Lonnie Lazar

Lonnie Lazar
Location
Here, And, Now
Birthday
August 08
Bio
Everything changes.

MY RECENT POSTS

OCTOBER 25, 2009 5:04PM

Digg This!!

Rate: 19 Flag

Bless her soul, our very own feed vigilante, the endlessly empathetic Cartouche pointed the way late last night to the harrowing tale of OS member Rutilus Extraho and has since  been tirelessly pounding the hustings for people to make it go viral through Digg and Reddit.

She's a smart cookie, that Cartouche, who understands the power of the Internet and has a good eye for the worthy tale; she's justified in her frustration at how few others in this particular community seem to share her passion for making things happen in the world beyond the OS sandbox.

So I read Mr. Extraho's heart wrenching account of misfortune and despair and found it worthy, too. I took the few moments out of my morning necessary to add my 2¢ to the Digg tally. I'd love to see the story get wider play because it adds a compelling voice to the debate about healthcare in this country, just when you thought there were way too many voices yammering on about it in the first place.

But such is the magic of OS that I found something even more harrowing, even more gut wrenching and nausea inducing and enflaming and horrible, and now I must join the lovely and talented Cartouche on the hustings to implore your consideration in Digging the story of Craig Murray.

I give props to OS member Dennis Loo, who wrote Saturday evening about Murray's astounding experience at the hands of the British Foreign Service and the CIA.  I chose to Digg the original news account of Murray's story from Consortium News because Dennis' post was largely a re-post of the item from CN, and because I feel confident Dennis' main concerns have less to do with gaining notice for himself than they do with getting the word out about what happened to Mr. Murray -- and what continues to be done in the name of America's freedom.

Our way of life is being preserved through unspeakable acts routinely committed against innocent, defenseless, nameless, voiceless human beings -- many of them women and children -- in places few of us could ever in our most gripping nightmares imagine.

And yet, our leaders -- even the newest cadre of It Takes Timers -- remain steadfast in their belief in the necessity of things like extraordinary rendition and in things like boiling people alive.  When Mr. Murray -- a well-regarded 20 year veteran of the British Foreign Service -- expressed his disapproval of the human torture he became aware of while serving as the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he received a note from his superiors that read:

“Dear Ambassador, we are concerned that you are perhaps over-focused on human rights to the detriment of commercial interests.”

When he sent a staff member to inquire about his concern that the CIA's data on terrorist identifications stemmed from Uzbek torture, the CIA's head of station in Uzbekistan reported back:

“Yes, it probably is coming from torture, but we don’t see that as a problem in the context of the war on terror.” 

This is America's Achilles Heel. This is President Obama's singular failure. This is why we can never win the war on terror.

Digg it.

 

Grazing in the Grass -- Friends of Distinction

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Who digs anything but a few cold beers and some football on a Sunday, right?
Thanks for the eye opener. I digged.
Thanks Lonnie--will check it out.

Now about that cold beer...
This is horrifying. I feel physically ill after reading the article on CN. Thanks for bringing it to my attention - I'll do my best to get the word out to people I know.
I should be shocked, but I'm not. I feel more defeated and bamboozled (yet again) than anything else. I hit your Digg link and then also put your post on Digg and Reddit in the hopes of getting redirects to the original story. Great legwork, Lonnie.
I did all the feed thingies.
I'm application-challenged. Y'all are better at understanding how things really work, the underlying algorithms and the culture behind the function of any site. I have Digg and Reddit accounts, and I somehow got the idea that multiple submissions do not raise the profile of a piece. Is that not true?

FYI, I dugg/reddited an earlier piece of Rut's about an ultimately pointless mission to rescue a defector from Saddam's Iraq.
Thanks for this Lonnie. I dugg it.
I find this story that you linked to to be very disturbing, and for more than just the claims it is making. I find this letter inconsistent in the extreme with the communication skills I'd expect from a 20 year veteran of a diplomatic position. His writing is shockingly unprofessional, as though it came from a person who is not particularly well educated but is attempting to sound 'posh'.

Nothing about this letter adds up. Am I truly the only one to read it and not afford it 100% credulity? Would the British government really so nakedly and pointedly display greed ('commercial interests') as it's motive for suppressing evidence of human rights violations?

Is no one else troubled by this powerful, well connected man not providing any corroboration of his claims?
I'm all for dissenting voices, Sandra, and you raise intelligent questions that anyone who wants to know the real truth ought to consider.

I went back and read the Consortium piece again and I don't find it poorly written at all. Most of it is transcripted remarks from a statement he made at a conference in Washington last week. As such, I'm not bothered by the conversational tone, nor by his "attempting to sound 'posh'" - he is, after all, British.

I also did some quick research on him and have to say that on balance, he seems legitimately appalled by his experiences and has admirably soldiered on as an activist against the wars and against torture, in the face of quite stiff opposition from the powers that be. I'm frankly surprised he's still alive.

I believe I'll have to check out his book Murder in Samarkand, at the risk of giving myself ulcers. It would appear the documentary 'corroboration' you seek is available, though constantly repressed by the British government.

I'd also have to say that he would not appear to be necessarily a powerful man at all, though a brave one.

It's disturbing to think that even shreds of his claims might be true, but I'm afraid the reality is even worse than we might imagine.
Nothing in this man's story surprises me in the least. The CIA is one of the most corrupt, brutal organizations in the world, and it plays for high stakes in the support of war criminals.
This one, sadly, has the ring of truth. That other, not so much.
I'll check out his book - b/c it seems to me that a principled man in diplomatic service for 20 years should be able to garner a few public votes of confidence from former colleagues who share his principles.

He has a somewhat checkered personal history, apparently- Ukbekian mistresses, and is quoted around the internet saying that his personal life has no bearing on his authority to speak on the immorality of what he's seen in the name of the War on Terror. I would beg to differ on this - I think one's personal life says a lot about one's character. That isn't to say that good character = mistake free life; but I would think an sophisticated person with a strong moral compass would understand that it's essential to disclose all details of his life/story that might call into question his motives, and deal with those. He seems less interested in meticulously building his case on human rights violations as he does clearing his name of the charges that led to his resignation.

He has a movie deal on his book, so I guess it's not surprising that he's plugging the book. But I'm mighty uncomfortable with the way that he juxtaposes the awfulness of the staining of his reputation with torture, putting both under "Lessons Learned" with equal emphasis. Many of the websites that are positively discussing his book are engaged in link exchanges with Mr. Murray's website - it's extremely difficult to find a corroborating opinion whose objectivity is easily validated.

Perhaps I'm too hung up on the appearance of his personal credibility, but I found his focus on the morality of the peers who betrayed him, as he put it, to be offputting given the larger context of the issues at hand here.
I was discussing the book with an OSer who's read it earlier today. He recommended it highly, said it was one of the best books he's read and that it provides the evidence within it.
failure so far, to be sure.

I sometimes wonder: if instead of super secrecy, if we were to go the other way: every time we "capture" a suspect connected to terrorism, we publicize the hell out of their boring, methodical, routinized movements and interrogations. I know: gives publicity to a few monsters. But since most of them are hapless or bystanders or minor players or innocents, I dream it might just moot the whole terrorism edge, ensuring quick release for the Wrong Men, uncover how insipid most of the "intel" is, and lay bare the vicious thuggery for the infrequent Real Deal we luck into.

Checking your links now
Sandra's comments bring to mind Matt Damon's most recent movie, The Informant, which, if you haven't seen it, tells the story of Mark Whitacre, the mendacious informant whose documentation of price-fixing and other serious anti-trust violations by Archer Daniels Midland became tainted some years ago by Whitacre's personal corruption.

The movie has its problems as a movie and I'm not interested so much in talking about that aspect of the story as I am to note that while it might be well and good to discount the motives of an embezzler who rats out institutional crimes of high finance, when it comes to human torture, I just don't really care what a whistleblower's personal failings might be.

That intelligent people can equivocate in the matter of human torture I find it difficult to understand.
I don't consider that I am equivocating about torture. I consider that I am equivocating about the truth of this story given the source. So he's the ONLY British diplomat aware of torture in Uzkekistan, and the only one that came forward there's no one else to lend veracity to this information, no one at all?? I don't usually just give credulity because I find the issue important. Torture doesn't also have to be done to children in front of their parents for me to find it deeply immoral and wrong on every level. But this story has holes in it, and the writer has holes in *his* story, and I'm going to learn more about the *issue* before I start hailing this man a hero - this man talks about the smear campaign against him and torture in one breath. I suppose none of us know how we'd act in the same circumstances, but when I feel deeply uneasy about the way a person is constructing their tale, then I pay attention to that feeling, since I"m 1) not a cynic and 2) work actively be fair as much as possible, even to the detriment of my self/vies and 3) care a lot that my country is engaged in practices that are among the most immoral in the world. So, I don't know how I'd act if I were Mr. Murray, it is true, and yet I'd hope that if I'd been caught having an affair and drummed out of an organization complicit in the murder of children, I wouldn't be talking about my REPUTATION at all, not even once - that I'd be talking about murdered children nonstop, 24x7, and finding what colleagues there are with an ounce of humanity in them that will corroborate what I'm saying so the world will listen, believe and act.

And I'd really, really like to believe that if I wrote a book about it I wouldn't pitch it as " best book I've ever written!!!"

I'm not going to apologize for questioning this guy. I would like to see the letter the British Government wrote to him openly chastising him for failing to balance commercial interests of the West with his concern for murdered humans. It would be stunningly naive for a highly placed official to leave such a self-indicting paper trail, and would be incredibly persuasive as evidence to bring war criminals to justice.
I find it equally difficult to understand that intelligent people would be uncomfortable with asking as many questions as possible when something as horrifying as state-sponsored torture is the subject.
I apologize for my last comment - you're free to say/imply what you want on your own blog,and I'm free to stay away.

I think caution is in order in Mr. Murray's story. He is not receiving much mainstream press and that is troubling. His book was banned in Uzbekistan and had a hard time getting published - those things give me pause. But the man himself, and his motives, also give me pause, and I plan to proceed carefully with trumpeting his claims as fact on his say so alone.

Mr. Murray has played an indisputable role in his own discrediting in his diplomatic position - and as he says himself in his Guardian interview, when someone has something to gain from torture, be skeptical. Having the limelight, being hailed as a hero when so recently he was cashiered from his diplomatic post, his deeply checkered personal story, a book and movie deal on the subject -- one could say has something to gain.
Well, thanks for the apology Sandra and kudos for taking the measured approach. I'll say again what I said in response to your very first comment and that's that I'm all for dissenting voices and I find your questioning nature here smart and important.

I never intended to imply that you were personally equivocating on the morality of human torture, only pointing out that otherwise intelligent people have done so - publicly - and that is what I find distressing. I also am not and can't imagine a case in which I would be uncomfortable with you or anyone else asking as many questions as necessary to get at the truth of a subject as important as state sponsored torture.

The fact of the matter is that no one operating at the highest levels of the war on terror has clean hands and few people in the highest echelons of the global diplomatic corps have ever managed to go at it for very long without engaging in moral compromise.

The corruption and venality of the Uzbek regime is well known and while I'm all for viewing Mr. Murray's claims and his motivations with a skeptic's eye, I don't think it hurts anyone's cause to have as much light shown on the subject matter as possible. Anyone's cause but the torturers', that is.
Thanks, