home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! Why Most Kids Are Left Behind In a radical probe of the functions of US education, Rich Gibson and E. Wayne Ross define the role of schools and of the bipartisan "No Child Left Behind" law in a rotting, militarized, imperial system. How educators should resist. Alexander Cockburn on why and how Wall Street and the Feds finished off Eliot Spitzer. Eamonn McCann on hiow the bel tolled for Ian Paisley. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great holiday presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
|
Today's Stories April 1, 2008 Jeff Leys March 31, 2008 Mike Whitney Mats Svensson Paul Rockwell Paul Craig Roberts Patrick Cockburn Peter Dale Scott Alfredo Molano Peter Morici Uri Avnery Michael Simmons Betsy Roberts
/ Karen Orr Phyllis Pollack Website of
the Day
Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Christopher Brauchli William Blum Robert Fantina John Ross Allison Kilkenny Nelson P. Valdés Suzanne Baroud Richard Rhames Christopher Fons Carl Finamore Eamonn McCann Missy Beattie Fred Gardner Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 28, 2008 Saul Landau Alan Farago Peter Morici Andy Worthington Felice Pace Peter Montague Dave Lindorff March 27, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Binoy Kampmark Joanne Mariner Norman Solomon William S. Lind John V. Walsh Robert Weissman Ron Jacobs Ralph Nader David Macaray John Borowski Website of
the Day
March 26, 2008 Stan Cox Sharon Smith Anita Sinha / Jill Tauber Matt Vidal William S. Lind Joe Mowrey Dave Lindorff Ray McGovern Justin Smith Sam Husseini Martha Rosenberg Michael Dickinson Website of the Day
March 25, 2008 Ishmael Reed Corey D. B.
Walker Linn Washington Jr. Alan Farago Vijay Prashad Joshua Frank Ralph Nader David Rovics Peter Morici Dave Zirin David Krieger Website of
the Day March 24, 2008 Jeffrey St.
Clair Peter Morici Uri Avnery Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts George Ciccariello-Maher Stephen Lendman Christopher
Brauchli Cat Woods Stacey Warde Dave Lindorff Website of
the Day
March 22 / 23, 2008 Ralph Nader Nicole Colson James Petras Laura Carlsen Greg Moses Andy Worthington Michael Dickinson John Ross Missy Comley Beattie David Michael
Green Ramzy Baroud Martha Rosenberg Paul Watson Isabella Kenfield James Murren Jacob Hornberger Kathlyn Stone Seth Sandronsky Kim Nicolini Jeffrey St.
Clair Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
March 21, 2008 Marleen Martin Peter Montague Saul Landau Anis Hamadeh Jacob Hornberger Khalil Nakhleh Adam Isacson Kenneth Couesbouc Madis Senner Monica Benderman Website of the Day March 20, 2008 Damien Millet
/ Mike Whitney John Ross Dave Lindorff Wajahat Ali Jill Nagle Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dan La Botz Robert Weissman Stella Dallas
/ Website of the Day
March 19, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Robert Fisk Jeff Taylor Ed Ruggero Ron Jacobs Christopher
Fons Sherwood Ross Cynthia McKinney Joshua Frank Robert Weissman Walter Brasch Yifat Susskind Andrew Wimmer Website of
the Day
March 18, 2008 David Price Paul Craig
Roberts Tim Wise Patrick Cockburn Conn Hallinan James T. Phillips Uri Avnery David Macaray Marjorie Cohn Peter Zinn Dan La Botz Monica Benderman
March 17, 2008 Pam Martens Sasan Fayazmanesh Nelson P. Valdés Peter Morici Wajahat Ali Ronnie Cummins Shaun Harkin Ali Khan Robert Jensen P. Sainath Greg Moses Dr. Susan Block Website of the Day
March 15 / 16, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Mike Whitney Ralph Nader Robert Pollin Diane Christian Wajahat Ali Tom Wright
/ Alan Farago Greg Moses Michael Hudson Martha Rosenberg John Goekler Uzma Aslam
Khan Oren Ben-Dor David Underhill Fred Gardner David Michael
Green Rev. William E. Alberts Gail Dines David Yearsley Chris Clarke Poets' Basement Website of
the Day
March 14, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Don Santina
Patrick Cockburn
Tim Rinne Robert Fantina
Saul Landau
David Macaray
Franklin Lamb
Michael Neumann
March 13, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Mike Whitney
Assaf Kfoury
Andy Worthington Adam Federman
March 12, 2008 Dave Lindorff
R.F. Blader
Yonatan Mendel
Jonathan Cook
Bill and Kathy
Christison James J. Brittain
Ron Jacobs
March 11, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Ed O'Loughlin
Ramzy Baroud Kathy Christison
China Hand John Joslin
Mike Averko
Ben Rosenfeld
Thierry Paquot
March 10, 2008 Uri Avnery
Col. Dan Smith
R.F. Blader
Michael Neumann
Bob Fitrakis
and Harvey Wasserman James J. Brittain
Missy Comley
Beattie March 8-9, 2008 Weekend Edition JoAnn Wypijewski
Mike Whitney
Peter Morici
Ralph Nader
Jonathan Cook
Steve Niva
Bill and Kathy
Christison Hervé
Do Alto and Franck Poupeau Eric Walberg
Scott Johnson
Mark Scaramella
Bill Clinton Poet's Basement
Website of
the Weekend March 7, 2008 Patrick Cockburn
Robin Blackburn
Saul Landau
Binoy Kampmark
Chris Floyd
Andy Worthington Will Potter March 6, 2008
March 6, 2008 Vincent Navarro Forrest Hylton Peter Morici George Ciccariello-Maher John Ross Jacob Hornberger Paul Watson Dan Bacher Website of the Day
March 5, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Joanne Mariner Fidel Castro Christopher
Brauchli Steven Sherman Dave Lindorff James Murren Adam Engel Website of Day
March 4, 2008 Wajahat Ali William Blum Bill Quigley Ralph Nader Patrick Irelan James J. Brittain
/ Norman Solomon Jacob Hornberger Andy Worthington Mike Averko Website of the Day
March 3, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Alan Farago Richard Gott Wajahat Ali Paul Craig Roberts Robert Weissman Uri Avnery Martha Rosenberg Eva Liddell Michael Donnelly Website of the Day
![]()
![]()
Subscribe Online
|
Apri1 1, 2008 A Conversation with Daniel EllsbergRestoring the ConstitutionBy THOMAS P. HEALY Daniel Ellsberg is no stranger to wiretapping. Yet he had no trouble accommodating a journalist who requested permission to tape a recent phone interview. Since the host of his upcoming visit to Indiana will be the local chapter of the ACLU, we began our conversation there. TPH: The theme of the ACLU-Indiana event banquet which you will address is: "Restore American Democracy: A Call for Change." What kind of changes will you be calling for? DE: [laughs] That's a funny title. I guess they gave it that title. The theme I'll be pursuing is "Our Constitutional Crisis: Must the U.S. Remain an Outlaw State?" Only it's not a matter of "change," it's a matter of restoring our Constitution, which has been under assault now for seven years. And with some precursors before that under Clinton. So it didn't all start under Bush. The fact is Bush and Cheney operate under a theory of government that is at odds with our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and they have pretty much enacted their theory. In other words, it's not a matter of changing to a new government, it's restoring checks and balances and an oversight function for Congress and a preeminent role for Congress in the issue of war and peace, which has been basically rejected or destroyed by this administration - and, as I say, with some precedents earlier. Article 1, section 8, which puts the power of war and peace with Congress, not the executive branch, has been under, let's say, neglect ever since Harry Truman went to war in Korea in 1950 without a declaration of war, and right up to the previous administration - the Clinton administration - which conducted an air war in Kosovo and Serbia without Congressional declaration. And in this most recent case, of course, the Congress was called on to support war against Iraq in November of 2002 and they did so, but they did so under a great deal of manipulation and false pretenses by the administration. In other words, as in Vietnam and the Tonkin Gulf resolution, Congress was lied into war. I don't want to relieve them of all complicity here because it proved pretty easy to lie to them - much easier than it should have been. But the fact is they were given a very false picture of the situation and the Constitution was ignored in that instance. But even more blatantly, since 2001 President Bush has simply flagrantly violated the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), in terms of warrantless wiretapping for 7 years now -- and moreover has conducted torture since 2001 in violation of both domestic laws and international laws. And finally the signing statements are pretty much intended to negate the legislative function of Congress. So in all these respects, the President is actually acting beyond the law as an outlaw - as a criminal, to put it bluntly - for the past 7 years without effective oversight or checks by Congress. The failure to hold impeachment hearings on what seems extremely solid grounds, which I've just described, amounts to complicity by Congress in this abrogation of the Constitution. Moreover we're seen as an outlaw state by the international community for ignoring international law on torture and on aggression. The attack on Iraq without authorization by the U.N. Security Council is a flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, which is an international treaty which we've signed and are subject to. It means that we have committed and are in the process of committing a crime against the peace in the Nuremburg sense. TPH: Excuse me, what was that a crime against? DE: A crime against the peace. The crime of aggression. I was misquoted on that recently. I got arrested last Sunday and the papers said I was protesting "a crime against the American people." My statement was actually "an American crime against the peace," and they misheard that. Of course the American people have been injured in this but not nearly as much as the Iraqis or international law. It would be like saying "Saddam Hussein's crime against the Iraqi people" when he invaded Kuwait, for example. Anyway, we have an administration that both in domestic and in international terms is an outlaw - a lawless regime. TPH: We've had several leaks regarding this lawless behavior - the photos from Abu Ghraib, the Downing Street Memos - but they haven't led to the kind of political changes like those that resulted from your leaking of the Pentagon Papers. What's changed in the intervening years? DE: There was a period of significantly more open government, and the Church Hearings on, among other things, illegal surveillance, led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978. That was a direct result of the investigations that came out of both Watergate and the Pentagon Papers and the Vietnam War. The Church Committee found all kinds of violations by the NSA and the FBI on surveillance, and corrections were made. But that concern kind of closed down in the '80s, and we've had progressively more secretive government since then. The Clinton administration was much better in revealing old secret classified documents and upholding the Freedom of Information Act. But they were very secretive about their own operations and I don't know how that would work in a new Hillary Clinton administration. Jack Nicholson said recently that he felt sure that she would run a more transparent government. I'm much less sure of that. She might go back to the Freedom of Information Act when it comes to materials 10 or 20 years old - I'd be glad to see that. But I don't have any confidence she would be any more open about what her administration would be doing. Certainly McCain would not be. I don't know about Obama. TPH: Regardless of who gets elected, the new administration is going to inherit this incredible executive privilege power that has been asserted by the Bush administration. DE: That's right. I don't have any confidence that any new president-unless he or she were pressed by the public and by Congress-would give up any of the new presidential freedoms of invading our privacy and new executive powers that have accrued. Which one of them is going to tell the National Security Agency to stop collecting all this information on Americans? I don't foresee that. I hope it's not irreversible. But if it is reversible it's going to have to be by action outside the executive branch, and that means by Congress, and that means by pressure on Congress by the public and in particular by the legal community. I would like to see lawyers and judges speaking out more explicitly about the injuries that have been done to our Constitution. TPH: You've written and spoken about the "urgent need for demonstrating civil courage." Is this what you're talking about by asking lawyers and the public to step up and increase the pressure on Congress and the White House? DE: Yes. It always takes some degree of courage for ordinary citizens or members of the establishment to speak in opposition to the President, but it takes even more for officials who are hired by the President to tell the truth when he or she doesn't want it told. I'm not talking about officials breaking the law. I'm talking about their observing the law against the wishes of their agency heads or their superiors or the President when those people are breaking the law. After all, these people have been involved in breaking the law and the Constitution very regularly for the last 7 years, and as I say, some of that really goes back earlier. It's time now for people at the lower levels to begin to observe their oath to the Constitution and their oath of office. Their oath of office is in every case not to the President; it is to "support and defend the Constitution" as it is written. And the President has not been doing that - a number of presidents have not been doing that - and generally their subordinates have been following them in that lawbreaking by keeping silent about it and obeying orders. It's time for them now to begin observing the laws by speaking truthfully to Congress and the public when they know that laws are being broken. TPH: It seems that leaking has changed since the Pentagon Paper days, and now it's being used by government officials as a form of intimidation - I'm thinking of the Plame leak. DE: That's not a matter of a trend. Most leaks - that is, disclosures of information that the government has classified - most of that has always been done by agency heads and by the White House for their own purposes. That's been true before and that's true now and it's always true. In other words, most so-called leaks are really authorized disclosures even though they violate the classification rules. For example the Plame leak had a very clear precedent in the efforts to defame me or to intimidate me by trying to get secrets out of my doctor's office, by overhearing me on illegal wiretaps and so forth - that goes back to Nixon. They intended to leak information or to threaten to leak information on me in order to intimidate me. So there's nothing new; the Plame leak was exactly like that. There is more leaking now that's genuinely unauthorized; in other words, unauthorized disclosure of information that the agency heads or the President really don't want out because it would embarrass them or incriminate them. There is more of that than there used to be; unfortunately it hasn't taken the form of documents that are irrefutable and it hasn't led to hearings. I must say the Pentagon Papers didn't lead to hearings either, because the Democrats in charge took a look at those papers and decided that they didn't want hearings that would largely incriminate the Democrats. So they didn't hold hearings either. But at least the papers were there for everyone to read and they couldn't say, "Oh, whoever's saying that wasn't in the loop" because these were documents signed by the Secretary of Defense. So we haven't had much of that now, unfortunately. I don't know if you watched the recent "Frontline" series. It was very interesting but I couldn't help but feel that a lot of those people speaking, like Paul Pillar from the CIA - who regrets having written the "white paper" which was full of misleading statements - he regrets being a part of that, yet it would have been so much better if he had told us that at the time. It might have avoided a war. It's true not only of Pillar but of a number of other people: Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Colin Powell, Richard Clarke - they were both on that program. They've told us a lot since they left government and that's to their credit. But if they had told it before, while they were in office, they could have averted a war. TPH: Perhaps inadvertently, the "Frontline" piece illustrates the mainstream media's complicity in the Bush administration's success. DE: Yeah. There's no question about that. For instance, they talked quite a bit about the aluminum tubes and how critical that story was and how much it was played up. I noticed on the screen, they showed the story on the front page story of the New York Times, and what has drawn almost no attention ever is the fact that the stories weren't only by Judith Miller, whose complicity has been pretty well established by now - she's almost been run out of the profession; she was fired by the Times and I don't think she's playing much of a role now in journalism at this point, and rightfully so. But the number one name on that story's byline was Michael Gordon. Now Michael Gordon is still writing stuff for the Times and really he's done as much, I would say, to promote war with Iran as in Iraq. He was very important in the case of Iraq and he's been pushing I would say for staying in Iraq - that's the way I read his stories there. He's a big advocate of the surge as well as writing stories pointing to war with Iran. He has never drawn the critical eye that Judith Miller has and yet his name was on a number of her stories. TPH: You mention war in Iran. You've written and spoken out frequently on the topic. Do you think the possibility has become less likely? DE: Well, it goes up and down. There are contradictory events that come along. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran certainly weakened or destroyed the case for attacking Iran based on nuclear weapons. It was very credible and I believe truthful. I read that it was made public because intelligence officers were "lined up to go to jail" rather than see it suppressed - that is, kept inside the government. In other words, if it were not released to the public they were prepared to put it out themselves and if necessary face prosecution. That was the kind of thing I have been calling for. They got it out and that was very helpful. On the other hand, U.S. Central Command commander Admiral William Fallon, who has been very candid about his views on how we should not go to war against Iran, was essentially fired, or was forced to resign. That's a bad sign. It might indicate that they're on the verge of attacking or it might not. (The best guess now seems to be that he was fired because he disagreed with the policy in Iraq that his subordinate General Petraeus and President Bush are about to announce, slowing down withdrawals of the surge forces and keeping the pre-surge levels of troops there at least through the fall. ) His interview in Esquire was challenging or provocative, I would have to say - it would have been under any president. But in any case, even if he was fired for speaking too frankly about policy or for wanting faster reductions in Iraq, the fact is that they have removed one of the main obstacles to an attack on Iran. It would now be easier to get that through when Fallon was in place where he could provide direct opposition to that from inside the government. So that's a very bad sign. And of course, the president has gone out of his way to say he simply does not accept the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate - he doesn't agree with it. And Cheney has been saying that, essentially, on his Middle East trip and perhaps lining up support for an Iran attack. [Note, 3-31-08: Michael Hayden, head of the CIA, has just joined this administration chorus of "personal" disagreement with the NIE.] So what it adds up to is I think the chance of an attack looks somewhat lower than it looked before the NIE but still very significant - far above zero. And I'm very concerned about it in the remaining months of the Bush administration. So I think that it would be very patriotic for someone to show the courage to put out documents that would demonstrate the determination of the White House - Bush and Cheney - to move ahead on an attack on Iran and alert the world and alert us and Congress to the fact that they do still envision an attack on Iran, which I suspect is still true. Congress still has not held investigative hearings on our policy with respect to Iran. If they did hold hearings, they could call witnesses-starting with Admiral Fallon-- who would be happy to testify under oath truthfully and to give expert opinion on how costly that would be and what the plans are. What we need is public pressure on Congress to hold those hearings, but it hasn't happened yet. TPH: How do you gauge the current state of the nuclear threat that the Bush administration poses to the world? DE: They have been promoting the idea of first-use of nuclear weapons in a variety of circumstances, including now the mere possibility that a country will develop nuclear weapons - not that they have the weapons but even to prevent them from getting the knowledge - that refers to Iran specifically. Now, I think that the military opposition to the idea of a nuclear attack on Iran by the Army in particular has certainly reduced the likelihood of that since it was first exposed by Seymour Hersh in 2006 in The New Yorker and by Philip Giraldi in various places. There again, leaks to Sy Hersh and others were crucial in raising that issue and keeping the administration from doing that. Again, that's not zero probability. If a war with Iran actually started I think the chance of escalation over a brief period of time to nuclear attacks on their underground sites is very serious, and it doesn't have to be very high to be very serious. A 10 percent chance would be very serious - even a 5 percent chance and I think it is that high. In general, of course, the Bush administration's refusal to adopt a policy of no-first-use is an invitation to the rest of the world to imitate us and to acquire nuclear weapons for those threat-uses for intimidation that the U.S. relies on. So it precludes an effective program against proliferation. U.S. policy - and here I have to say it doesn't start with Bush but Bush has certainly amplified it - the U.S. policy of threatening nuclear weapons doesn't just undermine, it essentially destroys the possibility of an effective non-proliferation policy. You can't stop proliferation while we're continuing to threaten the rest of the world with using our weapons first. TPH: One last thing. How do you maintain your optimism and enthusiasm for your work? DE: [laughs] Well, optimism would be definitely too strong a word if that means that I think that we'll surely avert these disasters. What I have is hope, and I have enough hope to keep me going. But that doesn't require a lot of hope because the stakes are so high. The importance of averting nuclear war and the importance of regaining our democracy are such transcendent stakes that even a small chance of reversing these attacks on the Constitution and these threats of nuclear war makes efforts much greater than mine worthwhile. They're still at it, so I'm still at it. Thomas P. Healy is a journalist in Indianapolis. He can be reached at thomasphealy@sbcglobal.net Daniel Ellsberg's Web site
is www.ellsberg.net
![]()
|
How the Press Led the US into War ![]() Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! ![]() Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz ![]() Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal ![]() Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn ![]() ![]() ![]() Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |