The new CIA Director: Proponent of Torture or Effective Spook?

March 18, 2018

Is the proposed appointment of Gina Haspel as Director of the CIA good for the country, or will it open new wounds that many around the country thought had healed?

_________________________

With the recent news that President Trump has plans to appoint career CIA official Gina Haspel to the directorship of the CIA, I wonder whether this a good move. Is she the right person for the job?  Many Democrats are against her appointment because it is rumored that she was part of the agency's notorious and controversial rendition program (approved by the Bush Administration), in which the spy agency worked with nefarious governments to transport suspected terrorists for interrogation and sometimes, alleged torture. It is illegal under current US and international law.  The Guardian newspaper, in a March 16th post, stated that she specifically ran a controversial "black" site in Thailand, and who believed the program was successful and should've been in use.  Democrats, who are desperately hoping to regain control of at least one or possibly both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections, are very upset about this possible appointment.  Some lawmakers feel that her appointment would signal to the world community that the United States government accepts torture again and would alienate allies who are against this practice.

Former intelligence officials, including Michael Hayden (former NSA and CIA Director under Bush and Obama, respectively), have supported her for the agency's leadership, saying she had done whatever her government and country have asked, according to The Guardian article.  The newspaper article's author, Vincent Warren, worked for a human rights organization wants those who torture prosecuted under the law.  Mr. Warren believes that the United States having a CIA Director who participated in alleged torture and working for President Trump is not a good symbol for the world to acknowledge.  It would make cooperation with those countries who do not see the value in torture to work collaboratively with American intelligence sources challenging. In addition, President Trump appears to admire and align his beliefs with known authoritarian leaders and dictators like Vladimir Putin, President Duterte of the Philippines and President Erdogan of Turkey.  Having Ms. Gaspel as CIA Director, who works on behalf of a president who fires those who do not comply with his policies and contradicts Trump's tweets, will anger allies who are trying to defend their own democracies and government transparency.  The Nobel Committee gave President Obama the Peace Prize his first year in office simply because he was the total opposite of President Bush, who approved "non-traditional" interrogation methods and gave his European allies immense fits for his behavior.  

I will admit that the image of President Trump standing next to his incoming CIA Director, one who is alleged to have run a torture site in a foreign country, accepting his recommendation for the top intelligence post in the national security apparatus does nothing for America's international standing.  Those who support the president, and his controversial policy positions (the so-called "Muslim ban, building a wall on the southern border with Mexico) do not see the negative and contradictory image of the United States perception as the "Arsenal of Democracy" and the "Leader of the Free World" and having a controversial CIA Director in charge of intelligence gathering.  I hope President Trump just considers her but chooses some once else. There are many other competent former spooks who could handle the job and the political dexterity that comes with the prominent position.  However, I think unless Democrats regain control of the House, and bring Ms. Haspel to testify before a powerful House committee, her position as Director of the CIA will be secure under the time under Trump Administration.

The Danger of John Bolton as President Trump's new National Security Advisor

March 14, 2018

Reports of President Trump considering Republican operative John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor is a scary idea

____________________________

With rumors of President Trump's current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster's impending dismissal, reports have stated that the president is considering GOP hack John Bolton to fill that role in the near future.  This troubles me.  Bolton is a neocon in the mold of those including himself, who argued for and supported the horrible foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq.  He is of the variety that feels that any foreign policy issue is easily solved by military invasion or combat operations.  Bolton has argued for the pre-emptive bombing of North Korea's nuclear facilities, regardless of the horrible consequences of a retaliatory response from that country and the catastrophic effects it will have on South Korea and its population.  No sane person will see this as productive that can have positive outcomes.  In addition, John Bolton wants Israel to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear reactors and force the United States, in conjunction with Israel, to engage in war with Iran.  If Americans think Iraq was a horrible foreign policy blunder, war with Iran will be worse.  Iraq has always been a divided country of various people, with a Sunni Muslim minority, a Shia Muslim majority and a large Kurdish population.  Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant, who provided stability, albeit with crimes against its ethnic minorities, which included using chemical weapons to kill those citizens.

The Bush administration did not anticipate the tinderbox of rage that would envelop the country once the dictator was overthrown and the chaos that followed.  The Sunni minority through the Ba'ath party controlled all levers of government had the majority of jobs and was shown favoritism by Saddam himself.  The resentment of the Shia majority for those years under his rule exploded and caused needless casualties of American servicemen as a result.  Even the Kurdish population had visions of independence once Saddam was captured, tried by a puppet court and executed.  This made life difficult for the Iraqi population, who had to live with frequent bombings by the Sunni minority (many of whom were Iraqi Army officers and enlisted soldiers), who became a shadow army of terrorists and enemies of U.S. Army and Marines fighting in the country.  It has taken years of constant fighting to bring about a tenuous peace, which is frequently interrupted by chaos and bombings that kill hundreds of Iraqis each year.  I would venture to guess that if you took a poll of people who live in Iraq, many would prefer the stability of Saddam Hussein rather than the shallow peace that the American invasion has brought.  Even the billions of taxpayer-funded training of the new Iraqi Army, with military hardware given to the Iraqi military, have not brought about a better future for the country.

John Bolton was a strong supporter of this fruitless endeavour by the Bush Administration.  He foolishly believed that American military intervention would make for a sound foreign policy decision.  Bolton argues to this day that it was a good idea to invade Iraq and that the so-called "surge" during the last year of the Bush Administration was a success, even though all it really did was provide a false respite in terms of peace and stability.  It essentially bought off the Sunni fighters to stop fighting American forces, but that was never going to be a long-term solution.

Iran is a completely different beast.  Even though a large segment of the population does not like the religious orthodoxy of the controlling Mullahs, Iranians are largely supportive of the nuclear program and generally love their country.  The population does not share the divided nature of Iraq, which is smaller in size and population. The young Iranian population has positive opinions of the United States (but not its government) and is open to rapprochement with the United States.  However, invading Iran would dramatically change that image of the American people.  Iranians do not want to change their government through military force by an outside power.  It will turn the population against invading forces and become an even worse quagmire than what Iraq turned out to be.

I think Bolton is part of the belief that relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis in the American embassy shortly before President Reagan took office.  That shame that the American public felt was the catalyst for a hard line position from the American government since that time. However, that crisis was the culmination of years of oppressive rule by the Shah Pahlavi, who was installed as a puppet leader after the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was head of government from 1951-53. His overthrow was a result of Mosaddegh wanting to nationalize Iranian oil fields, which scared Western oil companies because of damaging monetary losses in the international markets. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, using the Savaak, a brutal secret police force to jail, execute and punish Iranians who did not approve of his rule.  This created an opening for religious mullahs, of which the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first and a fiery leader to boot. He had a passionate support from large swaths of the Iranian people.  His exile by the Shah gave him immense power, and once the Shah was overthrown, culminated in the hostage crisis of American embassy staff.

John Bolton foolishly believes that the presence of American military personnel will give the Iranian people a reason to support an American-installed government.  Has he not learned about the history of prior American involvement?  I cannot believe President Trump wants to have this dunderhead as his chief national security advisor for American foreign policy. What makes him believe that war with Iran will have a positive outcome?  Bolton has never served in combat (during Vietnam he served in the Maryland National Guard, which did not deploy to Southeast Asia at that time), but he seems to have the ear of prominent Republican establishment individuals.  That is what makes me so discouraged regarding the future of our country.  Another war, in addition to the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, will break our military.  The Department of Defense cannot bear the burden of another costly war, not to mention the successive and debilitating deployments of our military personnel, many of whom are veterans who are just now transitioning back to civilian life.

In addition to the stupid idea of war with Iran, John Bolton wants military action against the regime of North Korea.  This will be even worse because the casualties of the South Korean population will be tragic.  Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery, and the deaths relating to that barrage will pale in comparison to the civilian deaths in Iraq.  American combat deaths will be far larger than those who gave their lives in Iraq.  Conquering North Korea through ground forces will take at least a decade of constant fighting, and I dare say that we might have another stalemate since Russia and China could, in theory, provide covert support.  I hope Bolton does not think we can fight both Iran and North Korea at the same time.  North Korea could even launch untested ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which could reach Japan and the west coast of the United States.  Who in their right mind outside of neocons thinks these military endeavours will be successful?  And beneficial for the American people?

If President Trump does appoint John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, I am concerned for America and the future of the country.  Mr. Bolton is an irresponsible war hawk and lacks any foresight into what is sound advice to give to the American president. It will show that Trump does not have any idea of what good governance is, nor what type of American foreign policy will be good for the country. John Bolton is a fool, who has no business having the ear of the Leader of the Free World. If America is in a constant state of war, with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and many Americans close to the poverty line, the great experiment that is the American idea will end in ignominy.  John Bolton, through President Trump, will be the architect of that demise.

California and the battle over Federal Authority and Power

March 12, 2018

How the battle over California, sanctuary cities, and the power of the United States government is the new battle between two Americas (liberal and conservative).

_________________________

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has initiated legal proceedings against the state of California over the state protecting undocumented immigrants.  This is the new battle over undocumented immigrants and sanctuary cities.  Governor Jerry Brown and members of the state legislature have chosen to ignore federal policy regarding undocumented immigrants and will defy the federal government in terms of cooperating with ICE to remove and deport predominately Hispanic aliens who reside within the state.  While I empathize with those who want to remain in the United States, and I don't support separating families, there needs to be a better way than defy the U.S. government.  This was the essential reason the Civil War started and was the same reasoning the Southern slave states fought for independence from the United States.  This sets a dangerous precedent and will be the focal point for the ongoing war between Democrats and Republicans over the direction of our great country.  I do believe the government needs a proper and humane treatment of undocumented immigrants, but ignoring federal policy through challenging of a president's official directive is not going to be the best way to defend those who live in fear of deportation.  The best way to fight the federal government is through the courts, and the ballot box.  

It is painfully obvious that the Democratic party is doing this to cultivate Hispanic votes for the long-term viability of the party.  Those who remember how Republican governor Pete Wilson in the 1990s, with the help of the California GOP, passed a proposition known as 187, which denied taxpayer public services to illegal immigrants.  This was done with public sentiment within conservative circles to punish those who were illegal, the ability to use public services.  While I understand the anger of non-citizens who see their tax dollars being used by those who came to the United States illegally, the racial undertones and perception were not productive.  As a result of this proposition (which was eventually judged unconstitutional), it produced a negative backlash towards the California GOP and produced heavily Democratic legislatures over the past 20 years.

By Governor Jerry Brown ignoring federal policy, it sets a horrible battle for the United States as a nation of laws.  The Civil War was fought precisely over this issue.  The slave states of the South did not want to adhere to the federal government and its position on slavery.  As a result, the South directly challenged the federal law and ignored the position of the President.  This is what California is attempting to do.  States can pass laws for the benefit of its residents, but any state law that contradicts the U.S. Constitution will be overturned in the courts because federal law supersedes any state law.  This was determined and approved by the states after the Civil War as part of the reconciliation of the union.  I understand that Republicans do this as well, especially when a Democratic administration is in control of the White House (see the Affordable Care Act).  That does not make it right.  We as a country cannot pick and choose which federal law and presidential authority we as citizens want to follow.  That is not how a country functions.  It sets a pattern for the destruction of the Constitution and the future of our democratic republic.

This defiance by the Democratic party in California is a shameless attempt to be political.  It is not productive and effective in the long term.  What is the benefit that Jerry Brown finds in this method?  Does he think that Republicans will not do the same thing when a Democrat wins the White House in the future?  How can the Democrats complain when that happens?  I know that Americans have a short memory, but this is getting to be ridiculous.  California is the most populous state in the union, and it has three of the largest industries in the world (tech, agribusiness, and the entertainment industry).  The state is the 6th largest economy in the world, and the world looks to California in admiration and with tremendous respect.  So, how does an influential state like California make decisions like this, and what is the end game?  The federal courts will reject this defiance and support President Trump and the federal government's prerogatives.  It is a wasted endeavor.  While I do not generally support the Republican party orthodoxy, they are right when they claim that the Democratic party is shamelessly attempting to curry votes with the state's large Hispanic population, and across the country as a whole.

I do not support the mass deportation of the millions of undocumented immigrants, and I do feel that Congress must get its act together and pass legislation that takes into consideration of the humane treatment of those who are here without proper documentation.  I agree wholeheartedly that many of the undocumented immigrants work hard and play a part in the nation's economic engine. Those who have obeyed the laws and play by the rules should be allowed to stay, with certain stipulations.  These include a delay in being eligible for a green card, provided they have no criminal history, learn English (so we can all communicate with each other) and assimilate into our communities.  Protecting and promoting their cultures is great, and makes our country better, but we all need to live under the same set of rules and way of life.  What the Democratic party in California is attempting to promote does not bode well for Americans to get along and live in harmony. Instead of grandstanding for Hispanic votes, the Democrats and Republicans must pass effective immigration reform instead of pandering to voters within their political parties and work to make this country a great place to live.

The Political Fire Bomb Regarding the FBI

February 25, 2018

How the dangerous game between Republicans, Democrats, and corporate media regarding the FBI will lay the groundwork for the destruction of the American Republic

_____________________________

The ongoing battle between Republicans and Democrats and their allies in the media regarding the legitimacy of the Donald Trump presidency has reached dangerous levels for our democracy, government institutions and the future of our republic.  Democrats have been pushing the alleged collusion between members of the Trump Administration and the Russian government through Vladimir Putin's associates.  Democratic members of Congress have tried to paint Hillary Clinton's shock loss in November 2016 as a result of collusion between the Russians and Donald Trump's inner circle of friends and close associates.

The gist of their argument is that President Trump used his sons and others like Paul Manafort as background intermediaries to work to ensure Trump won.  I have yet to see any evidence from any member of Congress to prove that there is anything factual or newsworthy.  They are using a dossier compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to show that Trump has committed treason to win a democratic election in the United States. This dossier was promoted by a pro-Hillary organization called Fusion GPS. According to Ben Shapiro, in an article which appeared in the National Review, the FBI applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant based on the language of the Steele dossier, which was filled with unverified information.  Fusion GPS allegedly worked with Obama appointees in the upper echelon of the FBI to promote this idea and get the FISA warrant approved to investigate the Trump transition team staffers. The investigation did not begin with former Trump aide Carter Page, but instead with George Papadopoulos, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI recently.  Mr. Shapiro stated that Carter Page was being monitored over a long period of time because of his close ties to elements with the Russian government. There may be suspicion of a crime, but that does not constitute an actual crime once thoroughly investigated. President Trump is not known to have people of integrity on his campaign and White House staff, but unless the proof is irrefutable that there was collusion, I think it best that the country is allowed to move on from this episode and focus on protecting future elections from outside interference.

At some point, Democrats either need to reveal what they allege or they must move on to more productive things, such as trying to win back one or both houses of Congress.  If they don't, it will appear that they are sore losers and instead want to litigate the 2016 election they felt entitled to win. In fact, after watching Tucker Carlson on Fox News, he believes that if this investigation does not prove any malfeasance on the part of President Trump, the GOP will use the antagonist (and hoped career advancement as a result of this crusade) Congressman Adam Schiff as a campaign theme target so that the Republicans hold onto the House after the 2018 Midterms.  If the Democrats take back the House and use their new majority to impeach President Trump on charges that will not hold up in court, or the Senate, it is bad news.  It will trigger worse reactions from Trump supporters and begin a period of hostile confrontation between the two major parties. This will be exploited on the international stage of foreign policy by the Chinese and to some extent, the Russians themselves I believe.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to paint the prior Obama Administration as culpable in trying to derail President Trump's victory by using government institutions to thwart his win.  The GOP is attempting to show that Democrats wanted to stop at nothing to prove that President Trump is an illegitimate Leader of the Free World.  They allege that President Obama used political friends in the FBI to attempt to paint Trump as working to collude with a foreign government to help him win.  They may have something to cling to since there is recent evidence provided through emails from President Obama, that he did not notify the American public of alleged interference from the Russian intelligence community.

According to the Washington Post's Phillip Bump, in an article dated February 21st, members of President Obama's White House staff wrote to their Kremlin contacts in early 2016 to warn them about interference in the upcoming American election. It was hoped that Russia would get the hint, and avoid any perception that it had a hand in determining a winner in November of 2016.  CIA Director John Brennan informed leaders of both parties and members of the intelligence community wanted President Obama to notify the American people.  However, without a consensus within the intelligence community, Obama did not act on those recommendations. Once it appeared that Donald Trump was going to win the White House, the stories of "collusion" started to begin in effect from the Hillary campaign, and senior members of the Democratic Establishment and other lawmakers of influence joined in the chorus.  It has now reached a crescendo.

The Mueller investigation may paint a few stupid and careless Trump associates as guilty of various things, but if collusion with a foreign government by President Trump himself is not one of them, this will have serious consequences for the United States to function as a constitutional republic.  It has been discussed on various online sites that the FBI allegedly used flimsy evidence from the Steele Dossier, which was put together by Fusion GPS, to secure the FISA warrant.  If this is proven true, and the Mueller investigation does not bear the fruit that the Democrats hopes for, then President Trump will use this "fake investigation" to solidify his base in time for the 2018 Midterms.  Even FBI Deputy Director Rod Rosenstein stated that he believes any allegations into the conduct of the charges against Trump's associates did not affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

As mentioned earlier, if nothing comes out of this investigation by Mueller, then an already divided country and hyper-partisan Congress will change the dynamics of how our country operates as a vibrant democracy.  One of the few government institutions that the American people hold in high regard (outside of the military) is the FBI, the world's premier law enforcement agency in the world.  If partisanship infects this great agency, it will eventually be used by both Congress and future presidents as a secret police force that investigates political opponents and use it to paint members of the president's opposition as enemies of the state.  This is the first step in getting admired and respected members of the FBI, Department of Defense and overall law enforcement as non-partisan, unbiased people who took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic.  A strong democracy cannot effectively protect the American people and provide a service that makes our country one of the greatest democracies on earth.

What is the solution to this partisan mess?  First, Republicans and Democrats must show temperance and patience, and let this investigation by Robert Mueller play out, and make determinations based on the rule of law, rather than a promoted outcome by either party.  This will respect the process of proper legal investigations, and provide the American people with the way to conduct thorough investigations before anyone projects a biased outcome.  It will also ensure that investigations are just that, to research any allegations against anyone, and make a determination if charges are warranted.  Furthermore, members of Congress must leave the FBI rank and file agents out of the political sphere.  Even though there are extreme partisan feelings regarding Trump and his administration's policies, it is best to alleviate the nation's law enforcement agencies out of defending their work to political witch hunts on both sides.  The nation's institutions and democratic future are at stake.