And The Hit Job On The Late Gary Webb Continues

The recent release of the Jeremy Renner vehicle Kill The Messenger has, predictably, led some of the papers who attacked Webb’s work on the Dark Alliance series to resurface to resume their attacks on the deceased investigative reporter. Jeff Leen’s hitjob in the Post took a familiar approach: claim superior knowledge of the subject, then denigrate the weak points in the opponents story while ignoring the elephant in the room.

What’s most interesting about Leen’s piece is not what’s in it, but what is not. A few examples will help illustrate the point:

Marc Cooper of the LA Weekly told Schou in the book Kill The Messenger that “If Gary Webb made mistakes I have no problem with exposing them. But given the sweep of American journalism of the past fifty years, this is an outstanding case where three of the major newspapers in the country decided to take out somebody, a competitor whose mistakes seem by any measure to be very minor.”

Very minor, given the Post’s boostership of the 2003 Iraq war with its “reporting”.

Dawn Garcia, Webb’s immediate editor at the Mercury News during the “Dark Alliance” series and its aftermath, told Schou that “Two years after that series ran, a CIA Inspector General’s report acknowledged that the CIA had indeed worked with suspected drug runners while supporting the contras. The IG report would not have happened if ‘Dark Alliance’ had not been published.”

And then of course, there are the files of the LA County Sheriff’s department records on Ronald Lister (an arms merchant) and his ties to CIA and Reagan administration officials, including Oliver North. Schou’s elucidation on Lister is too lengthy to quote here, but it is damning.

There are many more such examples I could cite, such as how the CIA worked the press behind the scenes to smear Webb and his reporting, but I think these are more than sufficient to support what others have said: that the Post, LA Times and NY Times got scooped by a medium-sized paper in California by a reporter who went were they refused to go. They just couldn’t get over it then, and it seems things haven’t changed very much since “Dark Alliance” was published in 1996.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Ending The Surveillance State

Some fresh musings on Medium

Posted in Civil liberties, Congress, Intelligence Community, Politics, Surveillance, Technology | Leave a comment

CNN, Anonymous Sources, And Fear Hyping

This is “breaking news” according to CNN:

The U.S. government has warned airlines to pay particular attention to the possibility of terrorists attempting to hide explosives in shoes.

The officials stressed there is no specific threat or known plot.

Intelligence collected by the United States and other countries has indicated terror groups have been working on new shoe-bomb designs, the sources said.

No actual working device involved in a real/developing plot. Just anonymous “sources” peddling speculation offered as “intelligence”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

NSA And “Turnkey Totalitarianism”

From the speech given at MIT yesterday by former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman:

Mr. Snowden has brought home to us that, while we Americans do not yet live in a police state or tyranny, we are well along in building the infrastructure on which either could be instantly erected if our leaders decided to do so.  No longer protected by the law, our freedoms now depend on the self-restraint of men and women in authority, many of them in uniform.  History protests that if one builds a turnkey totalitarian state, those who hold the keys will eventually turn them.

The punch line paragraph from a brilliant speech.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jon Stewart on Obama and NSA


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

NSA Reform Legislation Update

I’ll withhold final judgement on the pending Conyers-Sensenbrenner bill until I see the bill text, but here’s a reality check based on the summary provided thus far by the bill’s authors and some accounts online:

Conyers-Sensenbrenner would leave the Surveillance State intact. It would NOT restore the probable cause-based warrant standard required by the Fourth Amendment.

Conyers-Sensenbrenner does not end the PATRIOT Act’s “sneak and peak” search provision, the expansive use of “national security letters”, or abolish the radical “material support” provision that was used to prosecute staff of the Humanitarian Law Project in California.

Conyers-Sensenbrenner does not even address the NSA encryption subversion scheme.

Conyers-Sensenbrenner provides no protections for national security whistleblowers like Snowden or Drake–and this debate would not even be happening without the disclosures those men have made.

Conyers-Sensenbrenner does nothing to strengthen oversight mechanisms to actually provide the public with some assurance that the bulk collection schemes really will end.

And it’s chances of actually getting to the House floor? Right now, zero. Boehner, Cantor and Goodlatte (House Judiciary chairman) are all apostles of the Surveillance State. So is the leadership of HPSCI (which would have to clear the bill as well since it clearly falls within HPSCI’s purview). 

So a lot of time and energy is going to be expended promoting a bill that 1) leaves the Surveillance State intact, 2) does not address other critical abuses revealed by Snowden, et. al., and 3) has no prayer of making it out of the Judiciary Committee, much less to the House floor. 

If you want to see what a real reform bill looks like, check out the Surveillance State Repeal Act (HR 2818). It’s endorsed by key groups sponsoring the StopWatchingUs protest, including the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, CREDO Action, and the Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition. 

Posted in Civil liberties | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Richard Cohen’s Edward Snowden Assessment, Revised

You can read his column here.

Being both a former CIA analyst-turned-whistleblower-turned-Hill staffer, my background–and my sense of the history of these things–lead me to offer the following:

The only traitors in this episode are executive branch officials who knowingly subverted the Constitution through the radical abuse of these surveillance authorities behind a cloak of secrecy–from the flagrantly illegal STELLAR WIND warrantless surveillance program to the PATRIOT Act’s Sec. 215 and the FISA Amendments Act’s Sec. 702/703/704 authorities.

In October 2011, the FISA court ruled the Sec. 702 authorities unconstitutional as implemented by the Obama administration, yet the Congress as a whole was not made aware of that ruling in the run up to the reauthorization vote on the FISA Amendments Act in 2012. A secret ruling declaring a key surveillance statute unconstitutional was withheld from the Congress as a whole prior to a key vote to reauthorize said authorities. Let that sink in.

What Snowden helped expose was the subversion of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States behind a cloak of secrecy…and the classification system cannot be used to conceal crimes, including crimes against the Constitution. The question Mr. Cohen–and every other American–should be asking is whether that subversion took place with the knowledge, and thus the assent, of a sitting President.

If the Attorney General did not make President Obama aware of the October 2011 FISC ruling, it means that cabinet and sub-cabinet executive branch officials effectively conspired to keep the Congress as a whole in the dark about the ruling before the vote, and that those involved should be fired and prosecuted for lying to Congress. And if President Obama did know about the ruling and elected not to share it with the Congress as a whole before the 2012 FISA Amendments Act reauthorization vote, it raises the kinds of questions the Senate Select Committee confronted in the Watergate scandal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GOP Shutdown Impact: VA Furloughs 7000 employees

From the Department of Veterans Affairs:

Over the last week, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has been relying on carryover funding to continue activities during the lapse in appropriations.  However, at the close of business Monday, October 7 all of VBA’s carryover funding will be exhausted (please see the VA’s contingency plan for a lapse in appropriations   Starting Tuesday, October 8, over 7,000 VBA employees will be put into furlough status, consistent with VA’s contingency plan.  Because of these furloughs, a number of services will be suspended, including:  the Education Call Center; personal interviews and hearings at regional offices; educational and vocational counseling; outreach activities and programs, including those conducted at military facilities; and VetSuccess on Campus.  The shutdown of public access to VBA facilities also affects Veterans Service Organizations with office space in VBA facilities, as public access to these VSOs is also suspended.

In addition, 2,754 Office of Information Technology (OIT) employees will also be furloughed Monday, October 7 as OIT’s carryover balances will be exhausted.  All development of VA software will cease, including work on the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), the system critically important to reducing the backlog of disability claims.

Consistent with applicable law, VA identified functions and services that will continue during the lapse in appropriations.  VA determined that claims processing actions necessary to the payment of compensation, pension, education, and vocational rehabilitation and employment benefits will continue until VA’s remaining mandatory funds for these programs are exhausted, which is projected to happen in late October.  Claims processors will be on duty during their normal work day only.  Although, prior to the lapse in appropriations, VBA had extended mandatory overtime for claims processors until November 16, overtime has ceased during the lapse.

VBA can continue to employ staff in its compensation and pension Call Centers.  Individual Veterans can still initiate claims or check on the status of a claim by dialing 1-800-827-1000.

In addition, please note that VBA’s home loan guaranty and life insurance programs will continue operation during the appropriations lapse.  However, Veterans seeking approval of VA home loans may be impacted, as access to Internal Revenue Service data used by private-sector lenders to verify income may not be available.

Given the staff reduction and in order to focus limited resources on providing essential services to Veterans and their families, VBA will be unable to respond to congressional inquiries at both VBA Headquarters and regional offices.  Congressional inquiries include responding to constituent and legislative questions from Congressional members and their staffs.  VBA will resume suspended public contact activities, including accepting and responding to congressional inquiries, as soon as possible following enactment of appropriations.

The Department of Veterans Affairs Field Shutdown Guide ( outlines the impact of the appropriations lapse on VA activities.

Posted in Veterans | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Where I Was On 9/11 [BOOK EXCERPT]

I rolled over and looked at the clock: 8:55 a.m. I’d called into work about an hour earlier, leaving a voicemail that I wouldn’t be in that day. The scratchy throat I’d felt the night before had grown much worse overnight, and I felt the tell-tale aches and fatigue of a cold coming on. Hoping it was a just a 24-hour bug, I got out of bed, made my obligatory bowl of cereal, poured a glass of orange juice, and settled onto the couch to try to catch some news.

The Today Show’s Katie Couric was just recapping what had happened moments earlier: a plane had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. There wasn’t a cloud in the sky that I could see as the camera focused on the burning tower. What the hell is going on? I wondered as I listened to Couric describe the impact that had occurred nearly 20 minutes earlier. Suddenly, the second tower exploded, and within seconds video from another angle revealed the cause: another airliner.


I stood up and watched in horror, the resulting rolling explosion sending flaming debris and “the sides of the building.

We’re under attack.

I ran to the phone and immediately tried reaching my boss, Rick Weidman, Director of Government Relations for Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). He was scheduled to be on the Hill that day to testify before the House Veterans Affairs Committee alongside other leaders of veteran service organizations.

All circuits are busy; please try again later.

I hung up and dialed our office.

“Ed, get Rick off the Hill…call him and get him off the Hill now! We’re under attack…” It took a few seconds for me to explain the situation to our Executive Director, Ed Croucher, but I was able to convince him to try to track Rick down and get him off the Hill—NBC was reporting that other aircraft had been hijacked and one was apparently inbound for Washington.

Over the next several minutes, I kept trying to raise Rick on his cellphone, without success. Shortly after 9:30 a.m., I heard the roar of a large jet at very high speed. I looked out the window of our apartment, which faced toward Washington. To my horror, I saw what appeared to be an American Airlines 757 jet less than a mile away, landing gear up and on a downward glidepath that was clearly taking it toward either the Pentagon, the White House, or the Capitol. As our apartment was on the second floor and a line of trees was in front of our building, I lost sight of the aircraft as it neared the Pentagon.


The window panes shook. Seconds later, I saw a large smoke cloud rise from the area near the Pentagon. As it turned out, the plane struck the side of the building I might have been in that day, had I not been sick and my scheduled meeting with Pentagon officials charged with dealing with the Gulf War illness issue not been postponed.

Within seconds, NBC was showing images of the aftermath of the impact at the Pentagon. Like tens of millions of Americans, I spent the rest of the day and most of the night watching the non-stop coverage of the greatest and costliest intelligence failure in our country’s history. Unlike most Americans, I understood how it could have happened. I had seen multiple other intelligence failures up close.

Excerpt From: Patrick G. Eddington. Long Strange Journey. iBooks. 

This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store:

Posted in 9/11 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Drone Wars

Text of my remarks (as prepared) for the anti-drone war event sponsored by the BuxMont Chapter of the Coalition for Peace Action:



The Drone Wars
By Patrick G. Eddington


BuxMont Coalition for Peace Action
BuxMont Unitarian Universalist Fellowship,
2040 W. Street Road, Warrington PA
September 8, 2013


Thank you, Reverend Moore, for that very kind introduction, and thank you Cathy Leary of the BuxMont Coalition for Peace Action for the opportunity to be a part of this important event today. Before I dive into the topic at hand, let me offer the usual caveat that what I’m about to share with you are my views alone—they do not necessarily represent the views of Rep. Holt or the United States House of Representatives.

Over 20 years ago, Operation Desert Storm unleashed what has become a bipartisan penchant for the use of force as the default setting for our foreign policy, particularly in the Islamic world. It was also in that war that the first practical military drones saw their initial use.

The Pioneer drone was developed in Israel but was produced under license in the United States. By today’s standards, it was pretty small and not terribly impressive: it had a wingspan of 17 feet, was 14 feet long, and was powered by a 26 horsepower snowmobile engine. Its range was about 100 miles and it could stay aloft for about five hours while carrying a number of intelligence sensors but no weapons. It was strictly a short range intelligence-gathering platform.

But of course, the drones didn’t stay small or unarmed for very long.

The RQ-1 Predator first flew in 1995 and had a wingspan of 48 feet, was 27 feet long, and could remain airborne for a solid 24 hours. And we all now know that the later version, the MQ-1, was equipped with Hellfire missiles capable of destroying a tank. Today, the United States Air Force buys more of these unmanned aircraft than it does manned aircraft like the F-22 Lightning.

And drones are big business. Very big business.

The January 4, 2013 edition of the Harvard Business Review noted that the projected domestic drone market for major businesses is expected to be at least a $5 billion affair initially, with that figure likely to double before the current decade is over. And that does not count the already booming military drone business, which is measured in the billions of dollars. 

The drone industry’s trade association, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), has certainly been aggressive in lobbying Congressional Members and staff about the merits of drones. In April 2012, AUVSI hosted a “National Robotics Week” on Capitol Hill, and you can see a brief video of that event that I shot posted on my Vimeo page. In it, you’ll see lots of hardware for lawmakers and staff to “Oooh and Ahhh” over—and lots of drone industry pitchmen (and women) making the case about how drones are job creators.

I certainly don’t disagree about that last point—they clearly are job creators. The question is whether we want those kinds of jobs to exist in our society, particularly if they promote invasive (and possibly warrantless) domestic spying or if they facilitate the remote controlled, due-process-free death of other human beings.

Now I’ve taken a few moments to talk about this history of drones from the Persian Gulf War to the present because it’s directly relevant to the world we’re living in today. The evolution of drone technology, combined with a still-potent Cold War militarism, helped lay the doctrinal and technological foundation for the era of roboticized, remote control killing that many of us have come to call The Drone Wars.

That technological militarism got a major boost in the wake of Al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001 attacks on our country. President George W. Bush and those around him used the attacks–which only succeeded because of the incompetence and infighting between the CIA, FBI, and NSA–to push through a cowed Congress the most sweeping grant of executive war-making power in American history.

On September 18, 2001, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 23, the so-called authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). Because the AUMF would subsequently be used to justify expanding the war against Al Qaeda to Pakistan, Somalia, Ethiopia and elsewhere around the world, it’s worth quoting the operative section of the law in full: 


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Notice how this grants exclusive, non-reviewable authority to the President alone to determine who allegedly attacked us, and that the grant of authority is global in scope and of indefinite duration—the very embodiment of the concept of “endless war”.

At the time of the debate over the 2001 AUMF, many Democrats who served in Congress in 1991 and opposed using force to eject Saddam’s army from Kuwait were still being criticized for that vote. That fact, combined with the direct nature of Al Qaeda’s assaults on New York and Washington, caused every Democrat but Barbara Lee of California to support the 2001 AUMF. This was the strategic political legacy of Desert Storm: Democrats who opposed what was viewed as a “just war” in 1991 could not possibly oppose an AUMF offered in response to the carnage of 9/11, even if that AUMF gave Bush and any president who followed him unfettered power to wage war on a global scale so long as the name “Al Qaeda” could be invoked to justify it.

There is no evidence that the Pakistani Taliban–who effectively did not exist prior to our combat operations in Pakistan–aided bin Laden’s organization, yet that organization has been the target of U.S. military action. The Somali Islamic fundamentalist group Al Shabab did not even exist prior to 9/11–yet the 2001 AUMF is what Bush and Obama have used to justify combat operations against Al Shabab in Somalia. It is the same AUMF that is being cited by Obama administration officials as the source of their authority to use drones to target Al Qaeda elements in Yemen. Congress has not declared war on any of these countries. It didn’t have to–because through the passage of the 2001 AUMF it had given successive presidents the power to do it for them–or so President’s Bush and Obama have asserted.

I am hopeful that the very painful and bloody lessons of the past decade have finally had at least some effect in helping restore our Constitutional checks and balances when it comes to issues of war and peace. The current Congressional backlash against the Obama administration’s push for an AUMF to attack the Assad regime in Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians is a direct result of the over-reaches in Iraq and elsewhere via the 2001 AUMF.

Let me be clear: Assad’s use of chemical agents, if forensically verified, would put him in the same class of despicable tyrants as Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein. But even if his use of chemical agents against his own people is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not justify plunging our nation into yet another war in the Arab and Muslim world. Decades ago, our government forfeited the moral high ground on this issue through our own support of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction programs, and more recently, through our relatively indiscriminate use of drones to attack gatherings of “military age males” in a modern version of the Vietnam-era “free fire zone”.

The Desert Storm experience laid the groundwork for all of what has followed over the last two decades. The reaction to the 9/11 attacks radically intensified and accelerated these ominous trends, particularly the global use of armed drones but also the global electronic spying conducted by our government against literally every American citizen with a cellphone, computer, or traditional telephone landline. And as the people of this community have learned, the Drone Wars have landed right here in the BuxMont area with the creation of the Horsham-based drone command center. I am here to tell you that you are not alone in the fight to prevent the spread of these deadly weapons of war across our domestic skies.

I’m grateful that I’ve been able to play a part in fighting these developments. In 2012, I helped Rep. Holt secure the first domestic armed drone ban in the House-passed version of the Fiscal Year 2013 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. At the time we secured unanimous approval of that amendment, we were actually gently ridiculed by the then-ranking Appropriations Committee Democrat, Norm Dicks of Washington state, who jokingly asked whether DHS had any plans to arm its drones. But after the revelations of the FBI’s covert use of drones for domestic surveillance, no one is laughing any more—and this year we once again secured unanimous House approval of the same amendment on the same bill.

There are currently over half a dozen drone-related bills pending in the House and Senate, most designed to rein in the domestic use of drones by the federal government or otherwise apply a strict Fourth Amendment warrant-based requirement for their use. Dozens of states have already either enacted similar legislation or are considering it, which is an extremely encouraging development, the result of hard work done by local activists across the nation.

And although the Drone Wars have temporarily been eclipsed in the headlines by Edward Snowden’s domestic spying revelations and, more recently, by the ongoing debate over whether to wage another “war of choice” in the Middle East, it will prove to be but a transitory absence from the front pages of our papers and news websites. For our political class, drones have become the technological equivalent of a gateway drug—a low-domestic-political-cost weapon of choice for waging endless, neo-imperial wars abroad.

In the Drone Wars, the President of the United States sits in the White House every week with his closest national security advisors, personally deciding who will die by remote control, even if the target is a U.S. citizen entitled to judicial due process under our Constitution.

In the Drone Wars, there are no American flag-draped coffins being unloaded at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Instead, the funerals take place half a world away, and almost inevitably involve the burial of innocent civilians, including children, every one of them a person of color and Muslim. When the taking of a human life becomes little more than a mechanical process, driven by a potent mixture of de facto ethno-religious profiling and questionable intelligence practices, it makes such an act all the more morally insidious and repellant, which is why it shocks our conscience and drives us to speak out against it.

Breaking our political class’s addiction to drones will require raising the political cost of supporting and using drones in this way. And that is why efforts such as yours here in Pennsylvania are so incredibly important. Never has the phrase “Think globally, act locally” been more relevant. You and those like you in other communities from Virginia to California are the driving force of this national anti-drone movement, and I am grateful to you and the many other dedicated local activists around the country for taking on this fight.

Over the past few years, I’ve often struggled to sum up my own fears about the perilous future we seem to be careening towards. In early 2011, after the publication of my CIA memoir Long Strange Journey, I finally hit upon the phrase that captures my current worldview: We may still be living in the United States of America, but we are no longer living in The Republic of The United States of America.

No republic worthy of the name wages endless, futile, and bankrupting imperial wars. No republic worthy of the name suspends habeas corpus, operates offshore penal colonies, spies on its own citizens, or conducts remote-controlled, due-process-free assassinations of other human beings, including some of our own citizens. No republic worthy of the name spends more than the rest of the world combined on the weapons of war while simultaneously permitting its children to go hungry, allowing its homeless veterans to sleep on sidewalks, and forcing its elderly to choose between buying home heating oil to keep warm or buying food to live. A country that creates such inhuman conditions will inevitably face God’s judgment.

In the years ahead, through forums like this and through other venues, I will continue my own efforts to help our fellow citizens understand these truths, and above all, to act on these truths.  I take comfort in the knowledge that those of you who are here with me today are on the same long, strange but very necessary journey, sounding the same call for national repentance and redemption. Our task is a daunting one, but it is also the most important one of our lives–calling forth our best efforts, and bringing out the best in each of us.

My deep thanks to the BuxMont Coalition For Peace Action for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today. I wish you all God’s peace. Thank you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment