Lesser Of Two Evils? Sometimes The Call Is Just Too Close

In the lesser of 2 evils argument, morons on Twitter (and the DWT comments section) rarely-- rarely like in never-- take hard votes and congressional actions into account. Chad Pergram is Fox News' chief DC correspondent. He has great connections and nothing to do with the lunatics like Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Jesse Watters, Laura Ingraham, Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade.

Saturday he was tweeting away about how enough Republicans had signed the DACA discharge petition to force a floor debate and vote... but that 3 ultra-right wing Democrats-- Texas Blue Dogs Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Filemon Vela-- refused to sign, the only Democrats who did, killing the chances, at least for now, of a DACA debate. Pergram's tweets explain all the mechanics of the problem. Let me talk a little about the mechanics of it.

In the middle of the 2006 wave, Rahm Emanuel insisted on sneaking dozens of Blue Dogs into Congress. In a wave cycle many low-info voters don't understand or care if a candidate is a Blue Dog or a progressive. They just want to strike out against Republicans. So Emanuel loaded up on them. By 2010 Democratic voters realized they'd been duped and they stayed away from the polls rather than reelect the Blue Dogs and New Dems. Every one of Rahm's Blue Dog recruits was defeated.

The current DCCC chair, Ben Ray Lujan, is far stupider than Rahm so he asked Rahm for advice. Rahm advised him to load up on Blue Dogs and New Dems again and that's exactly what the DCCC has been doing. But voters aren't always going along with it. Some of the worst of that lot, like Jay Hulings in Texas, JD Huffstetler in Virginia and Brad Ashford in Nebraska were all ignominiously defeated despite the DCCC's slimy tactics.

When Blue Dogs and New Dems get into Congress, you can always expect behavior like Cuellar, Gonzalez and Vela just exhibited, shitting all over the Democratic brand and confusing voters about a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Tomorrow is primary day in several states including states where progressives are battling against DCCC crap candidates-- like in California, Iowa and New Jersey. The worst candidate the DCCC has overtly endorsed this cycle is Gil Cisneros (CA-49), an "ex"-Republican, a carpetbagger from another district, a lottery winning self funder and a complete joke. Sam Jammal is a far better candidate on every level. The other candidates progressives should avoid in California are Mike Levin (CA-49), New Dem Dave Min (CA-45), and DCCC recruits who worked out so badly that even the DCCC had abandoned them-- Hans Keirstead (CA-48) and Mai-Khanh Tran (CA-39). Even worse than Keirstead and Tran, but in Santa Clarita, not Orange County, is Bryan Caforio. Saturday's Santa Clarita Signal:

Character counts.

There are a few people left who think how you play the game matters as much as whether you win or lose.

Sports teach us this, and so should elections.

How one competes is more important than how big of a scene someone can make, or how many Twitter followers someone has garnered.

And rooting for the person willing to win by any means necessary will only yield you a candidate who’s willing to do whatever it takes to win, which can include lying, cheating and stealing-- not traits you want in the person you elect to govern.

...Negative politicking is toxic. It reflects especially poorly upon the person slinging the mud more so than whatever negative pabulum is being spewed... [W]e’ve seen the mailers from Bryan Caforio that again show his negative streak. While he is putting his name to it, the ad hominem attacks in that campaign have drowned out any substantive talk on the issues.

As for the other states, the DCCC has endorsed Abby Finkenaurer in Iowa but she's a weak, pointless politician with no heartfelt values besides winning and her own career. Friends of mine in the Iowa legislature where she serves told me she's a complete waste of a seat. Progressive Thomas Heckroth would make a far better member of Congress.

The DCCC has 4 candidates in New Jersey, one of whom seems pretty good, Andy Kim, although I haven't spoken with him long enough to leave out the word "seems." Blue Dog and NRA ally Jeff Van Drew is widely considered the worst Democrat in the New Jersey state legislature and the DCCC picked him for the very reasons Democrats will eventually abandon him and his seat will revert to the Republicans. Mikie Sherrill is being sold as some kind of a military heroine but she never flew a single coat mission and the DCCC and her campaign are just gaslighting about she's all about-- which is just someone looking for a career and who is a typical status quo nothing. She's someone who talks about tweaking the Affordable Care Act a little bit instead of moving forward with Medicare-For-All the way progressives do. And Tom Malinowski is being sold to voters as the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor who "earned national acclaim for standing up to dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un." Is that so?

TOM MALINOWSKI AND THE TORTURE LOOPHOLE

The campaign messaging circulated by Malinowski for Congress highlights their candidate’s background as having fought against the sanctioning of torture during the Bush administration. The particulars of this language should not be overlooked. Why? Because once Tom Malinowski became a part of the Obama Administration as an Assistant Secretary of State, his function was not to end practices that were regarded by international legal and human rights organizations as torture. Instead, he facilitated the continuation of protocols by United States that created a “torture loophole,” a framework by which interrogators could initiate tactics and practices that when used in correlation, their aggregate effects result in the torture of a prisoner. This was accomplished through his defense of the interrogation protocols sanctioned by Appendix M of the US Army Field Manual.

This troubling history was recently brought to light during the confirmation hearing for CIA Director Gina Haspel. Around that context, the wider implications of the shameful legacy of US-sanctioned torture was discussed in a recent podcast by The Intercept (Intercepted, Episode 57, 5/23/18), in which Tom Malinowski’s role in the continuation of torture by the United States was discussed by author and anti-torture activist Dr. Jeffrey Kaye and host Jeremy Scahill:

Dr. Jeffrey Kaye: And the Army Field Manual’s Appendix M is quite clear that its import is to prolong trauma, to prolong what they call “the shock of capture,” and to induce compliance and take away the will of individuals.

And the United Nations Committee against Torture, in 2014, did its investigations on various countries’ compliance with the treaty against torture and when it came around last to the United States, it pointed out and said: You know, Appendix M is inducing psychosis in people. We have real questions about what you’re doing with isolation, and sleep deprivation is actually amounting to torture.

The former member of Human Rights Watch, Tom Malinowski, who at that point was an Obama administration State Department official, responded to the U.N. Committee against Torture and defended the use of Appendix M and said that it had, you know, plenty of safeguards against misuse and torture.

Jeremy Scahill: You’re saying that a former staffer or official at Human Rights Watch, who then goes on to work in the Obama administration, was the official who was put forward to defend the techniques that you’re describing, as they exist in Appendix M, under the Obama administration.

Dr. Jeffrey Kaye: Yes. He was one of four or five officials who were put forward and went to New York to formally respond to what the U.N. officials were criticizing about U.S. interrogation. Yes.

Amnesty International railed against the Obama administration's Malinowski-led effort to deflect criticism for a wide assembly of international human rights advocates at the hearing of the UN Committee Against Torture, stating:

"The USA merely reiterated what the Committee found inadequate during the review, namely that an investigation into CIA interrogations had been conducted and closed, with no charges referred. It also repeated its focus on the future by seeking to consign to history and impunity what had happened in the program...Accountability and remedy for undoubted crimes under international law have fallen by the wayside in this self- congratulatory analysis... So the story on these issues is one of double standards, impunity for crimes under international law, indefinite detentions, secrecy serving to block truth, remedy, and accountability, and rejection after rejection of the recommendations of UN treaty bodies and other human rights experts."

So even though the evasive answers put forward by Malinowski and his team at the 2014 hearing of the UN Committee Against Torture gave the Obama administration the breathing room to allow US interrogation practices to continue, the facts are undeniable: allowing interrogation to operate under the guidelines of US Army Field Manual Appendix M opened up a "torture loophole" by which the human rights of prisoners could continue to be violated within a framework where the United States government could claim plausible deniability. Tom Malinowski had the opportunity to take a principled stance against this inhumane policy. Unfortunately, Malinowski instead chose to be an advocate and apologist for the torture loophole.

I've always said that the DCCC's underpining-- our candidates are the lesser of two evils-- was a very slippery slope... at best. Luckily there's a much better candidate for NJ-07 voters tomorrow: Peter Jacob.

Ecuador Hints It May Hand Over Assange

Part of the "Collateral Murder" video that Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning gave to WikiLeaks. It's worth watching to the very end. Two staff members from Reuters news were among those murdered on the street, along with others from a van shot up while trying to collect the wounded. Visible in the van were two children, who were also wounded. "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," says one of the Americans doing the shooting. The Americans were the only ones shooting.

by Gaius Publius

Ecuador may hand over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the British, and thus, to the American government after all. He's currently in political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, but that may be about to change.

Ecuador hints it may hand over Julian Assange to Britain and the US

... Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities.

On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from.

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange.

When you think of Julian Assange, don’t think just of his role in the last election, though that’s important to look at. Think also of WikiLeaks' many CIA releases, as well as Chelsea Manning’s ​bombshell revelation (video above, Guardian reporting here), which earned her years of torture.

And then there's this:

If Assange falls into the hands of the British state, he faces being turned over to the US. Last year, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that putting Assange on trial for espionage was a “priority.” CIA director Mike Pompeo, now secretary of state, asserted that WikiLeaks was a “non-state hostile intelligence service.”

In 2010, WikiLeaks courageously published information leaked by then Private Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning that exposed war crimes committed by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. WikiLeaks also published, in partnership with some of the world’s major newspapers, tens of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, exposing the daily anti-democratic intrigues of US imperialism and numerous other governments.

I think if the American state acquires Assange, it may torture and kill him. It certainly wishes to. Chelsea Manning was tortured for exposing a whole lot less, and Manning's crime included revelations about torture and murder.

GP
  

Voting For Torture For Electoral Expediency

John McCain is probably dying. And from his death bed he's talking about torture and why his colleagues in the Senate should reject "Bloody Gina" Haspel to head the CIA. This weekend the second Democrat worried about his reelection prospects, Joe Donnelly of Indiana (following Joe Manchin of West Virginia) announced that he would vote to confirm "Bloody Gina." Trump just got the guarantee he needed to confirm his torture princess. How could it not have been a Democrat?

Donnelly, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate: "I believe that she has learned from the past, and that the CIA under her leadership can help our country confront serious international threats and challenges. Importantly, Ms. Haspel expressed to me her commitment to be responsive to congressional oversight and to provide her unvarnished assessment-- both to members of Congress and the president." This president:



This president:



Thanks, Joe Donnelly. Does Donnelly think because he votes to confirm "Bloody" Gina, Trump will stir doing this:

Donnelly’s office said the Indiana Democrat met Thursday with Haspel, the current acting director of the CIA.

The same night, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Penceappeared together Indiana at a rally in support of Donnelly’s Republican challenger Mike Braun.

During the event, Trump and Pence criticized Donnelly for his voting record, while also pushing him to support the CIA nominee. In his statement, the senator said the support Haspel has received from the intelligence community was an important factor in his decision.

“As our country faces dynamic and challenging security threats, it is critically important that our intelligence agencies have the leadership and support that they need to help keep Americans safe and defend our nation from those who wish to do us harm,” Donnelly said. “Gina Haspel has served our country and the Central Intelligence Agency for more than 30 years, and she has the strong support of both her colleagues at the agency and former CIA Directors Hayden, Panetta, and Brennan, who served under Presidents Bush and Obama.”

Donnelly can't possibly. Sensing weakness, Trump, if anything, will ramp up the attacks against him. That's his modus operandi. About a year ago only 5 Senate Democrats voted to keep arming the Saudis and Emeratis so they could continue destroying the civilian population of Yemen. Donnelly and Manchin were among the five. The two of them did it again 2 months go. The both of them also undercut the Democratic case against confirming Pompeo the same way they're undercutting the case against confirming Haspel.

I've heard people say that the two of them have no choice, that they live in red states that supported and continue to support Trump and that they have to vote for Trump's nominees to win in November. Why's that? Republicans have their own candidate-- Mike Braun-- who Trump will be supporting loudly and even fanatically. Trump is already referring to him as a "sleeping swamp person."

Donnelly is counting on the Democratic base sticking with him anyway, that they'll pick the lesser of two evils. Friday the state's biggest newspaper reminded him that his voting record-- even voting against Planned Parenthood-- "could dampen enthusiasm." The paper pointed out that Donnelly has been "careful about putting too much distance between himself and Trump in a state where the president is well-liked. Donnelly often touts that he has voted with Trump more often than not, an indication that his campaign believes he needs to win over at least some Trump supporters to win in November."

Although it's usually conservative Democrats who give way to this kind of thinking, it isn't always only conservatives. In 2006 my favorite Senate candidate was progressive congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH). But Blue America withdrew out endorsement-- over torture. At the time Brown has a 10-point lead over Bush incumbent rubber stamp Mike DeWine (R-OH). The House passed Bush's torture bill 253-168, only 7 Republicans voting for torture, but 34 Democrats crossing the aisle in the other direction to vote for torture. The only progressive among them was Brown. Later-- after he was safely elected-- he apologized and admitted he was wrong. Democrats eventually stopped voting for most of the 34 aisle-crossers. I believe that besides Brown, only Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and co-sponsor Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) are still in Congress. In the end, it was a Democratic wave year and Brown beat DeWine 56.2% to 43.8% about two and a half points more than before the vote. Was it worth it?

How Many Democratic Senators Will Approve Gina Haspel For CIA Chief?

The face of torture. Gina Haspel has been nominated for CIA chief. Which Democrats will support her? (source)

by Gaius Publius

An interesting vote will be coming up in the Senate, the confirmation vote on Trump nominee Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA. Make no mistake; this will be a torture vote, a yes or no to confirm the CIA's role in systematic torture of our "enemies" abroad (see below for details).

The last time a pro-torture Trump nominee came to the Senate — Mike Pompeo for the same job in January 2017 — the Senate confirmed him 66-32-2. The motion to bring his nomination to the floor, called the "motion to proceed" (MTP), passed by an overwhelming 89-8-3. (For what it's worth, Bernie Sanders was one of the few No votes on that motion.)

Democratic Party votes to confirm Pompeo included "progressives" Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Brian Schatz (HI). In all, 16 Democrats said yes to pro-torture Mike Pompeo, after which one of them, Whitehouse, got an earful at a town hall.

Gina Haspel for CIA Chief

Now comes Trump nominee Gina Haspel for CIA chief. She's not just pro-torture, she's an actual torturer. Will Democrats take a stand against her? If so, in what numbers?

Will they campaign publicly, in the press and elsewhere, against her torture background with the same vigor they campaigned against the travel ban and Obamacare repeal?

Or will most, as they did with Pompeo, quietly vote No knowing that enough of their Democratic colleagues will vote Yes to get the job done without them. Recall again the vote to bring Pompeo's nomination to the floor. That vote, the motion to proceed, was the only vote that mattered. No one serious about stopping a nomination votes Yes to on the motion to proceed, and it passed with overwhelming Democratic support.

Most of those we torture are dark-skinned and Muslim — an identity-politics gotcha for the gotcha-inclined. These are the same people targeted by Trump's widely hated travel ban, which Democrats came out strongly against. Of course, as Yahoo News points out, "If confirmed, 61-year-old Gina Haspel would become the first female head of the CIA," so there's that. 

Who will play hypocrite for the CIA? Which Democratic senators? Watch for that vote.

Gina Haspel's Torture Background

A fair amount has been written about Gina Haspel's background with the CIA, but this 2017 Glenn Greenwald piece is seminal. Bottom line — Haspel, as a CIA agent stationed abroad, ran a torture site.

Greenwald (emphasis mine):

In May 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official — whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time — was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” — part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” — “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and grand jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

The name of that CIA official whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel.

Keep in mind, the first purpose of torture is to please the torturer. She's the worst of the worst.

By the way, the John Brennan named above is the same person now passing as "hero of the anti-Trump resistance" John Brennan. That's who the mainstream #resistance is in bed with.

Think Brennan and those around him have an agenda? Do you think getting rid of Trump is their only goal?

GP
 

Senators-- Democratic Senators-- Who Vote To Confirm Trump's New Cabinet Garbage Are Voting For Torture As A Legitimate Policy

Revolving Door by Nancy Ohanian

The Trump White Mad House is still a chaotic mess, in complete turmoil orchestrated my the fool Putin placed there. Supposedly, at least according to the Wall Street Journal John Kelly is staying on-- for now-- as chief of staff. H.R. McMaster, on the other hand, will be replaced as soon as Trump can persuade someone to take the job. This week a West Wing staffer in Señor Trumpanzee's White House was widely quoted saying that "This is the most toxic working environment on the planet... There's no leadership, no trust, no direction and at this point there's very little hope." Other heads on the chopping block-- reputations ruined because of their collaboration with the fascist clown-- include Ben Carson, David Shulkin, Steven Mnuchin, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Ryan Zinke and Vanessa Trump, estranged wife of Trumpanzee Jr., and others who have been using taxpayer dollars to live like royalty.

At least a half-dozen current or former Trump Cabinet officials have been mired in federal investigations over everything from high-end travel and spending on items such as a soundproof phone booth to the role of family members weighing in on official business. On Wednesday alone, newly disclosed documents revealed fresh details about spending scandals at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

...The controversies surrounding members of Trump’s Cabinet have caused upheaval within the administration, prompting White House officials to scramble in an effort to avert any further political fallout and to summon agency leaders for face-to-face ethics meetings.

Meanwhile, Señor Trumpanzee is using Ivanka as a substitute for fired Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. CNN and Politico are both reporteing that Trump could have trouble getting new appointments confirmed. CNN was mild, reporting that Trumpanzee's "appetite for an ambitious shake-up of his Cabinet and other key advisers is already facing headwinds from inside his own administration and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. Trump's nominee to run the CIA, Gina Haspel, is causing heartburn among Senate Republicans because of her role in overseeing an interrogation and detention program. Meanwhile, at least one Republican and a handful of Democrats in the narrowly divided Senate are already planning to oppose Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee to succeed Rex Tillerson, who the President fired Tuesday from his post as secretary of state. There is also some trepidation among the national security establishment about the potential of hardliner John Bolton replacing H.R. McMaster, whose fate as national security adviser is in doubt, according to several sources. And some top Senate Republicans are warning the White House of overburdening lawmakers with too many nominations. 'With everything else we have to do around here, having the prospect of two additional confirmation fights perhaps is going to be a challenge,' said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican." Politico went much further with the idea of the Democrats actually being able to block the worst of the dreck Trump wants to bring into government.

The White House was hoping for a smooth 2018 on Capitol Hill. Instead, President Donald Trump is staring at two bitter confirmation fights-- and the possibility emboldened Democrats could block his new Cabinet nominees.

Trump’s decision to nominate CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson at the State Department-- and to elevate Pompeo’s controversial deputy Gina Haspel, who hasn’t previously been confirmed-- has created a pair of high-stakes battles in the Senate, where the GOP enjoys a threadbare 51-49 advantage.

With Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opposing both nominees and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) absent while he undergoes treatment for brain cancer, Trump will need Democrats to support his picks.

The looming struggle to get Cabinet replacements through underscores just how much the political calculus has changed for Trump since the early days of his administration, as Democrats look ahead to the midterms and throw off any semblance of cooperation with the White House.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for example, supported Pompeo to be CIA director, as did 14 of his colleagues in the minority. Democrats say Pompeo will fall far short of that-- if he gets any Democratic support at all.

“Both of them have serious questions to answer and neither confirmation is a sure thing,” Schumer told Politico in a statement.

Republicans agree that failed confirmation votes are a real possibility.

...Retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Z), who serves on the Foreign Relations panel, has been privately cited by Democrats as a potential flip vote on both Pompeo and Haspel. A vocal Trump critic, he said he’s “looking into” Haspel’s record and wants to hear willingness from Pompeo to break with Trump on Russia.

“We need people who will stand up to the president, frankly, on some of these issues. I want to make sure he’s willing to do that,” Flake said in an interview.

...Trump’s demonstrated preference for unorthodox figures could leave some Democrats inclined to accept the pair, who few would label unqualified even if they disagree with them on policy.

Republicans also have the advantage of a cadre of Democratic senators facing reelection in 2018 in states Trump easily won: Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. All four voted to confirm Pompeo at the CIA.

...Short of blocking the picks altogether, Democrats could still cause serious headaches for the White House throughout the process.

“The biggest danger for the White House is that both of these people are coming from inside the administration and are going to be asked to talk about what’s happened inside the administration during their confirmation hearings,” said Matthew Miller, who helped shepherd former Attorney General Eric Holder through his confirmation hearings and joined him at DOJ as a spokesman.

He pointed as an example to a Washington Post report from June 2017 that Trump complained to Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats early in his presidency about then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the Russia probe.

If Pompeo refuses to address that conversation, Democrats could use that as justification for voting against him, Miller said, since such questions go to how Pompeo reacted to presidential pressure while leading the CIA.

“If you invoke executive privilege at your oversight hearing, there’s nothing the senators can do to you,” Miller said. “In a confirmation hearing, you can lose votes over it.”

Is it a "purity test" to support and vote for Democrats who are not going to help block garbage nominees like Haspel and Bolton to influential posts? Fake Democrats like Heitkamp, McCaskill and Manchin are going to make the difference whether or not the U.S. goes back to torturing people.

This Is What It Looks Like When A U.S. President Orders a Strike in a Muslim Country

 Eight-year-old Nawar Anwar Al-Awlaqi is said to have bled to death over a two-hour period (source).

by Gaius Publius

"The 11-year-old was woken by the commotion outside and went to see what was going on. ... He asked them ‘Who are you?’ but the [U.S. soldiers] shot him. He was the first killed."

—Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab, describing his son's death

When you murder people in Yemen, you murder Muslims.

—Yours truly

There's a lot of noise being made about the "anti-terrorist" strike in Yemen ordered by President Trump, and a lot of noise should be made about it.

But behind the partisan jabbings is a brutal fact — people are being murdered in these "strikes." And another brutal fact — both political parties have normalized these ... well, they must be called what they are ... war crimes.

From a report on the Trump-ordered raid (do read; it's excellent), I want to tease out just this detail (h/t Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, via email):

Nine young children killed: The full details of botched US raid in Yemen

[...] It was a moonless night and the calm in Yakla was punctured only by the familiar sound of drones buzzing overhead.

In the middle of the night US special forces flew from the aircraft carrier USS Makin Island in Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and landed a few kilometres from the village. ...

“The operation began when the soldiers landed next to the graveyard which lies about 2km away from our town, north of Yakla”, Sheikh Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab said. The soldiers then proceeded on foot, flanked by military dogs, in the direction of the village. Villagers say there were about 50 soldiers.

An 11-year-old is the first hit

His son Ahmed was the first casualty. According to al Dahab the 11-year-old was woken by the commotion outside and went to see what was going on. “When my son Ahmed saw them, he couldn’t tell that they were soldiers because it was dark,” he said. “He asked them ‘Who are you?’ but the men shot him. He was the first killed. No one thought that marines would descend on our homes to kill us, kill our children and kill our women.” [...]

This happens under all U.S. presidents who order such actions. More:

SEAL Team 6 attacked the home of 65-year-old Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri, surrounding it and opened fire indiscriminately, Abdelilah al Dahab and other witnesses claimed. “When people heard the gunshots and missiles, local men rushed out of their homes to find out what was going on,” he said.

Three witnesses said the commandos shot at everyone who left their homes. In these lawless parts of Yemen every home has a Kalashnikov and the residents reached for their guns “to defend their homes and their honour,” Abdelilah al Dahab said.

The villagers say 38-year-old mother of seven, Fatim Saleh al Ameri was fatally shot by special operators while trying to flee with her two-year-old son Mohammed. “We pulled him out from his mother’s lap. He was covered in her blood,” said 11-year-old Basil Ahmed Abad al­ Zouba, whose 17-year-old brother was killed. “The operation began when the soldiers landed next to the graveyard which lies about 2km away from our town, north of Yakla”, Sheikh Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab said. The soldiers then proceeded on foot, flanked by military dogs, in the direction of the village. Villagers say there were about 50 soldiers.

I don't want to continue this, but there's plenty more at the link.

War Crimes

Yes, they killed some "terrorists" ... maybe ... including an 80-year-old man, though what "terrorism" means in Yemen is fully in doubt. It's actually a three-way civil war, as the article makes clear, and we may just be doing the Saudi nationalist king's dirty work.

As they article makes clear, actions like these are sparking more revenge than thanksgiving. Will those who take that revenge also be called "terrorists"? This is a global game of Hattfields versus McCoys. Were they "terrorists" too? (And which are we, the Hatfields, or the McCoys?) 

But these are also war crimes. In the last century, the U.S. hung people for commiting them. In this century, what Bush initiated Obama normalized by behavior and legalized — made "lawful" — by statute. Now Trump and his foreign policy advisors have a free hand to treat anyone in the world any way they want. War crimes are a bipartisan op in this country.

And a racist one as well. If the child at the top of this piece were — I hate to say it — Caucasian, would it have stopped these Democrats (do click; do memorize the list) from putting the CIA in the hands of Mike Pompeo and his known-torturer Deputy Director?

When you murder people in Yemen, you murder Muslims. These raids, these murders, are not just on Trump. They're on every Democrat who enabled him. How much of the globalized "war on terror" is just globalized racism? Will it hurt the "Democratic Party brand" to collaborate with it?

I hope Democrats are prepared with answers to those questions. I'm certain, as Trump takes us down, they will be asked.

Scheduling note: My comments here appear regularly on Monday and Thursday, or Tuesday and Thursday if Monday is a holiday.

GP
 

Democrat-Supported CIA Chief Hires a Torturer of Muslims as Deputy

" Bold anti-Trumpist" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) confronted by "Resist Hate RI" constituents for his Yes vote for pro-torture CIA Director Mike Pompeo. (I've queued the clip to start when Whitehouse speaks. Feel free to start from the beginning.)

by Gaius Publius

A pro-torture vote is a vote for torturing Muslims, at least so far.

As regular readers know, I've been looking at the group of mainstream Democrats relative to the "resistance" they presume to be leading (and occasionally are). In a great many cases, though, they're falling on their faces, or have been forced into stronger stands by a base that's way ahead of them in hating what's happening.

(A bit of background: The same money that buys Republican politicians' votes buys Democratic politicians' votes. But maybe you already knew that. If so, consider this a reminder on the off chance that, as you read this pieces, you wonder, "Now why would Democrats do that?" The obvious answer in many cases is, they can't afford to offend their real base, meaning their donors. In the case of torture, "their donors" includes the entire U.S. "defense" industry and the banks that finance it.)

I'll have more to say in the future about how Democratic voters are ahead of "their" politicians in actually resisting what Trump is doing. The instance detailed below is just one example of that.

Mike Pompeo, Torture and the Democratic Party

As we noted here, Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo, newly confirmed CIA Director, is pro-torture. Read the piece at the link for some of the detail on that (the source for that detail, interestingly, is the lone anti-Pompeo Republican, Rand Paul).  

In that piece I listed the "pro-Resistance" Democrats who collaborated with Donald Trump to put pro-torture Mike Pompeo in charge of the CIA:

Which Democrats Voted For Pro-Torture Pompeo?

The vote, 66-32, was quite lopsided. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate, 46 Democrats and two Independents (Sanders and Maine's Angus King). Only one Republican crossed the aisle to vote No — Rand Paul.

Fourteen Democrats (plus Angus King) put the stamp of approval on pro-torture Mike Pompeo, the new head of Donald Trump's CIA...

• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Dianne Feinstein (CA)
• Maggie Hassan (NH)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Jack Reed (RI)
• Brian Schatz (HI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

...including the Senate Minority Leader...

• Chuck Schumer (NY)

The roll call also includes these names as "not voting":

• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Unless these two were ill or incapacitated, this was a cowardly act. They are either anti-torture and afraid to show it, or pro-torture and afraid to show it. (Blumenthal did vote No on the motion to proceed three days earlier. Murphy voted Yes.)

Here's that reduced list of self-styled "strong anti-Trump resistance fighters" in a slightly different order. These people are branded, or self-branded, as "liberals," as among the "good" Democrats:

• Chuck Schumer (NY)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

• Chris Murphy (CT)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)

• Brian Schatz (HI)
• Richard Blumenthal (CT)

Schumer is positioning himself as the bold face of Senate "resistance." He's all over the TV lately, looking and sounding tough. Kaine was Clinton's VP pick, so a foolish (or low information) voter might mistake him as a tough anti-Trumpist as well.

Whitehouse — good on some issues, especially climate, but not so good on a lot of others. (See the video above for what may have given him "religion" lately — his constituents, who seem to be way out in front of him, complaining about his vote en masse. Too bad he didn't "get religion" in time to keep his fingerprints off of his pro-torture, and therefore anti-Muslim, vote. (Remember, a vote for torture is a vote for torturing Muslims, at least so far.)

Murphy and Klobuchar get lots of face time on MSNBC, painted by the evening hosts as speaking for the so-called the left of the party. It's false cred, as you can see above (and there's more where that "false cred" charge comes from — Klobuchar, for example, is a reliable Monsanto vote, as is Al Franken, who's also getting some good "resistance" limelight lately).

Schatz should not be voting this way. He's actually further left than this makes him appear. And Blumenthal is bad on a lot of things, worse than many realize, but rarely makes the news outside of his home state.

Note that none of their Yes votes (or abstentions) were needed. The final tally was 66-32-2 and only 51 votes were needed. Four, five or six fewer Yes votes would not have changed the result. 

Pro-Torture Pompeo Hires a Torturer as Deputy

To restate: The CIA director reports to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the president. The CIA runs the president's drone kill program. The CIA also runs many or most of the "war on terror" black sites at which torture and death are dealt to enemies designated by the president. 

Trump's new CIA chief, Mike Pompeo has hired Gina Haspel as his Deputy Director. Here's what the Deputy Director does:

The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DD/CIA) is a statutory office (50 U.S.C. § 3037) and the second-highest official of the Central Intelligence Agency. The DD/CIA assists the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (D/CIA) and is authorized to exercise the powers of the D/CIA when the Director's position is vacant or in the Director's absence or disability.

Under current law, the Deputy Director is appointed by the President and is not required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

So, no Senate confirmation for Ms. Haspel. The Senate has had its last bite of the CIA-torture-drone kill apple.

And here's who Gina Haspel is. Glenn Greenwald writes (my emphasis):

In May, 2013, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the head of the CIA’s clandestine service [Haspel] was being shifted out of that position as a result of “a management shake-up” by then-Director John Brennan. As Miller documented, this official – whom the paper did not name because she was a covert agent at the time – was centrally involved in the worst abuses of the CIA’s Bush-era torture regime.

As Miller put it, she was “directly involved in its controversial interrogation program” and had an “extensive role” in torturing detainees. Even more troubling, she “had run a secret prison in Thailand” – part of the CIA’s network of “black sites” – “where two detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harsh techniques.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on torture also detailed the central role she played in the particularly gruesome torture of detainee Abu Zubaydah.

Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated both multiple court orders as well the demands of the 9/11 Commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as “obstruction” by Commission Chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. A special prosecutor and Grand Jury investigated those actions but ultimately chose not to prosecute.

That CIA official’s name whose torture activities the Post described is Gina Haspel. Today, as BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold noted, CIA Director Pompeo announced that Haspel was selected by Trump to be Deputy Director of the CIA.

That's who Mike Pompeo made his deputy — a woman who ran torture sites, personally ran a "secret prison in Thailand," was involved in the horrific torture of Abu Zubaydah, and who played a "vital role" in the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes in violation of multiple court orders.

And that's who our "liberal" anti-Trump defenders — Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaine, Schatz — just affirmatively enabled. These are your bold, pro-torture "Resistance fighters."

Remember their names. What Pompeo and Haspel do is on them. And if Trump, Pompeo and Haspel ever decide to take this presidential power "local" — the power to torture and kill — and use it on his enemies in the "homeland," that's on these senators as well.

GP
 

Mike Pompeo, Torture and the Future of the Democratic Party

Things new CIA director Mike Pompeo likes. Things Chuck Schumer many other Democratic senators are just fine with. How bad will the vote for Pompeo hurt the Democratic Party?

by Gaius Publius

As I've written many many times, we're at a tipping point in this country, a very serious one. As serious and potentially revolutionary as during the Depression. The Democratic Party, which should have been a shoo-in to win the presidency last year — and would have been with Bernie Sanders as the candidate — had to scratch and claw for a narrow loss, which, with a little smarter scratching and clawing, might have been a win, but still a narrow one. Against the least popular presidential candidate in modern history.

In addition, the Democratic Party as a whole has been taking it on the chin since 2010, both at the federal level — loss of congressional seats, failure to take back the Senate in a cycle very favorable to Democrats — and at the state house and governorship level.

Clearly, Democrats as a party must not only seem different than the version that's been losing badly for the last six years, they must be different.

In a nutshell, with Sanders as the nominee instead of Hillary Clinton (she of the Wall Street speeches), the Party could be credibly seen as fundamentally transformed, in a Jeremy Corbyn–Labour Party way, in a "clean break with the Clintonism past" way.

Or, with Bernie Sanders as Senate Minority Leader, say, instead of Chuck Schumer (guardian of Wall Street interests), the Party could be credibly seen as fundamentally transforming itself as a response to the Trump win.

But Hillary Clinton was the nominee, and Chuck Schumer is Senate Minority Leader, and all those left-leaning voters who didn't pull the lever for Clinton are now asking themselves, "Is the Democratic Party any better than it was?"

We'll know the answer sometime in the next six months, largely because of the Trump confirmation votes.

Enter Mike Pompeo, Trump nominee to head the CIA.

Mike Pompeo, Abuse of National Security and Torture

Rand Paul, the only Republican senator to vote No on his nomination, writes this about Pompeo (my emphasis):

Rand Paul: Why I voted against the new CIA director

I voted against the new CIA Director because I worry that his desire for security will trump his defense of liberty.

More than ever before, oversight of the secretive world of intelligence is critically important.

Programs are authorized, money is spent, and operations are carried out in the name of the American people, yet only a few members of Congress are even allowed to know what is happening in the dark corners of these U.S. intelligence programs.

Most of Congress was surprised to learn that the U.S. government was collecting all of our phone records in bulk. Most of what our intelligence community does is shielded from the rank and file of Congress. Only eight legislators are privy to the full extent of the surveillance state....

Only begrudgingly are the American people being told about the scope of the massive intelligence apparatus that has steadily grown in secret.

Yet when oversight of the intelligence community is most needed, Congress has demonstrated an insufficient appetite for curbing the worst excesses of our country’s domestic surveillance.

And now the worst part, or the second worst part, depending on what you think about torture:

Some in Congress advocate that government collect “financial and lifestyle information” on Americans, combine it with their metadata, and store it in a government database.

A database that cross-references our every online action would be a devastating assault on liberty.

Do you want the government to collect "financial and lifestyle information" on every citizen, to use as it wishes (including, by the way, for blackmail)? I'm willing to bet that a staunch Republican like Mike Pompeo — from the Kansas branch of the party, no less — is eager to "oversee" (or use) such a program and the information it provides.

About Pompeo and torture, Rand Paul writes:

The new CIA Director described a congressional report on the CIA’s past use of torture as “a narcissistic self-cleansing.” He went on to say that those senators who voted to release the torture oversight report were “quintessentially at odds with [their] duty to [their] country.”

I [Rand Paul] couldn’t disagree more.

To recap, Pompeo thought that when Congress called the CIA (rather gently) on the carpet for committing systematic acts of torture (a war crime, by the way), Congress was indulging in an act of "self-cleansing," and Pompeo saw that use of oversight as "narcissistic" (too self-involved) on Congress' part. Pompeo's disdain, his scorn, is like Cheney's, who considered recycling as narcissistic cleansing of liberal guilt.

And Pompeo, by saying that the oversight report was "quintessentially at odds with duty to country," essentially says that defending torture is patriotism, a duty.

That's the new CIA director whose confirmation just passed the full Senate, 66-32.

Which Democrats Voted For Pro-Torture Pompeo?

The vote, 66-32, was quite lopsided. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate, 46 Democrats and two Independents (Sanders and Maine's Angus King). Only one Republican crossed the aisle to vote No — Rand Paul.

Fourteen Democrats (plus Angus King) put the stamp of approval on pro-torture Mike Pompeo, the new head of Donald Trump's CIA...

• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Dianne Feinstein (CA)
• Maggie Hassan (NH)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Jack Reed (RI)
• Brian Schatz (HI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

...including the Senate Minority Leader...

• Chuck Schumer (NY)

The roll call also includes these names as "not voting":

• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Unless these two were ill or incapacitated, this was a cowardly act. They are either anti-torture and afraid to show it, or pro-torture and afraid to show it. (Blumenthal did vote No on the motion to proceed three days earlier. Murphy voted Yes.)

I've bolded the names of "people who are not who voters think they are," but really, Democrats in the Senate are now on record as a part of the "bipartisan pro-torture" crowd. Democrats now own Mike Pompeo and all his works.

The Clock on the Democratic Party Is Ticking

Will more people vote for a Democrat after this pro-torture stamp of approval than would have done before this vote? I would guess, no.

Will this situation improve after the next round of roll call votes on Trump nominees? After all, Elizabeth Warren voted for Ben Carson for head of HUD in committee. Same with Sherrod Brown.

What Mike Pompeo does, Chuck Schumer and many of his fellow Democrats helped cause. He's not just Trump's pick; he's the Democratic Party's pick as well. Tick tick tick.

GP
 

Obama Wants To Turn A Page In Our Relations With Cuba-- Cruz And Rubio Are Stuck In A Time Warp

Cruz has a mangled and ever-changing history regarding Cuba. His intensely fascist father was arrested by the right-wing dictatorship for fighting on Castro's side. Now both Cruzes are hysterical opponents of rapprochement.

When I woke up this morning, my first text of the day was from Roland who asked me if I thought Cuba would apologize to President Obama and offer to take back Rubio and Cruz. We should only be so lucky-- although neither of the reactionary senators has ever been to Cuba. Both are the sons of immigrants looking for better economic opportunities who took advantage of a U.S. decision to open the floodgates to all Cuban refugees after Fidel Castro overthrew the brutal Mafia and CIA supported fascist dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Both Cubanos oppose mainstream, bipartisan American opinion about normalizing relations with Cuba and neither Rubio nor Cruz is remotely ready to "make up" with their ancestral homeland. In about a month President and Michelle Obama will fly to Havana to, in his words, "advance our progress and efforts that can improve the lives of the Cuban people." Extremists and Hate Talk Radio hosts are flipping out over this but most normal Americans applaud it.

This morning, standing with Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the president presented to Congress-- and the American people-- a detailed roadmap for finally closing down the Guantánamo gulag. Only 91 detainees of the original 800 the Bush regime scooped up-- some randomly-- after the invasion of Afghanistan. These were the main points in his address this morning:

• "We’ll continue to securely and responsibly transfer to other countries the 35 detainees already approved for transfer. This process involves extensive and careful coordination across our federal government to ensure that our national security interests are met when an individual is transferred to another country. We insist, for example, that foreign countries institute strong security measures."

• "We’ll accelerate the periodic reviews of remaining detainees to determine whether their continued detention is necessary. Our review board, including representatives from across government, will look at all relevant information, including current intelligence. If certain detainees no longer pose a continuing significant threat, they may be eligible for transfer to another country."

• "We’ll continue to use all legal tools to deal with the remaining detainees still held under law of war detention. Currently, 10 detainees are in some stage of the military commissions process-- a process we reformed in my first year in office with bipartisan support from Congress. Still, these commissions are very costly and have resulted in years without a resolution.  We’re therefore outlining additional changes to improve these commissions, which would require Congressional action."

• "We’re going to work with Congress to find a secure location in the United States to hold remaining detainees. These are detainees who are subject to military commissions, as well as those who cannot yet be transferred to other countries or who we’ve determined must continue to be detained because they pose a continuing significant threat. We are not identifying a specific facility today."

A NY Times editorial noted this morning that "Republican lawmakers all too often have been reflexive and thoughtless in their opposition to closing Guantánamo, one of the most shameful chapters in America’s recent history. Closing the prison by the end of the year is feasible. It would make the United States safer, help restore America’s standing as a champion of human rights and save taxpayers millions of dollars." President Obama's address (in part):

For many years, it’s been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security-- it undermines it. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of experts, this is the opinion of many in our military. It’s counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit. It drains military resources, with nearly $450 million spent last year alone to keep it running, and more than $200 million in additional costs needed to keep it open going forward for less than 100 detainees. Guantanamo harms our partnerships with allies and other countries whose cooperation we need against terrorism. When I talk to other world leaders, they bring up the fact that Guantanamo is not resolved.

Moreover, keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law. As Americans, we pride ourselves on being a beacon to other nations, a model of the rule of law. But 15 years after 9/11-- 15 years after the worst terrorist attack in American history-- we’re still having to defend the existence of a facility and a process where not a single verdict has been reached in those attacks-- not a single one.

When I first ran for President, it was widely recognized that this facility needed to close. This was not just my opinion. This was not some radical, far-left view. There was bipartisan support to close it. My predecessor, President Bush, to his credit, said he wanted to close it. It was one of the few things that I and my Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, agreed on.

And so, in one of my first acts as President, I took action to begin closing it. And because we had bipartisan support, I wanted to make sure that we did it right. I indicated that we would need to take our time to do it in a systematic way, and that we had examined all the options.

And unfortunately, during that period where we were putting the pieces in place to close it, what had previously been bipartisan support suddenly became a partisan issue. Suddenly, many who previously had said it should be closed backed off because they were worried about the politics. The public was scared into thinking that, well, if we close it, somehow we’ll be less safe. And since that time, Congress has repeatedly imposed restrictions aimed at preventing us from closing this facility.

Now, despite the politics, we’ve made progress. Of the nearly 800 detainees once held at Guantanamo, more than 85 percent have already been transferred to other countries. More than 500 of these transfers, by the way, occurred under President Bush. Since I took office, we’ve so far transferred 147 more, each under new, significant restrictions to keep them from returning to the battlefield. And as a result of these actions, today, just 91 detainees remain-- less than 100.

...[W]e’ll continue to securely and responsibly transfer to other countries the 35 detainees-- out of the 91-- that have already been approved for transfer. Keep in mind, this process involves extensive and careful coordination across our federal government to ensure that our national security interests are met when an individual is transferred to another country. So, for example, we insist that foreign countries institute strong security measures. And as we move forward, that means that we will have around 60-- and potentially even fewer-- detainees remaining.

...I also want to point out that, in contrast to the commission process, our Article 3 federal courts have proven to have an outstanding record of convicting some of the most hardened terrorists. These prosecutions allow for the gathering of intelligence against terrorist groups. It proves that we can both prosecute terrorists and protect the American people.  So think about it-- terrorists like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon-- they were all convicted in our Article III courts and are now behind bars, here in the United States.

So we can capture terrorists, protect the American people, and when done right, we can try them and put them in our maximum security prisons, and it works just fine. And in this sense, the plan we’re putting forward today isn’t just about closing the facility at Guantanamo. It’s not just about dealing with the current group of detainees, which is a complex piece of business because of the manner in which they were originally apprehended and what happened. This is about closing a chapter in our history. It reflects the lessons that we’ve learned since 9/11--lessons that need to guide our nation going forward.

...[T]he plan we’re submitting today is not only the right thing to do for our security, it will also save money. The Defense Department estimates that this plan, compared to keeping Guantanamo open, would lower costs by up to $85 million a year. Over 10 years, it would generate savings of more than $300 million. Over 20 years, the savings would be up to $1.7 billion. In other words, we can ensure our security, uphold our highest values around the world, and save American taxpayers a lot of money in the process.

...I don’t want to pass this problem on to the next President, whoever it is. And if, as a nation, we don’t deal with this now, when will we deal with it? Are we going to let this linger on for another 15 years, another 20 years, another 30 years? If we don’t do what’s required now, I think future generations are going to look back and ask why we failed to act when the right course, the right side of history, and of justice, and our best American traditions was clear.

Herr Trumpf likes the idea of torture; it appeals to his base and it's not likely he understands why the U.S. military is adamantly opposed to torture. I wonder if he would send, for example, the Ricketts family, who are supporting ads against him and who he threatened yesterday, to Guantánamo for torture if he could.



 

Obama Did Real Good On Cuba Yesterday But... There Are Some Serious Problems Elsewhere He's Involved With

You may not be aware that there's a lot of evidence coming out that the whole mess in Ukraine was, is essence, a CIA coup. A few days ago Eric Zuesse talked about it in the context of how American media avoids reporting on stories the military-industrial complex don't want to see out in the open. "How many Americans," he began, "know that the current regime in Ukraine was installed in a very bloody February 2014 coup d'etat, that was planned in the U.S. White House, and overseen by an Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, and run by the CIA, and carried out for the White House by one of Ukraine's two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, whose founder and leader still controls Ukraine though not officially, even these many months after his coup, and which nazi party has been up to their elbows since then in a genocidal policy to exterminate the people in the region of Ukraine that had voted approximately 90% for the man whom Obama and those nazis overthrew in February?

The implications to any semblance of any open/informed democracy, if Zuesse is even partially correct, are absolutely chilling. And the secrecy around U.S. policy in Ukraine is hardly unique. The other day we looked at the secrecy around the TPP negotiations. And obviously, the blatantly unconstitutional spying on Americans by the NSA and the CIA running a rogue torture regime for Dick Cheney. Mike Lofgren has long been our favorite Republican ex-staffer/operative. Tuesday he wrote about the implications of the torture report for Truthout. It's pretty heavy... scary even.

"Hysteria" does not arise from groundless causes, but from a guilty and conflicted id seeking to displace blame from itself onto others. The reaction to the senate study is as significant as the facts that the study uncovered in providing a window on the psychology and methods of those who run the Deep State-- the hybrid association of key elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States with limited reference only to the consent of the governed as it is normally expressed through the formal political process. This essay will discuss some of the implications of that reaction.

President Obama is an operative of the Deep State, but it is unclear whether he is its master or its prisoner. The president's role in this affair has been extremely puzzling. On March 11, 2014, when the torture issue blew up in the senate because of Intelligence Committee chair Diane Feinstein's allegations of CIA spying on her committee's staff members, she said that the White House had been supportive of her committee's probe of CIA activities. That may have been true, but that is still only what she said she believed. It is hardly beyond the realm of plausibility that the president or one of his aides told her that the White House was supportive of her committee's investigation while at the same time tolerating, or even encouraging, CIA obstruction. But suppose the president did support the committee's probe? That would imply that the White House does not really control the CIA. In either case, whether from obstruction or lack of control, the implications of the CIA's spying on Congress merited Senator Feinstein's description of it as a constitutional crisis.

Obama showed a similar split personality nine months later when the report was finally released. The president, and his White House press secretary, insisted that he was in favor of the public seeing the study (or at least the redacted summary of it). Yet on the Friday before its release, John Kerry, the most senior cabinet official in the government, called Senator Feinstein and urged her not to disclose it.

Shorter Kerry: "Lots of things going on in the world; not a good time for disclosure." But when is there ever not a lot of things going on in the world? Kerry seems to have travelled a great distance since he was the young Winter Soldier who proclaimed that you can't ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake. Did Obama authorize Kerry to make that call? If not, did he care that Kerry was contravening stated White House policy? Or does Obama have any say in the matter?

...General Hayden waxed positively lyrical about the blessings of torture, as he has been doing virtually nonstop since he stepped down as CIA director in 2009.

It was all hogwash and misdirection. The rebutters produced no concrete evidence that torture brought worthwhile results. Blaming the revelation of the crime, rather than its commission, on anything bad that might happen in the future is to stand ordinary ethics, not to mention common sense, on its head.

It requires only a moment's thought to realize that mistreated detainees who were subsequently released knew exactly what was happening to them, and they would tell their family, friends and anyone else in their home countries, including local media, what went on in those prisons. The only people who would not know, absent official disclosure, would be the American people. That, however, is how the Deep State operates: It forces through its agenda by appealing to the elemental fear of terrorism so that it short-circuits the logic of the listener.

The news media are complicit. The rebutters' gaps in logic and evidence have almost never been challenged by the bulldogs of our gloriously free and adversarial press. During the two or three days prior to the senate report's release, the media were awash with unbalanced stories trumpeting the (hypothetical) damage disclosure would cause, all based on interviews with former government officials with an obvious interest in keeping the report under wraps.

This is in part because the media maintain an incestuous relationship with their current and former government sources. One of the most egregious examples was CBS News; one of its national security consultants is Michael J. Morell, a former acting CIA director. The network actually permitted Morell to inveigh against the report's release under color of being a news consultant, despite the fact that he was one of the former CIA big-shots who had prior access to the document and had worked on a rebuttal to it! The mortal remains of Edward R. Murrow are presumably spinning like a rotisserie.

"We're the real victims here." When they are caught in the act, it is a frequent psychological ploy among bullies and con men to accuse other of the crime and to play the victim. The senate study has been accompanied by a torrent of such behavior on the part of the Deep State's current and former operatives. Several former CIA directors and other former intelligence players have even launched, with suspiciously miraculous speed, a website devoted to attacking the senate report and portraying themselves as victims.

The themes were predictable: senate Democrats were just picking on dedicated public servants doing their patriotic duty to keep Americans safe. The program they administered was lawful. CIA officers now have to worry about shifting political winds. We got bin Laden, didn't we? Those sloppy senate staffers didn't even interview us. And so on. Let us examine those assertions.

False appeals to patriotism have become so common after 9/11 that they are almost an involuntary reflex. But, as Samuel Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. In reality, however much of the rebuttal brigade see themselves as patriots, they were actually senior operatives of the Deep State, deeply imbued with an ideology that is neither specifically Republican nor Democrat, and certainly not the beliefs necessary for the maintenance of a constitutional republic under law and the informed consent of the governed.

The ideology of the Deep State is about maintaining and enhancing power-- and cashing in afterwards. It is worth noting that almost all senior national security operatives never retire after leaving government; they cash in with consultancies and board memberships with security-related corporations. It's not that no one ever truly retires, but like snakes in Ireland, they are a vanishingly rare phenomenon. It is profoundly in the material interest of these operatives to defend the Deep State so as to keep the cash flowing.

When they complain about the CIA being subject to shifting political winds, they are expressing distaste for the very processes of elective politics that constitute the democracy they once swore to defend. Their demand for secrecy is really a penchant for self-dealing without public scrutiny. It is exactly what James Madison warned about: "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."