Nov. 22, 1963: A Turning Point for America

    

 (Today marks the 60th anniversary of  one of the nation's darkest days, the day President John F. Kennedy was murdered by government actors in Dallas, Texas. Kennedy was a young president who was growing in the job and who aimed to end the Cold War with Russia and create a more peaceful world. But he was cut down before being allowed to finish his program. To this day the government still refuses to follow the law and release all the CIA files that would shed light on who was responsible for this notorious crime. Why is that? The following is the piece I wrote 10 years ago on the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination).

By Reginald Johnson

                For a long time, I  believed 9-11 was worst thing that ever happened to the United States. It was awful. Nearly 3,000 people killed in those terror attacks and so many families left grief-stricken.

      And 9-11 set the stage for the brutal (and in one case misguided) wars that followed, in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

          But in the last few weeks, I’ve changed my mind.  When I saw the 50^th anniversary shows on John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and saw the old footage, it all came back. As bad as Sept. 11 was, I don’t think anything shook this country as much as the death of President Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963. I don’t know what it is, but it doesn’t seem like this country has ever been the same since that day.

     I’ve heard phrases thrown around recently to describe the meaning of that day: “The day we lost our innocence,”  and another, (the title of a blog by Ira Chernus) “The day truth died.”  These are both right. It was such a shattering event.

    Maybe it’s because I was a naive 16-year-old private school student when this happened. Very idealistic, and, like a lot of  people my age at the time, a great fan of JFK. Here was this dashing young president who was both bright and witty and inspiring. He seemed to say and do all the right things: urging young people to get involved,  helping their country and the world with efforts like the Peace Corps; working to help the movement for integration; backing legislation that would eventually become Medicare; signing the nuclear test ban treaty; promoting the space program and sending men into space.

   In those days, we were in a Cold War with Russia, and we were proud when Kennedy stood up to the Soviets over the placement of missiles in Cuba and spoke out for freedom while visiting the Berlin Wall.

   And he came to be president  at a time when the country was booming economically and was the most admired country in the world. Our standard of living was tops and there were plenty of jobs --- particularly manufacturing jobs.

   It seemed like America and our young president could do no wrong.

   It was in that cocoon of innocence that I returned from lunch on Nov. 22, set to go to another class, when I overheard someone say, ‘Kennedy was shot.’   Feeling stunned, I rushed over to this small building where students could socialize and smoke cigarettes. Some of my friends were there listening to the radio. I lit up a cigarette as  the news came over. Minutes later, there was silence. Then a somber voice announced, ‘The president is dead.’ The Star Spangled Banner began playing. I couldn’t believe it.  Just total disbelief.  I was also pissed. I threw down my cigarette, stomped on it and left. I didn’t want to talk with anyone.

   The next several days, I was glum and kept to myself. I missed the 24-7 television coverage, missed alleged perpetrator Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot, missed new President Lyndon Johnson’s announcements and much of Kennedy’s funeral. How could this happen here? The United States?  It took months for me to get over the shock.

 I was able to get over it in part because I was reassured by Johnson’s statements and actions. He pledged to follow the Kennedy program, particularly with civil rights. When the following fall came around, Johnson seemed downright saintly compared to the crackpot Republican candidate for president that year, Barry Goldwater, who had talked about dropping an atomic bomb on Vietnam!  Johnson, meanwhile, said he would not send U.S. troops to Vietnam. Seemed like a good guy.

  But within months, it was clear Johnson was lying. In early ’65,  the U.S. had started bombing North Vietnam. By the spring, the first troops were sent. Within a few years, we had hundreds of thousands of troops there, all in the name of “stopping communism.” Many of our soldiers died. But many, many more Vietnamese died. We pulverized that country with bombing and poisoned it with napalm and Agent Orange. When all was said and done, we had lost 55,000 people; the Vietnamese had lost 3 million.

   And during the Vietnam era, a lot of ugly divisions in our society began to surface, between hawks and doves, liberals and conservatives, hippies and hard hats, religious versus non-religious. A lot of that divisiveness is still out there today.

  After Johnson, we got the corruption of Richard Nixon and Watergate.  A few years later, the downward curve continued with the coming of Ronald Reagan, and his backwards notion that “government is the problem.”  Reagan began the process of chipping away at the safety net and the New Deal, and undermining unions --- more trends we’re still dealing with today.

  More recently we’ve had George W. Bush and his disastrous war on Iraq and two vacillating small ‘d’  democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Their vision of government is almost as limited as the Republicans.

   Maybe I am idealizing the Kennedy years, but things were better then. Since that period there’s been progress only in few areas. Women’s rights are certainly better today than they were in the early ‘60s. Legal and political rights for blacks are better, though the economic struggle for most blacks still goes on.

  But what else? Our middle class has sunk, quality jobs have evaporated, and our nation is constantly at war.

  I think if Jack Kennedy lived, I think the late 1960s would have been better, and that would have provided a good foundation for the future. It is a fact that he signed a memorandum a month before he died that he intended to pull all U.S. advisors out of Vietnam by 1965. Supposing there had been no Vietnam War? And supposing Kennedy had followed up on feelers to bring a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, and end the insane arms race?

   It should be said Kennedy had his failings, and there are certainly a lot of skeptics out there who downplay what he would have done if he had lived. He was a philanderer and dishonest to his wife; though publicly pushing integration he was friendly with southern segregationists for political purposes; and the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 was a boneheaded move.

   But I believe if Kennedy had lived, there would have been no Vietnam War, and he would have achieved lot at home, in the end compiling a domestic record that would have rivaled FDR’s.

   I think it’s definitely fair to say if JFK, his brother Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King had lived, America would be a much better place today.

******************************************************************************  

I’ve always felt there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy.  Lee Harvey Oswald may well have been part of it, but he did not act alone. Too many people heard too many shots that day in Dallas, and eyewitnesses saw some shots come from the front of Kennedy’s motorcade, something the Warren Commission denied happening. (The Warren Commission, charged with investigating the assassination, concluded Oswald acted alone, and shot Kennedy from the rear, firing a rifle from a 6^th-floor window).

 While Kennedy was quite popular in general,  he was hated by some, including right-wingers and anti-Castro Cubans. He also had a lot of detractors in the military and the intelligence agencies, who thought Kennedy was ‘too soft on communism.’  I believe people from the intelligence sector and the military, as well as some anti-communist Cubans, were part of the conspiracy. Oswald was on the fringes. Jack Ruby was sent to shut Oswald up. The fact that Ruby, a nobody, could waltz into the Dallas police station while the most important criminal suspect in American history was being transported, then walk up and shoot Oswald dead, tells you all you need to know about this case. It’s been a total cover-up.

Secret files said to link CIA to JFK assassination

 

      By Reginald Johnson

 

   In an astonishing newscast last week dealing with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, FOX’s Tucker Carlson said a source who has access to still-unreleased CIA files on the case stated “unequivocally” that the agency “was involved” with Kennedy’s murder.

 “We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents, a person who was deeply familiar with what they contained,” said Carlson. “We asked this person directly,  ‘did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy, an American president?’ And here’s the reply we received, verbatim: ‘The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake.’ “

   “It’s hard to imagine a more jarring response than that,” Carlson said. “Again, this is not a conspiracy theorist that we spoke to. Not even close. This is someone with direct knowledge of the information that once again is being withheld from the American public. And the answer we received was unequivocal --- ‘yes. the CIA was involved in the assassination of the president.’ ”

  Carlson’s show ran the same day that the Biden administration opted to release some of the secret CIA files dealing with the assassination ----- but not all.  Some of the most sensitive documents are still hidden, despite the fact that a congressional act was passed more than 30 years ago mandating that all the records relating to Kennedy’s assassination should be made public by the year 2017. That has not taken place, with successive administrations, Republican and Democrat, slow-walking the process.

  It’s long been speculated that the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) was involved with the JFK assassination, which took place on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Tex. Thousands of books and articles and been written about the case, and many authors have either speculated about the CIA’s responsibility, or in some cases pointed the finger directly at the CIA. Kennedy had a bad relationship with the agency, after he faulted the CIA for the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961.

  Oliver Stone’s film, “JFK,” also told a story about FBI, CIA and military officers being involved in the murder, in what was portrayed as a coup d’etat.

   However, no one in the mainstream press, in Congress or in the government bureaucracy has ever dared to come out and say that the CIA might have been tied to the president’s killing. The establishment view on the assassination for years has remained that the Warren Commission --- which reviewed Kennedy’s murder in 1964 --- was correct in concluding that the 35^th president was murdered by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, and there was no conspiracy involving other actors or government officials.

  Carlson’s show therefore was unusual --- a highly rated commentator on a mainstream channel voicing the strong possibility that a branch of the United States government was involved in the murder of a sitting president.

 The FOX commentator also said if what the source is saying is true, it confirms the belief held by many over the years --- that the US has a democracy in name only.

  “It means that within the US government, there are forces wholly beyond democratic control. These forces are more powerful than the elected officials that supposedly oversee them,” Carlson said. “These forces can affect election outcomes. They can even hide their complicity in the murder of an American president. In other words, they can do pretty much anything they want. They constitute a government within a government, mocking by their very existence the idea of democracy. As cynical as we have become after 30 years of watching government officials ignore the voters who employ them, we were shocked to learn of this. It’s not acceptable,” Carlson stated.

  Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy who, like his brother, was also assassinated, called the Carlson show,  “The most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d’état from which our democracy has never recovered.”

  Sen. Kennedy was killed in 1968, also allegedly by a lone gunman, Sirhan Sirhan. Sirhan, now in his late 70s, is serving a life sentence.

 Robert Kennedy Jr. has said previously that he believed that neither Oswald nor Sirhan acted alone in the two murders.

  In a follow-up show on the JFK case on Dec. 16, a lawyer who is pushing for the full release of the CIA files on Kennedy, told Carlson the Biden administration’s decision to only release part of the files was “very disappointing, frustrating and infuriating.”

  New York Law School Adjunct Prof. Lawrence Schnapf said, “Essentially what we got yesterday was old wine packaged in new bottles. The 13,000 records released yesterday were basically records that had already been released and maybe with less redactions.”

  He added “the spin that the CIA is doing is unfortunately (something) that the New York Times and the Washington Post have taken hook, line and sinker … this is a big nothing burger.”

  The Mary Ferrell Foundation, the nation’s largest nonprofit repository of the assassination records has sued the administration to make all the documents public. The foundation says the CIA is withholding most of the records at issue.

 The Assassination Records Review Board that was established under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 has also tried to obtain more Kennedy files from NBC that it says the company is holding,  according to Schnapf.

 “To show you the level of obstruction in our government, the review board prepared a subpoena to serve on NBC and the Department of Justice refused to serve it,” Schnapf said.

  The attorney urged Carlson and his listeners to pressure leaders of the new incoming Congress to hold hearings and subpoena CIA officials to come and testify why they are not turning over the Kennedy files as required by law.

  The last few years have seen more calls for Congress to set up a new "Church Committee" to investigate abuses by the intelligence community, including the CIA, FBI and NSA.

  In the 1970s, a Senate committee headed by Sen. Frank Church of Idaho conducted a sweeping investigation of irregularities at the agencies and that triggered a number of reforms.

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

  

 

 

Progressive journalist quits over censorship

By Reginald Johnson 

      In the latest journalism travesty, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Glenn Greenwald has been forced out of the publication he co-founded because editors there were censoring his stories about possible corruption by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

  Greenwald, who started The Intercept in 2014 after he broke stories about unlawful surveillance of the American people by the National Security Agency, resigned from The Intercept after editors said they would not run any of his stories unless he removed all material critical of Joe Biden.

  The Intercept --- along with almost all of the mainstream and left media --- have blacked out all the revelations in stories done by the New York Post concerning apparent influence peddling and possible criminal wrongdoing in connection with payments by foreign nationals to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son. Also blacked out has been a statement by a Hunter Biden business associate that contradicted claims by Joe Biden that he knew nothing of his son’s business ventures in countries including Ukraine and China.

 The FBI is reportedly investigating Hunter Biden for money laundering.

   Biden, who served as Vice President from 2009-2017 in the administration of Barack Obama, was in charge of foreign policy concerning Ukraine and China, when his son went into business in Ukraine.

  Biden, who is facing Donald Trump in Tuesday’s presidential election, has denied any wrongdoing related to his son’s business dealings and said the stories were part of a Republican “smear campaign.”

  That denial has satisfied most of the media, the same media who acted like sharks smelling blood every time a report surfaced in the past about possible nepotism or nefarious activities by Trump family members.

  Biden supporters and many in the media have instead labeled the Post stories as “Russian disinformation” --- based on statements by former CIA Director John Brennan and former NSA Directors James Clapper and Michael Hayden.

 In an interview on FOX with Tucker Carlson, Greenwald said he was shocked to see even The Intercept ran a story referencing the claims by the former intelligence chiefs about Russian disinformation, even though the officials admitted in their full statement they had no hard evidence of a Russian link.

  Greenwald said The Intercept was founded on the idea that the media must be skeptical about the claims of the intelligence community, in light of the revelations about illegal mass surveillance by the NSA brought forth by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported by Greenwald.

  The investigative journalist said that in recent years an "unholy union" has come about between the media, the intelligence community, neo-cons, Silicon Valley (tech companies such as Google and Facebook). Democrats and Wall Street to advance a certain point of view and rule out independent voices. 

 Part of the reason for that joining of forces is that the left, which used to criticize the CIA, now likes the intelligence community because the CIA and FBI promoted the Russia-Trump collusion investigation, which nearly drove Trump from office, Greenwald said. The collusion narrative fell on its face however, when Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation found no conspiracy had taken place between the Trump campaign and Russia in influencing the 2016 election. 

  That "union of power," Greenwald contended, fully backs the Democratic Party which is likely to take over the Senate and possibly the presidency on Tuesday.

   "That is a very alarming proposition because they are authoritarian, they believe in censorship, they believe in suppression of information that exposes them in any kind of critical light," Greenwald said.

  The media has behaved very unprofessionally in refusing to probe the Biden allegations. That failure, together with the mistakes the press made in not covering the Russia-collusion controversy more critically, has left the media as an institution in tatters.

 That has grave implications for our democracy, since a vigorous and objective press is vital for our system to work well.

 Glenn Greenwald has not sold out. In my book, he's a hero.

   

 

 

 

 

The UK Poisoning Case: Truth or Fiction?

     By Reginald Johnson

                                  

      Do I hear an echo?

      The administration of President Donald Trump announced that it would be expelling 60 Russian diplomats from the United States due to the charges made by its long-time ally the United Kingdom that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a former Russian spy turned British double agent and his daughter, in Salisbury, England recently.

   “It looks like” Russia was behind the poisoning, Trump told reporters.  The alleged attack, Trump said, “is something that should never, ever happen.”

  Britain and countries in the European Union, Canada and Ukraine also expelled dozens more  Russian diplomats based on the charge of Russian complicity in the incident, in which a nerve agent was allegedly used to contaminate Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.

  Russia has now retaliated by expelling 60 American diplomats and closing the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg.

  The diplomatic expulsions have worsened relations between the United States  and Russia, relations which were already strained due to sanctions previously slapped on Russia in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and so-called wrongdoing by Russia in Ukraine.

    But there’s a big problem with the poisoning story:  there is no solid proof that the Russian government was actually behind the chemical attack.  There is only a claim by UK government officials that the Russians were behind the crime, simply because,  in their words,  the chemical agent found in the victims  “was of a type developed by Russia.”  That’s it. There’s been no further details or supporting evidence given.

  The British “analysis” was done by officials at Porton Down, the biochemical warfare facility dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction, which is located only 10 miles from  Salisbury.

   The Russian government has vigorously denied the UK claims.  The Russians repeatedly requested that samples of the nerve agent be given to them so they could examine the substance and respond to the charges.  But the samples have not been provided.

A scene from Moscow, Russia. The West is blaming the Russian government for poisoning a former Russian spy turned British agent in Salisbury, England.

    In refusing to provide the material to the Russians, the UK government of Prime Minister Theresa May is violating the terms of the Chemical Weapons Treaty. It is also denying due process to Russia. It is standard legal practice in the United States the UK and other Western countries, not to mention most countries around the world, that if some person, some institution or some country is accused of committing a crime,  they or their counsel have a right to examine the evidence that forms the basis of the charges that have been leveled against them.  They can then raise questions if necessary, and contest the charges.

  But this right has not been given to Russia.  Apparently,  the principles of due process and presumption of innocence mean nothing when it comes to charges against Russia.

   Any accusation, any wild accusation, suddenly becomes verified fact if Russia is the named culprit. If there’s some vague link that Russia is behind a terrible event, forget about a careful gathering of evidence, just assume Russia did it.

   This is a mockery of justice.

 And it also recalls a time not too long ago ------ to be exact, just over 15 years ago ---- when the United States and the UK were claiming repeatedly that Saddam Hussein, the leader of a Iraq, had weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal and therefore represented a grave threat to the rest of the world.  Officials of the administration of the President George W. Bush, led by the CIA,  insisted that they knew for sure that Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons and possibly nuclear weapons, and that he was hiding them. They refused to provide the evidence of this charge but said in effect ‘Trust us, he’s got them.’

    CIA director George Tenet said famously at the time, that it was a  “slam dunk” certainty that Hussein had the weapons.

    International weapons inspectors were not so sure and said they had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq.

    But Bush and his administration stuck to their position that Iraq was a major threat. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said it was important to move quickly against Saddam because he had terrible weapons of war that could threaten this country.

    Bush said at one point “we can’t wait for final proof --- the smoking gun --- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

   So on March 19, 2003, American forces launched an invasion of Iraq, an attack which was not authorized by the UN and was illegal under international law.  American forces quickly overran the country, killed Saddam and set up a new government.

   But just a few months later, the whole case made by the Bush administration for making war in Iraq fell apart. An American team sent in to find WMD ---- after months of searching --- came up empty. There were no  weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   By that point, thousands of Iraqis had already been killed, many Americans had been killed and there was massive damage to the infrastructure of Iraq, which up to that point had been one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East.

    The war did not stop there. The U.S. military and its allies had to spend the next eight years fighting in Iraq, maintaining large troop contingents in an effort to stabilize the country and suppress rebellions against the U.S. imposed government.

    By the time President Barack Obama decided to pull the bulk of U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011,  the U.S. had lost some 4500 soldiers and military personnel and more than 30,000 were wounded.  The Iraqi death toll was estimated at close to 1 million.

  Now, according to researchers Nicolas J.S. Davies and Medea Benjamin, a study of mortality figures in Iraq show that the Iraqi death toll for the past 15 years is likely to be an incredible 2.4 million.

  If that figure is correct, a case could be made that the U.S., Britain and allied forces committed genocide in Iraq.

   The financial cost to the United States already for waging war in Iraq has been a staggering  $1.7 trillion. Estimates are that future costs stemming from the war will be trillions more, once the cost of ongoing veterans care is factored in.

   By any rational standards, the Iraq war has been a total disaster for the United States, and catastrophic for Iraq and its people.

   Did the U.S. really wage war on Iraq because of the possible presence of weapons of mass destruction? No. There was no imminent threat posed by Iraq and U.S. and British officials knew it, despite their public statements.

  The real reason for the invasion was that the United States wanted to lay claim to Iraq’s considerable oil reserves and make them available to Western companies. U.S. policymakers also wanted to remove Saddam,  because he was a sometimes independent actor in the Middle East who was seen as an impediment for the U.S. maintaining total control over the region.

   The Iraq experience shows that people both in the United States the UK as well as other Western countries always have to be skeptical about statements made by their leaders when they blame other countries for committing crimes or invoke the supposed danger those countries pose. There is often a hidden agenda behind accusations of wrongdoing made against different countries whether it’s Russia, Iraq, Syria or Iran.

   Just as there was an agenda behind the propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, so too there’s an agenda today behind the statements and charges being made about Russia. The agenda with Russia is the same as it was with Iraq: the U.S. wants to get rid of the existing government and replace it with a leadership that is more obedient to the United States.

    For a number of years now,  U.S. leaders have been blaming Vladimir Putin and Russia for acting inappropriately, they say, in a number of arenas, whether it’s the war in Syria, relations with Iran or in Ukraine. The Russians have also been blamed --- and with some degree of merit, for interfering in the 2016 US election ---- although it is rarely noted that Americans did the exactly same thing to Russia in 1996 in order to help Boris Yeltsin retain power and also aided in the 2014 coup in Ukraine which unseated a democratically-elected government.

   Now comes the poisoning incident in Britain allegedly carried out by Russia and ordered by Vladimir Putin.

   Prof. James Petras, writing recently in Global Research, said the  “UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the Western public for heightened military confrontations” with Russia.

   “The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance…. They believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions,” said Petras, who has written widely on foreign-policy issues.

   The U.S. and its NATO allies in recent years have also been stepping up their military activities in Eastern Europe which has alarmed Russian leaders.

 The increased NATO activity, together with the drumbeat of criticism directed at Russia, all serve to undermine any chance for a new detente between the U.S., its allies and Russia.

Commenting on the UK poisoning incident, veteran journalist John Pilger said  “….this is so dangerous, with Russia being effectively pushed into a corner with these accusations, it’s part of a propaganda campaign. I can tell you that, I’m a journalist who has spent almost all my career working in the mainstream (media) in Britain.”

 “This is a propaganda campaign promoted specifically in the media and in the government,” Pilger said in an interview with RT, which was reprinted in the UK’s Press-Gazette.

    It is crucial that the media and the public in the United States and in Western countries show skepticism about claims being made by their governments particularly with respect to foreign policy and the actions of other countries. Frequently leaders lie and make up facts,  covering up the truth so they can justify  some plan like an intervention or a war, which will be costly in lives and treasure.

   There were lies told in the lead-up to the war with Iraq and the result was disastrous. The media failed to ask the tough questions. Reporters too easily accepted the government narrative.

  The media today and people in general have to demand that the British and U.S governments provide more information about just how the UK poisoning incident took place. Government leaders cannot be allowed to just keep spinning a storyline  without providing real facts, and in the process worsen relations with a nuclear-armed country and heighten the chance for a catastrophic war.

 

   

Why did NBC hire John Brennan?

By Reginald Johnson

     It was a deeply disappointing decision made by NBC last month to hire former CIA director John Brennan to serve as a national security and intelligence analyst.

  It appears that either NBC overlooked a number of the very controversial and distressing aspects of Brennan’s career, or they just didn’t care.

  In hiring Brennan, NBC is taking on board an individual who has been implicated in what many consider to have been illegal programs carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations in prosecuting the war on terror ---- namely, the use of alleged torture techniques in interrogating terror suspects and the use of drone missiles to carry out “extra-judicial assassinations” of suspected terror leaders around the world.

  Brennan is also someone whose honesty has come into question during investigations by Congress about the counterterror programs and, more recently, about the controversial and much criticized “Russian dossier.”  That document, prepared by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, helped trigger the Special Counsel probe into possible collusion between the presidential election campaign of Donald Trump and the Russian government prior to the 2016 election. The investigation, depending on its findings, could lead to Trump’s impeachment.

    During the administration of George W. Bush, Brennan was a top counterterrorism official and senior official at the CIA.  Critics charge that he endorsed the CIA use of “enhanced terror interrogation” techniques in questioning terrorism suspects --- including  waterboarding and other brutal practices.  Waterboarding is considered torture, which is banned under international law.

 It was also reported that Brennan had many suspects picked up and taken through the “extroardinary rendition” program to “black sites” --- in countries such as Egypt and Syria, where security officials in those countries would carry out torture to extract information for the U.S. 

 Administration legal officials put out memos saying that the interrogation techniques carried out by the CIA fell within the law and denied torture was taking place. For his part, Brennan said that while he was aware of the harsh interrogation tactics, he was not the one who suggested them in the first place and in some cases opposed the practices.

 In 2014 the Senate intelligence committee did a major investigation of Bush-era interrogation methods and produced a scathing 6,000 page report criticizing the CIA’s program.  In the words of the New York Times story on the report,  “the CIA’s interrogation techniques were more brutal and employed more extensively than the agency portrayed;” that the interrogation program was “mismanaged and not subject to adequate oversight;”  and that the CIA “misled members of Congress and the White House about the effectiveness and extent of the brutal interrogation techniques.”

    At the time that the Senate was investigating the CIA for its possible role in torture, Brennan  had risen to director of the agency, following his nomination by Obama and confirmation by Congress.  According to former CIA analyst and writer Ray McGovern, Brennan was furious over the Senate investigation and worked actively to stop the report from being released. At Brennan’s behest, agency personnel  spied on the Senate committee that was doing the investigation and hacked into staff computers to find out what was being found.

   Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, chairwoman of the committee, was so angered by the CIA tactics that she took to the floor of the Senate to blast the agency and its director.

    Although President Obama tried to block release of the report, eventually the report was made public, due to the determined efforts of former Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.

Former CIA Director John Brennan   (WSJ.com)

   

  As CIA director, Brennan developed the targeted assassination program, in which terror suspects are killed by drone missiles. Brennan worked closely with Obama to draw up kill-lists of people who needed to be taken out.  Thousands of people have been killed in drone strikes, which have hit Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Iraq.

   Brennan maintained that the strikes were causing little or no “collateral damage.”  But that claim was contradicted by human rights observers and a study by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism which found that there was a substantial civilian death toll from the missile attacks.

   Legal observers have also charged that the drone warfare program is illegal when it is carried out in countries where the United States is not at war. That would include Pakistan and Yemen. Critics have also maintained that it is unconstitutional for the drone strikes to be targeting American citizens --- which has taken place on several occasions. The most notable  example of this was the drone killing of Al Qaeda militant Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011.  He was an American citizen, born in New Mexico. Awlaki’s son, also an American citizen,  was later killed by an errant missile strike, intended for someone else.

    It is illegal under the Constitution to take the life of an American citizen without due process of law. CIA and military officials argued that it would’ve been extremely difficult to capture al-Alwaki and then bring him to the United States for prosecution. That claim has been disputed by opponents of the program however, who said military personnel had the means to capture him.

 Since Trump took office in January of last year, questions have also arisen about whether Brennan has been entirely candid about what he knew about the infamous “Russian dossier” ---- which alleged that there were connections between candidate Donald Trump and Russian officials prior to the 2016 U.S. election and that Russia interfered with the election to benefit Trump.  The dossier was a key part of the information that was submitted by the FBI to the FISA court in 2016 and 2017 to obtain warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign team.

  Brennan has maintained in testimony given in May 2017 before the House intelligence committee and in press interviews that he didn’t know that much about the dossier and its contents prior to the election. He told Chuck Todd on Meet the Press early this year that during the fall of 2016 prior to the election he had “heard only snippets” about the contents of the dossier, based on press reports. He said he had never actually read the dossier until late that year.

  But according to a report in Real Clear Investigations by Paul Street on February 11, investigators working with Republicans on the House  Intelligence committee believe that Brennan was well aware of the contents of the dossier and its allegations against Trump prior to the election and that he actively tried to spread the information to members of Congress.

   “John Brennan did more than anyone to promulgate the dirty dossier,” said an investigator who talked with Street. “He politicized and effectively weaponized what was false intelligence about Trump.”

  Street said that Capitol Hill sources told him that Brennan fed allegations about Trump-Russia contacts directly to the FBI and pressured the Bureau to investigate Trump campaign figures in the summer of 2016.

   The House Intelligence panel, led by the Republican majority voted recently to end their inquiry into whether Trump had colluded with the Russians prior to the election. The committee report stated that they had found no evidence to support the claim of collusion or conspiracy with the Russians. But members of the Democratic minority strongly protested this report and said that there were still legitimate reasons for continuing the probe.

  In signing on with NBC/MSNBC as a contributor,  Brennan becomes the latest representative from the intelligence community and the Pentagon to work at the TV networks as an analyst. Former CIA deputy director Mike Morell is a contributor with CBS and former NSA director James Clapper is a commentator at CNN. Former generals and high military officials are working with the networks as well, weighing in with analysis about a range of topics including the US role in the Middle East, the proper approach to dealing with North Korea and how to deal with Russia.

  The CIA has a long history of making its influence felt with the media.

 Going back to the 1940s and 1950s agency officials sought to cultivate leading figures at US newspapers such as the New York Times. They also sought to have agency people work surreptitiously at the papers or at other media outlets.  In the 1970s, a Senate committee led by then U.S. Sen. Frank Church investigating abuses by the intelligence community following the Nixon-era Watergate scandals determined that there were CIA assets working at 50 media organizations, either as reporters or as employees in other capacities.