The inconstancy of American foreign policy is not an accident but an expression of two distinct sides of the American character. Both are characterized by a kind of moralism, but one is the morality of decent instincts tempered by knowledge of human imperfection and the other is the morality of absolute self-assurance fired by the crusading spirit.
Senator J. William Fulbright. The Arrogance of Power. 1966
Aan het begin van de twintigste eeuw karakteriseerde de imperialistische president Theodore Roosevelt de Amerikaanse overzeese politiek, zoals die nog steeds geldt, met de woorden:
we do not admire the man of timid peace. We admire the man who embodies victorious effort.
De mainstream-bewering van Geert Mak in zijn Reizen zonder John (2012) dat Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) 'brak' met 'de Amerikaanse frontier-filosofie van grenzeloosheid en eeuwige overvloed, een ruimte die geen einde kende' is apert onjuist omdat de 'frontier' eenvoudigweg naar het buitenland werd verschoven, overal waar nieuwe markten en noodzakelijke grondstoffen veroverd konden worden. Die gewelddadige politiek werd met mooie woorden omkleed als 'The Open Door policy,' die
was rooted in desire of American businesses to trade with Chinese markets, though it also tapped the deep-seated sympathies of those who opposed imperialism, especially as the policy pledged to protect China's territorial integrity. While the policy was originally aimed to safeguard Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity from partition, it was mainly used to mediate competing interests of the colonial powers without much meaningful input from the Chinese. Thus, the Open Door policy had little legal standing and created lingering resentment; it has since been seen as a symbol of national humiliation by many Chinese historians.
De Amerikaanse auteur Kevin Amos Carson schreef hierover in het 2007 verschenen ’Open Door Imperialism’ Through the 1930s. Studies in Mutualist Political Economy:
Open Door imperialism consisted of using U.S. political power to guarantee access to foreign markets and resources on terms favorable to American corporate interests, without relying on direct political rule. Its central goal was to obtain for U.S. merchandise, in each national market, treatment equal to that afforded any other industrial nation. Most importantly, this entailed active engagement by the U.S. government in breaking down the imperial powers' existing spheres of economic influence or preference. The result, in most cases, was to treat as hostile to U.S. security interests any large-scale attempt at autarky, or any other policy whose effect was to withdraw a major area from the disposal of U.S. corporations. When the power attempting such policies was an equal, like the British Empire, the U.S. reaction was merely one of measured coolness. When it was perceived as an inferior, like Japan, the U.S. resorted to more forceful measures, as events of the late 1930s indicate. And whatever the degree of equality between advanced nations in their access to Third World markets, it was clear that Third World nations were still to be subordinated to the industrialized West in a collective sense. Indeed, one thinks that Kautsky had the Open Door in mind in formulating his theory of ‘ultra-imperialism,’ in which the developed capitalist nations cooperated to exploit the Third World collectively.
This Open Door system was the direct ancestor of today's neoliberal system, which is falsely called ‘free trade’ in the apologetics of court intellectuals. It depended on active management of the world economy by dominant states, and continuing intervention to police the international economic order and enforce sanctions against states which did not cooperate. Woodrow Wilson, in a 1907 lecture at Columbia University, said:
Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down.... Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused. Peace itself becomes a matter of conference and international combinations.
Wilson warned during the 1912 election that ‘Our industries have expanded to such a point that they will burst their jackets if they cannot find a free [that is, guaranteed by the state] outlet to the markets of the world.’
In a 1914 address to the National Foreign Trade Convention, Secretary of Commerce Redfield followed very nearly the same theme:
'we have learned the lesson now, that our factories are so large that their output at full time is greater than America's market can continuously absorb. We know now that if we will run full time all the time, we must do it by reason of the orders we take from lands beyond the sea. To do less than that means homes in America in which the husbands are without work; to do that means factories that are shut down part of the time.'
Deze agressieve buitenlandse politiek werd nog eens onderstreept door de uitspraken van de Amerikaanse generaal Smedley Butler. Terugkijkend op zijn ruim 33 jaar actieve militaire dienst verklaarde de oud-bevelhebber van het Korps Mariniers in 1933:
Oorlog is misdaad. Hij wordt gevoerd ten voordele van de zeer weinigen ten koste van de massa. Ik ben heel lang een eersteklas uitsmijter geweest voor het bedrijfsleven. Voor Wall Street en voor de banken. Ik was in feite een misdadiger, een gangster voor het kapitalisme. Ik heb in 1914 Mexico veilig gemaakt voor de Amerikaanse oliebelangen. Ik hielp bij het verkrachten van een half dozijn Midden Amerikaanse republieken voor het profijt van Wall Street. In China heb ik ervoor gezorgd dat Standard Oil ongestoord zijn weg kon gaan. Al Capone is niet verder gekomen dan drie wijken. Mijn werkterrein omvatte drie continenten.
Het wezenlijke probleem was en is nog steeds het telkens terugkerende kapitalistische probleem van de overproductie, een tekort aan markten, of anders gezegd: het probleem van teveel concurrenten. President McKinley (1897-1901) beklemtoonde dit zonder omwegen toen hij tijdens de grote depressie in de VS aan het eind van de negentiende eeuw verklaarde: 'Wij hebben goed geld… maar wat we nodig hebben is nieuwe markten,’ omdat, zoals de invloedrijke voorzitter van de Senaats-Commissie voor Buitenlandse Betrekkingen, Henry Cabot Lodge, hem nog eens duidelijk maakte, de binnenlandse markten ‘niet voldoende zijn voor onze op volle toeren draaiende industrieën.’ Met het oog daarop verklaarde de invloedrijke Senator Albert Beveridge: 'The Philippines are ours forever... and just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets... The Pacific is ours.'
Telkens weer was het argument tijdens het debat in het Congres over de annexatie van de Filipijnen dat dit land als de 'stepping-stones to China' moest functioneren, een potentiële markt van destijds 400 miljoen consumenten. Natuurlijk werd deze noodzaak, net als nu, in het Westen met nobel klinkende propaganda aan de man gebracht. De VS had de plicht om het christendom en de blanke beschaving te verspreiden onder wat Beveridge noemde 'savage and senile peoples.' Een wonderlijk argument omdat bijvoorbeeld de meeste Filipinos door de Spaanse overheersing al eeuwenlang katholiek waren.
Nog afgezien van de interne tegenstrijdigheden van het inmiddels neoliberale kapitalisme is een almaar actueler probleem de toenemende uitputting van onmisbare grondstoffen. De strijd daarover is één van de belangrijkste oorzaken waarom Rusland, ondanks de ineenstorting van het communisme, is omsingeld door een groeiend aantal NAVO-bases, en Washington deze grootmacht probeert te isoleren van de rest van Europa. Tegelijkertijd bereid de VS zich ook militair voor op een confrontatie met de opkomende wereldmacht China. Vrijdag 1 juni 2012 berichtte ik op deze weblog het volgende onder de aanhef 'The Next World War':
Telkens weer was het argument tijdens het debat in het Congres over de annexatie van de Filipijnen dat dit land als de 'stepping-stones to China' moest functioneren, een potentiële markt van destijds 400 miljoen consumenten. Natuurlijk werd deze noodzaak, net als nu, in het Westen met nobel klinkende propaganda aan de man gebracht. De VS had de plicht om het christendom en de blanke beschaving te verspreiden onder wat Beveridge noemde 'savage and senile peoples.' Een wonderlijk argument omdat bijvoorbeeld de meeste Filipinos door de Spaanse overheersing al eeuwenlang katholiek waren.
Nog afgezien van de interne tegenstrijdigheden van het inmiddels neoliberale kapitalisme is een almaar actueler probleem de toenemende uitputting van onmisbare grondstoffen. De strijd daarover is één van de belangrijkste oorzaken waarom Rusland, ondanks de ineenstorting van het communisme, is omsingeld door een groeiend aantal NAVO-bases, en Washington deze grootmacht probeert te isoleren van de rest van Europa. Tegelijkertijd bereid de VS zich ook militair voor op een confrontatie met de opkomende wereldmacht China. Vrijdag 1 juni 2012 berichtte ik op deze weblog het volgende onder de aanhef 'The Next World War':
Een duidelijke illustratie van de wijze waarop de westerse consument wordt voorbereid op het grote gewelddadige treffen met China staat vandaag op de voorpagina van de International Herald Tribune, 'The Global Edition of the New York Times.' Onder de kop 'U.S.-China tensions grow at sea' bericht de spreekbuis van de Amerikaanse gevestigde orde dat 'Naval test of strength revolves around control of potential of energy source.' Om u de context duidelijk te maken citeer ik nog even verder:
Superficially, a recent squabble in the South China Sea was over rare corals, clams and sharks that Philippine Navy seamen were trying to seize from a half-dozen Chinese fishing boats -- until two Chinese Marine craft intervened. After tense hours in the tropical waters of the Scarborough Shoal, the Philippine Navy Ship -- a refitted U.S. Coast Guard cutter -- withdrew. But the real stakes were far larger, as the insistent claims of sovereignty over the shoal by the Philippine and Chinese governments since the standoff in April have made clear. The clash intensified longstanding disputes over the strategic and potentially energy-rich area that have become more urgent as the United States and China expand their naval power in the region. 'We're just pawns,' said Roberto Romulo, a former Philippine foreign secretary who argues that China is flexing its muscles to gain unimpeded access to vast reserves of natural gas and oil believed to be buried under the South China Sea. 'China is testing the United States, that's all it is. And China is eating America's lunch in Southeast Asia.' A senior Chinese military officer dismissed any legitimate role for the United States in the South China Sea.
Om een goed beeld te krijgen van de omvang van de Stille Oceaan is het belangrijk te weten dat de Pacific bijna 20.000 kilometer breed is, de helft van de omvang van de aarde. De Verenigde Staten ligt dus bijna aan de andere kant van de wereldbol, en desondanks meent de zogeheten 'beste krant van de wereld' dat de stelling als zou 'China de Amerikaanse lunch opeten in Zuidoost Azië' een juiste is, relevant genoeg voor de lezers om te vermelden. Om de absurditeit van deze kwalificatie enigszins duidelijk te maken moet men de zaak omdraaien. Stel dat een Nederlandse voormalige minister van Buitenlandse Zaken tegenover een Chinese krant, die de spreekbuis is van het Chinese regime, zou verklaren dat Nederland in een geschil met Duitsland over de gasvoorraden in de Waddenzee slechts 'een stroman' is, aangezien onze rijkdommen in feite de 'lunch' zijn van China, dan zou onmiddellijk voor iedereen duidelijk zijn dat niet alleen deze Nederlandse autoriteit knettergek is, maar ook het voltallige Chinese regime. Desondanks wordt het omgekeerde door de westerse mainstream media als normaal beschouwd en juist die reactie tekent hoe diep de expansionistische, kolonialistische en vaak racistische mentaliteit in het westerse bewustzijn verankerd ligt. Wij mogen de rijkdommen in de rest van de wereld claimen, aangezien ze onze 'lunch' vormen, terwijl de rest van de wereld zich aan onze eisen dient te onderwerpen.
Om de eeuwenoude hegemonistische waanzin van de blanke, racistische, christelijke cultuur te legitimeren tegenover zijn publiek draait bijvoorbeeld opiniemaker Geert Mak de zaak om door te beweren dat het imperialisme van 'Teddy Roosevelt' streefde naar 'orde, evenwicht tussen de verschillende machten, binnen Amerika en ook in de rest van de wereld.' In Mak's Reader's Digest-versie van de werkelijkheid is 'Teddy Roosevelt' een 'fenomeen,' dat 'de belangen van het democratische Amerika' veilig stelde. En dan volgen de overbekende cliche's als: 'de Amerikanen zaten, ook in de 19e eeuw, niet stil,' en 'de Amerikaanse vuist mocht ook wel eens vaker worden gevoeld,' en 'in 1887 kregen de Verenigde Staten van Hawaii het recht om Pearl Harbor als marinebasis in te richten,' en 'in 1898 ontstond een oorlog met Spanje over de zelfbeschikking van Cuba, waarbij de Amerikaanse marine de Spaanse vloot bij Manilla vernietigde en de Filipijnen binnen de Amerikaanse invloedssfeer bracht.' Dit alles zonder erbij te vermelden dat dit proces gepaard ging met honderdduizenden doden en de grootscheepse onderdrukking van bijvoorbeeld het rebellerende Filipijnse volk dat vrijheid en onafhankelijkheid eisten. De lezer van Mak's boek, waarin hij claimt 'op zoek naar Amerika' te zijn, kan niet anders dan concluderen dat de bestseller-auteur het eens is met de opvatting van Washington en Wall Street dat gekleurde volkeren niet in staat waren zichzelf te besturen, een opvatting die president William Howard Taft (1909-1913) benadrukte door te stellen dat ‘onze kleine bruine broeders’ tenminste ‘vijftig tot honderd jaar’ onder de directe supervisie van de blanke Amerikaanse elite moesten blijven ‘om ook maar iets te kunnen ontwikkelen dat lijkt op de Angelsaksische politieke principes en vaardigheden.’ Mak komt niet verder dan de opmerking dat president Taft's voorganger 'Roosevelt [zelf] dapper mee[vocht] op Cuba,' maar verzwijgt het Platt Amendement dat het Amerikaanse Congres in 1901 in een gezamenlijke resolutie aannam en dat het zogeheten Teller Amendement buiten werking stelde, waarin vastgelegd was:
That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people.
Daarentegen bepaalde het Platt Amendement dat de VS kon interveniëren in de binnenlandse aangelegenheden van Cuba zodra het meende dat de economische belangen van de VS werden geschaad. Bovendien mocht Cuba geen verdragen sluiten met andere landen zonder goedkeuring van de VS. Washington dwong de Cubaanse overheid Guantanamo te leasen aan de VS. Het amendement was geschreven door Elihu Root, onder Theodore Roosevelt minister van Oorlog en later minister van Buitenlandse Zaken. Omdat de Cubanen niet tegen het Amerikaanse geweld op konden, waren ze gedwongen de bepalingen met de grootst mogelijke tegenzin te accepteren, zodat Washington niet alleen de begroting van Cuba kon gaan bepalen, maar tevens kon interveniëren als het de VS uitkwam. Tenslotte viel het eiland in handen van de Amerikaanse onderwereld, tot Fidel Castro de Mafia in 1959 met geweld eruit werkte. De door Washington gesteunde dictator moest vluchten en tot op de dag van vandaag blijft Cuba door de VS geboycot. Maar dit alles wordt door Mak kennelijk als irrelevant beschouwd voor zijn lezers. Het enige dat hij hen meldt is dat in 1960 'Fidel Castro uit Cuba -- alom genegeerd' werd tijdens een bezoek aan de VN in New York. Ook het Amerikaanse bloedbad op de Filipijnen wordt door hem verzwegen. Mak's voorstelling van zaken, waarbij 'in 1887 de Verenigde Staten van Hawaii het recht [kregen] om Pearl Harbor als marinebasis in te richten,' is zo simplistisch dat ik de werkelijke gang van zaken kort moet toelichten:
By the time the United States got serious about looking beyond its own borders to conquer new lands, much of the world had already been claimed. Only a few distant territories in Africa and Asia and remote islands in the Pacific remained free from imperial grasp. Hawaii was one such plum. Led by a hereditary monarch, the inhabitants of the kingdom prevailed as an independent state. American expansionists looked with greed on the strategically located islands and waited patiently to plan their move.
The sugar growers, mostly white Americans, knew that if Hawaii were to be ANNEXED by the United States, the tariff problem would naturally disappear. At the same time, the Hawaiian throne was passed to QUEEN LILIUOKALANI, who determined that the root of Hawaii's problems was foreign interference. A great showdown was about to unfold.
Annexing Hawaii
In January 1893, the planters staged an uprising to overthrow the Queen. At the same time, they appealed to the United States armed forces for protection. Without Presidential approval, marines stormed the islands, and the American minister to the islands raised the stars and stripes in HONOLULU. The Queen was forced to abdicate, and the matter was left for Washington politicians to settle.... When war broke out with Spain in 1898, the military significance of Hawaiian naval bases as a way station to the SPANISH PHILIPPINES outweighed all other considerations. President William McKinley signed a joint resolution annexing the islands, much like the manner in which Texas joined the Union in 1845. Hawaii remained a territory until granted statehood as the fiftieth state in 1959.
Ook hierover zwijgt Mak omdat hij anders serieus zou moeten ingaan op het expansionisme van de VS, terwijl hij nu juist het tegenovergestelde wil suggereren, zoals blijkt uit zijn stelling dat eind negentiende eeuw, begin twintigste eeuw de 'frontier-filosofie' afgelopen was. Met andere woorden: dat 'de Amerikanen' niet langer meer Indianen-volkeren hoefden uit te moorden om hun land te kunnen stelen. In de optiek van de 'vrije pers' bestaat er geen hegemonistische streven van de Europese en daarmee Amerikaanse cultuur. Het Westen kent domweg geen blinde wil om te heersen. Hier bestaat zelfs geen klassenstrijd, geen culturele overheersing, geen economische elite die de politieke koers bepaald; er bestaan alleen maar misverstanden die via het poldermodel kunnen worden opgelost, mogelijke conflicten kunnen onder het genot van enkele glazen jenever worden bijgelegd. In Reizen zonder John stelt Mak op pagina 154:
De Amerikaanse Revolutie was niet zomaar een sprong van een koloniaal naar een democratisch systeem, het was een ontwikkelingsproces, een zoeken en tasten dat generaties zou duren.
'Revolutie'? Het was geen revolutie, maar een opstand tegen de Britse koning, die volgens de rijken in de kolonie teveel belastingen hief, zonder dat daar iets tegenover stond. 'No taxation without representation,' was dan ook één van de leuzen. Nooit zal Mak zichzelf de vraag stellen hoe het mogelijk is dat in dit 'democratisch systeem,' na 'een ontwikkelingsproces' van meer dan twee eeuwen sinds de stichting van de staat, slechts 1 procent van de Amerikanen ruim 40 procent van de rijkdommen van het land in handen heeft gekregen, en meer dan 40 procent van de Amerikaanse kiesgerechtigden sinds bijna een halve eeuw niet meer stemt tijdens de Amerikaanse presidentsverkiezingen. Over wat voor 'een zoeken en tasten dat generaties zou duren' heeft de gereformeerde domineeszoon het nu precies? Als men het hem zelf zou vragen, dan heeft hij daar geen antwoord op, zoals ik uit eigen ervaring weet. Het is 'wishful thinking' om de 'hoop,' waarnaar hij zo verlangt, in stand te houden. Het zal nooit tot hem doordringen dat Bush senior het meende toen hij naar aanleiding van het neerschieten door de Amerikaanse marine van een Iraans verkeersvliegtuig waarbij 290 burgers gedood werden, publiekelijk verklaarde:
I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are.
Ook de volgende uitspraak van een van de vooraanstaande 'Amerikanen,' die het hegemonistische denken onthult, laat geen sporen achter in Mak's geest:
We have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. Our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and maintain social stability for our investments. This tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and Peru. Increasingly the role our nation has taken is the role of those who refuse to give up the privileges and pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.
-Martin Luther King, Jr. ['A Time to Break the Silence' speech given at Riverside Church New York City April 4, 1967]
En zelfs wanneer iemand uit eigen ervaring spreekt dan nog vermijdt Mak gevolgtrekkingen uit de feiten te trekken.
Death squads have been created and used by the CIA around the world particularly the Third World - since the late 1940s, a fact ignored by the elite-owned media.
-Ralph McGehee [Former CIA analyst & Author] Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA
Of:
The U.S.A. has supplied arms, security equipment and training to governments and armed groups that have committed torture, political killings and other human rights abuses in countries around the world.
-Amnesty International. 'United States of America - Rights for All' October 1998
Tussen het taalgebruik van de commerciële massamedia en de dagelijkse realiteit gaapt een groot gat. Het is de taal van 'de consensus, de wereld van de eensgezinden,' zoals Imre Kertész het noemt. Het is het taalgebruik van de mens die elke frictie, elke controverse probeert te omzeilen, uit angst zijn publiek niet langer te kunnen behagen. Kertész, die als joodse Hongaar de alleenheerschappij van de nazi's, de communisten en nu de neoliberalen meemaakte, wijst in dit verband op het volgende gevaar:
Eén ding weet ik... zeker: een beschaving die haar verklaarde waarden laat vallen, gaat de weg op van het verval, van de aftakeling. Dan zullen anderen deze waarden uitspreken, en in de mond van die anderen zullen het geen waarden meer zijn maar evenzovele excuses voor onbeperkte macht en onbeperkte vernietiging.
En juist deze krankzinnige ontwikkeling zien wij nu in de wijze waarop Rusland wordt gedemoniseerd door de mainstream politici in samenwerking met de commerciële journalistiek. Deelnemer aan deze georchestreerde hetze is de voormalige Provo Roel van Duijn die mij donderdag 11 december 2014 het volgende e-mailde:
Beste Stan
Vanochtend in Trouw een dissidente mening. Mijn stuk over het gebrek aan reactie van westerse leiders op de oorlogspropaganda van Poetin. Ben benieuwd naar je reactie!
Welnu, om daar een serieus antwoord op te kunnen geven moet ik eerst een stap achteruit doen door te vermelden dat, volgens Van Duijn in een eerdere e-mail aan mij, er 'geen hetze tegen Rusland gaande [is]. Alleen de Russische propaganda tracht ons dat wijs te maken. Rusland voert oorlog, dat is een feit.' Al een week na het neerstorten van de MH 17 wist hij met grote zekerheid dat 'Alle signalen naar dezelfde daders [wijzen]. Al die daders zijn verbonden aan Poetin.'
Ondanks het feit dat hij geen enkel bewijsstuk had, sloot Roel van Duijn zijn oproep om de 'strijd' aan te gaan met Rusland met de krijgslustige woorden:
Beleefdheid laten varen
De harde werkelijkheid is dat wij ontkennende daders zullen moeten ontmaskeren, berechten en sanctioneren.
Het gaat nu om de bestrijding van een oorlogsmisdaad en het is tijd om alle beleefdheid te laten varen. Om te voorkomen dat zij nog veel meer onschuldige slachtoffers kunnen maken moeten wij alles op alles zetten om Oekraïne te steunen in zijn strijd tegen de moordenaars van onze kinderen, onze wetenschappelijke onderzoekers, onze vakantiegangers.
Nu is hun strijd onze strijd.
Het zal niemand kunnen verbazen dat ik als onafhankelijke journalist bij gebrek aan onomstotelijke bewijzen mij afvraag waarom een oud-anarchist als Roel van Duijn nu stemming maakt tegen de Russische federatie, een nucleaire grootmacht met een bevolking van ruim 143 miljoen inwoners. Hij heeft weliswaar een Russische echtgenote en helpt, volgens eigen zeggen, 'sinds 2003 mensen met de verwerking van liefdesverdriet via mijn website liefdesverdriet.info,' maar dat verklaart niet waarom Van Duijn oorlogszuchtig taal bezigt, met opmerkingen als 'Poetin moet een oorlog verliezen' omdat 'Militaire nederlaag werkt als regel zuiverend op Russen,' een opvatting die de eerste de beste neo-nazi zal toejuichen. Wat is er mis gegaan met Roel van Duijn? Hoe is zijn omslag van extreem-links, naar extreem-rechts te verklaren? Wikipedia meldt het volgende over hem:
Roeland Hugo Gerrit (Roel) van Duijn (Den Haag, 20 januari 1943) is een Nederlands politicus en politiek activist. Hij was een van de oprichters van Provo en van de Kabouterbeweging. Hij zat voor beide bewegingen in de Amsterdamse gemeenteraad, en werd later wethouder als lid van de PPR. Daarnaast is hij bekend als schrijver en publicist.
Levensloop
Van Duijn werd geboren in een theosofisch gezin in Den Haag. Hij volgde het gymnasium, en verhuisde in 1963 naar Amsterdam waar hij geschiedenis en politicologie ging studeren en later rechten. Geen van deze studies rondde hij af. In zijn jeugd was hij een enthousiast schaker, er werd zelfs een variant van de Siciliaanse opening naar hem vernoemd.
Hij organiseerde al in Den Haag demonstraties tegen de atoombom en werd redacteur van De Vrije Socialist. In 1965 was hij een van de oprichters van de Provo-beweging. In het eerste en enige nummer van het blad Barst schreef Roel van Duijn een politiek programma op van één zin: 'Revolutie en vernietiging van de staat, het leger, de politie en het ambtelijk apparaat wordt gevolgd door een federatie van revolutionaire communes.' Hij ontpopte zich in het blad Provo, en in andere anarchistische media, als de ideoloog van de beweging. Kernstuk van zijn ideologie was dat het proletariaat was ingepakt door de consumptiemaatschappij en daarmee als revolutionaire klasse had afgedaan. De revolutie moest gaan komen van een nieuwe klasse, het provotariaat, dat bestond uit 'beatniks, pleiners, magiërs, nozems, provo's, studenten, kunstenaars en criminelen.' Dat idee had hij destijds opgedaan bij de redactie van De Vrije. In het voorjaar van 1967 raakte Van Duijn in een depressie die hem tot een grondige spirituele herbezinning noopte. Op aanraden van zijn huisarts ging hij op een boerderij werken - een biologisch-dynamisch boerenbedrijf in Zeeland. Daar ontdekte hij de kabouter als symbool van het bondgenootschap van mens en natuur in hun strijd tegen de verwoestende technologie. Tegelijkertijd verdiepte hij zich in het werk van Kropotkin waarin hij een visioen ontwaarde van een vredelievende gemeenschap gebaseerd op samenwerking en wederzijdse hulp. In 1969 kwam hij voor Provo in de Amsterdamse gemeenteraad, en vervolgens voor Kabouterstad Amsterdam. Op 17 april 1970 werd hij ontvoerd door de rechts-radicaal Joop Baank, die daarmee ongestraft wegkwam, ondanks de beschuldiging en aangifte van Van Duijn tegen hem. Zijn verhouding met de Amsterdamse burgemeester Ivo Samkalden was zeer gespannen.
Wethouder
Van Duijn werd in 1973 lid van de PPR en werd in september 1974 wethouder voor die partij. Hij wees een dienstauto af en koos in plaats daarvan voor een dienstfiets met 10 versnellingen. Zijn PvdA-collega Cees de Cloe haalde het voorwiel los en gooide dit in de gracht.
Als wethouder gaf Van Duijn onder andere de aanzet tot de toepassing van duurzame energiebronnen en tot het oprichten van een lokale televisiezender (SALTO), en van de aanleg van een gemeentelijk televisie-kabelnet. Toen in de nacht van 13 op 14 februari 1975 bij het in aanbouw zijnde metrostation Venserpolder een bom werd ontdekt, was Van Duijn de enige wethouder die weigerde de schuld bij de actievoerders in de Nieuwmarktbuurt te leggen. Hierop werd hij door zijn collega-wethouder Harry Verheij (CPN) met lichamelijk geweld bedreigd. De positie van Van Duijn in het college was nu onhoudbaar geworden, maar hij stemde pas toe in een vertrek toen ook PvdA-leider Han Lammers aftrad (januari 1976). Achteraf bleek de bom te zijn geplaatst door drie rechts-radicalen, onder wie Joop Baank.
Biologische boer en terugkeer in de politiek
In 1977 vestigde hij zich als biologische boer op een kaasboerderij bij Veele (gemeente Vlagtwedde). Hier werden twee zoons geboren. In 1981 keerde hij terug naar Amsterdam, en in 1983 droeg hij de boerderij over. Vanaf 1984 werkte hij bij het Europees Parlement, als fractiemedewerker van het Groen Progressief Akkoord. Hij haalde de kiesdeler niet. In 1986 werd Van Duijn opnieuw gemeenteraadslid in Amsterdam, ditmaal voor de politieke partij Groen Amsterdam. Deze lokale partij fuseerde in 1989 met de Federatieve Groenen tot De Groenen. Voor deze partij was hij lijsttrekker bij de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen van 1989. De Amsterdamse fractie van De Groenen ging in 1998 op in het samenwerkingsverband Amsterdam Anders/De Groenen. In 1999 werd Van Duijn lid van Provinciale Staten van de provincie Noord-Holland voor De Groenen. 14 februari 2001 stapte hij over naar GroenLinks. Voor een samengaan van beide partijen had hij toen al enige jaren gepleit. Een poging om op een verkiesbare plaats op de kandidatenlijst voor de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen 2002 voor GroenLinks te komen, mislukte.
Vanaf 2003 was Van Duijn voor GroenLinks lid van de deelraad Oud-Zuid in Amsterdam. Op 29 november 2008 nam hij na ruim 40 jaar afscheid van de politiek. Dat gebeurde op een symposium van GroenLinks in Amsterdam, onder de titel 'Tegen de hieperkonsumpsie.' Ter gelegenheid van dit afscheid verschenen in diverse publicaties terugblikken op zijn ruim veertigjarige carrière van actievoerder en politicus.
Het persoonlijke en het politieke zijn bij Van Duijn altijd nauw verweven geweest. Van Duijn was gehuwd met José Krijnen. Uit dit huwelijk werd een dochter geboren, Alisa Helena Maria van Duijn. Toen bij Krijnen baarmoederhalskanker was geconstateerd wees zij een operatie af omdat ze zich verliet op adviezen van macrobioot Adelbert Nelissen van het Kushi Instituut. Het paar ging uit elkaar. Na het overlijden van Krijnen richtte Van Duijn het Comité tegen Misbruik van Macrobiotiek op en klaagde hij Nelissen aan.
De laatste jaren heeft Van Duijn zich, naar aanleiding van een stukgelopen relatie, beziggehouden met liefdesverdriet. Hij beheert een website hierover en geeft tegen betaling adviezen aan mensen met een gebroken hart. In 2006 trouwde hij met de twintig jaar jongere Russische Marina Smirnova.
Rechtszaak tegen AIVD
In 2009 bleek dat Van Duijn decennialang door de AIVD was geschaduwd. Hij eiste excuus en inzage in alle documenten. Hij kreeg echter alleen inzage in de stukken tot 1982. Hij spande een rechtszaak en hoger beroep aan om de rest in te kunnen zien.
Ergens in deze levensloop moet het antwoord liggen op de vraag hoe het komt dat een pacifist nu zo oorlogszuchtig is. Toen Geert Mak op bevrijdingsdag 2014 de vraag kreeg voorgelegd hoe hij als voormalig 'fractiemedewerker van de PSP,' de Pacifistische Socialistische Partij dus, vandaag de dag op televisie kan pleiten voor meer bewapening met het oog op Rusland, verklaarde hij ongemakkelijk lachend:
Inderdaad, dat maakt het juist zo interessant, want de vraag blijft: Wat is er in zowel Mak's als Van Duijn's hoofd precies gebeurd? 'Een mens denkt wel eens door,' maar wat gebeurde er toen? Hoe komt het dat deze pacifisten ineens geweld bepleiten, dan wel dreigen met geweld? Hoe is het te verklaren dat twee van mijn bejaarde generatiegenoten op hun oude dag plotseling naar een mogelijk nucleair armageddon lijken te verlangen? Dat Poetin niet deugt neem ik, zoals ik al enkele malen heb geschreven, voetstoots aan. Hij deugt net zo min als Obama. Ik deel de mening van Lord Acton, die in de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw terecht opmerkte dat 'Every class is unfit to govern,' en wel omdat 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
De vraag is nu: wordt de corruptie van de corrupte westerse macht nu minder als opiniemakers, die pleiten voor een confrontatie met de even corrupte macht in Rusland, hun zin krijgen? Ik denk van niet. Integendeel zelfs, het is algemeen bekend dat gewapende conflicten alleen maar tot nog meer corruptie leiden, vanwege het simpele feit dat een altijd chaotische oorlog onvermijdelijk tot 'absolute power' leidt van militairen en politici, en nogmaals: 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
De vraag is nu: wordt de corruptie van de corrupte westerse macht nu minder als opiniemakers, die pleiten voor een confrontatie met de even corrupte macht in Rusland, hun zin krijgen? Ik denk van niet. Integendeel zelfs, het is algemeen bekend dat gewapende conflicten alleen maar tot nog meer corruptie leiden, vanwege het simpele feit dat een altijd chaotische oorlog onvermijdelijk tot 'absolute power' leidt van militairen en politici, en nogmaals: 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
Vandaar dat ik het 100 procent oneens ben met Roel van Duijn wanneer hij oproept de 'strijd' aan te gaan met Rusland en hij zonder enige bewijs al een week na het neerstorten van de MH 17 strijdlustig in Trouw verklaarde:
Beleefdheid laten varen
De harde werkelijkheid is dat wij ontkennende daders zullen moeten ontmaskeren, berechten en sanctioneren.
Het gaat nu om de bestrijding van een oorlogsmisdaad en het is tijd om alle beleefdheid te laten varen. Om te voorkomen dat zij nog veel meer onschuldige slachtoffers kunnen maken moeten wij alles op alles zetten om Oekraïne te steunen in zijn strijd tegen de moordenaars van onze kinderen, onze wetenschappelijke onderzoekers, onze vakantiegangers.
Nu is hun strijd onze strijd.
Forever Young. Roel van Duijn en zijn Russische vrouw Marina Smirnova, die elkaar via internet hebben ontmoet. De anarchist die in de jaren zestig in Den Haag demonstraties organiseerde tegen de atoombom, steunt nu, een halve eeuw later, de met nucleaire wapens uitgeruste NAVO. De IK-generatie wil het onderste uit de kan.
In dezelfde Trouw kwam Roel van Duijn, donderdag 11 december 2014, met de volgende beschuldiging:
Westerse leiders reageren te tam op felheid Poetin
Zonder enig concreet bewijs verklaart hij ditmaal dat Rusland 'oorlogspropaganda' bedrijft. Van Duijn suggereert dat Moskou uit is op een gewapend conflict met de NAVO, waarvan de lidstaten bij elkaar ruim elf keer meer aan zogeheten 'defensie' uitgeeft dan Rusland. Hier treden wij daarom het rijk van de waanzin binnen, waar geen logica meer bestaat, en de wet van oorzaak en gevolg verdwenen is. Het dagblad Trouw en de rest van de mainstream pers in de polder steunt de waanzin alleen al door hem te publiceren. Letwel, anno vandaag, 12 december 2014, zijn er nog steeds geen bewijzen dat Rusland de dader is van het neerschieten van dit verkeersvliegtuig. Desondanks laat Trouw Roel van Duijn onweersproken verklaren dat de Russische 'propaganda zelfs [heeft] bereikt dat een flink deel van de Europeanen, tegen alle feiten in, meent dat de westerse media de arme Poetin 'demoniseren,' alsof er dus al sprake is van keihard bewijsmateriaal dat de president van de Russische federatie verantwoordelijk is voor wat Roel van Duijn 'een oorlogsmisdaad' noemt. Van Duijn stelt op hoge toon dat het Westen met zijn NAVO zou moeten 'voorkomen dat zij (de Russen. svh) nog veel meer onschuldige slachtoffers kunnen maken' en 'wij' dus 'alles op alles [moeten] zetten om Oekraïne te steunen in zijn strijd tegen de moordenaars van onze kinderen, onze wetenschappelijke onderzoekers, onze vakantiegangers.' De voormalig anarchist zet nu chauvinistische sentimenten in omdat hij, bij gebrek aan bewijs, geen rationele argumenten voorhanden heeft. Wat ik als onafhankelijke buitenstaander zie is dat mijn gepensioneerde generatiegenoten die in de luwte van de Koude Oorlog een uiterst comfortabel leven hebben geleid, vandaag de dag proberen als het ware over hun graf heen te regeren door de basis te leggen voor een nieuwe wereldoorlog, waarover de Duitse historicus Golo Mann zei: 'We cannot have another world war. War is the wrong word. We should ban the term World War III and say instead apocalypse or holocaust.'
Kortom, wanneer Roel van Duijn in Trouw schrijft dat 'Ook minister Koenders de taak [heeft] steeds opnieuw Russische propaganda te ontmaskeren,' moet ik helaas constateren dat het manicheisch denken van de theosofisch geschoolde oud-Provo hem ervan heeft overtuigd dat het Westen in dit geval geen 'propaganda' bedrijft en dat er sprake is van goede staten en slechte staten en hij tot de goeden behoort. Ik ben het fundamenteel oneens met dit simplisme. Zeker wanneer Van Duijn ook nog eens spreekt van
een steeds wonderlijker geloof in de 'diplomatie,'
waarmee hij impliciet twee dingen beweert, namelijk dat hier geen sprake is van 'diplomatie,' én dat in dit conflict het beroep doen op 'diplomatie' een 'steeds wonderlijker geloof' is. Kort samengevat: Roel van Duijn lijkt een beroep te doen op het aloude dogma van generaal Von Clausewitz dat 'Oorlog de voortzetting [is] van politiek met andere middelen,' en dat 'Der Krieg also ein Akt der Gewalt [ist], um den Gegner zur Erfüllung unseres Willens zu zwingen.' Het is in mijn ogen een primitieve opvatting die, weliswaar in achterbuurten, op militaire academies en in kringen van politici en de onderwereld geprezen wordt, maar die in de toekomst slechts onheil zal brengen voor honderden miljoenen, zo niet miljarden burgers. Bekend is dat
Civilians are now the target Civilian fatalities in wartime have climbed from 5 per cent at the turn of the century... to more than 90 per cent in the wars of the 1990s. New weapons and patterns of conflict that include deliberate attacks against civilians are increasingly turning children into primary targets of war. 'Armed conflict kills and maims more children than soldiers,' notes a new United Nations report by Graça Machel, the UN Secretary-General's Expert on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children.
Maar omdat ongewapende slachtoffers van grootscheeps geweld gerekend worden tot de categorie 'collateral damage' houdt de zelfbenoemde 'politiek-literaire elite' in Nederland geen rekening met hen. Dat 'Armed conflict kills and maims more children than soldiers,' is het offer dat zij nu eenmaal moeten brengen om de opiniemakers in de polder zich goed te laten voelen. 'Het gaat' immers, volgens Roel van Duijn, die dankzij zijn bijna 20 jaar jongere vrouw Marina Smirnova zichzelf kwalificeert als 'Ruslandkenner,' allereerst 'om de bestrijding van een oorlogsmisdaad en het is tijd om alle beleefdheid te laten varen,' en om
te voorkomen dat zij nog veel meer onschuldige slachtoffers kunnen maken moeten wij alles op alles zetten om Oekraïne te steunen in zijn strijd tegen de moordenaars van onze kinderen, onze wetenschappelijke onderzoekers, onze vakantiegangers,
aldus dezelfde Roel van Duijn die in de jaren zestig opriep tot 'Revolutie en vernietiging van de staat, het leger, de politie en het ambtelijk apparaat,' waardoor 'een federatie van revolutionaire communes' mogelijk werd, en die zich 'ontpopte in het blad Provo, en in andere anarchistische media, als de ideoloog van de beweging,' maar die desondanks al snel 'in een depressie' schoot, 'die hem tot een grondige spirituele herbezinning noopte.' Die 'herbezinning' is vandaag de dag uitgemond in twee aan elkaar tegenstrijdige psychische reacties. Enerzijds is er bij hem sprake van een dermate zorgvuldig gekoesterde haat tegen Rusland dat hij ervan overtuigd is geraakt dat een 'Militaire nederlaag als regel zuiverend [werkt] op Russen,' terwijl hij anderzijds als 'liefdesverdrietconsulent' een 'therapiepraktijk' drijft. Daarbij prijst hij zichzelf aan met de mededeling dat 'Eén of meer consulten bij Roel van Duijn (desgewenst telefonisch)' een uitweg bieden. Volgens zijn website
helpt [hij] door middel van een persoonlijke bespreking van uw antwoorden op de vragenlijst, inspirerende tarotduiding en verdere verwerking van uw liefdesverdriet. Vanuit zijn rijke ervaring van mensen met liefdesverdriet. Voor direct contact met Roel, bel 020-4704770 of via e-mail roelvduijn@planet.nl.
http://www.liefdesverdriet.info/index.htm
http://www.liefdesverdriet.info/index.htm
De voorspelde 'Revolutie en vernietiging van de staat, het leger, de politie en het ambtelijk apparaat,' mag dan wel zijn uitgebleven, al dan niet door zijn 'depressie die hem tot een grondige spirituele herbezinning noopte,' maar één ding blijft zeker: Roel van Dijn zelf heeft een revolutionaire omslag doorgemaakt. Het intens trieste evenwel is dat zijn 'grondige spirituele herbezinning' ten koste gaat van onschuldige kinderen die elders de consequenties ondervinden van de goede bedoelingen van Roel van Duijn, Geert Mak en al die andere egocentrische rotzakken van mijn onverzadigbare generatie. De massa wordt geïnformeerd en beheerst door psychopaten en sociopaten zonder enig moreel besef.
Zo, Roel, heb ik jouw nieuwgierigheid naar mijn reactie inmiddels voldoende bevredigd? Zo niet, laat het me per e-mail weten en ik plaats je reactie op deze website.
Zou Roel van Duijn's adagium dat een 'Militaire nederlaag als regel zuiverend [werkt] op Russen,' tevens opgaan voor dit Iraaks kind dat als gevolg van een Amerikaanse precisie-bombardement gehandicapt door het leven moet? Of heeft Van Duijn het over een specifiek Russische fenomeen?
This - and worse - is what happened to countless Libyan children during the 'humanitarian war' perpetrated by the U.S. and NATO and approved by the United Nations, an organization founded to promote world peace.
The Role of 9/11 in Justifying Torture and War: The Criminalization of the US State Apparatus. Senate Report on CIA Torture is a Whitewash
Global Research, December 11, 2014
Url of this article:
The words “possible criminal actions” by CIA employees is used in the report.
The terms unethical and immoral are mentioned. The criminality of those who ordered these actions at the highest levels of government, however, is not acknowledged.
The actions directed against alleged jihadists are categorized as ineffective in the process of revealing intelligence. This in itself is a red herring. The objective of torture was not to reveal intelligence.
What of course is not acknowledged is that the alleged terrorists who were tortured were framed by the CIA.
Known and documented the Al Qaeda network is a creation of US intelligence.
The jihadists are “intelligence assets”.
Torture serves to perpetuate the legend that the evil terrorists are real and that the lives of Americans are threatened.
Torture is presented as “collateral damage.” Torture is an integral part of war propaganda which consists in demonizing the alleged terrorists.
And the Senate committee report ultimately upholds the legitimacy of the US intelligence apparatus, the US government, its military and intelligence agenda and its “humanitarian wars” waged in different parts of the World.
Guantanamo Camp (right)
The term “legally misguided” is mentioned but the fact that these actions were “illegal” and “criminal” is casually dismissed.
According to Senator Feinstein: “The CIA plays an incredibly important part in our nation’s security and has thousands of dedicated and talented employees.”
The actions documented by the Senate report were undertaken from 2001-2009, namely during the Bush administration, overlapping into the Obama presidency. This inevitably raises the issue of responsibility of the current US administration. There is no evidence that these practices were abandoned by the Obama presidency. In fact quite the opposite.
And the “Global War on Terrorism” prevails with new initiatives on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
The Role of 9/11
9/11 serves as a justification for the torture program in same way as it serves as a justification to wage war on Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Senator Feinstein:
“All of us have vivid memories of that Tuesday morning when terror struck New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.“Make no mistake, on September 11, 2001 war was declared on the United States.“Terrorists struck our financial center. They struck our military center. And they tried to strike our political center and would have, had brave and courageous passengers not brought down the plane.“We still vividly remember the mix of outrage and deep despair and sadness as we watched from Washington.“Smoke rising from the Pentagon. The passenger plane lying in a Pennsylvania field. The sound of bodies striking canopies at ground level as innocents jumped to the ground below from the World Trade Center.
Enemy Number One: Osama bin Laden, alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks
The tacit argument –which is contained in the Senate report– is that America was under attack. Evil folks are lurking. The security of the Homeland was at stake.
And these evil people knew things (namely intelligence) which were threatening our security. They were arrested by the CIA. And the CIA had a mandate to go after the terrorists.
Yet we all know by now that the 9/11 official narrative is a fabrication. The official 9/11 story is that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Lest we forget, bin Laden was hospitalized in a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 9, 2001.
9/11 was used as a pretext, a casus belli to wage an illegal war against Afghanistan. What we are dealing with is the criminalization of the US State apparatus.
Jihadists were not behind the 9/11 attacks. The evidence points to a conspiracy at the highest levels of US government including the involvement of the intelligence apparatus.
We do not learn from our mistakes, says Senator Feinstein.
These decisions were from an administrative point of view misguided, according to the Senate Committee. 
It was all a big mistake, according to the Senate report.
It was all a big mistake, according to the Senate report.
The evidence contained in the report, nonetheless, points to criminal wrongdoing at the highest levels of government. Yet the political statements underlying the report as well as the media coverage constitute a whitewash.
The September 11, 2001 attacks provided the green light to wage a “Global War on Terrorism”. While the report acknowledges CIA brutality, it does not question the legitimacy of the “Global War on Terrorism”. The acts of torture were all for a good cause.
The truth is that the CIA is a criminal entity within the US State apparatus.
Nobody is to be held responsible. The report is in essence a political whitewash. In substance what the report says is:
We are clean and moral people, it was an administrative error to torture the terrorists. But under the circumstances with our nation under attack, it is understandable that we acted in that way. Let us learn from our mistakes. It will never happen again. ”But history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say ‘never again.’”
Never again? The ugly truth underlying the “Global War on Terrorism” has not acknowledged.
The fact that torture has been routinely applied since the establishment of the CIA under the Truman presidency, extensively applied in Latin America, Africa and South East Asia, is casually dismissed.
President Bush is not alone. What he did was to implement a policy which was already firmly entrenched in the intelligence community. Blaming Bush is a convenient scapegoat. it avoids opening up a can of worms.
Every single administration since the end of World War II has endorsed the practices of torture.
What distinguishes the Bush and Obama administrations in relation to the historical record of U.S. sponsored crimes and atrocities, is that the concentration camps, targeted assassinations and torture chambers are known to the public and are openly considered as legitimate forms of intervention, which sustain “the global war on terrorism” and support the spread of Western democracy.
The Criminalization of Justice: Will the Architects of Torture be Indicted for Crimes against Humanity?
Today’s legal system in America has all the essential features of an inquisitorial order, which supports torture and provides a green light to CIA atrocities.
The Senate report ultimately upholds guidelines of the Department of Justice adopted in the immediate wake of 9/11. Torture is permitted “under certain circumstances”, according to an August 2002 Justice Department “legal opinion”:
“if a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, ‘he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network,’ said the memo, from the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on “necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability” later. 7 (See Washington Post, June 7, 2004)
“Interrogation methods” bordering on torture do not imply an unconstitutional infringement according to the U.S. Justice Department:
“Even if an interrogation method might arguably cross the line drawn in Section and application of the stature was not held to be an unconstitutional infringement of the President’s Commander in Chief authority, we believe that under current circumstances [the war on terrorism] certain justification defenses might be available that would potentially eliminate criminal liability.” (Complete August 2, 2002 Justice Department Memorandum in pdf)
Anybody who doubts the legitimacy of the American inquisition (i.e. 9/11 and the “Global War on Terrorism”) is a heretic conspiracy theorist or an accomplice of the terrorists.
Michel Chossudovsky, December 11, 2014
Read this statement very carefully.
Statement by Senator Feinstein (emphasis added)
“Today a 500-page executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s five and a half year review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program—which was conducted between 2002 and 2009—is being released publicly.
“The executive summary, which is going out today, is backed up by a 6,700 page classified and unredacted report (with 38,000 footnotes), which can be released if necessary at a later time.
“The report released today examines the CIA’s secret overseas detention of at least 119 individuals and the use of coercive interrogation techniques—in some cases amounting to torture.
“Over the past couple of weeks, I have gone through a great deal of introspection about whether to delay the release of this report to a later time. This clearly is a period of turmoil and instability in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future, whether this report is released or not.
“There are those who will seize upon the report and say ‘see what Americans did,’ and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or to incite more violence. We cannot prevent that. But history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say ‘never again.’
“There may never be the ‘right’ time to release this report. The instability we see today will not be resolved in months or years. But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely.
“My determination to release it has also increased due to a campaign of mistaken statements and press articles launched against the report before anyone has had the chance to read it. As a matter of fact, the report is just now, as I speak, being released.
“This is what it looks like. Senator Chambliss asked me if we could have the minority report bound with the majority report. For this draft, that is not possible. But in the final draft, it will be bound together. But this is what the summary of the 6,000 pages look like.
“My words give me no pleasure. I am releasing this report because I know there are thousands of employees at the CIA who do not condone what I will speak about this morning, and who work day in and out, day and night, long hours, within the law for America’s security in what is certainly a difficult world. My colleagues on the intelligence committee and I are proud of them, just as everyone in this chamber is, and we will always support them.
“In reviewing the Study in the past few days with the decision looming over the public release, I was struck by a quote, found on page 126 of the Executive Summary. It cites the former CIA Inspector General, John Helgerson, who in 2005 wrote the following to the then-Director of the CIA, which clearly states the situation with respect to this report years later as well: ‘… we have found that the Agency over the decades has continued to get itself in messes related to interrogation programs for one overriding reason: we do not document and learn from our experience – each generation of officers is left to improvise anew, with problematic results for our officers as individuals and for our Agency.’ (Source: E-mail, John Helgerson to Porter Goss, Jan. 28, 2005)
“I believe that to be true. I agree with Mr. Helgerson. His comments are still true today. But this must change.
“On March 11, 2009, the Committee voted 14-1 to begin a review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program. Over the past five years, a small team of committee investigators pored over the more than 6.3 million pages of CIA records the leader spoke about to complete this report, or what we call the ‘study.’
“It shows that the CIA’s actions a decade ago are a stain on our values and on our history.
“The release of this 500-page summary of our report cannot remove that stain, but it can and does say to our people, and the world, that America is big enough to admit when it’s wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes. Releasing this report is an important step to restore our values and show the world that we are in fact a just and lawful society.
“Over the next hour, I’d like to lay out for senators and the American public the report’s key findings and conclusions.
“And I ask that when I complete this, Senator McCain be recognized.
“Before I get to the substance of the report, I’d like to make a few comments about why it’s so important that we make this study public.
“All of us have vivid memories of that Tuesday morning when terror struck New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
“Make no mistake, on September 11, 2001 war was declared on the United States.
“Terrorists struck our financial center. They struck our military center. And they tried to strike our political center and would have, had brave and courageous passengers not brought down the plane.
“We still vividly remember the mix of outrage and deep despair and sadness as we watched from Washington.
“Smoke rising from the Pentagon. The passenger plane lying in a Pennsylvania field. The sound of bodies striking canopies at ground level as innocents jumped to the ground below from the World Trade Center.
“Mass terror that we often see overseas had struck in our front yard, killing 3,000 innocent men, women, and children. What happened? We came together as a nation, with one singular mission: bring those who committed these acts to justice.
“But it’s at this point where the values of America come into play — where the rule of law and the fundamental principles of right and wrong become important.
“In 1990 the United States Senate ratified the Convention Against Torture. The Convention makes clear that this ban against torture is absolute. It says: ‘No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, (including what I just read) whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.’
“Nonetheless, it was argued that the need for information on terrorist plots after 9/11 made extraordinary interrogation techniques necessary.
“Even if one were to set aside all of the moral arguments, our review was a meticulous and detailed examination of records. It finds that coercive interrogation techniques did not produce the vital, otherwise unavailable intelligence the CIA has claimed.
“I will go into further detail on this issue in a moment. But let me make clear, these comments are not a condemnation of the CIA as a whole. The CIA plays an incredibly important part in our nation’s security and has thousands of dedicated and talented employees.
“What we have found is that a surprisingly few people were responsible for designing, carrying out, and managing this program. Two contractors developed and led the interrogations. There was little effective oversight. Analysts — analysts — on occasion, gave operational orders about interrogations and CIA management of the program was weak and diffuse.
“Our final report was approved by a bipartisan vote of 9-6 in December 2012 and exposes brutality in stark contrast to our values as a nation.
“This effort was focused on the actions of the CIA from late 2001 to January of 2009. The report does include considerable detail on the CIA’s interactions with the White House; the Departments of Justice, State, and Defense; and the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“The review is based on contemporaneous records and documents during the time the program was in place and active. Now, these documents are important because they aren’t based on recollection, they aren’t based on revision and they aren’t a rationalization a decade later.
“It’s these documents, referenced repeatedly in thousands of footnotes, that provide the factual basis for the study’s conclusions.
“The committee’s majority staff reviewed more than 6.3 million pages of these documents provided by the CIA, as well as records from other departments and agencies.
“These records include: finished intelligence assessments, CIA operational and intelligence cables, memoranda, e-mails, real-time chat sessions, inspector general reports, testimony before Congress, pictures, and other internal records.
“It’s true we didn’t conduct our own interviews. Let me explain why that was the case.
“In 2009, there was an ongoing review by DOJ Special Prosecutor John Durham.
“On August 24, Attorney General Eric Holder expanded that review. This occurred six months after our study had begun.
“Durham’s original investigation of the CIA’s destruction of interrogation videotapes was broadened to include possible criminal actions of CIA employees in the course of CIA detention and interrogation activities.
“At the time, the committee’s Vice Chairman Kit Bond withdrew the minority’s participation in the study, citing the attorney general’s expanded investigation as the reason.
“The Department of Justice refused to coordinate its investigation with the Intelligence Committee’s review. As a result, possible interviewees could be subject to additional liability if they were interviewed.
“And the CIA, citing the attorney general’s investigation, would not instruct its employees to participate in our interviews. (Source: classified CIA internal memo, Feb. 26, 2010)
“Notwithstanding this, I am really confident of the factual accuracy and comprehensive nature of this report for three reasons:
“First, it’s the 6.3 million pages of documents reviewed, and they reveal records of actions as those actions took place, not through recollections more than a decade later.
“Second, the CIA and CIA senior officers have taken the opportunity to explain their views on CIA detention and interrogation operations. They have done this in on-the-record statements in classified Committee hearings, written testimony and answers to questions, and through the formal response to the Committee in June 2013 after reading the Study.
“And third, the committee had access to, and utilized, an extensive set of reports of interviews conducted by the CIA inspector general and the CIA’s oral history program.
“So while we could not conduct new interviews of individuals, we did utilize transcripts or summaries of interviews of those directly engaged in detention and interrogation operations. These interviews occurred at the time the program was operational and covered the exact topics we would have asked about had we conducted interviews ourselves.
“Those interview reports and transcripts included, but were not limited to, the following: George Tenet, director of the CIA when the agency took custody and interrogated the majority of its detainees; Jose Rodriguez, director of the CIA Counterterrorism Center (CTC), a key player in the program; CIA General Counsel Scott Muller; CIA Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt; CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo; CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin; and a variety of interrogators, lawyers, medical personnel, senior counterterrorism analysts and managers of the detention and interrogation program.
“The best place to start, about how we got into this, and I’m delighted Senator Rockefeller is on the floor, is a little more than eight years ago, on September 6, 2006, when the Committee met to be briefed by then Director Michael Hayden.
“At that 2006 meeting, the full committee learned for the first time — for the first time — of the use of so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ or EITs.
“It was a short meeting, in part because President Bush was making a public speech later that day, disclosing officially for the first time the existence of CIA “black sites” and announcing the transfer of 14 detainees from CIA custody to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“It was the first time the interrogation program was explained to the full Committee as details had previously been limited to the chairman and vice chairman.
“Then, on December 7, 2007, the New York Times reported that CIA personnel in 2005 had destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two CIA detainees: the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, as well as ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
“The committee had not been informed of the destruction of the tapes. Days later, on December 11, 2007, the committee held a hearing on the destruction of the videotapes.
“Director Hayden, the primary witness, testified that the CIA had concluded that the destruction of videotapes was acceptable, in part, because Congress had not yet requested to see them. (Source: SSCI transcript, Dec. 11, 2007 hearing)
“Director Hayden stated that, if the committee had asked for the videotapes, they would have been provided. But, of course, the committee had not known that the videotapes existed. And we now know from CIA emails and records that the videotapes were destroyed shortly after senior CIA attorneys raised concerns that Congress might find out about the tapes.
“In any case, at that same December 11th committee hearing, Director Hayden told the committee that CIA cables related to the interrogation sessions depicted in the videotapes were, and I quote, “a more than adequate representation of the tapes and therefore, if you want them, we’ll give you access to them.”(Source: SSCI transcript, December 11, 2007 hearing)
“Senator Rockefeller, then chairman of committee, designated two members of the committee staff to review the cables describing the interrogation sessions of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri.
“Senator Bond, then vice chairman, similarly directed two of his staffers to review the cables.
“The designated staff members completed their review and compiled a summary of the content of the CIA cables by early 2009, by which time I had become chairman. The description in the cables of CIA’s interrogations and the treatment of detainees presented a starkly different picture from Director Hayden’s testimony before the committee.
“They described brutal, around the clock interrogations, especially of Abu Zubaydah, in which multiple coercive techniques were used in combination and with substantial repetition. It was an ugly, visceral description.
“The summary also indicated that Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri did not, as a result of the use of these so-called EITs, provide the kind of intelligence that led the CIA to stop terrorist plots or arrest additional suspects.
“As a result, I think it’s fair to say the entire committee was concerned, and it approved the scope of an investigation by a vote of 14-1, and the work began.
“In my March 11, 2014, floor speech about the study, I described how in 2009 the committee came to an agreement with the new CIA director, Leon Panetta, for access to documents and other records about the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, so I won’t repeat that here.
“From 2009 until 2012, our staff conducted a massive and unprecedented review of CIA records.
“Draft sections of the report were produced by late 2011 and shared with the full committee. The final report was completed in December 2012 and approved by the committee by a bipartisan vote of 9-6.
“After that vote, I sent the full report to the president and asked the administration to provide comments on it before it was released.
“Six months later, in June of 2013, the CIA responded.
“I directed then that if the CIA pointed out any error in our report, we would fix it, and we did fix one bullet point that did not impact our Findings and Conclusions. If the CIA came to a different conclusion than the report did, we would note that in the report and explain our reasons for disagreeing, if we disagreed.
“You will see some of that documented in the footnotes of that executive summary as well as in the 6,000 pages.
“In April 2014, the committee prepared an updated version of the full study and voted 12-3 to declassify and release the executive summary, findings and conclusions, and Minority and additional views.
“On August 1, we received a declassified version from the Executive Branch. It was immediately apparent that the redactions to our report prevented a clear and understandable reading of the Study and prevented us from substantiating the findings and conclusions. So we obviously objected.
“For the past four months, the Committee and the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House have engaged in a lengthy negotiation over the redactions to the report. We have been able to include some more information in the report today without sacrificing sources and methods or our national security. I’d like to ask following my remarks that a letter from the White House dated yesterday conveying the report, also points out that the report is 93 percent complete and redactions amount to 7 percent of the bulk of the report.
“Mr. President, this has been a long process. The work began seven years ago when Senator Rockefeller directed committee staff to review the CIA cables describing the interrogation sessions of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri.
“It’s been very difficult. But I believe the documentation and the findings and conclusions will make clear how this program was morally, legally and administratively misguided, and that this nation should never again engage in these tactics.
“Let me turn now to the contents of the study.
“As I noted, we have 20 findings and conclusions, which fall into four general categories:
“First, the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques were not an effective way to gather intelligence information.
“Second, the CIA provided extensive amounts of inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to the White House, the Department of Justice, Congress, the CIA inspector general, the media and the American public.
“Third, the CIA’s management of the program was inadequate and deeply flawed.
“And fourth, the CIA program was far more brutal than people were led to believe.
“Let me describe each category in more detail:
“The first set of findings and conclusions concern the effectiveness — or lack thereof — of the interrogation program.
“The committee found that the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques were not an effective means of acquiring accurate intelligence or gaining detainee cooperation.
“The CIA and other defenders of the program have repeatedly claimed that the use of so-called interrogation techniques was necessary to get detainees to provide critical information, and to bring detainees to a ‘state of compliance’ in which they would cooperate and provide information.
“The study concludes that both claims are inaccurate. [but not criminal]
“The report is very specific in how it evaluates the CIA’s claims on the effectiveness and necessity of its enhanced interrogation techniques. Specifically, we used the CIA’s own definition of effectiveness as ratified and approved by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. (Source: DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memos)
“The CIA’s claims that EITs were necessary to obtain ‘otherwise unavailable’ information, that could not be obtained from any other source, to stop terrorist attacks and save American lives — that’s a claim we conclude is inaccurate.
“We took 20 examples that the CIA, itself, claimed to show the success of these interrogations. These include cases of terrorist plots stopped or terrorists captured.
“The CIA used these examples in presentations to the White House, in testimony to Congress, in submissions to the Department of Justice, and ultimately to the American people.
“Some of the claims are well-known: the capture of Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, the prevention of attacks against the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and the take-down of Osama bin Laden.
“Other claims were made only in classified settings, to the White House, Congress, and Department of Justice.
“In each case, the CIA claimed that critical and unique information came from one or more detainees in its custody after they were subjected to the CIA’s coercive techniques, and that information led to a specific counterterrorism success.
“Our staff reviewed every one of the 20 cases, and not a single case holds up.
“In every single one of these cases, at least one of the following was true:
“One, the intelligence community had information separate from the use of EITs that led to the terrorist disruption or capture; two, information from a detainee subjected to EITs played no role in the claimed disruption or capture; and three, the purported terrorist plot either didn’t exist or posed no real threat to Americans or U.S. interests.
“Some critics have suggested the study concludes that no intelligence was ever provided from any detainee the CIA held. That is false, and the Study makes no such claim.
“What is true is that actionable intelligence that was ‘otherwise unavailable’ — otherwise unavailable — was not obtained using these coercive interrogation techniques.
“The report also chronicles where the use of interrogation techniques that do not involve physical force were effective.
“Specifically, the report provides examples where interrogators had sufficient information to confront detainees with facts and know when the detainees were lying, and where they applied rapport-building techniques developed and honed by the U.S. military, the FBI, and more recently the interagency High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, called the ‘HIG,’ that these techniques produced good intelligence.
“Let me make a couple of additional comments on the claimed effectiveness of CIA interrogations.
“At no time did the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of intelligence on an imminent threat that many believe was the justification for the use of these techniques. The committee never found an example of this hypothetical ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario.
“The use of coercive technique methods regularly resulted in fabricated information. Sometimes, the CIA knew detainees were lying. Other times, the CIA acted on false information, diverting resources and leading officers or contractors to falsely believe they were acquiring unique or actionable intelligence and that its interrogations were working when they were not.
“Internally, CIA officers often called into question the effectiveness of the CIA’s interrogation techniques, noting how the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate information.
“The report includes numerous examples of CIA officers questioning the agency’s claims, but these contradictions were marginalized and not presented externally.
“The second set of findings and conclusions is that the CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the program and its effectiveness to the White House, the Department of Justice, Congress, the CIA inspector general, the media, and the American public.
“This conclusion is somewhat personal for me. I recall clearly when Director Hayden briefed the Intelligence Committee for the first time on the so-called EITs at that September 2006 committee meeting.
“He referred specifically to a ‘tummy slap,’ among other techniques, and presented the entire set of techniques as minimally harmful and applied in a highly clinical and professional manner. They were not.
“The committee’s report demonstrates that these techniques were physically very harmful and that the constraints that existed, on paper, in Washington did not match the way techniques were used at CIA sites around the world.
“Of particular note was the treatment of Abu Zubaydah over a span of 17 days in August 2002.
“This involved non-stop interrogation and abuse, 24/7 from August 4 to August 21, and included multiple forms of deprivation and physical assault. The description of this period, first written up by our staff in early 2009, while Senator Rockefeller was chairman, is what prompted this full review.
“But the inaccurate and incomplete descriptions go far beyond that. The CIA provided inaccurate memoranda and explanations to the Department of Justice while its [Office of] Legal Counsel was considering the legality of the coercive techniques.
“In those communications to the Department of Justice, the CIA claimed the following: the coercive techniques would not be used with excessive repetition; detainees would always have an opportunity to provide information prior to the use of the techniques; the techniques were to be used in progression, starting with the least aggressive and proceeding only if needed; medical personnel would make sure that interrogations wouldn’t cause serious harm, and they could intervene at any time to stop interrogations; interrogators were carefully vetted and highly trained; and each technique was to be used in a specific way, without deviation, and only with specific approval for the interrogator and detainee involved.
“None of these assurances, which the Department of Justice relied on to form its legal opinions, were consistently or even routinely carried out.
“In many cases, important information was withheld from policymakers. For example, former Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham asked a number of questions after he was first briefed in September 2002, but the CIA refused to answer him, effectively stonewalling him until he left the committee at the end of the year.
“In another example, the CIA, in coordination with White House officials and staff, initially withheld information of the CIA’s interrogation techniques from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
“There are CIA records stating that Colin Powell wasn’t told about the program at first because there were concerns that, and I quote, ‘Powell would blow his stack if he were briefed.’ (Source: E-mail from John Rizzo dated July 31, 2003)
“CIA records clearly indicate and definitively that — after he was briefed on the CIA’s first detainee, Abu Zubaydah — the CIA didn’t tell President Bush about the full nature of the EITs until April 2006. That’s what the records indicate.
“The CIA similarly withheld information or provided false information to the CIA inspector general during his conduct of a special review by the IG in 2004.
“Incomplete and inaccurate information from the CIA was used in documents provided to the Department of Justice and as a basis for President Bush’s speech on September 6, 2006, in which he publicly acknowledged the CIA program for the first time.
“In all of these cases, other CIA officers acknowledged internally — they acknowledged internally — that information the CIA had provided was wrong.
“The CIA also misled other White House officials. When Vice President Cheney’s counsel, David Addington, asked CIA General Counsel Scott Muller in 2003 about the CIA’s videotaping the waterboarding of detainees, Muller deliberately told him that videotapes “were not being made,” but did not disclose that videotapes of previous waterboarding sessions had been made and still existed. (Source: E-mail from Scott Muller dated June 7, 2003)
“There are many, many more examples in the committee’s report.
“The third set of findings and conclusions notes the various ways in which CIA management of the Detention and Interrogation Program — from its inception to its formal termination in January ’09 — was inadequate and deeply flawed.
“There is no doubt that the Detention and Interrogation Program was, by any measure, a major CIA undertaking. It raised significant legal and policy issues and involved significant resources and funding. It was not, however, managed as a significant CIA program. Instead, it had limited oversight and lacked formal direction and management.
“For example, in the six months between being granted detention authority and taking custody of its first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, the CIA had not identified and prepared a suitable detention site.
“It had not researched effective interrogation techniques or developed a legal basis for the use of interrogation techniques outside of the rapport-building techniques that were official CIA policy until that time.
‘In fact, there is no indication the CIA reviewed its own history — that’s just what Helgerson was saying in ’05 — with coercive interrogation tactics. As the executive summary notes, the CIA had engaged in rough interrogations in the past.
“In fact, the CIA had previously sent a letter to the Intelligence Committee in 1989, and here is the quote, that “inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.” (Source: Letter to the SSCI from John Helgerson, CIA Director of Congressional Affairs, Jan. 8, 1989)
“However, in late 2001 and ’02, rather than research interrogation practices and coordinate with other parts of the government with extensive expertise in detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects, the CIA engaged two contract psychologists who had never conducted interrogations themselves or ever operated detention facilities.
“As the CIA captured or received custody of detainees through 2002, it maintained separate lines of management at headquarters for different detention facilities.
“No individual or office was in charge of the detention and interrogation program until January of 2003, by which point more one-third of CIA detainees identified in our review had been detained and interrogated.
“One clear example of flawed CIA management was the poorly managed detention facility, referred to in our report by the code name “COBALT” to hide the actual name of the facility. It began operations in September of 2002.
“The facility kept few formal records of the detainees housed there and untrained CIA officers conducted frequent, unauthorized and unsupervised interrogations using techniques that were not — and never became — part of the CIA’s formal enhanced interrogation program.
“The CIA placed a junior officer with no relevant experience in charge of the site. In November 2002, an otherwise healthy detainee — who was being held mostly nude and chained to a concrete floor — died at the facility from what is believed to have been hypothermia.
“In interviews conducted in 2003 by the CIA Office of the Inspector General, CIA’s leadership acknowledged that they had little or no awareness of operations at this specific CIA detention site, and some CIA senior officials believed, erroneously, that enhanced interrogation techniques were not used there.
“The CIA, in its June 2013 response to the committee’s report, agreed that there were management failures in the program, but asserted that they were corrected by early 2003. While the study found that management failures improved somewhat, we found they persisted until the end of the program.
“Among the numerous management shortcomings identified in the report are the following:
“The CIA used poorly trained and non-vetted personnel.
“Individuals were deployed — in particular, interrogators — without relevant training or experience.
“Due to the CIA’s redactions to the report, there are limits to what I can say in this regard, but it is clear fact that the CIA deployed officers who had histories of personal, ethical and professional problems of a serious nature.
“These included histories of violence and abusive treatment of others and should have called into question their employment with the United States government, let alone their suitability to participate in a sensitive CIA covert action program.
“The two contractors that CIA allowed to develop, operate, and assess its interrogation operations conducted numerous ‘inherently governmental functions’ that should never have been outsourced to contractors.
“These contractors are referred to in the report in special pseudonyms ‘SWIGERT’ and ‘DUNBAR,’ they developed the list of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA employed.
“They personally conducted interrogations of some of the CIA’s most significant detainees using the techniques, including the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, and al-Nashiri.
“The contractors provided the official evaluations of whether detainees’ psychological states allowed for the continued use of the enhanced techniques, even for some detainees they themselves were interrogating or had interrogated.
“Evaluating the psychological state of the very detainees they were interrogating is a clear conflict of interest and a violation of professional guidelines.
“The CIA relied on these two contractors to evaluate the interrogation program they had devised and in which they had obvious financial interests, again, a clear conflict of interest and an avoidance of responsibility by the CIA.
“In 2005, the two contractors formed a company specifically for the purpose of expanding their work with the CIA. From ’05 to ’08, the CIA outsourced almost all aspects of its Detention and Interrogation program to the company as part of a contract valued at more than $180 million.
“Ultimately, not all contract options were exercised. However, the CIA has paid these two contractors and their company more than $80 million.
“Of the 119 individuals found to have been detained by the CIA during the life of the program, the committee found that at least 26 were wrongfully held. These are cases where the CIA itself determined that it had not met the standard for detention set out in the 2001 Memorandum of Notification, which governs a covert action.
“Detainees often remained in custody for months after the CIA determined they should have been released. CIA records provide insufficient information to justify the detention of many other detainees.
“Due to poor record keeping, a full accounting of how many specific detainees were held and how they were specifically treated while in custody may never be known.
“Similarly, in specific instances, we found that enhanced interrogation techniques were used without authorization, in a manner far different and more brutal than had been authorized by the Office of Legal Counsel, and conducted by personnel not approved to use them on detainees.
“Decisions about how and when to apply interrogation techniques were ad hoc and not proposed, evaluated, and approved in the manner described by the CIA in written descriptions and testimony about the program.
“Detainees were often subject to harsh and brutal interrogation and treatment because CIA analysts believed, often in error, that they knew more information than what they had provided.
“Sometimes, CIA managers and interrogators in the field were uncomfortable with what they were being asked to do and recommended ending the abuse of a detainee. Repeatedly in such cases, they were overruled by people at CIA headquarters who thought they knew better, such as by analysts with no line authority. This shows again how a relatively small number of CIA personnel — perhaps 40 to 50 — were making decisions on detention and interrogation, despite the better judgments of other CIA officers.
“The fourth and final set of findings and conclusions concern how the interrogations of CIA detainees were absolutely brutal, far worse than the CIA represented them to policymakers and others.
“Beginning with the first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, and continuing with numerous others, the CIA applied its so-called enhanced interrogation techniques in combination and in near non-stop fashion for days or even weeks at a time, on one detainee.
“In contrast to CIA representations, detainees were subjected to the most aggressive techniques immediately—stripped naked and diapered, physically struck, and put in various painful stress positions for long periods of time.
“They were deprived of sleep for days — in one case up to 180 hours — that’s 7 and half days, over a week with no sleep, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands tied together over their heads, chained to the ceiling.
“In the COBALT facility I previously mentioned, interrogators and guards used what they called ‘rough takedowns’ in which a detainee was grabbed from his cell, clothes cut off, hooded, and dragged up and down a dirt hallway while being slapped and punched.
“The CIA led several detainees to believe they would never be allowed to leave CIA custody alive, suggesting to Abu Zubaydah that he would only leave in a coffin-shaped box. (Source: CIA cable from Aug. 12, 2002)
“According to another CIA cable, CIA officers also planned to cremate Zubaydah should he not survive his interrogation. (Source: CIA cable from July 15, 2002)
“After the news and photographs emerged from the United States military detention of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, the Intelligence Committee held a hearing on the matter on May 12, 2004.
“Without disclosing any details of its own interrogation program, CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin testified that CIA interrogations were nothing like what was depicted at Abu Ghraib, the United States prison in Iraq where detainees were abused by American personnel.
“This, of course, was false.
“CIA detainees at one facility, described as a “dungeon,” were kept in complete darkness, constantly shackled in isolated cells with loud noise or music and only a bucket to use for human waste.
“The U.S. Bureau of Prisons personnel went to that location in November 2002 and, according to a contemporaneous internal CIA email, told CIA officers they had never ‘been in a facility where individuals are so sensory deprived.’ (Source: CIA e-mail, sender and recipient redacted, Dec. 5, 2002)
“Throughout the program, multiple CIA detainees subject to interrogations exhibited psychological and behavioral issues including hallucinations, paranoia, insomnia, and attempts at self-harm and self-mutilation.
“Multiple CIA psychologists identified the lack of human contact experienced by detainees as a cause of psychiatric problems.
“The executive summary includes far more detail than I am going to provide here about things that were in these interrogation sessions, and the summary itself includes only a subset of the treatment of the 119 CIA detainees. There is far more detail, all documented, in the full 6,700-page study.
“This summarizes, briefly, the committee’s findings and conclusions.
“Before I wrap up, I’d like to thank the people who made this enormous undertaking possible.
“First, I thank Senator Jay Rockefeller. He started this project by directing his staff to review the operational cables that described the first recorded interrogations after we learned that the videotapes of those sessions had been destroyed. And that report was what led to this multi-year investigation. And without it, we wouldn’t have any sense of what happened.
“I thank the other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — one of whom is on the floor today, from the great state of New Mexico, others have been on the floor — who voted to conduct this investigation, to approve its result and to make the report public.
“But most importantly, I want to thank the Senate Intelligence Committee staff who performed this work.
“They are dedicated and committed public officials who sacrificed, really sacrificed, a significant portion of their lives to see this report through to its publication.
“They have worked days, nights, weekends for years, in some of the most difficult circumstances, it’s no secret to anyone the CIA did not want this report coming out, and I believe the nation owes them a debt of gratitude.
“They are: Dan Jones, who has led this review since 2007. More than anyone else, today is a result of his effort; Evan Gottesman and Chad Tanner, two other members of the Study Staff. Each wrote thousands of pages of the full report and have dedicated themselves and much of their lives to this project; and Alissa Starzak, who began this review as co-head and contributed extensively until her departure from the committee in 2011.
“Other key contributors to the drafting, editing and review of the report were Jennifer Barrett, Nick Basciano, Mike Buchwald, Jim Catella, Eric Chapman, John Dickas, Lorenzo Goco, Andrew Grotto, Tressa Guenov, Clete Johnson, Michael Noblet, Michael Pevzner, Tommy Ross, Caroline Tess, and James Wolfe.
