New CIA Deputy Chief was involved in worst abuses of the CIA

In May 2013 the Washington Post's Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA clandestine service was being shifted from that position in a management shake-up by then-director John Brennan.

According to Miller, the person who was not named because she was a covert agent then, was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA. She also had an extensive role in torturing detainees. Even worse she had run a secret prison in Thailand. This was one of the CIA black sites where prisoners were subjected to waterboarding and other torture techniques. A Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture also said that she played a central role in the torture of Abu Zubaydah. The person involved was Gina Haspel now the Deputy Director of the CIA.

The story of Zubaydah is filled with horrors. Poland and Pakistan helped out the US. Pakistan was allegedly paid $10 million to help capture him. The Wikipedia entry on Zubaydah points out:During the time in CIA custody Zubaydah was extensively interrogated; he was water-boarded 83 times[2] and subjected to numerous other torture techniques including forced nudity, sleep deprivation, confinement in small dark boxes, deprivation of solid food, stress positions, and physical assaults. While in CIA custody, Zubaydah lost his left eye.[3] Videotapes of some of Zubaydah's interrogations are amongst those destroyed by the CIA in 2005.Whlle Zubaydah is still being held in Guantanamo, the European Court of Human Rights ordered the Polish government to pay Zubaydah 100,000 euros for its part in helping the US and also awarded him 30,000 euros to cover his costs, Zubaydah said through his US lawyer that he would be donating the 100,000 euros to victims of torture.

Haspel played a vital role in destruction of interrogation tapes showing torture at her black site and others. This action violated many court orders and the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the advice of White House lawyers. Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane the Commission chairs, condemned the actions as obstruction. A special prosecutor and a Grand Jury investigated the actions but decided not to lay any charges. The actions actually appear to be positive qualifications to be chosen for the position of Deputy Director of the CIA. She was selected by US President Donald Trump according to CIA director Mike Pompeo.

Haspel is a kindred spirit to Pompeo. Pompeo has said he is open to resurrecting Bush era torture techniques. He also opposes closing Guantanamo and thinks that Snowden should be tried and found guilty and given a death sentence. Both are also the type of characters that one would expect Trump to approve. However, one should note that the Democrats did nothing to punish those who were involved in torture. Indeed Obama's CIA director John Brennan supported some of the tactics used by Haspel and defended by Pompeo. 14 Democrats including Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, and sometime CIA critic Dianne Feinstein actually voted to confirm Pompeo. Trump is out to make America great again perhaps number one in the field of torture and mistreatment of prisoners taken as part of the war on terror. After all, Trump believes that torture works: "Donald Trump has used his first TV interview as president to say he believes torture “absolutely” works and that the US should “fight fire with fire.”"

cdQ1oW

US to release numbers killed in drone attacks in 2009

A senior White House aide, Lisa Monaco, Obama's counter-terrorism and homeland security adviser promised to reveal how many civilian casualties and terrorism suspects have been killed since 2009 by the U.S. drone program.

This is the first ever disclosure of such numbers associated with the U.S. controversial drone program. Monaco said the expanded transparency would boost support for drone strikes and other counter-terrorism programs. She said the drone strike program would last "for years to come."

The disclosure will cover not only theaters of actual war such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria but strikes in areas where the U.S. does not have troops such as Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. In Libya the U.S. is already reported by some to have Special Forces. Monaco did not set any specific date for the release but did say it would be in the coming weeks. Monaco said to the Council on Foreign Relations: “Not only is greater transparency the right thing to do, it is the best way to maintain the legitimacy of our counter-terrorism actions and the broad support of our allies.” The same day that Monaco made the announcement, the Pentagon claimed 150 militants had been killed in a drone strike together with manned aircraft in Somalia.

Monaco said the administration intended to report on casualties annually. However, the Obama administration has only a year left in office. It remains to be seen whether the next administration will deliver yearly reports.

Cori Crider, a lawyer for drone victims, said the move was a step in the right direction but more needed to be done:“In every region where we have pursued an aggressive, secret drone policy, militancy has gotten stronger. It’s not enough to tally up the drones’ body count – we need a thorough reassessment of the program itself.”

Back in February of 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the armed services committee. claimed drone strikes had killed approximately 4,700 people. Officials have never made it clear whether the CIA and the US military have compiled data on the strikes. Dianne Feinstein of the intelligence committee said in 2013 that CIA drone strikes killed civilians at a single digit rate each year. The same claim was made by John Brennan the director of the CIA. One serious problem is that the US defines any military age male in the area struck as a combatant. Given that the some strikes are "signature strikes" that are made on the basis of the behavior of those being observed rather than knowledge of the identities of those being targeted it is likely that more civilians are being killed. In some instances there have been double tap attacks in which those who come to the rescue of those wounded are also attacked. Many of these people could be civilians. Accounts of casualties vary widely depending on the source. The group Reprieve in 2014 claimed that in Pakistan in targeting just 41 men the US killed 1,147 people.

The US Justice department just recently agreed to disclose more information about how the US carries out drone strikes. The move was in response to a transparency suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Preet Bharara a US attorney and another official agreed to release “a much more detailed explanation of the standards and procedures employed in both capture and lethal targeting counter-terrorism operations.” The promise was made in a letter to US federal judge Coleen McMahon. However, there first needs to be a review to remove classified information.

The ACLU claimed the decision was a victory which would go beyond a 2013 overview of the program provided to the US Congress. Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU's deputy legal director said:“We hope that the administration’s decision to release this critical document reflects a broader commitment to make the lethal drone program more transparent. In that spirit, the administration should also release the legal memos that are the foundation for the program, basic information about those killed in past drone strikes, and detailed investigative files relating to strikes that killed bystanders”,Representatives such as Adam Smith of the House Intelligence Committee sees the casualty assessment as a means of combating propaganda about the casualties caused by drone strikes. He wants Congress to pass a law to require the disclosure.

Psychologist who helped plan CIA "torture" program sleeps soundly

Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell were pyschologists who were hired as private contractors by the CIA to plan and develop methods to get terror suspects to talk.

Among the techniques were interrogation tools such as waterboarding, slapping, and sleep deprivation. A CIA medical professional warned in an email back on June 16, 2003: “Although these guys believe that their way is the only way, there should be an effort to define roles and responsibilities before their arrogance and narcissism evolve into unproductive conflict in the field,” These two psychologists are among very few major participants in the torture program who are actually identified. There are many who are calling for legal prosecutions as a result of the report and the two psychologists could be among those against whom charges could be filed.

 However, given the attitude of the Obama administration it is highly unlikely that any legal action will ever be taken against anyone in the US. The only person charged in the entire torture affair is CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou who is still in jail. Attorney General Eric Holder decided some time ago to cease all attempts to prosecute anyone at the end of August 2012: Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Thursday that no one would be prosecuted for the deaths of a prisoner in Afghanistan in 2002 and another in Iraq in 2003, eliminating the last possibility that any criminal charges will be brought as a result of the brutal interrogations carried out by the C.I.A. Obama's own famous announcement about looking forwards not backwards--except for whistleblowers, makes it clear there will be no prosecutions: Asked about investigating CIA torture in 2009, Obama replied that "it’s important to look forward and not backwards." Obama admitted that "we tortured some folks" earlier this year, but he didn't call for those responsible to be punished.

Obama appointed John Brennan head of the CIA in spite of the fact that he had to withdraw his name when Obama first tried to appoint him: In late 2008 Brennan was the reported choice for Director of the CIA in the incoming Obama administration. Brennan withdrew his name from consideration because of opposition to his CIA service under President George W. Bush and past public statements he had made in support of enhanced interrogation and the transfer of terrorism suspects to countries where they might be tortured (extraordinary rendition).[3][6][22] President Obama then appointed him to be his chief counterterrorism advisor, a position that did not require Senate confirmation.[3 In 2013 Obama tried again this time with success and Brennan became CIA chief on March 5. There were frantic attempts to delay release of the Senate summary report on torture but they failed. A statement by the White House press secretary makes it clear that he has confidence both in his CIA appointment Brennan and those who work for the CIA:"The president wakes up every morning pleased to know that John Brennan and the men and women of the CIA are hard at work using their skills and expertise to protect the American people," press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday, calling Brennan a "dedicated professional" and a "patriot." In other words although Obama disapproves of torture and the Bush CIA operations, he fully supports those that carried it out.

 It should not be surprising that one of the two psychologists who contracted with the CIA, James Mitchell, can say: "I always sleep soundly at night". He need not worry about charges being laid against him as he lives a retired life of leisure in Florida. There is an appended video interview with him. Another reason why Mitchell can sleep well at night is that he is well off as a result of his work planning harsh interrogation methods for the CIA. The two psychologists' firm was paid a total of $81 million between 2005 and 2008 before the $181 million contract was terminated in 2009. Senator Dianne Feinstein who released the report said: “The CIA relied on these two contractors to evaluate the interrogation program they had devised and in which they had obvious financial interests.” Mitchell said that he could not comment on whether he personally participated in water-boarding alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said due to a nondislocure agreement he could not respond. He said of waterboarding: “I don’t think it’s the right thing to do, I don’t think it’s the wrong thing to do."

He did implicitly defend techniques such as slapping noting with some irony: “To me it seems completely insensible that slapping KSM is bad but sending a Hellfire missile in to a family picnic and killing all the children, killing Granny, is OK,” Of course, both could be bad. That someone should think one action cannot be bad because another is much worse shows rather weak powers of elementary reasoning.

 Even the spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, Rhea Farberman, said in an interview: “If the allegations are true, their behavior was a clear violation of the profession’s ethical standards, clear violations of human rights, and probably violations of U.S. and international laws They should be held accountable.” With the Obama administration clearly opposed to any prosecution any prosecutions must await the Republican take-over of both houses. They will order prosecutions just after they help Obama finally close Guantanamo.

Obama administration considering adopting Bush-era view of UN convention against torture

In 2005 the Bush administration revealed that it interpreted the UN Convention Against Torture banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as not applicable to the CIA or military prisons overseas.

Barack Obama was at that time just a newly-elected senator but he supported legislation that would make it clear that US officials were barred from using such treatment anywhere. However, the Obama administration has so far not stated its official position on how the treaty is to be interpreted.
  The New York Times reports that Obama's legal group is considering whether the administration should retreat from his earlier view and adopt a position very much like that of former president George W. Bush — that the treaty does not impose legal obligations to bar torture outside the borders of the U.S. The U.S. will send a delegation to Geneva next month to appear before a UN panel that monitors compliance with the UN treaty.
The Times claims that State Department lawyers are in favor of jettisoning the Bush interpretation. Obama had already issued an executive order in 2009 that forbade torture anywhere in the world and so this position would not involve any change in policy. Military and intelligence lawyers, however, oppose accepting the implication that the treaty creates any legal obligations on any U.S. actions outside the U.S. These lawyers worry that detainees abroad could sue the US for being subject to torture. Courts have repeatedly thrown out such lawsuits.
Bernadette Meehan, a National Security Council spokesperson, claims that Obama's views on the issue were quite clear and distinct from how the UN treaty was to be interpreted: “We are considering that question, and other questions posed by the committee, carefully as we prepare for the presentation in November. But there is no question that torture and cruel treatment in armed conflict are clearly and categorically prohibited in all places.” If the Bush-era narrow interpretation of US obligations is again adopted, this would clear the way again for torture to be adopted by the U.S. abroad.
 The US Senate Intelligence Committee recently completed a classified 6,000-page report into the CIA's detention and interrogation from September 2001 to 2006. However, the report did not consider the role of George W. Bush or his top officials in approving abuses, including torture. The public will only be able to see a partly-redacted, 500-page summary of the report once the classification process is completed. The Committee allowed the Obama administration to withhold about 9,000 documents based upon executive privilege.
A number of foreign leaders and NGOs have pressed for charges to be made against Bush and former members of his administration for approving abuse of detainees during the period studied by the Senate Committee. The only official to go to jail over the torture issue was John Kiriakou, a whistleblower who was one of the first to confirm the existence of the US waterboarding program. He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail for revealing the name of an uncercover agent.
 The present director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan was also an important CIA official during the period when it was carrying out its policies of abuse, and he defended policies like waterboarding. Obama has held up release of the redacted summary report of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Brennan and his cleanup crew are no doubt busy redacting any mud in the report that might soil the pristine reputation of the CIA. Obama refused to lay charges against any Bush era officials involved in torture. Indeed, after two tries he was able to have one appointed as head of the CIA.
As the president so eloquently put the issue: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." Of course exceptions can be made for whistleblowers.

Rand Paul filibustering Brennan's appointment to CIA head

Representative Rand Paul is carrying out an old-fashioned filibuster that will hold up for an indefinite period the confirmation of John Brennan as chief of the CIA.

Rand_Paul is focusing on the dangers of drone strikes against Americans in the US. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today (March 6) that any Republican attempt to block a vote would lead him to start the process of ending debate. However, Reid did not actually begin the paperwork that would allow him to do this. As a result Reid cannot break in on Paul while he is holding the floor. The only solution seems to be for Paul to finally yield.

Rand Paul is a Republican and junior United States Senator for Kentucky.He is a member of the Tea Party and describes himself as a constitutional conservative and libertarian. He is the son of the recently retired libertarian and former representative from Texas, Ron Paul. Rand Paul said:“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first to be found guilty by a court."

Paul was angry at the response of Attorney General Eric Holder to a letter Rand had written. Holder claimed that there were extraordinary circumstances in which a drone could be used to target a US citizen on US soil. Paul went on:"That Americans could be killed in a café in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. I don't rise to oppose John Brennan's nomination simply for the person. I rise today for the principle.”

Paul admitted that he did not actually worry that Obama would give an order to kill a US suspect in the US, but he was concerned that this was not ruled out. Paul acknowledged as well that he cannot block Brennan's eventual nomination. However, Paul took the opportunity to criticise what he calls the overreach of the president's power. The president gives himself the power to be judge, jury, and executioner. As Rand put it, theoretically, an American suspect could be driving down Constitution Avenue in Washington and randomly killed in an air strike.

Paul's filibuster was drawing attention on Tea Party blogs, and also on Twitter where many praised his attack on drone policy. Rand's Republican colleagues were apparently unaware of Paul's plans and had expected to vote on Brennan's nomination some time today (March 6). Another Senator, Ted Cruz of Texas, also criticized Holder's response to Paul's letter.

Obama carries on and expands Bush policies

In an article in Salon, Alex Kane a reporter for MondoWeiss, lists five ways in which Obama has carried on with Bush policies such as rendition, indefinite detention, warrant-less wiretapping, drone attacks, and use of Guantanamo.

Kane points out that on his second day of office Obama broke with the Bush era by signing executive orders that banned torture and he also promised that Guatanamo would be closed within a year. Guantanamo is still open.

Obama can hardly be blamed entirely for the failure to close Guantanamo since the Republican Party has tried to block attempts to close the base. Nevertheless, Obama has hardly continued to press that hard to close the base and he himself has signed bills that restrict his ability to close it.

As if often his strategy, Obama threatened to veto the NDAA of 2013 but then signed it. In the provisions of the act is one that restricts “the transfer of detainees into the United States for any purpose, including trials in federal court. It also requires the defense secretary to meet rigorous conditions before any detainee can be returned to his own country or resettled in a third country.”

Human Rights Watch has blasted the restrictions saying:

“Indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo is illegal, unsustainable and against U.S. national security interests, and it needs to end. The administration should not continue to just blame Congress. President Obama should follow through on his earlier commitments and make the effort to overcome the transfer restrictions.”

As the appended video indicates, 86 of the inmates at Guantanamo have been cleared for release. However, the restrictions imposed on their release means that they will still be held indefinitely.

Obama does not seem to care. He is more concerned with nominating for the CIA John Brennan, a person closely associated with all the Bush programs that Obama and Democrats railed against not so long ago, including torture and extraordinary rendition. Obama tried to appoint Brennan in his first term but memory of his service to Bush was still too strong. Instead he made him a top advisor on counter-terrorism. Brennan has been a staunch defender of the expanded drone program initiated by Obama.

Obama has expanded the drone program far beyond anything that existed under Bush. Not only does he use it in war zones but in any area where there are suspected militants. The Bush administration carried starting in 2002 carried out only 52 drone strikes. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism these strikes killed an estimated 438 including 182 civilians and 112 children. Even before Obama's second term begins he has ordered 300 drones strikes just in Pakistan. These strikes killed about 2,152 people including 290 civilians with 64 being children.

However there are other disastrous effects of the drone programs as the constant buzzing of drones above:

“terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.”

There is no sign of any end to the program just continuous expansion beyond targeting specific individuals to signature strikes. The Washington Post describes a new "matrix" being developed as part of:

“the highly classified practice of targeted killing, transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.”

This is just a sample of the detailed information presented in the article, which shows that Obama is carrying on and expanding Bush policies. Even as he does so, there is only limited opposition to what is happening. The nomination of Brennan is a perfect example of how any opposition has become muted. The reality for many liberals seems to be that there is no alternative, so keep quiet or the Republicans will get you if you don't watch out.

The presidential election and drone strikes: Five Questions

Not much has been said about the issue of drone attacks during the presidential election campaign. Robert Naiman suggests that there are five important questions that journalists should ask about the issue.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Among his other many pursuits he writes on U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post. Given that there has been little discussion of U.S. drone policy during the presidential campaign, Naiman along with others urged Bob Schieffer , who was moderator of the third and last debate between Obama and Romney, on foreign policy, to ask a question about drones. He did.

Schieffer asked the question only of Mitt Romney! He asked only Romney what his position on the use of drones is on the grounds that people already know what Obama's position is. Romney replied:

" Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends."

One can see from this answer that Romney is in basic agreement with Obama on drones. In the election campaign, the two want to emphasize their differences, and hence they will not even bring the issue up.

To ask only Romney about the issue is strange. After all, Obama seems proud of his policy and considers it a success even though there are many criticisms. Schieffer could even have asked a critical question but I suppose that would be going beyond the pale.

However, Naiman and others have considered that even bringing up the topic was a step forward. In the Guardian, Mark Weisbrot said: "It was a victory just to have drones mentioned." Perhaps it is a big leap forward over Big Bird.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough said:

What we are doing with drones is remarkable. The fact that ... over George W. Bush's eight years when a lot of people brought up a bunch of legitimate questions about international law--my God, those lines have been completely eradicated in a drone policy that says that, if you're between 17 and 30, and you're within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up. And that's exactly what's happening.

The defense of these attacks as protecting civilians in the U.S. shows how completely bizarre the discourse has become. There is no direct and immediate threat to anyone in the U.S. by most of those who are targeted. At most they are a threat to U.S. troops and those who might support them in Afghanistan. The way to avoid that problem would be to withdraw the troops as many in the U.S. want.

Naiman suggests it would be informative and useful if high-profile journalists ask some detailed questions about drone policy and engage in genuine critical discussion of the issues. I doubt that this is likely to happen, certainly not before the election in any event. Here are the five questions Naiman wants asked.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan recently said that the U.S. has an official count of the number of civilians it believes to have been killed since 2008 by drone strikes in Pakistan but the number is classified. What is the number? Why is it classified?

Researchers have reported U.S. secondary or follow-up attacks that target rescuers after drone strikes. Legal experts say these attacks are war crimes. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan denies such strikes. What is the truth?

U.S. officials say that the Pakistani military secretly support the strikes. However, the Pakistan parliament has several times passed motions demanding the strikes stop. Is the U.S. violating international law and Pakistani sovereignty by the drone strikes when they are not approved by the Pakistani parliament?

U.S. officials claim the strikes are narrowly targeted on high level terror suspects. However, the U.S. also is said to use "signature strikes" based on suspicious activity. How is this consistent with narrow targeting? I think the answer to this is that it isn't but that officials do not care.

John Brennan, the White House counter-terrorism adviser, says that civilian deaths are exceedingly rare. However, data collected by a number of sources show otherwise, and that at least 15-30% of deaths are civilians. If the collateral damage is this high is the U.S. violating the principle of proportionality?

Those are all good questions but I would not expect the questions even to be addressed in the near future if ever. Certainly, they are unlikely to be answered before the election.