Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAssassinations Anyone? CIA Claims of Cancelled Campaign are Hogwash
CIA director Leon Panetta just told Congress he cancelled a secret operation to assassinate al-Qaida leaders. The CIA campaign, authorized in 2001, had not yet become operational, claimed Panetta.
I respect Panetta, but his claim is humbug. The U.S. has been trying to kill al-Qaida personnel (real and imagined) since the Clinton administration. These efforts continue under President Barack Obama. Claims by Congress it was never informed are hogwash.
The CIA and Pentagon have been in the assassination business since the early 1950s, using American hit teams or third parties. For example, a CIA-organized attempt to assassinate Lebanon's leading Shia cleric, Muhammad Fadlallah, using a truck bomb, failed, but killed 83 civilians and wounded 240.
In 1975, I was approached to join the Church Committee of the U.S. Congress investigating CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, Congo's Patrice Lumumba, Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem, and Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Add to America's hit list Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan's Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Indonesia's Sukarno, Chile's Marxist leaders and, very likely, Yasser Arafat.
Libya's Moammar Khadaffy led me by the hand through the ruins of his private quarters, showing me where a 2,000-pound U.S. bomb hit his bedroom, killing his infant daughter. Most Pakistanis believe, rightly or wrongly, the U.S. played a role in the assassination of President Zia ul-Haq.
To quote Josef Stalin's favourite saying, "No man. No problem."
Assassination was outlawed in the U.S. in 1976, but that did not stop attempts by its last three administrations to emulate Israel's Mossad in the "targeted killing" of enemies. The George W. Bush administration, and now the Obama White House, sidestepped American law by saying the U.S. was at war, and thus legally killing "enemy combatants." But Congress never declared war.
CHENEY'S SQUAD
Washington is buzzing about a secret death squad run by Dick Cheney when he was vice-president and his protege, the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. This gung-ho general led the Pentagon's super secret Special Operations Command, which has become a major rival to the CIA in the business of "wet affairs" (as the KGB used to call assassinations) and covert raids.
Democrats are all over Cheney on the death squad issue, as are some Republicans -- in order to shield Bush. But the orders likely came from Bush, who bears ultimate responsibility.
Americans are now being deluged by sordid scandals from the Bush years about torture, kidnapping, brutal secret prisons, brainwashing, mass surveillance of American's phones, e-mail, and banking.
In 2001, as this column previously reported, U.S. Special Forces oversaw the murder at Dasht-e-Leili, Afghanistan, of thousands of captured Taliban fighters by Uzbek forces of the Communist warlord, Rashid Dostum.
CIA was paying Dostum, a notorious war criminal from the 1980s, millions to fight Taliban. Dostum is poised to become vice-president of the U.S.-installed government of President Hamid Karzai. Bush hushed up this major war crime.
America is hardly alone in trying to rub out enemies or those who thwart its designs. Britain's MI-6 and France's SDECE were notorious for sending out assassins. The late chief of SDECE told me how he had been ordered by then-president Francois Mitterrand to kill Libya's Khadaffy. Israel's hit teams are feared around the globe.
DISGRACE
History shows that state-directed murder is more often than not counterproductive and inevitably runs out of control, disgracing nations and organizations that practise it.
But U.S. assassins are still at work. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. drones are killing tribesmen almost daily. Over 90% are civilians. Americans have a curious notion that killing people from the air is not murder or even a crime, but somehow clean.
U.S. Predator attacks are illegal and violate U.S. and international law. Pakistan's government, against which no war has been declared, is not even asked permission or warned of the attacks.
Dropping 2,000-pound bombs on apartment buildings in Gaza or Predator raids on Pakistan's tribal territory are as much murder as exploding car bombs or suicide bombers.
65 Comments so far
Show AllThis whole blogstream is so good that
I'm tempted to print it all to add to
the stacks of paper, books and mags that
surround me
Mike Corbeil, benningwentworth--
I quite agree. The CIA is only one of the entities swimming in the alphabet soup of state security agencies.
There's considerable lateral cooperation between agencies: operatives (such as LHO) may have a pedigree that incorporates a number of military and civilian intelligence agencies. Operatives are "lent" between agencies, with or without ulterior missions and full knowledge of the borrower, lender, and lendee.
Anyone who can keep track of who's really working for who ought to have no problem solving Rubik's Cube with their eyes closed. Of course, the agencies don't always coordinate their activities harmoniously, so there's always a potential for intra-agency and internecine conflicts, working at cross-purposes, plots within plots, etc.
Within the fog of the state security network, an endless lobster quadrille takes place-- the NSA steps forward while the CIA steps back. But they all join the death-dance, and all place loyalty to the security state above loyalty to the nation, regardless of their oaths of office.
So my comments apply equally as well to the NSA and all of the other clandestine services; truth is classified, and disseminated on a need-to-know basis-- and the rule of thumb is that the higher-ups don't necessarily "need to know", and the public DEFINITELY doesn't "need to know".
· Yr Obd't Servant
And we can include the U.S. State Dept and its NED, or certainly the NED, anyway. Whenever we read or hear of the NED operating anywhere in foreign countries, then we can "rest assured" that the U.S. is up to hellbent ungoodness ... [again].
USAID's no better, but perhaps it's sole role is propaganda (?). It's role certainly isn't about doing any real good, but perhaps it's only to serve as a propaganda (of deception) scheme (?). Meanwhile, the NED apparently, purportedly and credibly anyway, has very much replaced use of CIA (ops branch), after it drew too much (for the "elites") attention due to its black covert ops.
National Endowment [for Democracy], eh? US AID; are we kidding? What aid? Propaganda for deceiving others is [not] aid; not as we're supposed to be deceived into believing it is, anyway. It's aid for the ruling avaricial "elites", but not for humanity. They are enemies of democracy.
