syria hasn't happened by the U.S. and by others. Let's remind everyone that the U.S. is striking Syria already. You have more than 2,000 soldiers on the ground. There are bases. For me, as a Syrian, I see it as an occupation, just like how I see the Russians are an occupation on the country. So, I just find the whole discussion that's happening is so absurd.
And I feel like the hysteria that is being manufactured, in my opinion, by these politicians are just distracting from the core issues. And the core issues, at least to me, is accountability for Syrians. I mean, let's be honest. Whether the U.S. strikes Syria—and here, I believe people mean the Syrian military or the Syrian regime—how is this going to bring justice? How is this accountability in any way? Because it's not. And even then, what's next? What's the plan here? So I think the biggest issue that is really driving all of this is that this is another example of the complete dysfunctionality and failure of the international political and accountability system, that this is what we're witnessing again and again. And we're seeing it in Syria, and we've seen it in so many other places around the world. And it's just—it's become very absurd.
And it's become—and it's also, as human being, I mean, I just am so personally upset as a human, as I can. You know, I have to be empathetic here, because people are dying in the scheme of things. Men, women, children, they are being killed predominantly by the ones that have the most power, i.e. the regime and its allies, and they all are also being killed and harmed and abused by armed opposition groups, who are backed by other superpowers. So, that's where we're at.
And these theater plays, these things that happen over an alleged chemical attack—and I personally believe it happened, and I believe—I have my thoughts and my conclusions on who the culprit are, based on the evidence that we all have around. It's really—
AMY GOODMAN: Who do you believe—who do you believe launched this attack?
YAZAN AL-SAADI: Who do I think launched the attack? Based on the evidence that is around, based on trends, based on the history, based on context, I do think it was the Syrian regime. However, what does this change anything? Because, OK, the OPCW is currently investigating in the country, and they should start on Saturday. And I support that. I believe in an investigation. There has to be some sort of accountability here. I don't believe in a Western invasion and overthrow of the Syrian regime, because I don't think that leads to Syrian determination. However, how does this change anything? Because the OPCW has already said, in previous reports, that it has linked the Syrian regime to chlorine attacks, at least three of them. It has also pointed out there are links of ISIS using mustard gas. So, what are we arguing here? Are we arguing that chemical weapons are happening in Syria? Well, they are. People are using chemical weapons, are using chemical agents, whether it's chlorine or anything else. What changes? This doesn't—it ignores the fact that the most deaths are happening through conventional means. People are dying because of airstrikes, bullets, sieges. So this idea of chemical weapons is also—it's absurd.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Yazan, for people who aren't aware, OPCW is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. But I wanted to go to Russia's foreign minister rejecting the allegations of the chemical weapons attack in Douma.
MARIA ZAKHAROVA: [translated] Doctors, chemical defense specialists have been to Douma, where chemical weapons were allegedly used, but they found no traces of such use, no casualties or victims of this mythical chemical attack. The West stubbornly refuses to listen to a heap of information.
AMY GOODMAN: France says they have evidence that it was the Syrian government. But today the German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, said Western countries must increase pressure on Russia in order to solve the crisis in Syria.
HEIKO MAAS: [translated] We want these people to be held criminally responsible internationally, and there remains a lot to be done. The repeated use of chemical weapons, which is internationally prohibited, cannot come without consequences. You cannot just continue with the daily agenda. This now needs to be discussed with our Western partners.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Germany says they wouldn't get involved with Britain and France and the United States with an attack. And, Yazan, your response to the Russians saying it's not them?
YAZAN AL-SAADI: Yeah, I'm not surprised that the Russians would take this line, just like I'm not surprised about the Western governments' line. I mean, you know, a lot of people point to the example of what happened with Iraq. And I agree that, you know, what happened with Iraq is criminal, and this idea of manufacturing evidence.
But there are two things I want to point out. Does this mean that if the U.S. was actually telling the truth and there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—does this justify the killing of over a million Iraqis and the destruction of Iraq? Is this what people are arguing? Because that's what I'm hearing.