“And finally, David Grannis, who has been a never-faltering staff director throughout this review.
“Madame President, this study is bigger than the actions of the CIA.
“It’s really about American values and morals. It’s about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law.
“These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime. And if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our nation a great one.
“There is a reason why we carry the banner of a great and just nation. So we submit this Study on behalf of the committee, to the public, in the belief that it will stand the test of time. And with it, the report will carry the message “never again.”
“I very much appreciate your attention, and I yield to Senator McCain.”
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
War by media and the triumph of propaganda
5 December 2014
Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?
Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?
These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.
The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an 'invisible government.' It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.
The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.
This power to create a new 'reality' has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: 'There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual.'
I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only 'culture' and introspection could change the world.
Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of 'me-ism' had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message.
In the wake of the cold war, the fabrication of new 'threats' completed the political disorientation of those who, 20 years earlier, would have formed a vehement opposition.
In 2003, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the distinguished American investigative journalist. We discussed the invasion of Iraq a few months earlier. I asked him, 'What if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and investigated their claims, instead of channeling what turned out to be crude propaganda?'
He replied that if we journalists had done our job 'there is a very, very good chance we would have not gone to war in Iraq.'
That's a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question. Dan Rather, formerly of CBS, gave me the same answer. David Rose of the Observer and senior journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous, gave me the same answer.
In other words, had journalists done their job, had they questioned and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children might be alive today; and millions might not have fled their homes; the sectarian war between Sunni and Shia might not have ignited, and the infamous Islamic State might not now exist.
Even now, despite the millions who took to the streets in protest, most of the public in western countries have little idea of the sheer scale of the crime committed by our governments in Iraq. Even fewer are aware that, in the 12 years before the invasion, the US and British governments set in motion a holocaust by denying the civilian population of Iraq a means to live.
Those are the words of the senior British official responsible for sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s - a medieval siege that caused the deaths of half a million children under the age of five, reported Unicef. The official's name is Carne Ross. In the Foreign Office in London, he was known as 'Mr. Iraq.' Today, he is a truth-teller of how governments deceive and how journalists willingly spread the deception. 'We would feed journalists factoids of sanitized intelligence," he told me, "or we'd freeze them out.'
The main whistleblower during this terrible, silent period was Denis Halliday. Then Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations and the senior UN official in Iraq, Halliday resigned rather than implement policies he described as genocidal. He estimates that sanctions killed more than a million Iraqis.
What then happened to Halliday was instructive. He was airbrushed. Or he was vilified. On the BBC's Newsnight programme, the presenter Jeremy Paxman shouted at him: 'Aren't you just an apologist for Saddam Hussein?' The Guardian recently described this as one of Paxman's 'memorable moments.' Last week, Paxman signed a £1 million book deal.
The handmaidens of suppression have done their job well. Consider the effects. In 2013, a ComRes poll found that a majority of the British public believed the casualty toll in Iraq was less than 10,000 - a tiny fraction of the truth. A trail of blood that goes from Iraq to London has been scrubbed almost clean.
Rupert Murdoch is said to be the godfather of the media mob, and no one should doubt the augmented power of his newspapers - all 127 of them, with a combined circulation of 40 million, and his Fox network. But the influence of Murdoch's empire is no greater than its reflection of the wider media.
The most effective propaganda is found not in the Sun or on Fox News - but beneath a liberal halo. When the New York Times published claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, its fake evidence was believed, because it wasn't Fox News; it was the New York Times.
The same is true of the Washington Post and the Guardian, both of which have played a critical role in conditioning their readers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All three liberal newspapers have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia - when, in fact, the fascist led coup in Ukraine was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.
This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military encirclement and intimidation of Russia is not contentious. It's not even news, but suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war.
Once again, the evil empire is coming to get us, led by another Stalin or, perversely, a new Hitler. Name your demon and let rip.
The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The biggest Western military build-up in the Caucasus and eastern Europe since world war two is blacked out. Washington's secret aid to Kiev and its neo-Nazi brigades responsible for war crimes against the population of eastern Ukraine is blacked out. Evidence that contradicts propaganda that Russia was responsible for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner is blacked out.
And again, supposedly liberal media are the censors. Citing no facts, no evidence, one journalist identified a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine as the man who shot down the airliner. This man, he wrote, was known as The Demon. He was a scary man who frightened the journalist. That was the evidence.
Many in the western media haves worked hard to present the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.
What the Russian president has to say is of no consequence; he is a pantomime villain who can be abused with impunity. An American general who heads Nato and is straight out of Dr. Strangelove - one General Breedlove - routinely claims Russian invasions without a shred of visual evidence. His impersonation of Stanley Kubrick's General Jack D. Ripper is pitch perfect.
Forty thousand Ruskies were massing on the border, according to Breedlove. That was good enough for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Observer - the latter having previously distinguished itself with lies and fabrications that backed Blair's invasion of Iraq, as its former reporter, David Rose, revealed.
There is almost the joi d'esprit of a class reunion. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post are the very same editorial writers who declared the existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to be "hard facts".
'If you wonder,' wrote Robert Parry, 'how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness that has enveloped virtually the entire US political/media structure over Ukraine where a false narrative of white hats versus black hats took hold early and has proved impervious to facts or reason.'
Parry, the journalist who revealed Iran-Contra, is one of the few who investigate the central role of the media in this 'game of chicken,' as the Russian foreign minister called it. But is it a game? As I write this, the US Congress votes on Resolution 758 which, in a nutshell, says: 'Let's get ready for war with Russia.'
In the 19th century, the writer Alexander Herzen described secular liberalism as 'the final religion, though its church is not of the other world but of this.' Today, this divine right is far more violent and dangerous than anything the Muslim world throws up, though perhaps its greatest triumph is the illusion of free and open information.
In the news, whole countries are made to disappear. Saudi Arabia, the source of extremism and western-backed terror, is not a story, except when it drives down the price of oil. Yemen has endured twelve years of American drone attacks. Who knows? Who cares?
In 2009, the University of the West of England published the results of a ten-year study of the BBC's coverage of Venezuela. Of 304 broadcast reports, only three mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the government of Hugo Chavez. The greatest literacy programme in human history received barely a passing reference.
In Europe and the United States, millions of readers and viewers know next to nothing about the remarkable, life-giving changes implemented in Latin America, many of them inspired by Chavez. Like the BBC, the reports of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and the rest of the respectable western media were notoriously in bad faith. Chavez was mocked even on his deathbed. How is this explained, I wonder, in schools of journalism?
Why are millions of people in Britain are persuaded that a collective punishment called 'austerity' is necessary?
Following the economic crash in 2008, a rotten system was exposed. For a split second the banks were lined up as crooks with obligations to the public they had betrayed.
But within a few months - apart from a few stones lobbed over excessive corporate 'bonuses' - the message changed. The mugshots of guilty bankers vanished from the tabloids and something called 'austerity' became the burden of millions of ordinary people. Was there ever a sleight of hand as brazen?
Today, many of the premises of civilised life in Britain are being dismantled in order to pay back a fraudulent debt - the debt of crooks. The 'austerity' cuts are said to be £83 billion. That's almost exactly the amount of tax avoided by the same banks and by corporations like Amazon and Murdoch's News UK. Moreover, the crooked banks are given an annual subsidy of £100bn in free insurance and guarantees - a figure that would fund the entire National Health Service.
The economic crisis is pure propaganda. Extreme policies now rule Britain, the United States, much of Europe, Canada and Australia. Who is standing up for the majority? Who is telling their story? Who's keeping record straight? Isn't that what journalists are meant to do?
In 1977, Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, revealed that more than 400 journalists and news executives worked for the CIA. They included journalists from the New York Times, Time and the TV networks. In 1991, Richard Norton Taylor of the Guardian revealed something similar in this country.
None of this is necessary today. I doubt that anyone paid the Washington Post and many other media outlets to accuse Edward Snowden of aiding terrorism. I doubt that anyone pays those who routinely smear Julian Assange - though other rewards can be plentiful.
It's clear to me that the main reason Assange has attracted such venom, spite and jealously is that WikiLeaks tore down the facade of a corrupt political elite held aloft by journalists. In heralding an extraordinary era of disclosure, Assange made enemies by illuminating and shaming the media's gatekeepers, not least on the newspaper that published and appropriated his great scoop. He became not only a target, but a golden goose.
Lucrative book and Hollywood movie deals were struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks and its founder. People have made big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.
None of this was mentioned in Stockholm on 1 December when the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, shared with Edward Snowden the Right Livelihood Award, known as the alternative Nobel Peace Prize. What was shocking about this event was that Assange and WikiLeaks were airbrushed. They didn't exist. They were unpeople. No one spoke up for the man who pioneered digital whistleblowing and handed the Guardian one of the greatest scoops in history. Moreover, it was Assange and his WikiLeaks team who effectively - and brilliantly - rescued Edward Snowden in Hong Kong and sped him to safety. Not a word.
What made this censorship by omission so ironic and poignant and disgraceful was that the ceremony was held in the Swedish parliament - whose craven silence on the Assange case has colluded with a grotesque miscarriage of justice in Stockholm.
'When the truth is replaced by silence,' said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, 'the silence is a lie.'
It's this kind of silence we journalists need to break. We need to look in the mirror. We need to call to account an unaccountable media that services power and a psychosis that threatens world war.
In the 18th century, Edmund Burke described the role of the press as a Fourth Estate checking the powerful. Was that ever true? It certainly doesn't wash any more. What we need is a Fifth Estate: a journalism that monitors, deconstructs and counters propaganda and teaches the young to be agents of people, not power. We need what the Russians called perestroika - an insurrection of subjugated knowledge. I would call it real journalism.
It's 100 years since the First World War. Reporters then were rewarded and knighted for their silence and collusion. At the height of the slaughter, British prime minister David Lloyd George confided in C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian: 'If people really knew [the truth] the war would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don't know and can't know.'
It's time they knew.
Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger
1 opmerking:
VER-BIJ-STE-REN-DE berichtgeving in de Nederlandse media vanmorgen. Een man pleegt een aanslag met nota bene een bomauto op het kantoor van de Partido Popular in Madrid - en niemand spreekt van een "aanslag"! En niemand spreekt over de "terrorist" of "terreur"! Nee, het is "een man" of een "zakenman" of "een ondernemer", en bomauto wordt tussen aanhalingstekens geschreven, alsof een zelfgemaakte bom opeens geen bom meer is.
Er zit geen groep achter volgens de Spaanse politie, dus is het geen terroristische aanslag, meldt de NOS. Wat is dat voor nonsens. Maar de NOS noemt Breivik wel een terrorst ("de Noorse terrorist Anders Breivik"). Ook de NRC bericht niet over aanslag, terrorist of terreur. Het wijst op (duiding?!) "maatschappelijk verzet" vanwege werkloosheid en corruptie.
Waarom? Omdat het een "zakenman" betreft? Omdat het geen moslim is (neem ik aan)?
Een reactie posten