NED and USAID are deception devices. And, again, the NED has purportedly come to be used to very much replace the CIA, ops branch, after it had drawn too much attention due to its covert black ops. This has to do with deposing political leaders, as well as assasinating the ones who the ruling "elites" of the U.S. government want out of the way, but have been unsuccessful in having overthrown.
The State Dept is no better. It might not directly carry out any of the "dirty work", but it's as guilty as the rest.
The CIA/U.S. Military planned and engineered coups are quite revealing as to what we can expect when the corporo-military takeover of the homeland is completed. No unauthorized gatherings of more than three people will be permitted, there'll be a 6pm curfew, censorship of the media (already partially in effect via self-censorship) and leftists and other anti-coup types will be incarcerated. That's because invariably fascist Empires do unto their own, what they do unto people in the occupied lands. Unless, of course, we rise up en masse, post haste, whereupon, it'll be up to us, what sort of world.
"That's because invariably fascist Empires do unto their own, what they do unto people in the occupied lands."
In case you haven't noticed, USA Incorporated's paid representatives have already discovered that they can treat the domestic populace with the same disdain that they've shown the rest of the world for many years. In fact, their current concerns are probably higher for certain evolving aspects of foreign resistance.
Whatever made Americans think that they would forever be immune to the kind of treatment their government hands out to "lesser" peoples is beyond comprehension. You can already be declared an "enemy combattant" with no recourse whatever and there are bounties offered elsewhere. Think that will never come home?
there was a short news clip today somewhere - was it a new york times or something? - that the FBI "raided" the offices of "public defenders" attorneys in Florida.
er...........fascism anyone?
something sinister has been evolving in the USA - in which the supposed "defenders of PUBLIC interest" - such as for safety, security, etc...: FBI - Police, CIA, NSA -
are instead - becoming or always have been INTIMIDATORS of PUBLIC interests where public interests clash with POWERFUL PRIVATE interests of a certain nature :
Militarism, Corporatism, Wall StreetISM, and similar things.
and then "public defenders" BECOME "outsiders" and "suspects".....should what they DEFEND - the interest of the public CLASH with the interests of private corporate entities.
Merely 2 days ago, here on CD, I read numerous posts lamenting the long life of Robert McNamara. In two of posts individuals had an opportunity to harm or kill McNamara, and the posters stated (apparently real) regret over their failure to murder him. Where is the outrage from the posters in this board?
At what point do "enemies" become worthy of death; only when they are American? Are only foreign leaders of openly hostile groups deserving of protection from assassination?
I am not a fan of the operational side (as opposed to the intelligence-collection side) of the CIA. I feel like the war-time killing that must be done is best accomplished my the military. I also feel that a few, well-controlled assassignations of hostile leaders makes more sense than bombing cities and shooting ordinary foot soldiers.
If the argument is for no war at all...OK. The next ballot is in about 16 months. Let's get busy.
I also feel that a few, well-controlled assassignations of hostile leaders makes more sense than bombing cities and shooting ordinary foot soldiers.
And in the context of an illegal war this statment makes me want to vomit. Who are the hostile leaders? And who decides? If you asked me GWB and Obama and Harper and Merkle and all the rest of our fearless leaders are hostile. Shall we then assassinate all of them?
Rule of law. Rule of international law. Prosecute leaders who break the law.
Are you an elected national leader, chosen by the people to make decisions on the initiation and conduct of war? If so, you might commission your own assassination squads, or you might not. That would be between you, your God, and your electorate.
I believe you are overreacting to our silence on those who bragged about wanting to kill McNamara. Everyone has killer thoughts and desires. What makes us civilized is that we don't carry them out.
Now as to who deserves death and who doesn't, I really don't think that is our big beef here. We want TRANSPARENCY. You are a government agency that kills people but you don't tell us about it because we can't "handle it". Well then you don't deserve to be a government agency, period. You work for us, pal. Yeah, I know that's not the reality but we are sick and tired of this myth pushing bullshit of our pristine government boyscouts who only kill the bad guys. The entire PR effort by our media and government to position us on the side of the angels is nationalistic bullshit. That is our beef. But I understand the unwillingness on the part of these agencies to be transparent. They would no longer be able to justify their budgets or existence.
I'm not really seeing a huge call for transparency in these posts. Mostly, I see a lot of folks calling the CIA, Special Operations Forces, and other government outfits that go do "dirty work" EEEVILLL. Well, I hate to let ya'll in on this, but there are a lot of bad folk out there who, as they say around here just "need killin'". It sure is a lot easier to kill them if they don't know when we're coming.
That said, the civilian leadership of this nation need to saddle up and start making real decisions about who our enemies are. In warfare, there are no angels or boy scouts. The whole business is pure hell and damned ugly. Politicians are afraid to supervise the military and clandestine forces for fear of "something bad" happening and not being able to blame someone else. (They also have notoriously big mouths about the really cool stuff.) Don't blame the (mostly) good men and women who do the hard work for the lack of decent oversight and direction.
As for Americans not being able to "handle it", I don't see it. Most folks would prefer not to hear about the latest assassination over breakfast, but completely support killing the bad guys when they feel like the folks they voted for are in charge.
The solution comes back to the same thing. If you don't like the folks in charge of securing our national safety and prosperity, VOTE!
For the posts alleging that the "alphabet soup" guys are coming for Americans next, leave that crap to the black helicopter fringe. Those folks are nutty enough for all of us.
What Rubbish. Who "NEEDS KILLING" and who decides such?
Don"t blame the men and women that commit criminal acts because they need Direction? What kind of nonsense is that? Are they children with no minds of their own? Wind up automans that someone else MUST be in control of?
So when the CIA was testing Mind Control drugs on American Citizens, it was not really their fault and it was something that had to be done to get the bad guys?
Back to the "CIA bad!" argument again. The discussion here is about whether assassination programs are legitimate actions of a government, worthwhile activities, and adequately supervised in practice.
Positions on either side of these questions have validity, and somewhere across the spectrum is a reasonably good answer. Like it or not, national leaders (of this and every other nation) send people out to conduct warfare, openly or clandestinely. That decision is the "who needs killing" call. If you want your nation to make a different call, elect someone else!
As for the mind control drugs, call the helicopters.
It's been decades since my Dynamics of Interpersonal Communication courses in college, but I still think in terms of "roles and rules" analysis when appropriate.
During the past year, I've delved into JFK assassination reading after someone recommended James Douglass' excellent "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".
Regardless of what one believes about the truth of the JFK tragedy, and even if one is generally aware that in our (post-WWII) lifetime, Amerikan state security agencies have multiplied and prospered, the JFK material brings home just how effectively the state security agencies have become a shadow government unto themselves.
As with US military forces in Iraq and "Af-Pak", the CIA has the capability to build installations and run operations for every kind of clandestine action deemed necessary, up to and including assassination. It's SOP, and I very much doubt that the "reforms" imposed after the Church hearings substantially curtailed the CIA's penchant for doing whatever it desired.
The Patriot Act and other post-9/11 legislation put the Security State on steroids; is there any reason to believe that the CIA and lesser state security services doesn't have more financial resources, and less "transparency", than ever? Congressional oversight is a bad joke, and remember-- the CIA has a long history for forging alliances with banksters, etc. to obtain "off the books" funding for projects when necessary. So it's not as if the CIA is hamstrung by the scrutiny of elected politicians.
The politicians, despite a few exceptions that test the rules, are afraid of, and abashed by, the CIA. Again, apart from occasional squawks, our elected misrepresentatives DEFER to the CIA.
Which brings us back to the "roles and rules" thing.
As noted, even the blandest review of the CIAs internal workings and testimony during the Warren Commission reveals what every viewer of "Mission: Impossible" understands: that CIA members, and especially officials, believe that they are absolutely correct to lie and deceive to protect sources (and themselves), even-- perhaps especially-- in public statements including sworn testimony.
So, as a RULE, the CIA arrogates to itself the unfettered right to baldly lie to legitimate authorities and the public. Panetta might as well be the guy who says: everything I say is a lie-- including this statement. What possible credibility could attach to such a man in such a position?
I think it's much wiser, though not necessarily accurate, to assume the opposite of any public pronouncement involving the CIA or any other state security service.
When Panetta claims to have "cancelled" a program, for instance, why should anyone confidently believe that 1.) he even did what he claims he did; 2.) his nominal subordinates complied with his directive?
In summary, what possible basis is there for believing and trusting public officials speaking on behalf of a powerful network of agencies working under an "anti-ethos" of amorality that justifies and practices mendacity in the name of "protecting" a "free" society?
Geez, I'm running out of ironic (aka scare) quotes.
· Yr Obd't Servant
There is a fascinating interview, recorded a couple of weeks ago, with Daniel Ellsberg, by Scott Horton at antiwar.com/radio. Ellsberg talks about his role in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and about his role as a military analyst prior to his releasing the Pentagon Papers. Scott Horton, at one point, expressed his bewilderment at how Ellsberg and others, could have ignored, and even promoted, blatant lies and distortions for so long.
It was interesting to hear Ellsberg searching for an answer. He was very candid and honest and essentially said that it's easy for people in the halls of power to get caught up in the secrecy of a group lie, it tends to enhance their sense of self importance. Thousands can get caught up in it.
He said it much better than I so I encourage others to give him a listen.
AMAZING perception!
Sioux Rose
O.S. Excellent analysis; but actually the sages of Ancient China worked this one over two thousand years ago. In the I ching, of the 64 life diagrams defined as KUAS, # 43 speaks about the nature of evil and how a society is best advised to handle it. The modus operandi related by these Ancient teachers is timeless and contemporary. In short, they make the compelling case that as soon as anyone begins a direct fight with evil (this would refer to the CIA types who think their missions will relieve the world of horrible dictators and the like) one inevitably ends up taking on evil's own methods. Thus the struggle is lost! And as we know, these types of vendettas tend to escalate and cause unexpected blowback, a/k/a karma's boomerang.
The I ching goes further to present the best remedy for evil: it is turning FROM what does not work, what is considered "evil," and instead focusing one's efforts on what is good. In other words were America to take the billions (trillions perhaps) wasted on war and armament, the tools of unspeakable destruction, and instead use that same money to build schools, plant crops, give the poorest of the poor micro-loans, construct clinics and provide birth control, the "need" for conflict would lessen considerably. Evil would run out of targets because most persons would be pleased by the social good thriving in their midst.
As soon as our "good guys" take up arms against others, they become the evil they purport to fight. It is time that we, citizens of modern times, took a look at what the sages of times past recognized since we appear to be running in increasingly dangerous karmic circles. Hubris has blinded us to the lie of progress. What counts is how a society treats its members, not how many nuclear warheads it can count on its rosters.
O.S. Excellent analysis; but actually the sages of Ancient China worked this one over two thousand years ago
________________________________________________
Well, my dear Sioux Rose, I'm not too proud, nor fool enough, to rebut your implication that a bit of prophylactic knowledge of the sages of Ancient China would have saved me a great deal of needless cogitation and suffering, and plucking my own nerves like a harp in a vain effort to re-invent the hexagram.
PS: I always mean to read the sages, but I never seem to get the thyme.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Sioux Rose
O.S. With your love for satire I would not be surprised if you were the original author of "School for Scandal." There was enough time for you to take a bow out, and return as the obedient servant to fulfill this incarnation.
Beautifully voiced.
Thank you.
SiouxRose -- your awareness of so many crucial things in the world is simply amazing!
Sioux Rose
TEDDY: You are very kind & complimentary. I have read a good deal on diverse subjects and was blessed with a GREAT memory. The peace pipe (occasionally indulged in) happily has not compromised that asset in the least!
AGG: Thank you very much. Some of the concepts I wish to share here and with clients/friends/readers are quite complex. It's good practice batting some very old and very novel ideas into this ring! Some get hit back out of the park, while others seem to score virtual home runs!
"In summary, what possible basis is there for believing and trusting public officials speaking on behalf of a powerful network of agencies working under an "anti-ethos" of amorality that justifies and practices mendacity in the name of "protecting" a "free" society?"
There is no basis at all. They know it. So they keep paying and/or threatening congress and the media to keep the whole thing under wraps.
It's getting really ugly.
From what I've read a number of times, now, it's far from only the CIA (ops branch) that we should speak of. The NSA apparently is even worse and much larger, etc.
don't forget military intelligence of which
lee harvey was one used and abused...
I don't know enough about Lee Harvey Oswald, only having read that he was just [another] ... [patsy] and not the real assassin. That much seemed credible, very, based on what I read for explanation; but I don't recall any mention of a relationship to the DIA, or whatever "defence", i.e., military, intelligence you're referring to. The only one I'm aware of is the DIA.
And I've read of good DIA members, but like all large organisations, there unfortunatley always are the rotten members. I've read ..., well, not extensively about the DIA, but of what I have read, there was a lot of good in this. But, again, there are always the rotten members, and the DIA clearly is an agency in which "the rotten" can and would want to operate. After all, it's large and military. That additionally means that it's very funded; not a "cheap nickel and dime" organisation or group.
I wonder if any DIA members, former, I suppose, have come out lighting lamps on dark aspects of the agency; like some or several former CIA agents and officials have done, such as John Stockwell and (John) Philip Agee, among others, f.e.
Lighting lamps? Where's that expression from? I read some good "stuff" by former NYPD detective Frank Serpico a few years ago at a website dedicated to his famed history or experience, revelations he provided about very bad "stuff" in NYC police and political offices, the higher level ones. Along with the important, but otherwise disguised, realities that he wrote about, he stated that he doesn't appreciate the term "whistleblower"; preferring, as he explained, the more appropriately fitting term of "lamplighter". And it is what such people do; shedding light on dark matters, turning on the spotlights.
Although the assassination squads, operations, occurred during President Clinton's administration, while, from what I've learned from former CIA agents and officers who have gone public about what they learned from CIA ops decades ago, I'll still make this post for the following piece and video.
"Ex-Powell aide suggests CIA assassination program was actually active",
by David Edwards, July 15, 2009
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/15/wilkerson-cia-program-active
(Triple-click on that url and you should get the whole, but if you don't, then simply add "/wilkerson-cia-program-active" following the date.)
QUOTE:
The secret CIA program allegedly aimed at assassinating suspected terrorists abroad has raised the eyebrows of at least one former senior Bush Administration official who hints that the program may have actually gone into effect, despite the denials of the agency and congressional staff who have been briefed.
The aide, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, was chief of staff to Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell. He says he heard “echoes” of the program from US ambassadors abroad, who informed him that clandestine military teams were being dispatched to their countries.
“We, very early on, after 9/11, at the State Department, learned from our ambassadors in the field that there were teams being dispatched to their cities, to their countries, and these teams were clandestine and essentially aimed at capturing al Qaeda leaders or al Qaeda affiliates and interrogating them,” Wilkerson told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Tuesday. “So the fact that it might have gravitated over to the CIA or the CIA might have joined in, which is something that happens a lot these days with Delta Force and other special operators is no surprise to me.
“What I suspect has happened is what began to happen while I was still in the government, and that was we’re killing the wrong people,” Wilkerson added. “And we’re killing the wrong people in the wrong countries. And the countries are finding out about it, or at least there was a suspicion that the countries might find out about it, and so it was shut down. That’s my strong suspicion.”
CIA Director Leon Panetta announced this month that he’d shut down the program last month when he first learned about it.
The State Department, under Colin Powell, asked the Pentagon which countries were being targeted but found out little information from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Wilkerson asserts.
“After some hemming and hawing, which was Rumsfeld’s forte, he finally admitted that he had dispatched some of these teams,” Wilkerson explained. “I don’t think we ever knew the full range of his deployments.” Wilkerson believes the CIA became involved in the program of targeted assassinations later.
“It’s laughable [the idea] that the CIA has never lied to Congress,” Wilkerson quipped. “They lie to Congress on a routine basis,” said Wilkerson. Historically, it’s presidents that take the fall when the CIA lies to Congress. Wilkerson says it’s unprecedented for a vice president to fill that role as Cheney appears to have done.
This video is from MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, broadcast July 14, 2009.
END QUOTE
Emphasis: "“It’s laughable [the idea] that the CIA has never lied to Congress,” Wilkerson quipped. “They lie to Congress on a routine basis,” said Wilkerson."
Also, "Historically, it’s presidents that take the fall when the CIA lies to Congress".
As I've read and have repeated, because of believing it, U.S. Presidents are not always aware of everything done under their watch, during their terms in office, and the CIA, the ops branch part, does not work for The People of the USA, but for the imperialist, corporatist, ... "elites". They don't want a President who's very informed; they want the ones who'll be manipulatable, like puppets. Puppets don't usually know what they're doing; they just do as the string holders decide; without the puppet knowing what's going on. It's not to say that U.S. Presidents are equivalent to wooden puppets, for even Bill Clinton demonstrated, once no longer President, that he did not agree with some U.S. laws, like the exaggerated drug war laws, and the rotten U.S. prison system. But Presidents nevertheless are easily kept out of the information "loop", and this will be applied whenever the real "masters" decide that it's in their "best" interests to keep the President uninformed or not completely informed.
Clinton made himself rotten, badly, again, and should honourably refuse to do tours to speak, because he therein does nothing but represent the rotten. But he nevertheless did admit some things honestly to ... I believe, Rolling Stone, once he was no longer U.S. President; not long afterwards. This additionally illustrates that power corrupts (the weak), and that the U.S. President is to be manipulatable. A strong, strongly honourable U.S. President would be "lined up" for assassination; but that's a risk that comes with the job. After all, it's how they treat U.S. citizens drawn in, on fraudulent bases, drawn in to enlisting in the U.S. military, and if soldiers are to risk their lives, then the President, VP, and so on, can't be expected to do less.
I see your point but I differ with the "puppets are ignorant" claim. Our puppets in government are bribed more than they are extorted. It's not so much a case of good people gone bad or forced through blackmail to be puppets. Granted, a small group of them are in this category. However, the overwhelming majority are ambitious, amoral, superficially charming psychopaths. They bury anything that could help the country at the expense of the crooked elite.
For example, ask yourself why the events below occurred:
(From Bill Bonner in the Daily Reckoning)
Addison Wiggin recently told an interviewer, “The House of Representatives did an investigation in 2005, following a paper that was published on their own website, showing that the derivatives risk that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had exposed themselves to was potentially a disaster for the mortgage market.
“And they buried that paper, and fired the guy who wrote it. So, they were well aware of what was going on in 2005, but the market for mortgage-backed securities continued for two more years.
“They [the government] could have put the breaks on there.”
Corruption of good people through blackmail and threats? HARDLY!
It's just evil bastards "doing what they do".
bluepilgrim and socialist,
There may be other good posts already made, but yours are two good ones posts.
======================
Not related to the assassinations topic, but I wish to clarify something I recently posted abot at CD, now.
"Carpets of gold", vs "... bombs":
I recently posted that Bush had told the Taliban that they better accept to receive "carpets of gold", instead of "carpets of bombs", and it turns out this evidently is myth; or, at least, there's no proof that he or anyone in his administration ever said this.
Because I don't want to contribute to spreading and/or continuing myths, I wish to state this clarification or correction, now. A Web page or article that seems to be quite good, even if I haven't thoroughly read it yet, is the following. It explains that the story or myth originated from some English "translation" of a book originally written in French and that original verssion did contained nothing about the "carpets of gold" and bombs threat.
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/gold.htm
I forget what source(s) I had originally read this myth from, so am unable to provide that information; but would be curious to know what it or they were, if only for myself.
It's a claim that could be understood as inherent, because the bush administration kept pushing for the oil pipeline deal, from which the Taliban would've surely profited, even if not fairly, equitably. But there evidently never was an explicit threat saying to receive "carpets of ..." either kind.
=======================
This world frustratingly is full of LIARS, but one thing is evidently certain about all of these GWoT wars and it's that none of them are really justifiable or ever were. Many people in the west may have thought the opposite for years, and some probably still do, but that doesn't mean that that have any proof that they're right; for there is no such proof. Bush had said, because this was him speaking on msm "news" tv, that the Taliban had had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks. That's one of the very few truths the Bush administration did provide.
Even if they had been involved, however, then it would have again been an act of politically motivated retaliation; not aggression.
This world is so full of damn liars that I wonder who's in the majority; all of the liars, who variably lie to try to deceive others, without any justifiable purpose, or people who don't do that, that is, truthful people.
Damn liars! To lie when it really causes no injustice, doesn't unjustly mislead others, now this is one thing; it harms no one. But lying when it unjustly affects others is unacceptable and merits a beating.
Maybe they learn too much from our governments and corporations.
The article is right but Assassinations other than Air Force bombings, are usually done with verbal hints and buried under a need for a plausible denial ability.
This could be cancelled because it was so overt it was a program written down so it had to be hidden from Congress.
Who knows who it was targeting... supporters of "Terrorists" in 60 countries?
Sami al Arian is still under house arrest and he has many supporters like myself.
This needs to be investigated.
Oregoncharles
Why does Margolis "respect Panetta," a man telling lies like this?
Panetta's not telling a complete lie, not as I understand, so far, anyway. After all, he's admitted that the Bush administration, under the direction, "guidance" of Cheney had a covert assassination program; on paper, anyway. It's just that Panetta's evidently lying in the rest of what he said. Heh. Out of 100 for top score, you can give the man 1 credit for saying something that's a grain-worth of truth.
That, according to politics, should "earn" him a medal of some sort of weird "honour". Right?
After all, look at all of the medals on the coats, vests, chests, and shoulders, whatever, of U.S. generals, etc. Hell.
Perhaps Margolis has been, to some degree at least, socialized into the culture of the sycophantic media.
One day when all the world grows tired of how the U.S. Government operates they will join forces and pay back will arrive. Of course only the innocent will pay. The chicken shit politicans will take their yellow cowardly selves and hide out at Camp David. Perhaps a dirty bomb they so fear will be placed at the door and when they are all inside it will be sealed by the mushroon cloud that Bush, Cheney and Condi invented to put fear in the Americans soul. Or perhaps perhaps other Countries will have their special murderers and come here and seek out the politicans without bothering the regular citizens. Our politicans are not doing this for us. They are afraid and are doing it for themselves.
