RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou: Torture Happens in the US Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34512"><span class="small">Ken Klippenstein, Reader Supported News </span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 March 2015 16:18

Klippenstein writes: "John Kiriakou exposed the Bush-era torture program and was subsequently sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison."

CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, who exposed the Bush administration's torture program. (photo: kickstarter)
CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, who exposed the Bush administration's torture program. (photo: kickstarter)


CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou: Torture Happens in the US

By Ken Klippenstein, Reader Supported News

04 March 15

 

ohn Kiriakou exposed the Bush-era torture program and was subsequently sentenced to two and a half years in prison. Kiriakou spent 14 years at the CIA as an analyst and a case officer; he now wishes to dedicate the rest of his life to prison reform, as he told RSN.

Ken Klippenstein: Would you say torture takes place in American prisons?

John Kiriakou: Yes. Yes, I would say that. I’ll give you an example: I had a cellmate who I really liked as a person. Before he came to prison, he was living in a cardboard box under a bridge in Pittsburg. He purposely violated the terms of his parole just so he could be sent back to prison and spend the winter in prison where it was warmer and get some medical care.

He had some mental issues; he was taking medication for seizures. He’d been homeless for years. He was a nice guy – I liked him. He took his own personal health very, very seriously. The bureau of prisons has to provide you with medical care while you’re in prison, right? What they really do is, no matter what you have, they just give you Tylenol and wish you well and just hope you survive until your sentence is over and you leave and you’re not their responsibility anymore.

So this poor guy comes to prison and goes down to the medical unit. He says, “I have seizure disorder, I have depression, I have bipolar disorder ...”

I don’t know what they told him or what they gave him, but he came back very unsatisfied. So he filed a complaint. When you file a complaint against a staff member, it’s called a BP-8.5, and that’s an informal complaint. So at the 8.5 level, you make your complaint in writing and the person you’re complaining about gets to respond in writing, with the hope being the two of you can just settle it and the complaint goes away. If it’s not settled, you file a BP-9, which goes to the warden. If it’s still not settled, you file a BP-10, which goes to the regional HQ, and then a BP-11, which finally goes to bureau of prisons HQ. But the whole process can take as long as a year, where the 8.5 can take just a day.

So he files an 8.5 and he says, “I’m not happy with the care I got in medical, they’re not taking me seriously, and they’re not giving me the medication that I’m supposed to be taking.”

Well they ignored his 8.5 so he filed another 8.5. It got to the point where he was down in medical all the time, filing 8.5s. What they ended up doing was saying, all these 8.5s constitute harassment against staff. They cuffed him and they took him away and they put him in solitary.

Couple of weeks later, there’s an incident in solitary. None of us had ever seen this kind of a reaction before: a group of corrections officers dressed as a SWAT team went into the solitary unit – they went with tasers, nightsticks, helmets – it looked bad.

Another prisoner who had been in solitary that day told me a couple of weeks later that my cellmate was so angry at not being given medical care that he sort of lost it. What they were doing was, when you’re in solitary, the medical people have to come around every single day to make sure everybody’s okay. But when they would get to his cell, they would skip him, and they would skip him on purpose because he had complained about them.

After the first day, he’s a little PO’d. The second day they skip him and he’s starting to get angry. The third, the fourth day, he starts to go a little crazy, which he was predisposed to anyway. Finally what he did is he stood on his bunk, took off his slipper and used the slipper to hit the sprinkler that was in his cell; that caused the sprinkler system to activate and every cell in the solitary unit was flooded.

So they bring the SWAT team in, they taze him a couple times, they take him down, and then to get back at him for making trouble, they strip him naked and they put him outside. If you’re in solitary and you want to go out for recreation, you’re allowed to go outside into this cage – it’s a ten by twelve foot cage, and you can walk around in circles in this cage. They put him out there naked, and they left him out there 10 hours. I’m talking about zero degree weather and two feet of snow.

He was crying, he was begging them to let him back in, he promised them he wouldn’t complain anymore, just let him back in; and finally he passed out and collapsed. After he collapsed they picked him up and carried him back into his cell. To me, that’s torture. Because believe me, I’ve read the BOP’s [Bureau of Prisons] regulations, and that kind of behavior is not in the regulations. That kind of behavior is illegal.

KK: What other practices do American prisons engage in that you think qualify as cruel and unusual punishment under either the US Constitution or international law?

JK: While I believe that solitary can be a form of torture, one of the most important manifestations of "cruel and unusual” punishment is the unconstitutional overcrowding that we see in every prison in America. The Supreme Court actually ordered California to release prisoners because California prisons are 40% overcrowded. But the federal system is 39% overcrowded, and there has been no similar order for the federal system. Overcrowding leads to disease and violence and is not what the founding fathers intended.

KK: Do you think solitary confinement constitutes torture?

JK: I do think it constitutes torture. There are cases around the country, and there is one that's especially egregious, in Angola state penitentiary in Louisiana, where a man's been in solitary for something like 44 years.

KK: How would you say prison accountability compares with that of the CIA?

JK: I think it’s very similar, as a matter of fact, because we rely on the oversight committees in Congress to keep federal agencies and departments in line. In fact, most of the members of the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are really nothing more than cheerleaders for the CIA. We see the same thing with the judiciary committee in the House and the Senate. There’s no oversight of the Bureau of Prisons.

I’ll give you another example of the lack of oversight. When I was in prison, the Supreme Court ruled on a case – it was an overcrowding case related to the state of California. California is 40% overcrowded and the Supreme Court ordered them to begin releasing prisoners to deal with the overcrowding – 40%.

The federal prison system is 39% overcrowded. There are people sleeping on bunks in hallways, in game rooms, in TV rooms – anywhere they can stuff somebody. I was in a four-man cell that we had six people in. The unit above me had four-man cells that had eight people jammed into them.

