Menu

Another View - CIA spies and tortured lies

  • Written by Amy Goodman

“What keeps me up at night, candidly, is another attack against the United States,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein said last month in what was, then, her routine defense of the mass global surveillance being conducted by the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies. 

All that has changed now that she believes that the staff of the committee she chairs, the powerful, secretive Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was spied on and lied to by the CIA. The committee was formed after the Watergate scandal engulfed the Nixon administration. The Church Committee, led by Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church, conducted a comprehensive investigation of abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies, of everything from spying on anti-war protesters to the assassination of foreign leaders.
Thus began the modern era of congressional and judicial oversight of U.S. intelligence.
This week’s public spat between CIA-loyalist Feinstein and that agency might briefly upset the status quo, but they will make up. Sadly, it obscures a graver problem: the untold story of the United States’ secret policy of torture and rendition (the latter is White House lingo for “kidnapping”).
The conflict surrounds the mammoth, classified Intelligence Committee report on this notorious U.S. government program. Feinstein and other senators have sought the declassification of the 6,300-page document.
We have now learned from press reports and from a speech Feinstein made on the Senate floor this week that Intelligence Committee staffers were given access to CIA documents at a secure CIA facility, somewhere outside of CIA headquarters. Feinstein described the scene: “The CIA started making documents available electronically to the committee staff at the CIA leased facility in mid-2009. The number of pages ran quickly to the thousands, tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, and then into the millions. The documents that were provided came without any index, without organizational structure. It was a true ‘document dump’ that our committee staff had to go through and make sense of.”
Whether it was in those millions of pages, or provided to the Intelligence Committee staff from a CIA whistle-blower, we do not yet know—but a key document surfaced, called the “Internal Panetta Review,” ostensibly named after Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA at the time. Feinstein said in her floor speech, “What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was ... their analysis and acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing.” This “Internal Panetta Review” specifically contradicts the CIA’s own written testimony to the Intelligence Committee. Yes, the CIA was caught in a lie.
It doesn’t end there. Mike German, a fellow at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice who served as an FBI agent specializing in domestic counterterrorism for 15 years, said on the “Democracy Now!” news hour, “This is really an extraordinary situation ... this is supposed to be oversight of the CIA that the Senate is doing, not allowing the CIA to set the terms for the oversight of their own work.” Feinstein reported that hundreds of documents originally provided were later deleted by the CIA. Now, to add insult to injury, it turns out the CIA is seeking criminal charges against committee staffers, ostensibly for stealing the Panetta review.
Ray McGovern is a former top-level CIA analyst who publicly criticized the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. He told me: “This goes back to the key question of supervising the intelligence community. ... People always say, ‘After 9/11, everything changed.’ Well, it did change. The president, on the evening of 9/11, said, ‘I don’t care what the international lawyers say. We’re going to kick some ass.’ ... Well, they took some prisoners in Afghanistan, and the first person tortured was John Walker Lindh, an American citizen.”
The torture was widespread, vicious and conducted in secret “black sites” around the globe. This is what is being lost in the Beltway power struggle between Sen. Feinstein and the CIA. Lives have been ruined; some in U.S. detention died violent deaths at the hands of their captors. In the grim American gulag at Guantanamo Bay, hunger-striking prisoners charged with no crime, some of whom have been cleared for release for more than a decade, are subjected to vicious force-feeding and torture techniques that date back to the Spanish Inquisition.
Let’s hope Feinstein’s indignation is not quickly salved, and that the Intelligence Committee’s oversight of the sprawling U.S. intelligence agencies is invigorated, with real teeth. NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden weighed in from political asylum in Russia, saying, “We’re seeing another ‘Merkel Effect,’ where an elected official does not care at all that the rights of millions of ordinary citizens are violated by our spies, but suddenly it’s a scandal when a politician finds out the same thing happens to them.”
  Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
  Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 1,100 stations in North America. She was awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and received the award in the Swedish Parliament in December.

Memorable moments covering elections

Bobs Column - The B Side“Thirty one votes, thirty one votes,” the supporters chanted inside the small campaign office in downtown Park Ridge, Ill. The long-awaited election results were in and there was reason to celebrate.
I stood in a corner of the cramped election headquarters 24 years ago today as passionate supporters of a woman named Rosemary Mulligan celebrated the political newcomer’s victory over her opponent, Penny Pullen, for a seat in the Illinois legislature.
It was a primary election, but the winner was all but certain of victory in November in Republican strongholds like Park Ridge and Maine Township. This was the battle and abortion rights were at the core.
Pullen, the incumbent, adamantly opposed abortion rights, while Mulligan supported them. There were other issues in the race, but abortion is what drove people’s passions. And I was at the center of it all. It was 1990. I was 25 years old, working my first newspaper job and covering politics with gusto.
I will never forget that night. I left the jubilant Mulligan headquarters in search of Pullen. I had to catch her that night to capture her emotions. A friend and I drove to her campaign headquarters. No one was there. I pulled into a parking lot and my headlights captured a woman walking to her car. It was Pullen. She never expected me. I hurried out of the car and asked my questions. She was cordial but disappointed. 
I didn’t realize that night the gift I was about to receive as a young reporter and political junkie. Pullen wasn’t about to bow out quietly. One month later, the veteran legislator contested the election and a recount was held. I wrote story after story throughout the spring and summer as developments unfolded. In September, six months after the joyous night in the Mulligan headquarters, the Illinois Supreme Court named Pullen the winner by five votes.
A lot of people didn’t like Pullen. I respected her. She believed without apologies in her conservative values. She invited my wife and me to Springfield where we visited her on the floor of the legislature. My wife even got to “vote” on a piece of legislation after Pullen told her which button to push. It was an interesting and memorable day. 
There was no quit in Mulligan. She ran again in 1992 and won. She served for two decades in the legislature before retiring last year. 
Tuesday’s election got me thinking about Pullen, Mulligan and my early days as a reporter. I covered the town of Park Ridge for a chain of newspapers in the northwest suburbs. I immersed myself into politics and became the chain’s quasi political editor. I enjoyed attending political events and having candidates come to the newsroom for interviews.
I loved politics and relished the wheeling and dealing that occurred at the township level where town board members controlled their little fiefdoms by handing out patronage jobs in exchange for campaign work at election time. In those days, I knew inconsequential political information like the back of my hand. I knew district boundaries, names of every office holder as well as party officials, such as ward and township committeemen. 
I dug the process—slate making, endorsements, campaigning, winning. I thought the power politicians wielded was impressive. I wasn’t naïve enough to think politics was some altruistic endeavor. And I understood that some pols thought only of their own interests. Still, politics to me was a spectator sport. Favorites, underdogs, drama and a wide array of personalities. And I loved telling intriguing political stories to the reader.
Wow have times changed. Granted, Tuesday’s primary lacked a premier race in The Reporter’s coverage area. Even the statewide races were a snore. But I realized during all the election talk in the newsroom that I don’t care much about politics these days. My knowledge pales in the comparison to that of the young reporter who couldn’t get enough. And, my opinion of many politicians is not too favorable. Too often, party affiliations, the desires of party leaders and egos get in the way of serving constituents. There are exceptions—state Rep. Kelly Burke comes to mind. 
For whatever reason, I’m not that interested anymore. Politicians annoy me or, sadly, amuse me as they “represent” us at various levels of government. And face it, there’s not a lot we can do to change the system they’ve created to maintain the status quo. Too many federal, state and local representatives vote as they’re told by party leaders in exchange for campaign funds and workers at election time. Seldom can a political newcomer clear that hurdle so that fresh faces be infused into the system.
Don’t get me wrong. Give me a solid race with a some intriguing issues and a couple quality candidates and the old adrenaline might flow once again. I sat just one year ago at Dave Heilmann’s election night reception and watched a stunned crowd comprehend that he had lost his re-election bid for Oak Lawn mayor. It was great theater. I doubt Dave would agree. I was witness in 2011 to Oak Lawn Trustee Bob Streit’s near defeat to a political newcomer. The veteran trustee’s team was more than a little concerned that night. 
It would be tough to top Pullen versus Mulligan in the early years of a young reporter’s career. The older, more experienced reporter is not so wide-eyed and just a bit jaded. I have not, however, thrown in the towel.

Inside The First Amendment - With stroke of a pen, Arizona governor changes everything

 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto last week of SB 1062 — a controversial “religious freedom” bill few Americans read and even fewer understood — may well have been a defining moment in the history of gay rights in America.
Post SB 1062, it will be politically difficult, if not impossible, to pass laws that are perceived to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — even to protect religion, even in red states with Tea Party favored governors.
Brewer’s veto — urged by business leaders, both of the state’s Republican Senators, and even several legislators who voted for the bill in the first place — is symbolic of the new zeitgeist in America: Like it or not, it’s no longer economically, socially or politically feasible to be seen as a state hostile to lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender people.
This is huge.
It now appears that discrimination against LGBT people is fast approaching the same level of unacceptability as racial discrimination for a growing majority of Americans.
What SB 1062 supporters called “religious freedom,” opponents successfully re-framed as “discrimination” — drawing heavily on the language and imagery of the struggle for racial equality.
Would Arizonians, for example, allow businesses to refuse service to inter-racial couples on religious grounds? If not, what is the rationale for treating discrimination against LGBT people differently in places of public accommodation?
A much-re-tweeted tweet from radio producer Chris Lavoie captured the winning message linking past civil rights struggles to the present battle: “Dear Arizona, In case you missed it, we’ve already had this conversation. You don’t get to decide who sits at the lunch counter. Love, America”
Game over.
What was lost in the din of charge and counter-charge was the actual content of SB 1062. Contrary to most media coverage, this was not a “turn-away-the-gays” bill that would have allowed business owners to refuse service to LGBT people. Instead, the law would have amended the existing Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act to cover religious freedom claims by business owners.
As nine legal scholars explained in a public letter to Gov. Brewer, nothing in the amendment would say who wins in cases when a business owner asserts a religious freedom claim:
“The person invoking RFRA would still have to prove that he had a sincere religious belief and that state or local government was imposing a substantial burden on his exercise of that religious belief. And the government, or the person on the other side of the lawsuit, could still show that compliance with the law was necessary to serve a compelling government interest.”
In other words, such “free exercise” claims would likely be rare (“substantial burden” is a high bar) and would often fail in the face of a compelling state interest.
If the media and public failed to grasp the nuances of the proposed law, proponents of SB 1062 have only themselves to blame. Recall that the law was proposed in the first place as a response to cases (in other states) where business owners providing wedding services turned away same-sex couples on religious grounds. But rhetoric from many of the bill’s supporters about the dangers of the “homosexual agenda” drowned out legitimate arguments about protecting religious conscience in limited circumstances.
Ironically, discrimination against LGBT people is already possible in much of Arizona since only a few cities in the state have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation.
If Arizona legislators want to garner public support for expanding protections for religious conscience, they would be wise to start by passing legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Then they might gain the credibility and trust needed for a narrowly tailored law exempting religious small business owners from serving same-sex weddings when it violates their conscience.
That’s unlikely to happen now. The bitter SB 1062 debate has poisoned the well for any effort to seek common ground that could protect LGBT people from discrimination while accommodating religious convictions in limited circumstances.
In her veto message, Gov. Brewer said: “Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value; so is non-discrimination.”
The sad lesson of the battle over SB 1062 is that in the current climate of name-calling and fear mongering, few people on either side are willing to work together to uphold both.

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001. Web: religiousfreedomeducation.org Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Savor those Royal parent-child moments

Bobs Column - The B SideLast weekend, my daughter put the finishing touches on her first high school research paper.
I should say “we” put the final touches on the paper, as I was called on to help in a big way. I didn’t have much choice. I have an automatic out when it comes to math and science—my poor performance in those disciplines is one of the reasons I’m a writer. But when it comes to writing assignments, my assistance is usually sought.
The truth is, I’m happy to help. The paper was a major undertaking for my daughter, who did not experience a similar project in middle school. A retired school teacher friend of mine always assigned an 8th grade research paper to his students. I now see the wisdom of his decision. But for Brigid, the research paper process was brand new and a little intimidating. There is the thesis, sources, notecards, an outline and rough draft. Each step led to the final paper, which represents a big percentage of her final English grade.
We spent a large chunk of a recent weekend searching through books trying to nail down a thesis and wrap our brains around the subject matter. She was convinced—or so it seemed—at one point that the paper would be a disaster. Fortunately, it came together nicely in the end.
The time spent helping Brigid reminded me of the process I followed when I wrote similar papers for literature classes at Moraine Valley. I proudly told my daughter that my paper was handed out to students in another class as an example of how to properly write a research paper. I was the man when it came to those papers. I spent hours in the library looking for the sources to support my thesis. Then I wrote the paper in longhand on a legal pad, and my mother was kind enough to type it of a Royal manual typewriter.
That was 30 years ago. My mom was a secretary. She could type at a pretty good clip. She sat at the dining room table after a full day at work and typed my papers. Brigid doesn’t need a typist. She needs me to guide her, offer ideas, edit her drafts. Either way, a parent is happy to help.
I thought about my mom and the old typewriter last week because she died one year ago last week after a long struggle with dementia. The woman who could type, but also loved to read, knew about great authors and had genuine interest in my research papers and subsequent journalism career, hardly knew who I was when she passed. Dementia is a horrible illness and one that doesn’t get nearly the amount of funding or attention as do other illnesses.
When she died, my family and I were relieved more than anything else. She lived with us for the final two years of her life. It was rough at times, but I don’t regret it. My wife and children deserve much recognition for the time spent and the sacrifices made in order to care for her. It’s difficult to remain patient and not lose your temper at times when caring for someone suffering with dementia.
One year later, I miss my mom more than in the days immediately after she died. Ditto for my dad, who died nearly two years ago. I once shared an office with a guy who was genuinely surprised that I spoke to my dad every day. He’d go for months without chatting with his parents, he once told me. He was even out of the country once without their knowledge, he bragged. That was incomprehensible to me.
I enjoyed talking to my parents, and in an odd sort of way I still sought their approval even though I was leading my own life with a wife and children. What they though mattered. My dad and I both loved sports and laughed about many of the same things. I miss checking in with him on numerous events, including news about his three grandchildren, recent changes in my life and upcoming opening day.
Moms and dads. They’re invaluable. They take care of us and we take care of them. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Once they’re gone, we have fond memories, including a loving woman and her Royal manual typewriter and man whose ear and advice I really miss.