Secondly, the position of manufacturing or victim blaming isn't really new. All regimes, whether they are the Russians, the Syrians, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Americans, say the same thing, and they've said the same thing throughout history. A lot of people say, "Remember Iraq." I also say, "True, and I agree: Remember Iraq. And also remember things like Guernica, where the fascist government at the time, during the Spanish Civil War, completely denied what happened to Guernica, and said it was fabricated and that the anarchists and leftists were bombing and burning themselves." So, this is—this is the situation, let's all agree. And let's be frank: They are all lying in many ways to us. They are all lying.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, it's interesting you raise Guernica. The famous painting by Pablo Picasso of what happened in Guernica well over 75 years ago, the banner of a tapestry of that painting, famous painting, that is known around the world, hangs outside the U.N. Security Council. Today, the U.N. Security Council will be meeting on Syria. So, what do you think is the solution, Yazan? You are a Syrian. You have seen your country destroyed. You now—don't you have actually Russian soldiers and U.S. soldiers on the ground in Syria?
YAZAN AL-SAADI: Yeah, we have everyone on the ground. It's a buffet. So, what do I think? And I can only—and I am going to say this very clearly: I am speaking for myself; I'm not representing, you know, Syrians or Syria, because there's a whole wide range of views.
What I think I believe the solution is: accountability. I believe the only way and the only way we, as Syrians, could move on and build a sustainable—a sustainable, coherent country is to move for accountability, accountability against every crime inflicted on every Syrian body over the course of seven years. I mean, if the regime—and I know that the regime has committed crimes. They should go—they should be taken to court, and then they should be put in prison. Same thing with the armed opposition. Same thing with the Americans, who have devastated places like Raqqa. Same thing like the Russians, who have devastated places around Syria. They should all be held to account.
And the only way to do that is not resorting to the international legal, political mechanisms, because they are failing. They are dysfunctional, and they are not made to help us citizens of the world. I believe, or I think, I should say, the best thing we can do—me and you and whoever else is listening or watching—is that we need to build a movement, because the movements today, whether it's Stop the War or the so-called mainstream left, they are abysmal, and they are failing just as well, because not only are they not stopping the wars, they are reproducing narratives that are harming people on the ground in the end—no different from the neocons and the Orientalists and anyone else that are warmongers.
The solution, or the idea, in my mind, is a better discourse, as well. For example, if one says that Assad is a criminal, this does not mean automatically Western intervention. And we shouldn't think that. At the same time, Western intervention cannot be presented as the only solution to dealing with Assad. Neither are correct. Both of them are terrible. And the Syrian people, like many other communities in the world, deserve better discourse and movements. Our bodies are being devastated, just like bodies are being devastated in Iraq, in Palestine and in Yemen. And we all need help. And that requires, really, an international mobilization of people, because everything else is horrendous. Don't you think so?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Yazan, let me ask you a last question. President Trump making this decision as he is embroiled in various sex scandals, accusations of—the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is moving in on him. His lawyer's, you know, home and hotel room and offices have been raided. Apparently there are recordings of his lawyer that have also been taken by the authorities. Now, why raise this as you're dealing in Syria with a possible chemical weapons attack, the number of people killed over these years, is because this decision might not actually be made because of what's happening on the ground in Syria, but the internal politics of what's happening here in the United States and wanting to distract attention.
YAZAN AL-SAADI: That could be certainly so. I mean, whatever Trump does, he can do. But let's not forget that behind Trump is a whole system in place, right? There is—it's not just Trump. We're talking about a political military system within the United States, just like within other countries, that makes these decisions. So, I have no faith in that, and I have no faith in Trump.
And there's one thing. The tweet that Trump had—it was yesterday—where he ended that people should say "thank you" to America. You know, I have something to say, and I'm going to say it in Arabic: Kol khara, which basically means—you can tell him it means "thank you." Because, in the end, what Trump is doing and all this hullabaloo that we also hear from, let's not forget, France and the U.K., who are no better and who are embroiled in a lot of crimes and supportive of repressive regimes in the region—how can I expect them to save me? They are no different from the Russians, in my opinion, you know, in terms of—will they bring me self-determination? Are they actively working to help me and my society and our neighbors? No, they're not. Let's not forget that the three main countries that are gung-ho to start, you know, launching attacks are also—you know, the U.S., the U.K. and France—are also the three main countries that deny the rights of Syrian refugees to enter their lands. So how can I take them seriously? I cannot.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Yazan al-Saadi, I want to thank you for being with us, Syrian-Canadian writer and researcher, speaking to us from Beirut, Lebanon.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, President Trump railed repeatedly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It was one of his first acts in office to pull out of any such agreement. He is now saying he wants to rejoin the TPP. We'll speak with Public Citizen's Lori Wallach. Stay with us.
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.