As a result, you’re constantly passing around diseases and sicknesses. Also, it’s bad for violence: When you’re living on top of each other like that, you tend to get a short temper about things. It leads to fights and violence. Not just prisoner on prisoner, but potentially prisoner on staff.

Where’s Congress in that debate? Why isn’t there any oversight related to overcrowding? It’s inexcusable and nobody’s doing anything about it.

KK: How much transparency would you say there is [for prisons]?

JK: None. None. The only way transparency can be fostered is if members of the media file Freedom of Information Act requests and compel the Bureau of Prisons to release the information. That’s the only way the truth’s going to get out.

KK: It’s incredible how much they resist that. If you don’t have a lawyer, you’re not going to get anywhere.

JK: No. No, you won’t get anywhere.

I actually FOIA’d my own paperwork in the Bureau of Prisons and they sent me something like 235 pages and then they denied like another 150 pages. But what they released to me included – I don’t know, six or eight pages, I think that were accidentally released – saying that I shouldn’t be in a camp, I should be in a real prison because I have access to the press. There was discussion about how to silence me, how to make sure that I didn’t have contact with the press. All kinds of stuff that just flies in the face of their own regulations.

I did everything by the book; they were the ones who didn’t operate by the book.

KK: What did they do to prevent you from speaking to the press?

JK: First thing they did was they put a four-day delay on my incoming and outgoing emails. So email turned out to be worthless. I ended up not using it for anything except, after the Pittsburg Steelers games, a friend of mine would just send me the recaps, which I would get the following Thursday.

Another thing they did was they threatened to charge me with a rules violation — which would’ve resulted in me going to solitary – because I had been writing a blog called “Letters From Loretto,” and I had sent one of my letters directly to my publisher. They said that I was not allowed to have direct contact with the press. I said, “That is absolutely not true. I printed the regulations saying that I can have contact with the press.”

“Yeah? Prove it,” they said.

I said, “Fine.” I went back to my cell, I got the regulation and I went back to the mailroom and I said, “Here it is.”

“Well, maybe this is outdated,” they said.

I said, “It’s dated this month. It was just renewed as a regulation. You guys don’t even know your own regulations.”

So then I got called to the lieutenant’s office. (If you’re called to the lieutenant’s office, you’re probably going to go to solitary.) She said, “You can’t use special mail for media.”

I said, “The regulations specifically say that I’m supposed to use special mail for the media.” (Special mail is, you write “special mail” on the envelope on the front and back, they stamp it on the back, and they’re not allowed to open it. So I said, “Your regulations demand that I use special mail.”)

She said, “Well, if we find you sending blogs to your lawyer, you’re going to go to solitary.”

I said, “It’s my lawyer who sends the blogs to the CIA for clearance. Everything I write has to get cleared. And I can’t let you guys read it, because you’re not cleared – in the event that I have something inadvertently classified in it.”

And I said, “Listen, if you want to deal with this through my attorney, I’m perfectly happy to bring my big gun attorney in here, but otherwise I’m doing things by the book.”

So they backed off and they didn’t send me to solitary, but I never got my email back. What they did was they started opening all of my outgoing mail – in addition to my incoming mail – and reading it and copying it.

KK: Did it seem as though the things that they did to prevent you from getting word out to the media was coordinated at a higher level? Or was this just incompetence?

JK: I always assumed it was at a higher level. I always assumed it was the FBI that was telling them how to do it. Honestly, I don’t mean to sound mean-spirited, but I didn’t think they had enough brains to be able to do this on their own. I thought it was coming from somewhere higher up.

KK: What has been the effect of privatizing prisons?

JK: This is one of the worst developments in the history of the American penal system, in my opinion. The reason being that the whole point of a private prison is to make money. It’s not to care for the prisoners, it’s not to provide edible food, it’s not to provide adequate medical care. It’s just to make money.

I had several friends at Loretta who had spent time at private prisons. They told horror stories about one toilet for 120 people, and it didn’t have a toilet seat on it. Or, one TV for 200 people, so there were fistfights every hour on the hour when somebody wanted to change the channel. Or just the complete unavailability of medicines, just because the prison didn’t want to pay for them — it cut into the bottom line.

I think this is a very dangerous development, and I’m not sure that it happens anywhere else in the world. I don’t think there is any other country that has private prisons.

KK: The prison population in the US is completely insane — I think it’s comparable to Russia during the gulags.

JK: Yeah, during the gulags. We have 5% of the world population and 25% of the world’s prison population. In addition to that, one out of every four black men in America is either in prison, on parole, or on probation. How do we justify that? To me, that’s an inherently racist system.

KK: Could you talk a little bit more about the intersection between race and the prison system we have?

JK: When you enter prison, you are punched in the face with every racial stereotype you’ve ever heard of. Everything, absolutely everything, is based on race. Where you sit for meals, who you hang out with, what TV shows you watch; indeed, what side of the TV room you sit on. Everything is based on race. I found that to be very, very dangerous.

I made it a point to not respect those racial divisions. I had friends who were black, I had friends who were hispanic. But I was lucky, I was in a fortunate position: I sort of came in with a reputation as a human rights crusader. And then the week that I arrived in prison, Louis Farrakhan made a statement in support of me in the Nation of Islam’s newspaper. A bunch of Nation of Islam guys came up to me – I had been in prison for like, five days – they came up to me and said, “Hey, Reverend Farrakhan says you’re a good guy, so you’re good with us.”

I never had any racial problems after that. I mean, I never had any before that, but I knew that I was going to be safe and in good shape because they respected me and I respected them.

Same with hispanics. In my initial cell, I had four hispanic roommates – two Mexicans and two Dominicans – and when some of the gang leaders asked about me, they all said, “No, he’s a good guy, he’s a human rights guy, leave him alone.” And so, I was very fortunate; I never had any problems with anybody.

KK: So they respected that, the fact that you were a human rights guy?

JK: They did.

KK: Would you say that the prisoners took that more seriously than the government did?