You are right but the politicians don't care. Their position never changes. It's always the same:
Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.
They don't want an egalitarian society. They want DISTANCE between the masses and themselves even if it means they live on the crest of a mountain of shit just as long as they are on top. They do not want to live in a world where everyone gets along. They ENJOY inequality and squalor as long as it doesn't affect them.
"Of course only the innocent will pay."
If the payback adopts the same policies as the aggressors, notably the primary US ally in the Middle East, there are no innocents among those who are “intertwined with terrorists.” Besides, if the results of America's own “liberations” provide any criteria upon which a judgement can be based, even “sugical strikes” using “precision weapons” seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty.
I heard a thing or two, in passing, about assassinations not just from the CIA but out of the Pentagon/military too, and investigation should not be limited to the CIA.
from conclusion:
"Dropping 2,000-pound bombs on apartment buildings in Gaza or Predator raids on Pakistan's tribal territory are as much murder as exploding car bombs or suicide bombers."
As much? please. state terror and imperial aggression is massively more murderous. Just look at the numbers, they speak for themselves.
Over a million Iraqis dead
Millions more displaced, maimed and disfigured
thousands of Afghanis killed
thousands more displaced, maimed and killed
Over a million Gazans malnourished and living under siege in the world's largest concentraion camp.
etc. etc.
Uh oh, What do you you mean "curious notion"?
Margolis' straight-talking is refreshing in this era of white noise and blog-babble.
Thank you Mr. Margolis
NativeSon, I don't know where you live, and I have been reading your posts for awhile. Mostly, I agree with you. I too am disillusioned by the apathy of the American people as a whole. However, this post and one other I read by you yesterday affects me strongly in that, even tho I believe the U.S. is headed downhill, I also know that there are many who are active and trying tirelessly to turn around the demise of this Nation. Our voices are not being heard at large, but they are being heard in smaller groups and will hopefully reap a harvest of elevated, positively charged Spirits that possibly can impact the direction of our country.
Things can be different. If you don't live in the U.S., petition whatever gods you believe in for the increased strength of those here who are striving toward an elevated consciousness. If you do live here in the U.S. then perhaps you can join in that striving toward the success of the Light over the Darkness. In other words....place your strong mindedness in the direction of the positive outcome rather than the hope for the destruction of this country. Yes, we deserve to be shaken by our roots, but for the sake of the many who are of the Light and are working hard, reconsider the direction of your wonderful energy.
I am a direct descendant of two tribal 'entities' who signed treaties with the USA to end wars that were essentially started by the USA.
I am a firm believer in the human spirit and the unique abilities that human beings all over the world share.
The the USA is apparently in a downward spiral of self inflicted destruction is a story as old as humanity itself, and the key factor of one of my many observations.
But the death of a "nation" is not he same as the "death of a people". Several "tribes"--i.e. 'peoples' from histories long list, have experienced death/extinction. It is believed for example that more than 90% of the original 'tribes' of Native Americans (North, Central and South Americans) did not survive 'being discovered by the Europeans'. MORE than 90%, became extinct--forever.
It is widely accepted by most archaeologists and anthropologists that the 'Americas' have been occupied for well close to 100K years. The fact that more than 120 food plants, cultivated and domesticated (corn is a totally domesticated plant since it cannot pollinate itself but requires human hands to perform this necessary task) is a direct result of ancient occupation as well as close attention by human beings.
The oldest structure in the world is located in Peru, and the fact that ancient "Americans" built massive stone as well as 'soil/earthen' structures, all from the 'collective commune' thousands of years before others in the world is scientific fact---that just a century ago would be considered---foolish assumptions.
But those are all gone now, and Native Americans are 'occupied' by foreign peoples--who were born here after being 'imported'. In a certain respect, Native Americans have survived. Most of us are hardly 'intact'---but we did survive.
Whether the "United States of America" survives its own destruction is a matter that carries less importance than the one you might consider reflecting upon.
Since human history has a remarkable trait of 'repetition' and collapses are a regularly occurring event, it would be safe to wager that the USA is at least---in the range of probability of 'failure'. Whether that failure takes on one or more of 'histories examples' is a matter that should carry less importance than the question of "will YOU be one of those who survives"?
I have already survived much. From birth to now. I believe I would be a survivor of a collapse of the USA. It is an 'inherited trait' if you will, and the only way to eliminate it---would be to kill me. Then, if I were dead, it would hardly matter to me if I survived/or not----so it would not matter; would it?
If you think of being one of the 'survivors'; one who can live through ANYTHING---'except death'---then you may experience the freedom of fear of ----the inevitable.
This is something that I learned from the 'elders' who raised me, some of whom had been born in the 19th century; when our tribe finally lost its freedom, and became 'prisoners of war'. If someone can survive that, they can survive anything' except death.
Thank you for your words.
I love to chide Americans with the phrase 'we will ride our horses through your empty cities and you will have emptied them'. The irony is that it is a very strong likelihood of occurring, more so with each days 'news'.
I do not believe in a "God"---so a petition to one would simply not be a consideration.
I currently "survive" in Oklahoma, Texas, and California----
Sioux Rose
NATIVE SON: Poignant post that speaks the Truth. I see it as time traveling a circle, thus ALL things come full circle. Human beings, white European culture in particular, likes to assert life lessons by using linear models, graphs, and even the calendar with its straight erect rows of uniform slots, each supposed to signify the passage of a day as if TIME itself marches like armies, rather than circles in elaborate dances to the silent music of spheres, songs that dolphin and whales emulate in the vanishing blue-green depths of their once wonder-filled worlds. The earth is so covered in death and wounds and scar tissue that I could understand if she must shake hard to let loose those beings that are attacking and undermining Her capacity to grant and sustain life in the many creatures of the many kingdoms, ALL her children.
Americans aren't apathetic, they just prefer to go shopping.
comment deleted by author
The mere fact that the author of this article has been aware of the clandestine planning of the assassinations of foreign leaders---and (how many) domestic ones as well is an indication of how deeply seated the practice is; as well as how it is accepted by each new generation in power.
A week barely passes where some moron will be given air time to brag about how "America is a Democracy" and how deeply 'Americans love freedom' and how deeply they are dedicated to 'bringing freedom to others'----'at any cost'.
Now, they will send 'drone aircraft with missiles'---and drop the load or direct its fire at any target they choose, usually at one that is void of the intended target--but has plenty of innocents available for the 'body count' that always follows. This is always at the direction of 'someone who knows'--and with little or no verification.
But these articles occurring more frequently and much more numerously due to the Internet are not reaching their intended audience---and have little effect upon improving the behavior of the general American populace. Indeed, with the exception of the '12 decent Americans' I speak of often, I believe that the majority of Americans could care less about how criminal their country is. They could care less that the USA represents to the world a bloody, ruthless, lawless country, with far too many stupid people with total power---over far too many life forms on the planet.
After all the USA has become a rogue nation as a direct result of the participation of the 'population', a democracy truly does represent the members of its whole, while at the same time it ignores the minority. The USA is feared because a majority of its population allowed it to become that feared, rogue nation. They have participated often directly with and in the many attrocities committed by their 'government', in their name, all over the world.
Sooner or later the world will see that their 'fear of the Americans' will need to be replaced by their 'actions against' the Americans---so that they can live a little longer with a little more peace---without the USA as a threat.
Then they will eliminate the threat---most likely for ever.
Good luck America, you really need it.
a very harrowing observation, NativeSon..and i fear much closer to the truth than otherwise.
"americans ALLOWED the USA to be *feared*".....which is really a variation or a GROWTH , a malignant growth, that is, from such traits that americans Mythically believe are exceptional to them:
"goodness, good intentions, achievement, hardworking, rugged individuals, righteous, moral...etc".
after all those - they themselves became the cradle for what ends up - as your observation puts it sharply - as "to be feared" - BECAUSE of ALL those "good things" that americans believe themselves to be EXCEPTIONAL in.
it's like the way a healthy cell transforms itself into something cancerous.
-
apparently , there is a very clear similarity between that particular "americans allowed the USA to be feared" you point out and the way the Ancient Romans also seemed to DEGENERATE - the "greater the empire" seemed to them - into something similar: i don't know the original Latin - but it translates into something like this, as the "way the romans Allowed in thinking":
"LET the world HATE US all they WANT........so LONG as they FEAR US".
there is clearly a line CONNECTING 3 things about america's perceptions or national philosophy about its place:
1) "we are exceptional...exceptionally GOOD and GREAT"...
2) "the world HATES US because we are exceptionally GOOD and GREAT...our freedoms, etc..."
until PERHAPS - it will SOON become COMPLETELY and ONLY:
where NEITHER GOOD NOR GREAT are any longer present, Mythical or Real if they ever were....and ALL that is LEFT IS....
3) "LET THE WORLD HATE US all they WANT - so long as they FEAR US".
and each step is a degeneration from the previous......but each previous perception or "self-image" - is ITSELF degenerate and could only inevitably LEAD to the succeeding step....from 1) to 3).
just like Ancient Rome.
The assassination program carried on by the United States represents another failure of the military to secure our defense. It is true that we have not been attacked since 2001 within our borders, but at the same time, there are vast areas of this planet an American cannot visit because of the illegal and immoral actions taken by the Special Forces and others. I cannot visit places in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia because of the hatred these drone attacks have provoked among the people. Always, as an American, I must endure accusations from residents of other countries even when there is not overt hostility.
Now we are suspected of murder even if we committed no crimes and that will be our fate far into the future. Americans have a persona that resembles the brutality, crudeness, and meanness of the Soviet occupying army, not the brashness, naivete, and essential good will our soldiers brought to Europe during WWII. These stereotypes do not disappear overnight. The kindness of the Marshall Plan is a faintly remembered friendship corrupted by the memories of more recent times. How sad!
drosera refers to "the brashness, naivete, and essential good will our soldiers brought to Europe during WWII" and "the kindness of the Marshall Plan". For the Germans, whatever goodwill and kindness Americans displayed was in contrast to the incineration of a million civilians during the war and the deliberate killing, through hunger and exposure, of several hundred thousand immediately after the war. For the French, the joy of liberation was a bit spoiled by the fact that their country was much more heavily damaged by the liberators than by the conquerors. There are reports of Frenchmen taking up arms against their liberators -- which is understandable after, for example, the needless destruction of the old and culturally rich city of Caen. Also, those who knew about it were a bit upset at the way the Americans swept through France like a swarm of uranium-eating locusts to make sure that France wouldn't have the Bomb anytime soon. (And Americans still wonder why de Gaulle was so snotty.)
This is an example of what Ronald Wright, in his book "What is America?" calls America's endlessly self-regenerating virginity. The Americans dump their atrocities down the memory hole, and whenever they are caught performing a new one it's "Oh, how far our country has fallen from its virtue!" Tell that to the Pequots. The world wearies of the spectacle of Cain claiming he was an only child.
[For the Germans, whatever goodwill and kindness Americans displayed was in contrast to the incineration of a million civilians during the war and the deliberate killing, through hunger and exposure, of several hundred thousand immediately after the war.]
From the point of view of the west, the idiot krauts started the Second World War twenty years after they started the first one. If anything, we didn't kill enough of them.
[For the French, the joy of liberation was a bit spoiled by the fact that their country was much more heavily damaged by the liberators than by the conquerors.]
An interesting revision of history, not accurate, but hey... The French didn't fight hard enough in the spring of '40 to get their country too damaged by the conquest of France. After the conquest, the looting of France by the thieving krauts began. Then there were the thousands of Frenchmen and women that the krauts murdered after the conquest.
[There are reports of Frenchmen taking up arms against their liberators -- which is understandable after, for example, the needless destruction of the old and culturally rich city of Caen.]
Your source for this is what? Something written by David Irving?
The USA naplamed (sp?) a French town after Germany's surrender in order to test it.
Your source for this (misspelled) allegation?
Napalm was used to blow up a fuel depot in 1944, before the end of WWII in France, and Howard Zinn claims to have dropped it on German soldiers and French civilians (in the same place), two weeks BEFORE the end of the war. Zinn's claims are not corroberated in the source. Incendiary liquid weapons were invented by the Germans in WWI.
"From the point of view of the west, the idiot krauts started the Second World War twenty years after they started the first one." One more time: Germany was the combatant that was LEAST willing to start a pan-European war and the one that did the MOST to prevent the war. See Edward McCullough, "How the First World War began". In 1918 the Entente began to prosecute the Germano-Anglic War by non-military means, such as the blockade of 1919-1920, the segmenting of German-inhabited lands, and the various vindictive policies of the Versailles Diktat. When German finance minister Hjalmar Schacht went to Roosevelt to plead for an easing of "reparation" payments, Roosevelt replied "I'll crush Germany." It was these conditions that elevated an Austrian corporal and failed artist to the rulership of Germany. For more on how the second military phase of the Germano-Anglic War was engineered, see David L. Hoggan's book "The Forced War: The Origins and Originators of World War II".
"If anything, we didn't kill enough of them." Maybe I should post my name and address so you can catch up on what you evidently regard as unfinished business.
"Your source for this is what? Something written by David Irving?" That sneer says much about the need to keep the mythology of the Germano-Anglic War alive. The more the Americans reveal themselves to be a latter-day Mongol Horde, the more they must appeal to the legend of the "Good War". As to your question, I do indeed read the work of David Irving and other people who are trying to correct the record. As you can imagine, it is an uphill struggle against powerful interests. As Hitler said, the right history is worth a hundred divisions; and as George Orwell said, whoever controls the past controls the future.
[One more time: Germany was the combatant that was LEAST willing to start a pan-European war and the one that did the MOST to prevent the war.]
If you're talking about the First war, that's untrue. The Kaiser blundered his way into supporting a A-H war against Serbia that escalated into a war that killed millions. If you're talking about the second war, you're insane.
David L. Hoggan was delusional, he denied that the holocaust happened and he wrote that Germans were the victim of an English-Polish plot. Your source is worthless. Irving, Hoggan and others who try to utterly rewrite history without regard to the historical records that exist are not trying to 'correct' any record, they are trying to reestablish the idea that the white people aren't capable of the atrocities that the 'less civilized' races are blamed for.
By the way, there is not and never has been a 'good war'. Just like there is never a good reason to use assassination squads. Wars beget wars, and assassinations prompt counter assassinations.
I really don't see what the big fuss is all about. This looks to me like just one more distraction from the much deeper systemic issues of the "greatest democracy on earth."
Are targetted assassinations really so much more reprehensible than "shock and awe" invasions based on lies that kill, maim and incinerate indiscriminately? Somehow, I doubt that all those dead kids and their DU-irradiated siblings would have fully appreciated the nice moral distinctions.
Murder is murder with or without the sanction of the USA Incorporated's paid representatives.
Gee Eric you forgot to mention Economic hit men who killed Omar Torrijos who would not let the US use his air bases for war in Nicaragua.
Or Henry Kissinger whose hands drip with the blood of Salvador Allende and 30,000 Chilean people.
(Kissinger)and the blood of hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asians
Add to America's hit list Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan's Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Indonesia's Sukarno, Chile's Marxist leaders and, very likely, Yasser Arafat.
Don't forget JFK, most likely murdered by the Mafia while their allies in the U.S. government got everybody to look the other way and produce The Warren Commission Report.
Arlen Specter must know.
The principle reason for death squads is to force would-be revolutionaries further underground, encouraging their organizations to operate with increasingly greater violence, and thus ensure that the dominant entities can justify further murders of those seeking a voice at the table of governance....one more vicious cycle perpetrated by the bureaucracies of power in countries unable to function rationally.
the machine is eating us alive.
"Dropping 2,000-pound bombs on apartment buildings in Gaza or Predator raids on Pakistan's tribal territory are as much murder as exploding car bombs or suicide bombers."
Not if it's done in the name of Democracy and Freedom.
Yes, good labels to cover our own crimes. What we are seeing is the accelerated corruption of power.
What ?! You mean Margolis has had a change of heart ? When did this happen ? I suppose his neo-con dreams died with Reagan and he has to recalibrate his ideology to seem more 'acceptable' (??).
The congressmen who sent the bombs and the jet fighters to drop them are just as guilty of assassion and murder as the worst of them.
Oregoncharles
Absolutely! We must punish them for going along with this. They need to start losing elections. How we're going to do that is anyone's guess but by god, we at least have to put up our best fight. We are sliding fast now down the slippery slope of fascism.
Can they arrest you if you refuse to go to work for a few days. Can they come to your house and shoot you with tasers if you drop your "health" insurance policy like a rotten hot potato? I suppose there are so few of us, none of this would create even a ripple.