Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Saturday, 8 March 2008

Bush's continued assault on human rights

Another nasty veto...
BBC News:

US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".

He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.


Make no mistake: waterboarding is torture. All human rights organizations agree, as well as other nations and even the American FBI! Waterboarding simulates drowning and leaves the victim psychologically — and sometimes physically — damaged.

There is no reason for torture. This is not a fight between human rights and national security. Torturous interrogation techniques do not get reliable information, countless studies have confirmed this common sense notion. In addition, the declining perception of the US because of the use of torture leaves it more open for attack and helps terrorist recruiters.

The issue of the CIA lies in the fact that by not leaving it objective, the White House opened the door for flawed, politically-motivated intelligence reports such as the ones justifying the Iraq war. The CIA has had continual use as a dirty political tool in the 'war on terror', where it has tortured and detained innocent people without respect to US or international law, whether in Guantanamo, 'black sites', or cases of extraordinary rendition.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." Bush says. Mr. President, if I may counter. You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that torture has helped the United States. Yes, I know you don't use the exact term "torture". It's politically sticky. You stick to the euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Let's see how you would feel about having to stand up, shackled, for 40 hours or so, while being threatened by a CIA thug. Maybe that would change your mind about the true meaning of torture. You use the same justification for torture as you do for (previously) illegal domestic wiretapping: It has saved lives, it will save lives! We must counter the most dangerous terrorists! We must prevent another attack! While it is compelling for me to follow along with most Americans and politicians on your national security programs, you see, I have a respect for the law. I also recognize the fact that torturing terror suspects will get us nowhere in our fight against those who have wronged us.

The president's actions are inexcusable; this is one of the times I am seriously angry at George W. Bush and his ludicrous national security policies. Why can't he use at least one of his vetoes to cut spending like he has promised instead of fighting popular stem call initiatives or legalizing torture?

Wednesday, 19 December 2007

Bush tells everyone to back off on CIA tape probe

CNN:

The Bush administration wants a federal court and congressional committees not to pursue investigations into the destruction of videotapes showing CIA interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects.

It says the inquiries would interfere with an ongoing probe by the Justice Department in collaboration with the CIA.

Defense attorneys for some terror suspects have asked U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy to look into whether the tapes' destruction violated a June order.

The measure requires the government to preserve evidence and information regarding detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


A bit disturbing, but not at all surprising. (See background.) The Justice Department has also dodged questions on the destruction of CIA tapes showing extreme interrogation — e.g. torture. The White House is strongly against all forms of oversight. One wonders what it has to hide...

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

A different kind of interrogation...

The CIA head will have to answer some tough questions about the destruction of tapes showing torturous interrogation.

The CIA director will face two days of questioning by the House and Senate intelligence committees in a probe into the agency's destruction of videotapes showing interrogation techniques used on terror suspects, panel leaders said.

CIA Director Michael Hayden is set to appear in closed-door hearings Tuesday before the Senate panel and Wednesday before the House committee.
...
U.S. officials said the recordings were made as "an internal check" on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques, thought to include waterboarding -- which involves restraining a suspect and pouring water on him to produce the sensation of drowning. The practice has been considered torture since the days of the Spanish Inquisition and was prosecuted as a war crime after World War II.


Here's what I would ask Hayden if I were in a position to do so:
  • Did you know about these tapes?
  • If so, did you learn of their destruction?
  • Did you give the order for their destruction?
  • Has your agency committed acts of torture?
  • Do you consider waterboarding to be a form of torture?
  • Will your independent investigation look into evidence of torture?
  • Why do you think the destruction of these tapes is not a serious matter?
  • What warranted — or could warrant — this destruction?
  • To your knowledge, did the tapes portray anything illegal — that includes torture?
  • Who gave the order to destroy the tapes? Was it really a low-level official?
  • How could you — or whoever destroyed the tapes — be blind enough to believe that they might not be used in future legal cases?
  • Do you know the extent of the Justice Department's knowledge of the tapes?
  • In your mind, is torture ever warranted? This is especially pertinent to the actions and atmosphere of your agency as an ex-CIA agent recently stated that the US had used torture, and, in his view, it worked. The agent's statement on torture directly contradicts your assertion that the CIA does not torture.

    There are of course more questions; but many of the above will doubtless not be asked, or at least go unanswered, over the next couple of days.

  • Wednesday, 15 August 2007

    Who's a Wikipedia editor?

    Anyone! (with internet access).

    Many have heard the stories of American politicians editing their own pages on Wikipedia, the online, open-source wiki encyclopedia that everyone knows about, to make themselves look better. Turns out the good ol' CIA has done the same to its enemies.

    An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.

    Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's President.

    It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

    The tool, developed by US researchers, trawls a list of 5.3m edits and matches them to the net address of the editor.


    The Pope editing an article on the political wing of the IRA? America's intelligence community spamming up the profile of Iran's president? Does anyone have anything better to do than wiki-spam? (I myself am an active editor on Wikipedia.) I always figured the majority of people who mucked up the all-mighty Wikipedia were either people with radical views on the subject at hand or middle schoolers who were able to get past the site blockers in their school computer lab. It turns out everyone from Congressional staffers to holy men at the Holy See are in on it.

    Wednesday, 25 July 2007

    'Special relationship' breakup imminent?

    Britain's "special relationship" with the US looks like it's heading into another rough patch.

    BBC News:

    British concerns did not appear to "materially" affect US actions in its "war on terror", the UK's intelligence and security committee has said.

    The committee, which reports to the prime minister, was probing possible UK involvement in rendition flights.

    It said America's "lack of regard" for UK concerns had "serious implications" for future intelligence relations.

    In response, the UK government said the countries' intelligence relationship was "close" and "must continue".

    The committee said it had found no evidence that the UK was directly involved in rendition flights - the transportation of terror suspects to foreign prisons where they could face torture.

    But Britain's security services had "inadvertently" helped in one case after the US ignored caveats placed on supplied information.


    It looks like bad boy America is further corrupting its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic with its 'war on terror'. These 'extraordinary renditions' — in certain cases confirmed by the Bush administration — are legal black holes: the CIA places terror suspects in secret prisons. To do so it must transport them. It has been revealed that the UK is one of many European nations helping America in this controversial program, breaching international and national law even inadvertently so. As if the US's involvement wasn't enough in the many programs of the 'war on terror' that have tarnished its image; third parties are assisting in this mass disregard of human rights.

    Under Tony Blair, the UK and US were quite close, especially in going to war in Iraq and engaging in a 'war' against terror. Steadily many Britons got fed up with the relationship their nation shared with America, leading some to call Blair Bush's 'poodle'. However with the arrival of Gordon Brown as the new prime minister relations have cooled, no matter how much Brown's administration denies it. There have been conflicting statements by high-ranking cabinet members about a change, or lack thereof, of the UK's foreign ties to the United States.

    The Brown government's ultimate reaction to this new report might serve as an indicator of how much 'war on terror' cooperation with the US — or as some see it, exploitation by the US — Britain will tolerate. Will Gordon Brown and his foreign minister, David Miliband, move beyond the rhetoric and institute a fair but open relationship with America, or will they continue to insist things haven't changed. Things have changed and Brown must decide whether to try to continue the foreign policies of his predecessor or adapt to the new reality.

    Tuesday, 26 June 2007

    'Family jewels' on public display

    Today the CIA released of its files on some of the more, to use Gen Hayden's phrase, the current CIA director who announced the release of the documents last week (see post for background) — although their declassification has been promised for quite some time now — "unflattering" Cold War operation. In 1973 then-CIA director Schlesinger asked for a complete report on some of the more questionable actions of the Central Intelligence Agency. The report, at nearly 700 pages, has now been declassified for public eyes along with more Cold War-era documents: 11,000 pages — over a span of 20 years (1953-1973) on Soviet and Chinese politics and the relations between the two communist superpowers. The analysis might have been used to aid American plots for internally collapsing the two governments.

    Links:

  • CIA's FOIA Electronic Reading Room
  • The "family jewels"/"skeletons" collection
  • CAESAR, POLO, and ESAU page
  • Updated National Security Archive report on "family jewels"

    Update:
    See also 27 June Washington Post article.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Friday, 22 June 2007

    The CIA: coming clean

    The CIA is to declassify years of documents confirming many of it's shady and illegal Cold War practices. Topics like this — knowing, or rather not knowing, what a supposedly free and democratic country as the United States was and still is doing against any measure of human rights, freedoms, and more — get me a bit fired up.

    The Washington Post reported:

    The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.

    The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs.

    "Most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history," Hayden said in a speech to a conference of foreign policy historians. The documents have been sought for decades by historians, journalists and conspiracy theorists and have been the subject of many fruitless Freedom of Information Act requests.
    ...
    The CIA documents scheduled for release next week, Hayden said yesterday, "provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency."
    ...
    Hayden's speech and some questions that followed evoked more recent criticism of the intelligence community, which has been accused of illegal wiretapping, infiltration of antiwar groups, and kidnapping and torturing of terrorism suspects.


    The BBC went further into what exactly these papers will reveal.
    The papers, to be released next week, will detail assassination plots, domestic spying and wiretapping, kidnapping and human experiments.

    Many of the incidents are already known, but the documents are expected to give more comprehensive accounts.
    ...
    Among the incidents that were said to "present legal questions" were:

    * the confinement of a Soviet defector in the mid-1960s
    * assassination plots of foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro
    * wiretapping and surveillance of journalists
    * behaviour modification experiments on "unwitting" US citizens
    * surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971
    * opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union; from 1969 to 1972 of mail to and from China


    These actions are not those of an agency of a free, liberal democratic government. While not turning into a paranoid, "everyone's out to get me"-ist, a citizen should always remain aware of what his or her government is doing to prevent the removal of their own liberties. Those of us who live in America, Germany, India, and other democratic countries should protect our freedom by using the powers democratic governance gives us; those who live in unfree states should also do what they can for freedoms. Moreover, fake wars are no excuse for taking away the freedom of citizens or of others outside of the country. Doing so is counter-intuitive and, as I said before, not the actions of a free state.

    People like former secretary of state and still-foreign policy leader Henry Kissinger want skeletons like these to remain in the dark closets of the CIA, so to speak. He has fought any investigation into America's intelligence agency's misdeeds. Perhaps the reason he fights against the ugly truth is because he himself was a proponent of despicable policy, like bombing civilians in Cambodia or overthrowing democratically-elected world leaders and killing many for the sake of posturing. Why stoop to the enemy's level? Who did Kissinger turn to to commit these misdeeds? The CIA. These are no conspiracy theories.

    In 1975, CIA Director William Colby told then-President Gerald Ford that his summary of the CIA's activity had descriptions of "things [the CIA] shouldn't have done". A day later on 4 January, Secretary of State Kissinger told Ford that divulging these documents — in effect telling a nation the truth about all the horrible things its government has been doing — would result in a political disaster, like a new Watergate. Further withholding information of illegal and shady deeds from the public for your own political security is pretty sad on the part of Kissinger and the Ford administration.

    While it's good that the CIA is finally doing this (a bit late though), I wonder how exactly some of these — need I emphasize it more — horrible acts are, as Hayden calls them, "crown jewels". Moreover they are reminders of a time which I for one hope America never returns too. The Cold War was much worse than the current GWOT in how the government acted and how people's freedoms were suppressed — but that's no excuse for the Bush administration's condemnable "war on terror" actions either.

    Many of the misdeeds listed above were similar to what the unfree, authoritarian Soviet government agencies were doing, just as Bush is in some ways using similar scare tactics as the terrorists he is fighting against. See a pattern? An enemy develops, government takes advantage of people's fear, government gains power and engages in illegal and bad activities for its own power and for whatever other reasons in its 'war'.

    Nowadays the CIA is actually weak. It has lost the badge of authority it carried as it painted a picture of the Red Army marching across American soil and performed commonly operations like the ones listed above. Now the Defense Department has far more power; the CIA is underfunded and the intelligence community often thrust aside — even when it is right, like in the case of 9/11 and the failure in Iraq; and more directly under the president's political authority, the FBI is more notorious for restrictions of domestic civil liberties.

    For a bit more on the foreign policy of America during and before the Cold War, see my Monroe Doctrine essay. The National Security Archive has a page on these "family jewels".
    The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s, according to declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.


    Let's just hope that chapter in the American intelligence community's history has come to a close, or is to end at least with the next president. I highly recommend checking out the archive page linked above; it also documents all the CIA's broken promises of declassification — making Hayden's announcement look less and less like a positive step forward and more like something that should have happened long ago.

    Saturday, 9 June 2007

    More confirmation of CIA secret prisons

    Another development in the story of secret jails run by the American CIA in the "war on terror".

    IHT:

    Investigators have confirmed the existence of clandestine CIA prisons in Romania and Poland housing leading members of Al Qaeda, according to a report issued Friday by the Council of Europe, the European human rights monitoring agency.

    Dick Marty, the Swiss senator who has been leading the inquiry, said in a recent interview that his conclusions were based on information from intelligence agents on both sides of the Atlantic, including members of the CIA counterterrorism center.

    The report says the prisons operated from 2003 to 2005.
    ...
    But the report contends, "What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven."
    ...
    Apart from the statements of what his report describes as former and present intelligence agents, Marty quotes aviation records that he suggests provide detailed evidence of clandestine visits by CIA planes to Szymany, Poland. He also quotes the text of confidential military agreements signed between the United States and Romania that, he suggests, allowed the establishment of a CIA base in the country.
    ...
    The report includes more specific conclusions than a study released in June last year that contended that at least 14 European countries had accepted secret transfers of terrorism suspects by the United States. That report listed a web of global landing points that it said had been used by the American authorities for their air network.


    The report found Poland and Romania were sites for the secret prisons, which President Bush has confirmed the existence of last year. There have been conflicting European reports on these "black sites". Often detainees are transported via "extraordinary renditions"; European nations have acted more as terminals — or the origin of the prisoners — than bases for the prisons. Nonetheless, many laws — international and national — have no doubt been broken even with the programs that have been admitted.

    The CIA denies this latest report, as do the Polish and Romanian governments.

    Wednesday, 23 May 2007

    CIA authorized to destabilize Iran's government (?)

    The CIA returning to the dark days of overthrowing stable governments and causing more trouble than its worth?

    The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

    The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

    "I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.


    Many have called ABC News "traitors" for its report. I call it journalism. Uncovering unacceptable programs like this and letting the public know what its government is doing is something journalists are supposed to do — not clog the airways with worthless muck like Anna Nicole Smith stories. We deserve to know what junk the government is doing, especially if it is as bad as invading on the sovereignty of another state! Iran is not an enemy. There is no war. Therefore, authorizations like the one alleged above is outrageous.

    There is no way in hell this CIA program can help the situation in Iran. Iran is defiantly moving on with its nuclear program, but overthrowing the government would likely result in a takeover by diehard radicals — the real danger. And if you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bad, wait until you see the guys just itching for power over Iran's still undeveloped yet potentially daunting nuclear program.

    Attacking Iran militarily would also only make the problem worse.

    So what should we do with Iran? When all else seems to fail, time for real diplomacy. And sanctions? Are they helping? Let's wait and see. But sanctions shouldn't be the only diplomatic action the United States is pushing for.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Wednesday, 28 February 2007

    More CIA secret prison controversy

    Torture, missing people, innocents being kidnapped from their homes. This has the making of some kind of sadistic gangster plot, no? Not at all. This is the post-9/11 CIA, US government on 'war on terror' steroids. A new Human Rights Watch report confirms these actions in CIA secret prisions, which the United States has denied, confirmed, and then turned around and said they were closed and torture had never been used. Why does all the evidence state the contrary? Much of the focus has been on European countries suspected of collaborating with the US government over these prisons; even though they still are largely clueless. They have been condemned by the European Union parliament. However, much of the torture not done by the US is indirectly — or even directly — caused by it. Many alleged terrorists are sent to rogue states or countries like Saudi Arabia, where they face unimaginable torture. These are so-called ghost detainees, the 'worst of the worst' according to President Bush. So bad, it isn't a victory that the US has caught them?

    The front page story of the Washington Post today was one needed for a long time. It looked at people held and tortured in these "black sites".

    Jabour [a tortured al-Qaeda suspect] had spent two years in "black sites" -- a network of secret internment facilities the CIA operated around the world. His account of life in that system, which he described in three interviews with The Washington Post, offers an inside view of a clandestine world that held far more prisoners than the 14 men President Bush acknowledged and had transferred out of CIA custody in September.
    ...
    Human Rights Watch has identified 38 people who may have been held by the CIA and remain unaccounted for. Intelligence officials told The Post that the number of detainees held in such facilities over nearly five years remains classified but is higher than 60. Their whereabouts have not been publicly disclosed.

    "The practice of disappearing people -- keeping them in secret detention without any legal process -- is fundamentally illegal under international law," said Joanne Mariner, director of the terrorism program at Human Rights Watch in New York.

    Is Bush lying about the secret CIA prisons — again? Even he is usually not this haphazard about 'war on terror' untruth. Back when the story broke (by a Post reporter, Condi Rice did a complete U-turn on the existence of the prisons: literally denying them one day and admitting the next.

    Like GITMO, the US has ignored all calls for it to cease its human-rights-defying secret prison operations. Unlike GITMO, these operations are near totally secret; we barely know about them and there is absolutely no third party monitoring of them. Even the Red Cross is barred (even the Nazis dared not turn down the Red Cross from assisting the WWII POWs they captured, just a historical fact, not that the Bush administration are Nazis).

    Do the prisons affect the sovereignty of the land they are in? After all, one big reason that the 'black sites' are not in US territory is that American law — some argue — does not apply if the CIA collaborates with another country, like Pakistan, not facing, or supposed to be facing, the same human rights standards as the United States.

    Wikipedia has a decent article on the topic with external links if one wants to explore the 'black site' issue further.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,