by Larry C. Johnson (bio below)
I think Dick Cheney has been watching too many Hollywood flicks that glorify torture. He needs, instead, to get on the ground and talk to the folks he is ostensibly trying to empower to torture. Unlike Dick I have spoken with three CIA operations officers in the last three months–all who have worked on terrorism at the highest levels–and not one endorses torture or believes it will help us. In fact, they believe it will hurt us on many levels.
Two of my friends served in Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. If the suicide bombing of the World Trade Centers was not enough justification for hooking Haji up to battery cables, I don’t know what is. My friends recognized correctly that their mission was to gather intelligence not create new enemies. If you inflict enough pain on someone they will give you information, but, unless you kill them, they will hold a grudge. As far as the information goes there is no guarantee it will be correct.
What real CIA field officers know from their work with actual sources is that whatever shortterm benefit can be derived from torture will be offset by the new enemy you have created. It is better to build a relationship of trust, no matter how painstaking, rather than gain a short term benefit that puts you on par with a Nazi concentration camp guard.
And that’s the point. … Continued below:
We should never use our own fear of being attacked as justification to dehumanize ourselves and another human being in our pursuit of so-called truth.
Tell that to Alan Dershowitz. He is big on the ticking nuclear bomb scenario–we will torture the suspected terrorist to obtain the necessary info to save lives of innocents.
Of course, we have heard this justification once before at Nuremberg in the aftermath of the Holocaust. What irony that someone known for both his expertise as a lawyer and his faith as a Jew would endorse a practice both illegal and immoral.
Perhaps now we can begin to understand how Adolf Hitler could rally German Christians to do the unthinkable to Jews and Gypsyies in concentration camps. If you convince people that they are at risk unless they move to destroy those who represent a perceived threat, regardless of the methods and means, then you are on your way to atrocities.
Before the CIA gets too much blame for promoting the torture mentality we ought to ask Hollywood, “What the hell are you doing?”
In one of Denzel Washington’s last outings we could watch him give a corrupt Mexican cop a hand grenade enema. He also taped the hands of another errant cop to the steering wheel and began to snip off digits in an effort to find out the whereabouts of a kidnapped child. Is this Cheney’s secret fantasy? To be a rampaging, black super hero?
Thank God that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other Republicans are standing up to crazy Dick Cheney. Cheney’s plea to allow CIA or other intelligence officers to torture would be the death of the CIA as a professional intelligence service and another stain on the reputation of the United States.
We’re losing our claim to being the City on the Hill as a beacon of light and hope to the world. Instead, we’re morphing into the Dark Tower of Lord Sauron in the land of Mordor. Sauron’s a big believer in torture, just ask Frodo.
……………………………………………………..
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world. Further bio details.
Personal Blog: No Quarter || Bio
Recommended Book List || More BoomanTribune Posts
I’m so glad you mentioned that Denzel Washington flick. I watched it and wondered how many teens thought that horrific torture was really cool, and obviously quite effective.
I don’t watch the show, but hear that “24” is replete with ghastly torture that yields information.
Then there’s Mel Gibson. Gibson is obsessed with torture. Almost every one of his films has several disgustingly gory and cruel scenes.
“South Park” did a great send-up of Gibson’s torture fetish.
It’s obvious, from a couple interviews I’ve seen, that Denzel Washington isn’t the brightest bulb in the room. “24” and Gibson’s films use torture because of its sensationalistic nature and the creators’ obsessions with inflicting pain. In other words, it’s sick stuff. But since these films and TV shows are seen by millions of people, the absolutely wrong message is sent.
It’s so heartening that people who’ve served in intelligence — like you and Pat Lang — are speaking out. Thank you.
Speaking of Gibson and his next movie which is supposed to be about the Mayan people/culture and another movie with ancient dialog and subtitles. He is already on record as saying it will of course be extremely gory/brutal and not for the squeemish. If he thinks its brutal I can’t imagine what it will be like and just what the hell is his problem anyway with his sadistic and violence obsessed type movies?(although my opinions on fundie christians and torture have already been posted several times).
Oh great! So Gibson going to use the Maya to spread the false impression that the Maya use human sacrafice and loved blood. That’s what the conquistadors did …..(with the Aztecs)( just like Bush….. They told Spain and the Church …you have to give us more money to defeat these heathens they hate our religion our beliefs, they are crue. It was the confquistadors who were dirty, cruel, ignorant, torturous, violent and who used the native indians as slaves.
The Aztecs and the Maya were clean, bathed daily as a matter of course, had shopping centers, just like home depot with everything organized, had police departments…a very interesting religion that makes much more sense than Chrisitainity because it is rooted in nature.
I think Gibson is attackding Paganism through this movie and he’s using the Maya to do it. Nature worship….he’s wants to kill it. That was what the early Christians did when they came to power, they attacked the Pagans
The big PROBLEM with that scene (I haven’t seen the movie, but the description was quite enough), and dozens of other scenes like it in many, many movies and television shows, from spy thrillers to cop-on-the-street shows…. is that when the script calls for a protagonist character to use torture (defined as any treatment of a prisoner that violates the Geneva conventions or US law), to get information or cooperation from them, it almost always works.
This is, of course, the power of the script — the torture is unreal, a dramatic plot device to build suspense and demonstrate in graphic detail the serious nature of whatever the torturing character’s motivations are to do whatever it is he’s trying to do.
But it’s deceptive. As I said, it almost always works, depending on whether the protagonist is the torturer (usually works) or the one being tortured (usually doesn’t work). The way the story is told, whatever the protagonist/hero character does is okay because it’s for a ‘greater good’ and it gets the results he wants, and the character he’s doing these things to is demonstrated to be a scumbag anyway.
You never see what happens when a prisoner lies because he honestly knows nothing and will do anything to stop the pain. You never see that heroic character suffer any consequences of his breaking the ‘good guy’ code — you never see the PTSD nightmares the otherwise ‘decent’ and humane hero character has, and of course, he’s never wrong in his choice of targets…..
I think Cheney and the neo-cons obviously have watched too damned much television. And maybe we need to have some discussions with the so-called “liberal” Hollywood script writers about how they portray violence against prisoners in what are theoretically supposed to be “realistic” dramatic situations.
Because in reality, the scripts just don’t work that way. And it’s clear that a good many people are confusing the two.
I’ve agreed with almost all of your diaries…and I’m going to step up to the plate in the world of political correctness. I believe in the CIA and other agencies, as long as they abide by ethical practices.
Okay – how many white, rampaging super heroes could be used here instead…
Any rampaging asshole…of any color…is unacceptable. I found the comment offensive…
I don’t agree. You can say black super hero. It’s perfect. What’s wrong with the comment. Black Super Heroes are idolized by young white boys from the suburbs. His point is accurate. Cheney is the quintessiential Whiteman from R Crumb comix. He is aboslutely out of it. He live is a fictional world where there is danger everytwhere. He grew up in Wyoming and had never been to a big city until he was 20 years old. He is a goddamn man of the clan.
The idea that he see himself as a man of the world is so outrageous.
And what the fuck is Denzel Washington making shitty movies for, I saw that film it was just an indulgence in violence, total bullshit.
It’s bad for Denzel Washington, it’s okay for Charles Bronson, it’s okay for Stallone to be Rambo, it’s okay for Schwarzenegger….
It’s okay for the movie “A Clockwork Orange” to be a “Classic” – and they are all white.
I respectfully submit the comment was racist.
Well, I assume that when he said Haji hooked up to wire cables, I didn’t get his meaning. He didn’t mean that people should be torturted because the whole point of his article is against torture.
You don’t have to respectfully disagree, you can just disagree, can’t you? There is too much filtering, too many steps for people to go through to have an opinion, too much qualification.
That’s what the politicians do, they qualify everything, make it clean so no one can attack you.
If someone is a rascist and they say they are a rascist, then that’s what they think….and they have just as much right to express themselves as someone who hates rascism. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. I think that’s healty. Then no one is hiding under the cover of qualification and political correctness. At least you know where they stand. I thought the Cheney as a black superhero was a bit of satire. That’s how I took it because he is so much the epitome of the white businessman who feels “uncomfortable” around “them”.
Folks,
I was discussing Denzel Washington. Last I checked he is black. He is not Asian or Irish. I’m comparing Cheney to Denzel. In Man on Fire, Denzel played a rampaging black superhero (saving a white girl I might add). If stating simple facts with a touch or irony makes me a racist, I am guilty. But some of you folks are reading way too much into my motives.
Larry Johnson
I’ve not seen Man on Fire so I didn’t even get the title!
I don’t think you’re racist, I think you’re a keen observer…
There seems to be a grand exploratorty expedition into people’s “agendas” and “motives” around here of late, which is somthing I don’t quite get, as the medium we are speaking in doesn’t really allow for that.
I don’t agree with most of what you write, but I appreciate your writing it, so that I get to make up my own mind about the information you present.
Still working on the designation of black here. Why not just say “rampaging super hero”?
We don’t say white doctor but we say black doctor.
We don’t say white official but we say black official.
We don’t say rampaging white super hero or rampaging white maniac but we say rampaging black maniac.
Sorry…I still have trouble with rampaging anybody. And having selected a black man to compare Cheney to is offensive. Why not Stallone and Rambo?
because Stallone in Rambo did not cut off someone’s fingers to get them to talk.
Sally Cat,
I must disagree with you. Black is not ONLY a color-it is also a descriptor. I am probably old enough to be your mother. When times have been really really bad, I say to friends “I am going through some black times”.
It has nothing to do with racism. By the way, if you check police reports of incidents you will discover descriptors of 6′ tall white man, small 5’6″ Asian, 6′ black man etc.
You may be going through a hard time right now. Please do not be so sensitive. Larry is one of the good guys and is simply using colloquial American English. As one woman from Britain said to me once “My dear, you have NEVER spoken English in your life”. From her point of view she is correct – Americans speak slang and believe me it frustrates those who speak “pure” English.
It’s a good thing I didn’t write the piece because I’d have brought up Mel Gibson’s portrayal of Christ in “The Passion of the Christ,” and called him a rampaging Australian extremist Christian nutsack. (And gotten all the Christians angry with me.)
Denzel Washington had a choice about appearing in scenes like that. he chose to participate. That speaks ill of him, imho.
In that paragraph, he’s referring specifically to Denzel Washington.
Have you seen that film? It’s not only wholly unrealistic and implausible, it’s vicious.
If I were Denzel Washington, I’d object to such scenes. But he probably knows that such scenes help sell tickets. A lot of people really get off on seeing torture scenes.
well put, and it confirms my believe having no experience in espionage, but from wherever it is I come from…
if people trust you, THEN they tell you things.
if they trust you, they may turn in their errant cousin or brother… for the -brother’s- safety as well as the publics… but if you are a torturer, that person is likely to sympathise with the acts of their cousin/brother… and even if not… STILL not turn them in to be tortured.
we should not be having this as a “debate” at all.
Well said- Great comment.
“If the suicide bombing of the World Trade Centers was not enough justification for hooking Haji up to battery cables, I don’t know what is.”
Did I really read this on the Front Page????
Is there an irony button that my mental program is missing??
Did I really read this, here???
Yes, I understand the post is firmly against torture, but, BUT, BUT do we really use these terms to make our point??
And then there is: “To be a rampaging, black super hero?”
Well, Sally Cat caught that, so I’ll just second her comment.
I guess I have to confess to still feeling breathless with shock at this blatant racism.
but it is also an accurate reflection of US mainstream thought. It is the way many Americans speak, and think, and act.
It is always encouraging to see Americans begin to question the policies of their warlords. Some here have even expressed discomfort with the beloved doctrine of exceptionalism itself.
However it is not going to happen overnight. They are struggling against beliefs so deeply ingrained many do not even realize that they are there!
Yes Ductape,
I am aware that we live in a racist society and that all of us–white, black, brown, yellow– are infected by it. None of us can claim to have built a vacuum-sealed container that has immunized us from this contagion. We all participate in it to gretare or lesser extent.
