Tag: the war of terror

The CIA’s Unpunished Torturers

When I joined the C.I.A. in January 1990, I did it to serve my country and to see the world.  I believed at the time that we were the “good guys.”  I believed that the United States was a force for good around the world.  I wanted to put my degrees—in Middle Eastern studies/Islamic theology and legislative affairs/policy analysis—to good use.  

Seven years after joining the C.I.A., I made a move to counterterrorism operations to stave off boredom.  I still believed we were the good guys, and I wanted to help keep Americans safe.  My whole world, like the worlds of all Americans, changed dramatically and permanently on Sept.11, 2001.  Within months of the attacks, I found myself heading to Pakistan as the chief of C.I.A. counterterrorism operations in Pakistan.  

Almost immediately, my team began capturing Al-Qaeda fighters at safehouses all around Pakistan.  In late March 2002, we hit the jackpot with the capture of Abu Zubaydah and dozens of other fighters, including two who commanded Al-Qaeda’s training camps in southern Afghanistan.  And by the end of the month, my Pakistani colleagues told me that the local jail, where we were temporarily holding the men we had captured, was full.  They had to be moved somewhere.  I called the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center and said that the Pakistanis wanted our prisoners out of their jail.  Where should I send them?

The response was quick.  Put them on a plane and send them to Guantanamo.  “Guantanamo, Cuba?” I asked.  “Why in the world would we send them to Cuba?”  My interlocutor explained what, at the time, sounded like it had been well thought out.  “We’re going to hold them at the U.S. base in Guantanamo for two or three weeks until we can identify which federal district court they’ll be tried in.  It’ll be Boston, New York, Washington, or the Eastern District of Virginia.”  

That made perfect sense to me.  The U.S. is a nation of laws.  And the country was going to show the world what the rule of law looked like.  These men, who had murdered 3,000 people on that awful day, would go on trial for their crimes.  I called my contact in the U.S.  Air Force, made the arrangements for the flights and loaded my handcuffed and shackled prisoners for the trip.  I never saw any of them again.

The problem is that U.S. leaders, whether they were at the White House, the Justice Department or the C.I.A., never really intended any of these men to face trial in a court of law, being judged by a jury of their peers.  The fix was in from the beginning.  

Keep reading

How 9/11 Bred a ‘War on Terror’ from Hell

The day after the U.S. government began routinely bombing faraway places, the lead editorial in The New York Times expressed some gratification.

Nearly four weeks had passed since 9/11, the newspaper noted, and America had finally stepped up its “counterattack against terrorism” by launching airstrikes on al-Qaeda training camps and Taliban military targets in Afghanistan. “It was a moment we have expected ever since September 11,” the editorial said. “The American people, despite their grief and anger, have been patient as they waited for action. Now that it has begun, they will support whatever efforts it takes to carry out this mission properly.”

As the United States continued to drop bombs in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s daily briefings catapulted him into a stratosphere of national adulation. As The Washington Post’s media reporter put it: “Everyone is genuflecting before the Pentagon powerhouse… America’s new rock star.” That winter, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press, Tim Russert, told Rumsfeld: “Sixty-nine years old and you’re America’s stud.”

The televised briefings that brought such adoration included claims of deep-seated decency in what was by then already known as the Global War on Terror. “The targeting capabilities, and the care that goes into targeting, to see that the precise targets are struck, and that other targets are not struck, is as impressive as anything anyone could see,” Rumsfeld asserted. And he added, “The weapons that are being used today have a degree of precision that no one ever dreamt of.”

Whatever their degree of precision, American weapons were, in fact, killing a lot of Afghan civilians. The Project on Defense Alternatives concluded that American air strikes had killed more than 1,000 civilians during the last three months of 2001. By mid-spring 2002, The Guardian reported, “as many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the U.S. intervention.”

Eight weeks after the intensive bombing had begun, however, Rumsfelddismissed any concerns about casualties: “We did not start this war. So understand, responsibility for every single casualty in this war, whether they’re innocent Afghans or innocent Americans, rests at the feet of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” In the aftermath of 9/11, the process was fueling a kind of perpetual emotion machine without an off switch.

Keep reading

Was 9/11 The Beginning Of The End Of The American Empire?

Was 9/11 the beginning of the end for America? In the 22 years since the attacks, I’ve begun to worry that the answer to that question is “yes.”

It spawned the worst and most destructive foreign policy in the country’s history. The government response to 9/11 birthed the constitutional abomination that is the modern warrantless surveillance state. The Patriot Act enabled the government to weaponize its vast resources against its own people.

Bush’s failed foreign policy led directly to Obama’s presidency, and indirectly to Biden’s, both of which are responsible for diminishing the U.S. at home and abroad, militarily and economically. After two failed forever wars that wouldn’t have happened without 9/11, our government is now desperately trying to foment a potentially nuclear forever war against Russia.

Meanwhile, all the massive surveillance powers claimed by the U.S. after 9/11 are being ruthlessly deployed against American political enemies of the regime via the most insidious censorship-industrial complex the world has ever seen.

And then there’s the crippling legacy of debt enabled by America’s response to 9/11. Not content to spend trillions on poorly thought out invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, our leaders spent as thoughtlessly at home, creating insane amounts of new entitlements, while doing nothing to put the country on a sound financial footing.

And where are we today? The ruling political party is criminalizing its opposition and attempting to throw its top political opponent and his supporters in prison, all under the guise of “democracy.”

While the national unity in the days after the towers fell was unfortunately fleeting, the changes to the country, its laws, and its leaders were not. Perhaps there’s no better example of this than watching the man who scoffed during a presidential debate at the notion of America engaging in global “nation-building” suddenly declare that it was America’s mission to spread democracy to the ends of the earth with the “ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

It is clear that 9/11 spawned the most destructive foreign policy in modern American history. Instead of simply eliminating the Taliban and the terrorist havens in Afghanistan — an objective that had largely been achieved by the end of 2001 — the U.S. government insisted on grafting Western democracy onto the people of Afghanistan. Without 9/11, there is no 20-year forever war in Afghanistan that ends with China in control of an American airbase and the Taliban in control of tens of billions of dollars of American military equipment and weapons.

Keep reading

How 9/11 Bred a ‘War on Terror’ From Hell

On September 11th, 22 years later, what are we to make of it all? Who even remembers that, as the Pentagon burned, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld picked up a scrap of hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 from the smoking ruins of that building. Soon after, he would tell his aides (as one of them scribbled down): “Near term target needs – go massive – sweep it all up, things related and not.” That “and not” meant, among other matters, Saddam Hussein, the autocratic ruler of Iraq who had been a Rumsfeld target before 9/11 ever happened.

Of course, the invasion of Afghanistan came first, but that “or not” arrived in the spring of 2003 and the rest is the worst and saddest sort of history imaginable. In a sense, so much should have been so obvious so fast. After all, within days of those suicide attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney was already swearing that al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden would face the “full wrath” of American military might and Rumsfeld was making it clear that such wrath could involve “a large multi-headed effort that probably spans 60 countries.”

Keep reading

22 Years of Drone Warfare and No End in Sight

In a June 2012 piece headlined “Praying at the Church of St. Drone,” I wrote, “Be assured of one thing: whichever candidate you choose at the polls in November, you aren’t just electing a president of the United States; you are also electing an assassin-in-chief.” At that time, President Barack Obama was overseeing what came to be known as “terror Tuesday” weekly meetings in the White House Situation Room with more than 100 national security types, some by “secure video teleconference,” gathering to discuss global assassination targets in America’s never-ending war on terror.

Unlike once upon a time, however, the “assassins” to be dispatched were no longer human, but “unmanned aerial aircraft,” or drones. And they struck across significant parts of the planet, sometimes killing al-Qaeda figures, but all too often, civilians and even children. Drone operators were, in fact, allowed to kill based on nothing more than what was called “patterns of suspicious behavior” and their planes were “roughly thirty times more likely to result in a civilian fatality than an airstrike by a manned aircraft.”

As I wrote then:

“In the [New York] Times telling, the organization of robotic killing had become the administration’s idée fixe, a kind of cult of death within the Oval Office, with those involved in it being so many religious devotees. Of course, thought about another way, that ‘terror Tuesday’ scene might not be from a monastery or a church synod, but from a Mafia council directly out of a Mario Puzo novel, with the president as the Godfather, designating ‘hits’ in a rough-and-tumble world.

“How far we’ve come in just two presidencies!  Assassination as a way of life has been institutionalized in the Oval Office, thoroughly normalized, and is now being offered to the rest of us as a reasonable solution to American global problems and an issue on which to run a presidential campaign.”

Yes, foreign assassination attempts were hardly unknown in previous American history, but they were usually left to the CIA and there was nothing machine-like about them. In this century, it’s been different indeed, whether the targets were unknown figures considered suspicious (from an automated distance) or, as in the case of Donald Trump, whose administration upped such strikes, all too well known, as with the drone assassination of Major General Qassem Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, on his arrival at Baghdad International Airport on a visit to Iraq.

As Maha Hilal, author of Innocent Until Proven Muslim: Islamophobia, the War on Terror, and the Muslim Experience Since 9/11, reports today, President Biden has, after a fashion, reined in the Trumpian version of drone assassination, but he, like the three presidents before him, still remains America’s assassin-in-chief.  With that in mind, consider what such a world looks like to those potentially on the other side of a drone’s missiles.

Keep reading

ISIS are back…and they’re faker than ever.

In just the last few days ISIS – Islamic State or ISIL or Da’esh or whatever – have hit the headlines in publications from all over the world. A strong resurgence for a narrative that’s been more than quiet for the last few years.

To do a quick recap, when last we heard from our cartoonish black-flagged head-choppers they were telling their suicide bombers to “steer clear of coronavirus-stricken Europe”.

An announcement that, pre-“pandemic”, would have been among the silliest headlines I’ve ever read…but in a post-Covid world it probably barely scrapes the top twenty.

Either way, that marked a hiatus for ISIS, an exit from the world stage as the “war on terror” made way for the “war on Covid”. In fact, a “reduction in violent terror events” was even sold as a potential plus-side of lockdowns, according to a study done by Yale.

…but now here we are. Three years on, and ISIS is back with a bang, or rather several bangs. Like a balaclava-wearing bear, they’ve emerged from their hibernation feeling grumpy.

The mainstream started laying the ground work for it back in January/February, with the aforementioned Yale study and then US politicians suddenly warning that ISIS was a “simmering powder keg” and underlining that the War on Terror is not over.

Then the US started nailing “senior ISIS leaders”, offing two in two weeks in April and a third in July. Syria got in on the act too, dropping an ISIS leader of their own.

Through the summer, ISIS “affiliates” claimed responsibility for attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uganda. These were followed with more “the war on terror is not over” messaging.

But things have really started to heat up the last few days.

On August 11th CBS reported that ISIS were behind an ambush in Syria, killing 20 Syrian soldiers.

On August 12th the Washington Post reported that ADF, an “ISIS affiliate” in the Congo apparently, was “becoming deadlier”.

On August 13th it was reported ISIS was “deploying cryptocurrency to continue its reign of terror”.

Oh the humanity!

On August 14th the Iranian government officially blamed ISIS for an alleged terror attack on a shrine in Shiraz, and TimesNow reported that an ISIS “expert bomb maker” was planning an attack in India.

And just yesterday, The Mirror warned that ISIS and al-Qaeda were “back in Afghanistan”. Meanwhile Indonesian police raided a terror-suspects home and found an ISIS flag

The cherry on top is the UN releasing a report yesterday morning, warning that ISIS still posed “a serious threat”, with 5000-7000 fighters in Syria and Iraq. And in case anyone was curious, they also attempted an  explanation for  the lack of ISIS activity the last few years too. It wasn’t at all a result of the global elites having other (covid) fish to fry. No sir. It was a “deliberately adopted” strategy

to reduce attacks, in order to facilitate recruiting and reorganization.”

Keep reading

Say Goodbye to Permissionless Travel

Once upon a time, citizens of the United States could travel to almost every country in the European Union for 90 days without asking any government for permission beyond showing a passport at the initial point of entry. It was—and still is, for a few waning months—a marvelous if underacknowledged achievement for liberty.

Alas, the days of frictionless travel will soon be a memory. Starting at a so-far-unspecified date in early 2024, Americans and residents of 62 other countries that currently enjoy visa-free visitation to the Schengen Area of the E.U. will need to pay a fee and submit an online application (including biometric information, work experience, medical conditions, and initial itinerary), then pass a criminal/security background check, before enjoying that croissant in gay Paree. The grimly named European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) is projected to cost 7 euros per application and take up to 14 days to render a decision.

Before you start shaking your fist at freedom-hating Eurocrats, know that ETIAS is the belated continental answer to a system the U.S. has imposed on residents of friendly countries since 2009, called the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, or ESTA. Like ETIAS, ESTA is a response to 21st-century terrorist attacks and combines modest fees ($21) with less-than-instantaneous turnaround times (a promised 72 hours). Both either tweak or torpedo (depending on your point of view) the notion of reciprocal “visa waiver” travel between high-trust countries.

U.S. passports have long been given the red carpet treatment worldwide, due to the country’s economic heft and traditional leadership role in negotiating down international barriers to the movement of people (and goods). That latter ethic began to deteriorate after the Cold War, with the rise of bipartisan anti-illegal immigration politics in the early 1990s, and then in earnest after Saudi nationals pulverized the World Trade Center with highjacked planes on September 11, 2001.

Keep reading

Following Disastrous War On Terror, US Vets Try To Stop Students From Joining Up

March 20 marked the 20th anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. The war took hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, with some estimates of Iraqi casualties putting the number at over 1 million. More than 4,600 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq during and after the invasion, and thousands more have died by suicide.

[Related, How Team Bush Escaped Justice Over Iraq and IRAQ 20 YEARS: Joe Lauria — Covering the ‘Vial Display’]

Meanwhile, and not coincidentally, the U.S. military is facing its worst recruitment crisis since the end of the Vietnam War. The Defense Department’s budget proposal for 2024 outlines a plan for the military to slightly cut back on its ranks, but to reach its projected numbers, it will still need to embark on a heavy recruitment push.

Across the country, anti-war veterans and their allies are working together in an effort to stop the U.S. military from reaching its goal.

We Are Not Your Soldiers is a project of New York City-based nonprofit World Can’t Wait. The organization sends military veterans into schools to share honest stories of the harm they have caused and suffered. In doing so, they hope to prevent young people from signing up.

“I wish I had somebody who told me when I was young,” says Miles Megaciph, who was stationed in Cuba and Okinawa with the U.S. Marine Corps from 1992 to 1996. “The experiences I’ve lived, as painful as they are, and as much as I don’t like to relive them, are valuable to help future adults not live those experiences,” Megaciph told me.

“We wanted to get to the people who were going to be the next recruits,” says Debra Sweet, the executive director of World Can’t Wait. When We Are Not Your Soldiers launched in 2008, the experience was often intense for veterans.

“They were all fresh out of Afghanistan and Iraq,” Sweet remembers. “It was very raw, it was very hard. [It was] really hard for them to go talk to people in public about what had happened. And we learned a lot about PTSD, up close and personal, and how it was affecting people.”

Keep reading

British intelligence in the dock for CIA torture

Recent developments raise the prospect that British intelligence agents could finally face justice for their little-known role in the CIA’s global torture program.

Britain’s foreign and domestic intelligence apparatus is facing scrutiny by a tribunal tasked with intelligence oversight. On May 26, London’s infamously opaque Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) unanimously issued a landmark ruling which means the complaints of two Saudis brutally tortured at CIA black sites and jailed for years in Guantanamo Bay can finally be heard, at least behind closed doors.

The British government insisted that the Tribunal, which explicitly examines wrongdoing by London’s security and intelligence agencies, did not have jurisdiction over the cases of Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri. But the IPT disagreed.

Noting that “the underlying issues raised by this complaint are of the gravest possible kind,” the tribunal declared that “if the allegations are true, it is imperative that that should be established,” as “it would be in the public interest for these issues to be considered.”

The ruling means the Tribunal is likely to hear a complaint from Mustafa al-Hawsawi, who’s remained in US custody since American troops captured the man they claim is “a senior al-Qaida member” in 2003.

Al-Hawsawi bounced between CIA black sites for three years before being shipped to the US torture camp in illegally-occupied Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Along the way, he was subjected to brutal “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including rectal examinations conducted with “excessive force,” from which he was severely injured and reportedly suffers ongoing health problems to this day.

Lawyers for al-Hawsawi say they have proof that British intelligence agents illegally “aided, abetted, encouraged, facilitated, procured and/or conspired” with the US to torture and abuse their client.

Al-Hawsawi is one of just five remaining Guantanamo detainees to have been charged over alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

According to the declassified summary of the US Senate report into CIA torture, al-Hawsawi was one of several prisoners held and abused “despite doubts and questions surrounding their knowledge of terrorist threats and the location of senior al-Qaeda leadership.”

Keep reading

Portland’s Multnomah County to give fentanyl users tin foil, straws, pipes to smoke drug

The county covering most of Portland, Oregon will be distributing tin foil and straws to fentanyl users in the city. 

According to a local report, the Multnomah County Health Department will be distributing the drug paraphernalia along with glass pipes for smoking meth and crack as well. Along with those, “snorting kits” will also be made available. 

The Oregon Legislature passed a bill that decriminalizes the distribution of drug paraphernalia if the materials are for harm reduction purposes.

It has not been signed into law by the governor of Oregon yet, however, residents of Portland have reportedly become frustrated about the situation with regards to drug use. Many reports have shown an increase in fentanyl overdoses as well as a growing number of residents wanting to bring back criminal penalties for the open use of drugs. 

Spokesman Sarah Dean, of Multnomah County, confirmed with Willamette Week that the policy to distribute the “smoking supplies” is new. Dean said that the rise of fentanyl being smoked instead of injected has decreased the demand for “harm reduction” services related to overdoses. 

Dean said handing users smoking supplies discourages them from injecting the drug, which is also a vector for disease. She stated, “Several decades of research have also shown that providing supplies for safer drug use does not increase illegal drug use.”

The amount of fentanyl in the county, according to Dean herself, has risen substantially. A policy that was going to criminalize and limit the use of fentanyl itself was dropped after being introduced by Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland just recently. 

Keep reading