Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/tbrnew5/public_html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

TBR News November 21, 2010

Nov 21 2010

 

The Voice of the White House

            Washington, D.C., November 21, 2010: “Although it is not a matter of public knowledge, the facts surrounding the so-called ‘WikiLeaks’ are such that perhaps a little publicity would do no harm. This concept is a government disinformation site, designed to ‘leak’ information to the public that cannot be published in the mainline media. The ‘tens of thousands of vital messages’ dealing with Afghanistan have been tailor-made to give Obama the excuse to exit from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Republican gains in the House have made this policy null and void. The new Republicans do not want to stop war, they want even more and  so Obama’s plans to get out have been scrapped. The earlier WikiLeaks stories were all low-level, not important to U.S. national security and, aside from the Administration, of interest only to inane bloggers and their readers. Many promises of the revelation of  ‘highly secret’ Department of State messages was only a snare and a delusion like the rest of the ‘WikiLeaks’ promises. Now, Julian Assange has made the cardinal error of threatening to ‘expose’ both the Russians and the Chinese. Attached here is a comment from an official Russian news agency. The United States has taken no action against Assange because he works for it but Russia is another matter. The CIA loves to use people like Julian the Apostate because if they get caught, Langley always looks the other way and murmers, ‘Julian who?’

Thinly Veiled Threats From the FSB Aside, WikiLeaks Still Faces Challenges in Credibly Leaking Classified Information on Russia
 
           
A Russian secret services expert on Tuesday warned WikiLeaks that the right team of people could simply shut down the whistleblower Web site forever, but denied that WikiLeaks poses a threat to Russia after its founder revealed that Russia is next on its hit list. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Monday warned that Russian readers will find out a lot of new things about their country through his Web site, which has left Western governments red-faced after reams of classified documents were published on the Internet. 
 
            “Preliminary analysis shows that there is no threat posed to Russia by Julian Assange’s resource. You have to understand that if there is the desire and the right team, it’s possible to shut it down forever,” an expert from the FSB’s Center for Information Security was quoted by Life News as saying on Tuesday.
 
            Links between hacker cells and the FSB made in the past lend credence to this thinly veiled secret services threat. In his recent book on Russia’s secret services, investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov details how the Russian FSB “maintain a sophisticated alliance with unofficial hackers, such as those who carry out cyber attacks on the Web sites of enemies of the state,” drawing attention to hacker forums such as Informacia.ru.  
 
            Given Russia’s notoriously malleable extremism legislation, which Wikimedia (despite its name, not affiliated to WikiLeaks) recently fell foul of, it is hard to imagine that classified information on Russia from WikiLeaks could pass as anything short of “extreme.” Indeed, a Gazeta.Ru editorial yesterday pointed out precisely this contradiction in the claim that WikiLeaks is “no threat posed to Russia.”
 
            WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told the Izvestia news daily that he has already amassed “kompromat” on the Russian “government” and “businessmen,” although he admitted it is “not as much as I’d like” in an interview on Monday, two days after his site published almost 400,000 classified U.S. military field reports from Iraq.
 
            Both the British and the American governments have urged the whistleblower to stop publishing reams of classified documents because they claim it is undermining the war effort and putting the lives of civilians and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk, charges which Assange denies.
 
            Speaking to the Kommersant daily on Monday, Assange and his assistant Kristin Hrafnsson said the whistleblower Web site plans to publish 15,000 more documents on the war on Afghanistan, and then turn its full attention to Russia and China. According to Assange, “the despotic regimes of Russia, China and Central Asia” were the original focus of his project when he was pitching it to potential investors four years ago. “We’ve spent a lot of time working on the Afghanistan and Iraq dossiers, but as soon as we’re done with them we can get started on different regions,” Hrafnsson told Izvestia. “I think the Russian readers will find out a lot of new things about their country.”
 
Language barrier
 
            While Assange did admit that there are problems with obtaining intelligence in foreign countries, his professed collaboration with the “Americans” will likely worry the Russian security establishment. “The fact that the majority of your sites post information only in Russian limits our capabilities. However, the Americans are helping us, they are giving us a lot of material on Russia,” Assange told Izvestia.
 
            Any role played by American officials in publishing secret Russian documents – whether real of perceived – would certainly shake the still unsure foundations of the Washington-Moscow reset. But at the same time, obtaining Russian secret documents through the Americans would undercut the credibility of that intelligence.
             
“Clearly there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence to show that the WikiLeaks about the U.S. armed forces are genuine. They come from someone within the armed forces, from someone who had access to them,” said Anatol Lieven, the director of war studies at Kings College London. But Russian secrets, on the other hand, leaked and then passed to WikiLeaks through the United States, would not have that same cache of being genuine. They would easily be seen through the old Cold War prism, which would obstruct any serious public discussion of the documents because their authenticity would constantly be in question. “And even if the material was genuine, I can easily see how the Russian government would be able to say ‘look, come off it. It’s obvious the Americans have just cooked this up this stuff’,” said Lieven.
 
No country for discussion
 
            Speaking to The Christian Science Monitor yesterday, Andrei Soldatov said that the problem for WikiLeaks would not be actually leaking information on Russia, but rather that leaking that information would not stimulate any public discussion in Russia’s muzzled media.
 
            Soldatov drew attention to a Web site that in June published what it claimed was leaked FSB correspondence detailing intelligence operations in the CIS, including in Turkmenistan and Ukraine. The site called Lubyankapravda.com, hosted in the United States, has since gone offline, but during its three-week existence won no media attention. Because of what Soldatov blamed on the lack of media freedom in Russia, the FSB correspondence was never authenticated through public discussion, precluding the possibility of analyzing its claims. “It is no accident that I am not quoting details from these documents. The point is that there is one big difference between these documents and the WikiLeaks collection. Unlike the American reports, the FSB correspondence, although it was put out on the Internet, never did land in the public sphere,” Andrei Soldatov wrote in an August article posted on his Agentura.ru Web site.
 
            Lieven said that discussion in the mass media of WikiLeaks dossiers on Russia was unrealistic, although it was more possible in the print media, which has comparative freedom within certain boundaries. “The problem has always been direct attacks on Vladimir Putin or Dmitry Medvedev, or those directly compromising state security. I’m sure if you started leaking stuff about the Russian armed forces similar to what’s been leaked about the American armed forces, I think something very nasty might happen to you,” said Lieven.
 
            Public discussion of meaningful security leaks in Russia’s closed media climate seems unlikely, despite the smattering of speculative debate taking place in the print press this week. A Foreign Policy blog post yesterday optimistically suggested that the rising use of the Internet in Russia could mitigate the paucity of traditional media discussion. It will, of course, also depend heavily on what the documents are.
 
            Russia itself waded into the WikiLeaks debacle today when its Foreign Ministry spokesman publically urged Washington to investigate the rights abuses carried out by U.S. military personnel detailed in the leaks. For the time being, at least, WikiLeaks are a problem for the American and British governments

Before Clinton meeting, Cantors one-on-one with Bibi

November 11, 2010

by Laura Rozen

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/11/20101116121343388841.html

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York this morning, following yet another bumpy few days in U.S.-Israeli relations.

            While the Obama administration has been scrambling to find a way to try to salvage Israeli-Palestinian peace talks which have come to an impasse over resumed Israeli settlement building, Netanyahu has been sounding a triumphant note since he arrived in New Orleans over the weekend following the GOP gains in last Tuesday’s midterm elections.

            Last night, Netanyahu met in New York for over an hour with incoming House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who is set to become the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress in history. The meeting took place at New York’s Regency Hotel, and included no other American lawmakers besides Cantor. Also attending on the Israeli side were Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, and Netanyahu’s National Security Advisor Uzi Arad. 

Israeli sources characterized a one-on-one meeting between an Israeli prime minister and a lone American lawmaker as unusual, if not unheard of. Cantor’s office did not think that Cantor and the Prime Minister had held a one-on-one meeting before. 

“Eric has a longstanding friendship with Prime Minister Netanyahu and appreciated the opportunity to catch up last evening,” Cantor’s office said in a readout of the meeting it provided. Their discussion “covered a range of topics that included Iran, the United Nations, and the recent U.S. election which saw the Republicans win the majority in the House.”

On Iran, “Eric made clear that he believes that it is time for the administration to fully and aggressively implement the Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress earlier this year,” it said. “Unless the Administration continues to ratchet up the pressure on the Iranian regime, the progress made by the sanctions already implemented will unravel,” he opined. 

            Cantor also “reiterated his belief that compromise between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties.” He urged the Obama administration to “make it absolutely clear that the U.S. will veto any effort by the Palestinians” to seek recognition of their state by going to the United Nations.

            (For her part, Clinton said yesterday — as she has repeatedly — that the only way forward for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is through negotiations. “There can be no progress until they actually come together and explore where areas of agreement are and how to narrow areas of disagreement,” she said at a news conference following a meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit. “So we do not support unilateral steps by either party that could prejudge the outcome of such negotiations.”)

            Regarding the midterms, Cantor may have given Netanyahu some reason to stand firm against the American administration.

“Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,” the readout continued. “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

Veteran observer of U.S.-Israeli relations Ron Kampeas said he found that statement “an eyebrow-raiser.”

“I can’t remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president,” Kampeas wrote at JTA’s blog — an interpretation which Cantor’s office later disputed to Kampeas. (For my part, I detected in Cantor’s statement on the meeting an effort as well to be a bit more restrained and statesman-like — the nod to the United Nations — than the usual partisan campaign fare of a hardcharging politico now moving into a Congressional majority leadership position that may require more diplomatic guidance than he needed as minority whip.)

Kampeas also characterized the one-on-one meeting between the prime minister and the lawmaker as unusual, adding that he has “it on good authority that as late as last week, Bibi’s people were at pains to deny that such a meeting would take place.”

            Meantime, Clinton and Netanyahu, veteran statespeople both, offered handshakes and pleasantries but few details going into their meeting this morning in the Regency Hotel, which was still going on six hours later.

            “I’m very pleased to be here and to have this opportunity to discuss with him how we’re going to move forward in the process,” Clinton said, adding that she believes that Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “are both very committed to the two-state solution and we’re going to find a way forward.”

 

–With Jake Sherman

Republican Cantor recants on Israel

Incoming House Majority Leader tries to explain why he pledged allegiance to Israel’s leader over the US President.

November 18, 2010

by MJ Rosenberg

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/11/20101116121343388841.html

Soon-to-be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is desperately trying to explain away the promise he made to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last Wednesday.

Cantor huddled with Netanyahu just prior to the Prime Minister’s meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

Clinton was expected to reaffirm the American commitment to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and opposition to Israeli settlement expansion. 

Cantor wanted Netanyahu to know that he had his back.

Cantor’s office itself put out a statement bragging about his pledge to Netanyahu: “Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington,” the readout said.

“He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

For now, forget Cantor’s ridiculous assertion that the security of Israel and the United States are “reliant upon the other.” 

No, the United States provides Israel with the security assistance to survive – it is not the other way around.

But lay that aside. It is Cantor’s statement of loyalty to Netanyahu that is the shocker. Specifically, it is his promise that he would ensure that Republicans in the US House of Representatives “will serve as a check” on US Middle East policy.

Almost immediately, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s bureau chief in Washington, Ron Kampeas, declared that Cantor’s statement was “extraordinary”. 

He wrote that he could not “remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the President.”

Kampeas was clearly shocked, but he was understating the enormity of Cantor’s offense. 

Cantor’s pledge of allegiance to a foreign leader would be remarkable, and deeply offensive, even if the foreign country in question were Canada or the United Kingdom, our two closest allies with whom we have few policy differences.

The United States has major policy differences with Israel, and has had them for decades, most notably over settlements, the occupied West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, etc. 

Israel is also the largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world, which means that the President of the United States has every right to express those differences firmly and clearly.

On the other hand, no American official – by any stretch of the imagination – has the right to tell the government of Israel, or any foreign government, that he stands with the foreign leader against his own president. 

It is one thing to oppose particular US policies; it is quite another to tell a foreign leader, “I’m with you, not my president.” Of course, Cantor was just being honest. 

Although he does oppose virtually all of President Obama’s policies – he’s a Republican and that is what Republicans do – he supports 100 per cent of Israel’s policies. 

And although an extreme partisan domestically, when it comes to Israel, he supports whichever government is in power. 

He believes in the right to criticise this government, just not that one.

Cantor’s mistake was not telling Prime Minister Netanyahu what everyone knows is true anyway, but telling the world what he said.

This is the classic Washington definition of a gaffe (i.e., inadvertently speaking an inconvenient truth).

In this case, the gaffe produced a firestorm.

And this is where I consider the possibility that Cantor simply doesn’t understand what he’s doing.

After all, he has been an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) cutout since he first was elected to office. 

He’s been to more AIPAC meetings than he can probably count. 

And he should have figured out by now that the lobby is extremely careful, obsessively careful, to always empathise loyalty to the United States while simultaneously endorsing Israeli policies that undermine our foreign policy objectives.

AIPAC officials never, ever, say that when push comes to shove their loyalty is with Israel not the United States. In fact, the accusation that this is the case is the charge AIPAC hates most.

But the soon-to-be Majority Leader came right out and said it: Israel, right or wrong.

It took a few days for Cantor to understand how utterly offensive his statement was. He might have heard from a few Tea Party types who, say what you will about them, tend to take their patriotism seriously.

So Cantor explained that he was misunderstood. His inconvenient truth, his gaffe, was replaced by a laughable untruth.

This is how the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank reports it:

 

Brad Dayspring, Cantor’s press guy, tells me Cantor’s promise that the Republican majority would “serve as a check on the administration” was “not in relation to US/Israel relations.”

Mmmm. So Cantor’s pledge to stand with Netanyahu against Obama was “not in relation to US/Israel relations” despite the context of Cantor’s statement – just before Netanyahu’s meeting with Clinton – and the fact that the person he was talking to was the Prime Minister of Israel.

So, what was Cantor’s pledge “in relation to”?

Was it in relation to either repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or the Bush tax cuts for millionaires? Maybe it was about farm subsidies.

Come on, Eric. Don’t make us laugh.

It is eminently clear what you said and what you meant.  And this time we will take you at your word.

 

MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.

Domestic Terrorism
Anarchist Extremism: An FBI Primer

November 16, 2010

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/november/anarchist_111610/anarchist_111610

To help educate the public about domestic terrorism—Americans attacking Americans because of U.S.-based extremist ideologies—we’ve previously outlined three separate threats: eco-terrorists/animal rights extremists, lone offenders, and the sovereign citizen movement.

Today, we look at a fourth threat—anarchist extremism.

What is anarchist extremism? Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority. Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means. A small minority, however, believes change can only be accomplished through violence and criminal acts…and that, of course, is against the law.  

Anarchist extremism is nothing new to the FBI. One of our first big cases occurred in 1919, when the Bureau of Investigation (as we were called then) investigated a series of anarchist bombings in several U.S. cities. And during the 1970s, the FBI investigated anarchist extremists such as the Weather Underground Organization, which conducted bombing campaigns.  

The current threat. Anarchist extremism in the U.S. encompasses a variety of ideologies, including anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, and anti-urbanization. There’s also “green anarchy,” an element of anarchist extremism mixed with environmental extremism. The extremists are loosely organized, with no central leadership—although they occasionally demonstrate limited ability to mobilize themselves.

Typically, anarchist extremists in the U.S. are event-driven—they show up at political conventions, economic and financial summits, environmental meetings, and the like. They usually target symbols of Western civilization that they perceive to be the root causes of all societal ills—i.e., financial corporations, government institutions, multinational companies, and law enforcement agencies. They damage and vandalize property, riot, set fires, and perpetrate small-scale bombings. Law enforcement is also concerned about anarchist extremists who may be willing to use improvised explosives devices or improvised incendiary devices.

Currently, much of the criminal activities of anarchist extremists fall under local jurisdiction, so they’re investigated by local police. If asked by police, the Bureau can assist. But we have a heavy presence at a major national or international events generating significant media coverage—that’s when the threat from anarchist extremists, as well as others who are up to no good, dramatically increases.

For today’s generation of American anarchist extremists, the rioting that disrupted the 1999 World Trade Organization meetings in Seattle is the standard by which they measure “success”—it resulted in millions of dollars in property damage and economic loss and injuries to hundreds of law enforcement officers and bystanders. But fortunately, they haven’t been able to duplicate what happened in Seattle…which may be a combination of the improved preparations of law enforcement as well as the disorganization of the movement.

This disorganization, though, can also be a challenge for law enforcement: it gives the extremists anonymity and low visibility, and it makes it tough to recruit sources and gather intelligence. It’s challenging, but not impossible—there have been a number of anarchist convictions since 1999 at both the state and federal levels. And the FBI, along with our law enforcement partners, will continue to detect and disrupt enterprises and individuals involved in criminal activity or who advocate the use of force or violence to further an anarchist extremist ideology

Racism in Action: The Neo-Confederate Movement in American Politics

September 29, 2010

by Thomas K. Kimmel, Jr.

 

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that hes African American.And that racism inclination still exists.  And I think its bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.  President and former Governor of Georgia. Jimmy Carter

 

Having in essence lost the 2006 elections, the ousted Republicans regrouped to get back their power in Congress. Unortunately, an element of the far right, the Tea Party people, began a political campaign that was shrill, hysterical and very, very dangerous. Pushing aside reasonable and moderate Republicans, the Tea Party movement gained momentum by playing the racial card. There was, after all, a black Democrat in the White House and this played very well with many of the far right splinted groups.

 

The Ku Klux Klan is no longer the national power they were in the ‘20s and ‘30s but there are other groups now up and running that espouse the same causes. Let us consider the most important one here.

 

The Neo-Confederate Movement

Robert Lewis Dabney, a 19th century theologian, is considered to be the most early advocate of a theological perspective of the Civil War. Dabney served during the Civil War as the chaplain to General Thomas J. ‘Stonewall’ Jackson.  After the war, Dabney argued in books and lectures, based on scripture, that slavery was justified by the Bible and that “slavery was a necessary good for what he called the ‘depraved’ classes.” Sebesta and Hague wrote, “Dabney believed that the Bible legitimated slavery, and thus opposition to slavery was tantamount to rejecting Christianity.

Dabney’s post-Civil War writings established the theological cornerstone from which future Christian Reconstructionists and neo-Confederate theologians and strategists would expand their theological ideology and programmatic endeavors.  Dabney’s writings contain such concepts as: “governments were legitimate only if they derived from the will of God;” “condemned human equality and women’s rights… [and] opposed public schooling…justifying all his positions by Biblical interpretation;” “that modern science and development of the theory of evolution were ‘anti-theological’ and that amongst future generations this would result in a ‘nascent contempt for their father’s Bibles and irreparably damage the South’s ‘Christian households.’”

Three key theologians and theoreticians trace their own intellectual lineage back to Dabney—the late Rousas J. Rushdoony, founder of Christian Reconstructionism at the Chalcedon Foundation; Steven Wilkins, co-founder (with history professor Michael Hill) of the racist, secessionist League of the South; and Douglas Wilson, who heads the Association of Classical and Christian Schools, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, Credenda/Agenda, Canon Press, and New Saint Andrews College—all of them located in Moscow, Idaho.

Neo-Confederates believe that using the Civil War, Lincoln was able to expand the power of the federal government beyond constitutional limits, and that with the defeat of the Confederacy the ideals of states’ rights were defeated.  They believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally adopted.  To them this has resulted in the growth of federal government into a Leviathan, a very large monstrous beast in the bible….In this historical view big government, integration and Brown vs. Brown, gay rights, civil rights, feminism, minorities, taxes, FDR, and other issues can be viewed as the result of the American Republic jumping the tracks during the Civil War and being out of control.

The neo-Confederate doctrine that Congressman Ron Paul is associated with, believes in the re-establishment of the Confederacy as a Bible-based republic opposed to all laws, rights, or behaviors that cannot be justified according to the Bible.  Its leading theologians have written justifications of slavery as Biblically-based and have described it as a benign social institution.  On theological grounds, neo-Confederates believe the Civil War was a struggle between orthodox Christianity and a heretical Union.  In the mid-twentieth century, many Christian nationalists became politically involved because they opposed the desegregation of white schools and attempts by the federal government to remove their tax exempt status from white private school created to escape the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to desegregate white-only schools.  The subsequent development of the Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and the moral pressure this movement exerted on federal, state and local governments, as well as the reign of terror unleashed by the Ku Klux Klan with the implicit support of Southern governors, legislatures, congressmen, law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, juries, white clergy, and public opinion all played a role in the development of the neo-Confederate movement. 

In September 1957, President Eisenhower ordered federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to protect nine black children attempting to desegregate a white public school.  In September 1962, President Kennedy ordered federal marshals, Army, and National Guard troops to protect James Meredith as he attempted to enroll in the University of Mississippi. 

Indicative of the Southern rage underlying the reign of terror, in May 1964, Sam Bowers, Imperial Wizard of the Mississippi White Knights, declared: “‘The events which will occur in Mississippi this summer may well determine the fate of Christian civilization for centuries to come.’”  This Ku Klux Klan statement is no different than statements from the League of the South that was founded in 1994. Opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s was not limited to Kirk and the neo-Confederate movement and the John Birch Society. William F. Buckley and the National Review strongly defended the white supremacists

In 1980, right after the Republican Party’s national convention, Ronald Reagan spoke at the fairgrounds to an audience of over thirty thousand, in Philadelphia, Mississippi, “‘I believe in states’ rights.’” Reagan was following in the footsteps of Barry Goldwater in 1964 who carried only his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South. This became a strong indication of future white voting patterns.  One should also consider George Wallace’s 1968 presidential campaign as the American Independent Party candidate; former Klan leader David Duke’s multiple campaigns as a Democrat, Republican, and Populist; and, Patrick Buchanan’s presidential run in 1992 in the Republican primaries that expropriated Duke’s issues. Between 1954 and 2004 the Republican gains in the House of Representatives was a reversal of the dominance the Democrats had in 1954.  The Democrats had net gains outside the South, but more than all of the Democratic net loss to the Republicans came from the Southern switch. Basically the racial issue became essential to the ability of conservatives to win elections in spite of economic policies that favored a minority over the majority. It is important to remember that the “New Right” movement that brought Reagan to victory had been deeply involved in opposition to civil rights.  After the 1954 Supreme Court decision the late Jerry Falwell “posited segregation as a biblical mandate” and worked with the FBI to try and smear Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. as a “communist subversive,” the same charge raised by the John Birch Society. King’s subsequent assassination has never been satisfactorily solved and the accepted story that James Earl Ray was, like Oswald, the lone assassin does not stand up to objective analysis. 

In 1966, Falwell started the Lynchburg Christian Academy, “‘a private school for white students.’”  And, as Michelle Goldberg noted, “what spurred them [the Christian Right] into action was the IRS’s attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of whites-only Christian schools, schools that had been created specifically to evade desegregation.”

Steven Wilkins, co-founder of the racist, secessionist League of the South, is “arguably the most prominent member of the neo-Confederate clergy,” and a “resident instructor at the R.L. Dabney Center for Theological Studies” and “writes for almost all the religious publications and groups that advance neo-Confederate and Christian nationalist ideas. Another follower of Dabney is theologian Douglas Wilson.  For more than 30 years Wilson has run a mini-Christian Reconstructionist empire in Idaho that includes the New Saint Andrews College; Logos School, a private Christian academy; the Association of Classical and Christian Schools that certifies such private academies; Canon Press; the journal Credenda/Agenda; and, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals.  Both Wilkins and Wilson, writing separately or jointly, are major proponents of the theological war thesis and defend “slavery as Biblically justified.”

The Sons of Confederate Veterans heritage organization, Christian Reconstructionist bodies such as the Chalcedon Foundation, and the League of the South now generally accept the theological war thesi. Collaboration between the Christian Reconstructionist movement and the League of the South has also increased, evidencing a growing overlap in the historical, political and theological perspectives of participants in both organizations. 

The practical effect of this conflation of nationalisms is an opposition to the following, according to Michael Hill, co-founder of the League of the South: loss of American sovereignty to foreign institutions; “‘radical egalitarianism; feminism; sodomite rights; Third World immigration; gun control; hate crime legislation (almost meant to be used against whites); judicial tyranny; burdensome taxation; multiculturalism and diversity (code words for anti-white, anti-Christian bigotry); the universal rights of man; and other manifestations of a new brand of politically-correct totalitarianism.’”

The other major neo-Confederate organization of interest here is the radical libertarian Ludwig von Meises Institute headed by Lew Rockwell, a long-time friend and political-business partner of Ron Paul.  In 2003, the Institute and the associated LewRockwell.com spearheaded a protest against the erection of a President Abraham Lincoln statue in Richmond, Virginia, while holding a “Lincoln Reconsidered” conference.  LewRockwell.com also hosts a “King Lincoln” archive of articles by leading neo-Confederate writers. The Institute also serves as an adjunct home to neo-Confederate professors Thomas D. Lorenzo, Donald Livingston, and Clyde Wilson.  Lorenzo, a professor of economics, has written that the Civil War was fought to end the right of secession, not to end slavery.  He was the star of the “Lincoln Reconsidered” conference.  Livingston, a professor of philosophy who specializes on David Hume, he was the first director of the League of the Souths Institute for the Study of Southern Culture and History.  Livingston’s writings have strongly defended the right of the pre-Civil War South to  secede and has written that Lincoln started the Civil War in order to establish a centralized state. He also was present at the “Lincoln Reconsidered” conference. ”

To sort through these conflicting claims on the centrality of race to the Tea Party movement it is necessary to cover the following salient issues that are now apparent. It is clearly evident that the conservative movements in the United Sates have never accepted integration in any of its manifestations and it is also true that the Tea Party movement is forcing the conservative movement in the United States towards the ultra-right and its strong racial sentiments.

To what degree has Ron Paul adopted the Southern Strategy of abandoning the N-word racism and adopting the abstract and race-neutral code words and public policies that still amount to a defense of states’ rights and a defense of white supremacy or white nationalism?  To what degree is libertarian economic philosophy inherently racist?  And, finally, is this inherent racism the reason why libertarian writers such as but not limited to David Weigel and Glenn Greenwald still blandly refer to Ron Paul as a “libertarian” and a champion of “individual liberty” but prefer not to discuss his support for a white Christian nationalist and inherently anti-black agenda?

It is clearly evident that twentieth century libertarianism was born racist and is inherently racist.

That conclusion rests on the authority of none other than the late Murray N. Rothbard, co-founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute along with Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.  The Institute is not only one of the main neo-Confederate think tanks—one of the key components of the Ron Paul network—but also the primary institution supporting Ron Paul and his Tea Party movement.  The Institute is also the home of the Christian Reconstruction economic libertarian Gary North, who is also the informal strategic adviser to Ron Paul.

            According to Rothbard, this libertarian coalition was hard-core regressive: “A few libertarian extremists wanted to go all the way back to the Articles of Confederation, but the great bulk of the right was committed to the United States Constitution—but a Constitution construed so ‘strictly’ as to outlaw much twentieth-century legislation, certainly on the federal level” (emphasis in original).

            Edward Sebesta, in an early article on “The Neo-Confederate Movement,” established that Russell Kirk, “perhaps the most prominent conservative of the 20th century,” “promoted the values of southern conservatism and ultimately the neo-Confederates.” Kirk was an early supporter of the Southern Partisan, a leading neo-Confederate journal that attracted conservative writers from across the country, not just the South.  Kirk’s considerable prestige, prodigious writings, and intellectual support ensured that “the values of southern conservatism and admiration for the Confederacy, became accepted and not peripheral, not sectional for conservatism.”

.  William Voegeli in article on “Civil Rights & the Conservative Movement” noted that Buckley in 1957 wrote an article “Why the South Must Prevail” in which Buckley asked “‘whether the White community in the South is entitled to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically?….The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.’”

            Voegeli noted that Buckley “regularly” expressed “the asymmetry of his sympathies—genuine concern for Southern whites beset by integrationists, but more often than not, perfunctory concern for Southern blacks beset by bigots.” Buckley’s views resembled “that of the ‘Southern Manifesto’ signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South” which accused the Brown v. Board decision of ‘destroying the amicable relations between white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races.  It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.’”

The Southern Manifesto was more than a manifesto.  Part of the white supremacist reaction was a reign of terror against civil rights workers and any African American who could be made an example of for disturbing the apartheid system.  The other reaction was the use of Tenth Amendment (states’ rights) to nullify the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling.  For example, the Florida and Georgia legislatures passed laws that with slightly different wording stated, “‘decisions and orders of the Supreme Court of the United States denying the individual sovereign States the power to enact laws relating to the separation of the races in public institutions of a state are null, void and of no force or effect.’”

Conservative opposition to all civil rights legislation continued with Goldwater’s argument derived from advice given by his legal advisers William Rehnquist and Robert Bork that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “‘a grave threat’ to a constitutional republic in which fifty sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal government.’” With all due respect to Rehnquist and Bork, the Ninth Amendment gave all unenumerated rights to the people and none of these unenumerated rights to the states.

Conservative and Republican opposition to all civil rights legislation and the defense of states’ rights continued under the GOP’s Southern Strategy—a strategy the Republicans have never repudiated and continue to follow.  According to the late Lee Atwater, the essence of the strategy was to conceptually shift the focus away from overt and explicit expressions of racism (the N-word) to “say[ing] stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”  When candidate Reagan went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, and said “‘I believe in states’ rights’” that Reagan “was elbow deep in the same race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.”  As Bob Herbert noted, “When Democrats revolted against racism, the G.O.P. rallied to its banner.”

Like the Southern Manifesto which claimed that relations between the races during the Jim Crow era were “amicable” and based on “friendship and understanding,” the neo-Confederate movement sought to portrays racial relations under slavery as highly favorable to the slaves and a burden to the slave masters.  A book written in the 1950s claimed, “‘No, the Southern planter’s work was civilizing the poor, deluded Negro—the greatest missionary work known to history….The institution of slavery as it was in the South, so far from degrading the Negro was fast elevating him above his nature and his race.”

Steven Wilkins and Douglas Wilson co-authored a 1996 book, Southern Slavery: As It Was, which claimed that “‘Slavery as it existed in the South…was a relationship based upon mutual affection and harmony….There has never been a multiracial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.’”

In addition to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, other leading neo-Confederate organizations include the Council of Conservative Citizens, Jared Taylors American Renaissance, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Rockford Institute in Illinois.  There are many others.

It is the core belief of the League of the South, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Christian Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation that the Civil War “was a theological war over the future of American religiosity fought between devout Confederate and heretical Union states” and that the Confederate “battle flag and other Confederate icons are Christian symbols and the assertion that opposition to them equates to a rejection of Christianity

Central to the concept of “banal white nationalism” is the much larger concept of the neo-Confederacy which has as its basic principles, among others: states’ rights, local control of schooling, Christian traditions, Confederate symbols, Southerners are persecuted as racists, a natural social hierarchy, white men being dominant in a social hierarchy stratified by race and gender, a disdain for gays and lesbians, and an opposition to modern democracy.  Much of this is no longer unique to neo-Confederates, but extends to Christian nationalists, variants of libertarianism, and other white nationalists.  Moreover, there are institutional linkages across domains such as Christian nationalist and libertarian organizations and white nationalist organizations.

It should therefore come as no surprise that there are two main flags associated with the Tea Party movement—the Confederate flag symbolizing slavery and treason (the neo-Confederates would prefer secession) and the Gadsden flag symbolizing patriotic revolution

That no Republican or Tea Party movement leaderships vociferously opposed the presence of the Confederate flag, or Nazi symbols or references, is indicative of just how pervasive this neo-Confederate mindset, banal white nationalism, and anti-Semitism are in the larger conservative movement.

Also noted is the proliferation of Nazi symbolism and rhetoric associated with the Tea Party movement. 

The Christian Reconstructionist Component of the Neo-Confederate Movement

Frederick Clarkson, in his 1997 book Eternal HostilityThe Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy—identified the key theological ideas of Christian Reconstructionism developed by Rushdoony: “the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life—such as government, education and law;” “Reconstructionists have formulated a ‘Biblical worldview’ and ‘Biblical principles’ to govern and inform their lives and politics;” “Reconstructionists…set a course of world conquest or ‘dominion,’ claiming a biblically prophesied ‘inevitable victory;’”  “Epitomizing the Reconstructionist idea of biblical ‘warfare’ is the centrality of capital punishment…for apostasy (abandonment of the faith), heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, ‘sodomy or homosexuality,’ incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage’…[and] women who have had abortions should be publicly executed.”  Clarkson noted that Christian Reconstructionism is “arguably the driving ideology of the Christian Right today.”

That is not to imply that Christian Reconstructionism did not have variants or that the Christian Right adopted wholesale the Christian Reconstructionist theology, or did not have other theological influences.  The Christian Right, for example, has conveniently ignored or softened its approach to the death penalty for the wide variety of “crimes” demanded for by Rushdoony.  But, it has largely adopted its agenda.  Clarkson noted that the Christian nationalist’s Council for National Policys secular and theological agendas range “from the dismantling of the public schools, to the criminalization of abortion and homosexuality, the radical deregulation of every major consumer and environmental protection initiative of the federal government, and the weakening, if not elimination of civil rights laws protecting the interests of women and minorities.”

A decade later Michelle Goldberg in her 2007 book, Kingdom ComingThe Rise of Christian Nationalism, observed its totalitarian “elements.”  Goldberg wrote that Christian nationalism was a “totalistic political ideology” based “on the conviction that true Christianity must govern every aspect of public and private life, and that all—government, science, history, culture, and relationships—must be understood according to the dictates of scripture.  There are biblically correct positions on every issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates, and only those with the right worldview can discern them.”

An example of the historical revisionist interpretation of America being founded as a “Christian nation” is the “war on the courts.”  Goldberg noted that the “Christian nationalists view the courts as the last intolerable obstacle to their palingenetic dream.  Believing America to be a Christian nation, they see any ruling that contradicts their theology as de facto unconstitutional, and its enforcement tyrannical.  They’re convinced that they must destroy the judiciary’s power to liberate themselves.”  Moreover, the Christian nationalist effort to strip the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts from hearing cases related to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause “could let state governments criminalize abortion and gay sex [read vociferous advocacy of states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment].  It could sanction the reinstitution of school prayer and the teaching of creationism and permit the ever greater Christianization of the country’s social services…It could intrude into the most intimate corners of Americans’ private lives.”

            At a mid-2005 Confronting the Judicial War on Faith rally key speakers included Michael Peroutka, a prominent militia supporter, member of the League of the South, and former presidential candidate of the Constitution Party; Howard Phillips, founder and head of the Constitution Party; and, Herb Titus, the party’s former vice presidential candidate in 1996, and the founder and former dean of Oral Roberts’ Regent University Law School.  David Gibbs, a lawyer trained at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, subconsciously echoed the Christian revisionism of Rushdoony and David Barton, founder of the Texas-based Wallbuilders and leading pseudo-historian promoting the myth that America was founded as a “Christian nation.” Gibbs told the crowd, “‘How many here understand we were founded as one nation under God?…That’s why the Ten Commandments are so important.  They were the original source of American law.  The Bible was understood to be authoritative.  When the founding fathers said, ‘One Nation under God,’ they made the decision that they would submit to what God had put forward in his law.’”

The purpose of the Judicial War on Faith rally was to express support for the Constitution Restoration Act authored by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was impeached over his refusal to remove a nearly three-ton monument of the Ten Commandments from the capitol’s judicial building..  The Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in 2004 into the Senate by Senators Sam Brownback and Richard Shelby, and, the House by Representatives by James Sensenbrenner. The Act “authorized Congress to impeach judges who failed to abide by ‘the standard of good behavior’ supposedly required by the Constitution.  Refusal to acknowledge ‘God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,’ or reliance in any way on international law in their rulings would also trigger impeachment.”

Reverend Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America for “‘patriot pastors,’” prayed for the death of Judge George Greer who had decided the Schiavo case: “‘Father, we echo the words of the apostle Paul, because we know Judge Greer claims to be a Christian.  So the apostle Paul said in his First Corinthians 5…deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may saved in the day of our Lord Jesus.’”  The constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira in criticizing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas case (in a defeat for states’ rights, it struck down Texas’ sodomy law), admiringly borrowed a truncated phrase from Joseph Stalin as a solution to the “‘personnel problem,’” “‘No man, no problem.’”  Stalin’s full quote: “‘Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.’”.

Chris Hedges in his 2006 book, American FascistsThe Christian Right and the War on America—reported on the “racist and brutal intolerance of the intellectual godfathers of today’s Christian Reconstructionism.”  Based on his reading of Rushdoony’s The Institutes of Biblical Law, Hedges observed that: “The Jews, who neglected to fulfill God’s commands in the Hebrew scriptures, have, in this belief system, forfeited their place as God’s chosen people and have been replaced by Christians….Rushdoony dismissed the widely accepted estimate of 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust as an inflated figure, and his theories on race often echoed those found in Nazi eugenics, in which there are higher and lower forms of human beings.  Those considered by the Christian state to be immoral and incapable of reform are to be exterminated.

The other key development in movement towards an American theocracy is the influence of the John Birch Society upon R.J. Rushdoony and the Christian nationalists’ Council for National Policy.

Rushdoony admired the cellular structure of the John Birch Society as having a ‘strong resemblance to the early church.’”  Furthermore, Christian “Reconstructionist literature can be found in JBS affiliated American Opinion bookstores.  Indeed, the conspiracist views of Reconstructionist writers (focusing on the United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations, among others) are consistent with those of the John Birch Society.”  While the Christian Reconstructionists placed their primary emphasis on orthodox Christianity rather than politics, As Welch who founded the John Birch Society in 1958 said, ‘This is a world-wide battle, between lightness and darkness; between freedom and slavery; between the spirit of Christianity and spirit of [sic] anti-Christ for the souls and bodies of men.’”

The Council for National Policy “‘was inspired by business and political leaders who were also leaders of the John Birch Society.’”Nelson Bunker Hunt, a member of the John Birch Societys national council, assisted Tim LaHaye, a former JBS trainer and later co-author of the very successful Left Behind series of fictional ‘Rapture’ novels, in founding the Council for National Policy.

            Ron Paul has made the following comment on the Patriot Network website: “If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid.  We would have no welfare for big corporations; or the ‘poor;’ …no arrogant federal judges usurping states’ rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax.  We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget.” This is a mixture of Christian Reconstructionism and Posse Comitatus ideology.  There should be no surprise that the founder of The Patriot Network is also the founder of the South Carolina Constitution Party and the state’s Libertarian Party.

            Comment: There is no doubt that rampant racism is probably the strongest  motivation behind the far Republican right wing, its Evangelical adherents and the Tea Party programs. This has been carefully idden from the American public, a public which has been taught for years that racism is a prohibited topic. This concept, quite obviously, does not resonate with Paul, Palin and the far right. Racism is a card that should not be played because the ramifications of this can be a political and social disaster. After all, the United States is undergoing severe economic problems and when this occurs, someone is always blamed for it and those who are traditionally blamed are minorities.

             Thomas K. Kimmel is a former FBI agent, and the eldest grandson of Admiral Husband E. Kimmel,

A 1966 graduate of the US Naval Academy, and a Lt. Commander in the U. S. Naval Reserve, Tom went on to serve his country as an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for more than 25 years.

 

Thomas Kimmel served on the USS Taussig (DD 746), the USS Bordelon (DD 881), and the USS Manitowoc (LST 1180) from 1966-1971 during the Vietnam War and he attended John Marshall Law School in Chicago prior to joining the FBI in 1973.  While in the FBI, Mr. Kimmel worked against organized crime, La Cosa Nostra, in Cleveland, served on the House Appropriations Committee Surveys and Investigations Staff at CIA Headquarters, headed the FBI in East Texas, headed the Organized Crime/LCN and Labor Racketeering Unit at FBI Headquarters and the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA, and served on the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.  Tom was also the Assistant Agent in Charge of the Philadelphia FBI Division where he headed the Foreign Counterintelligence and Terrorism Programs in the Philadelphia Division during the 1st attack on the World Trade Center in 1993

 

Upon retiring from the FBI, Tom served as a consultant to the Bureau addressing major spy scandals in the FBI and CIA and has testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Department of Justice Inspector General, the Blue Ribbon Commission of William Webster, and many other investigating entities.

thomaskkimmeljr@gmail.com, TKimmel@cfl.rr.com

Let’s Rescue the Race Debate

November 19, 2010
by Charles M. Blow  
New York Times

oLinkedin

oDigg

oMixx

oMySpace

oYahoo! Buzz

oPermalink

o

“There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. … Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well.”

This 100-year-old, cobbled-together quote from the “the Great Accommodator” Booker T. Washington has gotten quite a bit of circulation in the right-wing blogosphere since the Tea Party came under attack over racial issues.

The quote helps support a broader sentiment that the current racial discontent is being fueled by a black liberal grievance industry that refuses to acknowledge racial progress, accept personal responsibility, or acknowledge its own racial transgressions. And that the charge of racism has become a bludgeon against anyone white and not in love with President Obama, thereby making those whites the most aggrieved — victims of the elusive reverse-racism Bigfoot. It’s perfect really: the historic words of a revered black figure being used to punch a hole in a present-day black mythology and to turn the world of racism upside down.

(The fact that those on the right would glom onto this quote is fascinating from a cultural/historical perspective. The quote is a not-so-subtle swipe by an aging Washington at his young nemesis, W.E.B. Du Bois, an Obama-like figure who advocated a more broad-based, activist movement for racial equality to be led by an erudite black intelligentsia. This is so riddled with ironies that I couldn’t possibly tackle them all in this column. Maybe another time. Rain check, please!)

The argument of these whites minimizes the victimization of others while magnifying their own victimization. While their argument may hold for some individuals, when you look at blacks writ large, the argument falls apart.

According to an ABC News poll conducted last year, blacks are even more likely than whites to admit that they “have at least some feelings of racial prejudice.” Thirty-eight percent of blacks admitted to those feelings while only 34 percent of whites did. I use the word admit because people notoriously underreport negative behaviors on polls, and knowing which groups may underreport and to what degree is impossible to gauge. For more objectivity, we need more scientific measures like Project Implicit, a virtual laboratory maintained by Harvard, the University of Washington and the University of Virginia that has administered hundreds of thousands of online tests designed to detect hidden racial biases. Tests taken from 2000 to 2006 found that a whopping three-quarters of whites have an implicit pro-white/anti-black bias, while 40 percent of blacks had a pro-black/anti-white bias, about the same amount as those admitting racial prejudice in the poll.

Furthermore, a January poll by the Pew Research Center found that most blacks agree that blacks who can’t get ahead are most responsible for their own condition. Only about a third said that racial discrimination was the main reason.

This whole hollow argument is further evidence that many whites are exhibiting the same culture of racial victimization that they decry.

The latest evidence of this comes in a poll released this week that was conducted by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute and financed by the Ford Foundation. The poll found that 62 percent of whites who identified as Tea Party members, 56 percent of white Republicans, and even 53 percent of white independents said that today discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. Only 30 percent of white Democrats agreed with that statement.

It’s an extraordinary set of responses. And my question is the same one used by the right to defend the Tea Party against claims of racism: Where’s the proof? There’s a mound of scientific evidence a mile high that documents the broad, systematic and structural discrimination against minorities. Where’s the comparable mound of documentation for discrimination against whites? There isn’t one.

We can find racial prejudices in all segments of the population, but pretending that the degree and consequences are comparable is neither true nor helpful. And attributing to the agitation of the “colored” masses to the self-aggrandizement of a callous few is truly detrimental.

In fact, some on the right seem to be doing with the race issue what they’ve done with the climate-change issue: denying the basic facts and muddying the waters around them until no one can see clearly enough to have an honest discussion or develop thoughtful solutions.

I had thought that the reflexive denials and defenses of many on the right were simply an overreaction to, in their view, being unfairly accused of racism on too broad a scale. My present worry is that denial may be the new normal and that the hot language of the past summer has cooled and hardened into a permanently warped perception of the very meaning of discrimination and racism. I worry that the last bit of distance between where we are and where we want to be on racial reconciliation is being drawn through an ever-narrowing, ever-more-treacherous terrain.

In the name of progress, the public must reclaim the facts of the race debate in this country. Many racial problems have been solved but many remain. Some we must tackle within our individual communities and others must be dealt with between them. Racism isn’t everywhere we imagine it, but it is in far more places than we admit. If we can start from common points of agreement, we can come much closer to common ground. But to do that, everyone must step out of the shadows of denial and into the brutal light of honesty.

Booker T. Washington was right that there are some who may not “want the patient to get well.” Those people exist on all sides of the debate, and they will always be there. But they’re a minority. Cast them aside. Let the rest of us start with this point of agreement: The patient is doing better but is still sick.

Conversations with the Crow

 

            When the CIA discovered that their former Deputy Director of Clandestine Affairs, Robert  T. Crowley, had been talking with author Gregory Douglas, they became fearful (because of what Crowley knew) and outraged (because they knew Douglas would publish eventually) and made many efforts to silence Crowley, mostly by having dozens of FBI agents call or visit him at his Washington home and try to convince him to stop talking to Douglas, whom they considered to be an evil, loose cannon.

            Crowley did not listen to them (no one else ever does, either) and Douglas made through shorthand notes of each and every one of their many conversation. TBR News published most of these (some of the really vile ones were left out of the book but will be included on this site as a later addendum ) and the entire collection was later produced as an Ebook.

            Now, we reliably learn, various Washington alphabet agencies are trying to find a way to block the circulation of this highly negative, entertaining and dangerous work, so to show our solidarity with our beloved leaders and protectors, and our sincere appreciation for their corrupt and coercive actions, we are going to reprint the entire work, chapter by chapter. (The complete book can be obtained by going to:

http://www.shop.conversationswiththecrow.com/Conversations-with-the-Crow-CWC-GD01.htm🙂

Here is the forty-fourthchapter

Conversation No. 44

 

Date: Tuesday, October 29, 1996

Commenced:     8:45 AM CST

Concluded:        9:05 AM CST

GD: Good morning, Robert. How is life treating you?

RTC: Well enough, I suppose. Yourself?

GD: Not too badly. I heard from Corson who wants me to come back for a meeting with you and himself soon. He neglected to mention Kimmel for some reason.

RTC: Kimmel will probably be along to subject you to his brilliant interrogative techniques.

GD: Good. That ought to be entertaining. Corson mentioned the University Club.

RTC: Yes. Up on Sixteenth Avenue past the White House. We can have lunch.

GD: Is the food good?

RTC: It’s not the Jockey Club but it will do. Do you have any idea when you will come?

GD: Probably early in December. Willis Carto[1] wants to meet with me over the weekend in DC so we can get together just after that. I’ve been reading over this ZIPPER business and checking various dates out. Fascinating story, Robert, and hopefully it will make a good book. And before you say it, no, I won’t publish until after you’re gone. They were all of them into it, weren’t they?

RTC: Just a few of the top people, actually. We were talking about the Army plot to start a war with Cuba by attacking our planes and setting off a few bombs here. I believe we did talk about this.

GD: Yes.

RTC: Jim Bamford knows all about this. It’s called ‘Operation Northwoods’ and the plans are in the National Archives. I wouldn’t recommend your asking your friend Wolfe about it because he’d run to Langley with his tongue hanging out and then they would vanish without a trace. If you’re going to be here, I’ll give you chapter and verse so you can find them yourself. Oh and one other thing. You mentioned an Army file on top Nazis we used. Wolfe sent it to you?

GD: Yes, I got it from him.

RTC: If I gave you chapter and verse on it, would you confirm?

GD: Certainly.

RTC: Let me just find this…..always putting….here. ‘P&O file 311.5 TS, sections one two and three.’ Dated 1948. Is that the one?

GD: It sounds like it. I’m bad on numbers. Let me pull it out. Take about a minute.

RTC: Go ahead.

(Pause)

GD: That’s it.

RTC: That stupid son of a bitch had no right to give that to you. He’s playing both ends against the middle. When you come back here, could you make a copy and give it to me?

GD: I will do that.

RTC: That man is a rat, Gregory, a sewer rat.

GD: Don’t drag me into it, please. I never solicited it and he sent it to me so I would give him some Müller papers dealing with his employment by your people. Naturally, since I never asked for it, once it came and I read it, I pretended I never got it. This scared yesterday’s dinner out of him because he put his return address on it. He thinks some post office employee will find it and turn it over to the FBI. I think he’s afraid of going to jail.

RTC: He damned well ought to.

GD: Who knows, Robert? He might like it inside the big house. You know what they say, don’t you? If you can’t get a woman get a clean old man.

RTC: (Laughter)

GD: My, and such a lot of Gestapo and SD people, not to mention a few Einsatzgruppen people we transported here, gave new names and ID to and made them GS18s… I think Wolfe wanted me to publish this and embarrass the CIA and the Army. He can’t, of course, so he thinks he is very clever using me as a cat’s paw. And to show you how brilliant an operative he is, the thing came in a NA envelope with his name written above the return address. Is he typical of the type of pseudo-academics you use?

RTC: These are useless attention-craving idiots but useful in their way.

GD: As fertilizer in your garden? You know the old saying that those who can, do, and others teach? Fits them perfectly. I have been running into academics for years. Petty, puffed-up bags of shit who squall and attack each other with their purses over the most trivial things. And, of course, they steal from everyone and then call it research. I might cite the case of Stephen Ambrose, the wonderful historian. He published a book once called a ‘Handbook on German Military Forces.’ Problem was, the book had been published in 1945 by the War Department as TM-E 30-451. Of course it wasn’t illegal to steal it, page by page, because it was public domain, but after I brought this to the attention of his publishers, the next edition had certain credit corrections. He probably blamed it all on his careless typist. You know, I always recommend an Ambrose book because you can get three books for the price of one. Why ever do you use such slugs? I’ll bet that even now, Mortimer Z. Tinsley, PhD, DVM is working on a devastating attack on the Müller book. He probably teaches at some obscure school like Antelope Valley Teacher’s College, in the history department, and his doctoral thesis, which he stole in its entirety, was entitled ‘A History of Fraud in Bulgarian Bar Mitzvahs in the Nineteenth Century.’  He will point out that Müller died in 1945 and my book is fuller of shit than a Christmas turkey. Of course he’s prating about Dr. Heinrich Müller, not Gestapo Müller, but I’ll just bet The New York Times Sunday book section will carry a wonderful review of it. I love that section. They push forward deeply moving books about a black orphan boy raised in Georgia by two vegetarian lesbians and his poignant and deeply moving struggles to become a champion purse snatcher-cum-pimp in Hell’s Kitchen. The sort of silly shit that no one reads but the editor knows the publisher.

RTC: Oh, we do have our stable of weird people working for us. Did I ever tell you about the Pedophile Academy, Gregory?

GD: Are you speaking of Yale, Robert?

RTC: No, no we actually had one down at Camp Peary. Right near Jim Critchfield’s place. I don’t know if you are aware of it but we called it The Farm and it was supposed to be a secret training center for young agents. Anyway, Allen Dulles set up this training center down there for pedophiles. They were in training to seduce, molest and, most especially, photograph the young children of targets. Not only, Allen reasoned, would our graduates have a spanking good time but they could get wonderful action pictures of the wee ones to blackmail their families with.

GD: Sick.

RTC: One could say that. I understand they broke it up when one of the graduates nailed a Deputy Director’s son at a summer camp.

GD: Another boat trip?

RTC: I really don’t know. I heard he had a sudden heart attack. We do those very well, you know.

GD: I am aware. A French doctor invented the drug. The Gestapo used it internally and externally and through Müller, we got it. Is that what you’re talking about?

RTC: I think so.

GD: Müller told me that when he came to Washington, they were tossing people out of windows. Forrestal went crazy and they chunked him out of the sixteenth floor clinic at Bethesda. That’s the special floor where they keep Senators who flip out and run around the Mall in the nude.

RTC: I think it’s more of a drunk tank, Gregory. McCarthy was locked up there for a time.

GD: They should have put him out the window. Müller used to say that this showed no consideration for people passing on the sidewalk below or expensive parked cars. Imagine an overweight official descending ten stories onto your new Packard or worse, on your Christmas shopping wife. Think of the lost gifts, Robert, and you too will weep.

RTC: Gregory, you are a terrible person.

GD: I know that, Robert. I once put angel hair…you know, the spun glass insulation…into my sister’s underwear before a family dinner and she spent most of the time scratching her crotch and other unmentionable body areas right at the table. I told everyone she had crabs and she had to leave the table. I understand her swollen pudenda looked like an eggplant.

RTC: (Laughter) Gregory, you are really very bad. But entertaining.

GD: I know. Anyway, when I come back to see you I have some ZIPPER questions for you.

RTC: Yes, I much prefer a face-to-face. But, my God, not at the University Club lunch.

GD: Of course not.

RTC: If Tom Kimmel ever got wind of what we were up to, he would have my place raided.

GD: Oh my God, Robert, he might find the Swiss Music Box.

RTC: Speaking of that, it seems to be working. At least it scares off all the birds and every time I put it on, the dogs in the neighborhood howl like demons.

GD: Maybe the poor Swiss are soaking their embassy floor with urine. Did you ever think of that?

RTC: It did occur to me. But enough merriment for today. I have to get ready to go to the doctor’s office so I will speak with you later.

(Concluded at 9:05 AM CST)

Dramatis personae:

 

James Jesus Angleton: Once head of the CIA’s Counterintelligence division, later fired because of his obsessive and illegal behavior, tapping the phones of many important government officials in search of elusive Soviet spies. A good friend of Robert Crowley and a co-conspirator with him in the assassination of President Kennedy

James P. Atwood: (April 16, 1930-April 20, 1997) A CIA employee, located in Berlin, Atwood had a most interesting career. He worked for any other intelligence agency, domestic or foreign, that would pay him, was involved in selling surplus Russian atomic artillery shells to the Pakistan government and was also most successful in the manufacturing of counterfeit German dress daggers. Too talkative, Atwood eventually had a sudden, and fatal, “seizure” while lunching with CIA associates.

William Corson: A Marine Corps Colonel and President Carter’s representative to the CIA. A friend of Crowley and Kimmel, Corson was an intelligent man whose main failing was a frantic desire to be seen as an important person. This led to his making fictional or highly exaggerated claims.

 

John Costello: A British historian who was popular with revisionist circles. Died of AIDS on a trans-Atlantic flight to the United States.

James Critchfield: Former U.S. Army Colonel who worked for the CIA and organizaed the Cehlen Org. at Pullach, Germany. This organization was filled to the Plimsoll line with former Gestapo and SD personnel, many of whom were wanted for various purported crimes. He hired Heinrich Müller in 1948 and went on to represent the CIA in the Persian Gulf.

Robert T. Crowley: Once the deputy director of Clandestine Operations and head of the group that interacted with corporate America. A former West Point football player who was one of the founders of the original CIA. Crowley was involved at a very high level with many of the machinations of the CIA.

Gregory Douglas: A retired newspaperman, onetime friend of Heinrich Müller and latterly, of Robert Crowley. Inherited stacks of files from the former (along with many interesting works of art acquired during the war and even more papers from Robert Crowley.) Lives comfortably in a nice house overlooking the Mediterranean.

Reinhard Gehlen: A retired German general who had once been in charge of the intelligence for the German high command on Russian military activities. Fired by Hitler for incompetence, he was therefore naturally hired by first, the U.S. Army and then, as his level of incompetence rose, with the CIA. His Nazi-stuffed organizaion eventually became the current German Bundes Nachrichten Dienst.

Thomas K. Kimmel, Jr: A grandson of Admiral Husband Kimmel, Naval commander at Pearl Harbor who was scapegoated after the Japanese attack. Kimmel was a senior FBI official who knew both Gregory Douglas and Robert Crowley and made a number of attempts to discourage Crowley from talking with Douglas. He was singularly unsuccessful. Kimmel subsequently retired and lives in retirement in Florida

Willi Krichbaum: A Senior Colonel (Oberführer) in the SS, head of the wartime Secret Field Police of the German Army and Heinrich Müller’s standing deputy in the Gestapo. After the war, Krichbaum went to work for the Critchfield organization and was their chief recruiter and hired many of his former SS friends. Krichbaum put Critchfield in touch with Müller in 1948.

Heinrich Müller: A former military pilot in the Bavarian Army in WWI, Müller  became a political police officer in Munich and was later made the head of the Secret State Police or Gestapo. After the war, Müller escaped to Switzerland where he worked for Swiss intelligence as a specialist on Communist espionage and was hired by James Critchfield, head of the Gehlen Organization, in 1948. Müller subsequently was moved to Washington where he worked for the CIA until he retired.

Joseph Trento: A writer on intelligence subjects, Trento and his wife “assisted” both Crowley and Corson in writing a book on the Russian KGB. Trento believed that he would inherit all of Crowley’s extensive files but after Crowley’s death, he discovered that the files had been gutted and the most important, and sensitive, ones given to Gregory Douglas. Trento was not happy about this. Neither were his employers.

Frank Wisner: A Founding Father of the CIA who promised much to the Hungarian and then failed them. First, a raging lunatic who was removed from Langley, screaming, in a strait jacket and later, blowing off the top of his head with a shotgun.

Robert Wolfe: A retired librarian from the National Archives who worked closely with the CIA on covering up embarrassing historical material in the files of the Archives. A strong supporter of holocaust writers

Register of the Dead in the Bush/Obama war   35

 

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/

 

November 1, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

 

           Cpl. Brett W. Land, 24, of Wasco, Calif., died Oct. 30 in the Zhari district, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

November 2, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Nov. 1 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device.  They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

                  Killed were:

                  Spc. Jonathan M. Curtis, 24, of Belmont, Mass., and

                  Pfc. Andrew N. Meari, 21, of Plainfield, Ill.

 

November 3, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

              1st Lt. James R. Zimmerman, 25, of Aroostook, Maine, died Nov. 2 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

November 5, 2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Sgt. 1st Class Todd M. Harris, 37, of Tucson, Ariz., died Nov. 3 in Badghis province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

            Spc. James C. Young, 25, of Rochester, Ill., died Nov. 3 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 863rd Engineer Battalion, Darien, Ill. 

November 6, 2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

  

           Spc. Blake D. Whipple, 21, of Williamsville, N.Y., died Nov. 5 in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 7th Engineering Battalion, 10th Sustainment Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Sgt. Michael F. Paranzino, 22, of Middletown, R.I., died Nov. 5 in Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 71st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.

            The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of two Marines who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  

            The following Marines died Nov. 4 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan:

             Lance Cpl. Brandon W. Pearson, 21, of Arvada, Colo.

             Lance Cpl. Matthew J. Broehm, 22, of Flagstaff, Ariz.

             Both Marines were assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

             This incident is currently under investigation.

November 7, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

 

            Pfc. Shane M. Reifert, 23, of Cottrellville, Mich., died Nov. 6 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

November 8, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

           

            Staff Sgt. Jordan B. Emrick, 26, of Hoyleton, Ill., died Nov. 5 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to the 1st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company, 7th Engineer Support Battalion, 1st Marine Logistics Group, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

             The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

               Lance Cpl. Randy R. Braggs, 21, of Sierra Vista, Ariz., died Nov. 6 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

November 9, 2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Nov. 7 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked their unit with small arms fire.

            Killed were:

            Sgt. Aaron B. Cruttenden, 25, of Mesa, Ariz.

            Spc. Dale J. Kridlo, 33, Hughestown, Pa.

            They were assigned to the 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, N.C.

          The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

    

          Spc. Anthony Vargas, 27, of Reading, Pa., died Nov. 8 in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to 1st Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

           The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

  

           Spc. Andrew L. Hutchins, 20, of New Portland, Maine, died Nov. 8 at Khost province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.  He was assigned to the 3rd Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

          The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

  

          Sgt. Jason J. McCluskey, 26, of McAlester, Okla., died Nov. 4 at  Zarghun Shahr, Mohammad Agha district, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire.  He was assigned to the 27th Engineer Battalion, 20th Engineer Brigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, N.C.

November 10,2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

         2nd Lt. Robert M. Kelly, 29, of Tallahassee, Fla., died Nov. 9 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

November 11, 2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

              Lance Cpl. James B. Stack, 20, of Arlington Heights, Ill., died Nov. 10 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. 

November 12, 2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

 

               Lance Cpl. Dakota R. Huse, 19, of Greenwood, La., died Nov. 9 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. 

November 13, 2010

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of an Airman who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

  

              Senior Airman Andrew S. Bubacz, 23, of Dalzell, S. C., died Nov. 12 in Nuristan, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to the 97th Communications Squadron, Altus Air Force Base, Okla. 

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

              Cpl. Shawn D. Fannin, 32, of Wheelersburg, Ohio, died Nov. 12 in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan in a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 404th Aviation Support Battalion, 4th Combat Aviation Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas. 

November 15, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

 

           Sgt. Edward H. Bolen, 25, of Chittenango, N.Y., died Nov. 10 in Logar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire and an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.

November 16, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of three soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

           They died Nov. 13 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, when a suicide bomber detonated a vest bomb and struck their unit.

            Killed were:

            Staff Sgt. Juan L. Rivadeneira, 27, of Davie, Fla.

            Cpl. Jacob R. Carver, 20, of Freeman, Mo.

            Spc. Jacob C. Carroll, 20, of Clemmons, N.C.

            They were assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell,

November 17, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

 

           Staff Sgt. Kevin M. Pape, 30, of Fort Wayne, Ind., died Nov. 16 in Konar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield, Ga.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

           

            Staff Sgt. Javier O. Ortiz Rivera, 26, of Rochester, N.Y., died Nov. 16 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

            The Department of Defense announced today the deaths of five soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            They died Nov. 14 in Kunar province, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked their unit with small arms fire.

            Killed were:

            Spc. Shane H. Ahmed, 31, of Chesterfield, Mich.

            Spc. Nathan E. Lillard, 26, of Knoxville, Tenn.

            Spc. Scott T. Nagorski, 27, of Greenfield, Wis.

            Spc. Jesse A. Snow, 25, of Fairborn, Ohio.

            Pfc. Christian M. Warriner, 19, of Mills River, N.C.

            They were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

November 18, 2010

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

                Staff Sgt. David P. Senft, 27, of Grass Valley, Calif., died Nov. 15 at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained in a non-combat related incident.  He was assigned to the 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, 101st Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

 

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             

            Pfc. Kyle M. Holder, 18, of Conroe, Texas, died Nov. 17 at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained in a non-combat incident.  He was assigned to the 1st Squadron, 38th Cavalry Regiment (Reconnaissance and Surveillance), 525th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, N.C. 

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Spc. Justin E. Culbreth, 26, of Colorado Springs, Colo., died Nov. 17 at Panjway district, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

November 19, 2010

Army Releases October Suicide Data

                 The Army released suicide data today for the month of October.  Among active-duty soldiers, there were nine potential suicides:  two have been confirmed as suicides, and seven remain under investigation.  For September, the Army reported 19 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers.  Since the release of that report, six have been confirmed as suicides, and 13 remain under investigation.

            During October 2010, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were 16 potential suicides.  For September, among that same group, there were 10 total suicides.  Of those, four were confirmed as suicides and six are pending determination of the manner of death.


[1] Willis Carto, publisher of the populist Spotlight Washington newspaper, latterly the American Free Press

No responses yet

Leave a Reply