

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was adamant--just hours after it happened--that the explosions on two Norwegian and Japanese oil tankers were the responsibility of Iran. Iran did this, he said, and Iran would have to pay the price. The United States government offered no evidence for this claim, apart from a grainy video that showed little that seemed conclusive. Pompeo took no questions.
It is important to know that the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Tehran at that time. Abe, who has been trying to maintain the Iran nuclear deal, made no belligerent comments, nor did he storm out of the country. The head of the Japanese shipping company said that there was no evidence that this event had been conducted by Iran. In fact, he disputed the claim that a limpet mine had been attached to his ship. He said that "flying objects" had struck the ship.
The Norwegian shipping company did not make any kind of statement about the events either, certainly not anything that blamed Iran for the incident. The Norwegian government remained silent as well--no threats of any kind from Oslo. The shipping company said an investigation would be conducted in due course.
The crew from both the vessels had been rescued by U.S. and Iranian boats and taken to safety.
Chief of Staff of Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Hossein Baqeri said that his military will not try to close the Strait of Hormuz by deceit. If they want to close the strait, he said, it will be an open military operation. He fully denies that Iran hit those two tankers.
No U.S. ship was assaulted. These incidents took place in international waters--in the Strait of Hormuz, off the coasts of Iran and Oman. Not on U.S. territory, nor on a U.S. military base or on U.S. government property. Yet, it was the U.S. government that made the claims and made the threats. This has become an ugly habit.
It has also become impossible for the region, where there remains an electric sense of foreboding. Will Trump be mad enough to launch missiles? Will the United States of America want to open wider the doors of hell in West Asia, doors that the United States opened wide with its illegal war on Iraq?
Iran Mission Center
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit--the Iran Mission Center--to focus attention on the U.S. plans against Iran. The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas--North Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor--Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)--continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington--as one official told me--that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country. Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy of his National Security Adviser John Bolton.
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile--a man of a certain age, for instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known--ironically--as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family. These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki--who had been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups--and Kaplan himself--promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran--Kaplan said--that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya, which means prudence and not--as Kaplan and others argue--deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with that group--since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments--which it admits--would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi--a man with close links to the Saudi monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men--Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi--are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
While Democratic senators, corporate talking heads, former national security officials, and Twitter pundits issued dire proclamations about the "dangerous precendent" President Donald Trump set on Wednesday by revoking former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance for obviously vindictive and political reasons, critics of America's far-too-powerful intelligence apparatus were quick to express how little sympathy they feel for Brennan, given his utterly horrendous track record of defending torture and masterminding the Obama administration's deadly drone program.
"John Brennan is being punished by not being able to find out who got droned yesterday, I hope he's ok," joked Splinter's Libby Watson.
But while well-established critics of the American national security state refused to shed a single tear for Brennan--or, for that matter, any of the other former intelligence officials on Trump's so-called enemies list--the very fact that Trump has such a list and is using the power of the presidency to punish the individuals on it sparked alarm among journalists and civil libertarians.
"Trump's action is unconstitutional because he's punishing political speech, and unethical because he is lying to cover it up."
--Norm Eisen, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
"The First Amendment does not permit the president to revoke security clearances to punish his critics," Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, argued in a statement on Wednesday, referring to the fact that the officials on Trump's list have frequently denounced the president on television.
"Brennan's record is full of grave missteps, and we have been unsparing in our criticism of his defense of the CIA torture program and his role in unlawful lethal strikes abroad," Wizner added. "But Trump's revocation of Brennan's clearance, and his threats to revoke the clearances of other former officials for the sole reason that they have criticized his conduct and policies, amount to unconstitutional retaliation. They are also part of a broader pattern of seeking to silence or marginalize critics, which includes forcing staff to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements."
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald--who has been similarly unsparing in his assessment of Brennan's record and dismissive of those who reflexively "revere anyone who occupies high positions in the U.S. national security state"--echoed the ACLU in a series of tweets on Wednesday, noting that while Brennan is a "war criminal" and a "pathological liar," it is nonetheless "dangerous to allow a president to impose punishments for criticisms."
