NBC News yesterday called her a “key apologist” for the CIA’s torture program. A follow-up New Yorker article dubbed her “The Unidentified Queen of Torture” and in part “the model for the lead character in ‘Zero Dark Thirty.'” Yet in both articles she was anonymous.
The person described by both NBC and The New Yorker is senior CIA officer Alfreda Frances Bikowsky. Multiple news outlets have reported that as the result of a long string of significant errors and malfeasance, her competence and integrity are doubted — even by some within the agency.
The Intercept is naming Bikowsky over CIA objections because of her key role in misleading Congress about the agency’s use of torture, and her active participation in the torture program (including playing a direct part in the torture of at least one innocent detainee). Moreover, Bikowsky has already been publicly identified by news organizations as the CIA officer responsible for many of these acts.
The executive summary of the torture report released by the Senate last week provides abundant documentation that the CIA repeatedly and deliberately misled Congress about multiple aspects of its interrogation program. Yesterday, NBC News reported that one senior CIA officer in particular was responsible for many of those false claims, describing her as “a top al Qaeda expert who remains in a senior position at the CIA.”
NBC, while withholding her identity, noted that the same unnamed officer “also participated in ‘enhanced interrogations’ of self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, witnessed the waterboarding of terror suspect Abu Zubaydah and ordered the detention of a suspected terrorist who turned out to be unconnected to al Qaeda, according to the report.”
The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer, writing yesterday about the NBC article, added that the officer “is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.” This officer, Mayer noted, is the same one who “dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.” Mayer also wrote that the officer is “the same woman” identified in the Senate report who oversaw “the months-long rendition and gruesome interrogation of another detainee whose detention was a case of mistaken identity.”
Both news outlets withheld the name of this CIA officer even though her identity is widely known among journalists, and her name has been used by various media outlets in connection with her work at the CIA. Both articles cited requests by the CIA not to identify her, even though they provided details making her identity clear.
In fact, earlier this year, The Washington Post identified Bikowsky by name, describing her as a CIA analyst “who was tied to a critical intelligence-sharing failure before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the botched 2003 ‘rendition’ of an innocent German citizen thought to be an al-Qaeda operative.” That Post report led to both McClatchy and independent journalist Marcy Wheeler raising questions about the propriety of Bikowsky’s former personal lawyer, Robert Litt, playing a key role in his current capacity as a top government lawyer in deciding which parts of the torture report should be released.
The McClatchy article identified Bikowsky by name as the officer who “played a central role in the bungled rendition of Khaled el-Masri. El-Masri, who was revealed to be innocent, claimed to have been tortured by the agency.” El-Masri, a German citizen who was kidnapped from Macedonia and tortured by the CIA in Afghanistan, was released in 2003 after it was revealed he was not involved in al Qaeda.
Back in 2011, John Cook, the outgoing editor of The Intercept, wrote an article at Gawker, based on the reporting of Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, naming Bikowsky and pointing to extensive evidence showing that she “has a long (if pseudonymous) history of being associated with some of the agency’s most disastrous boondoggles,” including a key role in the CIA’s pre-9/11 failure to notify the FBI that two known al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.
Earlier that year, the Associated Press reported that a “hard-charging CIA analyst [who] had pushed the agency into one of the biggest diplomatic embarrassments of the U.S. war on terrorism” (the rendering for torture of the innocent El-Masri) was repeatedly promoted. Despite internal recommendations that she be punished, the AP reported that she instead “has risen to one of the premier jobs in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center.”
The article named her as “Frances,” explaining that the AP “agreed to the CIA’s request to refer to Frances by her middle name because her first is unusual.”
Bikowsky’s name, and her long string of controversial actions, have become such an open secret that she even has her own lengthy, detailed Wikipedia page. The entry describes her as a “career Central Intelligence Agency officer who has headed . . . the Global Jihad unit.”
In the months leading up to the release of the torture report, the CIA and the White House fought to prevent the Senate even from assigning pseudonyms to the CIA officers whose actions are chronicled in the report. The Senate ultimately capitulated, making it difficult to follow any coherent narrative about what these officers did.
As Mayer wrote in yesterday’s article:
Readers can speculate on how the pieces fit together, and who the personalities behind this program are. But without even pseudonyms, it is exceedingly hard to connect the dots. . . . [W]ithout names, or even pseudonyms, it is almost impossible to piece together the puzzle, or hold anyone in the American government accountable. Evidently, that is exactly what the C.I.A. was fighting for during its eight-month-long redaction process, behind all those closed doors.
Naming Bikowsky allows people to piece together these puzzles and hold American officials accountable. The CIA’s arguments for suppression of her name are vague and unpersuasive, alluding generally to the possibility that she could be the target of retaliation.
The CIA’s arguments focus on an undefined threat to her safety. “We would strongly object to attaching anyone’s name given the current environment,” a CIA spokesperson, Ryan Trapani, told The Intercept in an email. In a follow-up voicemail he added: “There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to mitigate those threats.”
However, beyond Bikowsky, a number of CIA officials who oversaw and implemented the program have already been publicly identified—indeed, many of the key architects of the program, such as Jose Rodriguez, are frequent guests on news programs.
Trapani also argued that the Senate report is “based only upon one side’s perspective on this story” and that an article about Bikowsky “doesn’t require naming a person who’s never had a chance to rebut what’s been said about them.” When The Intercept asked for the CIA’s rebuttal—or Bikowsky’s—to the critical portrayal of her in the Senate report, Trapani declined to offer one. He noted that CIA Director John Brennan had disputed the report’s contention that the agency had misrepresented the value of the interrogation program.
Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Sibel Edmonds named Bikowski over 3 years ago. Not a scoop. Where were you?
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/09/29/bfp-exclusive-washington-post-takes-editorial-direction-from-the-cia-the-white-house/
A powerful video.
Alfreda Bikowsky and the CIA vs. Mr. Wright:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/opinion/the-case-against-torture.html
“It’s about hiding war crimes. …
Now, I’m no longer Major Wright, I’m Mr. Wright. …
It’s upsetting that this is what we’re calling a justice system. …
You can always lose your job. But you should never lose your integrity.” -Mr. Wright, once Major Wright.
Worth watching.
Totally agree. Should be required viewing for every voting-age American.
“Totally agree. Should be required viewing for every voting-age American” Peter Maass
A nurse – Thanks for that link. Very powerful message that’s been swallowed up by fear and uncertainty. Should be required viewing for elected officials as well.
@A nurse-great link!
One of the critical actions of the Royal Crown that pushed colonial America to independence was the Boston Massacre. John Adams (a founding father and a future President) represented 8 members of the group that shot and killed the victims of that event. A founding principle of this country is the souvereignty of the rights of ALL individuals. In other words our government’s focus is supposed to be securing our rights and nothing more. Torturing people destroys our rights! Therefore, its un-American. Therefore, its not me. Is it you?
John Adams was very effective representing the “enemy.” If I remember correctly 6 or 7 received no punishment? This is what we, AMERICANS, do. We honor the individuals SOUVEREIGNTY.
Thanks nurse. I had recommended in an earlier comment that T//I should interview ‘Mr. Wright.’
Now I hope he considers running for office; we need more like him serving our nation.
“Now I hope he considers running for office; we need more like him serving our nation. – ec
Absolutely, ec. People are extremely discouraged that government isn’t working for them, and don’t often get the chance (especially at the national level) to see that it really is possible to achieve. One of the largest contributors to changing this is having principled individuals like Mr. Wright in office.
I know this because I’ve seen it happen in my neck of the woods. For decades we had competent administrators and elected officials who did the public’s business openly and on their behalf. Things weren’t perfect, because they never can be. But then the opposite occurred; sending taxpayers millions of dollars into debt and destroying the public trust. Unfortunately, our local media was complicit, making change for the better even harder. That said, more principled individuals were slowly being elected, more competent administrators were hired, and we’ve now reached a point where public confidence is returning and where open government is practiced more frequently.
So for all of the naysayers that wave their hands saying that nothing can be done, I say it’s simply not so. Electing principled individuals to office, first, and then managing them as taxpayers with the help of an adversarial media is the key, and always has been.
In the end, the government you get depends on those you elect and how effectively your media and the voters hold them to account. Not easy – but doable.
If I may ask, what part of the country do you live?
I’m in Chicago, where ‘pay to play’ has now been exported to practice on a national
basis.
Margaret Sullivan, NYT public editor, weighs in … When the Government Says, “Shhh!” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/public-editor/when-the-government-says-shhh.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
We are in a war with people who want to kill us. You do what you have to do to win! This is not some child’s game or television where the dead are in another show next week.
The score is several million dead for those who want to kill US and ten?thousand Americans.Seems we want to kill them more than they want to kill US,right?The big question is why we want to kill them,is it genetic?
Tweet from Allen Frances, MD — “Chairperson of DSM-IV Task Force. Prof emeritus & former chair of Dept of Psychiatry at Duke U.”
https://twitter.com/AllenFrancesMD/status/546751531614081025
“Military’s new neuroscience weapons program http://io9.com/how-the-military-could-turn-your-mind-into-the-next-bat-1673214050 … Wasn’t psychologists doing CIA torture disgusting enough”
“How The Military Could Turn Your Mind Into The Next Battlefield”
http://io9.com/how-the-military-could-turn-your-mind-into-the-next-bat-1673214050
Could? It’s already happened but they’ve kept the technology secret so people are unaware how far along they are with technology. Maybe Sharon Weinberger will consider doing an indepth investigation into what is already in use, verifying reports of targeted individuals.
Yes, this is exactly what they are researching. DARPA has a 3.2 billion budget and 130 staff employees. The research is all farmed out to Universities, Bio-techs, Pharma etc…It’s interesting that IBM receives block grants from DARPA, that they distribute. I wonder if the recipients of the grants realize where money is coming from and the overall goal of the cumulative research. “They” are infamous for giving a little piece here, a little piece there and none of the researchers ever know what project they are actually providing data for…Please don’t forget tenure now depends on bringing in the dollars.
Not to mention the DoD contractors, the guys/gals with the best toys, whether that is bombing the shit out of some third world country or suppressing dissidents in the U.S.A. MONEY!! You know, everyone could just refuse to participate East German style. That’s what is called a peaceful revolution, but I fear it will have to get much worse, before our friends see the light. Most everyone is still is in denial, because IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE.
Part of “the program” is to induce severe psychological trauma/PTSD in test subjects. Then the triggers/cues, which are sound, color, pain, places can live a life of their own after they have “flooded” the target with these conditioning triggers. We have some really sick Fu*cks in our government and medical community. Compared to the worst totalitarian regimes in the history of the world, with the most horrific human rights abuses…we are just get started.
But the good news is there is no statute of limitations on torture and it’s a 20 year sentence…that’s just for starters.
AG, the media — even The Intercept — seems unmoved by our testimonies. I am
running out of ideas to get someone in the position to help to pay attention. The evidence is in my walls of 24/7 surveillance and remote neural monitoring. They removed the magnetron but surely there is still evidence it was there as there is that my plumbing had some sort of tank attached to it for several months — until I began calling a plumber to come with a sewer cam. The psychos involved are from every level of government, public utilities, Northrop Grumman, Northwestern Hospital, Thomson Reuters, ‘consulting firms’ with no telephone numbers or locations, and independent contractors who think they’re starring in some James Bond flick. And in my case it’s a political targeting. God help me; God help us all.
ec, we don’t know who is working on news stories or who in the government is addressing this problem. I would say at this point, they are all aware that they could potentially become targets in the future. Now this doesn’t help our immediate situation, but I am at least slightly comforted by the fact that the entire world is horrified by the torture that was committed, under the guise of interrogations. Wait until people find out that innocent targets across the globe are being tortured. If the government allows these crimes to continue, eventually someone will leak the program “Snowden style”. When, I don’t know.
This group can only operate in secrecy. Once that secrecy is shattered, it’s all over for them. They will be hunted like Nazi war criminals, to the ends of the earth.
AG, I hope you are correct. But alas not everyone has been ‘horrified’ by the torture, with polls showing the majority of Americans supporting it in some instances. We’re a long way from a tipping point. In the meantime, I have sociopaths masquerading in my building. I’ve picked up ‘Man’s search for meaning’ by Viktor Frankl for spiritual succor. And on a more positive note, happy holidays to all!
Dabney writes:
Dabney, you are obviously a peace-making kind of person, but where Craig is concerned your ministrations are almost certainly futile: Craig is a hardcore Zionist. Everything that Craig believes, from front to back, is dictated by his militant devotion to the supremacist Jewish State.
Zionism has killed many Palestinian bodies, but even more Jewish souls. Israel has a long histroy of torture (see the site Public Committee Against torture in Israel, http://www.stoptorture.org.il/en/skira1999-present) and it goes on extensively right now. For that reason, Craig will defend it with his last dying breath.
Even if it makes him no better than a Nazi. It’s the Zionist position, so it is his. His soul is dead, killed by Zionism.
Mona, there are many American torture advocates who do not have deep devotion to Israel. Perhaps you are confusing correlation with causation in Craig’s case?
I recently had a conversation with a highly educated (recently graduated), multi-lingual, probably in debt…bartender. The only job he had been offered was “commenting on message boards” aka social media. I advised him to keep his bartending job, which he had held during summer vacations from college. I asked him how his generation felt about the current situation and he told me they were furious. They are young and this is uncharted territory.
I’m not going to read through 500 comments JUST TO SEE IF THIS INFO HAS already been posted.
.
Many years ago,
before she got into the CIA,
Alfreda had approached Osama bin Laden about being one of his wives.
He asked her to send a photo.
the rest is history.
He could be making the same disgusting claims about “whether rape works or not” and be no less repugnant.
Well, if it works, or if those doing it think it works, it leads straight into an abyss. For instance, Salon recently re-posted this (which is why the comments are Dec. 2014 even if the story is 2004):
http://www.salon.com/2004/07/15/hersh_7/
Allegations are from 2004, true, and involved the military facility at Abu Ghraib, but the Center for Constitutional Rights’ later lawsuits on contractors (see the CCR website) included this allegation, and it’s possible the contractors also worked for CIA and/or NSA or other agencies. As for this incident, I suppose that if they thought if torture works generally, then they had to keep trying until they found a method that did.
Somebody tell me how this is somehow justified.
From Coram’s link:
“… The women were passing messages out saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what’s happened’ and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”
Only a dishonest moral cretin would try to claim there is some kind of “debate” to be had about whether or not any of this “works.”
Torture and rape aren’t terrible crimes because they don’t work. They are crimes because they are terribly wrong.
“…..He could be making the same disgusting claims about “whether rape works or not” and be no less repugnant……Torture and rape aren’t terrible crimes because they don’t work. They are crimes because they are terribly wrong……”
Between you and Mona, you are both making me look awfully sane. What next Doc? Accusing me of making the same disgusting claims “whether female genital mutilation works or not”?
Thanks as always.
They are crimes, quite simply, and are often components of a greater evil. Wartime rape is often a method of torture; it can also be, as we saw in Bosnia and Rwanda, a component of genocide. Rape and torture are also chargeable as war crimes or crimes against humanity. War crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are all listed as major crimes under int’l law from Nuremberg to the Statute of Rome, and all three offenses carry maximum penalties: life imprisonment at the ICC, or traditionally death by hanging. We’re only quibbling about where to put rape and torture on the bill of particulars.
Coram
“……They are crimes, quite simply, and are often components of a greater evil. Wartime rape is often a method of torture; it can also be, as we saw in Bosnia and Rwanda, a component of genocide. Rape and torture are also chargeable as war crimes or crimes against humanity……”
That’s great. I couldn’t agree with you more. Now if you can show how that pertains to me or anything I have said in the past, then your post will make some sense in the context of what Doc said. Rape is a violent crime in any civilized country, and in areas of war, it’s an extreme act of terrorism – like when Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of school-aged girls on at least two different occasions (of course, you will never read about these brutal acts of terrorism, violence and rape in the Intercept).
Thanks.
” Rape and torture are also chargeable as war crimes or crimes against humanity” – coram nobis to CraigSummers
” I couldn’t agree with you more. Now if you can show how that pertains to me or anything I have said in the past” – CraigSummers to coram nobis
Just type “torture works” and “Dick Cheney” into your browser search function to find the many instances in this dialog where CraigSummers supports the sociopathic, torture/rape (i.e., rectal feeding) also promoted by those like Dick Cheney.
Since on the one hand CraigSummers “couldn’t agree more” that torture is a war crime and a crime against humanity, yet in his own words says that torture is perfectly acceptable behavior, he can no longer vacillate schizophrenically about his position.
That of being sociopathic, hypocritical, and a liar.
And before the hand-waving starts re: “your killing the messenger!” – let’s be real clear here. You killed yourself with your message, CraigSummers. Take responsibility for it.
““Hypocrites get offended by the truth.” – Jess C. Scott, Bad Romance: Seven Deadly Sins Anthology
Sillyputty
“……That of being sociopathic, hypocritical, and a liar…… And before the hand-waving starts re: “your killing the messenger!” – let’s be real clear here. You killed yourself with your message, CraigSummers. Take responsibility for it……”
First of all, don’t have a heart attack, OK? Your enthusiastic response clearly took things out of context for both the responses by Coram and the idiotic response by Doc – and you know it. My response pertains to the post by Doc which stated I could be making the same claims about rape (which I couldn’t). I think that is obvious.
The reason it is obvious is because I have always taken complete responsibility for my support for torture (under certain circumstances). Up thread I pointed out:
“……Of course, those who support torture can never claim the moral high ground. That’s obvious. There is only one reason to support torture – and that is to save lives…..”
So I have been up front, and honest about my support for torture. So you are wrong about me lying. In addition, we are all hypocritical at some point. Remember the discussion about “labels”? And now you are referring to me as a sociopath among other things? You can call me whatever you want until you are blue in the face. I don’t care, but you are still as big of a hypocrite as anyone on these threads.
Thanks as always.
The reply, lightly edited with what was left out [re-inserted] for accuracy:
“My response pertains to the post by Doc which stated I could be making the same claims about [ “whether rape works or not” and be no less repugnant.], which I couldn’t. I think that is obvious: I can’t help being this repugnant.”
CS – Both replies above were to Doc’s posts. The point, to anybody, is that once torture is out, if it’s permissible, if someone raises a excuse, anything becomes possible. “It works” is not an justification for a war crime or crime against humanity; nothing is.
A reiteration.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/22/americans-learn-to-stop-worrying-and-love-torture/
59% of the public supports, going to 69% for evangelicals and about 75% for non-evangelical Protestants. Seems like this kind of public support, or at least apathy, is why the torturers can feel a sense of impunity. Who’s going to vote against them?
“So I have been up front, and honest about my support for torture” – CraigSummers
This is one reason why it’s not a “label” – it’s self-admitted. The second reason, as pointed out by myself and others, is because it is sociopathic to think the way that you and Mr. Cheney do about torture. Hence my suggestion that you look it up for yourself.
So in the end I’m not “calling” or “labeling” anything – I’m observing the fact that Cheney’s and your stance on torture is sociopathic, and cannot be rationalized away. Nothing more, nothing less.
“He had a clear conscience. Never used it.” – Stanis?aw Jerzy Lec, More Unkempt Thoughts
Craig ‘Dirty Harry’ Summers torture loop for actionable intelligence (start in any direction)
tortured confession
/ \
/ \
tortured confession tortured confession
\ /
\ /
tortured confession
Hi Doc
“……He could be making the same disgusting claims about “whether rape works or not” and be no less repugnant……”
When I first responded to a post of yours at the Guardian, you seemed like a bright person. Gradually at the Intercept, you have chiseled away at that observation. Now you have proven yourself to be a complete idiot.
Thanks.
What is your Guardian comment section name Craig?
Dec 10, 2014
“…….Where is the asshole Craig Summers?…..”
At the time, I read the Greenwald article and just happened to notice your comment. That seems really funny now. My name at the Guardian is the same: craigsummers (one name).
Merry Christmas Rolling…..
Thanks Craig. Enjoy the funny moment, have a chuckle even, it’s Christmas! Torture your turkey a bit before eating it.
Sorry Craig, my reply was crap.
Merry Christmas to you and your family. Thanks for your Guardian user name. Much can be learnt from replies to your comments.The comment section here wouldn’t be the same without you, whatever your views.
Thanks Craig
That was hilarious. We’ll be “torturing” a lamb this year.
“…disastrous boondoggles,” including a key role in the CIA’s pre-9/11 failure to notify the FBI that two known al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.” I wonder if Clinton’s Attorney General officer’s (Jamie Gorlick) written directive to the CIA not to directly share intelligence with the FBI had anything to do with this? Conveniently, Gorlick was also a member of the 9/11 Commission.
We are no longer one country – Washington does not listen to the people and they do as they please.
TORTURE…. and MURDER by DRONES – in the name of the people they do not represent…
The “SECRECY ACT” of hiding their dirty deeds.
The C.I.A. has been torturing people for decades – smuggling in drugs ( I understand that the Bush boys had their picture taken at one of the secret air strips in Florida ) 9/11 so how did Bin Laden close down NORAD & SAC ?? or WHY was the Bin Laden family allowed to fly out of the U.S.A. while all aircraft were grounded??
Washington’s deeds are not checked by anyone – the budget is hidden…..foreign aid?? to buy whose loyalty?? Black ops sites around the world – that stand against our Constitution and all that “We the People” believe and stand for.
“As you listen to the politicians – say what they are doing is what is best for our country” PLEASE REMEMBER HOW GENERAL BENEDICT SAID THE SAME THING. . . Oh yes he was standing on the “gallows” at the time.
We are no longer one country – Washington does not listen to the people and they do as they please.
WHERE WERE THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES?? WHY WERE THEY NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK ?.?
The most shocking is yet to come: microwaving unwitting American citizens, poisoning them, performing scientific experiments and measuring results with the use of remote neural monitoring, microchipping hidden in flu shots, direct energy weapons installed in cars and walls to burn targets, 24/7 inhome durveillance, the use of JLENS to burn targets. The Democratic leadership is as complicit as the Bush regime. There are thousands of targets that the media has turned a blind eye toward. Yet none of these weapons are in the realm of imagination — all exist and are in use by our military and intelligence agencies. The media collectively is a sham; it’s individual journalists who are making a difference. Thanks Glenn. But there is so much more to fo.
No fear of ending up like Michael Hastings doing journalism like this? Or do you have the government’s blessings…..
Donger’s ‘Festivus’ Wish List..
THE // INTERCEPT – Mr. Bill Owen to remedy this archaic commentating functionality as of now.
Ms. Poitras – A job.
Mr. Greenwald – A link to your *archive in its entirety.
Mr. Scahill – An article.
Ms. Weinberger – Coffee?!
Ms. Winter – A pulitzer. (ht`bah)
Mr. Thompson – Soothing chap-stick for his ‘wasabi-encrusted’ lips.
Ms. Vargas Cooper – Apricot-danish from el Belwood Bakery Cafe. (summa cum laude #bruins)
Ms. Cora Currier & Mr. Morgan Marquis-Boire – **More please.
..
Safe Travels to all..
..
* http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.ca/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html
** Leaked Files: German Spy Company Helped Bahrain Hack Arab Spring Protestors – 08/07/2014
Suave, please don’t forget the domestic cointelro 2.0 that’s ravaging lives in secret. Obama has his own torture crimes which included targeting enemies of the elite. This explains his and Brennan’s extraordinary
bond. The New York Times’ call for an independent investigation hopefully will rip the curtain off these heinous crimes and lay them at the feet of the guilty.
Hold your taters suave … I thought I said ‘pullet’ prize?
>”Ms. Winter – A pulitzer. (ht`bah)”
Happy Festivus for the rest of us. … safe travels for you too. :)
I want… a shrubbery.
Hi suave and all –
Oh I love this, So my Intercept Christmas wish list is:
1) a better comment section – one where you can check the excellent links people post and not have to reload the comments all over again.
2) more articles from Mr. Ryan Deveraux, PLEASE!
3) more articles from Mr. Murtazza Hussein – maybe a follow up on that mail surveillance story?
4) how about some articles on what people can be doing to make a difference – maybe some interview with activists or coverage of what some organizations are doing that we could maybe plug into?
5) as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, how about some coverage of those who objected torture? – and couple that with the suggestion of others for more coverage of torture victims
6) more coverage of how other agencies, not just the NSA are assaulting our freedoms
7) How about a guest post from: Chris Hedges, Bob Herbert, the guy who wrote book “Deep State” or some others?
Ok TI Santas, get with it!
Great suggestions. I’ll share with others at TI. Many thanks!
sillyputty
“……The facts point to this persons career path as being predicated on lies, deception, cover-up, and illegal acts. Anyone’s career should end because of these things, and you know this, too…..”
That’s interesting sillyputty, you must have a copy of the 2014 CIA agent evaluation information in front of you. First of all, it’s ridiculous that the media is trying to saddle Ms. Bikowsky with the failure to detect 911. There is an article on the front page of the New York Times on line addition this morning which addresses the Mumbai terrorist attack in India:
“…….An investigation reveals how American, British and Indian agencies failed to pull together intelligence streams before attacks that Indians regard as their 9/11.…….The Indians did not home in on the plot even with the alerts from the United States…….”
I suppose that was Bikowsky’s fault as well. It takes a village (you gotta love Hillary) to miss a plot like 911 – not a single CIA agent. The CIA definitely dropped the ball on 911, but attempting to blame one CIA agent for the failure is a gross injustice.
Secondly, that Ms. Bikowsky (allegedly) sent agents on a wild goose chase to Montana is also an idiotic charge. Whether false information comes from torture or while playing a round of golf during interrogation (preferred by the prisoner), false information leads CIA agents to dead ends all the time – unless you believe that being nice to a terrorist always yields a confession. Bikowsky might have been overzealous in her job, but you have to admit, it is nice to see a government employee actually work.
As to the charge that Ms. Bikowsky oversaw “the months-long rendition and gruesome interrogation of another detainee whose detention was a case of mistaken identity” (i.e. presumably an innocent person), no one can support the injury or death of an innocent person whether from torture, drones, tanks, artillery, M16s or jet fighters. However, I wouldn’t be willing to prosecute Ms. Bikowsky unless she knew the person was innocent (or a drone operator unless he targeted an innocent person).
In addition, in lieu of 911, the justice department under Bush authorized enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether she stepped outside of the authorized techniques during interrogation is unclear (to me). If the prisoner was rendered (which has been a standing US policy since at least the Clinton Administration), then why Bikowsky over other CIA agents who have authorized the rendering of prisoners? Well she is the “queen” of torture and the most visible person in the program. Her (partial) character was the subject of a movie about the killing of the mass murderer, Bin Laden (the extrajudicial “murder” of Bin Laden outraged some on the far left). But this goes well beyond the political lynching of one CIA agent. This is just the start of a long witch hunt which is focused on the policies of the detested Bush Administration (yes, there is politics involved).
“……There is no debate on torture. It’s illegal worldwide. It’s immoral. It’s settled…..”
But there is a debate on whether torture works or not – and it is not irrelevant. If there is a situation where someone knows of another plot that could kill thousands, enhanced interrogation (approved torture) could be used. What would be the point if it doesn’t work? In addition, while approving torture is a slippery slope, it’s hard to reconcile principle where thousands of lives are at stake. It’s also relevant from a political point of view (hated Bush administration).
Thanks.
‘What would be the point if it doesn’t work? ‘
Revenge, bigotry, and twisted sadism.
They use it for getting the false information from the tortured so that they can sell lies about the need to go to war or whatever it is that they need to lie to the public about. That has been well documented.
“……They use it for getting the false information from the tortured so that they can sell lies about the need to go to war…….That has been well documented……”
Good. Then you ought to be able to give me some examples.
Craig, you are immune to facts, and in less than a month you’ll be pretending that these also don’t exist. From National Journal:
No hyperbole: this is the kind of thing that makes Craig proud to be an American.
Oh and Craig, this particular torture-derived false information was used to sell a war that delighted the hearts of almost all Zionists. National Journal again:
Mona
Let’s put the whole truth out about al-Libi – and why the interrogation may not appear in the report. The Egyptians tortured al-Libi into giving the false information. There is a long (and interesting) story in wikipedia about al-Libi.
“…….Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi (Arabic: ????? ????????? ????????; ALFB transliteration: ?bn? ?l???? alLibi; born Ali Mohamed Abdul Aziz al-Fakheri, 1963 – May 10, 2009) was a Libyan national captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 after the fall of the Taliban; he was interrogated by the American and Egyptian forces. The information he gave under torture to Egyptian authorities[1][2] was cited by the George W. Bush Administration in the months preceding its 2003 invasion of Iraq as evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[3] That information was frequently repeated by members of the Bush Administration, although reports from both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) strongly questioned its credibility, suggesting that al-Libi was “intentionally misleading” interrogators.[4]……”
The CIA didn’t buy into the confession. Bush simply wanted to remove Hussein from power i.e., regime change and he was going to use every lie to bolster his case. Bush simply thought that removing Hussein from power would reduce the threat that Iraq would develop WMDs (which is true) and help regional stability since Saddam had invaded two countries, supported terrorism against Israel and had launched missiles capable of carrying chemical weapons at Israel (unprovoked).
Thanks.
Mona: the Bush administration, when it was done with al-Libi, renditioned — er, “transferred” — him to Libyan custody, Libya then being one of America’s collaborators. He died in Libyan custody in 2009, maybe suicide, maybe not.
All that follows supports that torture did not work on al-Libi. He gave false data, on which basis a president and Colin Powell talked our country into an unnecessary war.
But you are a vile moral imbecile who defends torture, because you are a Zionist, and Zionists have long committed torture. So you have no option. Israel uber alles.
After reading tiny bits of –cuz why bother being tortured reading all of it– CraigSummer’s latest repeat of shit that CraigSummers has posted numerous times before, I typed, “The idiocy of the ticking time bomb debate,” into a search engine. I didn’t actually expect that those exact words would get results, but…
“Nice essay on the idiocy of the “ticking time bomb” theory of torture:”
…they did. From Schneier on Security:
I suspect that will roll off Mr. Craig ‘Dirty Harry’ Summers like water off a ducks back.
*he’s read the script.
Kit and bahhummingbug
Before every successful and unsuccessful terrorist attack, there was a ticking time bomb scenario already in place – when a planned mission – whether to target children or bomb a train etc. – was given the go ahead by the mission leader. The plans were complete, access to whatever weapons they planned to use were in place and the time for the murder to begin was finalized. From that point forward, there is a ticking time bomb. It could be two weeks or twelve hours. It’s happened in Madrid, New York, London, Pakistan numerous times and tons of other places.
If you take the Mumbai attacks featured in the New York Times this morning as an example, there was intelligence gathered by three agencies that knew something was up – a potential terrorist attack targeting India. Unfortunately, the attacks succeeded killing 166 people. The New York Times writes:
“…….Mr. Shah, the technology chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terror group, and fellow conspirators used Google Earth to show militants the routes to their targets in the city. He set up an Internet phone system to disguise his location by routing his calls through New Jersey. Shortly before an assault that would kill 166 people, including six Americans, Mr. Shah searched online for a Jewish hostel and two luxury hotels, all sites of the eventual carnage……”
If intelligence agencies had caught Mr. Khan who planned the attacks including the timing of the assault, you can make a case in my opinion for torturing him to expose the plot. This is a well known Pakistani terrorist with a plot that the US, Britain and India all recognized was in the works, but still didn’t prevent. You can bet that the US and India (Britain(?)) would have used EITs on Mr. Khan – and rightly in my opinion. Now, it’s just as true that if the intelligence agencies of the US, Britain and India had all met at a local bar (in Pakistan, of course), they might have exposed the plot anyway. That’s totally unfortunate.
Thanks.
“if…you can make a case in my opinion for torturing him to expose the plot” “You can bet that the US and India (Britain(?)) would have used EITs on Mr. Khan – and rightly in my opinion”
It doesn’t work, you sadistic fool.
Thanks for your reply
“……It doesn’t work, you sadistic fool……”
Sociopath. I’m a sociopath. Please get that right.
oh my, Kitt —-
It was really hard just to READ that. But I’m glad you found it… hope it helps to disabuse this notion of that ticking time bomb scenario…
Craig, I am worried about you. I’m really starting to believe that this environment is not conducive to your growth/development as a human being. I have expended a lot of time and energy into softening you up, because I think you are worth it. But other people keep hardening you up and undoing my efforts. I’m truly afraid that in this antagonistic environment, you will never have your Come To Jesus moment. You are too boxed in here, beset and besieged, to have room to evolve.
It bums me out.
Merry Christmas.
Hi Dabney
“……I’m really starting to believe that this environment is not conducive to your growth/development as a human being……”
I’m already on the downward side of “growth”, but you are probably right that this gets old after awhile. People tend to get a little worked up on this particular subject – even more than drones which kill quite a few innocent people. Just think if I was Dick Cheney weighing in – or someone who really had some input on our government’s policies (outside of voting). At any rate, thanks for your concern. Enjoy the spectacular first days of winter.
Thanks
BTW I wasn’t referring to torture.
I guess it was just my arrogance or grandiosity that made me think you might have actually tried to understand a single word I wrote I’ve written to you here in these threads. I’ve been around the block enough times to know that you can’t change people, certainly not by trying to force it. The most you can do is plant a seed and hope it will grow, but it appears I’ve failed to even do that. Obviously I suck. Or maybe I was just tilting at windmills. Whatever.
Not going to lie to you: I’m depressed. And there’s nothing “spectacular” about the first few days of winter here. They are gloomy and depressing. Not “splendid” like Couer D’Alene. And plus cold.
Hi Dabney
Sorry that you are depressed. Christmas can be one of the most depressing times of the year. Outside of this forum (and the Guardian), I do have a regular life – a wife and three kids (all grown and out of jail). I live in Boise, Idaho which is decent place to live with good access to recreational activities in the nearby mountains. I am definitely NOT a winter person. Winters are long and boring (and cold). Idaho is a spectacular place to live, and while I’m not sure where you are from, you should visit Idaho if you get a chance. It’s growing and unemployment is relatively low. The only drawback is that we have a Governor named “Butch”.
At any rate, I hope things get better for you and you spend Christmas with family or friends.
Craig
“People tend to get a little worked up on this particular subject’ – CraigSummers
Or until they freeze to death, or get forcefully raped because the “working up” hasn’t worked. Which, despite your assertions to the contrary, they haven’t.
Humanity Pro-Tip™ – Your apologist arguments aside, torture doesn’t work in the movies (movies not being real, and all that) and it hasn’t worked in reality.
Sociopaths rationalize immoral behavior on no evidence (see the behavior of ISIS, et .al) – as evidenced by you and your cohorts arguments for torture.
Sillyputty
sociopath…….pathlogy…..stalking
“……but at least have the credibility and intellectual honesty to stop killing the messenger just because you do not like the message……”
You are a total hypocrite, aren’t you sillyputty. But don’t worry, I’m not in the least surprised – and I don’t really care. But I do enjoy pointing it out. Yes, torture has worked. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
Thanks.
“Yes, torture has worked. – CraigSummers
Arguendo – Provide proof (more than one verifiable source, please) that torture has “worked” in that it has saved lives that otherwise would have been lost.
*Please note: Movies and other fictional accounts don’t count.
As far as your implication that I’m the one killing the messenger here; not at all.
You’ve committed intellectual and moral suicide…all by yourself.
“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?” – George Orwell, 1984
Oops. Sorry CraigSummers – Forgot that you told me to read the New York Times for another perspective:
“Here are eight cases cited in the report where the C.I.A. made the case that its [torture] tactics thwarted plots and led to the capture of terrorists, and how the committee’s report undercut those accounts. NYT, Dec. 9. 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-torture-work-the-cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html?_r=0
“……..As far as your implication that I’m the one killing the messenger here; not at all……”
I knew you would be in denial – and that’s fine. Just don’t whine time when I do the same, OK?
Sillyputty
That torture works is just common sense. However, you are going to also have plenty of false information. Here is a link to the Daily Beast (Stephen Carter: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/11/stephen-carter-torture-can-be-wrong-and-still-work.html?via=desktop&source=twitter via @thedailybeast).
Then there was the case of William Buckley who was captured by Hezbollah (Wikipedia):
“……Major General Carl Stiner stated that “Buckley’s kidnapping had become a major CIA concern. Not long after his capture, his agents either vanished or were killed. It was clear that his captors [Hezbollah] had tortured him into revealing the network of agents he had established.”[9]…..”
I also googled “waterboarding”:
“……Former CIA operative John Kiriakou in 2007 told CNN’s “American Morning” that the waterboarding of Al Qaeda’s Abu Zubaydah indirectly led to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:[171]…..The former agent, who said he participated in the Abu Zubayda interrogation but not his waterboarding, said the CIA decided to waterboard the al Qaeda operative only after he was “wholly uncooperative” for weeks and refused to answer questions…..All that changed – and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation – after 30 to 35 seconds of waterboarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique…..The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the [sic] 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said. The CIA was unaware of Mohammed’s stature before the Abu Zubayda interrogation, the former agent said.[172]….”
That took about 10 minutes to find three examples. I agree with you that whether torture works or not is irrelevant in most cases, but in some cases – as I have stated – it might be useful. You disagree. The world isn’t going to quit turning on its axis because we disagree.
Thanks.
“You are going to also have plenty of false information” – CraigSummers
Yes you are, I could not have said it better myself; all you have provided is second-hand uncorroborated information – not confirmation.
As stated before, even had you shown unequivocal proof (which this certainly falls far short of) torture is an act which is not only not ever justified, but has also been demonstrably ineffective. That you and Mr. Cheney and I will disagree on this is a given.
That you and Mr. Cheney are sociopathic for thinking otherwise, is also, by its very definition, a given as well.
It’s nothing personal – that’s simply what the definition of a sociopath is.
“When you were hanged, dissected, stunned with blows and made to row in the galleys, did you always think that everything was for the best in this world?” – Voltaire, Candide
Craig: “But there is a debate on whether torture works or not – and it is not irrelevant. If there is a situation where someone knows of another plot that could kill thousands, enhanced interrogation (approved torture) could be used.”
The problem with this debate (in addition to the sickening horror of the debate’s very existence) is that the pro-torture position is rooted in fantasies, fictional movies and TV shows. To my knowledge (which you are welcome to supplement), torture has never prevented a mass terror attack, or even a small-scale terror attack. It’s like the “debate” over global warming — one side is utterly unconcerned with things like reason and evidence.
But again, and I mean this, kudos to you for calling it “torture” — if more torture advocates had your candor, this grotesque debate would at least be more honest.
Gator90
Six former directors and deputy directors of the CIA challenged the Senate intelligence report in an article in the Wall Street Journal. You can read what they wrote: http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
Thanks (especially for your sane reply!).
Craig- thanks for the link. Unverified, conclusory, self-serving assertions by people with a strong interest in preventing the criminal prosecution of CIA personnel are, to put it mildly, unpersuasive. They are certainly not evidence that American torture has actually saved any American lives, or that it has led to the acquisition of any useful information that could not have been obtained by non-evil methods.
“…….Craig- thanks for the link. Unverified, conclusory, self-serving assertions by people with a strong interest in preventing the criminal prosecution of CIA personnel are, to put it mildly, unpersuasive…..”
True enough, but there was six of them that signed on to the article. In addition, they were never even called to testify or provide input into the process which is strange to say the least. Finally, few (if any) Republicans endorsed the report (which might just be political). The Democrats – who were briefed on torture – for some reason, and I doubt its principle, decided to throw the CIA under the bus.
Happy holidays
“But there is a debate on whether torture works or not – and it is not irrelevant.” – CraigSummers
Sociopath. Look it up. Regarding the rest of what you are trying to say I’m saying, just more smoke and mirrors.
““I regularly comment on my desire to exploit my admirers or to kill babies and cute animals, and I don’t even need to laugh or smile for people to think I am joking.” – M.E. Thomas, Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight
Sillyputty, since you are brushing up on your reading about sociopathy, you might find Sexual Homicide: Patterns and Motives, by John Douglas interesting. It approaches the subject from a police investigatory perspective, and also describes the origins of criminal profiling. And then a good follow up to that book is Malcolm Gladwell’s 2007 article, Dangerous Minds, which refutes a lot of Douglas’ ideas:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/11/12/dangerous-minds
Dabney, thanks for thinking of me, but at this point in my reading career, this specific topic of sexual crimes, although involving sociopathic behaviors, isn’t at the top of my list.
Government representatives, elected officials, employees, the agencies they oversee, and prolifically misguided posters have lead to the interest in sociopathy, and then to the desire to call out those who exhibit these sociopathic traits and behaviors.
OK, got it.
Just supposing it works, let’s just pretend, then we have some new ethical problems:
1. We haven’t changed US or international law, which admits of no exceptions, including wartime necessity. So, we’re asking the persons carrying it out, and those ordering it, to risk trial at some future date, maybe not soon but when it suits the powers that be.
2. If the measurement of effectiveness — it “works” — is that it saves lives, we must measure it against the lives it takes. Torturing Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi did get us a confession that Saddam Hussein was working with AQ on chemical and/or biological weapons, and the result was an optional war that cost us 4,000+ military lives. And absent a very time-and-place-specific plot, how do we calculate the number of lives saved? My accounting courses didn’t cover this.
3. If it “works” this time, will we know whom to torture in future? Because this Senate report tells us we did torture 26 people in error.
The ethical calculus gets more cloudy even if you get past the first rationale.
“We need to look forward..” -obama
“I hope that today’s report can help us leave these techniques where they belong: in the past.” -obama
I’m in the group whose ‘humble opinions’ (`silly-p) believe that Mr. Obama is complicit in these ‘crimes against humanity’, and that justice would be served if he prosecuted himself, as well. (legalities, `c-nobis??)
..cue Nate’s “STINK EYE”.
..
[snip]
False Assumption #2: Torture ended when George W. Bush left office.
In his statement on the day the report was released, President Obama tried once again to shove U.S. torture into a box labeled Bad Things We Used to Do. “Rather than another reason to refight old arguments,” he said, “I hope that today’s report can help us leave these techniques where they belong: in the past.”
In fact, institutionalized state torture is not a thing of the past. It has continued under President Obama. Here are some examples:
*Twice a day in the U.S. prison at Guantánamo, guards forcibly remove hunger strikers from their cells, strap them to a chair, and “feed” them through a tube jammed up the nose and down into the stomach. Here’s how one victim remembered that experience:
Force-feeding is no humanitarian act; it is a punishment for nonviolent resistance. It often begins with what officials call “cell extraction” — as if prisoners were teeth to be pulled out of a jaw. Here’s what happens, according to Yemini prisoner Moath al-Alwi, who has been at Guantánamo since 2002:
Guards use the “torture chair” to restrain the prisoner, says al-Alwi, but also to make the procedure even more painful:
At present, a Navy nurse faces possible dishonorable discharge for refusing to participate in these force feedings, because he believes they are a form of torture.
Why are detainees on hunger strike in the first place? They are using the only nonviolent means available to them to protest their indefinite and illegal detention, which the U.N. Committee Against Torture says is in itself a violation of U.S. duties under the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment.
* It wasn’t until this December 10th that the U.S. military finally released its last detainees from the notorious Detention Facility in Parwan on Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. In September 2014, the United States “quietly released” 14 Pakistanis it had held there for some years — none of whom was ever accused of any crime. We know nothing about the treatment of those who remained at Bagram, but we do know that, like the detainees at Guantánamo, the men being held there used hunger strikes as their only nonviolent means of resisting their indefinite detention and solitary confinement.
* In what appears to be a direct contravention of a 2009 presidential executive order to the CIA to shut down all its “black sites,” or secret interrogation centers around the world, the Agency seems still to be operating at least one of them. Or at least it was two years later when journalist Jeremy Scahill reported on a secret underground prison in Mogadishu, Somalia, run by the CIA, ostensibly in cooperation with the Somali government’s National Security Agency. There, according to Scahill, “U.S. intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners.”
Have these intelligence agents used “enhanced interrogation techniques”? We don’t know. What we do know, however, was that the place was dark, filthy, and infested with bedbugs and mosquitoes. We know that prisoners held there had been kidnapped, hooded, and transported by plane in a style familiar to anyone who has followed the CIA’s methods over the last dozen years.
If that site is still open, either the CIA is operating it with the Obama administration’s knowledge and consent or it is defying the president of the United States. In either case, there was and possibly still is a serious breach of executive power going on.
* During his confirmation hearings, Obama’s first CIA director, Leon Panetta, told members of Congress that “if the approved techniques were ‘not sufficient’ to get a detainee to divulge details he was suspected of knowing about an imminent attack, he would ask for ‘additional authority’ to use other methods.”
* President Obama’s 2009 executive order ending CIA torture still left open a little-discussed torture window. It continued to allow for “extraordinary rendition,” the capture of terror suspects abroad and their shipping to other countries for detention and interrogation. The U.S. record on this practice since 9/11 has been a grim history of torture at one remove. True, the order says that no one should be sent to a country in which he or she is likely to be tortured, but the U.S. definition of “likely” differs significantly from that of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Article 3 of the Convention says no one may be sent to another country if there are “substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” The United States insists on a more lenient standard: prohibiting rendition if it is “more likely than not” that torture will take place. In practice, this means relying on the word of the receiving country that no harm will be done (wink, wink).
* The U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations prohibits many forms of torture. However, a classified “annex” still permits sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation. The U.N. Committee Against Torture flagged this — among many other concerns — in its recent report on U.S. compliance with the Convention Against Torture.
* No high civilian officials or military commanders and other personnel were ever prosecuted for the torture they ordered or oversaw, nor of course were the actual CIA torturers. Instead they’re writing their memoirs and painting pictures of themselves bathing. If their political power makes it impossible to try them here, perhaps the outrage of the international community can at least make Dick Cheney and George W. Bush outcasts like other discredited former rulers along the lines of Serbia’s Slobodan Milosovic or Tunisia’s Zein el-Abidine Ben Ali.
Or maybe the United States could actually follow the U.N. Committee Against Torture’s recommendation and finally sign up for the International Criminal Court….’
-`Rebecca Gordon
ht `tom engelhardt
ht `harpie (..phone home)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175934/tomgram%3A_rebecca_gordon%2C_the_torture_wars/
Great post Suave!
suave
“…….President Obama’s 2009 executive order ending CIA torture still left open a little-discussed torture window. It continued to allow for “extraordinary rendition,” the capture of terror suspects abroad and their shipping to other countries for detention and interrogation…..”
I don’t think shipping prisoners to say Egypt for interrogation and detention is like visiting a Club Med village – and it would not surprise me a bit if the CIA was sending “high value” detainees to other countries for interrogation (still). Rendering prisoners for interrogation (mostly) began after the first World Trade Center bombing. There is no coloring it any other way – and this has always been the case: the US government has supported torture when prisoners were sent to other countries for “enhanced” interrogation to circumvent US laws.
Thanks. Have a good Christmas suave.
Justice might be served, but the President is not a prosecutor. That’s the job of the nearest US Attorney, or, in the case of a sitting President, a Congressional impeachment. Unfortunately, if this Congress brings an impeachment, it won’t be over war crimes or crimes against humanity, or accessory after that fact. It’ll probably be over Obamacare, or maybe the fact that he put something on Line 17 of his income tax return when it should’ve been Line 16a. Besides, arraigning torture and other war crimes would implicate Bush, Cheney, and maybe even certain Congressional leaders who were briefed on this stuff and signed off on it.
Alfreda Bikowsky is a selfless patriot, and as such, its entirely possible that she may have misgivings about being vaulted into the public spotlight for her heroic service to the Homeland. This, we do not know one way or the other. But we do know that personal sacrifice and bravery such as hers cannot and must not be shut away in the shadows forever. Because her work at the rack on our behalf is an inspiration for generations of patriots current and future. Patriots who will also someday have to face the moment when they also must make the hard choice between the seductive fairy tail illusion of basic human integrity, and the hard bedrock truth of careerist opportunistic self indulgent sadism, to be offered up meekly in the service of the all powerful all conquering state. What a piece of work- where do they grow these critters?
The torture program was a great success, it got a retarded textbook patsy that looked like he couldn’t tie his shoe laces together to “admit” to being the “mastermind” of 911 after being waterboarded 183 times.
Lol @ the ending of the Bin Laden fairly tale, “ummm ya we got him but we dumped him in the ocean…trust us ” …..the torturers….the ones that lied to the world and murdered a million iraqis……trust us…..hell no,
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Perle/Tenet/Powell/Rice/Wolfowitz/Yoo etc… belong in prison.
Well, now I know where all the loons hang out. Good gravy. You people have lost your marbles. All high and mighty. What would any of you have done with the al queda prisoners? You don’t think that most of them were given a chance to talk first and when they sat there smugly and smiling while not saying a word is when they started the sleep depravation, etc. working to waterboarding? You seriously think that right after 3000 of our people were killed we should not have grabbed the key members of al queda and done whatever was necessary to get information from them to kill an capture as many as we could or prevent more attacks?
What would you have done?
I just love listening and reading all of you who from 30,000′ can pass such high and mighty moral judgement on the people like ms. bikowsky. Are you perfect? Do you really think you are better than her? Do you really think you have more answers? better answers? better solutions? if you did the government would love to speak with you. they want to hunt down all enemies of the USA as quickly and efficiently as they can. step up. otherwise shut the fuck up.
there is real evil out there. many entities that want our nation, the USA to fall. if we fall the world will be cast into darkness and newsflash… most you ultra liberals and ultra conservatives will be the first to die at the hands of the marauders who split this country apart. be careful with that you wish for… most you will be killed before the rest of us for your beliefs.
A little late, but I guess the NYT is thinking about its place in history. It’s editorial board wants accountability for torture:
Maybe if they had started calling torture torture when it mattered, things would have been different.
Good, now that the New York Times has taken a position on it, you can too.
So far, you’ve done reasonably well at maintaining an acceptably low-ish volume of unhinged crap. If you remain careful this “bonneville” account might survive for a bit.
Good luck.
A full 8% of this thread is you.
8% is fine when it’s not unhinged crap, as Glenn identifies that. (He has actually thanked me for helping his comments earn a reputation for intelligent conversation early in his blogging career; we’ve lost some of the other Great Ones from back then, but have picked up New Ones.)
Then there’s you. You, he repeatedly deletes and bans. Because you prolifically post crazy shit.
Got a link?
I bet every legal firm in WDC and New York are being inundated with phone calls today. Not to mention, the DOJ. Let the squirming begin. Time to make some popcorn. :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html
Of course, as Mona points out, there is no mention of NYT’s own soft-pedaling EITs over the years. I guess Dick Cheney’s In.Your.Face appearance on Meet The Press was more than they could bear.
Still … the best thing I’ve read by NYT in quite some time.
*Please do check out the comments. As of 7.23am est there were two *well-balanced* NYT ‘Picks':
1. Mike Murray MD
Olney, Illinois 2 hours ago
If we go down the road recommended by this editorial it will become increasingly difficult to find good people willing to serve in any future administration. Yes, what some of these people did was wrong in retrospect but at the time the torture occurred the national zeitgeist was entirely different. Many of those who express outrage now were perfectly willing to justify anything that would keep us safe then.
2.
Jim Hughes
Everett, Wa 2 hours ago
I am in the group when polled, expresses disapproval of the Obama administration for a single reason: failure to prosecute these war criminals. This issue will remain at the top of my list until this is corrected.
American exceptionalism includes, by definition, acknowledgement of crimes, then doing the right thing by prosecuting our own evildoers.
Fortunately, it’s easy to alleviate the concerns of the NYT readers.
Persuading people who are unwilling to do something is precisely why torture was invented in the first place. Prosecuting torture can’t happen, as explained below, but not for this reason.
The US prosecuting itself for war crimes would be a conflict of interest. Someone else prosecuting the US would be an act of war. So acknowledgement is fine – it demonstrates to others that you can act with impunity, which is consistent with American exceptionalism. The idea of prosecuting however, is absurd.
(I’d reply to these readers directly, but unfortunately the NYT would probably declare that my screen name was insensitive to the feelings of Fascists, and I’d be banned).
I don’t know where you learned to read and write, son-brother (an Appalachian term of endearment.), but Barnum & Bailey has got nothing on you!
I’ve tried posting comments @ the NYT over the years to no avail. First, I called their ‘balanced’ approach to journalism bi-polar, but they declined to print that. Then, I diagnosed a particularly egregious Friedman piece-of-work as plumb schizophrenic, all for naught.
*I don’t think they like me.
As for a more-acceptable version of your screen name, Duce, you could use the pseudonym Benito Juarez, for whom you were named.
quote”Of course, as Mona points out, there is no mention of NYT’s own soft-pedaling EITs over the years.”unquote
Thanks bah! Yeah, I guess rectal rehydration makes even scumbags wretch at some point.
quote” I guess Dick Cheney’s In.Your.Face appearance on Meet The Press was more than they could bear.”unquote
I’d submit it was his FACE, period.
On another note, Jane Mayer has pointed to something that to me, is the smoking gun. In reality, not that anyone with one neuron between their ears already knew, it’s now documented the CIA knew from the beginning they were committing war crimes, and as such, sought “reassurances” that at least one torture victim would never see the inside of a courtroom.
quote”quote”It is clear now that from the start many of those involved in the program, which began in 2002, recognized its potential criminality. Before subjecting a detainee to interrogation, a 2002 cable notes, C.I.A. officers sought assurances that he would “remain in isolation and incommunicado for the remainder of his life.” Permanent, extrajudicial disappearance was apparently preferable to letting the prisoner ever tell what had been done to him. That logic may explain why no “high value detainee” subjected to the most extreme tactics and still in U.S. custody in Guantánamo has yet been given an open trial.”unquote
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1377107-sscistudy1.html#document/p61/a192790
There you have it.The CIA KNEW what they were doing was war crimes, and have done everything within their power, right from the beginning, to keep those who were tortured from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. And it is STILL going on today. All I know is IF, these sub-human savages at CIA/DOJ and the Bush admin aren’t prosecuted to the fullest extent of “law”, then Murka is FINISHED as a nation of “laws”.
Yeah C. Check this out … http://justsecurity.org/18221/knew-illegal/
ps.. I guess even North Korea get’s it right once in a while….
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/22/372430146/calling-u-s-a-cesspool-north-korea-warns-against-escalation
I’m having trouble recalling any presidential administrations since Jimmy Carter’s who sought good people to serve in their administrations.
All I seem to recall are sycophants and co-conspirators.
Exmples, please.
The vile Craig Summers, who unambiguously advocates for torture and objects to seeing it “attacked,” (his word) now nauseatingly plays victim:
Depending on what you’ve done to realize your thinking, you could well belong in a prison cell. But as long as you are out, then no, you are well aware no one is going to ban you from commenting here. You are a lucid advocate of the most extreme, fascistic strand of Zionism and its corollary neoconservatism in the U.S. Lucidity and refraining from spewing large volumes of incomprehensible dreck will allow you to stay; you’ve never been close to violating Glenn’s standards for that.
You are no better than a Nazi, but a refined one, like David Duke, who would likely be allowed to post here, too.
He’s not that refined. Neither is David Duke. One mistakes quantity for quality.
Does anyone remember that news story from years ago? The one that said White House officials sat in the White House basement and watched torture being committed live via video simulcast? Ghastly and ghoulish, eh…
I found the story about torture being choreographed from the White House basement. Written for the WashPo by The Intercept’s own Dan Froomkin back in April of 2008.
ya mean like this…
http://httpics.com/Civil/Bushtorture.jpg
Glenn, why didn’t you and/or The Intercept publish this torturing (murdering?) psychopathic sadistic woman’s name since it was ‘revealed’ over three years ago?
It has not been a secret since then, so why the reluctance?
Who or what entity held you back?
Such a hero….
Was that part of “The Deal”?
OF COURSE you neglected to understand the column…he brought it out because a lot of other news organizations refused to name the vicious sociopath.
But, of course, you know that.
They did just publish her name. The article was prompted by NBC’s & The New Yorker’s unwillingness to do so.
Pardner, y’all need to brush up on those reading comp skills!
yes, a REAL Hillary for you…but it is the WHITE FASIST MALE liars and torturers and cover-uppers who need to be waterboarded FIRST, I mean given a fair trial and thrown to the lions FIRST, I mean, thrown into a “busting rocks” sort of prison and NOT “Club Fed” FIRST… starting with Dick Cheney, then about a thousand of all the Adolf Eichmanns like Michael Hayden, then her, then Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, THAT bunch, then Hillary…then back to all the rest of the WHITE FASCIST MALE Adolf Eichmanns…(ohhh, am I being too harsh?)
“There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to mitigate those threats.”
Yes, and many of them work in the United States government, and the only way to mitigate their threat is to drag them into the light of day and impose consequences. You know how our government throws people in prison at the drop of a hat? It’s their turn.
(I am not an anti-government right-winger. I’m against government officials acting like psychopaths and then trying to weasel out of consequences with a “there are crazy people out there.”
Well, there certainly WERE a few good people working in the US government, but they invariably are “rewarded” with their superior efforts with being either hounded out of their jobs, fired, or jailed!
And so, so very many of those ultimate losers, assuming they aren’t just straight out TRAITORS, are also invariably promoted — by other traitors!
Julie Sirrs, the intrepid DIA agent, who brought back the goods from Afghanistan and Pakistan, who probably was the very last (and one of the few) intel agents to confer with Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance (the Great Lion of Afghanistan), who would be murdered on 9/09/01 by suicide bombers from al Qaeda posing as journalists (now why does that sound so familiar today?) had her security clearance immediately withdrawn and was hounded out of the DIA by people later promoted, of course, with the then DIA director going on to help create the DHS, for crissakes!
Julie Sirrs (DIA), Thomas Drake (NSA), John Kiriakou (CIA), the scumbags at State, both then there or later transferred there from the CIA who were involved in their trouble, continue effing up or committing further treasonous acts, while the Obama administration wages its war on American heroes and whistleblowers.
There are more names than just the three I’ve mentioned (Colleen Cowley formerly of the FBI, etc.), and Sterling and others, probably names we’ll never hear of again as they are in jail or have been “disgraced” for being patriotic and not Wall Street-supporting terrorists!
This is so very, very typical . . . .
Forgot to mention, Jane Mayer wrote another pertinent story around four years ago, which points to the agenda of lies, lies and more lies surrounding torture, the CIA screwups/traitors, etc.:
http://gawker.com/5499204/cia-torture-groupie-marc-thiessen-lies-about-everything
Afghanistan with Ahmad Shah Massoud could become a completely different country, but, question is if Pakistan , saudi Arabia and their american friends were OK with that?
—Pepe Escobar, in ‘Massoud: From Warrior to Statesman’
“Massoud is adamant that in Afghanistan women have suffered oppression for generations. He says that ‘the cultural environment of the country suffocates women. But the Taliban exacerbate this with oppression.’ His most ambitious project is to shatter this cultural prejudice and so give more space, freedom and equality to women—they would have the same rights as men.”[8]
—Steve Coll, in Ghost Wars
“The CIA officers admired Massoud greatly. They saw him as a Che Guevara figure, a great actor on history’s stage. Massoud was a poet, a military genius, a religious man, and a leader of enormous courage who defied death and accepted its inevitability, they thought. … In his house there were thousands of books: Persian poetry, histories of the Afghan war in multiple languages, biographies of other military and guerilla leaders. In their meetings Massoud wove sophisticated, measured references to Afghan history and global politics into his arguments. He was quiet, forceful, reserved, and full of dignity, but also light in spirit. The CIA team had gone into the Panshjir as unabashed admirers of Massoud. Now their convictions deepened.[86]
In April 2001, the president of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine (who called Massoud the “pole of liberty in Afghanistan”), invited Massoud with the support of French and Belgian politicians to address the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium. In his speech, he asked for humanitarian aid for the people of Afghanistan. Massoud further went on to warn that his intelligence agents had gained limited knowledge about a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil being imminent.[104]
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mark_rossini_1
“Inside the Taliban”. National Geographic. 2007
Pakistan engaged up to 28,000 Pakistani nationals and regular Pakistani army troops to fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces against Massoud.[82][103]
Anderson, Jon Lee (June 10, 2002). “The assassins”, The New Yorker, Vol.78, Iss. 15; p. 72.
“The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, an Afghan Wahhabi Islamist, have also been mentioned as possible organizers or collaborators of the Massoud assassins.[112]”
No country for the brave women/men
Torture is useless for obtaining reliable information about anything. What it has been used for most often is for extracting false confessions from individuals, on one hand, and terrorizing local populations into obeying the orders of dictators and occupying powers.
We should be asking why the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects was taken away from the FBI (who was developing links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabian-based banks, etc.) to the CIA in late 2001 / early 2002. The record indicates that there was an immediate major effort by the CIA to get Al Qaeda suspects to admit to links to Saddam’s Iraq, and that torture was the means used. Later in 2002, using 9/11 and the anthrax attacks as justification for an Iraq invasion was mostly dropped by Bush and Blair in favor of a false story about Saddam’s ‘active WMD programs.’
That’s just the CIA torture of individuals – why did torture spread throughout the Iraq military prison system in 2004, then? That coincides with the exploding Iraq insurgency, which wanted the US out of the country – and we could have left, except that the neocons wanted to establish a corrupt puppet regime that would obey Washington’s orders without question, and the Iraqis objected to being turned into a neocolonial outpost run for the benefit of Wall Street. Here, systematic torture, including sexual abuse, attacks by dogs, being smeared with feces, hypothermia, torture with electricity, was used in an effort to crush the insurgency. Tens of thousands of people went through these prisons – and the only people charged were six low-ranking soldiers?
In all of these cases, the people charged should be those who ordered the torture, not those on the bottom of the ladder:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11295035/The-next-torture-report-photographs-show-US-troops-abusing-and-sexually-humiliating-prisoners.html
Can’t the public wake up to this game of CIA bashing as a clever diversionary tactics by the 1% perpetrated on “us the 99% ” groaning under debts owing to the wanton profiteering of the predatory 1% ? For some days now the whole media is crying hoarse on behalf of the terrorists against the CIA . Stop it , and wake up to the economic realities of our times than to this non- issue of CIA activities. The CIA is doing a wonderful job of protecting us or trying to protect us while the mega rich 1% goes on torturing the 99% . Not that the 1% are not aware of what they are doing . See this in FORTUNE , http://fortune.com/2014/11/13/capitalism-labor-conditions/
published on 1 dec 2014 under the title ” What the Dickens “by Stanley Bing , on How 21st-century capitalism is producing 19th-century working conditions.
The torture of the 1% on the 99% is crueler and covers all aspects of life , than that of any the civilized world has seen . Kk
The CIA is doing a wonderful job of protecting us or trying to protect us while the mega rich 1% goes on torturing the 99% . Not that the 1% are not aware of what they are doing.
Says Mr. Clueless while still on the first page of Tying Shoes for Dummys. The CIA is and has been perpetrating acts of unspeakable horror on behalf of the 1% since it’s inception. The Dulles brothers and the United Fruit Co. is a perfect example. However, I’m feeling generous today. If and when you finish your present exercise, here’s a clue… http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ST/
Now, see if you can make yourself useful and clean up your slime trail.
You’ve obviously never served in US military intelligence, nor do you know anything about the founding of the US intelligence establishment as it exists today.
The CIA has long had the reputation of briefing David Rockefeller (or probably some other plutocrat since Rockefeller is now 100 years of age) before they ever got around to briefing whoever the sitting president was and is.
The super-rich, and their shyster lackeys, essentially set up the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc., as they exist today, just as they were the force behind their privatization.
It was Chris Mellon, of the fabulously wealthy Mellon family (Bank of NY Mellon, etc.), who was the higher-up at the DIA in the early ’00s, who “leaked” the “fact” that Iran had nukes, or was just months away from having them — remember, that was back around 2000-2001.
There always appears to be a plutocratic family member in the upper echelon of the DIA since its founding, which derived from the Eisenhower administration, going into effect during that portion of the JFK administration, having already been funded.
The CIA people, if you recall, were those unnamed jackholes who helped the underwear bomber aboard that flight inbound to Detroit a few years back, when the French wouldn’t allow him to board.
The CIA was no help (ditto the feebs of the FBI) with that Boston Marathon bombing, and everything points to the question as to whether certain elements within the CIA/FBI/DIA, allowed 9/11 to take place, since they had an overabundance of the facts, and warnings, at that time.
You make no sense, in other words!
Ha, ha HA HA HA HA…you take Fortune magazine seriously! He he he he…
Can’t the public wake up to this game of CIA bashing as a clever diversionary tactics by the 1% perpetrated on “us the 99% ” groaning under debts owing to the wanton profiteering of the predatory 1% ? For some days now the whole media is crying hoarse on behalf of the terrorists against the CIA . Stop it , and wake up to the economic realities of our times than to this non- issue of CIA activities. The CIA is doing a wonderful job of protecting us or trying to protect us while the mega rich 1% goes on torturing the 99% . Not that the 1% are not aware of what they are doing . See this in FORTUNE , http://fortune.com/2014/11/13/capitalism-labor-conditions/
published on 1 dec 2014 under the title ” What the Dickens “by Stanley Bing , on How 21st-century capitalism is producing 19th-century working conditions.
The torture of the 1% on the 99% is crueler and covers all aspects of life , than that of any the civilized world has seen .
quote”The CIA is doing a wonderful job of protecting us ”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Any one of the familys of 9/11 victims would slap you silly. Now get the fuck outta here halfwit.
It is absolutely right to to use any methods to glean some possible information that has the potential to protect American lives , from the terrorists whose track record is proof enough that they are themselves inhuman in their cut- throat ism and have suicidal in nature . If causing pain to human beings is wrong perhaps, but causing pain to inhuman beings is justified .
Can some one suggest how else can you think of extracting any possible information from the terrorists in reasonably good time for it to be effective in protecting our lives ?
By the way, I find that the media is seized with the morality of the procedures of CIA investigations. War itself is not moral, conflicts are less so, but if there is war and conflicts how can you judge the collateral incidents on basis of morality?
It looks as if the whole episode is a diversionary strategy by the scheming 1% to deflect our attention from the stark realities of economy to something moral. Is it moral to keep making money greedily by the 1% while the rest are groaning under the weight of debts incurred to meet sky-rocketing medical expenditures for their sick children and old parents ? How much more moral is it for the universities to hike fees and other expenditure forcing students to incur heavy debts even before they get a chance to start their lives? How much moral is to use the pension funds for doing speculative business with it ?
Everything done on the economic front these days is immoral , more immoral than causing pain to the terrorists. Causing pain to the 99% through economic TORTURE .
So, don’t divert public attention on to the CIA terrorism on the terrorists when our mega rich in the USA puts the public to worse economic torture , which is a far greater punishable offense , by this ORWELL IAN strategies to hoodwink unsuspecting American public.
You really double down on your stupidity.
quote”If causing pain to human beings is wrong perhaps, but causing pain to inhuman beings is justified .”unquote
Meanwhile, back here in this universe, the CIA not only tortured and CONTINUE to torture, but MURDERED INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS. Now, is that CLEAR, dimwit? And btw, perhaps you can convince this victim your demented beliefs are valid, face to face eh? Here, I’ll even connect you to him…..
http://freeomarakhadr.com/2014/10/29/op-ed-by-omar-khadr-on-national-security-human-rights/
That is..if you COULD face him.
Says one while torturing his cat.
But the cat confessed to working for Chairman Meow! Igor! It works!
@sillyputty 20 Dec 2014 3:46 pm-Amen!!
To The Intercept staff KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!! If any staff need anything that I can provide let me know, for example a safe house. I’m confident there will be people pissed off by the work of The Intercept and if any staff member in the S.F. Bay Area or traveling through needs a safe place to stay my house is it. Its gated with a 130 lb German Shephard, trained attack dog, patroling the perimeter. My surounding neighbors will camp out in there yards if I ask them to. With a couple of calls I could have a small army to increase the houses security level.
@sillyputty @Mona @coram nobis @Kitt- @General Hercules @jgreen7801
I believe The Intercept is lucky to have your input. I have learned a lot from your perspectives and vast knowledge. I will truly be sad if I find your input absent…
The Intercept I F-ing love you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Got any friends like that in Chicago?
Full name: Alfreda Frances Bikowsky Silverstein AKA Audrey F. Tomason. “An Intellius search on Audrey Thomason results in an Audrey ELIZABETH Tomason, not Audrey FRANCES as revealed by the White House, with the job of “Counterterrorism BLOG National Security Council.”
“a CIA spokesperson, Ryan Trapani, told The Intercept in an email. In a follow-up voicemail he added: “There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to mitigate those threats.”
…and Alfreda is one of them.
Sillyputty
Thanks for your response(s) – and they are always reasonable.
“……Actually, political or not (eye-of-the-beholder, and all that) this article is about what really happened….”
Everything I have read (written) by Greenwald is politically motivated. In this article, Glenn writes specifically to destroy the career and character of the CIA agent depicted in the movie, Zero Dark Thirty (outing her by name). Glenn writes in the Guardian (“Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA and film critics have a very bad evening”):
“……. It [the movie] was a blatant vehicle for CIA propaganda, bolstering a worldview exclusively out of Langley…….it’s both gratifying and a bit surprising to see that this CIA-shaped jingoistic celebration of America’s proudest moment of the last decade – finding bin Laden, pumping his skull full of bullets, and then dumping his corpse into the ocean – ended up with the stigma it deserves……” my brackets
As if Americans should be ashamed of the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden – a murderer of 3000 people. As the above quote clearly shows, it doesn’t take a professional critic to note the bitterness of Glenn’s writing which drives his political point of view.
Glenn quotes Jane Mayer who depicts Bikowsky as ruthless and incompetent. She says that Bikowsky “gleefully participated in torture sessions”. Interestingly enough Jane sees herself “more as a reporter than as an advocate” (I wonder if she said that gleefully?). In addition, Mayer says that Bikowsky “falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked” despite evidence to the contrary presented by six former CIA Directors and Deputy Directors in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago.
This article adds little to the torture “debate” and is meant solely to destroy the career and character of a person that Greenwald obviously detests. Anyone who honestly believes that Glenn writes apolitically or just lets the reader decide is naïve.
Thanks.
“Everything I have read (written) by Greenwald is politically motivated. In this article,”
That is especially true, Craig Summers, for everything you weite here. And while Glenn and the others here are certainly entities to having and speaking out their own views, it is more than obvious that the pieces published by the Intercept are researched in the most solid and cumbersome way. Especially Glenn, but also Dan Froomlin and many others here link and quote very often the very institutions they are writing about. Good journalistic practice. Whereas even public officials, as well as forum trolls, most of the time use Attacke ad hominem instead of disproving just one claim. Just like you. Think about it over Christmas.
“As if Americans should be ashamed of the extrajudicial killing of Bin Laden”
You yourself state it was extrajudicial – but it should be ok with everyone. What drugs are you taking?
“…..You yourself state it was extrajudicial – but it should be ok with everyone…..”
Not everyone. Lord no. There are plenty of people that admired Mr. Laden for taking it to the US. Remember what Jeremiah Wright said: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”. However, most decent people supported the killing of the murderer of 3000 people. By the way, it was clearly an extrajudicial execution supported and carried out by the state.
“……What drugs are you taking?….”
Since I don’t live in Oregon, Washington or Colorado, I don’t use any (in case this is an FBI sting operation).
Thanks.
Craig wrote:
“There are plenty of people that admired Mr. Laden for taking it to the US. Remember what Jeremiah Wright said: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”. ”
Rev. Wright was correct, but that does fit well with your narrative. How do you interpret that to mean he admired Bin Laden? Any proof of this (full context please) or just another smear?
Kelley
“……Rev. Wright was correct, but that does fit well with your narrative……”
The Reverend Wright was not correct at all (shocking that you believe otherwise) – and it does not fit well with my narrative which is that political Islam (al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram etc.) is about power, not revenge. Radical Islamists seek to reestablish the caliphate and subjugate Muslims under sharia law (whatever their particular interpretation happens to call for). Radical Islamists are anti-democratic to the core and absolutely hate – and fear – our freedoms.
I don’t know if Wright actually admired Bin Laden or not, but based on his views of America, he certainly could have. He probably sympathized with Bin Laden to a degree since he repeats many of the same anti-American and anti-Israel biases (and bigotries) expressed by Bin Laden – and many on the far left for that matter. A few quotes from Wright follow:
“…….And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton field, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing….and then wants us to sing “God Bless America”. No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that’s in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme. The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent.[21][22][23][24]…..”
“…….”We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.”….”
“…….”We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost”……”
About Jews and Israel,
“…….Wright stated in a June 10, 2009 interview that he had still voted for Obama for President, despite the controversy. He said that he had no regrets about any of his comments. He also alleged that “them Jews” within the Obama administration are preventing the two from speaking to each other. He also suggested that Obama did not send a delegation to the Durban Review Conference in Geneva because of Jewish pressure, saying: “[T]he Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him, that would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that’s talking this craziness on this trip, cause they’re Zionists, they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is.”[96]……..”
Thanks.
Craig wrote:
“I don’t know if Wright actually admired Bin Laden or not, but based on his views of America, he certainly could have.”
Thank you. That is all I needed. An admission that what you wrote was hyperbolic straw man bullshit. Carry on.
Glenn has written volumes of articles and book chapters that he himself makes clear to readers that he does not follow or believe in the phony rule of journalism that you’ve attempted to invoke in that quote in order to “call him out” or whatever it is that you think you’re doing. That is why your comments are suspect. You keep returning to themes that have been covered again and again in ways that show that your questions, your accusations, your fabrications are often lies or nonsense which have been not only addressed but have been — like this one you’ve trotted out — put to rest.
“…….You keep returning to themes that have been covered again and again…….which have been not only addressed but have been — like this one you’ve trotted out — put to rest…..”
I thought so also – but apparently not.
“…….your fabrications are often lies…..”
I would say more than “often”……probably closer to 100% of the time!
When has that ever happened before, Kitt? We are in 100% agreement.
It’s possible to fabricate without lying. So we’re not in agreement. You just don’t – or pretend not to — understand language, so you fabricated that we were in agreement.
“This article adds little to the torture “debate” and is meant solely to destroy the career and character of a person that Greenwald obviously detests.” – CraigSummers
There is no debate on torture. It’s illegal worldwide. It’s immoral. It’s settled.
Regarding your projection that this is all “meant solely to destroy the career and character of a person that Greenwald obviously detests” – Who gives a shit what Glenn thinks here? It’s what is being reported here that matters, not who wrote it. That you continually try to politically pigeon-hole it doesn’t change it in any factual way whatsoever.
Try rebutting the specific facts and allegations here, instead of continuing to try to kill the messenger. It’s lazy, and you know it.
The facts point to this persons career path as being predicated on lies, deception, cover-up, and illegal acts. Anyone’s career should end because of these things, and you know this, too.
“The less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice.” – Clint Eastwood
Found some interesting stuff about Bikowsky’s possible lineage. But as a fierce defender of privacy rights, it is the privacy rights of all of us, including the lowly likes of her, that I must painfully protect if I expect mine to be protected.
Public officials, especially those involved in malfeasance have no right to such privacy.
Good point well taken.
Welcome to the American Empire and its deep state. Fascists know no bounds.
Why,did you also help facilitate the worst terror attack in American history?And get a promotion?And OBL has had no evidence put forward to tie him to that day other than Zionist propaganda,and accusations by mendacious govt officials.The FBI had no real evidence to tie him to that event,and he repeatedly denied involvement,despite Memri prop,but took credit for other attacks.
If the CIA, NSA & Co. would play by the rules, if the public would get the unredacted torture reports and surveillance facts (using cover names for those involved, but other than that, the full truth), and if criminal law would be applicable and actually applied to these cases, THEN I’d agree with you that the individual criminals like Bikowsky, Cheney, Zirbel, Hayden and the like should be labeled “murder supects” and so on by the media, that they should get a fair trial and their fair sentence in jail, AND that they should be able to keep their privacy where it is due. But anybody taking human dignity from others and then boasting about it and profiting from it, has no business demanding “privacy”. Quite the contrary.
Only a slightly off topic comment as the choice of accompanying photos belongs to The Intercept…
The lobby in Neo’s first big shoot-out scene to rescue Morpheus, coincidentally or not, greatly resembles this lobby’s pillar pattern.
“Yeah, you’ve written that lie, a thousand times. It even got you banned.”
– Kitt, June 25, 2014
“Yeah, you’ve written that lie, a thousand times. It even got you banned. You’re an example of what this statement is about: ‘Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’”
– Kitt 25 Jun 2014 at 10:09 am
It’s what LaPlaza pointed to in the NPR dialog that was memory holed, but left Kitt’s intact.
“I have no faith or trust in the idea that Greenwald is allowing anyone to decide for himself on any political issue that interests him.” – CraigSummers
Translation: “Nobody, and I really mean nobody, can think for themselves.”
Well, besides CraigSummers and Glenn Greenwald, it seems.
So, we’re in good company then? Well….one of these, is not like the other…………
“Even great men bow before the Sun; it melts hubris into humility.” – Dejan Stojanovic
sillyputty
“……Translation: “Nobody, and I really mean nobody, can think for themselves.”…..”
Of course, that isn’t true. Glenn argues/advocates from his perspective and he is not interested in presenting all points of view.
Translation: read the New York Times if you are interested in another viewpoint.
Torture Charges Filed in Germany
From Democracy Now!:
Transcript and video here: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/19/should_bush_and_cheney_be_tried
In that segment, Michael Ratner stated:
Attention all. Below, Craig Summers accuses the left in general, and Glenn in particular, of this great crime:
Can you imagine, Glenn stands indicted for “attacking” torture. As does anyone considered to be on the “left.”
[face palm]
“This has been an ongoing attack on torture” – CraigSummers
At first, I thought this was being a bit rhetorical, but it’s exactly what was said as can be seen in context here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/19/senior-cia-officer-center-torture-scandals-alfreda-bikowsky/#comment-97030
CraigSummers has done quite a job as an interlocutor, in that he provides an argument to rebut, and frequently.
But this. Indefensible.
Thanks for that.
“You can’t defend the indefensible – anything you say sounds self-serving and hypocritical.” – Diane Abbott
Thanks for supplying the link.
How can you have a productive conversation on the subject when your interlocutor finds it objectionable to “attack” torture?!
“…..How can you have a productive conversation on the subject when your interlocutor finds it objectionable to “attack” torture?!…..”
Of course, I didn’t find it objectionable to attack (or criticize) torture, but I do get your point. On the other hand, when it comes to productive conversations, you have been a challenge as well, Mona:
“…….Israel is and always has been deeply racist, and Zionists still cling to anti-black themes…..”
“……No, it does not apply to all Jews. Jews who are not Zionists are much less likely to be racists than Jews who are……”
I’ve been a challenge for you alright, but not as a fellow conversationalist. No, I interfere with your Zionist propaganda. That’s what you are here for, to wit: to post dense but gaseous crapola defending the indefensible that is the ethno-religious supremacist Jewish state. I long ago abandoned the idea of having any exchange with Craig Summers the individual, and now see you as a mere opportunity to practice hasbara-debunking skills.
Kitt described your MO perfectly:
I wonder why you Zionists always pooh pooh the idea of conspiracy regarding 9-11.The absolute antagonism displayed by Zionists towards the idea is very illuminating.
And those two quotes are easily verified by the media if one wished to investigate,despite omission,misinfo and disinfo used by the propagandists in the MSM.
sillyputty
“……But this. Indefensible…..”
I do not find it objectionable to “attack” or criticize torture. That’s a perfectly reasonable position. In addition, it’s illegal. However, what I do say is that torture – or the use of some techniques (as outlined by John Yoo of the Bush Justice Department) – was a reasonable response to the attacks of 911 in lieu of further potential attacks designed to kill thousands of innocent civilians. I stand behind that without reservation. I don’t support the use of torture, in general. I do in special cases. Simple.
Craig – while I am appalled by your position that torture is acceptable in some circumstances, and though I think your apparent belief that torture was/is efficacious in preventing terror attacks is irrational and contrary to all known evidence, I respect your candor in openly referring to the techniques you support as “torture.” Many who support the techniques lack the balls to use the word.
Thanks Gator. I enjoy conversing with you.
Hi Gator … happy Festivus and a merry new year.
>”Many who support the techniques lack the balls to use the word.”
I’m not sure it’s ‘balls’ that has Mr. Summer’s panties in wad.
*The trouble with Dirty Harry shooting the psycho’s toes off (I forget the name of the movie) to save a life is, unlike in life, Dirty Harry had read the script.
bahhummingbug
“…..*The trouble with Dirty Harry shooting the psycho’s toes off (I forget the name of the movie) to save a life is, unlike in life, Dirty Harry had read the script……”
Did you not see Dirty Harry, Bahhummingbug? Jesus. Here is an exert.
“…… Running out of time, the officers break into the stadium and Callahan shoots Scorpio in his wounded leg. When Scorpio refuses to reveal the location of the girl and demands a lawyer, Callahan tortures the killer by standing on the wounded leg. Scorpio confesses, but the police are too late to save the girl……”
A really good old movie starring Clint Eastwood.
“I do say is that torture – or the use of some techniques (as outlined by John Yoo of the Bush Justice Department) – was a reasonable response to the attacks of 911 in lieu of further potential attacks designed to kill thousands of innocent civilians. I stand behind that without reservation. – CraigSummers
You are then, in fact, no different than Dick Cheney on this issue – the views of which I also find indefensible, and which I came to long before Mr. Greenwald ever put pen to paper, so to speak, and most likely before he finished grade school.
Torture is unacceptable. Period. And yes, I’ve seen Dirty Harry many times, and while Callahan’s “preemptive torture” seems OK to you, it is, as with Cheney’s views, just another symptom of sociopathic behaviors which is to be abhorred, not emulated.
That said, it’s become apparent that your angst towards Mr. Greenwald affects you much more than it affects me, and most likely others here, and your writing here reflects as much. While I’ve only been “following” Mr. Greenwald’s writing for a few years now, you have self-admittedly been stalking him for quite some time.
This pathology, as Kitt explained quite well earlier, has become a projection of yours, in which your obsession with Glenn’s work taints your entire worldview, which you then try to impose on others.
In other words, you’ve got it all ass-backwards.
“A good man always knows his limitations.” – Clint Eastwood as “Dirty” Harry Calahan in Magnum Force
“…..You are then, in fact, no different than Dick Cheney on this issue….”
Fair enough – and that is on many issues
“……you have self-admittedly been stalking him for quite some time…..”
Only for a couple of years which is far less time than many of the regulars that posted on Greenwald threads when he was at Salon. I see the same names here week after week clapping their hands for Greenwald. If Greenwald prefers no challenges to his articles, then he can delete mine. “Stalking” is a poor choice of words on your part since I post at the Guardian on various issues. Admittedly, Greenwald articles are my favorites – but I enjoy challenging other writers at the Intercept as well.
“…… This pathology, as Kitt explained quite well earlier, has become a projection of yours, in which your obsession with Glenn’s work taints your entire worldview, which you then try to impose on others…..”
First of all, I developed my world view well before I read a single article written by Greenwald. I supported torture in lieu of 911 well before I read a single article written by Greenwald. In general, he has introduced nothing new for me to think about – only the typical far left obsession with US and Israel policies. These same arguments have been presented by other far left wing commentators like Pilger, Milne and many others. And of course, I am trying to impose my world view on others. What the fuck do you think the goal of Greenwald might be? Or Mona? Or Kitt? Or Steb? Or anyone else that post here when they are not clapping for Greenwald? That’s ridiculous.
Kind of a surprising response from you, but I guess if you think like the hated Dick Cheney at all, you should be excluded from posting.
Thanks as always.
“And of course, I am trying to impose my world view on others. What the fuck do you think the goal of Greenwald might be?” – CraigSummers
In short, the facts or the best evidence available at the time. You, on the other hand, want to make the facts fit your world view – or just as contrarily, kill the messenger bringing you the facts (those pesky things that are the same for everyone) in order to discredit – not the facts or evidence – but the carrier of them.
That’s intellectually dishonest, and you know that it is.
Regarding the ridiculous (and surprisingly self-pitying) idea that you proposed that you shouldn’t be allowed to post here because you think like Cheney, or anyone else for that matter – that’s bullshit and you know that too.
In other words, stop being stupid here. You can believe and post all you want in things that I and others find repugnant, as can we all, and none of us need permission for that, but at least have the credibility and intellectual honesty to stop killing the messenger just because you do not like the message.
“The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices.” – Frederick the Great
Sillytputty
“……You can believe and post all you want in things that I and others find repugnant, as can we all, and none of us need permission for that, but at least have the credibility and intellectual honesty to stop killing the messenger just because you do not like the message…..”
First of all, calm down. The earth’s gravitational field is the same today as yesterday. Second, don’t tell me what to post about. What you, Mona, Kitt and others think of what I post is not why I post at the Intercept. If I cared what other people thought, I would probably post at the Wall Street Journal (or on Krauthammer articles at the Washington Post) – so you are simply wasting your time.
Thanks – and good night
“Second, don’t tell me what to post about.” – CraigSummers
First of all, I am pretty calm, actually, thanks for your concern; secondly, to your thought above from my initial post:
“You can believe and post all you want in things that I and others find repugnant, as can we all, and none of us need permission for that“
From me to you. You’re welcome.
And finally: “The earth’s gravitational field is the same today as yesterday” – CraigSummers
Yes, and so are the facts. Since you’ve accepted the more than several hundred year old gravitational theory, why not take another step forward and join the rest of civilized humanity with regards to the complete unacceptability of torture of another human being, for any reason?
Most likely, like Cheney, that’s a rhetorical question for you right now.
Most definitely, you are both sociopaths to hold that view.
““Sociopathy stands alone as a “disease” that causes no dis-ease for the person who has it, no subjective discomfort. Sociopaths are often quite satisfied with themselves and with their lives, and perhaps for this very reason there is no effective “treatment.” – Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door
He is a broken machine — as I pointed out a few weeks ago.
“So, in the interests of survival, they trained themselves to be agreeing machines instead of thinking machines. All their minds had to do was to discover what other people were thinking, and then they thought that, too.”
? Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
““Machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines, you are not cattle, you are men! ” Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator
But I think he probably means well in his broken way.
“But I think he probably means well in his broken way.” – Bill Owen
Well said. It reminds me of a former poster here, a Mr. Wolf. Of the opposite side of the coin than CraigSummers, so to speak…but he meant well, nonetheless…in his own, broken way. As do we all.
“Broken does not mean non-functioning, or incapacitated, it does however mean ready for repair.” – Shawn Boreta
Hi Bill
“…..“So, in the interests of survival, they trained themselves to be agreeing machines instead of thinking machines. All their minds had to do was to discover what other people were thinking, and then they thought that, too.”…..”
The interesting thing about many or most of the posters who religiously follow Greenwald from internet site to internet site is how you move lock-step with Greenwald. It’s only your arrogance that allows you to think you are different. That’s why I’m here – to occasionally wake you up from your mousekateer dream.
Thanks.
Craig, I think you should be getting a salary from TI, if you aren’t already. I honestly don’t know where you find the time.
“CraigSummers” is actually a very sophisticated computer program. It scans all the comments and spits out responses and types them at a lightning speed.
Version 2.0 of this program will output responses without reading any comments.
Et tu, Sufi? Now I am losing my mind.
I’m off from work and all of my Christmas shopping is done (Thank God). So I have time. This won’t be possible after Christmas when work begins again. Merry Christmas
Thanks.
Hi Sufi
You may not believe this, but I think you probably are the most frustrated of all posters correcting everyone on what is and isn’t Islamic. I was thinking about you yesterday when I read that al-Qaeda condemned the TTP attack on the children school in Pakistan calling the attack un-Islamic. At any rate, happy holidays.
version 3.0 (cyborg version – even smells human, bad breath and all).
Meanwhile, the witnesses are being redacted.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/20/cia-ghost-prisoners-torture-afghan-jails
It is irresponsible for the US to transfer the prisoners to a jurisdiction with such a primitive legal system. I thought the US had advisors in Afghanistan – what have they been doing all this time?
Kabul Residents on Heroin Watch as Addiction Grows …http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/world/in-a-sorrowful-pastime-kabul-residents-watch-as-drug-addiction-climbs.html
Just as it is wrong to judge agent Bikowsky by her failures, it is wrong to judge the US occupation of Afghanistan by the results. In both cases the effort expended is impressive.
You may be surprised that I am so tolerant of failure. But succeeding often takes initiative and imagination – qualities which all totalitarians loathe. So I’m willing to settle for loyalty and obedience. Since those are attributes achievable by almost everyone, authoritarian regimes are, in fact, the most democratic.
>”So I’m willing to settle for loyalty and obedience. Since those are attributes achievable by almost everyone, authoritarian regimes are, in fact, the most democratic.”
I guess it depends on the authority. There is no need to bow-down before me, benitoe. If you want something, just ask … it’s unseemly to scratch around like chicken with it’s head cut off as far as I’m concerned. *I thought we were tighter than hens teeth (which is very tight.)?
Just wondering. Several articles seem to have characterized A B as an “analyst”, i.e., someone not in “operations.” Yet isn’t torture or torture tourism a form of being in “operations”? Doesn’t this open a whole new set of questions about the difference between an analyst and an operative? So on the one hand you have someone speculating about the meaning of observations. Then you have them acting out their fantasies and making them seem real. It’s quite interesting.
“This is a political article (which is fine) meant to promote a viewpoint i.e., a character assassination of a CIA agent. – CraigSummers
Actually, political or not (eye-of-the-beholder, and all that) this article is about what really happened.
It’s not an op/ed piece (which is more than fine, when labeled as such). It’s the way good reporting is supposed to be.
“The truth knocks on the door and you [CraigSummers] says, “Go away, I’m looking for the truth,” and so it goes away. Puzzling.” – Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values
Well,her victims(drones) had their characters assassinated(propaganda),and then their lives.If its just her character attacked,she gets off lucky.
Way past time to prosecute Bush, Cheney & Co. for War Crimes. Do it now!
Someone throws her under the bus and you drive over her. I hope you can sleep at night
“The Intercept is naming Bikowsky over CIA objections because of her key role in misleading Congress about the agency’s use of torture, and her active participation in the torture program (including playing a direct part in the torture of at least one innocent detainee). Moreover, Bikowsky has already been publicly identified by news organizations as the CIA officer responsible for many of these acts.”
So what the fuck is the point of this article?
Since she has already been identified and named by multiple news agencies, why not just reprint or link to THOSE articles?
You know, just like Huffington Post does….
Run out of new ideas, Glenn?
Hey, whatever happened to the tens of thousands (or millions?) of documents your cash-cow Snowden handed over to you?
Or does your deal with the devil preclude your continued publication of NSA and governmental misdeeds?
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-story/
There’s more, recent NSA stories here — and “governmental misdeeds” pieces as well — but the commenting software dislikes more than one link per comment.
If you are not embarrassed, you should be.
When is Matt Taibbi’s debut?
Dear shit-stirring ankle-biter, I sincerely hope that The Intercept never does anything like that piece-of-shit The Huffington Post. Their comments section is screened in such a way as to allow an asshole like Ken Blackwell to write articles, apparently with no retorts allowed that include the word “liar” to describe a proven liar. For that and other reasons it is a worthless entertainment rag. The Intercept, on the other hand, is a serious effort to do great reporting with a vibrant comments section, that even includes uninspired little dung beetles such as yourself. Carry on.
Uh, John, The Intercept has removed posts wholesale. Including, over the summer, a 3+ paragraph Glenn Greenwald comment along with my short reply to it (along with a 3rd commenter’s).
A month later in an NPR piece my comments were removed, with the final say being a frequent poster’s who bore false witness against them (coincidentally you’d used similar terminology before that poster started using it, because I’d gone into archives (which I see have been removed) in order to prove a quote).
Posts by many were redacted by the editor earlier in the site’s inception.
The Intercept is not a paragon of virtue.
Two people’s I believe; you are one. And if you start endless posting of all that horseehit again the “bonneville” account will get zapped as the other 3-4 have been.
With only a few irrelevant exceptions, about the only thing that moves Glenn to mod is VOLUME of drivel. Basically, with very few limits, you can see what you want; how much you can say it may be another issue.
You’re not the high road, lady. Your volume dropped significantly after your posts were disallowed for over a month. For the longest time these threads were a Christmas tree of Betty Crocker avatars.
And don’t blame it on Tor; everybody already knew that Mona posts to The Intercept.
My volume was no more than a lot of different posters, including yours. There was at least one commentator actively corresponding with editorial to have me, quote, “banned.”; one same piqued over comments I made about Occusnore, back before it was relegated to the history books.
Now, now, you know better than that. Glenn contacted The Intercept’s IT department who worked with me to figure out why my comments wouldn’t post, and in the process a few other folks also got liberated from the spam filter.
Anyhoo, Glenn has no problem with my comments or the volume of them. None. Zero. Zip. He has no moderation-type issue with the vast majority of those who comment here.
Then there is you. He has a problem with your commenting style — namely, the volume of drivel — as evidenced by the number of your accounts that have been zapped.
Deal. It’s the reality that isn’t going to change.
Mona, you had to change your handle by adding punctuation in order to get back in. Over time. Your Tor excuse once you were readmitted fell on deaf ears because you knew you didn’t have to use it for this site considering your notoriety; you were fully aware that doing so would be superfluous.
And nobody else was having problems like yours–as evidenced by the absence of any other posters re-emerging simultaneous to you.
And how your posting volume dropped after that.
Nuff said. Case closed. Scoundrels use that word. And Democrats who want something.
You are insane.
Not only have I always posted here as “-Mona-” with the dash marks before and after, I have signed my name that way online for 20 years, including my email. At Salon I was “-Mona-” and would have been at the Guardian except they didn’t allow that in a username.
TallyHo and I worked to figure out what was wrong with my account, and then Glenn got us in touch with an individual in TI’s IT department. She spent several days troubleshooting, and determined it was the spam filter.
Period. End of.
You. Are. Insane.
Mona was not and has not been banned or even moderated at any point. Just as she said, she has always had the same user name she is currently using. And, similar to what she said, these comment boards have caused inconvenience, having nothing to do with type or volume of comments, for a lots of commenters.
This bonneville thing on the other hand is now using its latest incarnation of several because it gets banned over and over, not only here but elsewhere. Here it got banned not just for the crap-flooding but also for stalking. (Which it will be again if it stalks again, count on it). Nothing to do with it’s pitiful “occusnor” delusion that it blames it’s demise on.I call it an “it” because I honestly question if it’s human. Most of us are aware that there are bots created to behave in the distracting ways that this bot behaves. It’s more than hard to understand why a human would continue for years to humiliate themselves the way this bot has been doing. But whether it be a bot or some strange sort of human, it is programed with some combination of pathological liar and delusional fantasy world.
Thank you, Kitt.
It seems to have disappeared for the time being. Perhaps the radio voices in his fillings told him this is a den of Satan-worshipping sex kittens, or something.
Kitt replied to posts that the individual knew were by me in a variety of threads, but I’m not allowed to respond in kind without being tarred with an epithet begun by John Kelly (when I dug into archives to prove a comment), which preceded Kitt’s usage of same.
Here’s the NPR post where none of my comments are allowed to stand that counter the accusation by Kitt 12 Aug 2014 at 11:17 am:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/12/nprs-dina-temple-raston-passed-cia-funded-nsa-contractor-independent-fear-monger-snowden-reporting/
In it, this fragile individual was reminded by me as saying distinctly in a prior thread several months before that s/he wanted me banned because I said “lies” about Occupy, and for no other reason. Ostensibly until Kitt saw Kelly’s work. Me comments were blacked out minutes later with this shithead’s remaining.
Here’s the sociopath saying a “lie” got me banned.
“Yeah, you’ve written that lie, a thousand times. It even got you banned. You’re an example of what this statement is about: ‘Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.’”
– Kitt 25 Jun 2014 at 10:09 am
It’s what I’d pointed to in the NPR dialog that was memory holed, but left Kitt’s intact.
This aspersion-casting, double-standard sociopath originally claims a “lie” about Occupy repeated “thousands” of times got poster debbie banned, here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/18/nsa-surveillance-secret-cable-partners-revealed-rampart-a/
After reading that multiple times, I decided to perform an experiment. Google Translate is supposed to be wonderful tool. But often the translations come out pretty clumsy, and can be incomprehensible in part. It occurred to me that if I asked it to translate text that in its original language was utterly incoherent — like yours above — the translation could be pretty entertaining. So, I translated it into a language I read, French, to see what the results might be.
I got this:
Tres jolie, n’est-ce pas? Unfortunately, just as incoherent. GIGO
You below:
And you like the word “cunt.” Are you under the impression that such banal and immature provocations are going to get you all kinds of indignant reactions?
In any event, you either are [email protected] or one of his freakoid acolytes. Either way, Glenn tolerates such crude drivel until it exceeds a certain volume. Drivel of any sort is limited in quantity from any single person, at his sole discretion.
Timber!!
I’m going to concur w/ your assessment on this one, thecraig. Especially since the credibility in question (nist report) dictates that 83 perimeter/core columns were all simultaneously rendered null & void from a common structure-fire. Or in realist terms, *”It’s another Festivus miracle!”..
Did y’all get the fondue-pot that I sent you?
*ht `bah
No, didn’t get mine yet – where the fuck is it already, you damned little cunt?
After waiting, literally, for over twenty years, it is phenomenal (and encouraging) to begin to see this honest coverage once again in the media.
I’ve watched the house of cards being built upon the media’s exit from reality based public discourse due to corporate/government influence and that of the almighty dollar under the guise of American Exceptionalism™ and had honestly given up on ever seeing its return.
But because of the reporters here at The Intercept and elsewhere – that paradigm is demonstrably being changed.
This list is long (and growing!) of those that have the integrity and the resources to report and blow to the whistle on what really is happening in our world today, and to place their reputations and personal safety on the line on behalf of those who haven’t had a place at the table of discourse for far too long – so I’ll not name you all – just thank you all for being here when needed most.
With these thoughts, please continue the good works, and be safe in all that you do.
“Every advance in human life, every scrap of knowledge and wisdom and decency we have has been torn by one side from the teeth of the other. Every little increase in human freedom has been fought over ferociously between those who want us to know more and be wiser and stronger, and those who want us to obey and be humble and submit.” – Philip Pullman, The Amber Spyglass
More needs to be done fast as I sit here getting burned.
“More needs to be done fast as I sit here getting burned.
As are we all – figuratively and literally. I would like to help more in some way; the best I can do for now is to continue to speak up, and often, to spread the words, and to encourage and thank those, like you and the writers here, that continue to do so.
“This is slavery, not to speak one’s thought.” – Euripides, The Phoenician Women
Thanks sillyputty. I miss figurative burns these days, though still try to dole one out occasionally.
“I miss figurative burns these days, though still try to dole one out occasionally.”
Amen to that. Maintaining a sense of humor (I’ve found) is a great help during these tumultuous times.
Here’s a look at the presentation made by Ray Nowosielski on his work, with colleagues, tracking down our heroine.
http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/hopex1/videos/57059402
Note to establishment Dems. Sheer speculation here, but it would seem to me handing out cookies to neonazis at Maidan, overthrowing Libya and secretly shipping arms to incipient ISIL in Syria, shooting down a plane full of AIDS researchers and blaming it on a gay-hating supervillain, promoting wacky pictures of yourself checking your phone while innocent people are being tortured in CIA dungeons around the world, is a funny way to go about winning over the nurturers demographic. Seems about as brilliant as inviting Eric Schmidt to help you figure out why you’re losing elections.
I’ve just fallen in love!
haha, bravo.
You can count the neo-Nazis in Ukraine on one hand. There were thousands and thousands and thousands of people involved in Maidan.
“Meet Alfreda Bikowsky”
I had a problem with the initial photo of Jessica Chastain, but didn’t have the time to weigh in on it.
While the new photo is a good one, given the whole picture, I certainly hope that the fellow pushing the broom isn’t surprised when someone calls him “Alfreda.”
(In spite of this, thank you both for all the good that you do. And I do appreciate this particular photo…)
Well,as Alfreda was supervised by Michael,also a woman,is there something Freudian?going on here,or just a sign women are just as screwed up and full of foibles as men?
We need the entire report.
Did CIA torture violate Nuremberg ban on human experimentation?
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Washington Bureau, December 16, 2014
The Senate findings, the analysis said, showed that CIA medical personnel collected data, such as the length of waterboarding applications, how much water was used and detainees’ appearances after the sessions, during the early phases of the program.
The information apparently was later used by the Office of Medical Services to develop draft guidelines in 2004 for using harsh techniques and helped the Department of Justice determine in 2004 and 2005 what methods could be considered legal, it continued.
The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel “relied heavily on OMS data and analysis” in issuing a 2005 opinion that found that the harsh techniques were legal, it said.
The data collection, said the analysis, “is consistent with definitions of human subjects research under U.S. federal codes.”
“If further investigation establishes that human subjects research without consent was performed systematically on detainees then such activities are violations of the Nuremberg Code and could constitute a crime against humanity,” said the analysis.
The Nuremberg Code grew out of the Nazi war crimes trials in which medical experiments were declared a crime against humanity. A 1998 treaty that established the International Criminal Court also stated that medical experiments conducted on detainees captured in international or internal conflicts are war crimes. The U.S. signed but did not formally ratify the 1998 treaty.
Physicians for Human Rights pointed to two instances cited by the Senate report in which CIA personnel expressed concerns that “studying the results of CIA interrogations would amount to human experimentation.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/12/16/250260_did-cia-torture-violate-nuremberg.html?rh=1
The Doctors’ Trial followed the Nuremberg Charter and the first big trial, so the principles and law were already laid down. The doctors were indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, of which the experimentation and euthanasia were subsets. (The wikipedia page on the Doctors’ Trial is a good place to start).
There’s also this, in today’s Salon, which sets out the 21st Century case in its particulars:
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/20/put_the_evil_bastards_on_trial_the_case_for_trying_bush_cheney_and_more_for_war_crimes/
Another portal webpage on the Doctors’ Trial:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergDoctorTrial.html
Thank you for the links, coram nobis. I’ll take a look.
also might want to read this interview with Nathaniel Raymond, he’s the human rights investigator Risen sources in his new book. He says the APA asked the CIA to help rewrite their ethics code, explicitly opening the door for human experimentation. This should be a huge fucking scandal.
http://harpers.org/blog/2014/10/the-apa-grapples-with-its-torture-demons-six-questions-for-nathaniel-raymond/
Given the mundane daily routine of the average psychologist, no one should blame them for rushing to fill the new exciting (and well remunerated) positions in the US torture program. How could they have foreseen that setting ‘obeying orders’ as the ultimate imperative could lead to bad moral outcomes? After all, who wouldn’t trust the CIA to rewrite their code of ethics? They must live with the consequences of their lapse in judgment, and I don’t envy them. Torture sounds glamorous, but is actually a messy and unpleasant business.
Maybe the millions in cash from their consulting contracts will console them somewhat – I hope so.
subverts that want Dirty Harry to die and crime to win
Thanks for this note and link, BenjaminAP –
This should be a scandal indeed and the APA should be ashamed.
Dear “A Nurse”: The data collection, said the analysis, “is consistent with definitions of human subjects research under U.S. federal codes. “If further investigation establishes that human subjects research without consent was performed systematically on detainees then such activities are violations of the Nuremberg Code and could constitute a crime against humanity,” said the analysis.
You think, crimes against humanity really? And they sent all of this off to the Bush DOJ, after the executive order signed by G.W. Bush (drafted by Cheney) that gave the Executive Order for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. I don’t know about you, but personally, I’m not interested in seeing “Lyndie English” go to jail again…I want the architects of the program.
When someone has the audacity to get on television and announce to the world that “rectal feeding” is a medical procedure and absolutely nothing constitutes torture, unless the “event” falls within with the narrowly defined perimeters of U.S. right wing propaganda exploiting the deaths of 9/11, and the extremist group ISIS etc…
It reminds me of a lot of serial killers who blame their behavior on their mother. Really it’s all just an excuse for what you really want to do…isn’t it Dick.
FYI: for future discussions among posters on the Intercept, CIA officers and government agents with high level security clearances are not allowed to hold dual citizenship with any country. For some reason, there appears to be an exception for people in political positions. It used to be that you were also prohibited from marrying foreign nationals. That may no longer be true.
AG, in what part of the country are you?
I live just outside of NYC. I lived for years in Brooklyn, then for a year in Queens. Lucky me, I think it’s a the highest stalker per square foot, outside of San Francisco, not to mention the rent. No joke, when I was working door to door (including my co-workers) it was often 1,000 people a day, never less than 500…But I think they hit multiple targets, because they work all the mass transit hubs, Penn Station, Port Authority and the entire subway system. Funny, how it’s ALL under surveillance and directly connected to the counterterrorism center.
How about you? Where do you live? What’s your stalker count per day? I’m curious if I’m at the high end of the bell curve.
I’m not working at the moment, I had a bad experience with some DEWs…ALL day long, in a building filled with fortune 500 companies. Need I say more.
North side of Chicago. The stalkers have receded and I don’t see them
as often as I once did. I have encounter repeatedly recently municipal police at a regular afternoon task. I wave and/or ignore them. Earlier this year the stalkers would literally follow me to shrink appts and listen in. I’d see them outside the house — usually two or three — holding these electronic things in their hands with headphones on. I almost got one on film — he thought I had gone in office but I was in waiting area. He literally walked up to within a few inches of the building. I could not believe it. Suspiciously my ‘camera’ on smart phone stopped working earlier this year (it is completely infiltrated) so I asked secretary for hers but alas the doc’s dog came out of office and started barking and I missed the chance for photo. It was unbelievable — inches frombuilding and holding up some gadget. Many were ne’er dowells, many new immigrants. One — sorry to say but I believe Jewish — was in a Honda Odyssey with an Evanston resident sticker on it and also a Northwestern U. parking sticker too. I wrote down 3994 P as an identifying number. But the number of stalkers dropped for reasons I could speculate on but won’t here and now. A few weeks ago I did notice that there seemed to be someone always parked about a block away in morning when I left for routine task, and also noticed a few who seemed to be timing my route. Then one day at a corner two blocks from home had someone zip out of spot real fast behind me and I pulled over quickly. Same series of events happened another day but as I approached corner I slowed and the person in car waiting had to pull out in front of me because I wouldn’t go. Then I sited location and event here and it hasn’t happened again. But mind you my building is infested though I am glad to say the Northrop Grumman and Thomson Reuters just moved out. (They denied my accusations but I named them on the web.) But there are still FOUR Stasi in building. I have enlisted my Rep. Mike Quigley’s office to try to make sure that sale of foreclosed unit meets published legal rules. Hopefully that will help discharge another one of them. And so it goes…
I’m glad to hear the stalking has trailed off a bit. I’ve heard that often happens, after they start hitting a target with weapons. Mine has also declined, maybe because I’m no longer working and it’s impossible to predict my schedule. I think my particular situation is probably on the extreme side, death threats, multiple assaults, constant incapacitating weapons attacks…They definitely want me silenced, perhaps because I know too much or have overwhelming evidence.
Keep working with your representative. As I said, Congress is being bombarded with complaints. You can always carry a small still camera that also takes video (people will assume you are taking pictures, not filming). You are allowed to film in any public area, but not on private property, such as a store. I try to capture behavior, rather than faces, since a face would need to be obscured, if the footage was ever shown publicly. Writing down license plates is absolutely fair game.
Although many of these low level stalkers rationalize their activities and are told that they are “on patrol”, I’m sure deep down they are aware that their “job” is highly illegal. Anything that sheds light on their criminal behavior is positive. You are not only helping yourself, you are helping other people, who could become their victims.
I wish I could say that I’m counting in my rep. but this IS Chicago and the machine run far and deep. Durbin was zero help. But Quigley’s aide seem genuinely interested in helping. Stalkers aren’t my problem — it’s living in a condo that has been infiltrated and infested by Stasi who work together and seem to have recruited or paid off other neighbors who want to stay clear. It’s fearing being shocked and burned through walls, and having some sort of aerosal bioagent sprayed into my bedroom and liquid drops poured on me from the vent above me while bathing. It took more than a year but I think some neighbors are realizing what I’ve been saying is true. Here’s hoping that Obama is forced to assign independent investigation of torture and it spreads to the current domestic cointelpro.
Uh, American Gestapo, “right wing”ers are the ones wanting smaller government. “Right wing”ers not the ones promoting Big Government, or the police- and surveillance-state it comprises with money flush from taxpayers that the left wants to soak for its public servants.
Nein, mein herr.A twisted narrative indeed.Jeez,true conservatives care about the health and well being of America,not world domination.This crazy nonsense is Zionist inspired,and at this time,the law of the land.
Yes, true conservatives do not want larger government. I’m not talking about conservatives, I’m talking about right wing nuts with an agenda that doesn’t include the well being of the American people. So for example, people from the Bush administration (probably Cheney’s office) gave NYC hedge funds heavily invested in the defense industry a start date for the Iraq war in December 2002 (approx. 12/17/02). Then Cheney personally profited through his company. Funny, how a confession obtained under torture (from an Executive Order drafted by Cheney’s office) provided the justification for the trillion plus dollar Iraq war boondoggle. But if you were a defense contractor, you made out great.
OR we could discuss the financial collapse of 2008 and how the ultra-wealthy knew in the Spring of 2008 and were moving their money into safe banks (there was a one page list of safe banks). I personally withdrew 7 million dollars from Lehman Brothers on Spring 2008, on behalf of a wealthy heiress, with inside information. Boy did the wealthy win big, they’re all now worth 3-4 times more than they were prior to the fall 2008 collapse. Of course, your average American got crushed.
OR would you describe government outsourcing of what should be inherently government functions as “left wing”, aka the stated goal to privatize everything and make it “for profit”. Yes, we do save on government pensions, but you have someone like Edward Snowden as an NSA contractor earning a high point of $200,000 a year in his 20’s sitting right next to government employees making $60,000-$80,000. Do you know the for-profit contractors recruit right in the CIA cafeteria, after the U.S. taxpayer has paid for their training? Have you ever talk to someone ex-military from Iraq, who was paid $110 a day to risk their lives, that complained about the Blackwater assh*#le mercenaries who made $1,200 a day?
You have absolutely no idea where American tax dollars are going, I assure you. Even our Congress has absolutely no idea. What makes you think this is a left wing democratic problem?
Suddenly a strange thought occurred to me: how are these people identified? possibly she was identified by the German citizen Khaled El-Masri, once he was released. Unsure wheither he knew her name while detained. Possibly journalists presented him with multiple pictures of people assumed involved. Perhaps this is the real reason why military personnel are asked not to share pictures online, and hide behind cartoons? Perhaps government is more afraid of evidence than it is of terrorism? Afraid of the law?
Meet the neo-Bolsheviks
(same as the old Bolsheviks)
Zionists all.
No…Americans. Zionism is just the excuse.
James Jesus Angleton come back to haunt us. Why can’t we recognize that the CIA has been such a swamp of error and misjudgement…throughout its history. What have they EVER gotten right? I’m reminded of Barbara Tuchman’s, “The March of Folly”. We are led by incompetents from disaster to boondoggle and back. Over and over.
Are You Ready For the Torture Queen
She keeps electrodes and pliers
In a pretty cabinet
‘Let them scream cake’ she says
Worse than Marie Antoinette
A built-in remedy
For finding hidden money
No need for an invitation
Cause you can’t decline
Cattle-prods and cigarettes
Well versed in etiquette
Extraordinarily nice
Chorus:
She’s a Torture Queen
prefers hypothermia to a guillotine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to destroy mind
Anywhere, Any place, Anytime
Recommended at the price
Insatiable in appetite
Wanna try?
To avoid complications
She destroyed all the evidence
Yet in conversation
She spoke just like one of us
Prolapse colon in Poland
Missing teeth in Egypt
She really gets around
Perfume came naturally from Paris
For cars she couldn’t care less
Fastidious and precise
Drop of a hat she’s as willing as
Playful as De Sade
Supported by the media bigs
Arm with live earwigs
To absolutely drive you buggy, BUGGY
She’s out to get you
Recommended at the price
Insatiable in appetite
Wanna try?
You wanna try?
” The executive summary of the torture report released by the Senate last week provides abundant documentation that the CIA repeatedly and deliberately misled Congressabout multiple aspects of its interrogation program. ”
The CIA is an intelligence organization. The very nature of the industry is built on the strength and effectiveness of the use of the practice of lying.
So I would imagine that the first order of business a new CIA recruit is trained in, is how to lie and how to lie effectively. And convincingly.
So they probably lie about everything. They probably lie about their true identities and where they live. Probably lie about how they earn their living. They probably lie to their spouses and to their friends and children. They probably lie to Congress. Correction – they lied to the Congress and probably lie to the President with just as much ease too. They probably lie to the FISA court and lie to their own lawyers. They most very likely lie to TheIntercept…
The best part is when they probably lie to themselves and to one another.
Lying to Congress to me was to be expected.
I agree Pat. They are professional liars and that’s a good thing – like when you are ushering hostages out of Iran. You must be very convincing because it’s a dangerous job. For example, the Beirut station chief for the CIA, William Francis Buckley was captured by Hezbollah in 1984:
“…..According to the United States, Buckley had undergone 15 months of torture by Hezbollah before his death. In a video taken approximately seven months after the kidnapping, his appearance was described as follows:[10]……..”Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often incoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking. The CIA consensus was that he would be blindfolded and chained at the ankles and wrists and kept in a cell little bigger than a coffin”……..”
Why do you guys always think that one action justifies the other, particularly when it had long been established was both illegal and effective?
I’m not justifying the action in my reply. I’m just agreeing with Pat that the CIA are (trained) liars for a reason.
Your reason more than implies that their lying is a good thing which sure sounds like an endorsement ergo justification.
Craig:
Craig:
“……Your reason more than implies that their lying is a good thing which sure sounds like an endorsement ergo justification…..”
Which under certain circumstances, it is a very good thing. I do endorse them. Why not?
How do
paid liars ever develop trust and authenticity? Or are those sentimental notions for the naive? And, seriously curious, what was your relationship with your mother like?
ec
“……And, seriously curious, what was your relationship with your mother like?….”
I suffered from the Oedipus Complex. Seriously, the CIA does a job which can be quite dangerous. Their job description is extremely varied but involves the gathering of intelligence, overseeing some operations and making recommendations to the President or other policy makers. Torturing of prisoners was conducted in the aftermath of 911 with the purpose of preventing another.
Thanks.
You make it sound so simple. 9/11 happened so George Bush authorized the CIA to hire two spook shrinks for $81 MILLION to create a torture program outside the territories of the U.S. So agents could twist and/or evade U.S. law. Then in order to fill these dungeons we paid bounties and kidnapped men who may or may not have had anything to do with terrorism. We violated U.S. and international law, suspended habeus corpus, due process, experimented medically, sodomized them with enema bags of hummus, waterboarded them, slapped them, hooded them, shocked them, threatened them with mock assassinations and drills because in reality they were the color skin of our perceived enemies. It’s that simple Craig. And by doing so you and your ilk have degraded the only thing that ever made America exceptional — the Constitution. And from that sickness the cancer’s now metasticized to a domestic cointelpro that targets innocents because someone in the shadows points a finger. Or offends a donor of the president. Or asks the wrong question. Or lobbies for transparent government. Or just crosses paths with the wrong person at the wrong time so that they’re now tormented with the IC’s new improved ‘electronic’ zersetzen to remove the ground from underneath their target’s feet and the roof over their head. To isolate them, fracture families, destroy reputations and financial stability — all through elaborately laid deceptions told by people whose entire lives are lies. It sounds pathetic and sick and no you can’t rationalize 9/11 as the reason for these demented practices. It’s power and pathology run amuck, and it’s mindboggling that you can even attempt to rationalize it. And I really want to understand why you think this is all okay. So I gotta ask again: did your mother love you?
“……You make it sound so simple. 9/11 happened……”
It’s obvious that a lot changed after 911 which is what happens when 3000 people are brutally targeted and murdered (and 100 million dollars of damage is inflicted on the economy).
Regardless, if you are really interested in a conversation, I’ll be happy to oblige. However, quit rambling and try using paragraphs, OK? I’m not going to spend all day trying to decipher what you mean. For example, you might want to take some time and lay this out more clearly:
“…… And from that sickness the cancer’s now metasticized to a domestic cointelpro that targets innocents because someone in the shadows points a finger. Or offends a donor of the president. Or asks the wrong question. Or lobbies for transparent government. Or just crosses paths with the wrong person at the wrong time so that they’re now tormented with the IC’s new improved ‘electronic’ zersetzen to remove the ground from underneath their target’s feet and the roof over their head. To isolate them, fracture families, destroy reputations and financial stability — all through elaborately laid deceptions told by people whose entire lives are lies……”
Sounds like you might suffer from paranoia. I apologize ec, but I have a different point of view than most who post on the Intercept. The main thing to remember is that I don’t give a fuck what you think about what I think. We can go from there – and leave my mum out of this. She was just fine. It was my dad that tortured me.
Thanks.
I think the best use of your time here at The Intercept would be to reveal what torture you endured from your father — or whomever really hurted you. I think you would get great benefit from purging these events that have led you to rationalize torture. I do believe that at the root must be great hurt.
What was Buckley doing in Beirut?
The CIA was so, so, upset.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/18267/CIA-OFFICIAL-TORTURED-TO-DEATH-GAVE-SECRETS.html?pg=all
” They are professional liars and that’s a good thing – like when you are ushering hostages out of Iran. ”
Talking of Iran – like also when orchestrating and carrying out a coup of a democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran …? That was not a good thing…
OF COURSE it was a good thing…it was perpetrated by Saint Winston of Churchill and Saint Dwight of Eisenhower!
So, why the big deal about your ‘revelation’, when it has been out there for years?
http://cryptome.org/0005/cia-officers.htm
BFP Breaking News: Confirmed Identity of the CIA Official behind 9/11, Rendition & Torture Cases is Revealed
Wednesday, 21. September 2011 by Sibel Edmonds
Alfreda Frances Bikowsky: The Current Director of the CIA Global Jihad Unit
BNBoiling Frogs Post has now confirmed the identity of the CIA analyst at the heart of a notorious failure in the run-up to the September 11th tragedy. Her name is Alfreda Frances Bikowsky and she is the current director of the CIA Jihad Unit. Through three credible sources and documents we have confirmed Ms. Bikowsky’s former titles and positions, including her start at the CIA as an analyst for the Soviet Desk, her position as one of the case officers at the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit-Alec Station, her central role and direct participation in the CIA’s rendition-torture and black sites operations, and her current position as director of the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit.
The producers Nowosielski and Duffy have now made both names available at their website. They also identify the second CIA culprit as Michael Anne Casey. We have not been able to obtain confirmation by other sources on this person yet, but we are still working on it.
Alfreda Frances Bikowsky is the person described in New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side as having flown in to watch the waterboarding of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammad without being assigned to do so. “Its not supposed to be entertainment,” superiors were said to have told her. She was also at the center of “the el-Masri incident,” in which an innocent German citizen was kidnapped by the CIA in 2003 and held under terrible conditions without charges for five months in a secret Afghan prison. The AP characterized it as “one of the biggest diplomatic embarrassments of the U.S. war on terrorism.”
Both the previous and current administrations appear to have deemed Alfreda Frances Bikowsky’s direct involvement in intentional obstruction of justice, intentional cover up, lying to Congress, and overseeing rendition-kidnapping-torture practices as qualifying factors to have kept promoting her. She now leads the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit and is a close advisor to the President.
sm..
Take heed, special fella..
Reference where in the text of this article that this ‘revelation’ was professed, or politely skedaddle.
*I’ll wait..
ps – Here’s some advice. In the future, it might behoove you to bone-up on your reading-comprehension skills before you carelessly ‘expose your Lou to being stepped-on by one of your feet’. [see below]
*ht `rr
note: Capitalized emphasis, mine.
So, again – is this news, or simply a re-hash of old known ‘news’, Mr. Greenwald Apologist?
I really don’t get your point – or your animus – except to gain points with Glenn…
Sweet Lou..
Pathetically stated, dip-shit..
Re-read your initial comment/question (slowly):
“Your revalation”, as in – “Your surprising and ‘PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN FACT’ that is disclosed to others. [oxford]
Your inept sentiments are refuted, based on the ‘previously known fact’ that in the article where you proclaim that this ‘revelation’ occurs, the authors in question have stated (and I’ll re-quote):
So you tell me, Sweetness.. How can this article in question be a ‘revelation’, when it specifically states that (and I’ll re-quote) “.. her name has been used by various media outlets in connection with her work at the CIA”?
I’ll wait..
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/revelation
“The Intercept is naming Bikowsky over CIA objections …”
You fucking self-absorbed queer, if this isn’t ‘The Intercept’ saying that it is ‘revealing’ her name, then WTF is it?
(Rhetorical question asshole – no answer wanted)
You also deploy the word “cunt.” Are you figuring a bunch of us here are gonna go all ballistic about such juvenile and boring provocations?
You either are tarzie, or one of his freakoid acolytes. Either way, enjoy your stay, but if the volume of your crudely stated delusions exceeds a certain level, that’s when Glenn mods.
Why no personal background info available on Bikowsky? Birth place? Schools? Colleges? marriage, etc? She seems to have some kind of psycho personal hatred or quirk, given her enjoyment of viewing “torture,’ that has nothing to do with any kind of ‘protecting’ the US or patriotism.
ALFREDA BIKOWSKY will go down in the annuls of history in the same catagory as Nuremberg. Speaking of which..she should remember Judge Dan Haywood’s
infamous words…”the real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom..is CIVIILIZATION.”
indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3BwK51YFgQ
Playing devil’s advocate, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that torture is justified because it saves lives. We also know that it often (probably more often than not) produces false confessions and information which, just as certainly, leads to the loss of innocent lives. Is that also justified?
Torture has only one objective: revenge. It is politically suicidal to admit this. Hence all the other excuses.
In a long-disappeared world where honesty and conscience often prevailed in OUR country’s actions, these are the very “gut” problems which were foreseen all those years ago as OUR government considered adding a SPY agency to its arsenal. Both our ally England, and our then-foe, Germany, had extensive assets of this kind. Even the Italians tried, but to their credit, they turned out to be better chefs.
Spies are, by their very nature as well as what they do, LIARS! They deceive, they mislead, they dissemble; they are despicable people and they are the very essence of what our country, at that time, sought desperately to avoid. But, predictably, they are what FEAR drove us to embrace. Now, the “bird” has come home to roost. in all its ugly plumage, and now we must clean up the inevitable “shit” which they deposited in OUR national “back yard”. It should be no surprise that a country so gutless and hollow as to “elect” Bush and Cheney is capable of almost any subsequent and comparable act of cowardice!
But now…..”Quo Vadis?” Are we the noble band who reluctantly saved the world seventy years ago? Or have we become irreparably corrupted by subsequent events and misdeeds? As a citizen of that corrupted relic where FEAR always “trumps” DECENCY, the answer seems sadly obvious.
Hah!
First Look Media/The Intercept brings truth to The Unknown Known – no more “Who’s the Unidentified Queen of Torture” and skirting around the Truth.
The Spook is now in the Spotlight
@CraigSummers –
You’re right. This is what he wrote in his column about Zero Dark Thirty:
You:
In yesterday’s interview with Alyona Minkovski on HuffPost Live, Greenwald emphatically repudiated the debate over the effectiveness of torture:
And that’s all he had to say about the effectiveness of torture. So, the attitude you attribute to The Intercept (and how you derive that I can’t imagine), can certainly not be attributed to Greenwald. (Froomkin, yes, unfortunately.)
Hi Barncat
“……So, the attitude you attribute to The Intercept (and how you derive that I can’t imagine), can certainly not be attributed to Greenwald. (Froomkin, yes, unfortunately.)…..”
Greenwald quoted in his article above:
“…….The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer, writing yesterday about the NBC article……..”And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.”…..”
He could have qualified this by saying simply that whether torture works or not is irrelevant to the question, but he let her “lie” stand – or as you pointed out from previous quotes by Greenwald: “……[because that claim is, to me, both untrue and irrelevant…..”. This was not some oversight. Greenwald has done this on more than one occasion – hiding behind a quote for political reasons – or to advance a political cause. Personally, I try not to quote people I believe are probably advancing a false position (of course, they might be). But Greenwald clearly must have believed that Jane was the one misstating the results of using torture since former and present CIA heads back the position of Bikowski – so why use the quote?
Thanks.
Craig, the article is about Alfreda Bikowsky. The title is “Meet Alfreda Bikowsky…” In the paragraph from which you quoted, Greenwald is quoting Jane Mayer for her facts about Bikowsky. That’s all. There’s no way, or need, for him to insert his own opinion about the effectiveness of torture into that paragraph. He doesn’t have to state his personal opinion on torture whenever it’s mentioned. There’s nothing devious going on here. The article is about Alfreda Bikowsky, so, as always, Greenwald is sticking to the point.
Greenwald has said that “the claim that torture never works … is untrue”. That doesn’t mean that he’s concluded that the torture that was used after 9/11 was effective. It doesn’t mean that he agrees (or disagrees) with the “former and present CIA heads” who say it worked. Greenwald is saying that whether or not the post-9/11 torture was effective is “completely irrelevant” as to whether it was justified. He’s using the Mayer quote because those who believe the senate report will believe that Bikowski lied. Those who believe the CIA heads will not. Nothing unusual about that. But the point of the quote is Bikowsky’s character.
Barncat
“…..The article is about Alfreda Bikowsky, so, as always, Greenwald is sticking to the point…..”
This is a political article (which is fine) meant to promote a viewpoint i.e., a character assassination of a CIA agent.
“……But the point of the quote is Bikowsky’s character……”
It’s not simply about Bikowsky’s character. There is an important point made in the quote about the effectiveness of torture (and an incorrect one in the opinion of the current and former CIA chiefs). Interestingly enough, even Greenwald recognizes that torture works. In the case of the capture of William Buckley by Hezbollah:
“……Major General Carl Stiner stated that “Buckley’s kidnapping had become a major CIA concern. Not long after his capture, his agents either vanished or were killed. It was clear that his captors [Hezbollah] had tortured him into revealing the network of agents he had established.”[9]…..”
Thanks.
No, there is not. Torture is obscene, immoral, and uncivilized. No decent person or people thinks the question of whether it “works” is the significant one. With one exception: to train our own in what to do if they are tortured, and to give them suicide pills to use, since anyone and everyone can be broken.
Ok, one last time for clarity. Greenwald did say that that torture works sometimes (not never = sometimes). But he has not said that post-9/11 US torture worked; he has neither agreed nor disagreed with the “opinion of the current and former CIA chiefs”. So, Greenwald is quoting Mayer and letting his readers decide whether or not they believe that the post-9/11 torture was effective, and therefore whether or not Bikowsky was lying. Some will, some won’t. The facts are in dispute, and that’s a very common situation. Thanks, Craig.
Fair enough Barncat, but Greenwald – an avid believer in advocacy journalism – rarely writes to let his “readers” decide anything. He writes to advocate a position – always – like he would if he was standing before the Supreme Court Justices. If anyone believes that Greenwald casually writes to let his readers decide, then they are naive. I don’t see the quote of Jane Mayer as harmless, but an effort by Greenwald to influence the debate. In this case, the debate is whether torture works. It is extremely important for left wingers to discredit the idea that torture may work. That drum is constantly beaten by the left.
But your point is well made and I appreciate your opinion on the subject.
I’m re-posting since the last one didn’t post.
“……So, Greenwald is quoting Mayer and letting his readers decide whether or not they believe that the post-9/11 torture was effective….”
Greenwald is an advocacy journalist who promotes a point a view like he is arguing before the Supreme Court. He is not interested in letting the reader decide for himself – at all. He is interested in persuading the reader by advocating a political point of view. That’s exactly why he is such a strong proponent of “advocacy journalism”. The point is important because the left is promoting the idea that torture doesn’t work so it is of no value outside of revenge. This has been an ongoing attack on torture for some time (regardless of what Greenwald actually believes) – and this article (IMHO) advocates for that position by quoting Jane Mayer. Sorry. I have no faith or trust in the idea that Greenwald is allowing anyone to decide for himself on any political issue that interests him. In that respect, he is no better than the MSM which every writer at the Intercept criticizes profusely.
But as always, I enjoy and appreciate your point of view.
Thanks
This nasty bitch and the policies she promotes and the practices she engages in are the result of allowing U.S. intelligence and foreign policy to be taken-over by Israel.
“because”?? “crazy people”??
Apparently The Intercept doesn’t understand the thinking of State agents (and the agencies within which they hide and decide).
Starting from the premise of patriotism and protection, there can be no rationale, no “because”, because they don’t believe in democracy or a democratic society.
In their world filled bad guys (crazy people), those who consider themselves the “good” guys see those who oppose their actions as the “bad” guys. They don’t give a shit about democracy; indeed, they might argue, democracy facilitates “crazy people”. Since they — the good guys, the “sane” people — must keep much of what they do secret, revealing names and methods directly undermines their noble efforts.
Who needs an abstruse and pedantic discussion of open government when, across the world, bad guys meet in secret cabals plotting ways to destroy their enemies? (Sound familiar CIA?) From James Bond to Allen Dulles (in fiction and in reality), the motives of the State agents always justifies their actions … and otherwise decent people turn into torturers, apologists, and ferocious nationalists … because … the good and sane people of the CIA see those who would harm the State as the enemy.
The the American State has any hope for a future of freedom, it must — MUST! — hold torturers accountable.
The lack of prosecutions demonstrates the “because” as an irrelevant conjunction.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Did James Bond engage in torture? Probably, although I don’t recall it. In any event, it is a good point. Our literature, tv, films and news media seem to heavily favor the portrayal off torture as an effective means to “save lives” and rarely suggest that it is categorically wrong as well as counterproductive. It is usually presented as a difficult choice made in a feverish last minute effort (clock ticking, suspense building) to avoid catastrophe, not as a methodical, planned and pervasive practice except when the enemy does it. The reality turns out to be quite different.
I attempted to present the torture of a Russian physicist by my lead character Major James Brand in Brand on the Rocks (available from lulu.com) and the results were not productive either for Brand, his mission or sales of my book.
I’m beginning to think that torture actually does work but only in fiction.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Indeed ‘he” is.
(Americans have turned on their fellow Americans in ways that are not yet widely, or even narrowly, known. The whole truth will astound and shock. The fabric of our society, such as it is, is being shredded. When everything is said and done, one has to wonder what will remain.)
Nurse, can you please tell us what you saw?
What are our fusion centers doing?
Are those whose names appear on watchlists being actively monitored?
Are people being harassed, etc. with Cointelpro-style tactics?
Is there CIA involvement? What exactly did Dick Cheney mean about going to “the dark side”?
Are there ongoing, covert experimental programs, such as those described by Pulitzer Prize winner Eileen Welsome — the author of the Plutonium Files?
Is there a boots-on-the-ground Stasi-like apparatus that’s operating “from sea to shining sea”?
Is it a form of torture?
Is it all being ignored because those who are targeted are low-profile dissidents/activists/troublemakers, the mentally ill, and others who are easily discounted?
What’s transpiring domestically will one day be known as one of America’s greatest shames. And no one in the media will touch it. Or so it would seem.
Alfreda Frances Bikowsky would gleefully endorse it, I’m guessing, given what I’ve read.
The answer is yes to all of that.
And who wrote this report on fusion centers?
“‘Fusion centers’ gather terrorism intelligence – and much more”
“Designed to share data and head off attacks, the 72 offices in the U.S. are starting to worry civil libertarians.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/15/nation/la-na-fusion-centers-20101115
(Ken Dilanian, Tribune Washington Bureau, November 15, 2010)
Again, written by Ken Dilanian.
As for civil libertarians being worried? Not worried enough.
And another, later “fusion center” article, with Dilanian as one of the co-authors.
Anti-terror data centers criticized
The facilities threaten civil liberties and do little for security, Senate panel says.
October 03, 2012 | Ken Dilanian and Brian Bennett
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/03/nation/la-na-fusion-centers-20121003/2
Dilanian. Again. Just sayin’
“U.S. Senate report on Fusion Centers”
http://documents.latimes.com/us-senate-report-fusion-centers/
(If it’s there, I’m missing the link to the report, in the Oct. 3 article co-authored by Dilanian. Also, all of the comments are gone. And there were hundreds, once upon a time.)
Meet Jana Winter, The Senior Reporter At The Center Of President Obama’s Healthcare Scandal
Darn Tootin..!!
[snip]
“She smiles back at countless frustrated Americans as they tried to log on to the ObamaCare website, the picture of youthful health and wholesome trust in her government.
Her long brown locks are pulled back behind her face, as she flashes an alluring grin that some say makes her the “MONA LISA OF HEALTH CARE.” She could be the girl next door, someone you might see in the supermarket. Then again, she might be composite, crafted in Photoshop by a clever graphic artist whose work is already more successful than that of the IT team behind Healthcare.gov.
No one knows.
Several outlets, including FoxNews.com, have combed the contact sheets of stock photo agencies, scoured social media and squinted at group shots of Democratic operatives, all to no avail..” [-j.winter]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/27/who-is-that-girl-mysterious-face-healthcaregov/
I kinda like this one, suavey.
*balance … when you’re all tangled up, tango on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ6p4t3StSc
Fair enough, senor `bah.. In the festivus spirit, I’ll utilize my ‘flamethrower’ to torch some foggy-bottom crumbler [fbc], instead..
aloha`..
It’s another Festivus miracle! … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbfMmCf5-ds
touche`..
‘oh susan played the lady
that called the players’ song
just a figurine of stagehand reveries
i guess up and comin` can’t be that wrong..’
-wspanic
thoroughly thatched`..
*fuk’dit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uraO0qVixrs
*ht `mellow
“There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to mitigate those threats.”
Then please look in the mirror because, IMHO, a lot of the world’s most dangerous crazy people work at the CIA. The CIA has become one of the world’s biggest threats to peace.
I have to tip my hat to this lady who, according to the article, may have played a decisive role in enabling 9/11 (withholding information from the FBI), the Iraq war (extracting false confessions of WMD under torture) and the rise of ISIS (chasing imaginary terrorists in Montana while ISIS took over northern Iraq). Her cover is now somewhat compromised, but I don’t see this as an insurmountable problem. It is time for her to step forward and assume a more public role, perhaps as Director of the CIA.
John Brennan, the current director, has stated “I do not know what the truth is” ([Story]. This is a damning admission; to lie effectively under oath to Congress requires knowing the truth. Lying is not as simple as most people believe. Telling random untruths is ultimately unconvincing. You must carefully construct an alternative narrative that contains many points of convergence with the truth (for credibility), but ultimately diverges towards a completely different conclusion. So Brennan, in my opinion, has declared himself unfit to be the Director of the CIA.
Bikowsky has emerged in public at just the right time.
quote:’ It is time for her to step forward and assume a more public role, perhaps as Director of the CIA.”unquote
Benito has just breached the fine line between satire and exposure of his self as admirer of the next nominee into the annuls of Nuremberg.
quote”Lying is not as simple as most people believe. “unquote
Hahahahaha! bullshit.
No chronicle, it is true when it comes to covert actions. In the instance of my targeting it took years to put in place the players who would enable the unit next door to me to go into foreclosure and be rented out to an agent to burn and shock me. In this instance, the condo board president AND treasurer laid the tracks for years. The treasurer I believe is CIA under cover and her husband is Northrop Grumman engineer. The president I believe is also CIA and travels frequently back and forth to Baltimore airport. He’s supposedly a partner at a consulting firm that has no office and whose webpage is a bunch of white noise. But it does have email links to the ‘partners.’ I encountered this guy’s limo driver — impeccably dressed man driving the shiniest Mercedes sedan. I struck up conversation with driver, telling him I was the target of his client. His response? “That’s too bad” he said in a sincere voice. I told him as well that I was a good person and he said “I believe you.'” Fannie Mae just bought the property next door at auction and I see no evidence that they are putting it on open market. The saddest thing is I now wonder if they killed the tenant who died at about age 35 while his very short Iraqi vet cousin was staying with him. It was while that guy, last name Baker, was staying there that I began to be surveilled and have internet/electrical appliances tampered with. Now a new guy’s moved in on the other side of me. Also short, specializes in nanotechnology, and is supposedly set to start working for a lithium battery company run by a George Soros scholar who used to personally handle personnel matters for Obama for the Pentagon, DHS and CIA. Also interestingly, that company website is pretty short on specifics, has an address but no telephone number. There is no number listed in whitepages for company, and a reverse address search finds no company with its name at the stated location. However, I did call the number listed for that location, which happened to be an 815 number. When you do an internet search for the CEO and 815, several telephone numbers pop up. You can call them and they are recorded messages for some alleged company that says they will call you back if you need help. I’m pretty sure it’s another front company. Do you think it’s a coincidence that his so-called future employee has moved into my building? I think not. Oh, and the owner of his rental
unit I’m
pretty sure had his medical school paid for by the DOD. So it indeed sometimes takes years to plan a lie. Wish me luck surviving this!
You may believe that lying is easy, and if so, you may be one those virtuosi to whom normal rules do not apply.
But I believe you may be thinking of an individual lie, in isolation. The CIA on the other hand must construct a complete narrative of lies, while respecting the principles of consistency and plausibility. This giant edifice of lies resembles a cathedral; each lie must be carefully placed onto the next while respecting architectural principles to ensure the entire structure is sufficiently robust to weather any storm.
So yes, to apply a single brush stroke to canvas is easy, but to paint the Mona Lisa is not. To say the dog ate your homework is easy, but to create a framework of lies to feed the paranoia of an entire nation is not.
quote”When The Intercept asked for the CIA’s rebuttal—or Bikowsky’s—to the critical portrayal of her in the Senate report, Trapani declined to offer one. He noted that CIA Director John Brennan had disputed the report’s contention that the agency had misrepresented the value of the interrogation program.”unquote
Value? Who gives a fuck about your so called “value”. YOU TORTURED HUMAN BEINGS TO DEATH..and YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE..ONE WAY..OR ANOTHER..now..suck on “that” value…fuckface. YOU COMMITTED WAR CRIMES. Period
Mona
Here is what you said on a previous thread, and it is just one of several times you justify the murder of innocent Jews:
“…….The Jewish Zionists of Israel are an ongoing, vile oppressor. The ANC killed innocents, too. Sometimes horrifically.
The ANC’s cause was just, and so is that of the Palestinians…….”
So you have implied that murdering Jews (living in Israel) – including infants – is justified because the cause is just.
To your credit Mona, you haven’t denied what you meant by that statement (and others) – and I have given you plenty of opportunities to respond. You simply detest the idea of a Jewish state so much that killing every Jew in Israel is justified if it brings down that vile “ethno-supremacist ” state. That’s the reason Steb doesn’t respond to you. I’ve listened to far left whack-jobs say the same things for a decade, but you are the first to openly justify the murder of innocents.
From your comment below:
“….And nevermind that the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians for some 70 years what the Hamas Charter merely says it would like to do to Zionist Jews……”
No Mona. You are wrong. Over 1000 Israelis were murdered in the second Intifada – a war initiated by Arafat and the Palestinians after an offer of peace from Israel. Fifty-five hundred people needlessly died because Arafat made the decision to go to war. How many times am I going to have to tell you you are wrong? And just to clarify one more time: the Hamas Charter – which Hamas refuses to renounce – openly (in writing) calls for the murder of Jews (just like you do) – and that includes civilians and infants. They have proven hundreds of times that they mean exactly what they wrote.
Thanks Mona.
Mona can of course speak for herself, but I’m here and I’m bored, so. Mona has, on more than one occasion in GG’s forum, stated expressly that the murder of Jewish civilians by Palestinians is “morally unacceptable.” Have you not seen this? Obviously, she believes that the Palestinian cause is just, even while acknowledging that some of the acts performed in the name of that cause have been immoral. There is nothing inconsistent about that.
What I’m often curious about, though, is what the “Palestinian cause” exactly is. People who use the phrase are often unclear in that regard. I suspect there may be a number of Palestinian causes. To the extent the Palestinian cause is to kill or expel the Jews of Israel, I would say that is unjust. But so is your characterization of Mona as endorsing murder.
Hi Gator
“……Mona can of course speak for herself……”
Just as I posted, I have given her ample opportunity to say otherwise – including below in a response to rheard – and on other threads. She is well aware of that so I’m just waiting for her response which should be forthcoming. But her quote above definitely suggests that she supports the murder of innocents in Israel. She didn’t deny it despite specifically being questioned about it. She supported the attempted murder of a Rabbi for praying at the Temple Mount despite the fact that it is against ISRAELI law to pray there. She is ridiculously over the top and simply a complete fanatic. I can’t tell you how many times I have pointed out her bigoted comments with not one response of regret.
So it does not surprise me at all that by comparing Israel to South Africa, she supports and justifies any method to remove the “little satan” from the geography maps. But she has an opportunity to set the record straight.
Thanks.
The reply, lightly edited for brevity and accuracy:
“I am ridiculously over the top and simply a complete fanatic. I can’t tell you how many times I have made bigoted, false, and genuinely stupid comments with not one bit of insight or understanding.
Naturally I project my failings on others and misrepresent what they say.
Thanks”
Craig — is there some part of the term “morally unacceptable” that you find unclear?
Also, do you think Mona is obligated to “deny” your persistent misinterpretations of her words and dark speculations about her motives?
>>>”I can’t tell you how many times I have pointed out her bigoted comments…>>> And yet, you have persuaded no one. Doesn’t that tell you something? It may also provide a clue as to why Mona may have gotten bored with you at some point…
Craig – Comparing Israel to apartheid-era South Africa may be unfair to white South Africans. Did the latter use state-of-the-art military technology to massacre children in defenseless, densely populated civilian neighborhoods? (Perhaps they did, in which case I would likely concede the fairness of the comparison.)
Gator90
Mona has never to my knowledge used the term “morally unacceptable” to describe the murder of Jewish civilians, but she has the opportunity right now to say just that – and she has had the same opportunity for the past month or two.
“…….Did the latter use state-of-the-art military technology to massacre children in defenseless, densely populated civilian neighborhoods?…..”
Probably not to the scale of the attacks on Gaza, but there was some violence directed at protesters (Soweto uprising) who didn’t particularly like the laws of apartheid (which is one primary reason that you can never compare Israel and South Africa).
“……In a confrontation with police, who had barricaded the road along the intended route, stones were thrown. Attempts to disperse the crowd with dogs and tear gas failed; when the police saw they were surrounded by the students, they fired shots into the crowd, at which point pandemonium broke out…….In the first day of rioting 23 people were killed in escalating violence. The following day 1,500 heavily armed police officers were deployed to Soweto. Crowd control methods used by South African police at the time included mainly dispersement techniques, and many of the officers shot indiscriminately, killing 176 people, most by police violence.[6][7]……”
In any event, South African blacks did not fire rockets from civilian centers putting people at risk like Hamas – which gained quite a lot of propaganda value from getting so many of the same people killed that elected them to office. Rightly, Israel responded to the rocket fire by destroying the rocket launch sites. Avelna or someone mentioned how long you have been posting with Mona, but I really wonder how well you know her. Mona has every opportunity to respond and clarify her remarks (on several different threads), but I doubt seriously that I misinterpreted her. If anything, she intentionally misled me, but that has its dangers. She also has about two years of bigoted remarks which are hard to refute.
Thanks Gator
Craig- Mona just said, in this thread, that “I reject murder of innocents, by anybody, no matter the cause.” Is that in any way unclear?
Although I have had many exchanges with Mona in GG’s forum over a number of years, I’ve never met her and would not claim to “know” her at all. Based solely on her writings in GG’s forum, I think it is ridiculous to accuse her of bigotry.
Gator90
Of course. I wouldn’t expect anyone who has posted with her and generally agrees with her politically to accuse her of bigotry. I’ve posted on sites like this for quite awhile with the same kinds of support for comments that cross the line. Mona has made a number of them. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. I know better. But I still appreciate Mona’s comments – and yours for that matter. I don’t post because it’s life or death, but because I enjoy engaging in debating political issues.
“Finally, and with regard to your defamatory lies about me, I shall reply substantively to those only when I sense there are newcomers reading who, not yet clued in to you, might wonder if that filth is true” ~-Mona-
@Mona I for one truely hope you sense some new comers! . . . However if they are only ‘reading’ that might prove hard.
@Craig Summers are you aware how ridiculous it is that you post offen ending with “thanks”? If you are ever going to be able to win over the new comers (that mona may or may not sense) I think you should stop pretending to be a nice guy.
Comparissons are made to other struggles in history for the obvious reason that they allow understanding and insight when adressing current struggles. That you regard the palestinian struggle as something else is where the problem lyes. I think you ought to look at all struggles where you can find ANY similarity (even if minute) to try to understand the ‘conflict’ with a view to bringing a peaceful solution.
I once read a post here at TI where an outraged person posted something along the lines of: “So answer me this: if you had a nucular button would blow Israel of the map?” which made me think of your lovely words:
“So it does not surprise me at all that by comparing Israel to South Africa, she supports and justifies any method to remove the “little satan” from the geography maps. But she has an opportunity to set the record straight.”
Is the nuclear bomb method included? you did say “any”. There is little chance of Hamas being able to “remove the ‘little Satan’ from the geography maps” just like there is little chance that “Big Satan” would allow such a thing. There has however been quite a few changes to the “geography maps” which Israel have made ;)
Hi Gator, always a pleasure to see you popping in.
As you correctly recall, I reject murder of innocents, by anybody, no matter the cause. Craig knows that, and you and I know he knows that, but, well, he still does what Craig does.
A cause near to my heart because it affected *my* tribe was/is Irish Republicanism. But when the IRA was blowing up shoppers at Harrad’s department store & etc., I was sickened. Nevertheless, the IRA cause was and is just.
BTW, and since you’re my guru on things Jewish, have you read any Michael Chabon? I can’t believe it took me this long to even know who he is — only this past week I have dived into one of his Judaic-themed, Pulitzer-winning novels.
He’s a liberal Zionist. Struggling to figure out how to parse the current realities in and about Israel.
Mona – I should probably ignore Craig’s diatribes about you, but false accusations of anti-semitism upset me, in part because I have, to my great regret, made such accusations myself.
I have not read Chabon, though I’ve heard great things about his work. I thought “Wonder Boys” was a very good movie.
The truth is, I’m pretty ignorant about many things Jewish — I’m not even sure which night of Hannukah it is. (Were it not for the snot-nosed little Jews I spawned, I might not know it was Hannukah at all…)
An exceptional wordsmith, and what a wry wit. I’m pretty well into The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, and this Eastern European Jewish kid has escaped Nazi-occupied Prague. He does this by appealing to a Jewish magician who has them invade an old building to find some famous rabbi’s hidden golem in its casket; then they put the kid in the casket with the golem (dressed up as a deceased goy giant) and ship him to Lithuania, from whence he ultimately ends up in NYC.
Fascinating mixture of the absurd and entertaining in the context of deeply serious history.
Anyway, so you’re not a religious Jew. Did you know that Glenn Greenwald has never been bar mitzvahed?! There are those who see this as a huge dot to be connected….
“…….As you correctly recall, I reject murder of innocents, by anybody, no matter the cause. Craig knows that, and you and I know he knows that, but, well, he still does what Craig does……”
You mean misinterpret your posts? What a crock Mona, but I still appreciate your rejection of the killing of Jews. I thought you had progressed significantly down the tube from just your typical bigoted comments.
“……I was sickened. Nevertheless, the IRA cause was and is just……”
Something which is easily interpreted, but was conveniently left off of any other post concerning Israel.
Thanks Mona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4x_PxdYEk8
Oh me name is Joe McDonnell
From Belfast town I came
That city I will never see again
For in the town of Belfast I spent many happy days
I love that town in oh so many ways
For it’s there I spent my childhood and found for me a wife
I then set out to make for her a life
But all my young ambitions met with bitterness and hate
I soon found myself inside a prison gate
And you dare to call me a terrorist
While you look down your gun
When I think of all the deeds that you have done
You have plundered many nations, divided many lands
You have terrorized their peoples, you rule with an iron hand
And you brought this reign of terror to my land
Through those many months internment
In the Maidstone and the Maze
I thought about my land throughout those days
Why my country was divided, why I was now in jail
Imprisoned without crime or without trial
And though I love my country I am not a bitter man
I’ve seen cruelty and injustice at first hand
So then one fateful morning I shook bold freedom’s hand
For right or wrong I’d try to free my land
And you dare to call me a terrorist
While you look down your gun
When I think of all the deeds that you have done
You have plundered many nations, divided many lands
You have terrorized their peoples, you rule with an iron hand
And you brought this reign of terror to my land
Then one cold October morning
Trapped in a lion’s den
I found myself imprisoned once again
I was committed to the H blocks for fourteen years or more
On the blanket the conditions they were poor
Then a hunger strike we did commence for the dignity of men
But it seemed to me that noone gave a damn
But now I am a saddened man I’ve watched my comrades die
If only people cared or wondered why
And you dare to call me a terrorist
While you look down your gun
When I think of all the deeds that you have done
You have plundered many nations, divided many lands
You have terrorized their peoples, you rule with an iron hand
And you brought this reign of terror to my land
May God shine on you Bobby Sands
For the courage you have shown
May your glory and your fame be widely known
And Francis Hughes and Ray McCreesh who died unselfishly
And Patsy O’Hara and the next in line is me
And those who lie behind me may your courage be the same
And I pray to God my life is not in vain
Ah but sad and bitter was the year of 1981
For everything I’ve lost and nothing won
I try to derive the answer to that by listening to Palestinians articulate what it is they are aggrieved about and what remedies they seek. They want their land back. An end to the occupation. To be recognized as de facto and de jure equals with Jews in any territory that is Israel.
I don’t know what equitable solutions can settle their claims on appropriated land; much time has passed and the State of Israel is a reality. But Israel isn’t even close to negotiating those issues, since it continues to expand settlements and is currently passing laws tightening special status for Jews in Israel.
Of course, and again, I’m not a Palestinian. Ali Abunimah is, so I read him a lot to see what it is they are fighting for. Hamas, Fatah, the PA — they have a devil of a time electing competent leadership. Of course, the IRA had similar problems.
This article is basically about protecting the identity of a criminal who works for the government. Torture is a crime, ya know. Of course she has not been convicted in a court of law, so one could argue she is innocent until convicted in a court — but the Empire rarely tries one of its own.
I know of a lady in my state that lost her job as a school principal due to being accused of DUI — not convicted mind you, but accused. I know of another lady who lost everything when she was accused of having sex with some teenaged boy students in her high school class. The case was laughed out of court as the stories were outlandish and did not hold up to even the slightest inspection. But the damage was already done. She was fired, lost her house, and her family shunned her. So, I have to ask myself why anyone would try and protect the identity of a goon working for the criminal agency called the CIA when normal people have no protection at all against having their name exposed to the public — even when they are innocent.
My take away from this story is that here is just more proof that the mainstream media acts as the propaganda arm of the state — not the “watchdog” that so many think it is.
Actually, U.S. government allows torture under the guise of experimentation by the military and intelligence services under 50 U.S. Code 1520a
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1520a
50 U.S. Code § 1520a – Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
(a) Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
I can tell you personally, yes, they are torturing people under these exemptions with the help of military contractors like Northrop Grumman and agents working under corporate cover.
Anything in related statutes on patients’ consent? Because consent is the dividing line between medical research and torture. And, in any event, it’s illegal under international law (see, e.g., Statute of Rome) and US case law going back to Nuremberg, and the Nuremberg Charter and Codes are still valid, since the US is a signatory, and a US tribunal prosecuted the doctors. Here is the key legal language:
http://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/special-focus/doctors-trial/nuremberg-code
Thanks ec and Coram –
Very enlightening info. Will be checking back to see if you all have any more related stuff.
There is always a first for everything and so is the case with Alfreda Bikowsky´s torture program designed with a feminine touch. I´m sure that some people find it psychologically inspiring and will follow in her footsteps and practice it as an common entertainment given the appropriate title of Alfreda from tortureland.
Another feminine touch that may prove highly successful would be sexual bartering. The reward and denial of service strategem has a proven track record. they could use overflow slaves from the CIA’s sex industry.
I think I dated Afreda from tortureland once … never forgot the black nail polish.
Are you serious???? Details, details.
Found her on Jerry Springer, she was a real hum dinger.
Whips and chains, but the black nail polish remains
Forever on her fingers.
Okay, I’m a little slow. So you liked to be punished do you?
Thanks, but Barbara Bush is Satan’s whore and the queen of torture. 2016 will give us Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton , both spawn of Aleister Crowley. Torture creates jobs and instills fear in Americans that we may be the next group of domestic terrorists subjectto electro shock and water therapy.
an addendum for readers:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bush-barbara-bush-and.html
The Craig Follies continue! Now he rhetorically asks, apropos of nothing:
Myself, I support the methods of “Dirty Dancing,” which is as relevant to the discussion as your preferred flick.
As to why our Fuckwit-in-Chief, Steb, won’t reply to my comments, that is because he’s a Zionist who has learned I am dangerous to his propaganda. Replying to me only creates more opportunity for me to post debunking information. (A lesson you, Craig, have not yet learned.) He made this decision about the time I pilloried him for his utterly ignorant and inane claim that Glenn Greenwald has teh luv for Mahmoud Abbas and the grossly corrupt Palestinian Authority.
Finally, and with regard to your defamatory lies about me, I shall reply substantively to those only when I sense there are newcomers reading who, not yet clued in to you, might wonder if that filth is true.
@Mona-Wow, I love it! Unfortunately, it won’t stop them but it makes for good reading. I know its a selfish of me but its true….
Uh, is that old man sweeping the floor now the correct photo of Ms. Alfreda Bikowski? If so, the CIA sure knows how to use covert ‘cover’.
The TI authors in the byline sure made an inexplicable error of rushing earlier to post the wrong/misleading photo of an actress to erroneously depict Ms. Bikowski. For integrity’s sake, you should (must) make a statement at the bottom of the article that the previous photo was in error. Why leave the errata to the comment section by anonymous posters who caught the error early on? If you cannot get a photo right — and then do not acknowledge the error — how can we trust the authenticity of your statements within your article(s)? Did you also rush those out without proofing them? Both authors are better journalists than this. Please admit your errors when made (as Mr. Greenwald has done previously and as many of his readers have seen him do over the years at other outlets he has written).
The caption for the Zero Dark Thirty photo was, per our style, at the bottom of the story, and it clearly said the photo showed the actress Jessica Chastain from ZDT (we mention in the first graph of the story that Bikowsky was in part the model for the Chastain character). But some readers didn’t notice that caption, and once we became aware of that, due to the comments, we had a technical problem with our content management system putting the caption directly under the photo, which would have avoided the confusion. Sounds strange that we couldn’t quickly change the location of the caption but we couldn’t, at least not quickly, so we decided to change the photo altogether, to avoid any further confusion. That’s all!
Frankly your web people suck. CMS screwed? Open the pic in PS, insert caption, save, post. Done.
I hope this tip will free up some time to improve the 1970’s era comments system.
Thanks!
I wish they would allow us the choice of using the Palida Narrow font.
@ Bill Owen,
Thank you for that comment, especially since you know Mr. Greenwald personally and that might carry more weight toward improvements. Many others and I have complained about the comment section from the outset. Some knowledgeable people have offered their technical assistance to correct problems; however, the staff completely ignored them.
The several big-name TI IT staffers’ expertise does not equal even a mediocre comment section (although there have been some basic improvements). Both Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Maass have acknowledged the importance of the comment sections as ‘backstops’ and positive feedback/rebuttals to their articles. I learn a lot from many of the substantive comments posted on each article. In fact, I cannot image a viable TI without the comment sections.
How do you get a picture next to your name? I’m not seeing an option for it anywhere.
On this note, as a former Current Community blogger, and an artist, I miss being able to post pictures to illustrate and draw attention to the tyranny and treason of our unregulated surveillance police state and global corporate dictatorship.
We agree 100 percent. Our comments system is not what it should be, and we’re working on finding a new one. We have great commenters and a great commenting community but the system is not terribly good. It’s a priority item for us to change.
speaking of faulty IT. It takes an extremely long time to get to your site (15-20 seconds). I use Firefox as my browser.
Glenn isn’t any happier about this than we are. Comments just were not a priority. Apparently the meeting with Pierre in NYC and others was very successful. Maybe, probably, things will pick up.
As for my influence, if there was anyone who dances to the tune of his own drummer, it’s the Greenwald.
I thought the first picture was right on target. How about this one: http://s8.postimg.org/3qolnnvsl/00a.jpg
Operation Paperclip -the Office of Strategic Services program in which over 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers from Nazi Germany and other foreign countries were brought to the United States for employment after WWII.
I recall photo’s of these scientists torturing to death with decompression, supposedly the most painful way to die known.. didn’t need a premeditated, manufactured terrorist lie for that for some reason?
add that to the ethnicities of the hundreds of thousands of victims limitlessly tortured in u.s. psych institutions and prisons during that time and currently which nobody says a word about.
Basically 70 years strait of torture research on the exact same population; initiated by the exact same population, the same population that’s given everyone on earth the same problems.
the torture research results, the technology derived from it and the reparations from it belongs to the people they’re stealing it from with torture.
now they insinuate that if a major terror incident occurs (which is inevitable because they haven’t stopped intentionally instigating it) they believe the legitimization will be absolutely sealed, they wont even have to discuss it anymore. Well actually the major terror incident has already occurred, these torturers and human rights abusers have committed it.
Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking Sony made you remove the picture. That made me think, was the Sony hacking confirmed to be North Korea? Maybe Zero Dark Thirty which at this point has basically been debunked as a torture propaganda film was the real reason for the hacking. The Interview and North Korea could have just provided a plausible cover. I’m just speculating here.
The first photo was more flattering. The second photo, however, is more informative. It appears the agency may have lost some confidence in her intelligence gathering capabilities, and now has her gathering and bagging the dust on the floors at CIA headquarters. While she no longer has the opportunity to torture prisoners, I hope she can still derive some small satisfaction from crushing the dust balls very, very slowly. I believe however, her talents are somewhat under-utilized in this new role, and I suggested in my comment above that she should be promoted to Director of Central Intelligence, since the current occupant of that office is, by his own admission, unfit for duty.
C’mon Peter: I know I’m getting all this great work for free; I know you guys are a crucially important corrective to the mainstream media; but since I can’t comment exactly as I’d like to, you all suck. Love, Intercept Supporter. :)
Excellent article; right decision to name her. Don’t care about the picture. :)
You sound a little exasperated. ;)
“her key role in misleading Congress ”
The word you are searching for is lying, or, if she was under oath, perjuring herself.
That the media buffoons allow the political filth to determine the words that describe their actions is inexcusable.
There is a lot of controversy about ZERO DARK THIRTY and who really made it.
I wonder about things such as;
If you are an international terrorist mastermind with billions of dollars at your disposal and if you do not have internet or phone service in your house and you send all your messages to your international terrorist network using hand delivered notes on paper, don’t you change your courier on a regular basis in order to avoid detection?
If you do not have internet or phone service in you house and send all your messages to your international terrorist network using hand delivered notes on paper, why is your house full of computers?
I have lived in third world neighbourhoods just like the one depicted in the film. In the middle of the night you can hear a pin drop the next block over. A helicopter crashing in the yard would not go unnoticed and certainly be cause for alarm. So;
If you are living in a quite neighbourhood and it is the middle of the night, don’t you hear a helicopter crashing in your backyard no matter how stealth it is?
If you are an international terrorist mastermind and you are so certain that the USA doesn’t know where you are, in your backwater safe house, when you are awoken in the middle of the night by that crash in the backyard don’t you come out of the house to see what the hell that loud crash was since you know the USA military doesn’t know where you are and therefore don’t have to worry about it being a stealth helicopter full of black ops commandos?
If you are an international terrorist mastermind with billions of dollars at your disposal and you think there is even the slightest chance that you might be discovered and that the USA military, who trained you to fight the Russians after all, might send someone to assassinate you at any time, don’t you have an escape tunnel out of your house? Don’t you pay someone in your neighbourhood to stay up all night and keep watch if for no other reason than to warn you at the last minute to get to the tunnel? ( Even Saddam supposedly had a little bunker to hide in ( not that I believe that narrative either ).
If you are an international terrorist mastermind and you suddenly realize that a helicopter has crashed in your back yard and you overlooked taking the last twelve years to dig an escape tunnel, don’t you at least take the opportunity to escape into the surrounding neighbourhood during the moments of chaos that the crash has caused, therefore forcing the USA military to either engage in a firefight in Pakistan, where the USA military is not supposed to be carrying out military attacks and which would therefore draw international condemnation, or do you stay holed up in your “safe” house, on the top floor, in a room with only one door, awaiting certain death, since the props department armed with nothing more than a couple of old AK 47’s?
Puhleeeze !
Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, the queen dominatrix clad in black latex. This whole thing makes me ill.
On another note, this is supposed to be a happy time of the season. Can’t we talk about something a bit more civilized like the NFL?
Fire her for 9/11 and prosecute her for the torture.
I notice the Intercept is now showing a different picture than this morning at the head of the article. Care to comment on that?
That’s good, keep it up – brief and sweet! Now I guess you will find time to read what the other blokes are posting … scroll right down and see the second comment (one Mike posted it).
What the fuck was that all about?
Scroll down and satisfy our curiosity. Don’t ask me.
Sorry I missed his trolling below. It would be nice to sort these comments oldest to latest.
Curious about that myself. Seems unlikely that The Intercept would have overlooked some legal issue with posting a photo from the Zero Dark Thirty film, but that could be.
Maybe Jessica Chastain, or her “People,” became concerned about her being so closely connected to The Real Alfreda Birkowsky, rather than the dark comic book character one that she portrayed in the film. Just wild guesses.
See my comment above. Thanks!
Peter Maass, author of the article explains the change in picture above. I have no idea what General Hercules’ deal is.
Oops, missed his comment above. /facepalm
wasn’t there a different picture at the top of the article? thought there was a shot of Bikowsky when I 1st read it this afternoon…
wasn’t there a different picture at the top of the article? thought there was a shot of Bikowsky when I 1st read it this afternoon…
See my comment above. Thanks!
I’m repeating the link to Alyona Mink’s interview with Glenn earlier today. It’s about 30 minutes long and really quite good. They cover changing policy toward Cuba, the torture report, the media’s failure to interview any of the victims, the Bush and Clinton dynasties, the Sony hack, and the state of The Intercept.
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/glenn-greenwald-snowden-torture-sony-cuba-jeb-bush/5490e53cfe3444673b000104
“It’s about 30 minutes long and really quite good.”
It is. Well worth watching.
When an interviewer feeds Dick Cheney softballs and fails to challenge anything he says, that’s obsequious, sycophantic journalism. But when an interviewer feeds Glenn Greenwald softballs and fails to challenge anything he says, that’s “really quite good” and “well worth watching”. So apparently the problem is not the giving of a platform, it’s who you give it to.
Glenn Greenwald isn’t Dick Cheney. This was a very informal “chat” style interview between two journos.
Big difference, one is a reporter, the other orchestrated our foreign policy mess for 8 years.
@ tortoiseshell,
Rarely can anyone best Mr. Greenwald as an interviewee — except when he displays anger, which fortunately is also very rare and when I turn his video off.
Where the beautiful and brainy Ms. M. erred was when she did not ask why the TI staff had not video-interviewed any of the torture victims themselves (since they have a co-founder who is an exceptional documentary videographer) while criticizing other news outlets for the same lack of coverage.
There are many types of legitimate interviews. This was one of them. I am sure that if Ally suspected Glenn was a defenestrator or something, she’d have been on him hard.
Having said that I would love to see Glenn on Paxton if Paxton was still doing his thing.
Thanks for that link, Mona!
@ Mona,
Glenn and The Intercept should make concerted efforts to hire away Alyona Minkovski from Huffpost which in my humble opinion sucks giant donkey balls as a “journalistic” endeavor.
Ms Minkovski is a fine journalist working for a hot mess of a website with content that is about one step removed from a US Magazine. Then again maybe Ms. Minkovski likes the ‘broadcast/televised interview” format more than other sorts of journalism. But I salivate at the prospect of the content she and Ms. Poitras could put tougher if they were working for the same entity whether as documentaries or some sort of interview programming on The Intercept.
Absolutely. Let’s keep in mind that The Intercept does aspire to hosting exceptional videos, and that Laura Poitras is one of the 3 founders. She just released “Citizenfour,” which I’m sure has been an all-consuming project — and now touring at its openings, accepting awards, is also a lot of work.
While I have no special insight into plans here, I do anticipate more Poitras involvement in 2015.
There’s also this, from Foreign Affairs magazine, “The Torture Report’s Missing Victims: Did the United States Abuse Female Terrorist Suspects?” It’s behind a pay wall, but does raise some questions.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142675/nimmi-gowrinathan/the-torture-reports-missing-victims
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-on-the-cia-torture-report-once-again-language-is-distorted-in-order-to-hide-us-state-wrongdoing-9924501.html
“There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to mitigate those threats.”
Anyone want to debate whether the author of the above quote is blindly delusional? If Glenn and Peter were going for comic relief, They nailed it with the quote’s inclusion. I’m still chuckling inside while simultaneously wanting to pull my hair out. Pot calling the kettle is all we hear from our guilty war mongers. Thanks for the laugh.
i
Is it wrong to want someone to hunt down this torturess?
Nothing to Hide
In the beginning, CIA personnel didn’t want to wear military uniforms because it was a lot less dangerous to hide among the civilian population. But now since terrorists target civilians, CIA agents don’t want to be confused with civilians either.
The solution–Civilians are going to have to take one for the team and form a human shield of invisibility around the CIA.
Only by sacrificing ourselves to protect the people who are protecting us can we be truly protected from the inevitable response to actions taken by those protecting us.
Muslims are only allowed to touch women to whom they are married. So if Bikowsky has sexually exploited the al-Quida terror suspects then the gates of heaven will be closed on them once we have done our part of sending them there. The devout Muslims will consider this as even worse torture than water boarding and electric shocks because it will last forever.
You’re being satiric, right?
If not, then, I’m a devout Muslim and I did not approve your message.
You are okay being sexually exploited by a female? That’s strange. Once a bearded Muslim fellow complained to me that a female colleague was touching him on the hand while speaking. He was originally from Algeria. He was okay with male colleagues touching him and eating from the same plate.
Mr. Greenwald
“……And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked……”
According to former CIA directors “George J. Tenet, Porter J. Goss and Michael V. Hayden (a retired Air Force general), and former CIA Deputy Directors John E. McLaughlin, Albert M. Calland (a retired Navy vice admiral) and Stephen R. Kappes [Wall Street Journa op edl]”:
“…..First, its claim that the CIA’s interrogation program was ineffective in producing intelligence that helped us disrupt, capture, or kill terrorists is just not accurate. The program was invaluable in three critical ways:
• It led to the capture of senior al Qaeda operatives, thereby removing them from the battlefield.
• It led to the disruption of terrorist plots and prevented mass casualty attacks, saving American and Allied lives.
• It added enormously to what we knew about al Qaeda as an organization and therefore informed our approaches on how best to attack, thwart and degrade it…..”
Of course, you need to visit the torture-supporting MSM to read this.
“…..The CIA’s arguments focus on an undefined threat to her safety. “We would strongly object to attaching anyone’s name given the current environment,” a CIA spokesperson, Ryan Trapani, told The Intercept in an email……”
Does anyone at the Intercept support the death penalty under any circumstance – except for the CIA? There is a reason that the main stream media outlets withheld her name, but of course you spent most of the article “justifying” outing the American spy.
“……In fact, earlier this year, The Washington Post identified Bikowsky by name, describing her as a CIA analyst “who was tied to a critical intelligence-sharing failure before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks……”
That’s pathetic – especially for you to bring up. It was the great American, Jeremiah Wright, who said “…..America’s chickens are coming home to roost…….”. You also said:
“….spending decades bombing, invading, occupying, droning, interfering in, imposing tyranny on, and creating lawless prisons in other countries generates intense anti-American and anti-western rage (for obvious reasons) and ensures that those western nations will be attacked as well…..”
i.e., American’s chickens have come home to roost. To have exposed the plot of 911 would have prevented justice served on the “Great Satan”. How can you criticize her for that?
Craig Summers,
Could be please stop writing sh!t and limit your tendency to copy-paste swathes of text while making your points? You do have some very important points to support my view-points, but you produce so much of junk mail that it becomes seriously taxing to even start reading your over-generous offerings. Try to be like Nate and me while supporting the government and all the agencies. They won’t deduct your paycheck if you keep your stuff short and sweet.
Please re-write all your comments – this time in short and to the point.
This is a problem born of falling for the argument that torture works or doesn’t work. As soon as anyone starts down that moral quagmire, you lose. No torture. Period. No ticking bomb scenario is enough to throw our humanity in the garbage. It amazes me that intelligent, supposedly decent people, keep arguing whether torture works. Stop it.
Of course, those who support torture can never claim the moral high ground. That’s obvious. There is only one reason to support torture – and that is to save lives. That’s the reason why the Intercept deems it so important to discredit that argument. Calling Bikowsky a liar is part and parcel to that strategy – but that is just a fabrication by Greenwald. He knows that torture may certainly yield some valuable information – as the former CIA heads detail. Dirty Harry was a classic movie for putting that argument out on the table.
@ Craig,
Preemptive murder of human beings could prospectively and theoretically “save lives.” Do you support pre-emptive murder of human beings? And it may be true (particularly as a statistical matter) that torture may yield some “valuable information” but the same could be said if we tortured every human being on the planet–it could save lives and could yield valuable information that’s undeniable. But the reality that torture could/may yield information that saves lives is sufficient justification for what is both illegal and immoral. Because to be quite frank, if torture can be rationalized on the “saves lives” or “may/does yield valuable information” then what acts would you not justify, rationalize or excuse based on that calculus? Would you rape a child to save lives or if it could yield valuable information? Would you kill a child if it could save lives or yield valuable information? How many lives must be demonstrably “saved” to pre-emptively rape, torture or murder another human being . . . 1, 5, 10, 100, 500, 1000?
What’s sad to me is that this is such a sick and morally broken society that people like you would sit around an endlessly debate that which has been “settled” as a historical moral, philosophical and legal matter for hundreds of years. Here’s a newsflash the “ticking time bomb scenario” is a canard that is illogical and morally indefensible.
“the reality that torture could/may yield information that saves lives is not sufficient justification for what is both illegal and immoral”
Sorry for the typo/omission.
“that torture could/may yield information that saves lives is NOT sufficient justification . . . .”
Sorry for typo/omission.
As usual, I appreciate your thoughts.
“…… But the reality that torture could/may yield information that saves lives is sufficient justification for what is both illegal and immoral. Because to be quite frank, if torture can be rationalized on the “saves lives” or “may/does yield valuable information” then what acts would you not justify, rationalize or excuse based on that calculus? Would you rape a child to save lives or if it could yield valuable information? Would you kill a child if it could save lives or yield valuable information? How many lives must be demonstrably “saved” to pre-emptively rape, torture or murder another human being . . . 1, 5, 10, 100, 500, 1000?…..”
Of course, these are impossible questions to answer. If bombing all of Pakistan will kill all the terrorists, then why don’t we bomb all of Pakistan. The answer is obvious. It isn’t worth the price. The same is true for torturing terrorists. Remember, after 911, we didn’t have a good bearing on what other plans might be in the works by the terrorists where a significant amount of lives were at risk. So it made sense to use any method available to pry the information out of KSM or other high value targets. The ticking time bomb scenario may be sufficient reason to use torture – at least in my opinion. I support any President that will throw out the book to save lives – in that situation (as a last resort).
I think Craig is some kind of state agent. No person of his obvious intelligence could be so stupid.
It may be that he is simply a moral imbecile though.
Hi Bill
“……It may be that he is simply a moral imbecile though…….”
I prefer morally bankrupt.
Thanks.
Bill Owens, regarding Craig Summers: of course he is, as is Hercules and Benito and possibly Nate.
@eyewitness
It is not accurate to refer to me as an agent of the state, as I have no direct contract with them. The framed letter on my wall, thanking me for my service in defending the interests of the state on the internet, is sufficient reward.
A piece of paper on the wall? Benito, I don’t think you should admit this as it portrays you as a very sad person eager meager praise. Hey, wait, isn’t that what the CIA actually recruits for?
@jeff_kaye: CIA assets chosen to be individuals with “very dependent psychologies and needed strong direction”… from the CIA! http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/15/conversation-with-a-cia-interrogator
The CIA requires a range of psychological profiles. For the interrogators and the psychologists who acted as torture consultants, an authoritarian mindset is required as your link affirms. For analysts yet another. Case officers require a completely different skill-set. So the profile is tailored to the role the person will fill.
For counter-terrorism personnel, the CIA mostly requires incompetence, as described in this article. The reason obviously is that after a terrorism incident, the CIA is given a budget increase. This doesn’t happen as often as the CIA would like, since would be terrorists, e.g. the shoe bomber, tend to be even more incompetent.
Mr. Owen — sorry for adding an ‘s’ to your surname!
Yes. Torture works; just about everything under the glorious sun works. It all depends on your definition of what “works” means. And the definition is subject to change over time.
Did the 9/11 attack “work”? Those blokes in the caves thought it did, for a while. Now there aren’t very many left to have an opinion.
Did our Iraq invasion “work”? Again, the answer depends on whom you ask. It worked splendidly for those who invested in the defense equipments in that war. Right now there aren’t very many left who think otherwise.
So also torture works. And most importantly, those having a positive opinion in this matter seem to outlive those who think otherwise.
I’d agree torture “works” in the sense it is almost guaranteed to work to obtain false information. It has been historically demonstrated to work toward precisely that end and is very effective in achieving it. However, regardless of whether or not an opinion is/is not “positive”, much less widely held by a majority, neither has any bearing on whether the substance of that opinion is ethical or moral, right or wrong, or correct about the legality of any particular acts.
rrheard,
Some dickheads thought torture was a good tool for retribution. For them it worked splendidly.
Whoever wanted torture to be a tool for extraction of information? When the Great God sends you to Hell do you think He who knows not all your secrets? Still He sends you to face the brimstone and sulfur. That’s rewarding you for all the great deeds that you did but He didn’t approve.
We are but mere mortals that emulate Him. Ask the Pope.
Craig, the torture didn’t obtain any useful intel, at least none that hadn’t already been acquired by other means; this has been demonstrated and documented many places and times. You know this.
I’m not going to waste my time rebutting your govt apologists saying otherwise, because with you it would do no good, and has likely been done before. Facts you dislike you routinely pretend do not exist.
But Mona, didn’t you find the Dirty Harry argument particularly compelling?
PI,
I think Craig needs some different film fare, such as Judgment at Nuremberg. Interestingly, he’ll see many in the docket who sound just like him!
It’s not meant to be compelling. It shows, however, that the argument about torture i.e., saving lives, is addressed in the mainstream. Who didn’t support the methods of “Dirty Harry”?
Supporting torture by referring to Dirty Harry has just as much validity as referring to Jack Bauer of “24”–none. These are fictional characters in movies and TV shows created by script writers. The job of those writers is to create a scenario that the viewer will find emotionally satisfying. Never mind that real life does not work that way.
You are kind of twisting what I said since I never implied or said that I supported torture because of Dirty Harry. Regardless, if you don’t believe that a version of Dirty Harry has occurred, then you are incredibly naive.
“……I’m not going to waste my time rebutting your govt apologists…..”
But you will quote any government official that supports your argument – so that is just a waste of out time mentioning that Mona.
“…..Facts you dislike you routinely pretend do not exist……”
You mean like the Hamas charter calling for the murder of all Jews in “Israel”? Not only do you deny what is written in stone, but you support the same murder. You have lost a lot of credibility Mona with your replies. That’s the reason Steb won’t respond to you.
@ Craig,
I seriously doubt Mona “supports the murder” of any human being. She and many others may understand the conditions that may lead one to murder or seek retribution against their perceived oppressors. That is entirely different than “supporting” the murder of anybody. And whether or not Mona has ever argued that Palestinians have a right to engage in armed struggle against those same perceived oppressors is also another matter entirely than supporting murder.
Do you perceive it to be “murder” when Israel kills Palestinians at a 10 to 1 margin as retribution, or as a “pre-emptive safety” measure designed purportedly to save prospective Israeli lives? If not why would you see Palestinians pre-emptive killing of Israeli’s to purportedly save prospective Palestinian lives or as retribution in any different light? It either is or it isn’t murder in that context, but it can’t be a different standard for Palestinians and Israelis and be morally coherent.
I have mentioned this to her numerous times without a denial. I would be happy to know that she didn’t. Go ahead and ask her.
“…..Do you perceive it to be “murder” when Israel kills Palestinians at a 10 to 1 margin as retribution, or as a “pre-emptive safety” measure designed purportedly to save prospective Israeli lives?….”
No. The ratio is irrelevant. Who does the IDF target? If they target civilians, then it is a war crime – and murder. Hamas targets civilians as a matter of policy – as written in their charter. Israel responds to rocket fire from Hamas.
“……If not why would you see Palestinians pre-emptive killing of Israeli’s to purportedly save prospective Palestinian lives or as retribution in any different light? It either is or it isn’t murder in that context, but it can’t be a different standard for Palestinians and Israelis and be morally coherent…..”
Because Hamas targets civilians as a matter of policy. International law specifically addresses that question.
@ Craig,
See here’s where your argument(s) fall apart because you start with a false red herring premise(s).
1) that Israel is and at all times always “responding” to Palestianian “threats”, “attacks” or “provocations”. But under international law, every “response” must be “proportional” and Israel’s never is. And quite often, as has been historically demonstrated and documented, Israel isn’t really “responding” at all but instigating hostilities with its actions from illegal settlements to abusing and killing protestors to targeted assassination of Palestinians. So yes the “ratio” and concept of “proportionality” are highly relevant to international law.
2) that only “intentional targeting of civilians” is murder. But under international law any action that isn’t born of “military necessity” and is disproportional and that “recklessly” kills civilians is a war crime.
Moreover anyone who believes Israel doesn’t “intentionally” or “recklessly” intend to kill Palestinian civilians when it goes around bombing almost every bit of infrastructure a people has built in their outdoor prison is either a paid hasbarist or a propagandized dupe who is being willfully morally obtuse. IMHO. So, we will have to agree to disagree about the morality of any disproportional response by Israel to any perceived “threat” or provocation by a people that have no legitimate and equivalently armed military. And we will have to agree to disagree that the “reckless” taking of human life is murder/homicide. It is when and Israeli does it and it is when a Palestinian does it. It is under American domestic law and it is generally speaking under the international law and the laws of “war” (assuming you can argue successfully that Israel is at “war” with the people it oppresses).
It is also against moral theory of “just war’ and even Israeli philosophers point this out in response to such “policy” position papers of individuals like Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin who argue in support of the Israeli policy that “the targeted killings of terrorists [i.e. any Palestinian the Israel security apparatus determines without due process is a “terrorist”] were justifiable, even at the cost of hitting nearby civilians.”
So, it is quite clearly, as has been documented and demonstrated in practice over time by the IDF, that Israel’s “policy” is to make its “targeting” decisions with the full awareness and knowledge that Palestinian civilians will be killed. That is the legal definition of intentional or reckless under American law. So we will have to agree to disagree on the idea that there is any moral difference between what Palestinians do, as a function of policy or practice, and what Israelis do, as a matter of policy or practice.
@ Craig,
Let me restate that because it is factually inaccurate: Israel’s “responses” are rarely “proportional” rather than “is never proportional’. A rocket was purportedly launched into Israel in the last couple of days by Hamas militants. It appears not to have exploded and landed in a field. Israel responded by dropping a bomb that did explode but killed no one. However, at or about the same time, in a different location, the IDF did fire upon and wound 4 unarmed protestors who failed to follow instructions about getting too close to “the wall.” The “response” of Israel in the first instance was arguably “proportional”. Israel’s “response” in the latter was not in my legal and moral opinion. Firing guns and wounding unarmed protestors for approaching too close to a border fence is not “just” or “moral” in my opinion.
rrheard
Thanks for your response.
“…..Moreover anyone who believes Israel doesn’t “intentionally” or “recklessly” intend to kill Palestinian civilians when it goes around bombing almost every bit of infrastructure a people has built in their outdoor prison is either a paid hasbarist or a propagandized dupe who is being willfully morally obtuse. IMHO……”
First of all, Israel completely pulled out of Gaza leaving the Palestinians to elect an internationally recognized terrorist organization to power. That led to the blockade of Gaza. Second of all, when Hamas launches rockets from civilian positions (illegally), then the IDF responds by destroying the rocket launching site – and civilians are killed. The civilians are put in danger purposely by Hamas (for the benefit of western propagandists – like Mona). So it is Hamas that recklessly intends to kill Palestinians. Retaliatory strikes in specific areas where civilians are at risk are given a warning (phone call, knock or leaflet). This is done nowhere else on earth. In one of the highest density populations on earth, actually very few people were killed in the past two wars (including Operation Cast Lead). Try reviewing the war in Sri Lanka, for example, or the war in Chechnya. Tens of thousands were killed. The moral of the story is this: quit launching rockets which are ineffective as military weapons, and which are used to randomly target Israeli civilians illegally anyway. Israel has the right to respond. So there is nothing disproportionate about retaliating against rocket launch sites which are distributed all over Gaza in population centers. Israel does not as a matter of policy target civilians and the distinction is important
“……It is also against moral theory of “just war’ and even Israeli philosophers point this out in response to such “policy” position papers of individuals like Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin who argue in support of the Israeli policy that “the targeted killings of terrorists [i.e. any Palestinian the Israel security apparatus determines without due process is a “terrorist”] were justifiable, even at the cost of hitting nearby civilians.”…..”
Again, this is clearly different than targeting civilians as a matter of policy which is the official policy of Hamas. In fact, just like the use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Somalia, targeted killings by Israel is used to minimize civilian casualties while disrupting the planning of military operations and killing the leaders. Some believe targeted killing is illegal, others do not. You might want to sue your own government to find out the answer to that question. The question was brought to the Israeli Supreme Court which ruled that targeted killings did not violate the laws of war.
“……The “response” of Israel in the first instance was arguably “proportional”. Israel’s “response” in the latter was not in my legal and moral opinion. Firing guns and wounding unarmed protestors for approaching too close to a border fence is not “just” or “moral” in my opinion…..”
The second Intifada was launched by Arafat after an Israeli offer of peace. About 1000 Israelis were murdered many at the hands of suicide bombers who targeted Israeli civilians. An additional 4500 Palestinians were killed because of the decision by Arafat. So Israelis take zero chances. When military uniforms are not utilized; when civilians including women and children are used to attack Israeli check points, civilians or border areas, then firing after a warning is plenty proportional. The Palestinians understand this.
In my honest opinion, bombing Hamas launching sites is proportional no matter how many Palestinians are put at risk (by Hamas) for purposes of propaganda. However, where the response of Israel has been disproportionate, it’s been in the area of bombing infrastructure – including housing. This is a practice born in the bombing of Serbia by NATO, and used effectively by Israel against Hezbollah to deter more provocations by that terrorist organization. It really has not been effective in Gaza because Hamas rules by decree not by popularity. Hamas can kill as many Palestinians as they want without any retribution from the population.
“……So we will have to agree to disagree on the idea that there is any moral difference between what Palestinians do, as a function of policy or practice, and what Israelis do, as a matter of policy or practice……”
That’s complete bullshit of course, but where Israel is morally wrong is negating the Palestinian right to self-determination. I hope that changes. In the meantime, Hamas needs to be held to account. They are responsible for 3500 Palestinian deaths in the last two wars – for purposes of propaganda (which has been effective).
Thanks.
@ Craig:
I can see by your rebuttal that it would be pointless to engage you further on this topic. You argue from ahistorical and factually incorrect positions, and from a position of moral bankruptcy that, again, leads me to believe that you are either a) a paid hasbarist, or b) so hopelessly blinded-misinformed about Israel’s leadership’s history and actions that further discussion on this topic would be pointless.
I have questions for you though. World sentiment seems to be turning against the state of Israel (regardless of whether Israel is “right” or “wrong” in its conduct and policies) and its actions, assuming it doesn’t change its behavior, and it is likely only a matter of time before the world community begins to seriously organize and implement a far reaching BDS campaign against it. As it did against South Africa. And just as America was one of South Africa’s last defenders, so too it will be one of Israel’s. But that status quo never historically lasts and majority of the American public will eventually turn against it as well (politicians and economic elite will be the last to fall in America, but fall they will). And as a personal example, I just spent a month, and too the degree I could affect my retirement account holdings and with imperfect knowledge, made sure that not a single investment I held in any way directly benefitted the State of Israel financially–to be consistent I also made sure none benefitted sovereign wealth funds of states like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt . . . .
But here are the questions:
Q1–Do you think Israel has economic, social and political cohesion to survive as a state in its present form under its present policy preferences if the world turns peacefully against it?
Q2–Do you think it would be better for Israel to sacrifice some of its perceived “security interests” to help Palestinians have an independent state of their own, or continue on with Israel’s present policies?
Q3–Do you believe Israel can simultaneously be a) a/the “Jewish state”, b) a true pluralistic democracy if those of the Jewish faith are ever a minority population in the state of Israel?
Q4–Do you honestly believe a nuclear armed Israel faces any sort of “existential threat” from the predominantly Muslim nations of the world given that all of the “Western” world would likely come to Israel’s aid if Israel was in fact attacked by another nation and Israel wasn’t capable of repelling such an attack on their own (the only two nations or group of nations that could even theoretically threaten militarily it in my mind are China and Russia)
Q5–So the question remaining in my mind is, if Israel does not face an existential threat from the Muslim nations of the world, and it doesn’t face one from the Western world or the Eastern world, what harm is there in sacrificing some of Israel’s perceived “security interests” to forge a viable independent state of Palestine? Isn’t that what a morally superior unfrightened nation secure in its abilities, friends and place in the international community do?
Because I’ll tell you what, right or wrong, I think Israel is losing its moral footing with the rest of the world and that’s a very dangerous position to be in. It seems to me the people of the state of Israel should think long and hard about the implications of losing the world community’s economic and political support even if America supports it to the bitter end.
And I will leave you with two links as food for thought.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/grieving_the_children_of_palestine_and_the_dream_of_zionism
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/did-salaita-cross-the-line-of-civility/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=2
lol
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5898581/chart-israel-palestine-conflict-deaths
Hamas charter says all kinds of shit, just your like your bill of rights. Fact is they have offered long term hudnas etc, that violate their own charter. It’s just PR. But your kind just love to trot it out.
You probably even know this, but trot it out anyway.
And nevermind that the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians for some 70 years what the Hamas Charter merely says it would like to do to Zionist Jews.
“……And nevermind that the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians for some 70 years what the Hamas Charter merely says it would like to do to Zionist Jews……”
No Mona. You are wrong. Over 1000 Israelis were murdered in the second Intifada – a war initiated by Arafat and the Palestinians after an offer of peace from Israel. How many times am I going to have to tell you you are wrong? It’s getting to be tiresome. The Hamas Charter – which Hamas refuses to renounce – calls for the murder of Jews (just like you do) – and that includes civilians and infants.
Actually, the Hamas charter is a confusing topic for me, and if anyone could make sense of it, I’d be grateful. I understand Khaled Mashal has stated the charter is “a bit of history” and does not accurately reflect the views of Hamas today, but that they can’t edit or amend it for “internal reasons.” What the hell does that mean? I have also read that Hamas recognizes the “reality” of Israel, but not it’s “legitimacy.” I do understand what that means.
But WHY won’t Hamas revise its charter? Anyone here know? Because they should, and if they did, Bibi et al would lose one of their biggest talking points. Anyone? Anyone?
Also, the word “Israel” does not appear in the article above. But yet, here we are in the comments thread, right back in the middle of the IP conflict. How did that happen?
Also, Craig, I want you to know… I’m worried about you.
The torture report was pretty decisive regarding the claims that torture “worked” and “saved lives” and “foiled attacks” and “led to the killing of Bin Laden”. It didn’t. Government officials can get away with lies when they can say, “We’d like to show you the evidence but it’s classified.” Investigators who had access to the classified evidence said torture didn’t work.
It’s amazing that this interview with Richard Clarke only has 56,000 views – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl6w1YaZdf8
This lady and her colleagues basically let 9/11 happen, then she’s labeled some hero for the myth of hunting down Bin Laden. Salon reported some 50 CIA employees knew that those two 9/11 hijackers were in the US but that information was withheld from the White House.
In NYT, WaPo, Intercept, It’s always a black’s or a woman’s or a Democrat’ fault.
It is called the Right Wing Anglo-Saxon male”supremacy” witch hunt delirium. Very matcho, like Greenwald, the 1%’s coksaker ata boy.
Well now Bikowsky can get interviews on Faux News along with Jose Rodriguez and enlighten us on the virtues of Torture. And thank you Jose Rodriguez for destroying all the torture tapes thereby sparing us from seeing the Icky details — that would just confuse us.
Looks like there are just too many people with Russian-sounding names, and Latin-sounding names, and Asian-sounding names, not to mention Kenyan-sounding names that rhyme with terror suspects. Faux sounds like it belongs somewhere in the middle of Africa.
I wonder if we are getting swamped!
To be clear, I think the CIA torturers are sociopaths. Perhaps if the torture tapes were released there would be fewer cheerleaders in the public.
Not sure if your comment is a veiled attempt to call me a troll. But I assure you I have been a Greenwald supporter for many years.
If you are Valentin Gregorovich Mironov then I am Vladamir Illych Ulyanov. I don’t for a moment believe you are using your real name, unless you are inviting the NSA to track your health. So rest assured there is no veiled attempt at anything.
CIA did some nasty things – I admit. But to call them all sociopaths is not correct. They were encouraged, nay they were tasked, to do those nasty tricks and roundly applauded for their efforts. So why are we blaming them now? We all were the cheerleaders at one time, and when it was abhorrent we chose to close our eyes. Now we find it convenient to sit in judgment.
Nope. Not even close.
“they were tasked” to do it.
hahaha the old the were just following orders excuse. Well so were the soldiers who ran the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Amazing what can be accomplished when one just follows orders.
Excuse me Mr. “We all were the cheerleaders at one time”, please speak only for your self.
I, and many people I know, were never cheerleaders for the deeds done by the government after 9-11. Some of us even suspected that the government had something to do with the 9-11 attacks, and the white wash of the official 9-11 report only helped to confirm our suspicions even more.
Maybe you are a recent convert to skepticism of USG pronouncements, but since the age of 18, when the USG tried to send me to Viet Nam, I have only found them to be over 99% consistent about one thing. Lying. Lying to the population, media and other countries, of just about everything. The CIA has tortured and murdered all around the globe, and I for one can not remember even one time that any of them were prosecuted for that decades long rampage, except when they were brought to account by another government or non-government organization. So it is not just “convenient to sit in judgment”, it is long overdue.
@ General Hercules,
I for one never, at any time, “cheered” for, approved or condoned the use of illegal and immoral acts by our government including rendition, illegal detentions, violations of the Geneva Conventions and/or international or domestic law concerning inhumane treatment of any human being.
So my advice would be to speak for yourself. Those of us who neither cheered, approved or condoned such activities are perfectly entitled to pass judgment on its legality and morality. And any man or woman, in my humble non-psychologist/psychiatrist trained non-medical diagnosis opinion, who participates in or gives orders to the effect that any human being be tortured for any reason is either a sociopath or a psychopath.
Plus, me too, also — additionally.
@Kitt @Mona @Mass
“We” here is the democratic, majority “we the people”. It is tough for you to extricate yourself from a decision that the majority of “us” endorsed and financed (unless you were too broke to pay taxes). Bush had a rating of more than 90% when he started the war, and even after his first term it was more than 70%. Don’t tell me there were only ghosts voting.
massindependent
“……Some of us even suspected that the government had something to do with the 9-11 attacks, and the white wash of the official 9-11 report only helped to confirm our suspicions even more.,,,,”
oops….lost all credibility.
“We all were the cheerleaders at one time, and when it was abhorrent we chose to close our eyes. Now we find it convenient to sit in judgment.”
Not all, and in fact there have been many voices who were and are calling out torture for what it is, no matter what reason is given. It is immoral, odious, illegal, and just about any other negative, descriptive label I can think of. I don’t find it convenient at all, as a matter of fact, I wish I didn’t feel obligated to speak out in support of sanity. But here we are, with people arguing about when it’s OK to torture another person. How much we can torture someone? This is madness.
@ General Hercules,
I am no more personally responsible (morally or legally) for what a majority of my fellow Americans do, or what a minority of my fellow Americans do. By that logic I’m personally responsible for the riots that followed the Ferguson Missouri killing of Michael Brown when I abhor, do not condone or approve of “violent protest” under any circumstances. I do approve of and condone peaceful or passively resistant protest. It follows then that I cannot be responsible for what a majority of my fellow Americans do simply because I share citizenship with them and was unable to prevent them (despite my small individual efforts together with others) to politically dissuade them (both through voting and protest) from doing what they did. But there is no coherent logical or moral argument that suggests I can be personally responsible for those actions which I fail to peacefully prevent despite doing all that I am able to do to prevent them. That’s quite frankly illogical and morally absurd.
@rrheard 20 Dec 2014 at 11:25 am
Well, you were paying taxes, weren’t you, so you funded what “we” did? Actually, come to think of it, you did a good thing. It was our duty to fight and destroy the Taliban and Al-Queda, which we did with some success. You don’t have to be apologetic now that you see how the real world functions. It was a lot worse when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but probably you didn’t have an opinion back then.
I’d like to think there would be less cheerleaders if the tapes were released, but I think I would be disappointed. A large portion of Americans seem to staunchly support torture, even if used as punishment versus intelligence gathering.
It was the naughty Oughties and Jack Bauer was making Enhanced Interrogation Instructional videos for the Military Industrial Complex.
“Regardless of what anyone thinks, the torture of Santa Claus saved lives. Intelligence experts are convinced he was transporting yellow cake uranium out of Africa. Santa hates us for our freedom and will not rest until he destroys our way of life. Only by abandoning our ideals when they are inconvenient can we ever stop his army of terrorist elves.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH-QYLqo1sY
Not instructional videos, those were propaganda videos to show the people why torture had to be done.
People need to realize what TV and the movies really are.
I’ll state the obvious first by saying those responsible for, if not Alfreda herself, at least deserves judgement in front of the Supreme Court, if not a taste of their own sadistic medicine.
But the real question is: If this behavior deserves a promotion in the CIA, Can I hear the story about the guy that was actually fired?? Pretty please
Great article fellas. Big balls. Respect
In today’s interview with Alyona Minkovski on HuffPost Live, Greenwald comments on the Sony hack starting at 23:00. He says the following about Aaron Sorkin’s NYT op-ed:
Is it really as simple as that? No privacy issue? Is anything that “powerful factions are doing” or saying, by definition, in the public interest? (How powerful must the factions be?) I haven’t formed an opinion on this, but I think what Greenwald is saying here implies a definition of the “public interest” that is obviously too broad. Given the almost religious fervor with which he speaks about privacy in relation to government surveillance, I expected the Sony hack to present at least a small dilemma to him as a journalist. I’m surprised by this very simple take on the matter.
No. I think the genuine privacy interests have to be weighed against the public interest involved. I wouldn’t be in favor of just publishing it all, for instance, nor would I personally have written some of the stories that have been written, just because I don’t think the public interest justified the invasion of privacy.
But the argument from Sorkin and others is that any reporting from the files is wrong, and that I vehemently disagree with for the reasons I said.
All that is what I would have expected you to say. But you didn’t mention the privacy issue in the interview, and you mentioned Gawker’s reporting without disapproval. I don’t think that reporting on the stolen archive can be justified without acknowledging the competing interest in Sony’s (employees’) right to privacy, as you did in your reply. So, thanks for the clarification.
I can’t believe in this notion of “competing” interests. It’s not a matter of subjectively weighing whether it is more important to speak or stay silent. Ultimately we should give great respect to freedom of speech, and that should not be abridged when journalists name spies any more than when they name bakers. If the spies want to keep their names, or anything else, secret, then they need to keep it secret at the source, not blame someone who has read this or that article or accessed such and such public record. When spies rigorously defend their secrets at the source (such as if they kept the names of their informants in Afghanistan on paper locked in a safe rather than posting it to a secret network that 500,000 people could access) that is both effective and admirable, because everyone understands the value of keeping a confidence. But when spies go running after leaked cables telling government employees not to read them, they look as ridiculous as the guy who runs after the garbage truck because he thinks maybe he lost his wedding band in a trash bag. Worse, they send a message that rather than keeping secrets, they are upholding a caste system – one where a certain high class of people, which includes even enemy spies, is allowed to know serious things, but the ordinary public of any country is to be kept in the dark, like children told stories of Santa Claus. That is not merely patronizing, but throws into doubt what the sides of any potential conflict really are.
That isn’t to say that journalists can’t have a higher standard, but ultimately that standard is simply: can this news affect you? If they know the sexual orientation of the minister of wastewater reclamation, probably not. If they know whether the person involved in 9/11 intelligence failures was able to go back and oversee a gloriously counterproductive torture program, definitely yes. Journalists don’t have to uphold high standards, and when they don’t, the ultimate responsibility to thrust aside prejudice falls on the people as a whole, as it always does, and needs to be taken seriously. But good journalists hold to high standards because otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing good journalism.
I think the following may add an interesting perspective.
Found more information on Alfreda Frances Bikowsky….from cryptocomb.
http://cryptocomb.org/?p=338
Alfreda’s husband is David Silverstein. His LinkedIn account shows him to be the Executive Director at the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa.
http://www.asmeascholars.org/
If you look at the Academic Council list, you’ll see a vertible collection of hardcore neoconservatives and Israeli apologists….Bernard Lewis, Victor Davis Hanson, Robert J. Lieber, etc. Interesting company he keeps.
Here’s an interview with David Silverstein posted on…of all places….Campus Watch.
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/8352
Dinner parties at the Silverstein house must be quite interesting.
“These are not the other malefactors you are looking for. . . ” waves hand.
I will tender a bet that she holds dual U.S./Israeli citizenship….
“……I will tender a bet that she holds dual U.S./Israeli citizenship….”
Of course. No wonder she didn’t expose the 911 plot.
As you are aware Craig, there is significant evidence that Mossad knew in advance that 9/11 was coming, and refrained from telling us all it knew for fear of revealing the extent of its spying on America on our soil. Fox News did an extensive series of reports on this, then mysteriously removed those videos from their web site.
It’s all available elsewhere online, tho.
Not sure if this accurate but I found an article today from Jan 2013 saying her husband is David Silverstein …”Silverstein has gone on to be deeply involved in formulating foreign, defense, and national security policy. He is currently a director and media talking head with two neo-conservative “think tanks” on, mostly, Middle East matters – “ASMEA” and the “Foundation for Defense of Democracies”.
“…….there is significant evidence that Mossad knew in advance that 9/11 was coming…..”
You have piqued my curiosity Mona. Now maybe you can post a link?
I didn’t think you would respond.
You know Mona better than that. She will respond, particularly on this topic about which she is passionate, when she sees your post. Presumably she hasn’t seen it yet being the only reason she hasn’t responded.
A regular Forest Gump of spying, torturing and ball dropping she is.
“A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that “she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.””
Patsy?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture
Forest Gump the fictional character doesn’t deserve to be soiled by having this monster compared to him.
LOL true, “the evil Forest Gump”. Better?
Have to say I’m extremely disappointed that Greenwald opted to omit the names of the 2 guys ( Ray Nowosielsi and John Duffy ) who put their careers and lives on the line to out Alfreda in the first place. They were both threatened by the CIA about disclosing the name and decided to take the risk anyways. Why mention John Cook’s Gawker report using ‘Who is Rich Blee’ but not the people who were responsible for ‘Who is Rich Blee’?
I would really like to see some kind of update on this article giving credit where credit is do. Greenwald usually promotes the work of other adversarial journalists who put themselves at risk like this, and i feel he is doing a great disservice to these 2 journalists here.
The following is in John Cook’s article that Greenwald and Maass linked to in this post:
yeah I saw that, which means that he’s well aware of the two reporters who put themselves at risk to do this. So why link to John Cook’s piece about someone else outing Alfreda? You don’t think he ought to credit those people in his article directly?
btw: it’s Robbie, not ‘Robby’
Apology for the misspelling of your name.
I’m satisfied with the link to an article which clearly included the names of Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, along with the other information in the article. I hope I spelled those names correctly.
That’s good that it satisfied you but I can assure you that many people who’ve been following the Alfreda story since she was outed are not satisfied and feel that Greenwald is brushing the hard work of others to the side. I am definitely not satisfied by it.
just now from Greenwald’s twitter account
“@RayNowosielski @MichaelMicklow Your work was fantastic and brave on that. You deserve credit. On a plane but will try to get an edit.”
glad to hear it, he gets a slight pass for being on a plane and not making the edit right away
LOL – only “slight”? There’s another person whose name who is on this article – Peter Maass – as well as an editor with whom we worked, so it would be pretty poor practice to unilaterally change it without their knowledge. That’s why being on a plane makes it a little more difficult – the difficulty communicating as well as the spotty access to the system to do edits.
That said, I’ve now communicated with them and the edit is being done. Our only point was that big media outlets had published her name previously, hence the Gawker link (that contained full credit). But – as I said on Twitter – I do agree that given how great and brave their work was, and that they were the first to name her, they should be credited directly, not just via a link to the Gawker article based on their work.
Likewise!
since I can’t reply directly to Glenn’s comment i’ll leave my reply here:
Glenn, lol yeah a little harsh I suppose but the work Ray has done is deeply important to me and I’ve seen many journalists over the years ignore his crucial work (like the excellent film 9/11 Press for Truth), so please forgive my somewhat hostile tone.
An article about Alfreda even without an acknowledgement of the original disclosure being in the 1st iteration is better than no article at all.
By the way your interview with James Risen was possibly my favorite thing ever to come out of the Intercept, I hope you do a lot more of those kinds of podcasts in the future
Looks like the edit was done. Thanks for bringing up the point. And Ray was very gracious about it.
One of the things I’ve actually liked most about the last 18 months is the opportunity to meet and talk to a large number of very different kinds of journalists all over the world who are doing genuinely brave work, often without lots of credit.
This will definitely happen. We want to make sure when we do them, they are really worthwhile, not just obligatory, because it’s a big ask to tell readers they should spend 20 minutes listening, so you want it to be good. But there will definitely be more and lots of other innovative stuff in 2015.
It’s ironic that when we were getting great press, we were struggling internally. Now that we’ve gotten bad press, we’re actually all more excited than ever about what we’re building. That’s just typical media narrative: usually the opposite of reality.
I’m trying to imagine what life has been like for this woman. How in the world did she get to where she is now? Was her childhood so awful that she grew up to be a sociopathic bully or did it come out of insular privilege? Was she born a psychopath? I can’t, for the life of me, wrap my head around it.
There is one of these involved in my story. I don’t know the answer. But when I was doing a background check on her I came across the obit for her grandmother. It was utterly strange in that the language used painted her as a near saint and rang so untrue as to be denial. Have you ever met one of those exagggeratedly devout people who were really the meanest, most warped in the room? I derived that was what life like for her. Her life in some way
must have been a lie. So maybe it’s the same here.
Keep the faith, ec.
Thank you, JGreen7801. Trying hard.
Thanks Jgreen7801. Doing my darndest.
Unfortunately, ec, you describe here, pretty much, my own grandmother (who’s long dead.) She was a devout church-going Southern Baptist and the biggest meanest bigot I’ve ever encountered personally. I grew up to a great degree in reaction to her. I’m quite sure she had an abusive childhood because I know for a fact that her father sexually abused her children so I’m sure she was abused also. But I don’t know how that contributed to her nasty attitude towards others not like her.
Most decent people would never, in the deep recesses of our mind, reach for torture as a tool to use. It’s just not allowed access to our mind. That’s why we can’t wrap our minds around it. That’s where torture resides, in “their” minds. That’s why I am so adamantly opposed to giving any press to the argument of whether torture woks. It can’t be part of our collective psyche. The ticking bomb scenario is the hook used to lure good and decent people to the dark side. No torture under any circumstance.
Female sociopaths are rare but they do exist. See: Albright, Thatcher, Hilary, about half of the Fox lip gloss crew.
Sorry to see you chaps have fallen for such an obvious psyop. She is a character created to defuse public tension over information that has been released and to prepare for more yet to be released. Every aspect of her bio, right down to her initials, says ‘she’ was created as part of a psychological campaign. A real person no doubt will be found, or rather has been found, to flesh out the fictional character. But as with the fabled ‘bin laden shooter’, the public will be given update after update whose only purpose is to divide the opposition into ever smaller, ever more confused groups.
Her initials? AFB? A Fake Bio, All False Baloney? Air Force Base?
Well we know that one of the favorite CIA (and now, NSA) tools is PsyOps. Valjean’s comment makes sense, especially in light of the fact that they may be trying to divert attention onto a woman; just as you would expect the “boys of the CIA” might do.
In Advanced Practical Psychological Ops training also called MISO, each person who passes through the class at Fort Bragg is taught some basics, meta characteristics of mass psyops. This phony “terror fighting chiefteness” Alfred’s is a composite, actually the ideal fictional target character to divert negative public sentiment away from a “home organization”. Assuming the lady has been accurately personified into a figure who will be tangibly dissected by the media, it is safe to say she did not attend the classes. If she had she would know that the scenario, under practical conditions, ends with her demise, followed by another fork into two characters with lesser degrees of accountability.
If Alfreda was a DI gal why would she be at risk? Michael Scheuer revealed himself to the public. Shouldn’t protecting sources and methods only apply to DO people and field agents?
The behavior of the Barret Brown prosecutor happens every day, all day, in every court room in America in part because of the Cartel called the Bar Association. I’m convinced this Cartel uses its access to all 3 branches of our government at every level for reasons that don’t secure our rights!
@ Phil Ferro,
Given that Glenn is a lawyer, and quite a few of his readers are as well, I’d be interested in how you think it is “the Cartel” (presumably the 50 states’ individual bar associations) “uses its access to all 3 branches of our government at every level for reasons that don’t secure our rights!”
First problem is the 50 states individual bar associations are not a part of some larger supra-bar association. Individual members of any particular bar association may be voluntary members of other groups of lawyers (for example the ABA, the ACLU or the Federalist Society) that span the ideological spectrum. All work to “secure rights” as they perceive those rights belong to particular individuals or groups.
But to suggest that there is a American-wide “cartel” of lawyers or bar associations and that every individual lawyer and judge is a member and working in some concerted fashion for one mutually agreed upon set of goals is absurd. To suggest as much is to fundamentally misunderstand the American “legal system” and the lawyers and judges who comprise it, their motivations and the legal and ethical obligations they should/must adhere to in the practice of law on behalf of their clients.
Wondering about your take on this:
Ferguson DA claims he knew witnesses were lying, let them testify anyway
“In his first interview since the non-indictment of Darren Wilson, St. Louis County District Attorney Bob McCulloch claims that he was well aware that several witnesses were not telling the truth, and that he allowed them to testify before the grand jury anyway.”
And:
“McCulloch later added that he was “absolutely sure” that some witnesses lied under oath, but that he would not seek perjury charges. He also blamed the media for “latching on” to one witness who “clearly wasn’t present” at the shooting—a description that likely refers to McElroy.”
That sounds like an absurd way to run a GJ. But also, I don’t believe him when he says “several witnesses” or even “some witnesses.” It has been documented that the one witness who lied in favor of Wilson testimony did so knowingly. I know of no other verified, documented witness liars. Eye witnesses that were actually there (unlike the witness in question) but told testimonies that they claimed to have accurately witnessed is typical and understandable. That’s not at all the bald faced lying that witness 40 is now said to have done.
@ Kitt
My take on it is that if DA McCulloch allowed or called a person to testify under oath, and he knew that certain testimony was false, he would be obligated to correct the court record with respect to each and ever false statement. That’s pretty much the same in every state and his failure to do so could be the basis of an ethics complaint against him to the bar and possible sanction by same. If he knows she committed perjury he has the discretion and should exercise it to prosecute her for perjury. If he knowingly suborned perjured testimony from witness #40 he again should be sanctioned by his state bar organization, disbarment being the appropriate sanction in my opinion, and he should be criminally prosecuted if it is a crime to suborn perjury in Missouri.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure if his malfeasance in that regard will be sufficient, or if another prosecutor in the state is willing (assuming it’s possible), to bring the matter before another grand jury. Darren Wilson doesn’t have double jeopardy protection because he wasn’t indicted and tried, but I can’t otherwise speak meaningfully to the subtleties of grand jury jurisprudence in the criminal context because I’m not a criminal lawyer.
Thanks, really appreciate your response.
So far there is this:
Witness 40 is a racist Liar. Why did the Ferguson prosecutors have her testify? Lisa Bloom – Legal Analyst
There is a call for the suborn perjury charge in Ferguson by someone in a position to push for it. I can’t remember who that is, and couldn’t relocate the link
Kitt,
Almost every lawyer, and that includes me, has had the experience of a client letting them know somehow that there is the truth, and then there is what they’ve told you. This can be very unwelcome info: It’s a grave violation of professional ethics to put them on the stand when you know they are going to perjure themselves. This lead to a lot of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and other dodgy circumlocutions.
I’m not aware of any exceptions to this standard vis-a-vis calling grand jury witnesses; if you know they’re going to lie, you can’t call them. But McCulloch must have reasons to believe he’s safe or he wouldn’t be trumpeting his belief that some witnesses lied.
Kitt and all –
Glad to see this being discussed here. And thanks, Kitt for that other link tot he Lisa Bloom article.
@rrheard-I don’t know where to begin? Nothing in your comment disproves my claim. Glenn Greenwald is an amazing attorney. He fights for the rights of everyone. He makes me proud to be an American but does he spend most of his time in Brazil now? Oh well, hje still makes me proud to be an American.
Using the ACLU flushes your argument down the toilet. The biggest number of civil rights violations takes place in family law/court and the ACLU doesn’t handle family law cases? By stepping into a family law courtroom a parent becomes a conditional parent for example, she gets the kids 70% and he gets them 30%. Being a parent is an unalienable right is it not? Where is the ACLU to fight for the alienated 70% of that fathers parental rights? Or, the kids rights. What about the children? Is it an unalienable right for a kid to have parents or did the stork drop them off in a basket at the door step? Wait, the ACLU is making sure the torturers are getting immunity from their un-American criminal acts…
I was involved in a dispute where lawyers working for the county I live in listened to another participant in the dispute state to a judge in court that she was not following the court order that we all had to follow and the lawyers did nothing. Officers of the court did nothing when a person under no duress was confidently stating she was committing a criminal act by not following the law specific to her and they did nothing? Where are those “legal and ethical obligations?” Thats suspect! The judger told this person that she was looking at 5 days in jail per violation so she better start following the court order. Nothing ever happened to her and now I’m being prosecuted for violating that court order by the very same atttorneys that did nothing to the previously stated person? Not only are they prosecuting me but they set me up. I have black letter proof. I went to the Bar and paid for a referal to an attorney to prosecute the county for the illegal conduct of its employees. The Bar gave me my money back and told me they could do nothing for me. Thats suspect! What about those “legal and ethical obligations?” Here in California, a complaint of a judge and/or a lawyer to the Bar is decided without notice to the complainant of the decision. One could spend a tremendous amount of time gathering documents to support the complaint and send it all in to never hear of the outcome. Thats suspect…..
How many times have we heard a cop shooting a civilian because he/she was suspected of reaching for a gun when in actuality the only gun was being held by the cop? Are those cops prosecuted? Thats suspect! Why does the Bar not take away the prosecutors ability to practice law? Thats suspect! Those cops are clearly using the Constitution for murder! Every cop should believe that every person has a gun because its clearly stated in the 2nd amendment. Thats not preserving, protecting and upholding the Constitution. Thats suspect! Clintons ability to practice law in Arkansas was taken away because he lied so where is the Bar to take away the ability to practice law for the lawyers who justified torture or anyone of the previously mentioned lawyers? Thats suspect!
Why does the Bar support attorneys that work in family law? The current family law system is clearly un-American. The Bar gives seminars on how to grow a family law practice etc etc. Thats suspect! What about those “legal and ethical obligations?”
Help me understand this stuff differently.
@ Phil Farro:
Of course it isn’t an “unalienable right” to be a parent. Parents can be stripped of custody of their children for a variety of reasons.
If you are aware of an American common law doctrine or statute that gives a child “an unalienable [legal] right to a parent” then I’d be interested in seeing it. But I am unaware of it at present.
Please demonstrate or link a single instance of the ACLU (and/or its lawyers) specifically working toward “making sure torturers are getting immunity for their un-American criminal acts.” I’ll wait.
Further, the ACLU is generally speaking not constituted to address issues of family court except where they implicate the Bill of Rights and/or US Constitution. Since “family law” is largely a historic creature of the 50 states legislatures, I’m not sure it would be appropriate for the ACLU to be involved in those issues very often. There are many organizations of lawyers who possess “family law” expertise and are engaged in that arena.
And I don’t mean to be rude, but it will difficult for me to address the remainder of your post because it isn’t fact specific enough for me to attempt to explain the “whys” of any particular lawyer’s ethical or legal obligations in any particular situation. Sorry.
@rrdear 20 Dec 2014 at 12:01 pm-
“Please demonstrate or link a single instance of the ACLU (and/or its lawyers) specifically working toward “making sure torturers are getting immunity for their un-American criminal acts.” I’ll wait.”
There might be some truth to the ACLU, immunity and torturers idea. I was mostly being sarcastic but there might be something there? If there is nothing linking the ACLU, torturers and immunity so be it. It changes nothing of my claim and supporting facts.
At 5:07 pm on Dec 19 2014 you responded to my claim that the Bar Association is a “cartel” as “absurd.”
Whats absurd is the idea I’m giving you any more of my time. The reponses to the few supporting facts I mentioned strongly suggests that you are not American. The foundation of our government is very foreign to most of the world and I think that includes you. Thanks for trying!!!!
In related news, a Blackwater lobbyist will manage the House Intelligence Committee. Disgusting.
http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/12/19/blackwater-lobbyist-will-manage-house-intelligence-committee/
Yet utterly unsurprising.
Thanks PI –
More of the “deep state” revolving door. A very poor way to govern…
These agents of American citizens should not be hidden from American citizens. Torturing people in my name requires some behavior adjustment for the torturer. If I don’t know who that is who do I give the adjustment to?
Well, you could do what the torturers do: just pick some government officials at random and adjust away.
(1) She not only “witnessed the waterboarding of terror suspect Abu Zubaydah,” but in fact took a trip from Washington specifically to do so, even though she herself had no official role to play. Her torture tourism (a phrase for which one could never have imagined the need) startled even the other torturers. (2) One wonders about the rationales to her being promoted. It’s one thing not to fire her; large organizations are known to coddle their incompetents. But to promote her? Did her obvious pathologies startle even her off-the-wall superiors, such that, to keep her quiet, they elected to kick her upstairs?
Makes me wonder with whom was she sleeping?
Because the CIA has never been known to promote a man who did a crappy job? Come on.
Sorry, but this is a situation where I do not feel the need to be politically correct. There had to be SOME reason that she continued to be employed there. She was a total fuck-up.
Here’s a photo of Bikowsky.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&biw=1280&bih=837&q=alfreda+frances+bikowsky&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSsAEJR8gXCoaxf28amwELELCMpwgaiAEKOggCEhSXGMQimRiOGKIYjxiWGJgYtCKjGBog0qWYJAYRayFQGGn0k2MrUTWP2ZlV0OKeBS3un-6g-7kKSggDEhT6D8wayRrKGu4a-w-eD5sPmR–Ghow-yG2ZIUVL0DOV8zJryct-RaRzYRoKcvc58OrR4bWRatCLKFr6hLKqixG_1v9iguxYDAsQjq7-CBoADCHU1lSEL4E7AA&sa=X&ei=lYWUVPHEGYWZNveagqAM&ved=0CBwQ2A4oAQ#imgdii=_
Thank you and thank you, for maintaining some perspective. The CIA seems worried for the safety of Alfreda Bikowsky, while she oversaw the harm given to countless individuals, and our entire population, the latter in the bungling of clues that might have averted September 11th, 2001. This is crucial also because many Americans hardened to the issue of torturing “if it helped Americans” since they might be able to entertain the importance of the major disasters potentially having been averted.
Too many of us buy the fear tactic, that information will promote disaster, when the lack of it is really often the culprit. Our need to integrate our emotional states, our fears, our angers, so we can integrate, and “handle” the information at our disposal, with this we need lots of help…Doing my part, and best…
I’m seeing the problem as decades (centuries to those paying attention(…)) of illegal policy design and this individual a result of that situation. There seems an enormous pile of individuals sitting in desks all over various departments in 5-eyes-plus governments participating in orchestrating the policy resulting in this situation that are even more responsible than this Alfreda Frances Bikowsky individual. We’ll see them at the end like a huge pile of cockroaches hiding in a corner, no offence to cockroaches.
Can we start by shining a light into the area where the intel interacts with the education system? and at this point more importantly the departments associated with development and operation of the hundreds of satellites orbiting.
The problem with cockroaches is they can live through armageddon.
I guess that’s what always put me at ease when they used the term against us. How about potatoes, because when we take away all of their stolen intelligence and force them to think for themselves we’ll find they’re just vegetables.
I prefer ‘drones.’
Yes! Can the follow up article be who it was that placed her there, and who has protected and promoted her through all of it? I guarantee that will get us a few more steps closer to the shadowed beyond the shadows, and maybe we can burn it down once and for all.
As the holidays approach, let’s take advantage of this magical time to reflect on the opportunity for the US government to agitate for yet another war. This time against a country in Asia that “US officials” say they are almost totally sort of, kind of, maybe 90% completely sure is behind the hacking of the Japanese multinational, Sony. So let’s save space in our hearts for the special people in the US government, those patriots toiling away in obscure torture chambers like Bikowsky who may be missing Christmas this year as she keeps the rest of us safe by torturing false information out of prisoners that might in turn bolster anonymous government claims.
I’m reminded of the classic tale…”Rudolpha, the Sadistic, Soulless Reindeer”. One day, Santa had his sack of presents stolen, even though Rudolpha had been warned that present robbers were at the north pole and she was tasked with protecting it. Rudolpha got caught napping. The next day, Rudolpha made up for her mistake by torturing innocent elves until they confessed that the presents were being held by black Muslims in Arizona. The end.
But Christmas is more than heart warming stories, It is a time to give thanks. It is a time to give thanks that we live in a world where no matter who you are, no matter how poor you are, no matter your ethnic origin or faith, if you are loyal to the CIA and obey orders, regardless of law and morality, you too, can stay out of jail and even be the subject of a torture glorifying Hollywood move, like Zero Dark thirty.
Ah, holiday movies!….White Christmas, The Grinch, and what would have been the greatest holiday release of all…”The Interview”. A story of journalists being used by the CIA to murder the vilified head of state of one of America’s enemies. Following in the tradition of the Zapruder film about the Kennedys, “The Interview”, like “The Triumph of the Will” before it, is a victory for free speech. Created by a multinational, with US State Department coordination, this celebration of state sponsored assassination would not be possible without the trail blazing efforts of the CIA agents, like Bikowsky, who inspired it.
“There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to MITIGATE that threat.”
(emphasis added)
I guess (to paraphrase?) “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘mitigate’ is.”
Oops, it should have been
“….Those threats.”
The web identifies this woman as Alfreda Bikowsky. Take a good look at what a sociopath looks like.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&biw=1280&bih=837&q=alfreda+frances+bikowsky&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSsAEJR8gXCoaxf28amwELELCMpwgaiAEKOggCEhSXGMQimRiOGKIYjxiWGJgYtCKjGBog0qWYJAYRayFQGGn0k2MrUTWP2ZlV0OKeBS3un-6g-7kKSggDEhT6D8wayRrKGu4a-w-eD5sPmR–Ghow-yG2ZIUVL0DOV8zJryct-RaRzYRoKcvc58OrR4bWRatCLKFr6hLKqixG_1v9iguxYDAsQjq7-CBoADCHU1lSEL4E7AA&sa=X&ei=lYWUVPHEGYWZNveagqAM&ved=0CBwQ2A4oAQ#imgdii=_
I was looking at that picture at the top of the article and thinking, wow, that is one good looking CIA officer. And then I saw it was Jessica Chastain.
Wait, that’s the singer from Journey.
Any way you want it …
Fuck Journey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkdiRbSmTM0
This is the woman from the Situation Room!
Yes! http://www.corbettreport.com/who-is-audrey-frances-tomason/
I submit that your walking-talking-real life-embodient of Dunning-Kruger is right here:
C’mon down, Alfreda Frances Bikowsky! C’mon down and accept your prize for being so blindingly stupid, un-self-aware, and lacking in insight that your think you’re smarter than anyone else despite all evidence to the contrary. You’re not smart, M’dear. What you are is Dunning-Kruger on steroids with an utterly repulsive sadistic streak woven in as a bonus.
You better pray there ain’t no heaven as you swear there ain’t no hell, Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, ’cause in that “just world” you’re gonna burn baby, burn.
And I thought failing upward was a guy thing… She takes the cake.
Indeed, PI, it seems a “peter” is not required – for the “principle” to still apply.
“There are crazy people in this world and we are trying to mitigate those threats.”
Indeed there are. Thanks for providing the name of one of them.
The reason no one is being held accountable is because the public is forever being told it “can’t” be done. That’s one reason the rest of the government – including Obama – truly cared and wanted to hold these people accountable, that’s exactly what would happen.
Mistaken identity or not, being a torturer has greatly benefited Alfreda Bikowsky. —- Promotions and movies.
Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain.
Well, I wouldn’t except she’s no longer clothed…
See “Unmasking a CIA Criminal” @ this last summer”s Hope X @ NYC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOPcmNBKAs
That was a brilliant lecture, I loved every second of it. One of the gems from HOPEX.
Good on you, Luda. Just a shame that such a significant talk was not referenced in this GG/PM article’s text. But let’s hope others will now pick up on it.
Excellent video. First time realized that initial CIA torture failed but lied in the reports. Then it started a bandwagon to torture everywhere.
Lies led to war, lies led to torture, lies led to collapse of USA moral position in world
when will “citizens” realize this?
What a tragic and evil person.
Hannah Arendt’s observation about “the banality of evil” is demonstrated again.
Great work, as usual from Greenwald. But, for clarity’s sake, I think the photo description should be placed closer/under the photo rather than at the bottom of the article. I’ve never seen that movie or photo before, and assumed it was a photo of the subject, CIA agent Bikowsky. Thanks.
If memory serves correct, real photos of the real alfreda are extremely rare, only one photo is circulating which may be of her but its authenticity has not been proven yet.
My knowledge on that matter may be outdated, so please correct me if I am wrong.
I, by choice, haven’t seen the movie either but assumed by the dramatic look of the photo that it was of Jessica Chastain from the movie rather than of the actual “Queen of Torture” criminal, Bikowsky. But I agree with your suggestion that the credit and explanation of the photo should be directly within or under the photo. I went searching for a real photo of Bikowsky for the purpose of posting it here if I were able to find one. I didn’t find one. Or if I did view one in my search it wasn’t verified that it was her. I did see the same photo or capture that is used in this article though, which confirmed that it was a photo from Zero Dark 30.
You have done yourself a great disservice. I am assured that Zero Dark Thirty is a cinematic wonder on par with Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, perhaps even eclipsing the incomparable The Fountainhead.
See http://cryptocomb.org/?p=338 for some old pictures
Agreed. It is an editorial mistake to use a movie screenshot in an “unmasking” article, especially in this instance given that stock photos of Medusa are widely available.
Now now, let’s not tempt the anger of the Gorgonae. In some tellings Medusa was actually quite beautiful before her little incident.
Yeah, the photo caption should be with the photo.
outstanding interview of Glenn on Huffington post
in case you missed it
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/glenn-greenwald-snowden-torture-sony-cuba-jeb-bush/5490e53cfe3444673b000104
and another interview of Glenn on Salon.com
THURSDAY, DEC 11, 2014 06:25 PM EST
EXCLUSIVE: “Corrupt, toxic and sociopathic”: Glenn Greenwald unloads on torture, CIA and Washington’s rotten soul
Glenn Greenwald tells Salon how the torture report exposes true evil — and a nation drowning in hypocrisy
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/11/exclusive_corrupt_toxic_and_sociopathic_glenn_greenwald_unloads_on_torture_cia_and_washingtons_rotten_soul/
TRIGGER WARNING!
@13:45, Mr. Greenwald’s use of a “crazed pit bull off the leash” as an analogy for the CIA may cause emotional distress to owners of typically gentle, loving pit bulls, as well as individuals who have been mauled by stereotypically vicious, homicidal pit bulls, not to mention emotionally vulnerable employees and supporters of the CIA. Shame on Mr. Greenwald for his hateful speech and the Huffington Post for publishing it without the necessary warning.
He’s just so divisive! Not a Real American at all.
Fortunately.
With the caveat that I believe it is absolutely necessary for the historical record to publically identify each and every single elected US official and every single military or CIA employee, operative or contractor who implemented, authorized and participated in America’s torture regime, I’m at the point where I know in my heart not a single meaningful prosecution of those involved or responsible will ever take place unless it is way down the road like in Argentina. And even then I doubt it.
It is a broken country where 51% of the population believes torture is morally or legally defensible (or even effective, which it isn’t, and which does nothing to change torture’s illegality or immorality) or should be legal in whatever instances the government tells the people it’s “necessary”. Given that appears to be our present and future reality as far as I can tell, I have no hope of accountability in my lifetime.
But again, I believe what Glenn and others are doing is absolutely necessary to build an accurate historical record should the American people ever change and decide to demand better of themselves and their government. Or if we ever summon the collective courage and will to look ourselves in the mirror and hold those responsible individuals accountable (and ultimately ourselves) for what we did. Again, I don’t see that ever happening in my lifetime. That’s not who the vast majority of Americans are as people and that’s not consistent with our nation’s history in any way when it comes to admitting fault or make reparations for harm done to whoever America has chosen to “otherize” and subjugate at any given moment in its history–too many “good Germans” if ever any people were.
And my prediction for Ms. Bikowsky’s future now that she’s been fully outed is that she’ll become a “mainstream media star” and make a shitload of money being given a platform to pimp her immorality and catapult the government’s propaganda immunizing and attempting to justify America’s Global Torture Regime. Just like Rodriquez, just like Cheney, just like Yoo, just like Bybee, just like Addington, just like Rumsfeld, . . . .
My sister turned me on to Greenwald, and I eagerly read his last 3 books and Guardian articles just as he was announcing the new project with Omidyar. I was and still am stunned by Greenwald’s moral assertiveness, and presumed a vision of some kind was behind the ethical urgency of his tone.
I imagined the clinching call between Pierre and Glenn was something like this:
Greenwald: “What you’re getting here is visionary journalism. In the unnerving use of silence in Laura’s movies, in the astonishing bravery of Jeremy stepping into war-zones, and in my ability to stay articulate and unfazed in the face of the most grotesque establishment charlatans, you’re seeing activist journalism like never before, grounded in a progressive civil libertarian vision that compels us to shake things up.”
Omidyar: “Sounds good. Here’s lots of money.”
But what actually happened is probably more like this:
Greenwald: “Okay, Laura is going to make some videos at some point, Jeremy is going to grow his beard, and I’m going to resign everyone to the worsening status quo while encouraging people to encrypt themselves into corners.”
Omidyar: “Sounds good. Here’s lots of money.”
But perhaps activist journalism is now Newspeak for “chronicling stuff.” In my opinion if you take the visionary aspect out of a writer’s work the most important part is gone, but maybe I just projected the visionary aspect onto the writers here. If so, my bad.
And about the “report…” Oh, never mind.
If your insult here is that TI is “chronicling stuff,” I am not sure what your problem is. Creating a public record as truthfully as possible is in fact a major (and dangerous) feat, seeing that truth has become an unwanted and discarded casualty of empire.
History is written by winners, unfortunately. They expunge public records that are unflattering, even and especially those of reporters.
The ‘insult’ was “So you’re not a visionary, then?” If it could be called an insult.
I do admire the journalists here, it just seems like they are thoroughbreds being used to pull wagons.
“History, sir, will tell lies, as usual.” –Gen. Burgoyne in response to the question of how he felt history would record his actions at Saratoga, in a play by G.B. Shaw.
“The future ain’t what it used to be.” –Yogi Berra.
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” –ibid.
Do you have anyone you think of as a visionary journalist? Perhaps Arundhati Roy?. Maybe Naomi Klein?
Yeah, but all us good people are on The Right Side of History! You just need to have faith and be patient.
History is written by winners, unfortunately. – Cindy
True, but unless some major revisions are made, it’s always going to be on the net somewhere.
Jeremy is going to grow his beard
lol.
But seriously where is he?
Cindy’s incendiary and excellent ‘dig’ at TI’s ‘vision’. Brava.
One of my favorite old-time tunes with the title ‘Cindy’ as a tribute (from ‘Rio Bravo’ a young Ricky Nelson, Walter Brennan w/ his harmonica, & Dean Martin.
“Git along Home Cindy, Cindy…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ssbgThljU
I’m quite fond of that excerpt with from Rio Bravo. I liked how they found a way of sticking the musical talents into the storyline of the movie.
Right at the very beginning of the video I’ve linked you’ll hear me playing a version of ‘Cindy’ on harmonica with a friend on guitar backing up. Decide for yourselves if you, at your own risk, want to watch the rest of the 25 minute video. But anyhoo, I’m taking advantage of this in you’ve provided to post the music. Yeah, I’ve posted the link on The Intercept before. So sue me.
Cindy – Harmonica with guitar backup
“What the Frack?!” was that?!
Your ‘harp’ playin’ was very good (in my younger days, I also ‘bent’ a few notes–mostly on a chromatic). I also noticed a brief reprise of ‘Cindy’ near the end (about the 22:15 mark of the video (yes, I watched the entire shadow play/’puppet show’ and it was a valid message) That is likely only one of the few such ‘plays’ I have seen since I first saw this as a teenaged lad in 1960 (Give it a “Vhirl):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlbu6SsjlSE
Thanks Nemo_Est. Glad you listened & watched and enjoyed the music and also the play. The banjo playing was also done by me.
Kudos on being a good ‘banger pickin’ man, as well (the only instrument I missed a’hearin’ in that ‘shadder’ play was an old-timey cross-tuned trad fiddle…)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsVhnGmshCk
Sorry to all them a-plankin’, a-plinkin’, strummin’ and a-thumbin banjer (not “banger”) pickers everwhar’ for my hillbilly mistake.
I doubt Alfreda would take to that circuit. She is a shadow figure, not a rock star. The CIA is a closed family — she doesn’t need our attention, she already has all the recognition she wants.
Nothing in this country is going to change without something concrete for the Feds to contend with —
Why not stage a tax revolt until some torturers are tried in court?
Because tax revolts have proven so effective…
Those ranchers sure scared the wits out of the government. How can we revruit them? They seemed fearless in the face of tyranny.
Thank you for your continued work to bring even a shred of accountability to the powerful. The more we peek behind the curtains of power and wealth we see that the “elite” are an astonishingly incompetent, brutal, and petty lot.
The angels of justice are singing, Glenn, they are shouting, “halleluiah!” This is a great gift you have written here naming Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, this arrogant CIA agent, and all the connected people behind her who knew full well and sanctioned her continued works by promoting her to the level of general rank in the CIA. I cannot wait to read the names of those who sponsor her career.
It is no wonder they fought tooth and nail to keep Alfreda Frances Bikowsky’s name out of the main stream media. Continue your journalistic endeavors and bring them all out kicking and denying into the broad daylight. Let us see how they fare without the propaganda of Hollywood movies and government’s mainstream media prostitutes.
Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, let us say it again, Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, “Who loves you, Baby?” We all want to know.
Merry Christmas! Glenn, You just made mine very merry indeed!
“He [Trapani] noted that CIA Director John Brennan had disputed the report’s contention that the agency had misrepresented the value of the interrogation program.”
I feel your frustration Director Brennan. This a good reason to have all documents related to the interrogation program released so the public can decide for themselves.
Bravo to the Intercept. Kudos. More of this please. And more interviews like Glenn’s on HuffPo saying what needs to be said… Cheny et al need to be in prison, not on Meet the Press.
Now that her “cover” is blown, Obama should send Bikowsky to N. Korea as a peace envoy. Two problems solved!
Her and about 30 of her colleagues (I don’t know … plus or minus) . They’d fit right in over there. And all those cowardly narcissists in such a small space … could solve many problems.
Terrifying that such small, sadistic, cowards have so much power. No wonder our government is so dysfunctional.
Bravo! Even if (sadly) there is no official punishment for the people who perpetrated these horrors, there should be public exposure.
Yeah, repeated promotions are great, but how much money does that add up to? All the other torturers are being well compensated; we can only hope that she’s getting movie deals, mansions, corporate directorships lined up after government work, etc.
Interesting, to say the least…
To keep the journalistic standard, you shouldn’t use the Photo of actress Jessica Chastain, combined with the headline “MEET ALFREDA BIKOWSKY..”. This is indeed very misleading and, i fear, will cause readers to confuse fiction with reality (also, because reality seem to overtake fiction these days).
The ridiculousness of the media in trying to cover up her name is surreal.
It’s public knowledge at this point.
Since when did stating already public knowledge become a crime?
Sept. 11, 2001.
Or more appropriately Oct. 26, 2001, when the USA-PATRIOT Act was signed into law. That’s the day we all became guilty until proven innocent because
our leaders needed to cover their asseswe just can’t take a chance on our first warning being a mushroom cloud.