Posts Tagged ‘CIA torture’


This article (The US War on Terror Has Cost $5 Trillion and Increased Terrorism by 6,500%) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org.

Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article toedits@theantimedia.org.


http://theantimedia.org/us-war-terror-5-trillion/

September 14, 2016   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) On September 11, 2001, one of the most tragic events in recent American history took place. Close to 3,000 civilians lost their lives in horrific terror attacks that took place on American soil. Fifteen years later, it is time to ask the question: have our counterterror efforts helped to reduce the amount of terrorism in the world? Or at the very least, have they tried to make the world safer?

According to a report released by Dr. Neta Crawford, professor of political science at Brown University, spending by the United States Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and Veteran Affairs since 9/11 is now close to $5 trillion USD. Before we have the chance to ask how a country that has racked up over $19.3 trillion USD in debt can spend $5 trillion USD on war, the focus of this article is to ask:

What has all of this spending achieved?

As Reader Supported News reported at the end of last year, terrorism has increased 6,500 percent since 2002 (they probably should rename it “the war of terror”).

In 2014, the outlet noted, it was reported that 74 percent of all terror-related casualties occurred in Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Syria. As stated by Paul Gottinger, a staff reporter for Reader Supported News, out of the aforementioned countries, “only Nigeria did not experience either U.S. air strikes or a military occupation in that year.”

Omitted from that assessment is the fact that the U.S. has been meddling in Nigeria for some time now. Why wouldn’t they? Until recently, Nigeria was Africa’s largest oil producer, as well as the continent’s largest economy until last month.

Hillary Clinton herself refused repeated requests from the CIA to place Boko Haram, the al-Qaeda and ISIS-linked terror group wreaking havoc across Nigeria (statistically they are far more deadly than ISIS), on the U.S. official list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Further, it was Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya that helped catapult Boko Haram into the menace it is today. In 2009, Boko Haram was a small-scale group with very limited weaponry. Following the invasion of Libya and the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan armories were looted, and much of the weaponry was sent over to Syria. However, Boko Haram was able to capitalize on these looted weapons and the instability that rippled throughout Africa following the NATO-led war in Libya. As Peter Weber stated in The Week:

“[Boko Haram’s weaponry] shifted from relatively cheap AK-47s in the early days of its post-2009 embrace of violence to desert-ready combat vehicles and anti-aircraft/ anti-tank guns.”

Boko Haram is just one example of an unforeseen consequence, right?

At least we removed a dictator who was going to massacre his own people in Libya, right?
Despite one’s thoughts on Gaddafi’s moral compass, he was able to transform Libya into Africa’s most prosperous democracy with the highest standard of living on the continent. Since then, Libya has fallen massively in the U.N. Human Development Index ratings (in 2015 alone, Libya fell 27 places). According to UNICEF, there are two million Libyan children out of school in a country that is now plagued by militants, civil war, and extremism. What are the chances of those children out of school being swayed to join a militant group?

Last year, four former U.S. air force service members wrote a letter to Barack Obama warning him that the single most effective recruitment tool for groups like ISIS was the drone program being implemented across the Muslim world, courtesy of the president himself. In fact, three former U.S. air force drone operators have even backed a lawsuit against the state, brought by a Yemeni man who lost members of his family in a drone strike in 2012.

According to Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s “Untold History of the United States”:

“When the U.S. began its Yemeni drone campaign in 2009, Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula had fewer than 300 militants in Yemen.

By mid-2012, that number had jumped to over 1,000.”

Still believe there is no relationship between bombing a country to death and the resulting extremist groups that emerge from the rubble?

It seems as though recent history is just repeating itself over and over — not to mention the cruel and unnecessary havoc unleashed on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. As Ben Swann, an investigative journalist and outspoken critic of U.S. foreign policy, stated:

“Before the 2003 U.S. invasion, do you know how many suicide attacks there were in Iraq? None. In the country’s history there had never been one. But since the 2003 invasion, there have been 1,892.

“In Iraq, prior to the start of the Iraq war, there were reportedly just over 1.5 million Christians living in that country. And yet shortly after the war started, more than one million of them fled to Syria. That didn’t work out well. Today fewer than half a million Christians remain and yet are being exterminated by groups like ISIS.”

The list of ways in which the $5 trillion USD effort to stamp out terrorism has either caused more terrorism or done nothing remotely towards curbing terrorism is endless. Even College Humor, in their show “Adam Ruins Everything,” put together an informative piece on how the TSA is almost completely useless, having never prevented a single terrorist attack – ever.

Yet how much money has been flowing into these programs – and still is today?

It’s time for a realistic talk about our counterterrorism efforts. One can only assume the U.S. establishment is not genuine in their bid to fight terrorism across the globe given that they have continued policies that merely exacerbate terrorism and have created a world less safe for future generations.

The first step in preventing future terrorism would be to admit that our current strategy isn’t working.

Anyone who believes otherwise — or who decides to run for president on the promise they will further expand these failed policies — is not only wasting our time, but will be wasting countless lives in the process.

Advertisements

A shocking tale of torture and indifference. UK diplomat Craig Murray.

Audio Interview: http://batemanbroadcasting.com/episode-26-shocking-tale-torture-indifference/ (approx. 43mins)

Lifelong diplomat Craig Murray had a career-ending experience as “Our Man in Tashkent” when he reported widespread use of torture and other malpractice by the ruling authorities in Uzbekistan.

He came unstuck when he sought support from his bosses in London, and particularly the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.

Murray’s tale is not for the weak-hearted or for people who support the actions of those whistle-blowers who speak out when they see wrong-doing, expecting to be backed by their bosses.

Here the former UK Ambassador recounts his experience to Derek Bateman, examining the legacy of New Labour legacy in a week when revelations about state-sanctioned torture by the CIA under Bush /Cheney further threatens the reputation of the Blair government.

Reblogged from Bateman Broadcasting

Bateman Broadcasting offers a unique perspective. Our interview-led approach adds real value and lively content to Scottish political debate.

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCE: Stop The War Coalition

At last Jack Straw speaks about his complicity in CIA torture and rendition
Robin Beste 14 December 2014.

Jack Straw’s wriggle room seemed to shrink when the Guardian submitted questions to him that would clarify his role in CIA torture.

Following publication of the US Senate’s CIA torture report the Guardian submitted questions to Jack Straw, Tony Blair’s foreign secretary at the time Britain was taken into the illegal Iraq war. it received the following responses:

Q: Why did Straw decide in January 2002 that the government should raise no objection to US plans to remove to Guantánamo Bay British nationals and residents detained in Afghanistan and Pakistan, on the grounds that this would be the best way for the UK to meet its counter-terrorism objectives? Was he not concerned that this removal was unlawful or that these individuals were at risk of severe mistreatment?

Straw: “At all times I was scrupulous in seeking to carry out my duties in accordance with the law, and I hope to be able to say more about this at an appropriate stage in the future.”

Q: Did Straw authorise MI6 involvement in two rendition operations of 2004 that resulted in two Libyan men being delivered to the Gaddafi regime, along with the pregnant wife of one man and the wife and four children of the second? What steps if any did Straw take to inquire into the wellbeing of the members of these two families after they had been kidnapped and taken to Libya?

Straw: “At all times I was scrupulous in seeking to carry out my duties in accordance with the law.”

Q: Why did Straw tell the House of Commons foreign affairs committee the following year that any suggestions of UK involvement in renditions were “conspiracy theories” and should be disbelieved unless the committee members were prepared to believe that he was lying?

Straw: “At all times I was scrupulous in seeking to carry out my duties in accordance with the law.”

When asked by UK defence secretary Michael Fallon to reveal what he knew about the CIA’s torture and rendition programme, Straw gave another non-answer:

“I was never complicit in any of the CIA illegal processes. I consider it to be revolting, unlawful and also unproductive, as has come out in the Senate report. Of course, when it is possible for legal reasons for full inquiries to take place I will cooperate fully with them, as I always have done.”
But it doesn’t take rocket science to find out how Jack Straw and his partner in war crimes Tony Blair colluded in CIA torture. Government intelligence sources told The Telegraph:

Both Mr Blair and Mr Straw knew in detail about the CIA’s secret programme after the September 11 attacks and were kept informed “every step of the way”. “The politicians took a very active interest indeed. They wanted to know everything. The Americans passed over the legal opinions saying that this was now ‘legal’, and our politicians were aware of what was going on at the highest possible level. The politicians knew in detail about everything – the torture and the rendition. They could have said [to M16] ‘stop it, do not get involved’, but at no time did they,”
The source’s claims echoed those made publicly by Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, who said in a speech in 2012 that MI6’s cooperation with the CIA’s rendition programme was a “political” decision.

“Tony Blair absolutely knew, Dearlove was briefing him all the time. He was meticulous about keeping the politicians informed,” the intelligence source said.

But Jack Straw’s criminality goes far beyond secret collusion with CIA torture and rendition. He was shoulder-to-shoulder every step of the way, as Tony Blair’s lies took Britain into an illegal war against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and so devastated the country that eleven years later it is still being torn apart.

If there were any justice in the world, Jack Straw would be held to account for his complicty in the supreme war crime, as defined by the Nürnberg Tribunal, set up after World War II, following the trials of leading Nazis:

To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
In 2009, when he was UK justice minister, Jack Straw — without a drop of irony — unveiled a law in parliament which created new powers to prosecute war criminals living in Britain who have committed atrocities dating back to 1991. Introducing the new law, Straw said:
“Those who have committed genocide or war crimes or crimes against humanity during the 1990s must not escape justice. These people must face up to their terrible crimes and we are doing everything in our power to make them accountable for their actions… we are committed to ensuring those guilty of these crimes are punished appropriately and to the full extent of the law in this country.”
If this new law was applied with due attention to the facts, there is little doubt that Jack Straw would be among the first to be arraigned under this law for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Source: Stop the War Coalition