Inside the First Amendment FCC study: Necessary report or ‘national news nanny’?

  • Written by Gene Policinski

  The First Amendment establishes our right to a press free from intrusion, regulation or intimidation by the government.
  As to a right to be free from questions by a national “news nanny,” it’s all in how you view the ultimate intent.
  A few weeks ago, a Republican appointee to the Federal Communications Commission kicked up a fuss — particularly among conservative groups — about a planned FCC study of how journalists make news decisions.
  Commissioner Ajit Pai wrote an Op-Ed column Feb. 10 in The Wall Street Journal saying the commission’s “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, meant “the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run,” starting with a pilot program in Columbia, S.C.
  “The purpose of the CIN,” Pai wrote, “ ... is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about ‘the process by which stories are selected’ and how often stations cover ‘critical information needs,’ along with ‘perceived station bias’ and ‘perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.’”
  Noting that the FCC has the power to renew or deny broadcast licenses, Pai wrote that the voluntary study was anything but that. He wondered why the study also included newspapers, over which the FCC historically has had no authority.
  As happens in today’s polarized political environment, liberal observers took a different tack, saying the study was prepared with the help of USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, and was simply part of an ongoing FCC obligation to periodically report to Congress on how well the public gets information it needs, and what hurdles may exist to improving that process.
  On Feb. 21, the FCC backed away from its plan. “Any suggestion the Commission intends to regulate the speech of news media is false,” FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said. A revised study will be conducted, but journalists and news media owners will not be asked to participate.
  So: An outright assault on a free press — with, as the more florid claims said, official “news monitors” in every newsroom? Or a benign bureaucratic survey that began more than two years ago, created in cooperation with the very journalists it was intended to examine?
  Lest we forget, there’s nothing in the First Amendment that protects the press from questions, criticism and review, by anybody. But when government does so, it merits extra caution and concern — if not claims that that “media sky is falling.” The government“s record on good intentions and the news media can provide enough cause to worry.
  Just seven years after the Bill of Rights, with its First Amendment, was adopted, Congress approved and President John Adams signed a law that provided for prosecution of editors critical of either one. Within a few years the law was allowed to expire, having lost public support after more than a dozen journalists were jailed under the pretense of inciting war with France, which some saw as a mere excuse to eliminate political opponents.
  Attempts by the government to restrain the press prior to publication have, through the years, ultimately have been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, notably in the so-called “Pentagon Papers” case in 1971 when the Nixon administration tried to prevent publication of a secret report on U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
  And the FCC itself created a prime example of good intentions-gone-wrong with the history of its Fairness Doctrine, enacted in 1949. The commission was concerned then about the concentration of news outlets in a few hands, and the doctrine required broadcasters to provide information and varied views on matters of public interest.
  Several decades later, it was evident virtually all electronic news outlets chose the safest path to avoid violating the doctrine: Providing no opinion. Once common “broadcast editorials” disappeared. Discarded by the FCC in 1987, the doctrine was made further obsolete by the proliferation of cable TV stations, and by the diversity of outlets and information available on the Internet — which some says makes the entire commission an anachronism and unneeded.
  Still, surveys show that broadcast TV remains the largest single medium by which the public gets news — and both liberals and conservatives find reason to regularly criticize all or part of that news media. Newspapers clearly face financial hurdles — and tens of thousands of jobs in journalism have been lost in the past 20 years.
  Yes, how well the news media are meeting their obligation to readers, viewers, listeners and users is a worthy subject of study — and is regularly, by non-profit organizations, private media monitoring groups and an ever-vocal host of individual critics.
  Regulators doing that very studying should raise caution, if not the panic voiced by some commentators. Might not a “study of the studies” and reviews of oft-expressed criticism be more efficient and just as informative for that portion of the FCC’s examination of the news media today?
  In addition to providing its critics with an easy target, the pilot FCC study also provided its own benediction: “Go forth and CIN no more.”

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and senior vice president of the Institute’s First Amendment Center. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .