Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA. Show all posts

Monday, June 9, 2014

In Bed with Alex Jones

Confession—I fight it, but not always successfully, so if you need any information on, for example, the alleged Boys Town pedophile scandal, well, I’m your man. Months ago, I spent a cheerful Sunday afternoon—when I didn’t have to be writing—boning up on the subject via YouTube.
Ah YouTube! What a boon to conspiracy nuts and paranoia freaks! In the past, Dear Reader, you had to go to special places—usually drugstores with big magazine sections—to get your fix of extraterrestrials, Mothman, our beloved chupacabra (Puerto Rico’s gift to the world, say I proudly) not to mention that old favorite, the takeover of the entire world by a highly secret, international group of financiers, industrialists and politicians. Now, you can trot over to YouTube and see undercover footage of the Cremation of Care, which does look a little crazy.
You may not know the cremation, since most people, unlike writers, do important things: go to work, raise kids, worry about the bills. But you might have heard about Bohemian Grove, the camp of redwoods north of San Francisco, which for two weeks in July fills up with rich guys peeing in the woods. If you haven’t, here’s a nice little introduction by our old nemesis, Richard M. Nixon:
•           "The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time—the Easterners and the others come there—but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine, that San Francisco crowd that goes in there; it's just terrible! I mean I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."—President Richard M. Nixon on the Watergate tapes, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953.[17][40]
•          "If I were to choose the speech that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction in my political career, it would be my Lakeside Speech at the Bohemian Grove in July 1967. Because this speech traditionally was off the record it received no publicity at the time. But in many important ways it marked the first milestone on my road to the presidency."—President Richard Nixon, Memoirs (1978)
Ah, Dick! Wonderful how much I don’t miss him!  
Well, the Bohemian Grove is owned by the Bohemian Club, which was set up in the late 19th century by a group of San Francisco men. And here, by the way, is Wikipedia’s explanation of the origin of the name:
In New York City and other American metropolises in the late 1850s, groups of young, cultured journalists flourished as self-described "bohemians" until the American Civil War broke them up and sent them out as war correspondents.[4] During the war, reporters began to assume the title "bohemian," and newspapermen in general took up the moniker. "Bohemian" became synonymous with "newspaper writer".[4] California journalist Bret Harte first wrote as "The Bohemian" in The Golden Era in 1861, with this persona taking part in many satirical doings. Harte described San Francisco as a sort of Bohemia of the West.[5] Mark Twain called himself and poet Charles Warren Stoddard bohemians in 1867.
OK—coming from a family of journalists, I can tell you that the words “journalists” and “cultured” are rarely coupled, especially if a negative isn’t somewhere nearby. And today, how bohemian is the club?
Not very, given that you have to be rich and connected to get in—oh, and the waiting list spans decades. The real question is what the hell goes on there, since it’s top secret, which makes it excellent fodder for us conspiracy theorists. But here are the top theories:
·      the big boys are gathering to  mastermind the takeover of all governments to implement a “new world order.” And guess who’s running it?
·      The big boys like to drink and piss in the woods
·      The big boys are engaging in satanic rituals
Here’s the problem with conspiracy theories—occasionally they’re right. So whatever is going on north of San Francisco a month from now, we can probably say that the CIA or FBI was seriously messing with Paul Robeson, a guy so talented it’s easier to say what he wasn’t than what he was. Here, Wikipedia takes a stab at it:
Paul Leroy Robeson (/ˈroʊbsən/ rohb-sən April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was an African-American singer and actor who became involved with the Civil Rights Movement. At Rutgers University, he was an outstanding football player, then had an international career in singing, as well as acting in theater and movies. He became politically involved in response to the Spanish Civil War, fascism, and social injustices. His advocacy of anti-imperialism, affiliation with communism, and criticism of the United States government caused him to be blacklisted during the McCarthy era. Ill health forced him into retirement from his career. He remained until his death an advocate of the political stances he took.
Ill health? Certainly something happened to Robeson in Moscow in March of 1961; with apparently no psychiatric history, Robeson became acutely anxious, paranoid, depressed during what Wikipedia describes as “an uncharacteristically wild” party. Eventually, he locked himself in his bedroom and tried to slit his wrists. (The nurse in me needs to tell you—this is anatomically impossible….)
Robeson somehow ended up in London, where for almost two years he was zapped with shock therapy and given heavy does of barbiturates. After his son transferred him to a clinic in East Berlin, he “rapidly improved,” again according to Wikipedia.
But if the son is to be believed, the whole thing was fishy. First, consider how acute and how fast his symptom developed—he had been completely normal hours before. Then, through the Freedom of Information Act, Robeson ‘s son learned that the FBI and CIA had been tracking his father and mother for years. And then, also while in Moscow, Robeson had the same thing happen to him: an acute attack of anxiety, depression, and paranoia.
So what was going on? Here’s more from Wikipedia:
Paul Jr. believed that his father's health problems stemmed from attempts by CIA and MI5 to "neutralize" his father.[238][239] He remembered that his father had had such fears prior to his prostate operation.[240] He said that three doctors treating Robeson in London and New York had been CIA contractors,[238] and that his father's symptoms resulted from being "subjected to mind depatterning under MKULTRA", a secret CIA programme.[241] Martin Duberman claimed that Robeson's health breakdown was probably brought on by a combination of factors including extreme emotional and physical stress, bipolar depression, exhaustion and the beginning of circulatory and heart problems. "[E]ven without an organic predisposition and accumulated pressures of government harassment he might have been susceptible to a breakdown."
Whether the CIA was involved or not, it’s certainly true that the fifties were a terrible decade for Robeson—he was blacklisted since 1948, his passport was revoked for most of the decade, and he got slapped in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956. Wouldn’t you be paranoid? And it seems that Project MKUltra did exist, though the CIA destroyed a lot of its records in the height of the Watergate scandal. Remember, we were all nutso about the Communists, so the idea of setting up brothels, installing one-way mirrors, and then giving unwitting subjects LSD, interrogating the men later—all done under a program called Operation Midnight Climax—made a certain bizarre sense. If better dead than red was true, then there wasn’t much that you wouldn’t do….
From the son’s account, Robeson never quite got back in the saddle; he was unable to attend the celebration of his 75th birthday at Carnegie Hall. He had been an activist, a socialist, a supporter of the Soviet Union, and of trade unions. All of that, unfortunately, made him a little too hot a potato for comfort. In his life, he had been able to do so many things: he played pro football, he sang, he acted, he graduated from Columbia Law school, he spoke out for the marginalized. What couldn’t he do?
Take on the CIA.
Who of us can?



Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Round Two

You know the story as well as I do: the two explosions; the 78 year-old runner blown to the street; the smoke lifting; the stunned man filming the event, who can only keep saying “Oh, my God.”
So it’s happened again, a dozen years after September 2001. We have spent billions of dollars on “security,” we’ve lost significant amounts of freedom, we have allowed the government to strip us of rights in order to “protect” us. In addition, we’ve lost the ability to think, and fallen victim to fear. Does anybody really think that having zillions of people scrutinize us as we empty our pockets and take off our shoes and belts and go through metal detectors at our airports is making us safer? Wouldn’t a simple lock on the cockpit door have done the trick? And why, since hijacking has been around since the 60’s, wasn’t it standard procedure to lock the cockpit?
So yes, I watched the videos compulsively yesterday, until it occurred to me—it wasn’t doing my stomach any good. Nor was it being particular useful to the people of Boston, so why was I doing it?
Later I wondered—under what circumstances would I ever put a bomb (or two or four, however many there were) in a crowd full of innocent people? Would I ever? Would I ever have so much hurt, so much pain, that it would give rise to that level of rage and bile?
I hope not.
OK—Adolf Hitler. When would I have the necessary knowledge to justify putting the bomb under his desk? Would I need to have seen the concentration camps? Would hearing accounts be enough? Would just seeing the Jews crammed in the cattle cars be sufficient?
So now the country is watching a city block of Boston, Massachusetts, and scratching their heads and saying, “why do they hate us?” The answer, most people think, is that there is such a thing as evil, and the people who perpetrated this deed were evil.
Well, I think there’s an alternative explanation, and the New York Times reported on it today. “US Practiced Torture After 9/11,” announced the headline, and my response was, predictably, “duh….”
Of course we were practicing torture—will anybody in the world forget that sadistic photograph of the female soldier, her cigarette dangling from the side of her mouth, her foot resting on top of a heap of naked prisoners? We admitted that we water-boarded, it was reported that the justice department had written memos, and that we had signed off on these “interrogation” techniques, but that no—national security, we couldn’t read them.
So it was a true “dog bites man” moment for me, but not, apparently for a Republican guy named Asa Hutchinson, who served under Bush as head of the Drug Enforcement Agency and undersecretary of the Homeland Security. He was the Republican balance to a bipartisan report, and he initially started out believing that no, there was no torture committed. But here’s what the New York Times has him saying:
“This has not been an easy inquiry for me, because I know many of the players,” Mr. Hutchinson said in an interview. He said he thought everyone involved in decisions, from Mr. Bush down, had acted in good faith, in a desperate effort to try to prevent more attacks.
“But I just think we learn from history,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “It’s incredibly important to have an accurate account not just of what happened but of how decisions were made.”
He added, “The United States has a historic and unique character, and part of that character is that we do not torture.”
Yeah? Wanna ask the rest of the world?
I read once that there was a British maxim—a man is judged by how he treats his enemy. And nations as well; that said, how well do we score?
Well, the Army Field Manual on Interrogation may reveal a hint or two; section M allows for interrogation sessions for up to 40 consecutive hours.
“Doesn’t sound like much,” you say. Right, but try staying awake from 8AM Monday morning to midnight the next day—that’s 40 hours.
And the very fact that it was officially permitted led to other things, not officially permitted. Here’s one chilling sentence from the Times story:
The C.I.A. not only water boarded prisoners, but slammed them into walls, chained them in uncomfortable positions for hours, stripped them of clothing and kept them awake for days on end.
Oh, and here’s another one:
The core of the report, however, may be an appendix: a detailed 22-page legal and historical analysis that explains why the task force concluded that what the United States did was torture. It offers dozens of legal cases in which similar treatment was prosecuted in the United States or denounced as torture by American officials when used by other countries.
Nor does the report spare the Obama administration:
While the Constitution Project report covers mainly the Bush years, it is critical of some Obama administration policies, especially what it calls excessive secrecy. It says that keeping the details of rendition and torture from the public “cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security” and urges the administration to stop citing state secrets to block lawsuits by former detainees.
Well, you know where I land on this issue. Obama didn’t want to focus on the past, he said, he wanted to focus on the future, going forward.
Lovely sentiment.
Bullshit.
No president is gonna go after a former president, for the simple fact that every president is going to BE at some point a former president.
So now we know. Oops, so sorry—looks like we went a little overboard.
Is that enough?
Let’s see—what time is it, over there in the Hague?