JK: Oh my god, did they take that more seriously than the government did!

When I first arrived, my first meal in the cafeteria, as I was walking past one of the corrections officers, he whispered, “Scum.” I kind of turned and looked at him and I thought, well that was odd – and I kept walking.

The next day I was out in the yard, and one of the CO’s called me a traitor. I stood there just looking at the guy as he walked past me, and a black guy came up to me and he says, “Don’t worry about those guys. We know who you are. Don’t worry about it.”

And then when I left – and this is crazy, this never happens – the Italians had a farewell dinner for me, the Bloods had a farewell dinner for me, and the Nortenos had a farewell dinner for me.

KK: This was out of respect for your blowing the whistle [on torture]?

JK: It was. The leader of the Bloods gave me a hug the morning that I left and he said to me, “You have to be our voice on the outside. Nobody knows what it’s like in here, and you have to tell them. They’ll listen to you.” And I told him, “Man, I promise, I’m going to devote the rest of my adult life to prison reform.”

People have to know what prisons are like. They have to know what’s going on inside – in their name. Our government does this in the name of the American people. And Americans don’t have any idea what prison life is like.

KK: What do you make of the fact that ISIS is dressing their prisoners in orange? You have the under secretary of Defense saying that they’re motivated by Guantánamo.

JK: I think they are motivated by Guantánamo. Our actions, be they incarcerating people in Guantánamo without the benefit of trial, be they drone strikes – I can’t tell you how many wedding parties we took out with drones during the hunt for Osama bin Laden because we saw a tall man wearing a white robe. Like nobody else in the world is tall and wears a white robe except Osama bin Laden. We killed dozens of people at wedding celebrations that way. Things like that, like Guantánamo and drone attacks, do more to help recruitment for groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS than anything they could do.

People make a big deal about ISIS’ social media presence. Yeah, that’s great, they’re very sophisticated. But what really helps them recruit is actions by us: where we show disrespect for human rights, disrespect for civil liberties, and a propensity to torture people.

KK: On the one hand, you have drones that are exacerbating terror; and would you agree the prison system exacerbates crime?

JK: Oh, absolutely. Yes. There’s no training, there’s no therapy, there’s no education. There’s no way that you can better yourself in prison. Unless you’re looking for your GED – they will give you your GED. But if you want to learn welding, or plumbing or auto repair, or anything, anything at all – you want to take a college course – you’re out of luck. There’s just no money for that kind of thing. It’s because we’re incarcerating too many people and we’re spending it on the cost of incarceration.

No one gets any help, no one gets any training, no one gets any psychological therapy. So when they finish their sentences, they just walk out the door, and here you have a person who’s been in prison for years, has no marketable skills, probably has no education, has no family support structure, and you just turn him out on the street, and tell him good luck? Well of course he’s going to re-offend, because prison is the only thing he knows. At least in prison he’s being fed three times a day, he gets to watch TV when he wants to, he can play cards with his friends or watch movies and hang out, or go to the weight pile and work out, or go on the yard and jog. Why would he give that up to live on the street? It doesn’t make any sense.

KK: In a few interviews you speculated that CIA torture isn’t so much to extract actionable intelligence as it is that people were angry after 9/11, and there was a kind of vengeance, or almost bloodlust. Would you say that might also be behind our penal system?

JK: Yes. Yeah. You get that in spades from the guards. You’ve heard of the famous Stanford [prison study]? That experiment has taught us so much about human behavior. He really was onto something. You see it every single day in prison.

KK: Given how much of a failure the incarceration system is – indeed, it’s had the opposite effect from preventing future crime – how similar would you say the motives are to those of drone strikes? Because neither work.

JK: Neither work. And we’ve proven that neither work. But both give you a feeling of power and control. And I think that’s what it’s really about – control. Or at least the illusion of control. You see that every single day in prison.

Look what drone strikes have done: while we probably do take out a terrorist leader every once in a while, the collateral damage, in my view, is unacceptable. So many innocent people have been killed, including American citizens. I just don’t see how it’s legal.

KK: As an Afghanistan and Iraq expert, what do you think of the US strategy with respect to ISIS? I don’t understand it – the airstrikes aren’t working. It’s just like prison, it’s just like the drone strikes: the airstrikes are increasing ISIS’ recruitment.

Is it the same thing you said before, is it about power and control and showing them who’s boss?

JK: Yeah, I think that’s it. I think that we’ve got policymakers who insist on being the big dogs on the block. There are so many about whom the press has said, “They haven’t seen a war they didn’t love.” I find that to be true.

I’ve dealt personally, one-on-one, with al-Qaeda fighters. In the time that I was chief of counterterrorism operations in Pakistan, I oversaw the capture of 52 al-Qaeda fighters. One thing that really shocked me when dealing with these people [was], with the exception of about four of them, most were just like 19- or 20-year-old kids. They were illiterate. They had no job skills. They were from these isolated villages in their home countries. Many, for whatever reason, didn’t get along with their fathers. Everyone told a similar story: They didn’t know what to do. No girl would marry them. So the local Imam said, “Here’s a plane ticket, fly to Dubai and you’ll be met by an Imam there.”

So they fly to Dubai, an Imam meets them, gives them a ticket to Pakistan and $500 and says, “Well, you don’t have anything else to do, so you should go make jihad against the Americans.”

So they follow this familiar [path] into Afghanistan, they were trained in the camps there, they made jihad against the Americans, September 11 happened and they ran for their lives, and we caught them (in Pakistan).

These guys did not even know the proper prayers at prayer time. They had never read the Quran because they couldn’t read. They were in Afghanistan and Pakistan just because they had nothing better to do, and it was a way to make a little money, and in the event that they were killed, their parents would be given $500. So these were not hardened terrorists, these were just confused young men.

I always maintained that if they had had educations, or access to [one], and if their country were able to implement development projects with international funds, we wouldn’t have much of this terrorist problem.