But, Front-Paged on Booman Tribune, NOT a freeper web-site is:
“hooking Haji up to battery cables”
May I suggest that this is beyond the pale of racism that we are used to encountering here?
greater, I meant greater
so any opinion I might have on that aspect of it would be biased, and also irrelevant, since it is not my site.
Yes, it is more unvarnished and “unframed” than the language usually used here, but is it really more offensive than the arguably unconscious little oopsies that the writer did not intend to slip out?
Yes, it is somewhat jarring to see, but it is the poster’s right to express himself as he wishes, and the site owner’s right to put it on whatever page he wishes.
And personally, I find it less dangerous than the arguably unconscious things that some “just slip out” from time to time. Those are also jarring in a worse way.
Well, I do agree with you, although I am NOT a free-speech fundamentalist/extremist..
As my union president explained to me, she had a much easier time dealing with, and gaining faculty support, against our previous president who was avowedly anti-intellectual, than with our present president who makes nice-nice but is basically turning the knife in slowly and stealthily on all our cherished traditions of self-governance.
So, yeah you are right–I just wish I could see more outrage.
“Wish to see more outrage!” My perpetual dream.
and not about language, and with a very few and very precious exceptions, not on the part of Americans.
There are sparks. There is bubbling…. 😉
I read Hajj Ali’s story in Der Spiegel recently, and I cannot fathom why one would be so flip about such injustice. I also concur with SallyCat’s comments.
I’m sure Larry has taken the point by now. Everyone gets to make mistakes. It would be nice to hear an apology about this one.
Unfortunately a lot of American English is punctuated with offensive slang. Realistically, we are generations away from changing that
I have seen comments referring to Larry and Pat Lang as “spooks”. I have never seen either one of them go off on a tangent about the word. Rather they stay focused on the main message.
American English includes Cops=Pigs, Marines=Jar Heads,
Women=broads, Kids=rug rats, brats, Elderly=Old Geezer, Arabs=Rag Heads and ad infinatum. If we try and “hear” what the meaning of the message is, rather than just focusing on the choice of words, there would be less misunderstandings, and probably a little more peace in relationships.
it’s a rhetorical device.
He is saying that 9/11 was about the biggest provocation thinkable to make Americans want to torture someone, but that even in the immediate aftermath of that infuriating event, his colleagues still thought torture was a bad, immoral, and counterproductive thing.
It’s called granting your opponent his point, only to shoot it down more forcefully.
Johnson:
“It is better to build a relationship of trust, no matter how painstaking, rather than gain a short term benefit that puts you on par with a Nazi concentration camp guard.”
Positive reinforcement has longer lasting benifits than punishment or “negative” reinforcement.
Since these interrogator clowns are always using behavioral theories they might want to understand what it says about behavior.
The US is a fascist nation. Applying it’s fascism to the outside world and working it’s way inward. Just because we are not the same victimes of torture as the Iraqis and many others doesnt mean it’s not getting closer to home. And just becasue torture and fascism are applied else where and not here does not mean America is not fascist. It is. It simply is applying it’s fascism externally.
what is this? Why are so many of your posts about America being on a par with Nazi Germany?
Fascism does not necessarily equal Nazi Germany.
I think it is quite fair to say the the USofA is fascist on a number of levels. Almost as many levels that it is fair to say that it is a democracy, imnsho.
find extremely irritating to read post after post about how awful America is, how we are fascists, how everyone who serves in our intelligence community is a sadist, and on and on.
The invasion of Iraq based on phony intelligence was similar to the invasion of Poland based on phony border incidents. But that is about where the similarities between what happened in Poland and what is happening in Iraq end.
And I would have been shot months ago in any fascist country for doing this blog.
I must have missed a bunch of stuff, because I was just going on the post in question (which is what I try to do as it is difficult to keep everyone’s history on tap at all times) — I didn’t see comparisons to Poland or the Nazis in that post and, thus, my response.
really, though, it is curious to me that you find it “irritating” to read “how awful America is” — I mean, really, how many diaries/comments here extol the virtues and wonder of this country?
Personally, I want to hear it all, over and over again — I don’t need sanitization — I can take the point of view and see where it applies and where it doesn’t. The USofA is not the great wonder that so many here think it is — “america uber alles” is what irritates me (and, yes, that was an intentioally irrtating thing to say). I mean come on, we can’t handle criticism of the motherland on a liberal blog?
If not, that shot in the head is coming quicker than I thought (for me, I mean)!
part of it is strictly political, and part of it is just being annoyed with bad arguments. For the political part, I’m with Pat Moynihan:
MOYNIHAN: A friend of mine.
SHIELDS: That’s right. And Peter King, congressman from Nassau, all three of whom grew up as — in Democratic neighborhoods, all three of whom are Catholics. What kind of a commentary is this on the Democratic Party, that it’s loosing people who are pro-working families, and all three of these people have records in that direction?
MOYNIHAN: Well, we began making that mistake back in the ’60s when the elites began denouncing our country, and denouncing its armed services, and denouncing the culture. And there were a lot of people who found that culture pretty good compared to the things they’d come from. And that they were doing well and were not going to associate themselves with those elites. And the Democratic Party has ended up pretty tenuous. But I will put it this way, if we said the Democratic Party is in bad shape in New York, I always have suggested it has been so for two centuries and one of the reason we often get a good sympathy vote…
Really? You mean it? I can bring down the Democratic party by “denouncing our culture, etc”?!? Oh, wait, I’m not elite, or not the right kind of elite anyway.
This kind of argument I find rather amusing myself, in its circularity. On the one hand, the USofA is a shining beacon on the hill to other oppressed and downtrodden peoples…come here, we are better than what you had.
On the other hand, you have 5 fingers, and the people who live HERE and think, well, ya know, I’m glad they don’t chop off my clitoris when I get my first mentrual cycle, but there are a lot of other things that really suck about here, and these people are somehow the cause of the downfall of the democratic party?
I’m not sure I expressed that quite right, but the short version is, I am tired a a) being told that criticism (of the country, of the armed services, of culture, though the republicans do more of that last) based on lived experience is DENOUNCIATION, as opposed to honest and heartfelt dissent and b) that I am somehow a member of the “power elite” — I realize that my being in a Ph.D. program qualifies me for an “elite” of a certain nature, but it sure as hell ain’t got “power” associated with it….
necessarily did any of those things — I was just going from the argument presented in the block quote….
I think that it may be actually the case to some extent, but there are other options besides the “land o’ the free” at this point.
that’s why it is complicated.
If you ask my why Democrats are losing white suburban voters, and especially men, I will tell you exactly what Moynihan said.
But if you ask me if the elites were correct to denounce the Vietnam war and our military leadership, and the CIA of that era, I will tell you that the elites were correct.
So, there is a tension there. And I am as critical as anyone of our failings, but it must be balanced with our accomplishments (which are astounding) and it must be a cogent argument, too. Comparing this country to any of the fascist nations of the 20th-Century is not literally accurate in any meaningful way, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t do some of the same things, or that we don’t have to be ever vigilant to protect our rights, the the rights of our citizens. And we are losing some rights and moving in the wrong direction in a host of areas. So, warning of a slide toward fascism, or totalitarianism is wholly appropriate.
I’m just in a bad mood.
in a bad mood that is…
and I agree with you about the tension, and its not just ours, it out there in the world too. When I lived in Japan (I ams till looking for that other post of yours where you refered to them as “our proxy” — but that’s another discussion all together), they people I lived and worked with seemed almost schitzophrenic in their love/hate relationship with the US. They found much to admire and emulate, were grateful for MacArthur coming in to disband the secret police, impressed with American can-do-ism and creativity, yet disgusted by much of what they saw as American selfishness and greed, there were many who were pleased about the American occupation but still “shattered” by the loss of their idea of Hirohito.
guess the point of that long-winded example is that I lived in Japan in the early 90s and the balance is shifting away from the idealized America that many in various countries “grew up with” to a more accurate picture of what the US is really all about. May our own citizenry follow soon.
is a good example. And while we’re on this subject let me post something else by Moynihan, that is on-topic. If the part about Tocqueville is a little confusing, the point about our military presence is not:
SEN. MOYNIHAN: Well, two things I might say, if you don’t mind a New Yorker speaking for a moment. Tocqueville actually came here, as Marty knows, as a part of a three person commission of the French government to look into our prisonreforms, and he was heading
MR. WATTENBERG: He was on a junket.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: He was on a junket, and he had to get out of France, actually, it was a good thing. And he was heading for Auburn, New York, where we had produced the reformatory, a pretty grim place, you couldn’t talk to anybody or still there…
MR. WATTENBERG: Finger Lakes, close to Hobart College.
SEN. MOYNIHAN: That’s right, sir, exactly. Your own. But we were innovating, we were trying to improve people who had as against just punish them. Marty, we might agree that it would be sort of serendipitous that Tocqueville would be looking for a country where crime was seen as an opportunity for reform as against punishment.
But you know, there is something else since Tocqueville, and you surely will agree on this. We are exceptional in that there is not a country, a major country in the world with which we could be compared on which we do not have stationed American military personnel, American bases. The one exception is France, but France is part of NATO, and we have been protecting France for 50 years, having liberated the place. We have our armed forces all over the world in a peaceful participation, in a confrontation with the Soviet Union in the end. It began with the German and Japanese empires. That surely is exceptional.
MR. WATTENBERG: Has that ever happened before in history?
SEN. MOYNIHAN: No.
are the best arguments to support the belief that US is the bestest.country.ever.
I recognize that holding so many countries under various degrees of military occupation and locking up more of your population than any other country on earth are seen as Good Things (TM) by most Americans, but I am making the assumption that you are addressing your argument to people who may not hold those “features” in the same high regard on the “What Makes a Country Great” scale.
I have been recently reviewing the American television series “The Beverly Hillbillies,” and it has reaffirmed my opinion that this is an arena in which the US truly shines.
Irene Ryan is undoubtedly one of the most underrated comediennes of all time.
If the US would devote itself to making more programs like “The Beverly Hillbillies,” this would, in my opinion, improve chances for legitimate statehood, as well as a move toward democracy, as well as provide an international benefit.
not so easy to make a program of that high level of quality.
As Brinnaine points out, not all places and cultures are equally hostile to US ‘gunmen’. For instance, the people of Seoul can see the people of Pyongyang, and if they object to some of our GI’s antics now and then, they also can see the difference between freedom and prosperity on the one hand, and living in North Korea on the other.
Likewise, the East Germans could tell the difference between their quality of life and those of the West Germans.
It might be interesting for Germans to dub our soldiers crusaders and begin attacking our convoys there, but I doubt it would be a satisfying kind of liberation.
Why do you suppose all the countries we are ‘occupying’ are doing so well and almost all the countries that we are not occupying are doing so poorly?
Would South Korea trade places with South Vietnam?
Would Turkey trade places with Iran?
Would Iran do the revolution if they had it all over to do again?
The point is not that our enormous military presence makes us fantastic, the point isn’t even that we should continue it.
The point is that the countries we have occupied have prospered, and they haven’t asked us to leave, or when they have they have remained close allies.
Not so for Russia.
entity on earth, in all history, because of the technologies.
However, the longstanding policy of providing benefits to “leaders” in return for imposition of American will is no longer sustainable.
It does not matter whether you, or I, believe that it is “good” or “bad.”
The fact is that fear, like weaponry, reaches a point of diminishing returns. It is not the “pro-American” politicians that Washington has to worry about, beyond a bit of envelope fattening here and there, it is the people.
Yes, US can, and probably will, simply explode us.
And at what cost to you, both pre and post explosion?
Why destroy the world, when you could make such excellent television programs?
Which behavior is civilized?
that there is a sustainability issue. I also think that we have gotten badly off track. The logic of cozying up to strongmen in order to deny the Soviets resources and influence was predicated on the fact that we would prevent whole swaths of the world from succumbing to totalitarianism. It was never an easy way of doing business, and it was certainly no fun for the vast numbers of people that got caught up in the game (either in our proxies or in Russia’s).
But, there is no longer much threat of a totalitarian revolution happening anywhere in the world, outside of the Muslim world, where such regimes are still the norm, and not the exception (and as often as not, our allies).
And for a moment, take America out of it. What does the world want done about the House of Saud? Not what America wants, but what does the rest of the world want? Are they willing to risk a revolution there? Do they want one? Can they tolerate the economic risk of a long disruption of Saudi oil? Can the markets sustain such a risk?
I’d love to pull the carpet out from underneath the House of Saud. At the same time, I’m not sure it would be worth it if it caused enormous economic hardships all over the planet.
In any case, Bush has his rhetoric correct when he says that we should stop coddling dictators in the region. But that is the only thing he has right. And no one has a very good strategy for how to do it.
Your cease aggression and disarm mantra sounds good, but even if we did that I would still anticipate a ton of bloodshed in Egypt and Saudi Arabia as new power relationships were worked out.
So, things are not so simple.
the totalitarian revolution. It is spreading over you like cheap margarine over a stale bagel in the Louisiana sun.
The question is not what the world wants of Arabia, but what the Arabian people want for themselves. They do not have a responsibility to give or sell their oil simply because westerners want it, and if they do choose to sell it, it is their right to sell it at the price they set, and use the money to benefit their own people.
Will there be consequences as the US is removed? Yes. Choices have consequences, whether we are talking about drinking too much wine last night and being sleepy this morning or allowing politicians to go adventuring and colonializing in ancient lands, pillaging and drawing up borders and setting up bordellos.
And just as any old person will do, I will now recite the famous chant, “You should have thought of that before.”
Of course, reality is you did not think of it before, and you will not help things by trying to think of ways to avoid the consequences by exacerbating the harm you have done, but focus on weathering the consequences and not repeating the error.
“Cease aggression and disarm” may not be something people like to hear, but if you see your brother beating his wife and children with a two by four, what do you say to him?
Do you say, consider a timetable for ceasing to beat them?
Why not beat them with something else?
You should hire someone to do that for you?
I think most people would say to him, “put down that two by four and stop beating my sister and nephews!”
I know that is what Jed Clampett would say.
but you avoid the central issue and ignore the complexity of my questions.
The alternative to propping up the House of Saud is not that the Arabian people have a democracy and they get to decide how to sell their oil and at what price.
The alternative is a tribal war for the home of the biggest tourist ‘mecca’ in the world and the biggest oil reserves. It won’t be decided easily and certainly will cause tremendous suffering to the Arabian people caught in the crossfire or who find themselves on the losing side.
On top of that, it could easily cause a significant enough disruption of oil supplies to cause a worldwide panic in financial markets, which could cause millions their livelihood, jobs, and savings. Which, of course, has a tendency to put people in a bad and fighting mood.
So, once again, what does the world want America to do about the House of Saud?
Yes, the US, and as you point out, there are also other imperial powers, and all have made some choices that have been devastating to many people far from those colonial powers, and to their own people as well.
There is nothing that the US or its “allies” can do to repair the damage. Even if the goal were to do good, as opposed to generate revenues for US business, there would be nothing they could do.
Recognition of this, albeit unacknowledged, could be a factor in your irritation, as well as the comments you see.
The best thing that US can do for Arabia, for every country, and for itself, is to cease aggression, disarm, repatriate all the torturers, sexul predators, gunmen and operatives, stop all payments to the various client state despots, and focus on working toward giving American children a chance at a future.
I am sorry to have to put it so plainly, but when you are Mike Tyson, there is really nothing that you can do for your rape victim except stop abusing her and leave.
that have no relationship to reality.
For instance, you might as well tell me to teleport myself to one of Saturn’s moons as recommend universal disarmament.
At issue is the complexity of the issues involved. Simplistic answers fail at several levels.
First: what we are currently seeing in Iraq would be occurring even if we left. The country should never have been created with its current borders, but there it is. If we were to pull out of Saudi Arabia the House of Saud would surely fall to some group of armed bandits or another, or perhaps it wouldn’t exactly fall to anyone, but to general chaos.
Eventually, so group, probably a tribe or alliance of tribes, would take over and they would use much the same tactics to dominate the rest of the country as are used now. With some luck they might be a more populist group, less inclined to yachting and whoring. But that is about the best that can be hoped for.
So, we may have helped create this impasse, but it is hardly clear that the alternative to the House of Saud would be beneficial to the majority of the Arabian people. Stability is worth a lot.
When Russia pulled out of Poland, Poland had elections and began emulating a western European country. When they pulled out of the Caususes they exploded in civil war. Sometimes it pays to pay attention to the difference. Especially when the welfare of the whole global economy can hang in the balance.
I am not going to sit here and tell you that when US is removed, Utopias will be popping out all over.
They will not. The scars and horrid legacy of colonization runs deep. US itself has yet to even begin to recover from domestic slavery and apartheid.
When you speak of the Middle East, you speak of lands who have been under one form or another of Western colonization for 80 odd years! Even their borders are not their own, some places have issues left over from Ottoman days.
The west cannot turn back the clock and send Lawrence to Acadia instead, I wish they could. You cannot change the past. What you can do is change the future, and in this case, the best the US can do in order to have a chance at a future is as I said, focus on US.
Who takes over where may not be to your liking. You may be sincere in your belief that you know what is best for people in the Middle East, in Africa, Asia, everywhere. I believe that you are sincere.
However, that belief is not part of reality, because the people of the world do not agree that US knows what is best for them.
The way the US runs its domestic affairs may not be to the liking of the people of Arabia.
Now I know, this gets back to your exceptionalist doctrine, which is your right to hold as a belief. But it is not your right to impose it on the people of Arabia, or anywhere else, and the attempt to do so is the fundament of the policy that is not sustainable, and constitutes a grave and urgent threat to your security!
your personalization of America as the issue becomes the problem with us communicating.
As you correctly observe the people of the middle east have been colonized or controlled to one degree or another for 80 years. I’d argue that the people of the middle east have not really had autonomy for most of Islam’s history, and not before it either.
But let us posit a period of autonomy in there somewhere between the Mongols and the Ottomans. In any case, they region did not develop the way other regions did thru nation states based largely on ethnicity.
It’s not possible for Iraq to split up neatly like Czechoslovakia. It will split up messily like the Balkans or the Caucuses.
But the rest of the world, not just America, has the very same colonial or imperial interest in keeping the oil pumping in Arabia. The whole world sits by an says nothing about the Sauds corruption and oppression. So, it is not accurate to say that I think I know what is best for the Arabian people. I asked you for your advice. It is more accurate to say that no one gives a shit about the Arabian people and no one has any solution for the Arabian people that doesn’t imperil their own self-interests.
Not just the oil companies interests, but anyone who has a retirement portfolio, or struggles to pay their energy bills, or whose job is vulnerable to recessions or even depressions. People all over the world have a vested interest in the stability of the peninsula that tends to trump any interest in the best interests of the Arabian people.
And beyond that, it is not clear at all that the people would be better off with an alternative government because the only likely replacements are not too appetizing from anyone’s perspective, including the majority of Arabs.
So, the vast, vast majority of people do not want to see any change in our relationship with the Saudis and many more would not if they actually had to sit down at look at a risk-benefit analysis.
If the people of Riyadh want a civil war to decide which new group of thugs will control their tourism industry and oil wells they should be clear that almost no one else wants that to happen and very few can see any benefit for anyone in it happening. At least, the benefits will come far down the line, and after an ugly interval.
You often talk about redirecting our efforts on providing health care and looking after children. But putting the world economy at risk is risking the welfare of billions.
So, I agree we have arrived at a bad spot that is not sustainable. But I think you reject the benefits of stability too easily and dismiss and deflect the blame of the region’s own civic disfunction to easily as well.
The bottom line: it is the Arabian peoples’ oil.
When US and its puppets are removed, it will be up to the Arabians to decide whether, to whom, and at what price to sell that oil.
Now what kind of domestic energy arrangements the US wants to make is not up to the Arabian people.
Once US gets out of the world domination and population reduction business, it will have more than enough money to take care of its citizens, if it chooses to do so. US now spends a dollar to kill someone else’s child instead of a dime to care for its own. That leaves 90 cents to take care of elders and everybody in between.
Now whether US wants to do that, or whether they want to give the whole dollar to people who have portfolios, that’s not up to the Arabians either.
US has made some expensive domestic policy choices, too, and those policies have balloon payments coming due and consequences of their own.
That’s not Arabia’s problem, even though there may be Arabians who are very sure that they know just what kind of government would be best for the US to have, even though there might be Iranians who sincerely believe that they know what kind of US government would be best for Iran, and best for US stability.
The US does not belong to them, US policy is not theirs to decide, and conversely, their policies are not for the US to decide, and, once again, the oil is theirs, to do with as they wish.
that were remotely true.
The oil is there. It belongs to the Arabian people in the same sense that the timber in Montana belongs to me. In other words, it doesn’t belong to them at all. It belongs to a bunch of oil executives, both Arab and non-Arab. And what is done with the revenues of that oil money is upto whatever group of people that seizes it.
It is currently held by Saudi princes in consortium with many nations, but mainly Texans with big hats.
It’s possible that tomorrow it could be held by jihadists in consortium with Norwegians. But it will never belong to the Arabian people.
that the rule of law, any progress beyond the most primitive cave man level of life is an impossible dream for the entire world, then the issue of US stability is even more urgent than I have said, and the only thing US can do is ensure that those Texans in big hats confine the plying of their craft to US soil.
Dutct tape…that made me think.
Well I said America isn’t fascist nationally. But it depends you know, if you are black or poor or Latin or whatever. It’s a gradient. There is police state nationally, it’s selective.
Pat Moniyhan…..I always hated his pedantic phony academic intelllectual aire.
He was the guy who said in so many words that social welfare would not work for black people as I recall, that “they” were a hopeless cause.
He’s a very conservative person with a few liberal ideas. Totally closed protected view of the world. He wouldn’t know how to talk to a person outside of an academic or political context. A mini mind. He’s an average person with a average brain who fit the mold through his image and manner that TV and the public felt comfortable in iidentifiying as someone who MUST BE INTELLIGENT.
I understand that frustration and I hope my posts don’t add to it. I try to clarify that the problems I think our country faces are predominately global issues in that other countries contribute in creating them.
I try to put positive comments out with the negative. When I doubt the intelligence agencies I doubt the actions of a renegade few and hope to trust the rest. It’s a problem when the agencies work in contradiction to that trust and it happens in a bunch of different ways.
But you don’t understand. It’s not fascist for you, America imposes it’s fascism on other countries. It’s moving in that direction. And yes i hate intelligence agencies….just for the name…..intelligence. No one know what intelligence is anymore.
The CIA is worthless. Why do you like it? What good has it done? Preventing terrorist attacks….or contributing to them?
And by the way they will be getting around to you and the blogs in time, it won;t be shootings just rules and regulations and flak that will control the internet.
Stu Piddy is known for his obsessive identifications. Just wait a while.
Yes, I am attending OIM … obsessive identification meetings to help me and my fellow group members stop making broad all inclusive comments that generalize everything. My group members are all a great bunch of people, everyone of them….I mean some of them are…..well….none of them are….well…maybe ….one of them ….I’m sorry I can’t bring myself to say it.
Thanks for confronting me though. It jolted me back to reality for a second or two. I’ll bring it up at the meeting on Wednesday and I’ll mention it to Dr. Scorn, my group leader.
Well, there’s this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. it’s bullshit in Afghanistan and in Iraq It’s a meaningless exercise for no apparent reason based on false lies and no one does anything about it because the politiicians are too afraid of the fascist government. America is imposing itself on other nations militarily, economically and ideologically and I think that’s fascism.
It’s not fascist nationally. It’s like Israel I suppose. The Isrealis are free but the Palestinians are not. The Americans are free but the Iraqi and Afghans are not and nieither to a lesser degree are a number of South American and Latin American countries.
What do you think this country has become? It’s a pariah all throughout the world. It’s not just Bush, it’s become the work of many sectors of big business. It’s going to be hard to pull out of it.
Just today Carl Levin that bastion of liberal thinking said well, Bush got us in there with lies but now we have to stay because Iraq has become a terroist center. That’s another lie. The Democrats are telling lies about Iraq being a terror center. It isn’t. There is nothing to be afraid of .
I am sorry but the twin towers just isn’t the end of the world to me. Why haven’t there been any attacks? It’s because no one has a strong enough desire to attack us. It takes strong desire, not ill will. Al Queda is myth.
I never said it was on par with Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be on par with Nazi Germany to be fascist. They don’t (didn’t) have a lock on fascism.
I don’t believe in patriotism. We are born in certain nations. We grow up in them and that culture is imbued in us. It’s nothing more than that. You can like your country your familiarity with it the comfort of home etc, the enviornment and it’s people and customs but it shouldn’t go any further than that.
I appreciate the input of the professionals who choose to post here. I think it’s healthy to disagree when it applies and I also believe life should be based on respect for human dignity.
Having said that, I’ll likely piss off a bunch of people for entirely different reasons. I think people should be able to distinguish between movies and real life. I think many comments that might be perceived offensive in a racist tone are actually a sarcastic denouncement of those attitudes.
I don’t believe Haji and his friends attacked the WTC and from that point it affects all that follows in dealing with the problems we face today.
I believe Dick (Cheney) can’t distinguish between movies and real life.
The question was posed…not what is the CIA doing it was what is Hollywood doing.
Hollywood made it okay to be a rampaging white man for decades.
The diarist reflected that Cheney wants to be a rampaging black man. He did not reflect that Cheney wanted to be a rampaging asshole of any color…he singled out black men.
I agree with your comment that Cheney can’t distinguish between Hollywood and real life is accurate. Therefore, for Cheney, it is okay to be a rampaging white man.
But in the movie Denzel Washington was in…I think he was a CIA guy and he was portrayed as a good guy basically fighting with his dark side. So ….
Why has no one NAMED this movie?
What movie are we talking about? The Seige? Training Day?
Denzel played a baaad motherfucker in both of these movies, but in a different way — if we are going to use fictional metaphors, it would be helpful to know what exactly we are talking about here — or maybe that’s just me.
The name of the Denzel Washington movie is the same as the diary title-‘Man on Fire’.
I’ve been accused way to many times of having no sense of humor or being too racially sensitive however given the context of the diary title tying in with Washington’s ultra violent movie where he wasn’t exactly a good guy and tortured several people to get the truth, then killed them(and how did he know they had told him the truth before he killed them anyway?)the use of the phrase ‘rampaging black super-hero’ was alluding to the character in that movie.
Forgive my ignorance here…I don’t go to movies of this type anymore and rarely watch them at home. In my younger days I was a Dirty Harry fan…and a Charles Bronson fan and a Steven Segal fan. Then I realized that allowing a cop to be fanatic was wrong and that allowing vigilantes, individuals or soldiers, was just as bad. About that time I gave up on the rampaging movies.
On principle I don’t go to movies – because of their violent content, because of their denigration of women, because of their racist attitudes. Yep, Dick Cheney lives a Hollywood life.
The movies I see are like Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.
in either of those series?? No violence? No sexist attitudes?
I am sincerely curious.
I see the racism and sexism in almost all movies. Don’t get me started on Disney movies! I also understand the distinction in that both series portray other aspects that create open thought.
Are there other species – such as Orcs or Ghostriders?
Do others have special powers – such as spellcraft?
They also do not mimic real life and have less direct impact on children and young adults. When movies have a real life perspective it directly impacts how society accepts something.
He was a tortured soul, that’s true. But he was also filled with vicious rage and thought nothing of the most grotesque, cruel torture or of murdering people … forget about due process.
Hollywood has made it glamorous to be all sorts of things. I think people should be able to distinguish between movies and real life.
I still don’t see the diarist’s comment as demeaning. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to be a black super-hero if it’s one with integrity and honor as many of them are. I don’t see the adjective ‘black’ any differently than other adjectives like rich, funny, short, amiable….it’s just another term of identification or description.
I spent almost 3 years working in Richmond CA. My co-workers and the people we helped, were a person, offended when a successful person needed a designation of black.
The designation indicates uniqueness. When someone is called funny or short or tall it is a means of singling them out. When you call some a ‘black super hero’ it is singling them out as unusual or rare – at least that is the way I perceive your use of the adjectives.
I worked with some great congress people, council members, mayors, and volunteers. There is no way that I can tell you which were black and which were white. It didn’t matter.
Rampaging super hero…an adequate distinction…without adding a qualifier.
Decent, valid point –just like it irritates people that suspects are called “black suspects” but not “white suspects” by TV news. This point has now been made and it’s clear that Larry didn’t mean anything racist by his remark, so let’s move on.
Whatever the intent, it is apparent that several of us here found the comment racist.
Like Poco – I’d like to see an apology for the comment.
I do not believe the apology for the comment is forthcoming, based on the premise of Larry’s comment above that we are taking it out of context.
In or out of context, I will believe that it is racist and will in the future call them when I see them.
For tonight I’m done with this diary. I’ll also have to consider that my respect for Larry tanked tonight and it will impact my perspective on his future writing.
I understand your explanation and I agree with it in principle. I’m probably going to be judged in a bad light for the comments I’m making but I keep going anyway. I wasn’t comparing the use of the term to what the character was in the movie. I’m pretty much colorblind in life but the context of the usage makes a difference as you point out.
I’m done
He was on TV this afternoon during a debate about torture.
He now says that torture is NEVER acceptable, and that only the president may authorize torture against a specific individual and only in a “ticking timebomb” situation.
While we all know that George Bush would only too readily take advantage of the power — sadist that he is — at least theoretically this is a good thing in that his signature would be on the order.
The problem is that Bush has both claimed and then delegated that power… to “whoever needs it” for “whatever reason is necessary” essentially. There’s no guidelines, no control and no one at the top is the least concerned about it.
Anyone who can and will give that power and responsibility away so casually has no business having it in the first place.
Great point. The Senate had better be careful about allowing such an exception.
Psst…Bunky.
Wanna buy a watch?
After a certain level of secret clearance is reached, there ARE no “ex”-CIA people. Bet on it. Except of course for dead ones. Or ones who have to spend their lives hiding rather than appearing as an expert witness on the MSM propaganda outlets and running anti-terrorist companies.
Mr. Johnson is a spooky spook spook.
Unofficially speaking, of course.
Now before half of you try to jump down my throat for automatically dissing the CIA…it is not his spooky background that bothers me.
In fact, I like most of what he says.
What bothers me is what so manny of YOU do not seem to understand.
There is a war on between the old-line CIA and the Neo-Cons.
Between old (mostly centrist) money and their old-line Intel cops, and new (FAE right wing) money and ITS intel guys.
Sides have been chosen, and careers have been ruined.
Darth Cheney is the man running this war on the Neo-Con side, pretty much.
The Neo-con exec officer in charge of counter-CIA ops.
He’s losing. HIS “intel” is not as intelligent and THEIR intel.
The good guy CIAs…by way of comparison, at the very least…are pressing their advantage.
What’s the point of this diary, again?
Cheney’s an asshole.
Fire him.
It’s PROPAGANDA, folks.
Propaganda with which I agree…but propaganda nevertheless.
Does Mr. Johnson believe what he is writing?
Yes, I imagine he does.
But YOU…
Understand.
It’s propaganda, Bunky.
Propaganda.
Could Mr. Johnson and Col. Lang be rival propagandists?
Could be…or maybe not.
Keep reading.
But read their (extraordinarily similarly formatted) bios and read with their experience in mind.
My father had high secret clearance…different field. (Aviation design. Space. Weapons guidance.)
Thirty years after he retired, he was STILL mum about what he knew.
Simply WOULD not talk about it.
You are NEVER an “ex”-secret holder.
And both these guys have stayed active in the security field.
The security INDUSTRY.
Read.
Awake to who’s writing.
AG
have any reason to believe that Larry is still receiving a paycheck from Langley, but on your larger point of a war between the traditional intel community and Cheney, there is no doubt, and Cheney is losing.
As for Larry specifically, this is personal. He entered the CIA with Val P. (as he knew her then) and went through training with her at The Farm. Last week on 60 Minutes another member of their class was on railing against the VP.
When they outed Valerie they made enemies of all members of her class, and of the agency in general.
Nothing too secret about that.
In addition to that, go back and read William Safire and Charles Krauthammer’s columns from 2002. They were just eviscerating the CIA on a bi-weekly basis, calling them pussies, accusing them of covering up intel that linked Atta to Iraq, and al-Qaeda to Saddam, on and on and on.
Cheney attacked the agency from the beginning, and he suspected the Wilson trip was set up to screw him. Maybe it was. But if so, he certainly had it coming.
The internet is crawling with them.
Personally, I think the chances of anybody, viral or not, changing anybody’s mind on a message board on the internets is slim. At best, you may make somebody think.
And if they think, they will figure out all you have pointed out. Obviously, there are no ex-CIA agents, not even Agent bin Laden (sabbatical).
You’re not using your real name, neither am I. 😀
Are you trying to say that they all work for the same people? The intel agencies, the parties….all of the countries that accuse each other are all owned by the same small group of powerbrokers. Doesn’t matter if it’s govt or private industry, one side of the ocean or the other. The game is easier to follow when the parameters are on the table. It’s just a matter of deciding which ones to listen to and when.
Receive a “paycheck”?
How about receiving contracts? As a security expert.
ConTACTS.
Gigs as an expert witness.
Publication deals.
Teaching positions.
And perks is just what they ADMIT to.
Perks abound.
As do “alliances”.
When you are in the business…you MUST make your alliances.
In ANY business.
Bet on it.
I mean…hell, you have to make your alliances in the local PTA or in the office.
This is just a different llevel..
Same RULES apply.
As above, so below.
Your ID is “Rumi”?
You of ALL people ought to know this.
As above, so below.
AG
Both Johnson and Lang work in the security field, they are working for corporations. They are doing , it seems to me, work related to the work they did in the CIA. So Gilroys point seems to me to be accurate. There is a war going on between extrememely conservative elements. There are no good guys when it comes to the CIA (blanket statement).
The CIA is a gestapo. They destroy lives, assassinate, kidnap, dissapear destroy democratic governments and cultures for big business….I mean American interests. They are generally just abunch of idiots. Lots of mormons in the CIA. 40% I was told, by someone who claimed the knowledge….I don’t know if that’s true.
The CIA…who would join such an organization? It does not attract liberals. It attracts people who are sneaky. People who like to lie. People who are naive. People who are dumb. People who are violent. People who are criminally inclined. People who feel empty and listless. People who want to control other people. People who are manipulative.
It’s a horrible organization. I hate it. I don’t like Lang and I don’t trust Johnson.
Yeah, we’ve heard. About 100 times. But be sure to repeat yourself often.
has no bearing whatsoever on its truth, Susan.
AG
My opinion of the GWoT is that it is not at all what it appears. I consider the evidence from occurrences on a global level that point to a well organized, long running organization of political-economic-defense-consultant-…etc interests that benefit from chronic global war or conflict. So, from there, most discussions on the issues are skewed and what I consider to be the true problem isn’t even addressed.
Everywhere, in all groups, there are forces at work to promote beneficial work for the people they represent and also the forces who serve a different interest. The trick to it is figuring out who to believe.
I firmly believe the ‘revolving door policies’ are one of the root causes and that applies to all countries and industries. It’s not always used in the wrong way but the ones that do tarnish the rest of them
These industries and agencies need to be self policing or answer honestly to outside entities for some measure of accountability and integrity. Currently, there is none.
Unlike Dick I have spoken with three CIA operations officers in the last three months–all who have worked on terrorism at the highest levels–and not one endorses torture or believes it will help us. In fact, they believe it will hurt us on many levels.
Cheney presumably would argue that there are documented cases where torture has yielded good intelligence. So these CIA officers would say that is a lie, as well?
Oh. they only tell that to Pat Lang privately….who currently working for the wonderful CIA has said, “I am going to be a whistleblower”. Not one brave soul that I know of. And if there is one….one is not enough!