SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
william binney
READ: Karen Kwiatkowski Delivers Speech After Receiving 17th Annual Sam Adams Award
To tell the truth is simple, honorable, and good for the health of the republic. The fact that it drives the security apparatus and the government crazy is just icing on the cake
Dec 08, 2018
Here is Karen Kwiatowski's acceptance speech for the 2018 Sam Adams Award at a ceremony in Washington on Saturday night, preceded by the citation, that was read by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
Citation: Karen Kwiatkowski
Know all ye by these presents that Karen Kwiatkowski is hereby honored with the traditional Sam Adams Corner-Brightener Candlestick Holder, in symbolic recognition of her courage in shining light into dark places.
"If you see something, say something," we so often hear. Karen Kwiatkowski took that saying to heart.
She saw her Pentagon superiors acting as eager accomplices to the Cheney/Bush administration's deceit in launching a war of aggression on Iraq. And she said something--and helped Knight Ridder reporters Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay see beneath the official lies and get the sordid story right before the war.
Karen's courage brings to mind the clarion call of Rabbi Abraham Heschel against the perpetrators of an earlier war--Vietnam. "Few are guilty," he said, "but all are responsible. Indifference to evil is more insidious than evil itself." Karen would not be indifferent to evil.
Ed Snowden, Sam Adams awardee in 2013, noted that we tend to ignore some degree of evil in our daily life, but, as Ed put it, "We also have a breaking point and when people find that, they act." As did Karen. As did 16 of Karen's predecessors honored with this award.
With all the gloom and doom enveloping us, we tend to wonder whether people with the conscience and courage of Ed or Karen still exist in and outside our national security establishment. Our country is in dire need of new patriots of this kind.
Meanwhile, we call to mind the courageous example not only of Karen and Ed, but also of Coleen Rowley and Elizabeth Gun, our first two awardees, who took great risks in trying to head off the attack on Iraq. And we again honor Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange who is now isolated in what the U.N. has called "arbitrary detention," for exposing the war crimes resulting from that war.
Karen Kwiatkowski has made her own unique contribution to this company of conscience and courage, and Sam Adams Associates are pleased to honor her.
Presented this 8th day of December 2018 in Washington by admirers of the example set by the late CIA analyst, Sam Adams.
'Thoughts on the Sam Adams Award': Remarks by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatowski
I am honored beyond belief to be the 2018 recipient of the Sam Adams Award, and I thank Ray McGovern and the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Warren Strobel, and Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder during the run up to the second invasion of Iraq, and Rob Reiner for putting together a great movie that was so consistently truthful, that for me, it looked almost like a documentary. I want to also thank the late David Hackworth, a man I never met who published my first anonymous essays from the Pentagon, and of course, Lew Rockwell, who has published so many of my essays examining and trying to understand our government and our offensive policies over the past 15 years.
It is in our country's interest--as security professionals, as intelligence professionals, as soldiers and citizens, as writers and newsmakers--to be sensitive to the lawlessness, the immorality, and the wrongdoing of the bureaucracies and the leaders of the organizations we are a part of.
There have been many American patriots and truth-tellers who have received the honor you have given me tonight--and I am going to name them here because I stand in awe of all of them:
Coleen Rowley of the FBI; Katharine Gun of British Intelligence; Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; Craig Murray, former U.K. ambassador to Uzbekistan; Sam Provance, former U.S. Army Sgt; Maj. Frank Grevil of Danish Army Intelligence; Larry Wilkerson, Col., U.S. Army (ret.), former chief of staff to Colin Powell at State; Julian Assange, of WikiLeaks: Thomas Drake, of NSA; Jesselyn Radack, formerly of Dept. of Justice and now National Security Director of Government Accountability Project; Thomas Fingar, former Deputy Director of National Intelligence and Director, National Intelligence Council, and Edward Snowden, former contractor for the National Security Agency; Chelsea Manning, U.S. Army Private who exposed (via WikiLeaks) key information on Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as State Department activities; and to retired National Security Agency official William Binney, who challenged decisions to ignore the Fourth Amendment in the government's massive--and wasteful--collection of electronic data.
Again, I am very humbled and almost speechless tonight.
But not entirely speechless. My backstory is pretty well-known to most people here, and to anyone who was interested in understanding U.S. war policy in the early 2000s. I had a small role to play, in concert with a number of other truth-tellers in media and in the national security bureaucracy. For every one of us, there were probably 20 to 50 people working beside us and around us, who understood a lot about what was happening, and who probably got a funny feeling about being in an organization where we all swore to uphold the Constitution, but in fact were engaged in promulgating lies of both omission and commission, mistruths and misdirection, aimed not at our enemies abroad but against the American people. We were lying, with the help of a compliant and war-supportive media, to patriots young and old. Millions of Americans were eager to enlist, to fight, to sacrifice their life and health--for a made-up government fairy tale.
A sense of unease, I believe, was shared by many, many people who never blew a whistle, and never said a word. To their credit, some of these people passively resisted within their organizations, and tried to set things straight where they could. Some of these people simply called their assignments guy and got orders out of the Pentagon, others were removed if they resisted too much. There is always a cost when you seriously question the directions or actions of the bureaucracy that employs you.
It is in our country's interest--as security professionals, as intelligence professionals, as soldiers and citizens, as writers and newsmakers--to be sensitive to the lawlessness, the immorality, and the wrongdoing of the bureaucracies and the leaders of the organizations we are a part of. That is the first thing we must cultivate and encourage--a sensitivity to and an awareness of something as simple as right and wrong. This is fundamental. From knowing right and wrong, we move to the factor that motivates so many whistleblowers, something that we all share as human beings, and that is an idea of justice.
The truth-tellers who have been honored with Sam Adams Award, and thousands of others we may not be aware of around the world, share a concept of justice. For those who try to correct our U.S. government, particularly in its initiation and exercise of war, state-sanctioned murder, and physical devastation of whole societies, we as American have tools that many others around the world don't have. We have a Constitution that many of us swore to uphold. Americans tend to have a good grounding in the fundamentals of right and wrong, derived from religion or tradition, or both. We live in something that calls itself a republic, and it is a fine form of government, with a solid set of rules.
But how do we get from a certain moral discomfort, from seeing something going on around us that is wrong, to trying to do something about it? How do we decide if we want to leave the room, turn our backs, put our head down, or instead take some sort of action that will put us on a collision course with very powerful people? What if we, as truth-tellers, are like blind men describing an elephant--we see only one part of a larger story? How do we decide that our faith in our leadership is misplaced, and that more is at stake then just our jobs?
When you look at the experiences of people who made the dangerous and difficult decision to act, like Daniel Ellsberg, and Sam Adams, and Sibel Edwards, Jesselyn Raddick, Colleen Rowley, Thomas Drake, Ed Snowden, Julian Assange, and many others, you realize that speaking up and doing the right thing had a primary impact. That impact wasn't improved transparency, a more informed democracy, a more aware and alert citizenry, and better government decisions by our elected leaders. Those were all secondary impacts, and in many cases tenuous, as the improved level of national understanding seems to last for less than a single generation. No, the primary impact was the unimaginable wrath of the state aimed at the life, livelihood, reputation, family, character, and credibility of the truth-teller. In several cases, this included physical and psychological abuse, prison time, gag orders, and even more devious programs. The rage of the state against these truth-tellers is not impulsive and short-lived--it is a forever project funded by tax dollars, and fueled by very profitable agendas.
Knowing all of this, can we really expect to see a healthy and growing flow of truth tellers, whistleblowers, and simply bold honest people speaking out about government lies?
I think we can, and I am optimistic about the possibilities of better government through honest, bold, and forthright people working in and around this government.
To start with, as I mentioned, we as government employees and uniformed service-members need to have a solid sense of right and wrong. We need to cultivate a sense of justice. In a wonderful way, our younger generations are well prepared for this, at least in terms of cultivating a sense of justice. The young people we see portrayed, often disparagingly, as young socialists may not completely understand the nature of government or the state, but they do cherish ideas of justice.
The more of us--specifically those working with and inside the U.S. government today--who tell the truth, the less likely that government embarrassment will result in harm to a whistleblower, and the less likely in the long run that we will see whistleblowers as we tend to see them today.
We also need people in government service who are sensitive to what is going on in their organizations, and how people are feeling and behaving around them. It is not coincidence that many of the people who have been honored by this award are women, who may be paying closer attention to the mood and morality of their organizations. There's a country song that has a line in it about "Old men talking about the weather, and old women talking about old men." We need both in our organizations, to be in tune with what is happening, and who is leading us.
We need people in government service who are willing to walk away from a job, and to say or even broadcast why they are leaving, without worrying about the next job, without worrying about being blacklisted, without worrying that they can't make their next house payment or college tuition payment, or the alimony or child support payment. We need people in government who travel light, so to speak, and do their job because they love what they are doing and what it stands for. This grounding and lack of rigid self-identification with their employing bureaucracy is extremely important. Thanks to technology and societal evolution, the younger generations of Americans are very likely to walk away from a job that they believe to be immoral, to act to correct what they see as wrong or unjust, and incidentally, are less likely to own a home, and more likely to define themselves by what they believe and stand for, not where they work, and how many promotions they had planned for themselves in that organization.
But even with our younger generations coming into government service--with a good sense of justice, a strong sense of self, and a willingness to speak openly about what they believe and know--there is risk when someone questions the collective government story.
There is risk in the act of challenging authority and one's peer group, risk of being wrong and suffering loss of credibility. There is the rational and real risk of incurring the rage of the state, and being jailed, harmed, ruined and even killed on the whispers of an incensed or threatened agency.
There is another risk that we really don't talk about much. I think most concerning for many people is the risk that you are actually right, that you have discovered something damning and dark in your country, in your government, in your organization. Once this happens, if it happens, your life is irreversibly changed, and nothing is ever going to be the same. Understanding how your government actually works, in particular how it works to create and provoke war and murder, how it works to extract the wealth of the nation and use this blessing to commit Constitutional crimes and untold evil, in your name--for many this understanding is not a gift, but a curse. I estimate at least 10 percent of our country, 20-30 million Americans, many of them veterans the U.S. Empire's global adventures in the past 50 years, feel this curse, and many of them deal with it by turning away from the dark side of Washington D.C., and not talking, writing, or speaking about what they know.
If anyone has followed the case of former Marine Sergeant Brandon Raub a few years ago, you realize that the government keeps a close and paranoid eye on what veterans are doing and saying. Given how things work today, they may be wise to turn away silently from the truth they know.
I think this is why it is often hard for us to demand more truth-tellers come forward, especially in the defense and security and intelligence arena, when we should be shouting it from the rooftops.
Some years ago, I did an online radio program where I would interview interesting people, like Ray McGovern and Sam Provance and Sibel Edmonds, among many others. One person, in our conversation, expressed surprise that I was a short (formerly) brown haired woman, when he thought I would be a tall blonde. I was reminded of this when watching Shock and Awe, because Rob Reiner and the writers did not know who I was, and they portrayed me as a tall light-haired woman, a modern day Viking of sorts. Notwithstanding that this is a popular and attractive stereotype, I think there is something to be learned here. We want to believe that anyone who stands up to authority, who knows his or her own mind, who is willing to enter into a battle of wills with the state, and to take a risk is somehow taller, stronger, bolder, and braver than the rest of us.