Medhi Hasan, Greenwald's colleague at The Intercept, captured the absurdity of Trump's standard for who should and shouldn't have access to classified information by noting that the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, still has a security clearance--a fact that clearly shows Trump's decision to revoke Brennan's clearance was based on a petty grudge, not any reasonable "national security" concerns.
As the New York Times reported on Wednesday, the White House's statement announcing that Brennan's security clearance has been revoked was dated July 26--an indication that the decision to punish Brennan was actually made weeks ago, fueling speculation that the Trump administration timed the announcement to control the news cycle and distract from other controversies, such as former White House official Omarosa Manigault Newman's insistence that Trump is in a state of "mental decline" and that she has a tape of the president using the n-word.
Intended as a distraction or not, former White House ethics chief and chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) chair Norm Eisen argued in a tweet on Wednesday that Trump's revocation of Brennan's security clearance was a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
"Trump's action is unconstitutional because he's punishing political speech, and unethical because he is lying to cover it up," Eisen concluded.
A movement without memory is adrift. And a movement that picks the wrong heroes is lost.
Two milestones should serve as reminders to self-styled members of the Resistance. One marks a turning point in the life of an ill-chosen hero. The other is a reminder that true heroism calls for self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-sacrifice.
We'll get to those milestones. But first there's the matter of torture.
Donald Trump has nominated Gina Haspel to run the Central Intelligence Agency. Haspel, a career intelligence operative, led torture operations and ran a CIA "black site" in Thailand which was used to interrogate suspected Al Quaeda members after 9/11. She also signed the order to destroy the videotaped evidence of the agency's illegal acts, which itself appears to have been illegal.
Haspel was apparently present for the torture of a detainee named Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (It was incorrectly reported that she was also present for the torture of Abu Zubaydah, a more famous prisoner.) There have even been calls for Haspel's arrest.
As CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou wrote in a Washington Post op-ed:
"The message this sends to the CIA workforce is simple: Engage in war crimes, in crimes against humanity, and you'll get promoted. Don't worry about the law. Don't worry about ethics. Don't worry about morality or the fact that torture doesn't even work. Go ahead and do it anyway. We'll cover for you. And you can destroy the evidence, too."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, notes that Haspel "was involved in one of the darkest chapters in American history' and has called on the CIA to declassify documents regarding her role in overseeing torture.
And yet, in their understandable zeal to remove Donald Trump from the presidency, some liberals and Democrats are treating Haspel's moral peers like heroes. Consider this tweet from Samantha Power, Barack Obama's U.N. Ambassador, which reads: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
Power was reacting to a tweet from Brennan, a former CIA Director, which addressed Trump after the brutal mistreatment and firing of FBI Associate Director Andrew McCabe, a day or two before he was due to retire with a pension. Brennan wrote:
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you.
Brennan's anger toward Trump may be welcome, but it should also raise questions about the proper role of the intelligence community in political affairs. (On a more positive note, Rep. Mark Pocan has offered to hire McCabe so that he can collect his pension -- and it may work.)
Brennan's tweet was widely praised by some liberals, presumably including many who were appalled by Haspel's nomination. But Brennan, who replaced Haspel as head of the CIA's clandestine division, defended the CIA's use of torture in 2013. He agreed that some agents had gone too far, but disagreed with the Senate Intelligence Committee's conclusion, backed by other experts, that torture had not yielded "useful" information.
Brennan also attacked the democratic principle of transparency. "I think there's been more than enough transparency that's happened over the last couple days," he said of the Intelligence Committee's report. "I think it's over the top."
A year later, the CIA's inspector general confirmed that the agency had spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee itself. The CIA then attempted to elide its own guilt in the matter, drawing Feinstein's ire.
But even when taken at face value, the inspector general's report showed that the CIA acted in defiance of the principle that intelligence and law enforcement agencies should be subject to democratic, civilian oversight. And who was the CIA's director when it spied on that "over the top" Senate committee?
John Brennan.
Among Democrats, James Comey has gone from hero to villain and back so many times that it's hard to keep track. He was a hero to Democrats when Obama appointed him to lead the FBI in 2013, because he had blocked George W. Bush's attempt to get then-Attorney General James Ashcroft to reauthorize a domestic spying program while he was in a hospital intensive care unit.
The American Civil Liberties Union wasn't quite as fond of Comey. "As the second-highest ranked Justice Department official under John Ashcroft, Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said at the time. "Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding."
Comey became a villain to Democrats when, as FBI Director, he spoke publicly about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email servers shortly before the election. But he became a hero again when he defied Trump over the Russia investigation, an act that led to his firing.
Comey continues to be lionized by many Democrats, despite his decidedly mixed record. He's been playing to them, too, in social media and elsewhere. (After Comey quoted from Martin Luther King, Jr's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," writer Ben Schwartz tweeted: "Oh look, FBI agents are still reading Dr. King's mail." Schwartz was referring to the FBI's infamous, years-long campaign of spying on and harassing Dr. King.)
Trump's attack on Comey's character have made his upcoming book a bestseller. That, too, is a sign of liberal enthusiasm.
Then there's Mueller himself. Fawning comments like this one, comparing Mueller to Thomas Jefferson, are commonplace on social media. That comment drew responses like this one:
"Amen: Father guide Mueller & his team in the (right) direction."
And this one:
"...the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants." -A Hamilton
"Perimeter defense may not matter if the enemy is inside the gates." -R Mueller, III
Then there's this poem, which was accompanied by a video clip of Dr. King:
Mueller is coming Lady Justice is coming with him.
I Salute the Men and Women of the FBI! I Salute the Men and Women of Muellers Team.
I Salute all those People Defending America! IC, CIA, NSA, Police, Firemen, Teachers, Drs and Nurses.
I Salute You! For America!
These commenters may not know that Mueller was criticized for supporting the rush to war in Iraq by stating, incorrectly, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He was challenged in 2003 by whistleblowing special agent Colleen Rowley for implying a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and for reportedly allowing the FBI to state incorrectly that there were 5,000 Al Qaeda terrorists in the US.
(Rowley, who has since left the FBI, wrote an essay in June 2017 entitled "No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren't Heroes.")
The FBI's moves against peaceful protestors did not die with Dr. King. After filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the ACLU revealed that the FBI spied on anti-Iraq war protestors, including Quakers and student groups, during George W. Bush's presidency.
Documents obtained by DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy showed that the FBI misused a counter-terrorism program known as "Operation Tripwire" to spy on peaceful Occupy protestors, in concert with private-sector informants.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund obtained documents showing that the FBI was coordinating nationwide efforts against the Occupy movement as early as August 2011, before the occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York City.
The FBI Director who oversaw all of these these covert programs was Robert Mueller.
Then there's James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, who's also being celebrated for his attacks on Trump. Since retiring in January, Clapper has taken the lead in alleging that Russia aided Trump - a right-wing president - get elected. He has also used these allegations to stigmatize and demonize the Left.
But before he made his outlandish claims against progressive groups and publications, Clapper was known for something else. As law professor Jonathan Turley writes, Clapper lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2013 when he denied that the government was collecting data on "millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans."
"Even in a city with a notoriously fluid notion of truth," writes Turley, "Clapper's false testimony was a standout."
And yet, Clapper's report on Russian spying - a report which inexplicably placed much of the blame for the election of a right-wing president on left-wing websites - was treated as gospel by many Democrats and liberals.
We promised two milestones. Here's the first. On March 12, the five-year statute of limitations ran out on Clapper's Senate lie. He can no longer be prosecuted for perjury. That's good news for Clapper, but bad news for the rule of law.
Donald Trump is both corrupt and unstable. I share the hope Mueller succeeds in bringing him to justice, although a President Pence could conceivably do more legislative damage than Trump has done thus far. Trump's escalating war of words against Mueller, even as his lawyer argues that Mueller's investigation should be shut down, is deeply worrisome.
"Choosing the wrong heroes only makes it easier to be misled into another war, or more torture, or another campaign of illegal spying."
But the Democrats who idealize figures like Mueller, Clapper, Brennan, and the others are sacrificing the long-term needs of justice - the "moral arc of the universe" that Dr. King talked about - for short-term expediency.
Some of the people currently being lionized, like Comey, probably acted according to their own moral lights. But theirs aren't necessarily the morals this country needs. It's possible to hope they succeed without turning them into heroes.
Choosing the wrong heroes only makes it easier to be misled into another war, or more torture, or another campaign of illegal spying.
In fact, it's already happening. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was asked if he was urging Senate Democrats to oppose Haspel's nomination or that of Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo. Pompeo signaled his openness to resuming torture operations and has described agents who conducted torture as "patriots."
"At this point, I am not," Schumer replied.
Sen. Feinstein also seems to be equivocating on the Haspel nomination. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that the White House is using intelligence channels, rather than the State Department, to communicate with North Korea.
We tell the stories of heroes so that we can remember. But when we choose the wrong heroes, we forget.
Here's the other milestone we mentioned: March 16, 2018 marked the 50th anniversary of the massacre of Vietnamese civilians by US troops in the village of My Lai.
As America waged war in Vietnam, the FBI was engaged in a massive, covert program of spying on antiwar individuals and groups. A Senate panel led by Sen. Frank Church found that the FBI broke the law repeatedly while carrying out this program, which became known as COINTELPRO. From the panel's report:
"The (FBI's) techniques ... ranged from the trivial (mailing reprints of Reader's Digest articles to college administrators) to the degrading (sending anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous ..."
In Vietnam, the CIA was leading the Phoenix program, which engaged in kidnapping, torture, and murder. CIA Director William Colby told a Congressional subcommittee that the program killed 20,587 people.

But when the My Lai massacre was underway, someone resisted. Hugh Thompson, Jr. was piloting an observation helicopter. He and his crew saw dead bodies around the village, but had encountered no hostile fire and had seen no sign of Viet Cong combatants.
To commemorate the anniversary of his actions, Jon Wiener wrote about Thompson for the Los Angeles Times. "They were not combatants," Thompson told Wiener years later. "They were old women, old men, children, kids, babies." So Thompson did something extraordinary. Wiener writes:
"Thompson told the American troops that, if they opened fire on the Vietnamese civilians in the bunker, he and his crew would open fire on them."
Thompson reported the massacre, and later testified about it on Capitol Hill.
According to the book "Four Hours in My Lai," Thompson was bitterly attacked by members of Congress like Rep. Mendel Rivers (D-SC). Thompson told 60 Minutes that he "received death threats over the phone...Dead animals on your porch, mutilated animals on your porch some mornings when you get up."
It took years for Thompson to be recognized for his actions, but he and his crew received the Soldier's Medal for bravery in 1998, thirty years after the massacre.
"Self-trust is the essence of heroism," said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Hugh Thompson, Jr. died in 2006. In My Lai and afterwards, he trusted his own sense of right and wrong. He faced down the entire military and political might of the US government because he knew it was the right thing to do.
A movement is defined by its heroes. The Resistance can find better heroes than the ones some of its members have chosen - and it should. It can start with Hugh Thompson, Jr.
CIA director John Brennan on Wednesday vowed to resign if he was ordered by the next president to have the CIA resume waterboarding detainees--but the agency could still take up the practice.
"If a president were to order, order the agency to carry out waterboarding or something else, it'll be up to the director of CIA and others within CIA to decide whether or not that, that direction and order is something that they can carry out in good conscience," Brennan said, according to The Intercept.
"I can say that as long as I'm director of CIA, irrespective of what the president says, I'm not going to be the director of CIA that gives that order. They'll have to find another director," he added, according to Reuters.
The remarks were presumably a response to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's past declarations of support for the torture method condemned by rights groups. They came at the end of a speech the CIA chief gave at the Brookings Institution.
The Intercept observed that Brennan "did not acknowledge that Congress last year turned Obama's anti-torture executive order into law, explicitly banning waterboarding and other forms of torture--and restricting the CIA in particular to interrogation methods listed in the Army Field Manual."
Moreover, Reuters notes, "Brennan told his confirmation hearing in 2013 he had not tried to stop harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding when he was at the spy agency earlier in his career, but had objected to them privately."
Damning first-person reports of the torture tactic, among other so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" put into practice under President George W. Bush, continue to emerge from those subjected to them.
Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly affirmed his support for torture. "I would bring back waterboarding, and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding," he said two weeks ago, as Common Dreams reported.
"What do you think about waterboarding?" he asked the crowd at a rally. "I like it a lot," he said to cheers. "I don't think it's tough enough."
In anticipation of an impending White House announcement on civilian deaths from drone strikes, the international human rights group Reprieve has released a report that finds that there is significant evidence the U.S. government is lying about the human toll of the aerial bombing campaign.
President Barack Obama is expected to announce as early as Friday that since 2009, U.S. military and CIA airstrikes have inadvertently killed only about 100 people in nations that are not officially recognized as battlefields, such as Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. On the other hand, the numbers for active war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan will not be included.
But according to Reprieve's report, Opaque Transparency (pdf), every previous statement made by the Obama administration on the civilian casualties from drone strikes has been misleading at best, with some being outright false.
That includes an on-record comment from CIA director John Brennan in June 2011 that "there hasn't been a single collateral death" in Pakistan for nearly a year and a claim from Obama in May 2013 that strikes are only carried out when there is "near certainty that the target is present" and "near certainty that noncombatants will not be injured or killed."
As Reprieve notes, internal CIA documents leaked in 2013 show that the agency itself recorded a civilian death just two months before Brennan's comments, while the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and other independent investigators found that dozens of local elders were killed in a strike in March 2011. As of this February, only ten drone victims killed in Pakistan last year had been identified.
The Daily Beast separately noted earlier this month that the White House's expected estimate of 100 collateral deaths is approximately one-tenth of the real number, which most independent advocacy groups put at 1,000.
That could be because, as the Intercept revealed last year, the military posthumously labels its unidentified drone victims as "Enemies Killed in Action" unless they are proven otherwise.
The president's claims that strikes are not carried out unless there is "near certainty" that noncombatants will not be killed were similarly contradicted by other internal CIA memos that "show[ed] that drone operators weren't always certain who they were killing despite the administration's guarantees," according to McClatchy.
Indeed, in 2015, a group of drone operators turned whistleblowers accused the administration of allowing the killings of "innocent civilians" while "lying publicly about the effectiveness of such a program."
The figures, published annually from now on, will not include details such as names and countries of origin. The administration is also not expected to explain how it defines its targets, Reprieve said, rendering Friday's announcement virtually meaningless.
"[I]t has to be asked what bare numbers will mean if they omit even basic details such as the names of those killed and the areas, even the countries, they live in," the report states. "[T]he numbers without the definitions to back up how the Administration is defining its targets is useless, especially given reports the Obama Administration has shifted the goalposts on what counts as a 'civilian' to such an extent that any estimate may be far removed from reality."
Central Intelligence Agency director John Brennan said Thursday that, years into the United States' fight against the Islamic State, the terrorist group's reach and power have not been diminished and that it has even more fighters than al-Qaeda had at its height.
Speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan said, "Unfortunately, despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach. The resources needed for terrorism are very modest, and the group would have to suffer even heavier losses of territory, manpower, and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly."
He also said the group is still "a formidable adversary," adding, "The branch in Libya is probably the most developed and the most dangerous."
He also projected that it "will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda."
And, despite the apparent failure of the military strategy, Brennan said "a long and difficult fight" would continue against the group whose number of fighters now "far exceeds what al-Qaeda had at its height."
His comments confirm warnings from many on the left that a military strategy to defeat ISIL, or ISIS, as it is also known, would only foment further acts of terrorism. Institute for Policy Studies fellow Phyllis Bennis, for example, warned in 2014, when President Barack Obama said he authorized new U.S. military airstrikes in Iraq to target ISIS, "it should be eminently clear that we cannot bomb Islamist extremists into submission or disappearance. Every bomb recruits more supporters."
And Jeremy Scahill, co-founding editor of the The Intercept and author of the book Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, previously called Obama's war on ISIS an "epic formula for blowback."
Four former U.S. Air Force drone operators issued a public letter on Wednesday warning that the United States' ongoing targeted killing program "is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world."
The letter (pdf), addressed to U.S. President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Chief John Brennan accuses the administration of fueling "tragedies such as the attacks in Paris" while "lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone program."
"We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were killing only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS," the whistleblowers wrote, "while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay."
According to Guardian reporters Ed Pilkington and Ewan MacAskill, who broke the story, the servicemen have "more than 20 years of experience between them operating military drones." In the letter, the men say they all "succumbed to PTSD" and were subsequently "cut loose by the same government we gave so much to--sent out in the world without adequate medical care, reliable public health services, or necessary benefits."
Facing possible persecution for speaking out, the men are being represented by attorney Jesselyn Radack, director of national security and human rights at the nonprofit ExposeFacts. Radack says this letter marks the "first time we've had so many people speaking out together about the drone program."
The full text of the letter is below:
Dear President Obama, Secretary Carter and Director Brennan:
We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution. We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were killing only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This administration and its predecessors have built a drone program that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.
When the guilt of our roles in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too much, all of us succumbed to PTSD. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so much to sent out in the world without adequate medical care, reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it.
We witnessed gross waste, mismanagement, abuses of power, and our country's leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone program has overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution.
We request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that request is in vain given the unprecedented prosecution of truthtellers who came before us like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we hope it is otherwise.
Sincerely,
Brandon Bryant
Staff Sergeant
MQ1B Predator Sensor Operator
SERE Instructor Trainee
USAF Joint Special Operations Command
3rd Special Operations Squadron
Disabled Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran
Founder of Project RED HAND
Cian Westmoreland
Senior Airman
RF Transmissions Systems
USAF CENTCOM
73rd Expeditionary Air Control Squadron
Disabled Afghanistan Veteran
Project RED HAND's Sustainable Technology Director
Stephen Lewis
Senior Airman
MQ1B Predator Sensor Operator
USAF Joint Special Operations Command
3rd Special Operations Squadron
Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran
Michael Haas
Senior Airman
MQ1B Predator Sensor Operator Instructor
USAF Air Combat Command
15th Reconnaissance Squadron
Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran
University of Washington police are investigating a break-in at the school's Center for Human Rights (UWCHR) after files from a lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were stolen from the center's offices.
A computer and hard drive containing information from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on October 2 were stolen from the offices of Dr. Angelina Godoy sometime between Thursday and Sunday, according to police. The UWCHR is investigating whether the CIA illegally withheld information about human rights violations carried out by U.S.-backed El Salvador army officers during the country's civil war against leftist rebels in the 1980s.
Godoy said "about 90 percent of the information" was taken in the break-in. The UWCHR has backups of the stolen files, but Godoy said the concern now is how the data might be used against rights workers in El Salvador who are involved in the lawsuit.
"What worries us most is not what we have lost but what someone else may have gained," she said in a statement. "The files include sensitive details of personal testimonies and pending investigations."
The break-in had "suspicious and disturbing" elements, the Seattle Times reported--including that it coincided with a campus visit by CIA director John Brennan, who gave a speech at the university's law school Friday.
UW media relations and communications vice president Norm Arkans advised against "connecting those dots." But other clues point to the burglary not being a random crime, UWCHR's release states. The Times continues:
Only Godoy's office was targeted in the break-in and there was no sign of a forced entry, according to the news release. It appeared that the office was carefully searched rather than ransacked and the door was relocked upon exit, "characteristics that do not fit the pattern of an opportunistic campus theft," the release says.
The lawsuit, filed by UWCHR and third-year law student Mina Manuchehri, alleges that the CIA hid records that incriminate now-retired Salvadoran Army Col. Sigifredo Ochoa Perez in the massacring of civilians. It contends that there is "ample evidence" Ochoa Perez's troops opened fire on unarmed civilians in an attack on the towns of Santa Cruz and El Calabozo, killing hundreds. He also allegedly helped block humanitarian aid to guerrilla-occupied areas and set up "free-fire zones" in civilian areas that allowed the El Salvadoran military to shoot and bomb at will, despite non-military casualties.
The attacks "adhered closely to the United States' suggested wartime strategy" of fighting the left-wing Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front attempting to overthrow the government, the lawsuit states. It also alleges that Ochoa Perez was trained at the Inter-American Defense College in Washington, D.C.
Ochoa Perez is currently under investigation in El Salvador over his role in the counterinsurgency.
WikiLeaks on Wednesday began releasing documents from one of former CIA chief John Brennan's non-government email accounts, which he is said to have "used occasionally for several intelligence-related projects."
Earlier this week an individual, claiming to be a teenager, alleged that he and two other people had hacked into Brennan's AOL email account and uncovered files dealing with the CIA director's security clearance application. The hacker told the New York Post that he used a tactic called "social engineering" that involved tricking workers at Verizon into providing Brennan's personal information and duping AOL into resetting his password. The FBI and Secret Service are reportedly investigating the breach.
The unredacted documents published Wednesday include Brennan's "National Security Position" form, which WikiLeaks says "reveals a quite comprehensive social graph of the current Director of the CIA with many additional non-governmental and professional/military career details."
Other documents in the dump cover topics including "challenges for the US Intelligence Community in a post cold-war and post-9/11 world;" "the conundrum of Iran;" and "forbidden interrogation techniques."
Brennan, who defended the CIA in the wake of the Senate Torture Report, has been accused of "willfully [providing] inaccurate information and misrepresent[ing] the efficacy of torture."
Last week CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling went to prison. If he were white, he probably wouldn't be there.
Sterling was one of the CIA's few African-American case officers, and he became the first to file a racial discrimination lawsuit against the agency. That happened shortly before the CIA fired him in late 2001. The official in Langley who did the firing face-to-face was John Brennan, now the CIA's director and a close adviser to President Obama.
Five months ago, in court, prosecutors kept claiming that Sterling's pursuit of the racial bias lawsuit showed a key "motive" for providing classified information to journalist James Risen. The government's case at the highly problematic trial was built entirely on circumstantial evidence. Lacking anything more, the prosecution hammered on ostensible motives, telling the jury that Sterling's "anger," "bitterness" and "selfishness" had caused him to reveal CIA secrets.
But the history of Sterling's conflicts with the CIA has involved a pattern of top-down retaliation. Sterling became a problem for high-ranking officials, who surely did not like the bad publicity that his unprecedented lawsuit generated. And Sterling caused further hostility in high places when, in the spring of 2003, he went through channels to tell Senate Intelligence Committee staffers of his concerns about the CIA's reckless Operation Merlin, which had given Iran some flawed design information for a nuclear weapons component.
Among the U.S. government's advantages at the trial last winter was the fact that the jury did not include a single African American. And it was drawn from a jury pool imbued with the CIA-friendly company town atmosphere of Northern Virginia.
Sterling's long struggle against institutionalized racism is far from over. It continues as he pursues a legal appeal. He's in prison near Denver, nearly 900 miles from his home in the St. Louis area, making it very difficult for his wife, Holly, to visit.
Last week, as Sterling headed to Colorado, journalist Kevin Gosztola wrote an illuminating piece that indicated the federal Bureau of Prisons has engaged in retaliation by placing Sterling in a prison so far from home. Gosztola concluded: "There really is no accountability for BOP officials who inappropriately designate inmates for prisons far away from their families."
With the government eager to isolate Jeffrey Sterling, it's important for him to hear from people who wish him well. Before going to prison, Sterling could see many warmly supportive comments online, posted by contributors to the Sterling Family Fund and signers of the petition that urged the Justice Department to drop all charges against him. Now he can get postal mail at: Jeffrey Sterling, 38338-044, FCI Englewood, Federal Correctional Institution, 9595 West Quincy Ave., Littleton, CO 80123.
(Sterling can receive only letters and cards. "All incoming correspondence is reviewed," the Sterling Family Fund notes. "It is important that all content is of an uplifting nature as any disparaging comments about the government, the trial or any peoples involved will have negative consequences for Jeffrey.")
While it's vital that Sterling hear from well-wishers, it's also crucial that the public hear from him. "The Invisible Man: CIA Whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling," released the day after he was sentenced in mid-May, made it possible for the public to hear his voice. The short documentary (which I produced for ExposeFacts) was directed by Oscar nominee Judith Ehrlich.
More recently, journalist Peter Maass did a fine job with an extensive article, "How Jeffrey Sterling Took on the CIA -- and Lost Everything."
It should be unacceptable that racism helped the government to put Jeffrey Sterling in prison.