If Bill Clinton's White House had a senior staffer that committed treason, don't you think that the media would be jumping up and down screaming about it? But when George Bush's Administration outs a covert agent, which is TREASON, then the whole story goes away.
Great Hardball segment linked to this post.
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
9.02.2011
10.21.2010
Censored By The CIA
Some of you might remember my little run-in with my contracting employer a few years ago: the CIA. You know, the old "Waterboarding is Torture, and Torture is Wrong" blog post that got me fired. And for the record, I never wanted my job back. So you can stop bitching about that right now.
I bring up this history to illustrate a point. I wrote a book proposal just after "the incident" as my mother calls it, titled "Torture Doesn't Work". No big surprises. I relied on U.S. Civil War history about Andersonville, history from the Battle of Algiers and the Vietnamese War with the French before American involvement in that conflict. No classified sources. No classified information, as I was not old enough to be working for the U.S. Government during those conflicts. What could be safer? What could be more unclassified?
I have always maintained that the most important information is unclassified anyway.
My sources were all in libraries and computer servers. All were public domain history books. All I added was my analysis about how torture was proven to be ineffective in getting information or winning a war. The terror problems we have now started with the torture of Muslim clerics in Egyptian prisons. Torture didn't work for the French, either.
Have you guessed yet? The CIA is still reviewing my book proposal for classified information over four years later. If I went hog-wild and self-published that book, I could go to prison or be made a pauper by malicious prosecution.
When debating this topic amongst your friends, remember this little story. And then tell me that an intelligence review is not also a political review.
I bring up this history to illustrate a point. I wrote a book proposal just after "the incident" as my mother calls it, titled "Torture Doesn't Work". No big surprises. I relied on U.S. Civil War history about Andersonville, history from the Battle of Algiers and the Vietnamese War with the French before American involvement in that conflict. No classified sources. No classified information, as I was not old enough to be working for the U.S. Government during those conflicts. What could be safer? What could be more unclassified?
I have always maintained that the most important information is unclassified anyway.
My sources were all in libraries and computer servers. All were public domain history books. All I added was my analysis about how torture was proven to be ineffective in getting information or winning a war. The terror problems we have now started with the torture of Muslim clerics in Egyptian prisons. Torture didn't work for the French, either.
Have you guessed yet? The CIA is still reviewing my book proposal for classified information over four years later. If I went hog-wild and self-published that book, I could go to prison or be made a pauper by malicious prosecution.
When debating this topic amongst your friends, remember this little story. And then tell me that an intelligence review is not also a political review.
10.21.2009
Michael Hayden, Former CIA Director, Tells a Whopper
The former director of the CIA, Michael V. Hayden, reveals that the purpose of keeping the CIA interrogation memos secret was to preserve the right to torture people in the future.
He writes on CNN.com that releasing the CIA interrogation memos was a "mistake" and claimed "to reveal the details of this technique would tie the hands of a president in a future emergency -- since, after all, laws and policies and presidents could always change"
He means the policy about torturing people. He means "tie the hands" of any President who wants to torture people.
Michael Hayden: "Based on a declaration I signed, the judge had agreed in 2008 to allow us to continue to protect -- on the grounds of national security -- the specifics of waterboarding, a technique that had not actually been used since March 2003 and one the agency had not even authorized for use in years."
If what you are saying is the truth, why would it have been necessary to fire me for saying that "waterboarding is torture, and torture is wrong" on my classified blog? Something doesn't add up. If the practice had discontinued, and there were no plans for its revival, then I would have merely been reprimanded and my blog taken away.
Instead, I was fired and put under investigation for my clearance. I was followed everywhere I went for a week and a half. I am blackballed from my former profession. That's fine. I took the risk and will accept the consequences. However, do not pretend that exactly how you torture people is itself classified. The only classification is that it happened at all, and you wanted to be able to do it again. That information is not critical to national security, it is political.
Michael Hayden claims that the choice to release the CIA interrogation memos was political. It was. So was your desire to keep them secret. By exposing the illegal practices the CIA was engaged in under the previous Administration, President Obama let everyone know that waterboarding and torture were not acceptable practices. He further let them know that breaking the law and violating human rights will eventually be exposed. Good for him.
He writes on CNN.com that releasing the CIA interrogation memos was a "mistake" and claimed "to reveal the details of this technique would tie the hands of a president in a future emergency -- since, after all, laws and policies and presidents could always change"
He means the policy about torturing people. He means "tie the hands" of any President who wants to torture people.
Michael Hayden: "Based on a declaration I signed, the judge had agreed in 2008 to allow us to continue to protect -- on the grounds of national security -- the specifics of waterboarding, a technique that had not actually been used since March 2003 and one the agency had not even authorized for use in years."
If what you are saying is the truth, why would it have been necessary to fire me for saying that "waterboarding is torture, and torture is wrong" on my classified blog? Something doesn't add up. If the practice had discontinued, and there were no plans for its revival, then I would have merely been reprimanded and my blog taken away.
Instead, I was fired and put under investigation for my clearance. I was followed everywhere I went for a week and a half. I am blackballed from my former profession. That's fine. I took the risk and will accept the consequences. However, do not pretend that exactly how you torture people is itself classified. The only classification is that it happened at all, and you wanted to be able to do it again. That information is not critical to national security, it is political.
Michael Hayden claims that the choice to release the CIA interrogation memos was political. It was. So was your desire to keep them secret. By exposing the illegal practices the CIA was engaged in under the previous Administration, President Obama let everyone know that waterboarding and torture were not acceptable practices. He further let them know that breaking the law and violating human rights will eventually be exposed. Good for him.
12.19.2007
Destroyed CIA Tapes and the Evil Truth
Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of torture and OK'd it. So now hearings are being held because CIA videotapes of waterboarding were destroyed. Granted, it probably was a crime. But destroying tapes is not the real issue here. It is Nancy Pelosi's lack of courageous leadership in a time of national crisis.
So Nancy Pelosi has feet of clay because she knew of the detainee abuses and tacitly endorsed them. That's why the Democrats have been lying down on the issue of torture.
They feel they can redeem themselves by screaming and moaning about some tapes being destroyed. How about the failure to uphold the Constitution? How about being a real leader and saying "This is not acceptable."
Speaker Pelosi's claims that she did not know waterboarding was actually being done instead of being talked about are ridiculous. As soon as you hear the mention of a torture technique created during the Inquisition, you should object to any prospect of its use. Why were they talking about it to begin with, anyway? Because they were intending to use it.
Nancy Pelosi, I am ashamed and disgusted by you.
So Nancy Pelosi has feet of clay because she knew of the detainee abuses and tacitly endorsed them. That's why the Democrats have been lying down on the issue of torture.
They feel they can redeem themselves by screaming and moaning about some tapes being destroyed. How about the failure to uphold the Constitution? How about being a real leader and saying "This is not acceptable."
Speaker Pelosi's claims that she did not know waterboarding was actually being done instead of being talked about are ridiculous. As soon as you hear the mention of a torture technique created during the Inquisition, you should object to any prospect of its use. Why were they talking about it to begin with, anyway? Because they were intending to use it.
Nancy Pelosi, I am ashamed and disgusted by you.
3.19.2007
Chavez Sounds Crazy
Despite his appealing to supporters in Venezuela with frantic cries of CIA targeting, Chavez is a world leader. He speaks not to one audience, but to two or more. That's why he is losing it. He will not increase his standing or influence internationally by ranting about CIA plots to kill him. He will decrease it.
And no, the United States does not have a stellar history in Latin America. But that does not mean that anyone is trying to kill Chavez now. He is not so important, nor such a threat, that he would be worth it.
What would killing Chavez do? Nothing really. Another person would take his place to complain about the U.S.
Econo-Girl maintains that if the CIA was really intent on killing Chavez, we'd all be talking about his death instead of the prospect of it. Not that the CIA does that kind of thing these days anyway. It's not like it was a successful strategy in the past. Remember the exploding cigars?
And no, the United States does not have a stellar history in Latin America. But that does not mean that anyone is trying to kill Chavez now. He is not so important, nor such a threat, that he would be worth it.
What would killing Chavez do? Nothing really. Another person would take his place to complain about the U.S.
Econo-Girl maintains that if the CIA was really intent on killing Chavez, we'd all be talking about his death instead of the prospect of it. Not that the CIA does that kind of thing these days anyway. It's not like it was a successful strategy in the past. Remember the exploding cigars?
3.07.2007
Chavez Is Losing It
Venezuela's Chavez claims that CIA assassins are trying to kill him. Even if that were true, which it isn't, he sounds like a lunatic talking about it. Chavez obviously has no one around him who will tell him about this. Isolation for a guy at the top is never a good thing.
Chavez had a real opportunity to lead prior to the United Nation's sulfur comments about Bush. Now he adding to his image damage by going on about CIA assassinations. Who's going to ally with a guy like that? His unexpected outbursts make him scary to his friends, not the United States.
Chavez had a real opportunity to lead prior to the United Nation's sulfur comments about Bush. Now he adding to his image damage by going on about CIA assassinations. Who's going to ally with a guy like that? His unexpected outbursts make him scary to his friends, not the United States.
1.31.2007
Extraordinary Renditions
Germany has issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA operatives. It seems they kidnapped a German citizen, flew him to Afghanistan, and interrogated him. The victim claims he was tortured. The Secretary of State has allegedly apologized for the incident since it was mistaken identity.
Imagine that. The wrong guy.
Can we go one step further and say that the same thinking that led to kidnapping the wrong people on foreign soil may have led to the wrong people being interrogated elsewhere?
The issue is systemic. The thinking is endemic. "Everything has changed since September 11." Not our allies, it seems. Not the legal structure of the world. Not the need to communicate with others about our intentions in a bid to get their cooperation.
Just as Russia can't kill on foreign soil and get away without consequences, the U.S. can't kidnap people and interrogate them in other countries. Maybe this is all just leftover Cold War ego.
Imagine that. The wrong guy.
Can we go one step further and say that the same thinking that led to kidnapping the wrong people on foreign soil may have led to the wrong people being interrogated elsewhere?
The issue is systemic. The thinking is endemic. "Everything has changed since September 11." Not our allies, it seems. Not the legal structure of the world. Not the need to communicate with others about our intentions in a bid to get their cooperation.
Just as Russia can't kill on foreign soil and get away without consequences, the U.S. can't kidnap people and interrogate them in other countries. Maybe this is all just leftover Cold War ego.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)