Month: December 2013

Saturday long read: the Jason Bourne Strategy

by digby

Hollywood Without the Happy Ending: How the CIA Bungled the War on Terror By Pratap Chatterjee

Call it the Jason Bourne strategy.

Think of it as the CIA’s plunge into Hollywood — or into the absurd. As recent revelations have made clear, that Agency’s moves couldn’t be have been more far-fetched or more real. In its post-9/11 global shadow war, it has employed both private contractors and some of the world’s most notorious prisoners in ways that leave the latest episode of the Bourne films in the dust: hired gunmen trained to kill as well as former inmates who cashed in on the notoriety of having worn an orange jumpsuit in the world’s most infamous jail.

The first group of undercover agents were recruited by private companies from the Army Special Forces and the Navy SEALs and then repurposed to the CIA at handsome salaries averaging around $140,000 a year; the second crew was recruited from the prison cells at Guantanamo Bay and paid out of a secret multimillion dollar slush fund called “the Pledge.”

Last month, the Associated Press revealed that the CIA had selected a few dozen men from among the hundreds of terror suspects being held at Guantanamo and trained them to be double agents at a cluster of eight cottages in a program dubbed “Penny Lane.” (Yes, indeed, the name was taken from the Beatles song, as was “Strawberry Fields,” a Guantanamo program that involved torturing “high-value” detainees.) These men were then returned to what the Bush administration liked to call the “global battlefield,” where their mission was to befriend members of al-Qaeda and supply targeting information for the Agency’s drone assassination program.

Such a secret double-agent program, while colorful and remarkably unsuccessful, should have surprised no one. After all, plea bargaining or persuading criminals to snitch on their associates — a tactic frowned upon by international legal experts — is widely used in the U.S. police and legal system. Over the last year or so, however, a trickle of information about the other secret program has come to light and it opens an astonishing new window into the privatization of U.S. intelligence.

In July 2010, at his confirmation hearings for the post of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper explained the use of private contractors in the intelligence community: “In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War… we were under a congressional mandate to reduce the community by on the order of 20%… Then 9/11 occurred… With the gusher… of funding that has accrued particularly from supplemental or overseas contingency operations funding, which, of course, is one year at a time, it is very difficult to hire government employees one year at a time. So the obvious outlet for that has been the growth of contractors.” (read on …)

That’s obviously a feature not a bug. In fact, there are a lot of people who feel this “dynamic” form of outsourcing makes good sense since defense costs are obviously volatile in a time of war. Except, of course, they aren’t are they? They just keep going up. And the “wars” just keep keeping on.

Clapper very conveniently blames the necessity of private contracting on the fact that the government pulled back intelligence funding in the aftermath of the Cold War. But think about that. We know now that the cold war was hyped unmercifully and the level of overkill had been massive for decades. The pullback in funding was hardly precipitous and spending never came back down to a reasonable level. The idea that they were hurting for resources is absolute nonsense.

The real problem then, for this sector, was that there existed official entities with whom we could mutually agree that the “war”, such as it was, had ended and precipitate some small shrinking of spending on defense. And that’s not going to be possible with the war on terror, is it? Again, feature not bug. They won’t make that mistake again.

Some people knew how this would go a long time ago:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Still true.  Unfortunately, those who try to inform the people are labeled traitors.
.

“A date which will live in infamy”

by digby

Now this shit was real:

QOTD: Jake Tapper

by digby

Nicely done:

A correction from us now. On Wednesday during a discussion on our roundtable about Vice President Biden I tried to make the point that despite his substantive work, the media perhaps too often focuses on his gaffes. In doing so, I did him and you the exact same ill service by not providing the proper context for a quick sound bite we aired. The vice president had been attending an event in Japan aimed at highlighting efforts to reduce the percentage of Japanese women, currently at 60 percent, who quit their jobs after the birth of their first child. An important context for you to have known before we showed you the vice president asking some female workers there how their husbands like them working full-time. Again, we were trying to make the point that the VP perhaps deserved a more fair shake but then I inadvertently, ironically, perhaps even hypocritically, did the same thing. I regret the error and apologize to the vice president and to you, the viewer.

Here’s the background, via Media Matters. Naturally, it started with Newtie:

On December 3. Biden visited the Toyko headquarters of the Japanese company DeNA. According to the Wall Street Journal, that firm “is known for encouraging its female employees to continue working through motherhood,” and Biden was there to “meet with its female employees to chat about achieving a work-life balance in a country where 60% of women don’t return to work after giving birth.” As part of that dialogue, Biden asked a group of five young female employees, “Do your husbands like you working full time?” Illustrating the vulnerability of journalists working in the current media environment, numerous media outlets ripped Biden’s comments from their context and presented them as a sexist gaffe.

That dishonest framing reached CNN the same day, when Crossfire’s Gingrich tried to use them to diffuse criticism of the GOP’s toxic rhetoric on women. He commented: “Democrats like to complain about a Republican war on women. That was before Vice President Joe Biden started his current tour of Japan. Today, while touring a Japanese game company, he walked up to a group of women and asked them, ‘Do your husbands like you working full-time?'” Gingrich used Biden’s comments to ask, “How do you explain Biden’s inability to stay in touch with reality?”

Update:  Tapper points out on twitter that it didn’t start with Newtie.

Fast-tracking inequality

by digby

So the first thing out of the box after President Obama’s big speech on inequality is a big push for “fast-tracking” a new international trade deal called the Trans Pacific Pact (TPP.) It almost makes you want to laugh it’s so predictable. So, it’s time to get up to speed on this deal and Dave Johnson has done the research for you,  with charts, graphs, links and a short primer on what it all means and what you can do.

I had an interesting conversation the other night with someone who was recently in the administration who tells me that the bipartisan consensus on these trade deals in Washington is so entrenched (indeed, has been so entrenched ever since the logjam was broken around NAFTA) that it’s impossible to imagine that this won’t ultimately go through. We don’t know that for sure, of course.  New coalitions and strangely self-defeating obstructionism seems to be the rule in the congress these days, so maybe the Tea Partiers will find a way to save the day. But assuming this is destined to pass in some form, it’s still vitally important that “fast track” authority is denied so that the people can look at this thing and have a say in how it’s structured. These fast track agreements are completely undemocratic and the trade pacts should allow the people to have input into the details.  I know that’s inconvenient for the One Percenters, but it’s the way our system is supposed to work.  As Dave writes, there are ways to improve these deals:

A trade agreement doesn’t have to be bad. A real “trade’ agreement could lift the world’s economy, instead of making exploitation of labor and the environment into a competitive advantage. (“Shut up our we’ll move your job out of the country, too.”) But with all of the stakeholders at the table, we could work out a way around the low wages and lack of environmental protections in some countries. (Make it a trade violation to say “Shut up our we’ll move your job out of the country, too.” Make it a trade violation to lower costs by allowing pollution. Make it a trade violation to block union organizing or deny unemployment benefits or do other things that push wages down. Make it a trade violation to have a continuing trade surplus.)

Click on the link above to see what you can do to help make that happen.

.

Why privacy? “The power of mind over mind”

by digby

I’ve noticed over the last few years that it’s fairly common to pooh-pooh the concept of privacy.  “It’s dead already”, who needs it, if you’ve got nothing to hide, etc. In this Facebook world in which people eagerly share every thought that passes through their minds, it almost seems quaint. But it isn’t. Privacy is fundamental to being a human being.

This interview with Glenn Greenwald is fascinating for any number of reasons and you should read the whole thing, but I was especially taken with his philosophical approach to this subject considering how important his reporting and analysis on the NSA revelations have been.  He said:

I think it’s interesting because a lot of times people have difficulty understanding why privacy’s important…and so what I try to do is look at human behavior, and what I find, I think, is that the quest for privacy is very pervasive. We do all kinds of things to ensure that we can have a realm in which we can engage in conduct without other people’s judgmental eyes being cast upon us.

And if you look at how tyrannies have used surveillance in the past, they don’t use surveillance in support of their tyranny in the sense that every single person is being watched at all times, because that just logistically hasn’t been able to be done. Even now it can’t be done — I mean, the government can collect everybody’s e-mails and calls, but they don’t have the resources to monitor them all. But what’s important about a surveillance state is that it creates the recognition that your behavior is susceptible to being watched at any time. What that does is radically alter your behavior, because if we can act without other people watching us, we can test all kinds of boundaries, we can explore all kinds of creativity, we can transgress pretty much every limit that we want because nobody’s going to know that we’re doing it. That’s why privacy is so vital to human freedom.

But if we know we’re being watched all the time, then we’re going to engage in behavior that is acceptable to other people, meaning we’re going to conform to orthodoxies and norms. And that’s the real menace of a ubiquitous surveillance state: It breeds conformity; it breeds a kind of obedient citizenry, on both a societal and an individual level. That’s why tyrannies love surveillance, but it’s also why surveillance literally erodes a huge part of what it means to be a free individual.

It is literally a form of prison. In fact, there’s a name for it:

The Panopticon is a type of institutional building designed by English philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century. The concept of the design is to allow a single watchman to observe (-opticon) all (pan-) inmates of an institution without them being able to tell whether they are being watched or not. Although it is physically impossible for the single watchman to observe all cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that all inmates must act as though they are watched at all times, effectively controlling their own behavior constantly. The name is also a reference to Panoptes from Greek mythology; he was a giant with a hundred eyes and thus was known to be a very effective watchman.

The design consists of a circular structure with an “inspection house” at its centre, from which the manager or staff of the institution are able to watch the inmates, who are stationed around the perimeter. Bentham conceived the basic plan as being equally applicable to hospitals, schools, sanatoriums, daycares, and asylums, but he devoted most of his efforts to developing a design for a Panopticon prison, and it is his prison which is most widely understood by the term.

Bentham himself described the Panopticon as “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.” Elsewhere, he described the Panopticon prison as “a mill for grinding rogues honest”.

Ubiquitous government surveillance, whether or not they are actually watching your every move, is by definition a form of authoritarianism. People adjust their behavior even if they don’t know they are doing it. It automatically impinges on our basic human freedom.

People used to automatically understand this. I’m not sure when or how that changed but one thing is clear: all this handwringing about “trust in government” is overwrought. Most people seem to think it’s just fine if the government has access to information about all of their communications, contacts and movements. And that can only mean they believe the government would never use it against them. And maybe it won’t, But somewhere, in that back of all of our minds now, we know that they could. And that automatically changes us, even if we don’t know it.

Meanwhile:

Despite ongoing anger about how the U.S. government is snooping on people around the world, one agency is still keen to boast about its spying – with a creepy cartoon octopus and an alarming logo.

A top-secret rocket carrying spy satellites for the National Reconnaissance Office launched from the central California coast late on Thursday, and it had a large badge emblazoned on the side

The new logo features a huge and sinister octopus, with just one angry eye visible, as it wraps its tentacles round the globe. Written underneath is: ‘Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach.’

Update: Jon Schwarz  points out the odd similarity between that logo and anti-communist propaganda:

What’s that old saying about becoming that which you despise?

Depressing news of the day: Democratic sell-out edition

by digby

Greg Sargent reports:

Multiple Democrats on Capitol Hill are worried that House Democratic leaders are close to joining with House GOP leaders to support a bipartisan measure that could undermine the White House’s efforts to reach a long term deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program, I’m told by sources involved in discussions.

The worry is that Dem Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Dem, may join with GOP Rep. Eric Cantor on a resolution or bill that will either criticize the current temporary deal with Iran, or call for a new round of sanctions, or set as U.S. policy some strict parameters on a final deal with Iran, such as opposition to any continued uranium enrichment, House Democratic aides say. House Dems and outside foreign policy observers have communicated such worries to Hoyer’s office, sources add.

Hoyer’s office confirmed to me that Cantor had produced a bill and shared it with him, but declined to discuss details. “Cantor has a bill, and it’s being reviewed by our office,” Hoyer spokesperson Stephanie Young said. “No decisions have been made.” Spokespeople for Cantor didn’t respond.

Any resolution or bill along these lines that has the support of any House Dem leaders would increase the pressure on Senate Democrats to pass a measure of their own, which the White House opposes. And some fear that a measure in the House itself — even if the Senate didn’t act — could have an adverse impact on international talks.

According to reports in the Hill and National Journal, Cantor and House GOP leaders are looking for a way to express opposition to, and put obstacles in the way of, the deal the Obama administration is pursuing. But now that a bill has been produced, and could be joined by Hoyer, that significantly ratchets up worries that Congress could very well act in a way that scuttles hopes for a long term deal.

Those wary of a possible Hoyer-Cantor measure point out that the two have previously collaborated on measures relating to U.S. policy in the middle east.

I’ve seen some discussions of this saying that, contrary to some assertions in Sargents piece, the congress playing bad cop gives the administration more leverage in a bigger deal. And that might make some sense if it weren’t obvious that the Senate could easily derail any deal for real.

Opposition to peace is one thing that always has strong bipartisan support. This is not a good sign.

.

Just another way we all subsidize the big banks

by David Atkins

This story has been out there for a few days now, but it’s so outrageous that it bears repeating: Americans aren’t just subsidizing the low wages of WalMart and fast food chains by having to publicly assist their hardworking but underpaid employees. We’re also subsidizing the banks as well who, despite being outrageously profitable and subsidized in a variety of other ways, are vastly underpaying their tellers:

Almost a third of the country’s half-million bank tellers rely on some form of public assistance to get by, according to a report due out Wednesday.

Researchers say taxpayers are doling out nearly $900 million a year to supplement the wages of bank tellers, which amounts to a public subsidy for multibillion-dollar banks. The workers collect $105 million in food stamps, $250 million through the earned income tax credit and $534 million by way of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to the University of California at Berkeley’s Labor Center.

The center provided the data to the Committee for Better Banks, a coalition of labor advocacy groups that published the broader study, to be released Wednesday, on the conditions of bank workers in the heart of the financial industry, New York. In the that state alone, 39 percent of tellers and their family members are enrolled in some form of public assistance program, the data show.

“This is the wealthiest and most powerful industry in the world, and it’s substantially subsidized by our tax dollars, money that we could be spending on child care or pre-K,” said Deborah Axt, co-executive director at Make the Road New York, one of four coalition members.

Profits at the nation’s banks topped $141.3 billion last year, with the median chief executive pay hovering around $552,000, according to SNL Financial. In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the median annual income of a bank teller at $24,100, or $11.59 an hour.

The government shouldn’t be giving billionaire bankers a single dime in exemptions or subsidies without demanding that they pay all their employees a decent living wage. It’s an outrage.

.

Moment of zen: jingle dog

by digby

Therapy dog, Jackie, and his handler stopped by the @USOGreaterLA last night #laxpup @LAX_Official pic.twitter.com/VZljc2j0qy
— Janie_U (@janie_u) December 6, 2013

Very Serious Republicans: “I know you are but what am I?”


by digby

Brad Plumer gives us an update on the budget negotiations which are apparently continuing through the week-end. They are reportedly getting to a compromise that would raise the cap on sequestration a little bit, to be paid for down the road because both parties are afraid of deficits. The little bit of restored money will go equally to discretionary programs and defense in the amount of roughly one trillion dollars.

For perspective, you can see that the goalposts have moved so much that “winning” is now actually below Paul Ryan’s original budget.

That worked out well.

But House Republicans could still balk.  They want sequestration to be kept in place come hell or high water. And you just won’t believe this:

On Friday, 18 House conservatives sent a letter to John Boehner demanding only a “clean” continuing resolution bill that would fund the government at the lower $967 billion level next year and keep sequestration in place (albeit with more flexibility for federal agencies). “The Budget Control Act is the law of the land,” they wrote. “Our Democrat colleagues are now threatening to shut the government down in order to change that. We should not permit that to happen.”

Chutzpah doesn’t even begin to describe that. Any right winger who can use the argument that it’s the “law of the land” and accuse the Democrats of threatening to “shut down the government” to change it are such immature imbeciles that they should not be allowed to hold office. This is basically what they’re doing:

Stewart vs. Stuart

by David Atkins

This isn’t even a fair fight:

It’s hard to write about politics every day in this era without resorting to insults and seeming hyperbole, which make the writer look “unserious.” But if the Objectivist worldview consistently espoused on Fox News and other right-wing media outlets doesn’t merit moral outrage, it’s hard to know what does outside of outright crimes against humanity. Failing to vituperate against it or savage it with satire normalizes opinions that should be horribly embarrassing to express openly in polite society, much less to promote as political propaganda.

.