Now ISIS is a little different. ISIS was created solely out of a hatred for the United States. ISIS was created in American military prisons in Iraq – we know that for a fact.

KK: Back to prisons.

JK: Back to prisons again. Exactly. Exactly. In fact, the leader of ISIS famously told a military guard, as he was being released from prison outside of Baghdad, “See ya in New York!” And he meant it.

So with ISIS, I think we should be doing this in an entirely different way. First of all, I don’t think this is our fight. I don’t think we should be bombing anybody, and I absolutely think we have no business putting boots on the ground.

We should be encouraging and supporting the militaries of our friends in the region – the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Turks – and we should be encouraging them to send their troops. After all, it’s their countries that are under threat. Why is this our problem? Why is this our undertaking, that we have to send Americans to die in Iraq and Syria? For what?

First of all, it’s a bankrupt ideology – ISIS. It’s an untenable ideology: You can’t advocate the large-scale murder of your own people. It’s not tenable. We’ve seen that through history – it collapses on itself. I think that this is a problem for the Arabs to sort out, with our help, and maybe the help of the Turks, but not our problem.

KK: Why do you think the U.S. government has not been able to compel the Iraqi government to be more inclusive for Sunnis? I think that’s a big part of the reason people are even joining [ISIS] to begin with.

JK: Our original problem with Iraq started with the Bush administration – when Ambassador Bremer was the occupation governor of Iraq, for lack of a better term, one of the very first things he did was he banned anybody who had been a member of the ruling Ba’ath party from participating in government or the military. The truth of the matter is, under Saddam Hussein, the only way to get ahead, the only way to maintain a job by which you could feed your family, was to be a member of the Ba’ath party. That was it.

It was almost like the Nazi party. After World War II, we talked about banning all Nazis. We decided not to. We decided to ban people who were in senior positions in the Nazi party, and Germany was rebuilt. In Iraq, we banned anybody who had ever been a member of the Ba’ath party. So we completely decimated the military.

That threw off the balance of power with Iran, and we made Iran the regional hegemon. The Iranians and the Iraqis under Saddam sort of kept each other in balance, because there was always a threat of an attack. That actually resulted in peace in the region. It was an uneasy peace, but it was peace.

Now we’ve essentially banned most Sunnis from working in the military, and we’ve banned most Sunnis from working in government. So how are they going to feed their families? They can’t. What’s the alternative? To take up arms. To take up arms against the occupying power, which was us. And that’s how ISIS was created.

KK: It seems a lot cheaper and easier than trying to mobilize an international force to just give the Sunnis some kind of political settlement. I mean, we’re sending all this aid to the Iraqi government – can’t we just say, we’re going to suspend this aid pending your inclusion of the Sunnis?

JK: No, that actually would be very effective. But I don’t think the administration has the guts to do it. I think that they would be afraid that it would further upset the balance of power. One thing that several scholars have raised ... was to divide Iraq into several different countries: a Shi’ite majority country, a Sunni majority country, and an independent Kurdistan in the north.

The Kurds are the best friends we have going in Iraq. They’re stable, they’re sophisticated, they’re brave, and they control most of the country’s oil. The Kurds would be perfectly happy to run their own country, and they would be loyal friends of the United States.

The Sunnis don’t necessarily like this idea because the area that’s talked about that would become a Sunni homeland doesn’t have any oil. It does have an outlet to the Arabian gulf. But it doesn’t have any oil.

Conservatives in the United States are worried that a Shi’ite majority country would just ally itself with Iran and pose a threat to Kuwait.

KK: When you say the Obama administration lacks the guts to compel the government that we’re arming and propping up in Iraq, could you talk about what you mean? It would seem to take more guts to bomb the place!

JK: You would think! Diplomacy is a very hard thing. I remember senior diplomats at the State Department with whom I used to work commenting a decade ago that they had never seen an administration that worked harder to not use diplomacy to tackle international problems.

Condoleezza Rice was almost like a paper secretary of state. We were much more engaged in bombing countries that we didn’t like than we were in trying to talk to them across a negotiating table.

KK: How has the Obama administration compared with that?

JK: They’ve been better, and we see that especially with Cuba, most recently. But at the same time, the Obama administration has been unwilling to use American power to compel diplomatic settlements. You make a very good point that we should’ve compelled the Maliki government a decade ago to disarm the militias and make peace with the Sunnis. We never did. I don’t know why we didn’t, but we never did. It seems now, with the advent of ISIS, that that time has passed.

KK: Given the timeline you laid out, would you say that it was the US invasion of Iraq that, in a sense, created ISIS?

JK: I think there was a cause and effect, and it was just very bad planning. We turned our back on the Sunnis, and that was really the start of it.

I know that ISIS recruited very heavily in its early days from al-Qaeda in Iraq, and once we killed Zarkawi, a lot of the people who had been in al-Qaeda in Iraq needed a place to go because the group began breaking up. They all happened to be in American military prisons at the same time, and ISIS was formed.

KK: How similar would you say are the reasons that people join terror groups and the reasons that people go to jail – i.e., lack of opportunity?

JK: That’s a very insightful question, and you’re absolutely right. It’s a societal issue, and it’s a societal ill. We attack drugs with the so-called “war on drugs” by going after producers and then locking up consumers. That doesn’t address any of the larger societal problems, particularly the problem of education and getting people in inner cities and poor areas – even rural poor areas – educations. It’s a very dangerous road to go down if you have no education and no job skills and access to cheap drugs. Nothing good comes out of it. And you end up not just going to prison, but potentially starting this multi-generational curse of prison.

There were a couple guys who I served with – in fact, all on drug charges – who were incarcerated with their dads. Their dads were in also on drug charges.

----------

[This transcript was lightly edited for readability.]



