The CIA is a force for irrationality: a review of the film “Syriana” (2005) - Tulsa Peace Fellowship2024-03-28T16:43:40Zhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/forum/topics/the-cia-is-a-force-for?feed=yes&xn_auth=no"The million refugees now flo…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2016-09-30:2567841:Comment:356622016-09-30T16:26:41.462ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<p>"The million refugees now flooding into Europe are refugees of a pipeline war and CIA blundering."<br></br> ~<em>Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.</em> <br></br> <br></br>
</p>
<b>Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria</b><br></br>
<p class="subhead">They don’t hate ‘our freedoms.’ They hate that we’ve betrayed our ideals in their own countries — for oil.</p>
<p>By</p>
<p class="byline"><span class="vcard"><a class="url fn" href="http://www.politico.eu/author/robert-f-kennedy-jr/" rel="author">Robert F. Kennedy,…</a></span></p>
<p>"The million refugees now flooding into Europe are refugees of a pipeline war and CIA blundering."<br/> ~<em>Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.</em> <br/>
<br/>
</p>
<b>Why the Arabs don’t want us in Syria</b><br/>
<p class="subhead">They don’t hate ‘our freedoms.’ They hate that we’ve betrayed our ideals in their own countries — for oil.</p>
<p>By</p>
<p class="byline"><span class="vcard"><a rel="author" class="url fn" href="http://www.politico.eu/author/robert-f-kennedy-jr/">Robert F. Kennedy, Jr</a></span></p>
<p class="timestamp">2/23/16, 8:50 AM CET</p>
<p class="updated">Updated 9/16/16, 10:12 AM CET<br/> <a href="http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/" target="_blank">http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-...</a></p>
<p class="updated"></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> More on the CIA as a force fo…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2014-10-01:2567841:Comment:328652014-10-01T02:08:04.447ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<p>More on the CIA as a force for irrationality.<br></br><br></br></p>
<p><strong>"As U.S.-Afghanistan Sign Troop Deal, CIA-Backed Warlord Behind Massacre of 2,000 POWs Sworn-In as VP"</strong></p>
<p>September 30, 2014</p>
<p><br></br>DemocracyNow!</p>
<p>with Amy Goodman</p>
<p>guests:</p>
<p>Susannah Sirkin, director of International Policy at Physicians for Human Rights.</p>
<p>Jamie Doran, independent documentary filmmaker who directed the 2002 film "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death".…</p>
<p></p>
<p>More on the CIA as a force for irrationality.<br/><br/></p>
<p><strong>"As U.S.-Afghanistan Sign Troop Deal, CIA-Backed Warlord Behind Massacre of 2,000 POWs Sworn-In as VP"</strong></p>
<p>September 30, 2014</p>
<p><br/>DemocracyNow!</p>
<p>with Amy Goodman</p>
<p>guests:</p>
<p>Susannah Sirkin, director of International Policy at Physicians for Human Rights.</p>
<p>Jamie Doran, independent documentary filmmaker who directed the 2002 film "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death".</p>
<p><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/30/as_us_afghanistan_sign_troop_deal" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/30/as_us_afghanistan_sign_troop_deal</a></p>
<p><br/>summary: Abdul Rashid Dostum, Afghanistan’s new vice president. is one of Afghanistan’s most notorious warlords, Dostum’s rise to the vice presidency comes despite his involvement in a 2001 massacre that killed up to 2,000 Taliban prisoners of war. The victims were allegedly shot to death or suffocated in sealed metal truck containers after they surrendered to Dostum and the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance. Dostum, who was on the <span class="caps">CIA</span> payroll, has been widely accused of orchestrating the massacre and tampering with evidence of the mass killing. For more than a decade, human rights groups have called on the United States to conduct a full investigation into the massacre including the role of U.S. special forces and <span class="caps">CIA</span> operatives.</p> Well, this news story is not…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2014-05-20:2567841:Comment:321562014-05-20T17:39:20.330ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<p>Well, this news story is not about drones, but it is about the irrational, counter-productive outcome of CIA meddling, in an area riven by drone attacks.</p>
<p><strong>CIA Directive: No More Fake Vaccination Programs</strong><br></br> After 2011 Scheme, Polio Surges in Pakistan<br></br> by Jason Ditz, May 19, 2014<br></br><br></br>The real vaccination program was forced from Pakistan by the scandal, and dozens of real…</p>
<p>Well, this news story is not about drones, but it is about the irrational, counter-productive outcome of CIA meddling, in an area riven by drone attacks.</p>
<p><strong>CIA Directive: No More Fake Vaccination Programs</strong><br/> After 2011 Scheme, Polio Surges in Pakistan<br/> by Jason Ditz, May 19, 2014<br/><br/>The real vaccination program was forced from Pakistan by the scandal, and dozens of real <a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/19/un-suspends-pakistan-polio-drive-after-nine-workers-killed/">vaccination workers have been killed</a> by the Taliban under the assumption that they too are CIA.</p>
<p><br/><a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2014/05/19/cia-directive-no-more-fake-vaccination-programs/" target="_blank">http://news.antiwar.com/2014/05/19/cia-directive-no-more-fake-vaccination-programs/</a></p> Drone Strike Served CIA Reven…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2013-11-09:2567841:Comment:319402013-11-09T17:43:33.203ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<p><strong>Drone Strike Served CIA Revenge, Blocked Pakistan’s Peace Strategy</strong><br></br> by Gareth Porter, November 08, 2013</p>
<p>President Barack Obama supported the parochial interests of the CIA in the drone war over the Pakistani government’s effort to try a new political approach to that country’s terrorism crisis. The CIA drone strike that killed Mehsud stopped the peace talks before they could begin.</p>
<p>The most important success achieved by Pakistan in countering Taliban…</p>
<p><strong>Drone Strike Served CIA Revenge, Blocked Pakistan’s Peace Strategy</strong><br/> by Gareth Porter, November 08, 2013</p>
<p>President Barack Obama supported the parochial interests of the CIA in the drone war over the Pakistani government’s effort to try a new political approach to that country’s terrorism crisis. The CIA drone strike that killed Mehsud stopped the peace talks before they could begin.</p>
<p>The most important success achieved by Pakistan in countering Taliban violence in the past several years has been to reach accommodations with several militant leaders who had been allied with the Taliban but agreed to oppose Taliban attacks on government officials and security forces.</p>
<p>Sharif and other Pakistani officials were well aware that the United States could unilaterally prevent such talks from taking place by killing Mehsud or other Taliban leaders with a drone strike.</p>
<p>The government lobbied the United States in September and October to end its drone war in Pakistan – or at least to give the government a period of time to try its political strategy.</p>
<p><br/><br/><a href="http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2013/11/07/drone-strike-served-cia-revenge-blocked-pakistans-strategy/" target="_blank">http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2013/11/07/drone-strike-served-cia-revenge-blocked-pakistans-strategy/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>The CIA had an institutional grudge to settle with Mehsud after he had circulated a video with Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian suicide bomber who had talked the CIA into inviting him to its compound at Camp Chapman in Khost province, where he killed seven CIA officials and contractors on Dec. 30, 2009.</p>
<p>The CIA had already carried out at least two drone strikes aimed at killing Mehsud in January 2010 and January 2012.</p>
<p>Killing Mehsud would not reduce the larger threat of terrorism and would certainly trigger another round of TTP suicide bombings in Pakistan’s largest cities in retaliation.</p>
<p>Although it would satisfy the CIA’s thirst for revenge and make the CIA and his administration look good on terrorism to the US public, it would also make it impossible for the elected Pakistani government to try a political approach to TTP terrorism.</p> CIA admits role in 1953 Irani…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2013-08-20:2567841:Comment:313892013-08-20T13:36:30.712ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<p><b>CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup</b></p>
<p>by Saeed Kamali Dehghan and Richard Norton-Taylor<br></br> <em>The Guardian</em>, Monday 19 August 2013</p>
<p>The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.</p>
<p>Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian…</p>
<p><b>CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup</b></p>
<p>by Saeed Kamali Dehghan and Richard Norton-Taylor<br/> <em>The Guardian</em>, Monday 19 August 2013</p>
<p>The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.</p>
<p>Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.</p>
<p>Mosaddeq's overthrow was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy, under the Shah, would safeguard the west's oil interests in the country. It consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. The coup against Mossadeq still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, Mosaddeq epitomised a unique "anti-colonial" figure who was also committed to democratic values and human rights.<br/> <br/>
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-i...</a></p>
<h3 id="81912"><span class="caps">CIA</span> Admits Carrying Out 1953 Coup in Iran</h3>
<p>by Amy Goodman, for DemocracyNow!</p>
<p>18 Aug 2013</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">CIA</span> has finally admitted its role in the overthrow of Iran’s nationalist government 60 years ago today. On August 19, 1953, the government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was toppled in a coup organized by U.S. and British intelligence. Mossadegh was targeted after nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, sidelining the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became known as British Petroleum, or BP. The crushing of Iran’s first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on U.S. aid and arms. The <span class="caps">CIA</span> has now fully declassified an internal report acknowledging the coup "was carried out under <span class="caps">CIA</span> direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy." See our <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/topics/1953_iran_coup">related coverage here</a> of the CIA’s role in the 1953 Iran Coup.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/19/headlines#81912" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/19/headlines#81912</a></p> "The CIA is using bogus intel…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2012-11-24:2567841:Comment:238912012-11-24T19:53:36.538ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<p>"The CIA is using bogus intel for drone strikes as it and the military did to net terrorist suspects."<br/><br/><a href="http://original.antiwar.com/wellen/2012/11/23/us-using-bad-info-for-drone-strikes-like-it-did-for-detainees/" target="_blank">http://original.antiwar.com/wellen/2012/11/23/us-using-bad-info-for-drone-strikes-like-it-did-for-detainees/</a></p>
<p>"The CIA is using bogus intel for drone strikes as it and the military did to net terrorist suspects."<br/><br/><a href="http://original.antiwar.com/wellen/2012/11/23/us-using-bad-info-for-drone-strikes-like-it-did-for-detainees/" target="_blank">http://original.antiwar.com/wellen/2012/11/23/us-using-bad-info-for-drone-strikes-like-it-did-for-detainees/</a></p> The Trouble with Drones
By S…tag:tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com,2010-05-04:2567841:Comment:44762010-05-04T18:12:18.000ZTony Nusplhttp://tulsapeacefellowship.ning.com/profile/TonyNuspl
<b>The Trouble with Drones</b><br />
<br />
By Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine<br />
May 3, 2010<br />
<br />
excerpt only:<br />
<br />
In my view, there are two major problems with Obama-era drone warfare, which in general looks like Bush-era drone warfare on steroids.<br />
<br />
First, as applied on the battlefield along the historic Durand Line, the current campaign can’t be reconciled with the agreed premises for the separation of military and intelligence community activities in the National Security Act of 1947. That marked the launching…
<b>The Trouble with Drones</b><br />
<br />
By Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine<br />
May 3, 2010<br />
<br />
excerpt only:<br />
<br />
In my view, there are two major problems with Obama-era drone warfare, which in general looks like Bush-era drone warfare on steroids.<br />
<br />
First, as applied on the battlefield along the historic Durand Line, the current campaign can’t be reconciled with the agreed premises for the separation of military and intelligence community activities in the National Security Act of 1947. That marked the launching point for the CIA, and it proceeded from the recognition that the agency should be an essentially civilian operation. It would have the right to use lethal force in certain settings, of course, and it would even have limited paramilitary capabilities, but its essential function would be intelligence gathering and analysis, and it would be distinguished from military operations, which would be in the hands of the Department of Defense. The current drone-warfare program marks the first time in U.S. history that a state-of-the-art, cutting-edge weapons system has been placed in the hands of the CIA, marking the continued evolution of the CIA as a paramilitary force with advanced tactical weaponry. Moreover, this occurred without the sort of rigorous policy discussion involving Congress and the entire national-security community that should have occurred.<br />
<br />
The CIA is itself a civilian agency, not a military force accorded privileged combatant status under the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, the drone program has been developed, rolled out and implemented with exceptionally heavy reliance on civilian contractors. Not only did contractors design and fabricate the drones, they also play the key operational role in maintaining the drones, in arming and piloting them. The finger behind the trigger that releases death on the villages of North Waziristan is likely as not that of a civilian contractor. Moreover, the United States is now relying heavily on at least six private security contracting firms to do on-the-ground work in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, much of it inside of Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province. These civilian contractors are collecting information used to guide the predator drones to their strikes; they serve as the “eyes” of the predator drone force. They are usurping a traditional core military reconaissance function.<br />
<br />
All of this is occurring at the same time that the United States, as a matter of legal policy, denounces prisoners taken in the current hostilities as “unlawful” or “unprivileged” combatants and presses charges against them for using lethal force. But private security contractors and CIA operatives are every bit as “unlawful” and “unprivileged” under the laws of war. America’s posture on this issue is shamefully hypocritical, and needlessly so. American law and doctrine provide the correct answers. They just need to be remembered. Indeed, the segregation between intelligence and military functions envisioned in 1947 was driven by precisely this policy concern about training to and compliance with the laws of armed conflict, a fact that seems now largely forgotten. The CIA should not be running predator drone strikes in a combat theater, and civilian contractors need to be removed from the operation of drones outfitted with lethal weaponry. The current operations constitute a serious distortion of existing command-and-control doctrines surrounding military weapons systems. As a weapons system, the drones must be committed to the uniformed military, which should use the drones following well-established protocols covering military operations.<br />
<br />
My second major concern goes to the power of example that the United States is now setting with respect to the use of drones away from an acknowledged battlefield, especially in connection with targeted killings. No weapons system remains indefinitely the province of a single power. Drone technology is particularly striking in this regard, because it is not really all that sophisticated. ...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90006980" target="_blank">http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/05/hbc-90006980</a><br />
<br />
Remarks delivered at New York University Law School Center on Law and Security’s Seventh Annual Global Security Forum, May 1, 2010.