Tag Archives: CIA

International news

'Jihadi John' gets a name

Now we’re getting somewhere in the hunt for the guy seen in all those ISIL videos.

“Jihadi John” has been identified. The individual wearing all black reportedly is Mohammed Emwazi, a Kuwaiti-born Briton who is known to come from a prosperous family; he earned a degree in computer programming. The world has seen this guy, heard his voice and assumed he’s carried out the gruesome beheadings of captives, some of whom were Americans and Brits.

http://news.yahoo.com/bbc-names-jihadi-john-suspect-islamic-state-beheading-110602366.html

British intelligence officials, naturally, aren’t confirming or denying this goon’s name. It came from The Washington Post, which likely has sources within the UK’s intelligence network.

If the guy comes from a well-to-do family, there likely will be pictures revealing his face released before too long.

A part of me believes the Brits and U.S. intelligence officials are looking for this guy as these words are being written. Another part of me understands the difficulty in finding him and, um, dealing with him once he’s located. Yes, we found Osama bin Laden hiding in plain sight in Pakistan, but that search took nearly a decade after 9/11 to complete. Our spooks located bin Laden and the commander in chief ordered the hit that was carried out by SEALs and CIA commandos.

Will Emwazi meet the same fate as bin Laden?

I surely hope so.

 

International news

News flash: Pakistanis knew bin Laden was among 'em?

This must rank as perhaps the least-surprising item to come out of the Global War on Terror.

Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus likely knew Osama bin Laden was hiding in that country when he was killed in May 2011 by Navy SEALs and CIA spooks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pakistan-probably-knew-bin-laden-was-hiding-ex-spy-chief/ar-AA9fWFf

What’s more, they well could have know precisely where the world’s most wanted terrorist was hiding when the U.S. strike force landed in the middle of a moonless night in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The possible revelation comes from former Pakistani Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani, who once led ISI, Pakistan’s major intelligence agency.

The fact that bin Laden was holed up in a large compound so close to a military academy in the city just north of Islamabad has brought suspicion on Pakistan almost from the moment he was shot to death and carried out of Pakistan aboard a Special Forces helicopter.

Many skeptics in this country have wondered how bin Laden could have hidden in plain sight for as long as he did, how he was able to escape detection for a decade after the 9/11 attacks.

As MSN.com reported: “Asked whether it was possible for bin Laden to have lived in the town without the powerful ISI’s knowledge, Durrani said: ‘My assessment… was it is quite possible that they (the ISI) did not know, but it was more probable that they did.'”

ISI is known to be a crack intelligence outfit, with some seriously sophisticated sleuthing skills. Yet, bin Laden was going about his business inside that compound without anyone inside Pakistan ever knowing about it?

Yes, it stretches credulity — and it provides some more tough questions for American intelligence officials to ask of their so-called “allies” in this war on terror.

 

International news, military news

Massacre might have gained U.S. an ally

It is virtually impossible to find any glimmer of goodness in the massacre of school children by monstrous terrorists.

But the Taliban’s attack the other day in Peshawar, Pakistan on a military school that killed dozens of students might have produced a single — but critical — bit of positive news.

It might have delivered to the United States a critical ally in its war on terror. Welcome to the fight, Pakistan.

http://video.kacvtv.org/video/2365388149/

Sure, Pakistani leaders have said they’re on board with fighting terrorists. Their actions — or non-actions — though, tell a different story.

Terrorists have been given refuge in the remote regions of the country bordering Afghanistan. Military and law enforcement experts keep telling us about the difficulty of navigating through the region, that it’s impossible to track down and capture or kill the bad guys. However, as the PBS link attached here explains, the Peshawar attack has shocked and stunned Pakistanis at every level.

And how in he world does one explain that the late Osama bin Laden — the world’s most notorious terrorist — had been “hiding in plain sight” in the middle of a major Pakistani city? In May 2011, though, Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces pilots and CIA commandos took care of that by hunting down bin Laden and killing him in his compound.

The Pakistani response to that raid? They threw up their hands as if to say, “Who knew?”

The Taliban’s horrific act well might spur the Pakistanis now to do more than just say they’re in the game. They’ve lost many of their young people in a horrifying attack perpetrated by a despicable band of killers.

It’s time to actually join the fight.

 

International news

McCain knows — and hates — torture

In the name of all that is sane and sensible, if only the rest of America would listen to John McCain when he talks about torture.

The Arizona Republican knows what torture is and what it does. He speaks from intense and deeply moving personal experience.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/john-mccain-says-cia-tort_n_6295986.html

And that is why he needs to be heeded when he condemns the practice of torturing suspected al-Qaeda terrorists, as detailed in a Senate Intelligence Committee summary report.

McCain is the only member of the U.S. Senate who’s been tortured by the enemy with whom we were at war. He spent more than five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. So when this man speaks of torture, he knows of which he speaks.

At issue is whether the techniques employed on those suspected terrorists produced “actionable intelligence” in the war against international terrorism. McCain believes such interrogation techniques drive captives to say anything to avoid being tortured.

“I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence,” McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor. “I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.

“Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored,” McCain said.

The Republican has been fairly surly and gruff in his criticism of President Obama, who beat him in the 2008 race for the presidency. But the president vowed to erase these interrogation techniques from our country’s policy manual. To that end, McCain has endorsed his former foe’s initiative.

The torture tactics used on the terror suspects well could have been counterproductive as we’ve continued to search for and eliminate terrorist leaders.

What’s more, as McCain has noted, they run counter to the belief that “even captured enemies” must be protected from barbaric treatment.

International news, national news

Bush tossed under the bus?

This likely is a minority opinion, but I’ll suggest it anyway: It’s sounding to me as though former President Bush’s inner circle is trying to toss the commander in chief under the bus on this Senate report dealing with how the CIA treated suspected terrorists.

The Senate Intelligence Committee summary report issued by the Democratic members blames the CIA for misleading the president and the public over the “enhanced interrogation techniques” being employed to glean intelligence from terror suspects immediately after 9/11.

The implication is that President Bush was kept in the dark. It’s the CIA’s fault that this went on.

Then here comes former Vice President Cheney and former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden to say, “Oh, no. The president was made aware of what the CIA was doing.” Cheney talked to Fox News about it; Hayden spoke to MSNBC. They both said the president was kept in the loop during all of it.

Interesting, yes?

I haven’t read the entire summary. I have seen excerpts. Some of it is quite grotesque, detailing how interrogators injected suspects with pureed food through what was described as “rectal feeding.”

Did the president know that was occurring?

This debate will continue likely well past the foreseeable future. It’s the next top story du jour.

If the president was unaware of what the CIA was doing, then the former VP and the ex-CIA boss haven’t done him any favors by blabbing about what he knew and when he knew it.

Might there be some backside-covering going on here? I’m just asking.

 

legal news, national news, political news, Uncategorized

A presidential pardon may be in order

The beans are spilled. The cat’s out of the bag. The CIA just might have broken some laws when it detained suspected terrorists and subjected them to torture techniques immediately after the 9/11 attacks.

The spy agency says otherwise, that it broke no laws.

U.S. Senate Democrats on the Intelligence Committee insist that the torture techniques were real and allege that they broke U.S. law.

The New York Times editorial board refers to the findings in the just-released Senate summary of the “enhanced interrogation” as a sign of “depravity” that defies comprehension.

The thought has occurred to me. Perhaps it’s not an original thought, but I’ll toss it out there anyway.

Given that there’s really no serious need to prosecute anyone for alleged criminal activity, perhaps a presidential pardon would be in order.

Go ahead and snicker. This is a serious suggestion, even absent any formal criminal charges being filed against the principals involved — namely President Bush, then-CIA director George Tenet, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Hey, President Ford pardoned his immediate predecessor in the White House, Richard Nixon, for crimes he may have committed while covering up the Watergate burglary. That was the right call in 1974. A similar pardon just might be the right call now.

Let’s have the debate over whether the suspected terrorists were tortured illegally. Both sides will vent. Both will have their say.

There well might be an inclination in some circles to prosecute those in charge at the time. Others will be declare that there’s no need now to punish those who might have committed a crime.

That’s where President Obama can step in.

He’s got the power to issue summary pardons. This well could be the time to act.

 

International news

GOP fires back at torture report

To no one’s surprise, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans have their own version of whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” made America safer in the wake of 9/11.

They say the tactics saved lives and protected the country against further harm.

The GOP senators say the tactics were necessary to gather intelligence that led eventually to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-senators-defend-cia-alternate-report-113434.html

Intelligence panel Democrats are standing by their assertion — correctly, in my view — that American intelligence officials and military leaders could have obtained all of that information and protected Americans without subjecting terror suspects to torture.

So there it is: yet another political schism has erupted on Capitol Hill.

As Politico reports: “The GOP report decried the (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne) Feinstein study, arguing that it contained ‘faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact’ to create a series of false conclusions about the counterterrorism program’s effectiveness and the CIA’s interactions with Congress and the White House.”

So, the other side has responded with what it contends is accurate analysis and objective examination of the facts. Is that what they’re saying?

I’ve noted already that this discussion is going to turn into a liar’s contest over time. One side is going to accuse the other of deceit. It’ll go back and forth.

I’ll just stick to my assertion that “enhanced interrogation” can — and should — include tactics that do not include the physical torturing of enemy captives. I’d even allow for sleep deprivation that would include round-the-clock badgering of detainees as a way to make ’em squeal.

Still, the debate rages on.

International news, national news

You mean the CIA might have fibbed?

The Senate report is out: The CIA reportedly lied to President Bush about how it was using “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists.

And to no one’s surprise — certainly not mine — former CIA director Michael Hayden has fired back. He’s defending his agency’s handling of the interrogation techniques.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/cia-torture-report-113420.html?hp=c1_3

My tendency is to believe the Senate, that the CIA was less than truthful. After all, the CIA is a spy agency and its agents are, shall we say, trained to mislead.

The threshold question that will need to answered and then examined for its veracity is whether these techniques — which some call “torture” — produced actionable intelligence that helped the good guys fight the bad guys.

It’s becoming something of a liar’s contest. The CIA and the Bush administration say they did; others say the techniques didn’t provide any information that more normal techniques could have obtained.

The key element is whether torturing the al-Qaeda suspects helped our spooks find Osama bin Laden and whether that information led to the May 2011 SEAL team raid that killed the world’s most wanted terrorist.

The debate has been joined.

Meanwhile, U.S. embassies around the world have been put on heightened alert in case terrorists become so angry at the report that they strike at Americans abroad.

I am one American who does not want to see our forces torture captive combatants. We keep saying we’re above that kind of thing, that we don’t want to reduce our standards to the level of the terrorists we are trying to destroy.

I’m fine with that.

Our intelligence agencies are packed with well-trained professional interrogators who are fully capable of obtaining information through serious questioning and, yes, perhaps some threatening techniques. To inflict actual pain and suffering on those suspects, though, is no better than what they do to captives under their control.

Exceptional nations are able to employ exceptional tactics — even in wartime.

 

International news

U.S. must not rely on torture

An upcoming release of a CIA report on whether American officials tortured al-Qaeda suspects to gain “actionable intelligence” to use in the war on terror is bound to reignite a long-standing debate.

Are we better than that? Does the United States of America need to rely on barbaric procedures to gain the upper hand against the enemy?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/torture-report-dick-cheney-110306.html?ml=po#.VIbXKVJ0yt9

My own mind is made up on that matter.

I do not believe the United State should torture enemy captives.

We’ll hear from those who say, “Big deal. They do it to us. An eye for an eye. Give them a taste of what they deliver to our own captives.” I can hear it from some of my very own friends on the subject and they’ll respond that way when they read these words.

I’ll stand by my assertion that this country is supposed to stand for grander ideals than the enemy we are fighting. We proclaim it all the time, don’t we?

Whether the tactics employed right after the 9/11 attacks — as lined out in the report — produced the kind of information that enabled us to find and kill Osama bin Laden also will be open to debate. Some say it did. Other say it didn’t.

Then we’ll hear the debate over how to define “torture.” Does the term “enhanced interrogation techniques” actually become a euphemism for the “t” word?

It’ll be a complicated debate. For the sake of our country’s stated belief in a higher ideal, though, I do hope we can declare once again, with emphasis, that torture is wrong and will not be tolerated.

 

International news

Torture report to cause some grief

A controversial report is due out Tuesday. It’s going to raise some hackles here and likely over there — meaning the Middle East.

It’s going to detail how the U.S. government used “enhanced interrogation” techniques on terror suspects immediately after the 9/11 attacks. It’s also likely to report that military officials gained little, if any, actionable intelligence from the techniques that included sleep deprivation and waterboarding.

How will the Middle East react? Probably badly, some folks fear.

Well, let them gnash their teeth.

I’ll await the release of the report before commenting in too much detail on it.

However, I do want to refer to comments made by a U.S. senator who knows a thing or two about torture.

Republican John McCain was held captive in North Vietnam for more than five years during the Vietnam War. The enemy subjected him to unimaginable pain through torture.

McCain once said the United States shouldn’t torture captives. He knows of what he speaks. He also believes the U.S. employed torture techniques on al-Qaeda terror suspects.

He condemned the action.

The world awaits this CIA report.