Tag: CIA

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

“Pay Any Price”

No single review or interview can do justice to Pay Any Price, the new book by James Risen that is the antithesis of what routinely passes for journalism about the “war on terror.” Instead of evasive tunnel vision, the book offers big-picture acuity, focusing on realities that are pervasive and vastly destructive.

Published this week, Pay Any Price throws down an urgent gauntlet. We should pick it up. After 13 years of militarized zealotry and fear-mongering in the name of fighting terrorism, the book — subtitled Greed, Power, and Endless War — zeros in on immense horrors being perpetrated in the name of national security.

As an investigative reporter for The New York Times, Risen has been battling dominant power structures for a long time. His new book is an instant landmark in the best of post-9/11 journalism. It’s also a wise response to repressive moves against him by the Bush and Obama administrations.

For more than six years — under threat of jail — Risen has refused to comply with subpoenas demanding that he identify sources for his reporting on a stupid and dangerous CIA operation.

A brief afterword in his new book summarizes Risen’s struggles with the Bush and Obama Justice Departments. He also provides a blunt account of his long-running conflicts with the Times hierarchy, which delayed some of his reporting for years — or spiked it outright — under intense White House pressure.

Self-censorship and internalization of official worldviews continue to plague the Washington press corps. In sharp contrast, Risen’s stubborn independence enables Pay Any Price to combine rigorous reporting with rare candor.

Here are a few quotes from the book:

• “Obama performed a neat political trick: He took the national security state that had grown to such enormous size under Bush and made it his own. In the process, Obama normalized the post-9/11 measures that Bush had implemented on a haphazard, emergency basis. Obama’s great achievement — or great sin — was to make the national security state permanent.”

• “In fact, as trillions of dollars have poured into the nation’s new homeland security-industrial complex, the corporate leaders at its vanguard can rightly be considered the true winners of the war on terror.”

• “There is an entire class of wealthy company owners, corporate executives, and investors who have gotten rich by enabling the American government to turn to the dark side. But they have done so quietly… The new quiet oligarchs just keep making money… They are the beneficiaries of one of the largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history.”

• “The United States is now relearning an ancient lesson, dating back to the Roman Empire. Brutalizing an enemy only serves to brutalize the army ordered to do it. Torture corrodes the mind of the torturer.”

• “Of all the abuses America has suffered at the hands of the government in its endless war on terror, possibly the worst has been the war on truth. On the one hand, the executive branch has vastly expanded what it wants to know: something of a vast gathering of previously private truths. On the other hand, it has ruined lives to stop the public from gaining any insight into its dark arts, waging a war on truth. It all began at the NSA.”

Fittingly, the book closes with a powerful chapter about the government’s extreme actions against whistleblowers. After all, whistleblowing and independent journalism are dire threats to the secrecy and deception that fuel the “war on terror.”

Now, Risen is in the national spotlight at a time when the U.S. government is launching yet another spiral of carnage for perpetual war. As a profound book, Pay Any Price has arrived with enormous potential to serve as a catalyst for deeper understanding and stronger opposition to abhorrent government policies.

Categories
Letter From The Editor Opinion

Sex, Lies, Videotapes, and Hackers

When I was in high school, I worked as a stockboy in a drugstore in my small Missouri hometown. My job was to replenish the shelves and do general grunt work. One of the store’s services was developing photos. The task fell to an older fellow (we’ll call him Joe), who spent hours in the store’s basement darkroom, turning rolls of film into family snapshots.

One day, as I was loading my two-wheeler with boxes to take upstairs, Joe called me over. “Look at this, kid,” he said, holding up a picture. I looked. And looked again. It was a photograph of female breasts. My 16-year-old eyes must have widened. Joe laughed and said, “Happens all the time. People take dirty pictures of themselves and hope I’ll develop them and not say anything.”

Then Joe opened a file drawer and pointed: “Look in there.” The drawer was filled with “dirty” pictures. “You wouldn’t believe some of the stuff I see,” he said.

The impulse to create nude or sexually titillating pictures has been with the human race forever — from cave drawings to ancient Hindu temples to Manet’s “Olympia” to Playboy. Small-town Missourians were not exempt from the urge.

Nor are celebrities. The news is filled this week with stories about the release of private nude and sexually explicit photos and videos of Jennifer Lawrence, Rihanna, Kim Kardashian, and others. The source of the photos obtained them by hacking into “the cloud.” Which is a lot like Joe’s file drawer, only bigger. Now, what the celebrities thought was private is public.

We may, in fact, be in the process of redefining the very term “private.” In a world of cellphone cameras, sexting, home-made sex videos, and internet servers that have access to it all, “private” only means you hope nobody ever opens the drawer where your stuff is. All your “secret” text and Facebook messages, all your “funny” racist emails, your “silly” naked phone pictures, your potentially libelous personal Tweets, your ice bucket challenge gone wrong — all are potentially available to the public, if someone wants to make it happen badly enough.

This too, is nothing new. Only the methodology has changed. The FBI and the CIA — and lately, the NSA — have been invading Americans’ privacy for decades. Even presidents have not been immune. John F. Kennedy’s sexual adventures were closely tracked by the FBI, for example. In those days, they used phone-taps, stealthy photographers, and informants. Now, it’s easier. We do the leg-work for them.

Being outed as gay or having smoked pot used to be enough to keep someone from public office. It was potential blackmail material. Now there are many openly gay public officials, and people shrug it off when they learn a politician once smoked pot. If the walls of privacy continue to crumble, revelations about a public figure’s sexy private pictures may soon engender the same response.

Categories
Politics Politics Feature

GADFLY: (Another) Tale of the Tapes

I don’t understand the scandal that’s arisen over the
destruction by the CIA of the tapes it made of interrogations. I mean, isn’t
this SOP for the Bush administration, and, indeed, its Republican forebears?
Isn’t that what the Bushies did with millions of e-mails that disappeared from
the White House’s servers, as well as with (and about) billions of dollars in
Iraq that have disappeared into the ether (a.k.a Halliburton). And, isn’t that
the way Papa Bush (and Reagan before him) handled the cover-up of the
Iran-Contra scandal?

It’s obvious what happened here. The CIA had to choose the
least of several evils: risk the tapes coming out, with a resulting blowback
from the Muslim world the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Abu Ghraib, or
destroy the evidence and throw yourself on the mercy of the courts (and the
public) by saying, “Hey, there was nothing illegal in the tapes,” or, “We did
it to protect our agents,” or some other such nonsense. Risk having all who
participated in “enhanced interrogation” (read: torture) prosecuted, both
domestically and by international tribunals as war criminals (with the tapes as
“Exhibit A”), or risk pissing off a few senators, congressmen and federal judges
about the destruction of evidence (read: obstruction of justice).

Remember what happened when the images of Abu Ghraib were
released to the public? The Bushies weren’t going to let that happen again. So,
this was obviously a cost/benefit analysis that was performed by the CIA,
probably with the complicity of the Pentagon (which authorized “enhanced
interrogation”), and arguably with the knowledge of the White House (it’s come
out that the President’s counsel, Harriet Miers, knew about the tapes), and the
determination was made that the consequences of destroying the tapes were far
less damaging than the consequences of having them come out.

If Republicans learned any of the lessons of Watergate, it
was that (a) that tapes can easily be destroyed, erased or altered (e.g., the
Rosemary Woods 18½ minute gap), and (b) that if you don’t destroy, erase or
alter tapes, they can be used to impeach and/or prosecute you (e.g., the
Butterfield taping system in the Nixon White House). The conventional wisdom
about the Watergate tapes which eventually did Nixon in was that if he had
destroyed them before they came to light, he might have been able to withstand
(or avoid altogether) impeachment, since they were the most damning evidence of
his criminality. So, why not destroy evidence of war crimes?

Part of the cost/benefit analysis done in reaching the
decision to destroy the tapes was that, just as happened with Abu Ghraib, only
the low-level flunkies would ever be held accountable for their destruction, and
for the mayhem they recorded. We’re already seeing that, with the finger being
pointed at a single, now-retired CIA official. The Republicans have learned how
easy it is to hoodwink the public, not to mention the Congress and the judicial
system, into believing that anything they or their minions do is only the
responsibility of the dupes who’ve done it, not the authors of policy
themselves. That’s how the prime movers of Abu Ghraib avoided their
accountability moment.

In the case of these tapes, can there be any doubt that the
folks who authorized the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including Rumsfeld,
his deputy Steve Cambone, David Addington (now Cheney’s consigliere), Alberto
Gonzales and, last but not least, John Yoo, would have been at risk for criminal
prosecution if the graphic result of their authorization had ever come to light?
And since no one has admitted to waterboarding (except for the accusations of
its victims), and since there is no independent evidence of its having been
practiced, the people responsible for implementing the policy that allowed it
will probably skate.

And, of course, despite the flurry of demands by members of
congress that the tapes’ destruction be investigated, Congress won’t do
anything, at least not anything meaningful. Oh sure, there will be some “show
hearings,” but nothing will come of them because Congress is a paper tiger.
Hasn’t it proved that by its failure to hold in contempt any of the witnesses
who’ve evaded its subpoenas, which it clearly has the power to issue? It’s
never done its own investigation of how or why we invaded Iraq (we’re still
waiting – two years later — for the Senate Intelligence Committee to release
the second part of its report on that issue). Nor has it dealt with the many
remaining unanswered questions about 9/11, or the entire Katrina debacle, has
it? It still hasn’t found out who was responsible for the billions of dollars
that went astray in Iraq, and it still hasn’t begun to hold Bush and Cheney
accountable for all the things (illegal wiretapping, rendition, etc.)
that warrant accountability (read: impeachment).

And getting the Justice Department to investigate the
tapes’ destruction would be another example of asking the fox to investigate a
break-in at the hen house. The new attorney general, Michael Mukasey, judging
from his confirmation hearings, has an obvious dilemma about whether or not
waterboarding (which is apparently shown on the destroyed tapes) is torture: He
was actively involved, as a judge, with the prosecution of one or more of the
“detainees” whose lawyers were either denied access to the tapes or told they
didn’t exist.

And, most importantly, the techniques which are undoubtedly
demonstrated on the tapes were facilitated by the Justice Department itself.
Remember, it was people like John Yoo and Jay Bybee who issued opinions
approving torture when they were part of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. That is
the legal authority the new CIA director, Michael Hayden, was relying on when he
told his employees, just before the story of the tapes’ destruction broke in the
New York Times, that the techniques recorded in the tapes were “legal.”

So the Congress obviously isn’t going to investigate the
tapes’ destruction (at least, not effectively), the justice department can’t
investigate it (or shouldn’t, on conflict of interest grounds). So who does that
leave to investigate it? A Special Counsel, maybe, like Patrick Fitzgerald, who
couldn’t even nail the malefactors-in-chief in the Plamegate scandal, settling
for little Scooter Libby? And, of course, Congress has little stomach left for
Special Counsels. The Democrats remember all too clearly the excesses of Ken
Starr, and the Republicans are still fuming from what they consider the excesses
of Patrick Fitzgerald.

The only thing that will happen as a result of the
destruction of the tapes will be sanctions imposed by the courts against the
government’s lawyers where terrorist prosecutions are pending for lying about
the existence of the tapes. And it is possible that one of those sanctions may
end up being the dismissal of one or more of those prosecutions. Big deal. Other
than that, I expect no one will be prosecuted for what is an obvious obstruction
of justice. Nor will they be prosecuted for authorizing the techniques that were
apparently graphically displayed on the destroyed tapes. No foul, no harm.

So, while the
guy they’re pointing the finger at for authorizing the destruction may go down
for the count, if the past is prologue, we can expect this most recent example
of Republican cover ups to be covered up, once again.