But it isn't true. There is something remarkably childlike and simple in being honest, in observing without fear what is happening around you, and reporting this to the person who pays the bills. In the case of the national security arena, the bill payer is the American people. To tell the truth is simple, honorable, and good for the health of the republic. The fact that it drives the security apparatus and the government crazy is just icing on the cake. Granted, we all need jobs, and our mental health, and we don't want to be imprisoned, tortured, or killed. But the more of us--specifically those working with and inside the U.S. government today--who tell the truth, the less likely that government embarrassment will result in harm to a whistleblower, and the less likely in the long run that we will see whistleblowers as we tend to see them today. In a world of that values honesty, they would be receiving the public commendation of a proud Congress, a grateful media and President, and a contented population.
We--average Americans--are increasingly controlled, spied on, monitored, tracked, threatened, boxed in, and shut down by tools that were first used and tested on some contrived wartime enemy.
I'm not a Pollyanna, and I'm worried about the role the U.S. government is playing at home and abroad. The kind of devastation that the U.S. tolerates, supports and initiates around the world--Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, of course Yemen comes to mind, the horrendous situation that Julian Assange is still facing as we speak--is not limited to "overseas." The industrial warfare state is as dangerous to Americans as it is to Iraqis, Syrians, and Yemenis. The arts of the warfare state are already being practiced here, against Americans. We--average Americans--are increasingly controlled, spied on, monitored, tracked, threatened, boxed in, and shut down by tools that were first used and tested on some contrived wartime enemy.
You don't need me to tell you this, it's in every newspaper every day, on every page. It is our modern reality. Truth and transparency are its only antidote, and truth and transparency needs all of us. To live in a society, to be a citizen, to love your country -- you cannot sleepwalk through it.
People who value wisdom, people who value common sense, people who value justice and people who believe that being woke is a good thing--congratulations! You are the majority! You are alive, you are in charge of this country, and you can choose. America is worth preserving, healing, and saving - and if she is to be saved we will do it by first learning the difference between the truth and a lie, and then speaking the truth loudly, boldly, to anyone who will listen, over and over and over again.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Prosecution of Julian Assange, America's Betrayal of Its Own Ideals
As Trump’s administration now carries on Obama’s legacy, vowing to destroy WikiLeaks for engaging in publishing activities that are protected under the First Amendment, American people are slowly coming to see their own government’s dirty war that has been waged in their name.
Nov 21, 2018
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange remains arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. As he is in a critical situation under a special protocol imposing prison-like surveillance, news emerged that shed light on the grave danger he has been facing. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the US Justice Department, in what appeared to be an error of cut and paste in their court filing, inadvertently disclosed criminal charges against Assange exist under seal.
Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson responded to the revelation of a secret US government's prosecution against the publisher, by noting that it confirms what Assange and his legal team have been suspecting. She pointed out how a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks started in 2010 in relation to disclosures made by WikiLeaks in partnership with other major newspapers revealing the evidence of US war crimes. She made it clear that this risk of his extradition to the US has been the reason why Assange sought and was granted asylum by Ecuador in 2012.
This public confirmation of a US indictment sent a huge alarm to civil liberty groups in the US. The ACLU issued a statement, noting how this sealed indictment violates the Constitution and prosecuting journalists for publishing classified documents would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom. Now that this sealed indictment is out in the open, validating Assange's fear of leaving the embassy, the public is given an opportunity to see the true nature of his plight for freedom. What is now being revealed is the war on the First Amendment waged by the US government, targeting the Western journalist who has published materials in the public interest at a scale that has never been seen before.
The war on the First Amendment
The spark for this war was quietly lit in 2008 with US intelligence's plan to destroy WikiLeaks, viewing the website as an information security threat to the US army. It got inflamed in 2010 shortly after the whistleblowing site published the trove of US classified military records of the Afghan war, revealing around 20,000 deaths by assassination, massacre and night raids, and the Iraq War Logs, that informed people in Iraq and the international community about 15,000 civilian casualties previously unreported.
As the White House downplayed the significance of these disclosures, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen called WikiLeaks publications "reckless" and "irresponsible". While there is not a single shred of evidence that any of these disclosures caused anyone harm, the Pentagon deflected its own crimes and aggressively tried to attack the messenger with a bombastic line of "they have blood on their hands".
Assange as a spokesperson of this new multi-national media organization came under attack with an intense campaign of character assassination. The preliminary investigation of his alleged sexual misconduct involving two women in Sweden who explicitly denied the accusation of rape was turned into a full blown legal battle trapping him in London where the local press criminalized him as a rapist.
Right after WikiLeaks' publication of the US diplomatic cables, the vilification of Assange intensified by high profile US political figures. The former Vice President Joe Biden branded Assange as a high-tech terrorist, while a former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich calling him an "enemy combatant", who deserves to be executed.
WikiLeaks also has faced massive coordinated political retaliation. On November 29, 2010, the US Attorney General publicly confirmed the existence of a secret grand jury investigation into disclosures of classified information made by WikiLeaks. In December 2010, Amazon removed WikiLeaks from their server after being pressured by US officials. Then, signaled by the US State Department, private paying processing companies such as VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Bank of America and Western Union engaged in extrajudicial financial blockade against WikiLeaks, reportedly destroying over 95 % of their revenue. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks associates were repeatedly harassed at borders.
Whistleblowers as casualty of war
This attack on WikiLeaks is an escalation of Obama's war on whistleblowers. Before Snowden's revelations, former National Security Agency analysts, Thomas Drake, William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis were alarmed by widespread government surveillance and decided to speak out.
Thomas Drake, former NSA senior executive who blew the whistle on secret mass surveillance programs, spoke about how he came to witness his own government actively violating the privacy and freedom of its citizens in the name of national security and decided not to remain silent. He said, "I took an oath to defend the constitution. Here I am finding myself defending the constitution against my own government, a government that I did not recognise, an alien form of government. I had to stand up to it."
Drake, who faced 35 years in prison before the government charges against him were unexpectedly dropped, also alerted the public about the government's war on whistleblowers:
"We are seeing an unprecedented campaign against whistleblowers and truthtellers: it's now criminal to expose the crimes of the state. Under this relentless assault by the Obama administration, I am the only person who has held them off and preserved his freedom. All the other whistleblowers I know have served time in jail, are facing jail or are already incarcerated or in prison."
John Kiriakou became the first CIA officer to confirm the use of torture and to face jail time for challenging the legality of the US torture program. Before going to jail, he spoke of his decision:
"I took my oath seriously. My oath was to the Constitution. On my first day in the CIA, I put my right hand up, and I swore to uphold the Constitution. And to me, torture is unconstitutional, and it's something that we should not be in the business of doing ... If you see waste, fraud, abuse or illegality, shout it from the rooftops, whether it's internally or to Congress."
While Obama was relentlessly prosecuted whistleblowers more than all other previous administrations combined, corporate media effectively kept the battlefield out of public sight. These whistleblowers who fought to hold the ground for truth became an invisible casualty of this war on the First Amendment, who were made to quietly endure suffering.
Frontline of the battle
As the unchecked power of the national security state grew, expanding its territory in cyberspace with increasing surveillance and censorship, a new stream of dissidents emerged on the Internet. WikiLeaks courageously entered into a frontline of the battle in defense of the First Amendment. With unprecedented technical infrastructure that enables anonymous submission of documents, it provided an avenue for a new generation of whistleblowers to exercise free speech that has been stifled in traditional channels.
The former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, the source behind WikiLeaks major publications including the raw footage of a US airstrike killing innocent civilians in Iraq, first reached out to the established media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, but was not taken seriously by editors. When the mainstream press turned away, she chose to put her trust in the non-profit media organization that was little known at that time.
Manning's act of courage became contagious, creating a wave of whistleblowers. By following the step of his forerunner, political activist Jeremy Hammond exposed the inner workings of the pervasive surveillance state. At the sentencing hearing, he explained how he perfectly understood the consequences of his action and that it was against the law, yet he felt a duty to confront injustice. Then came Edward Snowden who revealed the NSA mass surveillance. In one of the addresses he made, Snowden also described his act as a public service and connected it with non-violent civil disobedience that Dr. King, a leader of civil rights movement employed to challenge the racist laws
As disclosures of government corruption began to challenge the legitimacy of authorities, the war on whistleblowers has escalated to a new level. Recent public confirmation of the US government's secret charges on Assange has shown the empire's expansion of a combat zone, to include journalists and publishers as its target. Although there is no clarity as to what charges are filed against Assange, the data that Google handed over to the US government in order to assist the prosecution of WikiLeaks' staff indicated that alleged offenses include espionage.
The Espionage Act of 1917 is a US federal law, created after World War I for wartime prosecutions. This outdated law does not allow a public interest defense and prevents whistleblowers from having their motivations considered in court, making it impossible for them to defend their acts and receive a fair trial. Manning was convicted and Snowden charged under the Espionage Act by President Obama.
Now this law that was used to imprison whistleblowers is weaponized to punish those who report on government crimes. Commenting on imminent withdrawal of asylum for Assange by the Moreno government and his risk of prosecution in the US, Glenn Greenwald, journalist at The Intercept noted how Obama's Justice Department was eager to prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks for the crime of publishing classified documents, but chose not to do so, due to concerns that it would set a precedent which could strip away the First Amendment protection for the press. Yet he contended that the Trump administration made it clear that they have no such reservation.
Tradition of civil disobedience
The possibility of the US government charging Assange who is not American, and didn't publish in the US under its laws, probably for 'espionage' is extremely alarming. What is this crime of 'aiding the enemy' that the US government is eager to convict this transnational journalistic organization for? WikiLeaks, the organization that claimed to derive its source of inspiration from American founding ideas, with cryptography as a non-violent democratic weapon, helped American people to engage in the tradition of civil disobedience. By doing so, Assange, an Australian citizen, enabled the vital function of American democracy.
The idea of civil disobedience was presented by American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, as a critical component of checks and balances of governmental power. Thoreau, who believed that "government is best which governs least" (1957, p. 235), put forward the idea of civil disobedience, reminding the moral responsibility of ordinary people to defy the illegitimate authority of the state and restrict its power.
Thoreau engaged in the act of civil disobedience, to oppose slavery and went to a prison for refusing to pay a poll tax that supported the US war against Mexico. For him, the method of civil disobedience offered a way for people to create laws that reflect the true values of society and improve democracy that was inherited from the forebears.
He posed the questions:
"Is a democracy, such is we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly." (1957, p. 256)
This father of civil disobedience asked, "... Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?" (p. 236). He aimed to institute a new form of government that places conscience as the highest law, allowing each individual to freely explore what is right in their hearts with obligation to act out of their own knowing. He noted, "Unjust laws exist: Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?" (p. 242). Through his own act of civil disobedience, he has shown how only by each person's adamant refusal to obey the dictates of unjust laws can we bring real accountability of the government and enshrine ideals into laws.
Conscience of America
Contrary to the ideals of equality and liberty at its foundation, from the onset of the US constitutional republic, unaccounted power has always existed, manifested in the founders' internal contradiction over slavery, genocide of natives and oppression of minority rights. The Declaration of Independence was said to be the promise and the Constitution was its fulfillment. What bridges between the ideals in the original document and laws were ordinary people who are capable of developing their own moral conscience and bearing true faith and allegiance to it.
As WikiLeaks pushed the boundaries of free speech, the world has seen the rise of the power of ordinary people. The late attorney and President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner, who witnessed Manning read her prepared statement at the military court facility in Fort Meade, Maryland, recognized her as the conscience of America.
Through its scientific journalism, publishing primary source material in its full archives, WikiLeaks gave this conscience of America the maximum political impact for it to inform the public, in order to redeem the nation that has lost its own course. In this war of a tyrannical state on the First Amendment, Assange became a lightning rod to take all the heat, so ordinary people can uphold these ideals that are inscribed in their hearts, defending them against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
As the invisible beast inside the US government devours the hearts of these brave young patriots, WikiLeaks acted as a shield. This was demonstrated in their extraordinary source protection. After Snowden identified himself as the source behind the NSA files, aggressive prosecution quickly rolled out from Washington. As Snowden was stranded in Hong Kong, it was then the investigations editor at WikiLeaks and journalist Sarah Harrison who risked her life to secure his asylum.
Call for duty
Just as the Founding Fathers of the United States, by revolting against the autocratic rule of King George were regarded as traitors, by aiding ordinary people expose and defy unjust secret law, WikiLeaks too has been branded as an enemy of the state. Trump's Secretary of State and the former CIA director, Mike Pompeo calls WikiLeaks a non-state hostile intelligence agency, claiming that the organization threatens American values and needs to be shut down. Members of the US Congress urged the Ecuadorian President to persecute Assange, calling him a "dangerous criminal" and a "threat to global security". While all these vicious verbal attacks are thrown at him, Assange remains in confinement, over the past months, being completely shut out from the outside, being continually deprived of fresh air, access to medical care and sunlight by the UK government in violation of UN rulings.
All wars start and are fueled by lies and propaganda. Once it was the Vietnam War, where under the command of the US President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Gulf of Tonkin lies unleashed military forces into Southeast Asia. Then came the invasion of Iraq with the former Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech at the UN, falsely claiming Iraq had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. This battle against free speech is another secret war of this empire. It now has become a fog of war, where with the hype of Russia Gate that was created out of thin air, the public was prevented from seeing who the real enemies are.
As Trump's administration now carries on Obama's legacy, vowing to destroy WikiLeaks for engaging in publishing activities that are protected under the First Amendment, American people are slowly coming to see their own government's dirty war that has been waged in their name.
By trying to prosecute Julian Assange, America is betraying its own ideals. As this government that proclaims to be the greatest nation on the earth now heads toward its own destruction, each of us are called to respond to the duty of civil disobedience. Can we the people break silence to end this war and defend those who fought for the ideals that founded this nation? Solidarity across political lines can create the greatest anti-war movement that this country has ever seen. Outcome of this battle matters not only for the freedom of Assange, but for the liberation of America and realization of its own ideals that this country once stood for the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
VIPS to Trump: Intel on Iran Could be Catastrophic
As drums beat again for war — this time on Iran—-the VIPS’ warning is again being disregarded as it was before the Iraq debacle and this time VIPS fear the consequences will be CATASTROPHIC
Aug 01, 2018
August 1, 2018
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Intelligence on Iran Fails the Smell Test
Mr. President:
As the George W. Bush administration revved up to attack Iraq 15 years ago, we could see no compelling reason for war. We decided, though, to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the chance he had been sandbagged by Vice President Dick Cheney and others. We chose to allow for the possibility that he actually believed the "intelligence" that Colin Powell presented to the UN as providing "irrefutable and undeniable" proof of WMD in Iraq and a "sinister nexus" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
To us in VIPS it was clear, however, that the "intelligence" Powell adduced was bogus. Thus, that same afternoon (Feb. 5, 2003) we prepared and sent to President Bush a Memorandum like this one, urging him to seek counsel beyond the "circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."
We take no satisfaction at having been correct -- though disregarded -- in predicting the political and humanitarian disaster in Iraq.
We take no satisfaction at having been correct -- though disregarded -- in predicting the political and humanitarian disaster in Iraq. Most Americans have been told the intelligence was "mistaken." It was not; it was out-and-out fraud, in which, sadly, some of our former colleagues took part.
Five years after Powell's speech, the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee minced few words in announcing the main bipartisan finding of a five-year investigation. He said: "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
Iran Now in Gunsight
As drums beat again for a military attack -- this time on Iran, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and other experienced, objective analysts are, by all appearances, being disregarded again. And, this time, we fear the consequences will be all-caps CATASTROPHIC -- in comparison with the catastrophe of Iraq.
In memoranda to you over the past year and a half we have pointed out that (1) Iran's current support for international terrorism is far short of what it was decades ago; and (2) that you are being played by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claims about Iran' they are based on intelligence exposed as fraudulent several years ago. Tellingly, Netanyahu waited for your new national security adviser to be in place for three weeks before performing his April 30 slide show alleging that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program. On the chance that our analysis of Netanyahu's show-and-tell failed to reach you, please know that the Israeli prime minister was recycling information from proven forgeries, which we reported in a Memorandum to you early last spring.
If our Memorandum of May 7 fell through some cracks in the West Wing, here are its main findings:
The evidence displayed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 30 in what he called his "Iranian atomic archive" showed blatant signs of fabrication.
The evidence displayed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 30 in what he called his "Iranian atomic archive" showed blatant signs of fabrication. That evidence is linked to documents presented by the Bush Administration more than a decade earlier as "proof" of a covert Iran nuclear weapons program. Those documents were clearly fabricated, as well.
In our May 7, 2018 Memorandum we also asserted: "We can prove that the actual documents originally came not from Iran but from Israel. Moreover, the documents were never authenticated by the CIA or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
Iran: Almost Targeted in 2008
There was a close brush with war with Iran a decade ago. Bush and Cheney, in close consultation with Israel, were planning to attack Iran in 2008, their last year in office. Fortunately, an honest National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007 concluded that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003, and that key judgment was made public. Abruptly, that NIE stuck an iron rod into the wheels of the juggernaut then speeding downhill to war.
The key judgment that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapon was the result of the painstakingly deliberative process that was customarily used, back in the day, to produce an NIE. After that process -- which took a full year -- the Nov. 2007 NIE was was approved unanimously by all U.S. intelligence agencies.
(In other words, it was decidedly NOT a rump "assessment" like the one cobbled together in a couple of weeks by "handpicked" analysts from three selected, agenda-laden agencies regarding Russian meddling. We refer, of course, to the evidence-impoverished and deceptively labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment" that the directors of the FBI, CIA, and NSA gave you on January 6, 2017. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department intelligence bureau were among the other 13 agencies excluded from that "Intelligence Community Assessment.")
As for the Bush/Cheney plans for attacking Iran in 2008, President George W. Bush, in his autobiography, Decision Points, recorded his chagrin at what he called the NIE's "eye-popping" intelligence finding debunking the conventional wisdom that Iran was on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Bush added plaintively, "How could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?"
Mr. President, we do not know whether a fresh National Intelligence Estimate has been produced on Iran and nuclear weapons -- or, if one has been produced, whether it is as honest as the NIE of Nov. 2007, which helped prevent the launch of another unnecessary war the following year. We stand on our record. In sum, if you believe that there is credible evidence that Iran has an active secret nuclear weapons program, we believe you have been misled. And if you base decisions on misleading "intelligence" on Iran, the inevitable result will be a great deal worse than the Bush/Cheney debacle in Iraq.
For the Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Sen. Richard H. Black, 13th District of Virginia; Colonel US Army (ret.); former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Kathleen Christison, Senior Analyst on Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic, former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Larry C. Johnson, former CIA and State Department Counter-terrorism officer
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, Wing Commander, RAAF (ret.); Intelligence Officer & ex-Master SERE Instructor
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, Capt., USMC (ret.); former Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council
Ray McGovern, former US Army Infantry/Intelligence Officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Gareth Porter, author/journalist (associate VIPS)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned in opposition to the war on Iraq)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular