Greg Mitchell's Blog, page 258

Greenwald Responds to Critics

After his flurry of writings last week, Glenn Greenwald has gone missing, at least in print, for several days, busy explaining and defending the NSA/Snowden leaks while preparing new material.  Now he's just out with a lengthy column in The Guardian in which he makes his clearest statement yet on upcoming revelations (and they're coming verysoon, he discloses), tackles attacks on Snowden by liberal media and congressional figures; and much more.

Of extra interest:  He responds fully to attacks on that part of his PRISM report on NSA having "direct" access to servers for Google etc.  You can decide for yourself if his defense is convincing but I have to agree with him when he hits Rick Pearlstein for claiming that he had failed to respond previously.  Gosh, I haven't been paying THAT much attention and I covered on this blog days ago Greenwald's defense on Chris Hayes' show, and he cites several others.   But this critique will probably wash away IF the upcoming revelations prove as explosive as promises.

Brits Back U.S. on Syria and Chems--But Won't Send Arms

Classic;  Brits send evidence of Assad using chem agents, egg Obama on, then back him on sending arms--but naturally won't take that step themselves.   France no doubt in same boat.  Let us get into a war that we then have to stay in because we can't handle defeat.   From a BBC report:

The UK shares the US view that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons but has not yet decided whether to arm the rebels, Downing Street says.

The White House is to supply direct military aid having concluded that chemical weapons had been used.

Tory MP John Baron urged David Cameron not to rush to follow suit and Labour says efforts should be on peace talks.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said the change from the White House brought it closer to the position adopted by Britain and France - that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be forced to the negotiating table.
Reservations have been expressed by some Conservative MPs and, reportedly, some of his own cabinet ministers.

Speaking after the White House announcement, Tory backbencher John Baron said: "Arming the rebels and escalating the violence could be a mistake of historic proportions."

He said there was no way of knowing that weapons would not fall "into the hands of extremists within the Syrian opposition forces that have committed atrocities".

And he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme adding more weapons could escalate the conflict beyond Syria's borders.

Politico Shows the Way?

As I noted last night, the U.S. media have largely played along with the White House tune on Syria and chem agents and the "red line" and all (with McClatchy an exception, at least to date), so it was refreshing to read an analysis in Politico, of all places, today that suggests (actually declares) that the chem angle is just an excuse and the real reason for acting now is simply that Assad is suddenly winning and Obama is taking a beating from hawks outside and inside the administration (even Bill Clinton) for doing nothing.  The red line actually = Assad victory.

Will McClatchy Go Rogue Again, This Time Re: Syria Claims?

As I noted earlier today,  the U.S. media has largely taken claims of evidence of Assad's use of chemical agents in Syria pretty much in lock-step--just as they did in the run-up to the Iraq war. We're seeing it again with the White House's latest claims today, the crossing of the "red line" and the turning point to arm the rebels (and god knows what's next).   As I wrote last month, the one U.S. news outlet that has deeply questioned the claims about Syria is the same on that stood out for casting doubt on Iraq WMD claims so long ago: McClatchy.  And again, Jonathan Landay has been in the forefront there.  So: What now?

Well, they have their first major piece up tonight, not by Landay but by Lesley Clark.  It's pretty rote--and even quotes good old hawkish Michael O'Hanlon--until these two key grafs, which you won't find in other coverage so far:

[Deputy National Security Adviser Ben] Rhodes repeatedly referred to the Supreme Military Council as “the military option” on the ground – an exaggeration when in fact the council controls only a fraction of the rebel fighters. The most effective rebels – Islamist militants such as the Nusra Front – don’t heed the council’s directives. The council’s own leader, defected Gen. Salim Idriss, told McClatchy last month that it was difficult to unify the fighters and that his men suffered from a lack of ammunition and training.

Rhodes also said there would be stepped-up assistance to the Syrian Opposition Coalition, a fragmented, fragile and mostly toothless body that’s in such disarray that U.S. officials told McClatchy they were considering redirecting funds that had been allotted for it. For months, the coalition has been plagued by infighting and lack of leadership, leaving the Obama administration with no real civilian opposition partner.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/13...

Here We Go Again: Will Media Claims (and War?) Against Syria Over Chem Weapons

Here we go again.  As I noted during the last flurry a few weeks back, the U.S. media  in its news coverage (if not always in commentary) have repeatedly hyped very sketchy evidence of Syria's use of chemical agents against the rebels--then gone quiet when it was disputed or the White House said it was pondering the whole thing.  Always they highlight Obama's claim that such use would mean a "red line" had been crossed, meaning strong U.S. response.  Now they're at it again just now, with early coverage of the White House new claims, and promises to take action.  Again with the "red line."  And again with not emphasizing that it was small scale use at most, even if proven, some day--at most 100 to 150 killed.  Needless to say, Judy Miller's old co-author and tubthumper for wars, Michael Gordon, with a byline at NYT.   No doubt some official is calling  the evidence a "slam dunk."

And so now State Dept. calling for air strikes and more.   NYT highlights Bill Clinton siding with John McCain and other hawks calling for intervention.  Perhaps Obama will bring his friend and supporter Colin Powell out of retirement to make the Syria chem weapons case to the U.N.   Will Jonathan Landay and McClatchy again raise the questions they so boldly posed on the evidence re: Syria just last month?

Nixon vs. 'NYT' on Pentagon Papers

Nixon on tape below learns for first time about import of Pentagon Papers, published 52 years ago today,  from Al Haig.  Amazingly,  Nixon had "seen" the story but not read it and didn't think much about it until Haig call.  Totally out to lunch on it.  Then, below that, talking to Kissinger and John Mitchell the next day.    Ellsberg, "leftwinger," ID as likely leaker.  NYT "our enemy."  And two weeks later, Nixon orders "going after that son of bitch Ellsberg." Remember break-in at his shrink's office?

The Real Space Creatures

Fun correction in British daily The Sun.  We can only assume they did not take kindly to letter from Scientology attorney.  Somewhere Tom Cruise is jumping off a couch.

As Debate Continues: What Manning Revealed

The debate in the media, and in political, circles over Edward Snowden--Right or Wrong, often doubles back on references to Bradley Manning (especially since he is now, finally, on trial).   Sometimes both are hailed or denounced equally.  Other times distinctions are drawn.  In any event, too often (that is, most of the time), the value and import of the Manning/WikiLeaks disclosures are ignored or dismissed, much as Snowden's NSA scoops now derided as "nothing new." 

At this point, I don't expect much more than this, but it was shocking to see Josh Marshall, the much-respected founder/editor/publisher of Talking Points Memo (years ago I wrote a couple pieces for them and conducted book forums), in endorsing  prosecution of Snowden and Manning,  also make this claim about the Manning/WikiLeaks docs: they revealed only "a couple clear cases of wrongdoing." 

So for Josh, and so many others, who either suffer from memory loss or ignorance on this particular score, here is a partial accounting of some of the important revelations in the Manning leak, drawn from my book (with Kevin Gosztola) on the Manning case, Truth and Consequences .  The book has just been updated to this month but the revelations below all came before March 2011--many others followed.

First, just a very partial list from "Cablegate" (excluding many other bombshells that caused a stir in smaller nations abroad):

-U.S. pressured the European Union to accept GM — genetic modification, that is.

-Yemeni president lied to his own people, claiming his military carried out air strikes on militants actually done by U.S.  All part of giving U.S. full rein in country against terrorists.

-U.S. tried to get Spain to curb its probes of Gitmo torture and rendition.

-Egyptian torturers trained by FBI—although allegedly to teach the human rights issues.

-State Dept memo: U.S.-backed 2009 coup in Honduras was 'illegal and unconstitutional.'”

-Cables on Tunisia appear to help spark revolt in that country. The country's ruling elite described as “The Family,” with Mafia-like skimming throughout the economy. The country's First Lady may have made massive profits off a private school.

-U.S. knew all about massive corruption in Tunisia back in 2006 but went on supporting the government anyway, making it the pillar of its North Africa policy.

-Cables showed the UK promised in 2009 to protect U.S interests in the official Chilcot inquiry on the start of the Iraq war.

-Washington was misled by our own diplomats on Russia-Georgia showdown.

-Extremely important historical document finally released in full: Ambassador April Glaspie's cable from Iraq in 1990 on meeting with Saddam Hussein before Kuwait invasion.

-The UK sidestepped a ban on housing cluster bombs. Officials concealed from Parliament how the U.S. is allowed to bring weapons on to British soil in defiance of treaty.

-New York Times:  “From hundreds of diplomatic cables, Afghanistan emerges as a looking-glass land where bribery, extortion and embezzlement are the norm and the honest man is a distinct outlier.”

-Afghan vice president left country with $52 million “in cash.”

-Shocking levels of U.S. spying at the United Nations (beyond what was commonly assumed) and intense use of diplomats abroad in intelligence-gathering roles.

-Potential environmental disaster kept secret by the US when a large consignment of highly enriched uranium in Libya came close to cracking open and leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere.

-U.S. used threats, spying, and more to try to get its way at last year's crucial climate conference in Copenhagen.

-Details on Vatican hiding big sex abuse cases in Ireland.

-Hundreds of cables detail U.S. use of diplomats as “sales” agents, more than previously thought, centering on jet rivalry of Boeing vs. Airbus. Hints of corruption and bribes.

-Millions in U.S. military aid for fighting Pakistani insurgents went to other gov't uses (or stolen) instead.

-Israel wanted to bring Gaza to the ”brink of collapse.”

-The U.S. secret services used Turkey as a base to transport terrorism suspects as part of its extraordinary rendition program.

-As protests spread in Egypt, cables revealed that strong man Suleiman was at center of government's torture programs, causing severe backlash for Mubarak after he named Suleiman vice president during the revolt.  Other cables revealed or confirmed widespread Mubarak regime corruption, police abuses and torture, and claims of massive Mubarak famiiy fortune, significantly influencing media coverage and U.S. response.

Now, an excerpt from our book on just small aspect of the Iraq war cables.  This doesn't even include the release of the "Collateral Murder" video earlier.

Al Jazeera suggested that the real bombshell was the U.S. allowing Iraqis to torture detainees. Documents revealed that U.S. soldiers sent 1300 reports to headquarters with graphic accounts, including a few about detainees beaten to death.  Some U.S. generals wanted our troops to intervene, but Pentagon chiefs disagreed, saying these assaults should only be reported, not stopped.   At a time the U.S. was declaring that no torture was going on, there were 41 reports of such abuse still happening “and yet the U.S. chose to turn its back.”
      The New York Times report on the torture angle included this: “The six years of reports include references to the deaths of at least six prisoners in Iraqi custody, most of them in recent years. Beatings, burnings and lashings surfaced in hundreds of reports, giving the impression that such treatment was not an exception. In one case, Americans suspected Iraqi Army officers of cutting off a detainee’s fingers and burning him with acid. Two other cases produced accounts of the executions of bound detainees.
    “And while some abuse cases were investigated by the Americans, most noted in the archive seemed to have been ignored, with the equivalent of an institutional shrug: soldiers told their officers and asked the Iraqis to investigate….That policy was made official in a report dated May 16, 2005, saying that ‘if US forces were not involved in the detainee abuse, no further investigation will be conducted until directed by HHQ.’ In many cases, the order appeared to allow American soldiers to turn a blind eye to abuse of Iraqis on Iraqis.” 
     Amnesty International quickly called on the U.S. to investigate how much our commanders knew about Iraqi torture.
     A top story at the Guardian, meanwhile, opened: “Leaked Pentagon files obtained by the Guardian contain details of more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq following the US-led invasion, including more than 15,000 deaths that were previously unrecorded.
     “British ministers have repeatedly refused to concede the existence of any official statistics on Iraqi deaths. U.S. General Tommy Franks claimed 'We don't do body counts.' The mass of leaked documents provides the first detailed tally by the U.S. military of Iraqi fatalities. Troops on the ground filed secret field reports over six years of the occupation, purporting to tote up every casualty, military and civilian.
     “Iraq Body Count, a London-based group that monitors civilian casualties, told the Guardian:  'These logs contain a huge amount of entirely new information regarding casualties. Our analysis so far indicates that they will add 15,000 or more previously unrecorded deaths to the current IBC total. This data should never have been withheld from the public”’  The logs recorded a total of 109,032 violent deaths between 2004 and 2009.
     Citing a new document,  the Times reported: “According to one particularly painful entry from 2006, an Iraqi wearing a tracksuit was killed by an American sniper who later discovered that the victim was the platoon’s interpreter….The documents...reveal many previously unreported instances in which American soldiers killed civilians—at checkpoints, from helicopters, in operations. Such killings are a central reason Iraqis turned against the American presence in their country, a situation that is now being repeated in Afghanistan.”

And now,  re: the Afghanistan war logs:

     The Times highlighted it as “The War Logs” with the subhed, “A six-year archive of classified military documents offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war.” Explicitly, or by extension, the release also raised questions about the media coverage of the war to date.
     The Guardian carried a tough editorial on its web site, calling the picture “disturbing” and raising doubts about ever winning this war, adding: “These war logs—written in the heat of engagement—show a conflict that is brutally messy, confused and immediate.  It is in some contrast with the tidied-up and sanitized 'public' war, as glimpsed through official communiques as well as the necessarily limited snapshots of embedded reporting.”
     Elsewhere, the paper traced the CIA and paramilitary roles in the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan, many cases hidden until now. In one incident, a U.S. patrol machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15.  David Leigh wrote, “They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as ‘cheap’.”
     The paper said the logs also detailed “how the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.”    Previously unknown friendly fire incidents also surfaced.
     The White House, which knew what was coming, quickly slammed the release of classified reports -– most labeled “secret” — and pointed out the documents ended in 2009, just before the president set a new policy in the war; and claimed that the whole episode was suspect because WikiLeaks was against the war.   Still, it was hard to dismiss official internal memos such as:  “The general view of Afghans is that current gov't is worse than the Taliban.”
     Among the revelations that gained prime real estate from The New York Times: “The documents… suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.”  The Guardian, however, found no “smoking gun” on this matter. The Times also reported that the U.S. had given Afghans credit for missions carried out by our own Special Ops teams. 

Obviously much more in our book.

Inspector Kills Himself After Philly Building Collapse

(AP) An official says an inspector who surveyed a Philadelphia building before it collapsed last week, killing six people, has committed suicide.  Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison says the inspector was found fatally shot in a pickup truck Wednesday night. The man was a Department of Licenses and Inspections employee who had inspected the building May 14.

Officials were informing department staff Thursday morning and the man’s name wasn’t immediately being released.

The building was being demolished when it collapsed onto a neighboring Salvation Army Thrift Store on June 5, killing two employees and four customers. Police allege a heavy equipment operator was high on marijuana when it happened.

Speaking of State Murders...

Two more executions in the U.S. in two favored states:  Florida and Texas.    My e-book on the history of capital punishment in the USA, up to the present day controversies.