September 14, 2016 (6 min)
US Media Ignores CIA Cover-up on Torture
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
September 16, 2016
VIPS describes how a constitutional crisis emerged when President Barack Obama tried to help CIA Director John Brennan scuttle a comprehensive Senate Intelligence Committee report, based on original CIA banality-of-evil cables, revealing the grotesque, heinous torture techniques used by the CIA after 9/11. For the first time in recent memory, Congress faced the President down. Committee chairman Dianne Feinstein rose to the occasion and refused to throw her intrepid investigators under the bus.
It is a truly gripping story, about which few details have been available –UNTIL NOW. The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman has interviewed the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top investigator, Daniel Johns, who took major risks to put an unvarnished report together and get it published. Sen. Feinstein had to face both the CIA AND its powerful apologist, President Obama, to get the report published before Republicans took over the Senate.
The VIPS Memorandum thanking Sen. Feinstein, and asking her to see that the Guardian interviews of Daniel Jones get some play in U.S. media (there has been some kind of embargo so far), gives just a small taste for this fascinating inside story. But it is not just “inside baseball,” so to speak. Rather it has much wider relevance. Perhaps most interesting are two things they reveal in gory detail: (1) Obama’s strong support of Brennan’s attempts to deep-six the report; and (2) Sen. Feinstein’s determination to prevent that from happening.
NOT Banned in Boston: Consortiumnews.com reporting by editor Robert Parry, VIPS, and Ray about the almost-mousetrapping of Obama into a major attack on Syria exactly three years ago has found its way onto the pages of the Boston Globe, thanks to a Tufts professor who apparently knows a thing or two about chemical agents like sarin.
Here’s the text of Professor Jerry Meldon’s Letter to the Editor, September 12, 2016
Indira A.R. Lakshmanan understandably laments President Obama’s limited response to Syria’s endless humanitarian crisis (“The only change in Syria is for the worse,” Opinion, Sept. 2). But she’s on shaky ground when she reprises the 2013 neocon war-hawk allegation that the Bashar al-Assad regime “used sarin gas in Ghouta, killing . . . hundreds of civilians.”
Assad did possess chemical weapons, and Obama had ominously warned that deploying them would cross a “red line.” Fortunately, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian President Vladimir Putin brokered a deal whereby Assad relinquished his deadly arsenal, which helped dissuade Obama from bombing Syria in retaliation for Assad’s purported authorization of the sarin attack.
In retrospect, it defied logic for Assad to deploy chemical weapons just when UN inspectors were in the Ghouta region. To former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, writing last month in Consortiumnews.com, “the evidence suggested instead a . . . Syrian rebel false-flag operation aimed at fabricating a pretext for direct US intervention.”
Veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh might well agree. In a recent interview in Truthout, Hersh stated that at the time of the August 2013 sarin attack, “the US and its allies knew from highly classified . . . intelligence reporting . . . that the jihadist opposition to Assad . . . had the ability to manufacture a crude form of sarin.”
Rather than criticism, Obama deserves great credit for defying the war hawks.
Jerry Meldon
Hopkinton
The writer is an associate professor in the chemical and biological engineering department at Tufts University.
Navy covered up Afghan sex slave problem to punish Marine – documents
September 1, 2016
https://www.rt.com/usa/357946-
“US Navy lawyers have advised against hearing a Marine’s appeal on the premise that it would grant attention to an Afghan sex slave scandal. The officer sent a classified memo via his own email to warn fellow Marines of danger, shortly before three were killed.
“In the summer of 2012, Captain Brian Donlon reached out to a fellow Marine Corps officer – Major Jason Brezler, then in the USMC Reserves – to ask about Sarwar Jan, a police chief in Afghanistan’s Helmand province with a reputation for corruption and keeping boys as sex slaves. Brezler answered by sending a dossier on Jan, using his Yahoo email account. Donlon warned him the document was classified, and refused to open it; Brezler reported the violation to the military authorities himself.
“Seventeen days later, on August 10, 2012, Ainuddin Khudairaham – one of Jan’s “servants” – broke into the base gym and shot four Marines, three of them fatally. Meanwhile, Brezler got into trouble for trying to warn his fellow Marines about Jan. A NCIS investigation into the email found classified documents on the computers he voluntarily turned over, and in December 2013, the Marine Corps decided to dismiss him from service. … “
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Messages that Julian Assange received from Chelsea Manning (now on a hunger strike in prison) and then posted on WikiLeaks had shed light on Afghan security forces sexual abuse of young boys, but this sad state of affairs found no mention in the “mainstream media,” except for the one chance Ray had to insert it – on CNN, no less. The opportunity came right after Joe Biden branded Assange “a high-tech terrorist,” and CNN was apparently enlisted to “corroborate” that charge – which CNN proceeded to do by enlisting a bunch of “journalists” to show that Biden was right.
Ray was to be the patsy. CNN asked him to try to explain why many of his VIPS colleagues and I could conceivably think Assange not a terrorist, but rather a journalist [I mean, come on already, like REALLY???]. It was all pretty transparent. CNN “journalist” Don Lemon: “So, you really think he is not a terrorist? I want to get that correct. You think he’s a journalist.”
(CNN) Ex-CIA Ray McGovern Supports Wikileaks’ Julian Assange.flv
December 12, 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
(7 min.-version, with Bonnie & Clyde and other “terrorists” lead-in)
Ray was able to cram the following into the end of the interview:
“Find out why my taxpayer money is going to fund trafficked young boys performing dances in women’s clothing before the Afghan security forces whom we are recruiting to take over after we leave. Take a look at the documents and see the abhorrent activities that our government has endorsed or done to its contractors. And then tell me you don’t think the Americans can handle it. Well I think the Americans can handle it, but they can’t handle it if they don’t have it.”
And, for those of you who might have missed seeing Ray on CNN domestic for over five years (his average before 2010 was one appearance every two years), the following gratuitous comment to CNN, from someone with a sense of humor, may help explain why:
+++++++++++++++++++++++
giles422
Posted January 8, 2011 at 9:34 AM
LOL “that’s going to have to be the last word” Ha ha- the last intelligent word.
You’ll not see McGovern on CNN air again. Put an end to that kind of smart talk. Shuffle those papers every time intelligence and honesty is heard…
++++++++++++++++++++++
And so it goes.
9/11: Fifteen Years Later – What Have We Learned?
Donna Marsh O’Connor, whose daughter Venessa was killed on 9/11, and Ray speak at State University of New York, Binghamton on September 9, 2016
Donna: minutes 1 to 13; Ray: 13 to 1:04; Q & A: 1:04 to 1:41
Ray interviewed by RT International on the Clinton/Russia/email caper.
August 31, 2916 (5 minutes)
Hillary Clinton is still trying to persuade voters that (1) Putin wants Trump to win; (2) so, somehow, Putin is responsible for the exposure of the documentary evidence in the emails of Hillary and the DNC stealing the nomination from Bernie Sanders; and (3) and since Julian Assange/WikiLeaks published the (LEAKED not HACKED) data, Assange must be working for the Russians. Got it?
Okay; it’s a stretch. But as long as Hillary thinks she still needs to divert attention from the undisputed authenticity of the emails and the uniquely damaging material in them regarding her trickery of that of the DNC, and as long at the media cooperate, we can expect still more of this magnificent diversion – and tortured syllogism.
Why Did The US Just Bar a Former British Diplomat Craig Murray From Entering the Country? The Real News Network, as usual, has an instructive video report:
Murray has been denied what is normally a routine visa waiver to come to Washington, DC, to be Master of Ceremonies of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence ceremony honoring former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou. The award ceremony will be held at American University on September 25; Kiriakou is the 15th annual recipient.
Those interested in more information on SAAII and this year’s gathering can link to samadamsaward.ch, where former honorees are listed together with other background information.
Amb. Murray himself received the Sam Adams award in January 2006. Since then he has been an outspoken advocate for and defender of subsequent awardees – like Julian Assange (2010), Edward Snowden (2013), and Chelsea Manning (2014).
There may be some clues in the award citations (pasted in below) for Julian Assange – and for Murray himself – as to why U.S. authorities want to keep Assange in Ecuadoran-embassy-captivity in London, and Murray out of the U.S. At the end of a major press conference in London on October 23, 2010, Amb. Murray, together with Daniel Ellsberg, presented the award personally to Julian Assange with the following citation:
Know all ye by these presents that Julian Assange is hereby awarded The Corner-Brightener Candlestick, presented by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.
It seems altogether fitting and proper that this year’s award be presented in London, where Edmund Burke coined the expression “Fourth Estate.” Comparing the function of the press to that of the three Houses then in Parliament, Burke said:
“…but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far then they all.”
The year was 1787—the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The First Amendment, approved four years later, aimed at ensuring that the press would be free of government interference. That was then.
With the Fourth Estate now on life support, there is a high premium on the fledgling Fifth Estate, which uses the ether and is not susceptible of government or corporation control. Small wonder that governments with lots to hide feel very threatened.
It has been said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” WikiLeaks is helping make that possible by publishing documents that do not lie.
Last spring, when we chose WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for this award, Julian said he would accept only “on behalf or our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.”
We do not know if Pvt. Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks the gun-barrel video of July 12, 2007 called “Collateral Murder.” Whoever did provide that graphic footage, showing the brutality of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, was certainly far more a patriot than the “mainstream” journalist embedded in that same Army unit. He suppressed what happened in Baghdad that day, dismissed it as simply “one bad day in a surge that was filled with such days,” and then had the temerity to lavish praise on the unit in a book he called “The Good Soldiers.”
Julian is right to emphasize that the world is deeply indebted to patriotic truth-tellers like the sources who provided the gun-barrel footage and the many documents on Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks. We hope to have a chance to honor them in person in the future.
Today we honor WikiLeaks, and one of its leaders, Julian Assange, for their ingenuity in creating a new highway by which important documentary evidence can make its way, quickly and confidentially, through the ether and into our in-boxes. Long live the Fifth Estate!
Presented this 23rd day of October 2010 in London, England by admirers of the example set by former CIA analyst, Sam Adams.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And here is the citation that accompanied the award to Amb. Murray ten years ago:
Know all ye by these presents that Craig Murray is hereby awarded The Corner-Brightener Candlestick, presented by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.
As UK ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, Mr. Murray learned that the intelligence authorities of the UK and the US were receiving and using information extracted by the most sadistic methods of torture by Uzbek authorities. He protested strongly to London, to no avail.
Mr. Murray stands out as one who did not forfeit his moral compass to his government or to his career. When his government colleagues referred condescendingly to his “qualms of conscience,” he replied that he would not hide his shame “that I work in an organization where colleagues would resort to casuistry to justify torture.”
Mr. Murray recognized that civilized societies have long recognized torture as an intolerable affront to the inherent human right to physical integrity and personal dignity—and that this is precisely why there are so many laws against torture. He did all he could to persuade his government not to condone it. It is shameful that this strong moral stance should jeopardize his promising career. He was forced out of the British Foreign Office, but has no regrets. There are more important things than career.
Nor will he cease to call attention to torture. We look forward to early publication of his book, Murder in Samarkand, now banned in Britain.
Mr. Murray’s light has pierced a thick cloud of denial and deception. He has set a courageous example for those officials of the “Coalition of the Willing” who have first-hand knowledge of the inhuman practices involved in the so-called “war on terror” but who have not yet been able to find their voice.
Presented this 21st day of January 2006 in New York City by admirers of the example set by our former colleague, Sam Adams.
Georgetown’s Gesture on Slavery’s Evils
Consortiumnews.com has blended together Ray’s two pieces on this sad affair.
By Ray, September 3, 2016
No sense anymore to talk about ending the occupation ‘for Israel’s sake’
By Larry Derfner
Originally published September 1 on Haaretz.com as “All You Centrist, Liberal Zionists: Netanyahu’s Destroyed Your Case for Ending the Occupation.”
This very sad set of circumstances, inevitably, will all come to what the Chinese call “a no-good end.” Our founders had their flaws – big ones – but on foreign policy they had a lot of common sense from the outset, when a good dose of humility was a necessity and before our young country became “indispensable” and “exceptional.”
Here’s some of what our first President thought important to warn us about just before he left office. The connections – or, better, the disconnect – between our judicious (and moral) foreign policy then, and what we are doing now in the Middle East – largely because of the U.S.’s “passionate attachment” to Israel – well, it’s a sad subject, and dangerous for both in the longer run. Let’s recall what Washington wrote. It’s in bold, because, well, it is bold. We should listen carefully:
Washington’s Farewell Address 1796 (excerpts)
… Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. … It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. …
Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. … nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. …
The government sometimes … makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity …
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion …
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. …
Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. …
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it …
In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. …
Geo. Washington.