C.I.A. Sought Blackwater’s Help in Plan to Kill Jihadists
By MARK MAZZETTI
One official familiar with the matter said that Mr. Panetta did not tell lawmakers that he believed that the C.I.A. had broken the law by withholding details about the program from Congress. Rather, the official said, Mr. Panetta said he believed that the program had moved beyond a planning stage and deserved Congressional scrutiny.
“It’s wrong to think this counterterrorism program was confined to briefing slides or doodles on a cafeteria napkin,” the official said. “It went well beyond that.”
I wrote about this story previously, but this is new info. It seems that the argument for it being withheld from Congress was false.
Current and former government officials said that the C.I.A.’s efforts to use paramilitary hit teams to kill Qaeda operatives ran into logistical, legal and diplomatic hurdles almost from the outset. These efforts had been run by the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, which runs operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
Paramilitary hit teams… oh how it brings back the memories of America’s dark past.
In 2002, Blackwater won a classified contract to provide security for the C.I.A. station in Kabul, Afghanistan, and the company maintains other classified contracts with the C.I.A., current and former officials said.
Over the years, Blackwater has hired several former top C.I.A. officials, including Cofer Black, who ran the C.I.A. counterterrorism center immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.
C.I.A. operatives also regularly use the company’s training complex in North Carolina. The complex includes a shooting range used for sniper training.
It sounds like the CIA and the former Blackwater are so entangled as to be inseparable. Big government and big business melded together… fascism anyone?
Some Congressional Democrats have hinted that the program was just one of many that the Bush administration hid from Congressional scrutiny and have used the episode as a justification to delve deeper into other Bush-era counterterrorism programs.
If we were to go by American history, then there probably were and are all kinds of covert programs being hidden from Congressional oversight. In my previous post about this story, I pointed out that it’s hard for Congress to serve it’s purpose of oversight when it’s left in the dark. How does the Congress oversee an agency whose practice is to control info and keep it secret? The only reason we see this info now is because there was a change in CIA leadership and the new guy didn’t want to get in trouble for the wrongdoings of the previous leadership. However, even he didn’t know about this CIA program even after being head of the CIA for several months. It was a secret even from him. The CIA even lacks clear internal oversight.
A Nuremberg for Guantánamo
By GUÉNAËL METTRAUX
AT the end of World War II, the Allied powers found themselves in charge of thousands of captured enemies, many of whom had committed unspeakable crimes. Some among the victors thought that the prisoners should simply be shot. Others, including many in the American government, steadfastly insisted that these men should be subjected to criminal proceedings. Thus the Nuremberg trials were born, tribunals that meted out justice for some of the 20th century’s worst atrocities while demonstrating the return of the rule of law on the European continent and the superiority of democratic values over Fascist lunacies.
An international criminal tribunal would not answer all the legal questions surrounding the war on terrorism. But by putting its faith in the law, the Obama administration would send a potent message to both its supporters and its enemies. By giving a fair trial to the Guantánamo detainees, the United States would reassert its core values and demonstrate the supremacy of those values over the evil that has been challenging them.
Oh, what a lovely dream! An America dedicating itself to justice, civil rights, and faith in the law… could such a thing be possible!?!
Sadly, there is a reason the US government doesn’t want to support international military tribunals. There are many people of many countries (including politicians and leaders) who would like to see a number of Americans sent to trial for war crimes. If we decided to subject citizens of other countries to fair trials, that might just lead to other countries demanding the same in return. That is a can of worms that even Obama wouldn’t want to open.
Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care — and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor.
Choices always have to be made about how limited money is spent. For that very reason, the way America spends it’s money seems bassackwards. Even if you assume that even the majority of criminals (who, by the way, are non-violent) can’t be rehabilitated, wouldn’t it make more sense to spend the money on people you can help?
¶The United States incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average. Of those sentenced to state prisons, 82 percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes, according to one study.
¶California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. In contrast, it spends only $8,000 on each child attending the troubled Oakland public school system, according to the Urban Strategies Council.
¶For most of American history, we had incarceration rates similar to those in other countries. Then with the “war on drugs” and the focus on law and order in the 1970s, incarceration rates soared.
¶One in 10 black men ages 25 to 29 were imprisoned last year, partly because possession of crack cocaine (disproportionately used in black communities) draws sentences equivalent to having 100 times as much powder cocaine. Black men in the United States have a 32 percent chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives, according to the Sentencing Project.
I like statistics. Nothing like facts to put ideology in its place.
Indeed, education spending may reduce the need for incarceration. The evidence on this isn’t conclusive, but it’s noteworthy that graduates of the Perry Preschool program in Michigan, an intensive effort for disadvantaged children in the 1960s, were some 40 percent less likely to be arrested than those in a control group.
Above all, it’s time for a rethink of our drug policy. The point is not to surrender to narcotics, but to learn from our approach to both tobacco and alcohol. Over time, we have developed public health strategies that have been quite successful in reducing the harm from smoking and drinking.
If we want to try a public health approach to drugs, we could learn from Portugal. In 2001, it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Ordinary drug users can still be required to participate in a treatment program, but they are no longer dispatched to jail.
“Decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal,” notes a report this year from the Cato Institute. It notes that drug use appears to be lower in Portugal than in most other European countries, and that Portuguese public opinion is strongly behind this approach.
For many many reasons, punishment just isn’t a very effective method. To put it in laymen’s terms, it doesn’t give you much bang for your buck. Besides, for a supposed Christian nation, we seem a little too much in love with punishment. If Jesus was here, he wouldn’t approve.
“There are only two possibilities here,” Mr. Webb said in introducing his bill, noting that America imprisons so many more people than other countries. “Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.”
It makes me happy when someone states the obvious.
Obama Calls Health Plan a ‘Moral Obligation’
By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE
“These struggles always boil down to a contest between hope and fear,” he said. “That was true in the debate over Social Security, when F.D.R. was accused of being a socialist. That was true when J.F.K. and Lyndon Johnson tried to pass Medicare. And it’s true in this debate today.”
Hope and fear may not be the best way to put it, but it’s not entirely inaccurate. Research shows that liberals and conservatives tend to be of two distinct personality types (Ernest Hartmann’s thin vs thick boundaries, Myers-Briggs’ Sensation vs iNtuition functions, etc.).
Conservatives ‘fear’ change because they tend to want the world to stay the same or else to return to some idyllic past. Conservatives are interested in the concrete reality of the present which is built on a sense of continuity with the past. They’re more comfortable with what is familiar.
Conservatives seem to be more pessimistic. Research shows that pessimists have a more realistic grasp of the way things actually are, but because of this they tend to get stuck in whatever situation they find themselves in. Another positive of pessimism is that it allows the acceptance of (even maybe necessitates the expectation of) human failure. At its best, this can be a very compassionate attitude. But the dark side is that if people can’t change you might as well just punish them and lock them away instead of trying to rehabilitate them.
Liberals ‘hope’ for change because they tend to want improvement and progress. Liberals are interested in imagined possibilities that even though not entirely real in the present have the potential to be real in the future. They’re more open to new experiences.
Liberals seem to be more optimistic. Research shows that optimists have less realistic grasp of the way things actually are, but because of this they tend not to get stuck in whatever situation they find themselves in. Another positive of optimism is that it allows for hope and even determination… no matter how often people fail, there is always potential (many successes only come after hundreds of failed attempts). At its best, this can be a very compassionate attitude. But the dark side is that if people are unable or feel unable to change unrealistic expectations are unhelpful and possibly dangerous such as if unrehabilitated criminals are released.
Even though the two attitudes balance eachother, America has always been a country of hope. If there is any single defining ideal of America, it is definitely the ideal of hope. At the same time, America’s being a young and less stable (or more dynamic if you prefer) country contributes to a constant fear of what we’re collectively becoming.