Ken Klippenstein is a staff journalist at Reader Supported News. He can be reached on Twitter @kenklippenstein or via email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Violating Privacy Isn't Only Bad for China, Mr. President Print
Wednesday, 04 March 2015 16:07

Timm writes: "Want to know why forcing tech companies to build backdoors into encryption is a terrible idea? Look no further than President Obama's stark criticism of China's plan to do exactly that on Tuesday."

Trevor Timm (photo: Twitter)
Trevor Timm (photo: Twitter)


Violating Privacy Isn't Only Bad for China, Mr. President

By Trevor Timm, The Guardian UK

04 March 15

 

ant to know why forcing tech companies to build backdoors into encryption is a terrible idea? Look no further than President Obama’s stark criticism of China’s plan to do exactly that on Tuesday. If only he would tell the FBI and NSA the same thing.

In a stunningly short-sighted move, the FBI - and more recently the NSA - have been pushing for a new US law that would force tech companies like Apple and Google to hand over the encryption keys or build backdoors into their products and tools so the government would always have access to our communications. It was only a matter of time before other governments jumped on the bandwagon, and China wasted no time in demanding the same from tech companies a few weeks ago.

As President Obama himself described to Reuters, China has proposed an expansive new “anti-terrorism” bill that “would essentially force all foreign companies, including US companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they can snoop and keep track of all the users of those services.”

Obama continued: “Those kinds of restrictive practices I think would ironically hurt the Chinese economy over the long term because I don’t think there is any US or European firm, any international firm, that could credibly get away with that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a government.”

Bravo! Of course these are the exact arguments for why it would be a disaster for US government to force tech companies to do the same. (Somehow Obama left that part out.)

As Yahoo’s top security executive Alex Stamos told NSA director Mike Rogers in a public confrontation last week, building backdoors into encryption is like “drilling a hole into a windshield.” Even if it’s technically possible to produce the flaw - and we, for some reason, trust the US government never to abuse it - other countries will inevitably demand access for themselves. Companies will no longer be in a position to say no, and even if they did, intelligence services would find the backdoor unilaterally - or just steal the keys outright.

For an example on how this works, look no further than last week’s Snowden revelation that the UK’s intelligence service and the NSA stole the encryption keys for millions of Sim cards used by many of the world’s most popular cell phone providers. It’s happened many times before too. Ss security expert Bruce Schneier has documented with numerous examples, “Back-door access built for the good guys is routinely used by the bad guys.”

Stamos repeatedly (and commendably) pushed the NSA director for an answer on what happens when China or Russia also demand backdoors from tech companies, but Rogers didn’t have an answer prepared at all. He just kept repeating “I think we can work through this”. As Stamos insinuated, maybe Rogers should ask his own staff why we actually can’t work through this, because virtually every technologist agrees backdoors just cannot be secure in practice.

(If you want to further understand the details behind the encryption vs. backdoor debate and how what the NSA director is asking for is quite literally impossible, read this excellent piece by surveillance expert Julian Sanchez.)

It’s downright bizarre that the US government has been warning of the grave cybersecurity risks the country faces while, at the very same time, arguing that we should pass a law that would weaken cybersecurity and put every single citizen at more risk of having their private information stolen by criminals, foreign governments, and our own.

Forcing backdoors will also be disastrous for the US economy as it would be for China’s. US tech companies - which already have suffered billions of dollars of losses overseas because of consumer distrust over their relationships with the NSA - would lose all credibility with users around the world if the FBI and NSA succeed with their plan.

The White House is supposedly coming out with an official policy on encryption sometime this month, according to the New York Times – but the President can save himself a lot of time and just apply his comments about China to the US government. If he knows backdoors in encryption are bad for cybersecurity, privacy, and the economy, why is there even a debate?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
May the 2016 Elections Be Full of Angry Women Politicians Print
Wednesday, 04 March 2015 16:00

Valenti writes: "If there's one word that women in politics are accustomed to, it's 'angry.'"

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Reuters)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Reuters)


May the 2016 Elections Be Full of Angry Women Politicians

By Jessica Valenti, The Guardian UK

04 March 15

 

f there’s one word that women in politics are accustomed to, it’s ‘angry’. Throughout history - from American suffragists to those in office today - women’s strong feelings about politics have long been treated like PMS, not passion. Even when women are legitimately, justifiably angry - and let’s be honest, female politicians have plenty to be pissed about - that anger is seen as a weakness.

But times are changing and, at the EMILY’s List conference on Tuesday, it seemed as if long-brewing and well-justified anger was ready to come out - emboldened, perhaps, by an increasingly feminist-friendly culture that is not likely to take sexist swipes laying down in 2016.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, told the audience Tuesday morning that “haters will still hate”, but that she’s looking forward to “kicking ass and taking names in 2016”. Former governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm told a Dr Seuss style limerick that took hilarious but pointed swipes at Jeb Bush, Scott Walker and the GOP “clown car” of potential presidential candidates. And on a panel of “rising stars” - all local officials, all women of color -Boston city councilor Ayanna Pressley discussed her dismay that she can’t express her legitimate anger because of racist stereotypes.

“I have a strength of conviction and I have passion,” Pressley said. “I’m angry too - and that’s okay. But as a black woman, I’m discouraged from embracing that anger.”

When women give even the slightest hint of feeling intensity over a particular issue - something you’d think we’d want our elected officials to feel - it’s seen as over-the-top. Hysterical. Emotional. Anger in men is seen as strong and necessary for leadership, but there are few emotions considered worse in women.

In fact, a 2007 study found that when people viewed videos they were told were job interviews, men who expressed anger were rated extremely favorably while women who did the same were the least liked. (So much so that “angry women” were assigned a salary by the study’s participants that was $15,000 less annually than the one they gave to “angry men”.)

This disdain for female ire is widespread, but has been particularly noticeable for female politicians - who are scrutinized by the media and the public in a much harsher light than their male peers.

In 2012, for example, Todd Akin attacked opponent Senator Claire McCaskill for being “very aggressive” in a debate - whining that she “was much more ladylike” in 2006. Then there was the New York Post’s cover after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified about Benghazi: a picture of an impassioned Clinton underneath a headline that screamed: “No Wonder Bill’s Afraid!”. And just this week, Warren Buffett said in a CNBC interview that Senator Elizabeth Warren would more effective if she was “less angry”.

But female politicians shouldn’t have to smile and be “likeable” in order to resonate with voters. They shouldn’t have to hide their annoyance, anger; or pure raw fury because some sexists can’t handle a pissed off woman. And maybe they won’t have to for much longer - because these kinds of double standards won’t stand in the same way they have in past years and elections.

Thanks to social media and an exponentially increased interest in women’s rights, sexist gaffes are turned into hashtags and memes before you can say “binders full of women” and misogynist headlines are quickly skewered. If there were ever a time for female politicians to let their anger go - this is it.

Obviously - and sadly - the racism and sexism directed at female candidates isn’t going anywhere. Women running for office will still be called names, and any emotion they express will be up for mockery. Feminists have always had their backs - but this time we have it en masse and in force. I, for one, am ready for some angry women.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Jihadis, Jews, and Crusaders: Don't Bow Down to Holy War 'Anti-Western Views' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 March 2015 13:22

Weissman writes: "'The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,' declared George W. Bush less than a week after the attacks of September 11, 2001."

ISIS with US Humvee (photo: NBC)
ISIS with US Humvee (photo: NBC)


Jihadis, Jews, and Crusaders: Don't Bow Down to Holy War

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

04 March 15

 

he face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” declared George W. Bush less than a week after the attacks of September 11, 2001. “Islam is peace. The terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”

“We are not at war with Islam,” Barack Obama said last month. “We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

And, in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the killings at the kosher supermarket on the outskirts of Paris, and those at a free speech symposium and synagogue in Copenhagen, European leaders repeat the same politically correct refrain.

Did you believe Bush? Do you now believe Obama and the Europeans? I do not. Nor do I believe that anyone can separate the War on Terror, or whatever we are now supposed to call it, from the religious beliefs and attitudes of millions of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Much of the conflict is undeniably about religion, and fatally so, as those on all sides are encouraging religious and racist discrimination, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, and war.

God Bless America

Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin let it all out, as I described a dozen years ago in “The Lure of Christian Nationalism.” Dressed in full military uniform with his spit-polished paratroop boots, Boykin told evangelical groups all over the country that “America” was “a Christian nation” and that his God was bigger than Islam’s. “We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this,” he declared. “[Our] spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.”

A former commander and 13-year veteran of the top-secret Delta Force, Gen. Boykin was speaking as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the Pentagon’s top uniformed spook from 2002 to 2007. Bush carefully distanced himself from Boykin’s remarks, as did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But, as he told a bewildered French president Jacques Chirac, the born-again, faith-based Bush saw himself fulfilling a religious mission from a Christian God, while many of his most fervent supporters were theological conservatives, the theo-cons, who preached a holy war against Muslims. They still do.

Why isn’t the world rallying to stop the Islamic State (ISIS), Fox News star Bill O’Reilly asked evangelist Franklin Graham, son of the immensely influential Christian revivalist Billy Graham. “Bill, one of the problems that we have in the West is that our governments, especially in Washington, have been infiltrated by Muslims who are advising the White House, who I think are part of the problem,” replied the younger Graham. “And I see this also in Western Europe. They have gotten into the halls of power.”

Explicitly asked by O’Reilly, Graham could not name a single Muslim in Washington’s halls of power. But that does not stop him from cheering on a new anti-Muslim crusade, portraying it as purely defensive while assuring individual Muslims that Christ came to save them.

“The militant Islamic terrorist group ISIS has released a video called A MESSAGE SIGNED WITH BLOOD TO THE NATION OF THE CROSS showing the beheadings of 21 Egyptian Christians who had been kidnapped in Libya,” Graham wrote on his Facebook page. “We’d better take this warning seriously as these acts of terror will only spread throughout Europe and the United States. If this concerns you like it does me, share this. The storm is coming.”

Obama tries to hold the Muslim-bashers at bay, for which they crucify him. Jewish neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer and the magazine Commentary help drive in the nails, tormenting the president for not stressing that the Egyptian Coptic victims of the beheading were Christian or that the perpetrators were Muslim. Liberal interventionists like Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power, and Bernard Henri-Levy add their voices, singing humanitarian hosannas about the need to protect Yazidis, Kurds, women, or whomever else, much as they earlier called for using armed force to protect girls who wanted to go to school in Kabul and anti-Gaddafi protestors in Benghazi. All this “spiritual” noise generally serves the economically expansive and environmentally non-sustainable ambitions of Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Military-Industrial Complex. But the airier exhortations will have their impact, promoting more imperial intervention, counter-productive escalation, and hate-filled Muslim bashing.

Allahu Akbar

Why deny the obvious? Whether Islamic State, affiliates of al-Qaeda, or other jihadi groups, the enemies in Barack Obama’s wars call themselves Muslims, and are deadly serious about their differing interpretations of their faith. They find their recruits primarily among Sunni Muslims earlier proselytized by Saudi Arabia’s dominant Wahhabi sect, with its 18th century brand of Islam. They have, according to pollsters, the admiration of a significant minority of other Muslims – not a majority, by any means, but millions of people nonetheless. And, as the carefully nuanced Patrick Cockburn documents in his just published “The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution,” these more medieval-minded jihadis received most of their initial funding from the Saudis and other rich Muslims in the Gulf monarchies.

“In reality, it was the war in Syria that destabilized Iraq when jihadi groups like ISIS, then called al-Qaeda in Iraq, found a new battlefield where they could fight and flourish,” Cockburn writes. “It was the US, Europe, and their regional allies in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and United Arab Emirates that created the conditions for the rise of ISIS.”

“The Saudi and Qatari aid was primarily financial, usually through private donations,” he explains. Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the longtime Saudi ambassador to Washington and chief of Saudi intelligence from 2012 until his pointed dismissal in February 2014, worked closely with the jihadi opposition in Syria, as did his half-brother Salman bin Sultan, the deputy minister of defense. However half-heartedly, the Obama administration helped them and the Qataris, further fanning the flames of Sunni-Shia conflict.

The Saudis and Qataris have now pulled back from the militants of Islamic State, fearing them as an internal threat to the House of Saud and Qatar’s ruling family. But individual Saudi sheiks continue to fund their favorite jihadis, as do other wealthy Muslims throughout the area. Making religious belief even more central to current conflicts, the Saudis continue to fund Wahhabi mosques and schools throughout the Muslim World, propagating what Cockburn describes as a highly intolerant, puritanical, and exclusive brand of Islam “that imposes sharia law, relegates women to the status of second-class citizens, and regards Shia and Sufi Muslims as non-Muslims to be persecuted along with Christians and Jews.”

The Turks played a different role, allowing weapons and jihadist volunteers, including potential suicide bombers, to cross their 510-mile-long border into Syria, from which many went into neighboring Iraq. Cockburn cites reports from sources in Iraqi intelligence “that Turkish military intelligence may have been heavily involved in aiding ISIS when it was reconstituting itself in 2011.” One source told him that the Turks encouraged experienced Iraqi officers to work with ISIS. Like the Saudis and Qataris, the Turks appear to have backed away from Islamic State, at least in the light of day, but all three countries continue publicly to back other radical jihadis who insist on imposing Sharia law.

Cockburn’s reporting – and the official European and American documents and sources he cites – offer much-needed background to recent headline news. Take three examples. The missing 9/11 bomber Zacharias Moussaoui testified that Saudi princes had acted as patrons of al-Qaeda. The still-classified 28 pages from Congressional intelligence investigations of 9/11 implicate prominent Saudis in financing terrorism. And, most dramatically, former NATO commander Wesley Clark told CNN that ISIS, or Daesh, had “been created by our friends and allies to defeat Hezbollah.”

If Gen. Clark was agreeing with Cockburn about the role of the Sunni states, he was wrong in limiting their motives to weakening the Shia of Hezbollah. If he was pointing only at Israel, he was missing the much larger story that Cockburn tells. Clark never made himself clear and never offered any evidence. He was just shooting from the lip, as he so often does. But his allusion to Israel is worth investigating. In a 1981 interview with the International Herald Tribune, Brigadier-General Yitzhak Sager, an Israeli military governor for Gaza, revealed that Tel Aviv had given him funds that he passed on to the mosques. “The funds are used for both mosques and religious schools, with the purpose of strengthening a force that runs counter to the pro-PLO leftists.” That force was Hamas, which Israel was covertly building up to weaken Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization. Why not, then, fund ISIS to weaken Hezbollah?

Please don’t misunderstand. I’m merely suggesting a certain plausibility to one possible interpretation of Gen. Clark’s cryptic comment. But plausibility is not proof, and further digging is needed. It is also just plain wrong to proclaim, as Thierry Meyssan’s Voltaire.net did, that “General Clark reveals that Daesh is an Israeli project.” As I previously explained, Meyssan was the first person to write a book blaming the 9/11 attacks on Washington insiders, military industrialists, and Israel’s Mossad, and he has recently assured us that those who killed the people at Charlie Hebdo, “had no connection with jihadist ideology.” He never supported either claim with anything close to the necessary evidence.

One other caveat: Back in 2004, I noted Gen. Sager’s interview in my response to Israel’s targeted assassination of Sheik Ahmad Yassin, the founder of Hamas and chief beneficiary of the Israeli shekels. “For most people around the world, the photographs told the story,” I wrote. “A picture of a crippled, white-bearded man looking far older than his 67 years. Then a crumpled piece of his wheelchair and a large red bloodstain on the road where Israeli helicopter gunships sent three rockets to kill him.”

The photos and all the subsequent carnage in Gaza dramatize a significant lesson. Whether for Israel, the Sunni states, or Washington, covertly funding groups like Hamas or ISIS does not buy control, and certainly not over time. This fact of life needs to be relearned, not least by the surprising number of would-be progressives who take as true the chronically unproven conspiracies conjured up by Michel Chossudovsky at GlobalResearch and the aging Lyndon LaRouche, whom old-timers may remember by his pseudonym as the brilliant but bent Lyn Marcus. These relentless 9/11 truthers and conspiracy-mongers proclaim that ISIS is nothing more than a false-flag operation consciously created to promote Western hegemony. Obama certainly uses ISIS to promote exactly that, as do the neo-cons, theo-cons, and liberal interventionists. But, as Cockburn shows, neither Washington nor NATO control ISIS, which has a far more complex history than Larouche, Chossudovsky, and Meyssan will ever admit.

Not even half true, their unsubstantiated conspiracy theories may sound extremely radical, worldly, sophisticated, and insightful. But they seriously undermine any effort to build a credible, evidence-based opposition to Obama’s military adventures. “Cui bono?” as the truth-believers love to ask. For whose benefit do they weave their tales? Who pays their bills? And why do most of them seem so soft on Vladimir Putin’s Russia and so eager to repeat his major propaganda themes? Lacking proof, I cannot possibly answer such questions. But the coincidences do make me wonder.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | UK Media Regulator Threatens Media Outlet for Airing 'Anti-Western Views' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29455"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept</span></a>   
Wednesday, 04 March 2015 12:16

Greenwald writes: "Ofcom has rarely punished establishment British media outlets for 'bias' even though the British media is notoriously and slavishly loyal to the state and other British political and financial elites."

Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Dale Robbins/Moyers & Company)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Dale Robbins/Moyers & Company)


UK Media Regulator Threatens Media Outlet for Airing 'Anti-Western Views'

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

04 March 15

 

n 2001, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II used the occasion of the annual “Queen’s Speech” to unveil a new statutory proposal to regulate all media operating in her realm, one provision of which was the creation of the “Office of Communications” (Ofcom) to monitor and punish television outlets which exhibit “bias.” In 2008, the BBC heralded the Queen’s Speech as “one of the high points of the parliamentary calendar, unrivalled in its spectacle and tradition,” as the monarch “delivers the speech from the grand throne in the House of Lords.” The press monitor’s Twitter account boasts: “We keep an eye on the UK’s telecoms, television, radio and postal industries to make sure they’re doing the best for all of us.”

The United Kingdom's management team for digital meida. (photo: The Intercept)
The United Kingdom's ethical management team for digital meida. (photo: The Intercept)

Ofcom has rarely punished establishment British media outlets for “bias” even though the British media is notoriously and slavishly loyal to the state and other British political and financial elites. Just last week, Guardian editor Seumus Milne noted: “as one academic study after another has demonstrated . . . . from the coverage of wars to economics, [the BBC] has a pro-government, elite and corporate anchor. The BBC is full of Conservatives and former New Labour apparatchiks with almost identical views about politics, business and the world.” Indeed, of all the countless media outlets around the world covering NSA reporting over the last 18 months, the BBC has easily been the worst: the most overtly biased in favor of mass surveillance and official claims. Ofcom’s authority over BBC is limited, but plenty of British media outlets — certainly most of its largest ones — are driven by these same biases.

During my first week writing at the Guardian, a long-time observer (and one-time member) of the British media warned me about the extreme group think bias of U.K. journalists, and I quoted that warning in the context of describing their extreme and deeply personal animus toward WikiLeaks: “Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle.” Needless to say, none of that extreme, power-serving media bias — including the avalanche of deceit and lies much of the British media peddled to sell Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq — has ever provoked any punishment from Ofcom.

By rather stark contrast, Ofcom has repeatedly threatened the Russian-state television outlet RT with revocation of its license. Last November, that outlet launched a British-specific, London-based version of its network, but previously had been broadcasting its standard English-speaking programming in the U.K. At the time of its launch, the Guardian noted that RT “is facing six separate investigations by media regulator Ofcom.”

That investigative history included a finding last fall whereby the network was “threatened with statutory sanctions by [] Ofcom after the Kremlin-backed news channel breached broadcasting regulations on impartiality with its coverage of the Ukraine crisis.” RT executives were “summoned to a meeting with Ofcom after it was found guilty of breaching the code governing UK broadcasters” and told they could face revocation of their license if these breaches of “impartiality rules” continued.

Today, Ofcom announced a new “bias” investigation into RT. The offense this time, according to the Guardian, is the broadcasting of “anti-western comments in a late-night discussion on Ukraine.” Specifically, “the programme is understood to have featured a number of anti-Western views in the discussion between the presenter and three studio guests.”

Unfortunately, RT told the Intercept this morning that it was barred by Ofcom regulations even from commenting on this new investigation. Not only are they being threatened for the crime of airing “anti-western views,” but they are prohibited by law from publicly discussing these threats.

That RT is “biased” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far at all. It is expressly funded by the Russian government to present a Russian viewpoint of the world. But all media outlets composed of and run by human beings are “biased,” and that certainly includes the leading British outlets, which rail against Russia (and every other perceived adversary of the West) at least as much as RT defends it.

All of this underscores the propagandistic purpose of touting “media objectivity” versus “bias.” The former simply does not exist. Revealingly, it is British journalists themselves who are most vocal in demanding that Her Majesty’s Government bar RT from broadcasting on “bias” grounds: fathom how authoritarian a society must be if it gets its journalists to play the leading role in demanding that the state ban (or imprison) journalists it dislikes. So notably, the most vocal among the anti-RT crowd on the ground that it spreads lies and propaganda — such as Nick Cohen and Oliver Kamm — were also the most aggressive peddlers of the pro-U.K.-government conspiracy theories and lies that led to the Iraq War.

That people like this, with their histories of pro-government propaganda, are the ones demanding punishment of RT for “bias” tells you all you need to know about what is really at play here. What’s really driving this is illustrated by the edict issued today by one of the High Priests of U.S. Foreign Policy, Brookings President and former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott:

This is about nothing more than ensuring that Western citizens are not exposed to the side of The Enemy. Notably, Ofcom previously revoked the license of PressTV, the state-run television agency of Iran, after first fining it £100,000 for an interview with an imprisoned journalist which was said to be coerced. Western countries love to depict citizens of their long list of adversaries as being propagandized — whether it be China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Syria, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc. etc. — even as they themselves work in all sorts of ways to ban their own citizens from exposure to those adversaries’ views, such as when a U.S. court imprisoned a Muslim American for years for the “crime” of including a Hezbollah channel in the cable TV package he sold in Brooklyn (of course, these purported concerns about propaganda and a free press magically and tellingly disappear when the suppression is done by regimes compliant with the U.S. and its allies).

Purporting to compel media “objectivity” is always about imposing a very specific and subjective agenda masquerading as impartiality. The chair of Ofcom is Colette Bowe, who was previously the chief information officer at the Department of Trade and Industry as well as a board member of Morgan Stanley and Electra Private Equity. She is also “a former executive chairman of Fleming Fund Management, chief executive of the Personal Investment Authority, and a director of the Securities and Investment Board.” Does anyone believe her concept of “objectivity” and “impartiality” will be anything other than the prevailing conventional wisdom and orthodoxies of the British elite?

The U.K. Government loves to lecture the world about infringements of liberty generally and press freedom specifically. It does so as it threatens to revoke the broadcasting license of a media outlet for broadcasting “anti-western” views and other perspectives at odds with the U.K. Government, all while shielding (and venerating) the equally virulent biases from pro-state television in the U.K. That is the classic hallmark of how a government propagandizes its citizens: ensuring that they hear only those views of which the government approves and which serve its interests and agenda.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 Next > End >>

Page 2540 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN