We begin today in London with something positive. Imagine that.

From there we travel back in time to Jon Stuart’s interview with John Yoo last night. Unfortunately, it was as about as exciting and purposeful as watching paint dry. Slimy torture advocates on television 1 – 0 Jon Stuart.

From there we jump back into the present and travel to Afghanistan where US General Stan McCrystal is declaring the Afghan ‘surge’ a success. Aren’t they always?

Meanwhile, in an attempt to ensure that the Shia block in Iraq doesn’t achieve an utterly overwhelming majority in that country’s upcoming elections, the CIA is reportedly holding secret talks in Yemen and Syria with the King of Clubs, former Iraqi Vice President Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the current leader of the now banned Ba’athist Party. Even more interesting is the fact that…

“Last week it was reported that the Yemeni government, at America’s behest, founded a new spy agency specifically to fill with former Ba’athists who fled Iraq during the 2003 US invasion.”

Just so you know, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri remains the 6th most wanted individual on Iraq’s 55 Most Wanted list. I suppose if the CIA is talking to him then that ‘reward money’ is out the window.

January 12, 2010

The lead-in reads…

“The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan was an al-Qaeda double agent, US media reports say.”

The attack was, according to most media outlets, one of the deadliest in the CIA’s history, an assertion that has me rather confused. According to a leading member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, two of the ‘CIA agents’ were actually Blackwater contractors, which means that only five CIA agents were killed in the attack, along with one member of Jordanian intelligence. That said, why has it taken this long for the facts to emerge?

“A leading member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has told The Nation that she will launch an investigation into why two Blackwater contractors were among the dead in the December 30 suicide bombing at the CIA station at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan. “The Intelligence Committees and the public were led to believe that the CIA was phasing out its contracts with Blackwater and now we find out that there is this ongoing presence,” said Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky, chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, in an interview. “Is the CIA once again deceiving us about the relationship with Blackwater?”

In December, the CIA announced that the agency had canceled its contract with Blackwater to work on the agency’s drone bombing campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan and said Director Leon Panetta ordered a review of all existing CIA contracts with Blackwater. “At this time, Blackwater is not involved in any CIA operations other than in a security or support role,” CIA spokesman George Little said December 11.

But Schakowsky said the fact that two Blackwater personnel were in such close proximity to the December 30 suicide bomber–an alleged double agent, who was reportedly meeting with CIA agents including the agency’s second-ranking officer in Afghanistan when he blew himself up–shows how “deeply enmeshed” Blackwater remains in sensitive CIA operations, including those CIA officials claim it no longer participates in, such as intelligence gathering and briefings with valuable agency assets. The two Blackwater men were reportedly in the room for the expected briefing by the double agent, Humam Khalil Muhammed Abu Mulal al-Balawi, who claimed to have recently met with Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri.”

[…]

“While the CIA said in December that Blackwater only continues its security and support role for the CIA, NBC News reported that the Blackwater men were not doing security at the time of the blast. The two Blackwater operatives killed in the bombing have been identified as Jeremy Wise, a 35-year old ex-Navy SEAL, and 46-year-old Dane Clark Paresi.”

I’ve said it in the past and I’ll say it again. The United States has 16 different intelligence agencies. That said, what in the hell were private contractors doing in a meeting in which a supposed high-level asset was to be debriefed?

If you’re an American you have the right to know the answer to that question, because it’s your tax dollars that are filling the coffers of Erik Prince and his private army.

January 6, 2010

I have to admit, the amplified outrage emanating from the Central Intelligence Agency over the loss of 7 of their people in a recent attack at FOB Chapman is, to me, rather astounding. I obviously sympathize with the families of those who perished, but the greater hypocrisy being displayed by the agency is disgusting.

While it can be claimed that the CIA is an agency at the disposal of the executive, and that it carries out operations directed by it, the reality is that as an organization it has, since its inception, been a conduit for those within the military establishment to influence foreign policy. The CIA has been involved in almost every major covert operation undertaken by the United States since the late 40’s. It has played a major role in the removal of foreign heads of state, in the rigging of elections, funding paramilitary organizations and terrorist groups, economic and industrial espionage, and yes, even assassination.

From its covert support of the death squads in El Salvador to the role it played in the Chilean coup, the CIA has played the role of enabler for some of the most appalling regimes and groups in the world. That said, the organization does not merely have blood on its hands – the walls at Langley are painted with it.

The individual responsible for the attack was a Jordanian double agent – a flipped al-Qaeda sympathizer that, in the end, played one of the Middle East’s better intelligence agencies. Seven CIA agents were killed – and yet, during 2009, CIA Predator drones were responsible for killing over 700 innocent civilians in Pakistan alone while attempting to strike targets of opportunity. So you do the mathematics of morality. The death of 7 CIA agents has received overwhelming coverage compared to the deaths of some 700 innocent Pakistanis. Ultimately, the impression produced is that their lives were worth far more.

The story behind the attack is ironic to say the least. The perpetrator, Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, was, as previously mentioned, an al-Qaeda sympathizer that was arrested last year and supposedly ‘reformed’ by Jordanian intelligence. He was then sent to the Afghan-Pakistan frontier in an attempt to infiltrate a group believed to know the location of Ayman al-Zawahri. From there the rest was simple. Balawi contacted his Jordanian handler and informed him that he had information regarding the location of Zawahri. He was driven to FOB Chapman wearing a vest packed with explosives and upon his arrival killed his handler, Ali bin Zeid, who, according to initial media reports, died on a ‘humanitarian mission’. Zeid was the eighth victim, not to mention the first cousin of the King of Jordan. The other seven were CIA agents.

So, in essence, the failure of a joint Jordanian-American intelligence operation was ultimately the cause. He was their man, placed by them, and thus all but gifted the opportunity.

Updated: The MSM is reporting on it now.

January 4, 2010

Being convicted of a crime in absentia is, as far as I’m concerned, laughable when it comes to the Central Intelligence Agency. When charges were originally brought by the Italians in the case of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, the CIA scoffed at them, claiming that none of those involved in his rendition, and subsequent torture in Egypt, would ever be extradited to face trial in Italy. The operation was one conducted by the CIA in 2003 with the aid of Italy’s military intelligence agency.

The trial itself began in 2007. Today, two years later, the judge presiding over the case handed out sentences to those involved, including members of the CIA. In all, 23 Americans were convicted in the case, though the US government refuses to extradite them.

The irony, of course, is that those involved have gotten away with two crimes. The first – the illegal kidnapping and rendition of an individual. The second – the fact that the United States, which professes to champion the rule of law, refuses to extradite those responsible. Even more, that they took part in a highly illegal program that is, by its very nature, in complete contravention of international laws, conventions, and foreign laws. It is, in fact, even in contravention of American law.

The CIA can abduct whomever they wish, render them to countries in which they’re tortured – though they maintain that isn’t the case, and the practice is considered excusable. But dare to convict and sentence those involved in that practice and the reaction of the United States is one of contempt and anger.

That’s one of the luxuries of being a hypocritical global superpower.

November 4, 2009

If there’s one thing that many of us are good at it’s choosing which aspects of government we claim to be for and which we claim to be against when it suits our purposes. Given the nonsense that the national healthcare debate has sparked in the United States, though calling it a debate is entirely misrepresentative, it’s not been uncommon to see many railing against what they perceive to be the dangers of big government and their belief that the very existence of American democracy is at stake. Many of those people tend to evoke the sanctity of the Constitution claiming that its principles are under threat by an administration bent on conducting a full blown authoritarian crusade.

Despite the fact that it utterly boggles the mind that this sort of tripe is getting the attention that it is, there are those in the United States that actually believe that President Obama is a radical bent on transforming the nation into something unrecognizable – and all because of proposed healthcare legislation that in most every other industrialized nation in the world would be considered weak at best. It is here that a very important question has to be asked though – what about the transgressions of the Bush Administration with regards to the Constitution?

Like it or not, the passing of the Patriot Act was one of the most glaring attacks on the sanctity of the Constitution in US history. Further, other initiatives implemented during the Bush era were also equally as shocking, such as warrantless wiretaps, illegal detention, and the implementation of a system of prisoner abuse that was, by no means, the brainchild of ‘a few bad apples’ at Abu Ghraib. Those that spoke out about those issues were, of course, viewed as absolute lunatics at the time by the very same people that are now using the ‘sanctity’ of the Constitution to defend their position.

Lost in the white noise currently prevalent in the US is Attorney General Eric Holder’s preliminary investigation into the use of torture by the CIA. With regards to the ‘sanctity’ of the principles of the Constitution, never mind federal criminal law, this issue trumps almost everything else.

From CIA veteran Ray McGovern…

“For the CIA supervisors and operatives responsible for torture, the chickens are coming home to roost; that is, if President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder mean it when they say no one is above the law – and if they don’t fall victim to brazen intimidation.

Unable to prevent Holder from starting an investigation of torture and other war crimes that implicate CIA officials past and present, those same CIA officials, together with what those in the intelligence trade call “agents of influence” in the media, are pulling out all the stops to quash the Justice Department’s preliminary investigation.

In what should be seen as a bizarre twist, seven CIA directors – including three who are themselves implicated in planning and conducting torture and assassination – have asked the president to call off Holder.

Please, tell me how could the whole thing be more transparent?

The most vulnerable of the Gang of Seven, George Tenet, is not the brightest star in the heavens, but even he was able to figure out years ago that he and his accomplices might end up having to pay a heavy price for violating international and U.S. criminal law.

In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet notes that what the CIA needed were “the right authorities” and policy determination to do the bidding of then-president George W. Bush:

“Sure, it was a risky proposition when you looked at it from a policy maker’s point of view. We were asking for and we would be given as many authorities as CIA had ever had. Things could blow up. People, me among them, could end up spending some of the worst days of our lives justifying before congressional overseers our new freedom to act.” (p. 178)

Tenet and his masters assumed, correctly, that given the mood of the times and the lack of spine among lawmakers, congressional “overseers” would relax into their accustomed role as congressional overlookers.

Unfortunately for him, Tenet seems to have confined his concern at the time to the invertebrates in Congress, not anticipating a rejuvenated Justice Department that might take its role in enforcing the law seriously.”

In the end, you can lie a nation into war, you can even disregard international and domestic law, and people will tolerate it. But try and propose changes to ensure that those without heath coverage are going to receive it and all hell breaks loose.

Now you tell me – what’s wrong with this picture?

September 21, 2009