So it's July 4th. And You Know Who is President of the United States, and doing what he does. Meanwhile, a whole lot of Republican Senators and members of Congress are celebrating it in Moscow, presumably because securing Russian cooperation in their upcoming elections is more important than pitching to voters.
Meanwhile, something like 14,000 new citizens took their oath of citizenship today. At the same oment that the You -Know-Who Administration plans on launching
Space Force a task force devoted to stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship (read "from NON-WHITES").
And on this 242nd anniversary of a group of elite White men declaring independence from another group of elite White men, a friend whom I have been visiting for some months at one of our nation's involuntary guest facilities, in this case, in New Jersey, was abruptly deported, even before the ink on a decision denying him asylum had time to dry. A fine July 4th he (and his friends) had.
Meanwhile, Candace has a number of things on her blog, including that her client Razak Ali has started his 17th year of indefinite detention, despite never having been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime or anything else, and that the GTMO project has hit 6,000 days. There is a court hearing coming up next week in D.C. as to a new motion brought by a number of detainees to challenge their endless detention in the face of a President who is not even pretending to consider whether the men are still detainable... and the same government lawyers who have carried on through Bush, Obama and You-Know-Who carry on some more, this time arguing that they lack the facilities to even broadcast proceedings to the men (at GTMO) effected by them. Sigh.
We won't even talk about the fact that just five days ago, Loquacious Pup and I meandered over to Brooklyn's Cadman Plaza for a rally to protest the separation of immigrant families including thousands of small children, which in turn, was part of numerous similar rallies all over the country.
I don't know. Things are not moving in a good direction. Fuck it. Happy Fourth. Fuck Yeah.
For various reasons, I haven't been blogging much since You Know Who took the oath of office, replacing my college classmate Barack. I've also spent a lot of time with my good friend Donald J. Putin, laughing at You Know Who 280 characters at a time.
In our usual theme, Candace observes things are taking a depressing turn as the Pentagon is seeking funding to turn GTMO into an old folks home and hospice, i.e. removing any pretense that the thing will not hold its occupants for the rest of their natural lives. Certainly, You Know Who promised not to release anyone and to "fill up the place with bad dudes." He has only released one man (as a result of the completion of a commissions sentence) and has otherwise kept that awful promise of not releasing anyone (40 left), but so far at least, he hasn't added anyone to the census.
A big reason for this of course is the drone program, a means for the United States intelligence and military services to target "terrorists" or "insurgents" or "enemies" or whatever they would like to call people that are targeted for death at the hands of killer robots operated by remote control. How many have died in the drone program? Kind of hard to say, but it's fairly safe to say, a lot more than the 800 or so men who cycled through Guantanamo over the years.
It had seemed that just as declaring someone an enemy could justify holding them in a dungeon for life, that it could also justify targeting them for death. A prior litigation brought by the family of Yemeni-American dual national Anwar al-Awlaki was thrown out by the courts before it got anywhere (the court finding that al-Awlaki's family and the ACLUlacked standing to bring it, among other issues).
Fast forward to today, where U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, an appointee of George W. Bush, held that a suit by American citizen Bilal Kareem, could proceed, finding that, as an American citizen (wait for it) he is entitled to due process of law before the government targets him for death. Judge Collyer did dismiss the complaint of former Al Jazeera Islamabad bureau chief Ahmad Zaidan, a Syrian/Pakistani dual national, and dismissed President You Know Who as a defendant, though she left, among others, the CIA and DOD as defendants.
It is a significant restriction on governmental power, at least as it has been practiced under the last three presidents, to restrict the government's right to liquidate enemies of the state even when U.S. citizens. This possible chink in the armor of the unitary executive absolute war powers to kill us all at the whim of government officials is pretty, pretty big, all things told.
What to make of the President (sigh) and his decision to abruptly withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action better known as the Iran nuclear deal? The obvious reason, and frankly, not to be taken too lightly for a "leader" whose views of the world appear to be shaped solely by comic books and their cable news equivalent on Fox, is that he wanted to just un-do everything Barack Obama did, because, well, Trump is like that. A narrow-minded racist asshole. All true, but...
Of course, there is the simple geo-political reality that there is an Israel/Saudi axis of power developing in the Middle East whose principal interest seems to be checking Iranian power, damn all other interests (such as millions of displaced and injured and hundreds of thousands killed in Yemen, Syria and perhaps points beyond), with the United States supporting that axis, Russia supporting Syria, with Iran also notionally supporting Syria and opposing Saudi Arabia (at least sixteen different powers have apparently bombed Syria since that shit show started.) And of course, Yemen and Syrian refugees are subject to the Trump travel ban (duly blessed by the U.S. Supreme Court). This appears to be the ultimate proxy war situation as the great powers (China is notionally on the side of Syria and Iran, though very quietly, with the European powers such as Britain and France notionally on the American/Israeli/Saudi side with NATO member Turkey seemingly on its own side) maneuver in the Middle East theater (with the slaughter of the locals a secondary concern).
But then there is this out of the box analysis that suggests that the United States scotched the Iran deal for brazen financial reasons. Simply put, the dollar is essentially close to its death throes, and the prospect of between $100 billion and $200 billion in Iranian dollar assets frozen in the United States under longstanding sanctions being suddenly (or even gradually) returned to Iran as the nuclear deal goes on and then dumped into the financial markets at the very moment that a variety of sources were putting upward pressure on oil prices would throw the American economy into chaos.
We're over 25 years past the publication of Francis Fukuyama's "the End of History," which was a little bit premature, because history kept right on, as Karl Marx, who recently celebrated his 200th birthday (or would have if he weren't dead) said "History repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce." Or something. And if, ahem, "President Donald Trump" is not the definition of farce, I clearly got nothing.
What the "all of the above" amount to are variations on good old resource wars; even though Yemen and Syria probably have less oil than anyone else in the Middle East except maybe Israel, they are in the way of other places that have oil and gas and might want, you know, pipelines or ports or shipping lanes to get the hell out of their way and let them make money. And of course, Russia, thought to have the world's largest oil and gas reserves, if still largely unexploited, would rather those pipelines not be built. And the USA needs Saudi oil as a stabilizer. And Iran is an all around pain the ass, with a whole lot of oil in its own right. And... You get the idea.
Which is why this whole thing is such a (literally) bloody freaking mess. Where does it end? Somehow, human kindness has to step up, somewhere. I don't know where; it seems the comically stupid and cruel Donald Trump, the competently authoritarian Vladimir Putin, the genocidally brutal Bashar al-Assad, the pathologically tenacious Bibi Netanyahu, the cunningly vicious crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, and the nasty Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, are not exactly going to be the best examplars for human niceness. So I'm afraid it's going to have to come from the rest of us, in whatever small or not so small ways we can, to try to help our fellow humans.
It's all I got. Because we are perilously close to something much bigger and nastier than the multiple conflicts that have already killed hundreds of thousands and caused the biggest refugee crisis since World War II.
As those of you intrepid (or curious) enough to keep checking back in here are aware, there was an "account suspended" message up for a couple of weeks, while you pondered "Has the talking dog gone the way of oh so many of those other old blogs?" The answer was "maybe," but is now a resounding "hell no." We have resolved our technical issues, and are back, preaching to our
millions thousands hundreds dozens of loyal readers.
Preaching what? Damned if I know. It's once again way too late in spring coming, and my vegetable garden is not installed (although last week afforded ONE DAY during which I could at least clear last year's overgrowth, though it did not afford a SECOND DAY for seed planting or compost installation). Oh, and we're over 15 months into... you know what For those who think that Mr. Mueller,or perhaps the likely Democratic Congressional majorities, will "save us," just color me highly skeptical. Anyway, enough about the macro: what happens to the affairs of state is likely beyond our individual control, sadly.
What IS within our individual control are our own actions. I am trying to devote myself to "immigrant friendly" activities. I am trying to write letters, visit persons in immigration detention (btw, OUTSTANDING NPR piece on that subject for those interested), and trying to help new arrivals with their English. Baby steps: we can't fix the world. We can certainly hope that the courts help us, and take heart when we see such eents such as our old friend Judge John Bates of Washington. D.C. shoving DACA up you know who's you know what, and the Supreme Court will take up Travel Ban 3 in argument (and the pundits feel it will uphold it..sigh...).
Well... enough about what's beyond our control. Try to find some way that you can help. Little things count-- maybe more than big things, because the big money guns are out there trying to take credit for the big things, while the little things desperately need to get done.
What can I tell you... anyway. FWIW... I'm back...
And A zissen Pesach to those who understand. April Fool's Day had been one of the cherished days here at TTD. The all-time most viewed post was our interview with Donald Rumsfeld in 2007; other such 1st of April interviews included Dick "go fuck yourself" Cheney, and of course, the current (ahem) so-called President. It's as every bit relevant today as it was when first posted in 2016.
But it's now 14 months and 11 days or so into our national nightmare, with no end in sight (apologies to Mr. Mueller, but I just don't see this ending before January of 2021, or even 2025 if Hillary won't actually drop out), and so, when the country (even via the atavistic disaster known as the "electoral college," which structurally empowers people who didn't go to college) decides that a bullshit-spewing sexual predator unnaturally-connected-to-the Russian-mob gameshow host who has never held any public office (or even a job employed by someone not named "Trump") is superior to a woman- any woman- even one who has served as a Senator and Secretary of State, no matter what her flaws might have been, I have to concede that parody or irony or even humor itself just doesn't pack the punch it once did.
So, I kind of don't really know what to do with this spot. Most of my satiric creative energy has been devoted to helping my good friend Donald J. Putin over on Twitter, which seems to have captured the zeitgeist by limiting discourse to
140 280 characters, and you can at least be snarky in that confined space. I had hoped to put up more interviews, and hopefully I will, but by and large, the long-form anything format is getting harder and harder to do in a world where "news" is what an emotionally and intellectually challenged 71 year old man spews forth at 3 a.m. while fighting constipation brought on by a diet of aspertame-ridden soda, McDonald's "cuisine," burnt steak and vanilla ice cream... as I said... irony, if not dead, clearly on life-support.
I don't know. Maybe, like that miraculous event-- a betrayal, a death and a resurrection-- celebrated by Christians today-- maybe public discourse (and, please God, the American experiment) will rise above the worst elements to which they are presently subjected again. But I do think it might take a miracle.
In the meantime, I still think the Rumsfeld thing is pretty funny.
Today, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom concluded that a former Russian spy and his daughter were attacked with a deadly nerve agent that originated in Russia and that it was likely the handiwork of the Russian state, and warned of reprisals by the U.K., but... for its part... as with all things Russia, the White House refused to acknowledge Russian involvement in the Sergei Skirpal poisoning.Perhaps still having not recovered from an illness acquired on his trip to Africa, Secretary of State Rex Tilllerson did seem to acknowledge a Russian link. Rex will be spoken to, I'm sure.
Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee (our House of Representatives and Intelligence being an oxymoron, or at least mutually exclusive), at least the GOP majority thereof, just decided to say there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, because, well, what the fuck, right?
Meanwhile, the pornographic film star who alleges that the President paid her $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election for her to remain silent on the details of their alleged year-long affair at the time his third wife was giving birth to his fifth child (including, apparently, that he liked being spanked with a rolled up Forbes magazine, liked to watch shows about sharks, and his sexual prowess was "generic") has decided she wants out of the non-disclosure and is demanding to return said $130,000. Will her interview with 60-Minutes air next Sunday? Stay tuned!
"Alt-right" (some might prefer "Neo-Nazi") activist Richard Spencer says that, with all the counter-violence and all, his rallies just aren't any fun anymore.
The Secretary of Education, a rich dilettante who has never attended public schools, nor sent her children to them, and who knows next to nothing about them can't be bothered to learn anything, as shown in a rather unpleasant performance on 60-Minutes that makes the White House unhappy.
Two people in Austin , Texas are dead as a result of parcel bombs, and others are injured.
Hillary Clinton suggests that White women- a majority of whom voted for her opponent- did so because their husbands told them to, notwithstanding that her own vaunted "political experience" consisted primarily of being married to Bill Clinton, nor did she see the irony of the first female major party presidential candidate who wanted to have "break the glass ceiling" as the theme of her victory party is nonetheless perpetuating a stereotype about women.
It's only Monday, of course, and we are only 13 months and 20 days or so into... you know.
But the denouement of our constitutional republic continues apace, even as the illusion of normalcy is so desperately impressed on us by our "media," so desperate not to recognize their own complicity in setting up a system whereby "we must give equal time" to propositions and people no matter how absurd, simply because they are positioned in a box demanding equal attention, and, well, here we are.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
To TD Mom.
TD law school classmate Harvey Rishikoff has just been summarily sacked as the Guantanamo "convening authority" (i.e. civilian official in charge of the military commissions).
Mr. Rishikoff had intervened to stop the absurd "contempt" jailing of the chief defense attorney for the (absurd) Guantanamo military commissions, and tried to have a new facility built because of accusations that defense attorney-client conversations were monitored at existing facilities ... anyway, now that the President has reversed the last President's executive order to close Guantanamo, it seems open season on reason, and so, Harvey is out, as is another Pentagon official associated with the military commissions named Gary Brown.
The commissions, of course, are an absurdity, whose sole purpose is to whitewash American torture of prisoners in the years following September 11th, while still trying to use "evidence" obtained as a result of that torture. Most prisoners at Guantanamo will never face charges of any kind, of course, even as this President insists that they will never be released if he has anything to do with it.
Damned if I can figure out any of this.
*** Candace has more.***
And so, at long last, the infamous "Nunes Memo" is publicly disseminated, which will, if you are a partisan Trump loyalist, lead you to the conclusion that based upon a Rube Goldberg-like series of events, a series of Republican officials (some of them appointed by Trump himself) have conspired to undermine the rule of law by engaging in a witch-hunt against "poor Carter Page"... how was he to know that innocent contacts with Russian operatives while serving in the Trump campaign could possibly make him a subject of interest... demonstrating that the Mueller investigation is hopelessly biased and Rod Rosenstein (Deputy Attorney General and in charge of the Mueller investigation because Atttorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself
Or, of course, if you don't have your head up your ass, you realize that a good deal about highly sensitive procedure about how our law enforcement agencies gather intelligence has just been exposed to the public solely in order for a Congressman who is supposed to be entirely recused from the investigation into Trump campaign contacts with Russia because he may well be implicated in such investigation has, entirely on party line votes, taken it upon itself to throw something out there just to distract from that investigation.
And this just a day or two after an abortion called "The state of the union" speech, in which a "call for unity" promised to deport more people, build a wall, and just for the hell of it, rescind the Obama era (and not quite fully implemented) order to close Guantanamo, and not only keep it open, but send his political enemies there. All while the cowed media pretends that the whole shit-show is all perfectly normal.
And this after a month that had dozens of insane news stories, where a revelation of a payoff of $130,000 in hush money to a porn star to keep her affair with the President secret was no better than the fourth biggest story of that day.
And mind you, we are now only up to day 379 or so of the Trump era. Because every day seems the same now: as the at-one-time-funny Woody Allen observed, life is divided into the horrible and the miserable. And in the Trump era, we get both. Every day. In fact, several times a day. Every day. Over and over. And wake up again, and it's the same shit. Like... that movie.
Don't know. I'm trying to "do good," with an emphasis on trying to help new immigrants (particularly detained immigrants). Plus I spend way too much time with my friend Donald J. Putin. Maybe I should lay off trying to keep up with anything. It would make me happier, anyway. As for the rest of you, I implore you to try to do good on whatever micro-scale you can. Because we are in a shitload of evil right now. SO MUCH fucking evil. And so many of our countrymen not only pretend it's normal, but around 35%-40% of the country has never been happier now that racism and gratuitous cruelty is out in the open and official. So try to do good. Just try.
Sigh. And while the sun will come out tomorrow, so will the darkness. A lumine, people. A lumine. It's all I got.
Yesterday marked sixteen years since the first prisoners were brought to Guantanamo Bay's current iteration as a permanent holding cell for politically inconvenient Muslim men captured in the inconvenient "pre-drone" stages of our eternal war against everyone else on Earth. Andy has more on a commemoration protest at the White House, which I attended, along with a crowd of people still interested in the subject; one wishes it were larger. Andy himself was there as part of his annual visit to our shores, as was Todd Pierce, with whom I drove down. Andy was one of the speakers, as was Mark Fallon, and a number of others from the worlds of law, social activism, the arts, and religion. It was an emotionally moving rally venued in Lafayette Park across from Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.
As a matter of personal observation, there is definitely a darker feeling in D.C. For the first time in all the years I have been attending rallies like this, park officials were strictly enforcing sound and other rules. There was also a massive police presence in the street in front of the White House (culminating in the arrest of several protesters for audaciously setting foot on Pennsylvania Avenue... not attempting to enter the White House grounds-- merely the street, which the police had cordoned off for no ascertainable reason).
In related news Candace has more on a new filing by lawyers for eleven prisoners (including her own client). The filing, spearheaded by the Center for Constitutional Rights, and timed for the sixteenth anniversary is here, and argues, among other things, that the current Administration's commitment to never releasing another prisoner from GTMO during its tenure is a blatant violation of law. We can hope that both the composition of the courts and the state of things has evolved enough so that there is a shot at some semblance of rule of law.
In other grim milestone news, we are rapidly approaching the one year mark of national madness, to wit, the inauguration of you-know-who, and frankly, substantial damage to the fabric of the republic has already been done (even if many people who live in relatively affluent bubbles might not have observed any particularly glaring change in their own lives). I shudder to think about the next three years (or, if national madness prevails again, seven).
And we come to the end of the longest year, ever. The President, such as he is, has managed to literally slow down the passage of time, a feat literally at odds with the laws of physics and reality (which he doesn't believe in anyway).
Somehow, the republic is still here, though duly damaged, with forward prospects not the greatest, particularly if the usually feckless Democrats remain so and defy the same odds that their Presidential candidate did in 2016 and fail to take back either house of Congress in the coming midterm elections. Hopefully, the nation will avoid another major with either North Korea, Iran, someone else, or all of the above.
In my own life, I have completed over 16 years of blogging (as we fast come upon the 16th anniversary of the opening of the prison at Guantanamo Bay), and my 16th consecutive New York City Marathon (my 51st overall), and Mrs. TD and I have come to our 26th wedding anniversary and the Loquacious Pup's 18th birthday (and her first semester of college)! For me, a White man of the bourgeosie, although my overall blue state tax bill will be worse, most of life seems the same. Were I dependent on government benefits, or had a dubious immigration status (such as "green card holder"), or more vulnerable to the actions of the federal government, life would be far more tenuous, as it is for more and more people. For "milestones", I should say "my good friend" Donald J. Putin is perilously close to hitting 1,000 followers, in a tweeting enterprise that started a few days before... the inauguration last January.
In my own life, I have tried to step up volunteering activities, particularly in activities associated with immigrants to this country. And of course, I try to stay physically healthy, because this is not a country you want to get sick in. My hope, in the philosophy of "if everyone does it" is that a flood of niceness might overcome the flood of evil that our nation writ large has elected (albeit by winning plurality rather than actual majority of voters). No matter.
My own new years' resolutions will consist of resolving to stay loose, and recognize that we are in a fluid situation, and try to proceed accordingly. And try to do good... small measures count, and shame to anyone who says otherwise. All we can do is try to be our best, i.e., the best people we can be. And try to keep that up for another year.
Happy new year.
Happy Festivus, everyone. I hope your own Festivus pole has been taken out of the garage, and you are adequately warmed up for your feats of strength and have duly annotated your list of grievances for airing.
Given the state of the world right now, with the two largest English speaking nations having chosen to commit suicide as a result of well-executed Russian needling of our most racist and atavistic elements, Russia still unable to deliver clean water through its own plumbing but perhaps more than capable of having its submarines take out undersea data transmission cables, nonetheless looks poised to hold serve (even as it's not likely to take over the world outright anytime soon), I'll just keep it here, and wish you all...
Well, I've been remiss in blogging all month, but on the occasion on the darkest night of the year in this, the darkest year in the history of our republic, what the hell, right?
A Democratic Congresswoman from California suggests that the President will fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller tomorrow or over the weekend, taking advantage of the Christmas media lull (and Congress leaving town) to do so. Of course, another analyst says that the President might avoid the potential firestorm of firing Mueller and instead fire Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, the man who appointed Mueller. Meanwhile, the President himself expressly denied the rumor about firing Mueller.
In other extra-constitutional news, a jury
convicted acquitted six people who were on trial for protesting the inauguration who were charged with "guilt by association" because others (almost certainly right-wing agents provacateurs) broke some windows and inflicted other property damage; they were facing decades of potential prison time, in a deliberate DELIBERATE effort to flush the First Amendment down the toilet and criminalize protests against this Government and this President, Vladimir Putin style. The authoritarians now running Washington, however, plan to try again with the next batch of protesters.
We won't even talk about a tax bill that will be used as an excuse to gut what's left of the welfare state where 83% of the benefits goes to the top 1% passed on purely partisan lines where Republican members of Congress and the President himself stand to personally benefit to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.) Or that a court just threw out a suit challenging the President's blatant abuse of the Emoluments clause, insisting that Congress had to do this, as if the feckless Ryan and McConnell were remotely interested in attacking a President of their own party.
And if these assaults on the rule of law weren't enough (and this is just a tiny fraction of what's going on), the President has been furious in the pace at which he has nominated right-wing maniacs go the bench and to U.S. Attorney posts.
When democracy has been allowed to play out in state-wide (as opposed to GOP gerrymandered) elections, the Democratic candidates have recently prevailed in really blue NJ, newly blue VA, and deep red AL; this is some cause for optimism, even as the Democrats do what Democrats do and take great relish and delight in shivving one of their own and force Al Franken to resign for nothing. Even as he noted, the President, with numerous allegations of sexual harassment and worse against him (including a famous video confession) remains in office, unscathed. Which, given everything else, really is a wonderful load of crap and fabulous diversion from a dismantling of many of the values of our republic (or what we thought of as the values of our republic).
Don't know. Maybe I'm just in a dark mood, it being the darkest day (and longest night) of the year. I don't know. I should feel a little better. Loquacious Pup is home from college for a time. I've tried to step up my own personal volunteer work this year (particularly with respect to new immigrants), and I've been spending a lot of time with my good friend Donald J. Putin on twitter. And hey, Festivus, followed by Christmas, are coming up fast. So... yeah.
Happy Solstice. I guess. Try to make this a better world. The world itself seems to need the help right now.
In his more than thirty years as an NCIS special agent and counterintelligence officer, Mark Fallon has investigated some of the most significant terrorist operations in US history, including the first bombing of the World Trade Center and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Soon after the September 11th attacks, Fallon was named Deputy Commander of the newly formed Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF), created to probe the al-Qaeda terrorist network and bring suspected terrorists to trial. Mr. Fallon is the author of Unjustifiable Means: The Inside Story of How the CIA, Pentagon, and US Government Conspired to Torture, where he describes his experience in his role with CITF, and makes a number of other observations from his unique perspective, including the evolution of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) into the American interrogation program and his and others' heroic efforts of many to thwart it that were ultimately not successful. On November 10, 2017, I had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Fallon by e-mail exchange.
The Talking Dog: My usual first question is "where were you on 9-11." I, of course, was one block from the WTC. We know that you were a bit farther away, in London, working on counter-terrorism for the Naval Criminal Investigation Service, NCIS (now a famous t.v. franchise). So my question is more philosophical; in a forward thinking gesture, you devote your book to your granddaughter. My own daughter was not yet two at the time. Neither of them, of course, has any memory of a pre-9/11 world. What "lessons of 9/11" do you think constitute the most important things we can convey to our young ones, from our perspective as (hopefully rational) elders who lived in the pre-9/11 world, particularly based on your unique experiences and perspectives as not merely a law enforcement professional, but in the thick of the hunt for the 9/11 perps as you watched professionals perform interrogations professionally, but a larger cadre of amateurs (and worse) running the show took the enterprise into the realm of torture?
Mark Fallon: One of the lessons learned is how easy it is to forget the fabric of our country should be our values. Unjustifiable Means shows that if a few more people would have stood against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the course of history could have been changed. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they were evil, or had bad intentions, but all it took was for a few people in key positions to do nothing, or to help facilitate or enable prisoner abuse. Leaders set a climate or create the conditions that contribute to success or failure. Within other commands or units, cruelty became an acceptable, or even expected practice. Our country is stronger when our actions match our values, even when we think nobody will ever find out.
The Talking Dog: I'll take a bit of a maudlin diversion here to note that we both began our professional careers with the U.S. Department of Justice- you with the U.S. Marshall's service in Newark, N.J. and me with the U.S. Dept. of Justice Tax Division in Washington, D.C. The various paper work associated with being new federal employees on the first day of work was interrupted in order to give the oath of office- we both swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. This was presumably the same oath taken by every member of "the War Council" and whatever officials introduced torture as the joker in the deck of the war on terror. You, former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora for example, and countless other heroes identified in your book objected to these practices, but in the end, could not thwart a torture program
that came from "the top" (whether that meant SecDef Rumsefeld, V.P. Cheney, Pres. Bush or the rest of the civilian leadership of the United States). Do you believe this was largely a matter of character-- for example, Daniel Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners" or perhaps Stanley Milgram's famous cruelty experiments, comes to mind, that when leadership says something makes us safe,
few will question that, or did the powerful take advantage of the "no questions asked" culture of the military, or do you have some other explanation for how these practices became so widespread, even in the face of opposition? Or was the torture "stovepiped" like "WMD intel" leading into Iraq (just a guess on my part)?
Mark Fallon: I wish I had a good answer for the actions I saw unfolding, other than to reflect back that many of those decisions that led to torture were based on fear, ignorance and arrogance. The “oath” we take is to the Constitution, not to our chain of command. It always amazed me that people in the armed services and working in the national security or public safety space know they might have to risk their lives for their country; however, so few seemed willing to risk their careers to challenge their bosses or commanders. The most common response I heard while opposing the SERE EIT torture within DOD was that it was authorized at the highest levels. As an NCIS special agent, I was accustomed to telling truth to power and telling a general or admiral things they didn’t necessarily want to hear. Challenging authority seemed more difficult for those in uniform, which is why the Navy and Marine Corps relies on NCIS, reporting to a civilian director and to the civilian leadership of the Department of the Navy. I believe it is an institutional strength of the Department of the Navy, over the other services. It was that civilian chain of command, up to Alberto Mora, who coordinated his actions with the Secretary of the Navy, that opposed the torture policies within DOD.
I also don’t think you can discount financial or career motivations and aspirations. The Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) was actively marketing SERE abuse as an interrogation method, even though it was against their own doctrine to do so and they had no legitimate interrogation experience, nor such mission. Some psychologists strayed beyond their competency level to create opportunities for themselves. As I write in Unjustifiable Means, some wanted to get involved in the worst way, and that’s exactly what they did.
The Talking Dog: I found two revelations in your book to be remarkable, and in the hope of avoiding "spoilers" (and encouraging readers to buy the book!) I'll just throw the names out there: (1) the late Roger Ailes (of Fox News fame) and (2) Dr. Martin Seligman (of Authentic Happiness fame), each of whom had some role (whether intentional or not) in our nation's dalliance with torture. First, if you're at liberty to answer, how did you come to learn about each of their roles? Next, while we learned of DOD (if not CIA) in propagandizing the virtues of torture in, say, Zero Dark Thirty (when in real life, torture had no role in locating bin Laden, but painstakingly following intel leads and perhaps a huge cash bounty to a Pakistani general are too boring for Hollywood), is it too cynical at this point to suggest that a huge motivator for "going to the dark side, if you will" was monetary, i.e. NewsCorp's hit show at the time was "24" featuring torture, and later "Drs." Jessen and Mitchell were paid tens of millions of dollars to map out torture, etc. What's your view on this?
Mark Fallon: I believe the glorification of torture by TV shows like 24, as well as others, were a contributing factor leading to the acceptance of torture as necessary. I participated in a project with the Center for the Rule of Law at West Point on the tactical consequence of torture and they related that after 9/11, a general from West Point went to Hollywood to ask them to stop glorifying torture in their portrayals of heroic actions. There was an incredible sense of patriotism after 9/11 and people seemed to want revenge, rather than justice. To be true to our democracy, we must practice the rule of law. That’s what sets us apart from dictators and brutal regimes. As one released prisoner said, “you cannot clean blood with blood”. Our Constitution sets the framework for our justice system and it is justice we should seek.
The Talking Dog: Some years ago I interviewed Erik Saar, an Army Arabic linguist with the rank of sergeant who served at Guantanamo He gave the following fairly long answer, but it's an important point:
The Talking Dog: Let me ask you about your training in the Army Field Manual 34-52 on interrogations, which I understand contains limitations consistent with the Geneva Conventions... Erik Saar: Let me stop you there, because this is a critical point that isn't discussed much. I was NEVER trained in the Army Field Manual on interrogations. Indeed, no Army linguists as far as I know were trained in interrogations. Linguists were ordered NOT to question what they saw. Military interrogators and linguists were supposed to "balance" each other. Of course, linguists had a conflict. This was especially so among civilian contractors, who would frequently tell interrogators that what they were doing was outside the custom and norm of the culture of the detainee, and hence, likely to be counter-productive. Training is a critical factor-- training is everything in the service; we do nothing unless we are trained to do it first. We were, of course, lectured as I described in the book that we had "detainees" who were not POWs because they didn't wear uniforms and other legal explanations given and as such interrogators didn't have to comply with Geneva Conventions. BUT-- interrogators had been trained one way-- don't EVER violate the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, I recall one incident where an interrogation trainee made a joke during interrogation school about "now we go to the electric shock"-- he was almost thrown out of interrogation school just for joking like that.
The drill was all Geneva all the time, BECAUSE INTERROGATION IS AND CAN BE MOST EFFECTIVE WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. At Guantanamo, of course, the constraints were "relaxed" by various orders, but the interrogators had never been trained in the new methods.
When I had the Power Point presentation telling us Geneva didn't have to apply, I left, not particularly outraged, but kind of confused. My thinking was a process-- when I left that meeting, my thought was-- this is contrary to Army practice-- we are not TRAINED for this... how can we use techniques that we are NOT TRAINED IN and how do we know this is effective?... Its not just the interrogation methods themselves that are contrary to every aspect of Army practice-- but using improvised, untested techniques that interrogators were not trained in, regardless of what they were-- is contrary to procedure as we were drilled.
Do Sgt. Saar's observations resonate with what you observed at Guantanamo (and in other "war on terror" theaters)?
Mark Fallon: Sgt Saar’s comments are reflective of a failure of leadership. The President’s military order of November 13, 2001 authorizing DOD to detain and try detainees before military commissions also ordered that detainees be treated humanely. Even though President Bush stated that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply, we were directed to treat detainees consistently with those provisions. As the Special-Agent-in-Charge of the task force operating under that military order to bring terrorists to justice, I observed the first generals at Guantanamo observing the Geneva Conventions. Both General's Lehnert and Baccus, as well as my task force, the CITF operated under that theory. It wasn’t until other generals were assigned to Guantanamo that I was a command climate shift toward cruelty. I view Unjustifiable Means as a leadership book, about what it’s like leading during crisis, when more than careers are at stake. I hope the challenges I faced might help some future or current leader face ethical challenges between loyalty to their boss and their duty.
The Talking Dog: Can you describe what you observed in the course of interrogations at Guantanamo (or elsewhere) in the war on terror, that you found appropriate and professional and to the extent you can talk about, the particular abuses you actually observed? What was the chain of command or "pipeline" for reporting these? How obvious was it at the time that the overwhelming bulk of detainee were nobodies- "dirt farmers" as one of your chapter titles referred to it-- and certainly not terrorists or even Taliban fighters?
Mark Fallon: Your readers will have to read Unjustifiable Means to find out the answer to that question.
The Talking Dog: On another occasion, I interviewed Matthew Alexander, an Air Force Major who served as an interrogator in Iraq (and was credited with helping to track down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al Qaeda in Iraq and a major thorn in side of the American military in Iraq.) I found it odd that while the Air Force relied on experienced officers, and in your case, NCIS relied on experienced law enforcement professional civilians, the Army relies heavily on NCOs- non-commissioned officers, often young and inexperienced. Major Alexander's observations:
What was interesting about my relationship with the unit in Iraq is that I was the highest ranking interrogator, meaning not that I was a Major and my direct supervisor a Captain, but that no one above me was an interrogator, which leads to the second portion of your question. Much of the opposition to rapport based interrogations came from those who had very limited experience and no law enforcement experience. There appeared to be a direct correlation between those who used racial epithets to refer to detainees and those who consistently wanted to use harsh methods. Prejudice against Muslims and Arabs was negatively affecting our ability to elicit information through interrogations because it promoted incorrect stereotypes which led to incorrect detainee analysis and, hence, misapplied interrogation approaches.
The problem with the Army model of recruiting interrogators is that it selects recruits based on an academic aptitude exam (which I think is based on the notion that a minimum level of academic aptitude is required for language training, which most interrogators attend). The problem is that interrogation is a social skill, not an academic one. So the Army is most likely recruiting the exact opposite personalities as those required for the art of interrogations. That said, they often get lucky and I found that the young Army interrogators that worked on my team in Iraq were extremely bright, intellectual, and quick to learn. The problem is supervision. If they are taught negative stereotypes and operate in a culture that tolerates violations of the regulations and law, then things can quickly digress.
My team of a dozen or so interrogators was about half US Army interrogators and most were on their first tour. A few had never been outside the U.S. or talked to an Arab or Muslim before arriving.
Chris Mackey in his book "The Interrogators" talks about their inability to distinguish good from bad and high level from low level detainees during the early months in the war in Afghanistan. He suggests that we sent a lot of nobodies to Gitmo.
I prefer a trained, native interpreter over a soldier with language skills because the interpreter is also a cultural encyclopedia. Several times my interpreters made crucial inputs to my interrogation strategies based on their cultural knowledge. Some of our Army interrogators were trained in Arabic but still had to use an interpreter as there were 14 dialects of Arabic in Iraq and also because interrogation is a very nuanced conversation.
The Army techniques are mostly effective if tailored for the culture (there’s a couple that I would argue are ineffective and counterproductive – Fear Up and Pride and Ego Down). The main difference I noted is that as a criminal investigator there was heavy emphasis on the rapport building and analysis phases, but the Army program emphasized the interrogation techniques. What was disappointing about the Army training is that there were no Arab or Muslim instructors, so the cultural learning was basically limited to slide presentations. The best thing we can do to increase the effectiveness of our interrogation methods is to improve our culture training.
Because it’s the Army, I do think the organizational culture reinforces an "us versus them" mentality that results in a misplaced attitude towards the detainee/interrogator relationship. This is easily corrected with proper training and supervision.
As I stated earlier, stereotyping our enemies led down a disastrous path in Iraq and significantly harmed our interrogations. It goes back to that old Sun Tzu saying, “Know they self, know they enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.” Even some of the Iraqis who joined Al Qaida for social or economic reasons and then adopted the ideology were fairly easy to win back as Iraqis are very secular and tolerant. I actually believe that the most fanatical Al Qaida members are the easiest to interrogate simply because they are driven by emotions (probably how they were recruited) and those emotions can then be used by the interrogator.
Similar question- do Major Alexander's observations (from the Iraqi theater) resonate with your observations and experience in the war on terror? As a follow up, Major Alexander was a skilled and experienced interrogator whose rapport building methods worked; what was driving what amounted to an untested and quite frankly amateurish method of gratuitous brutality, when the evidence in front of everyone was that it was, aside from immoral and illegal, not generating anything useful?
Mark Fallon: I wholeheartedly agree with Matt Alexander. It’s hard to answer this question without writing a thesis, but let me offer a few thoughts. There have been a chronic and historic challenges with the manner in which the Army trains and fields interrogators. Most of the Army interrogation training is not grounded in science and relies on an anecdotal notion of what is effective. Evidence-based research has shown that even those trained by the Army, under the Army Field Manual in interrogations, should use those techniques that revolve around "rapport-building." Yet, the Army continues to train in the Manual (which contains deviations from rapport-building), and interrogators go into the field, and through trial and error, end up finding those practices that they view as the most effective (even if, in reality, they are not). We’re wasting valuable time and resources training in techniques that are not used (and that are viewed as ineffective, or even counterproductive by those in the field.) NCIS, instead, relies on a cadre of highly trained and experienced professional investigators, who work criminal investigations, counterintelligence and counter-terrorism. It’s not an assignment, but a career path, so it’s a much different model than the Army, or the other services. While I understand the Army force structure model, those interrogators just aren’t suited for the interrogation of high value targets. Under the McCain-Feinstein Anti-Torture Amendment to the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) a review of the Army Field Manual is required by law, but there is incredible cultural resistance to making changes. I have been informed of discussions within the Army that are concerned with the costs associated with revising the interrogation training within the Army. I would offer that the costs of not doing so would be much greater.
The Talking Dog: I'd like to talk about the issue of "narrative." I have a saying that I often use , "narrative trumps fact." Certainly this dynamic is at work when otherwise intelligent hard-nosed people like the late Justice Antonin Scalia recites the efficacy of torture literally citing Jack Bauer as his source, and Alan Dershowitz, the famous Harvard Law professor and criminal defense attorney, seriously made a suggestion that "torture warrants" should become an element of our law, so strong his belief in the "ticking time bomb scenario." "Twenty-Four" and Jack Bauer are, of course, fictional. I should add that the "Law and Order" and "NCIS" franchises, also fictional, nonetheless feature careful and constitutionally compliant police work, if dramatic and time-condensed. Do you have an explanation for why the "torture works and will keep us safe" narrative has proven so powerful, even among people who presumably should know a whole lot better? How has media contributed to this, or, if it has, combated this?
Mark Fallon: Of course the media has contributed to the narrative of the torture lobby. Just look at who wrote books with former CIA director George Tenant, former CIA RDI program head Jose Rodriguez and the creator of the SERE EIT torture program, James Mitchell. The torture architects and advocates continue to manipulate the public with claims that torture was safe, necessary and effective. If anyone wants to really learn what an absolute disaster it was, they just need to read the SSCI Torture Report executive summary. The level of brutality, ineptitude and gross professional incompetence is startling. History revisionists continue to try to have the entire 6,000 page full report destroyed. Unjustifiable Means shows the operational and strategic consequence of those practices when they gravitated to Guantanamo and onto Abu Ghraib.
The Talking Dog: Following up on a point in the last question, there was an evolution between the detention facility operations (run by Joint Task Force, or JTF, JTF-160) and interrogation operations (first run by JTF-170) and then ultimately, the two functions were merged (in "JTF-GTMO") so that detainees could be "softened up" by confinement conditions (such as the "frequent flyer plan" to impose sleep deprivation, or interference with meals, deprivation of "comfort items" such as Korans, toilet papers and mats to sleep and/or pray on, etc.) I sometimes suggest "personnel = destiny," though I'm not sure about how much of the GTMO operation was local personnel driven (as opposed to Dick Cheney/Don Rumsfeld driven). That said, can you briefly walk through the evolution of how this played out during the (I'm guessing) three command structures you observed at GTMO (Lehnert/Bacchus, Dunlavey and Geoffrey Miller)?
Mark Fallon: The unification of the command structures between JTF-160 and JTF-170 to create JTF-GTMO was to eliminate opposition to the practices DOD planned to adopt. The “intelligence components” wanted to demonstrate omnipotence over the prisoners and create the conditions where prisoners would experience debility, dependency and dread. These theories are taken right from the manner in which our service members were psychologically tortured under Communist regimes. Having a separate general responsible for prison operations interfered with the direction DOD was heading. The CITF and NCIS became a thorn in their side, constantly challenging practices viewed as unlawful and inhumane.
The Talking Dog: On the subject of Geoffrey Miller, your book very ably debunks the "few bad apples" theory, noting the role of Miller, psychologist Larry James, legal officer Diane Beaver and others in the "migration" or "Gitmoization" of abusive interrogation practices (i.e. torture) from Guantanamo to other theaters including Bagram and the rest of Afghanistan and of course, Iraq and Abu Ghraib. At the end of the day, other than a few NCOs who were foolish enough to allow themselves to be photographed (and/or took the pictures!) documenting detainee abuse (a detainee in a hood on a box with electric wires evidently connected, piles of naked detainees- perhaps dead, perhaps not -with Lynndie England giving the troubling thumbs up, etc.), and one female general (Janis Karpinski) demoted, there was pretty much no accountability for any of this. Much the same could be said of the whole war on terror-- occasionally soldiers were court-martialed for particular atrocities, but the abuses in interrogation (including at times death) did not result in accountability of any kind, whether by the Bush Administration itself, or the unfortunate decision of my college classmate Barack Obama to "look forward not backward." Let me ask you twin philosophical questions: (a) among the victims of torture we don't think about is the society at large that permits it, writ large, and (b) how much has this "forward not backward" approach ("elite immunity" if you like) to overall disillusionment with a government that just won't punish the powerful, be they Wall Streeters who cause the financial crisis or top government officials who write torture memos and advance that awful practice, has led to the current state of our society (a humongous opioid addiction problem, a spike in mass shootings to now exceed one a day, an electorate willing to take a chance on Donald Trump, a complete outsider devoid of any public service or military service or experience, to name a few consequences)?
Mark Fallon: The SASC Detainee Abuse Report and hearings totally debunks the narrative that Abu Ghraib was the result of a few bad apples. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were adopted that were based on cruelty. President Obama’s policy of impunity, looking forward not backwards, has allowed for the reemergence of torture as a matter of national policy. The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a report to the judges to see if the ICC will move forward with official investigating, among other things, the United States for things considered war crimes. That’s a strategic consequence of flawed policies and ignoring our responsibilities under the Conventions Against Torture to hold those involved accountable.
The Talking Dog: Late in your book is a chapter called "the Worst of the Worst," in which you provide a nice rogues' gallery of those responsible for injecting torture into the war on terror. Of these people, which among them (as many as you care to describe) strike you as particularly cautionary tales, and why? And, on a more optimistic note, you and others heroically tried to stop the torture regime; who among the heroes would you like to highlight and why?
Mark Fallon: I highlighted the people I did, because each was at a crossroad and their actions, whether intentional, or unintentional, contributed to the proliferation of violent extremism. My main goal was to just set the record straight on how the actions of a few have impacted so many.
The Talking Dog: Q12. You have offered gratuitous advice to our current President that he not go down the rabbit hole of torture, because "we tried it and it was ineffective." Of course, while torture doesn't work to get "actionable intelligence" of value, it certainly does work to terrorize populations (including the torturing nation) and to coarsen overall discourse, two things that I believe our current President is strongly in favor of. At this point, around half the American public "favors" the use of torture although this polling fluctuates, sometimes wildly. Notwithstanding that after centuries of brutality, the entire civilized world concluded that torture was just so wrong as a matter of morality that it could not be used EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES (and this is enshrined in American law as well as ratified treaties), here we are again. Can you give my readers the "elevator pitch" as to why this is a dark place we should just not go?
Mark Fallon: Patriots don’t torture…cowards do. As George Washington wrote from his camp at Cambridge, those that would engage in prisoner abuse bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country. It’s un-American.
The Talking Dog: Other than recommending that they read your excellent book (available on Amazon!) is there anything I should have asked you but didn't, or anything else you would like to add on these critically important topics?
Mark Fallon: I actually recommend they buy three copies of Unjustifiable Means and give two to friends! On a more serious note, America is strongest when our actions match our values. Citizens in a democracy also have responsibilities and every citizen should resoundingly denounce torture and prisoner abuse done in their name. Torture is illegal, immoral, counterproductive and inconsistent with American values. Our country was founded upon human and inalienable rights and that’s what Americans should be espousing.
The Talking Dog: I join my readers in thanking Mark Fallon for that informative interview, and I commend interested readers to check out Unjustifiable Means: The Inside Story of How the CIA, Pentagon, and US Government Conspired to Torture.
Readers interested in legal issues and related matters associated with the "war on terror" may also find talking dog blog interviews with former Guantanamo military commissions prosecutors Morris Davis and Darrel Vandeveld, with Guantanamo military commissions defense attorney Todd Pierce, with former Guantanamo combatant status review tribunal/"OARDEC" officer Stephen Abraham, with attorneys Pardiss Kebriaei, Nancy Hollander, Jon Eisenberg, David Marshall, Jan Kitchel, Eric Lewis, Cori Crider, Michael Mone, Matt O'Hara, Carlos Warner, Matthew Melewski, Stewart "Buz" Eisenberg, Patricia Bronte, Kristine Huskey, Ellen Lubell, Ramzi Kassem, George Clarke, Buz Eisenberg, Steven Wax, Wells Dixon, Rebecca Dick, Wesley Powell, Martha Rayner, Angela Campbell, Stephen Truitt and Charles Carpenter, Gaillard Hunt, Robert Rachlin, Tina Foster, Brent Mickum, Marc Falkoff H. Candace Gorman, Eric Freedman, Michael Ratner, Thomas Wilner, Jonathan Hafetz, Joshua Denbeaux, Rick Wilson,
Neal Katyal, Joshua Colangelo Bryan, Baher Azmy, and Joshua Dratel (representing Guantanamo detainees and others held in "the war on terror"), with attorneys Donna Newman and Andrew Patel (representing "unlawful combatant" Jose Padilila), with Dr. David Nicholl, who spearheaded an effort among international physicians protesting force-feeding of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, with physician and bioethicist Dr. Steven Miles on medical complicity in torture, with law professor and former Clinton Administration Ambassador-at-large for war crimes matters David Scheffer, with former Guantanamo detainees Moazzam Begg and Shafiq Rasul , with former Guantanamo Bay Chaplain James Yee, with former Guantanamo Army Arabic linguist Erik Saar, with former Guantanamo sergeant-of-the-guard Joseph Hickman, with former Guantanamo military guard Terry Holdbrooks, Jr., with former military interrogator Matthew Alexander, with law professor and former Army J.A.G. officer Jeffrey Addicott, with law professor and Coast Guard officer Glenn Sulmasy, with author and geographer Trevor Paglen and with author and journalist Stephen Grey on the subject of the CIA's extraordinary rendition program, with journalist and author David Rose on Guantanamo, with journalist Michael Otterman on the subject of American torture and related issues, with author and historian Andy Worthington detailing the capture and provenance of all of the Guantanamo detainees, with law professor Peter Honigsberg on various aspects of detention policy in the war on terror, with Joanne Mariner of Human Rights Watch, with Almerindo Ojeda of the Guantanamo Testimonials Project, with Karen Greenberg, author of The LeastWorst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days, with Charles Gittings of the Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions, Laurel Fletcher, author of "The Guantanamo Effect" documenting the experience of Guantanamo detainees after their release, with John Hickman, author of "Selling Guantanamo," critiquing the official narrative surrounding Guantanamo, with Rebecca Gordon, author of "The New Nuremberg" identifying potential war crimes prosecutions arising from the conduct of the War on Terror, with Naomi Paik, author of Rightlessness: Testimony and Redress in US Prison Camps since World War II, and with psychologist Jeffrey Kaye, author of "Cover Up at Guantanamo" concerning issues associated with detainee deaths attributed to suicide at Guantanamo, to be of interest.
No, not the mental age of the President (which is closer to about four), even as said President is in the middle of a lengthy trip to Asia where he will hopefully not manage to start World War III.
No, I'm talking about my sixteenth finish at the TCS New York City Marathon where I had my maiden voyage as a full-fledged member of the Streakers and Fifteen-plus club, on to my sixteenth finish. It was an unpleasantly rainy day (at least the rain, while persistent, was light and the temperatures were comfortably in the sixties), and I did not run one of my better times (understatement alert), but I'm 55 now, and not exactly well-trained; sadly, I'm also a few pounds heavier than I've been at previous forays at the distance.
Today's race was a nice valedictory for the great Meb Keflezighi, who finished 11th and promptly collapsed at the finish line. Meb is the only man, American or otherwise, to win an Olympic medal and the New York City and Boston Marathons. The great Shalane Flanagan won the ladies side of the ledger.
At 16 consecutive, I believe I am tied for the 188th longest active streak, but am still twenty-five behind the great Dave Obelkevich; I suspect Dave will press his consecutive streak so far that I'd have to live well past 100 and keep finishing NYC marathons to keep up!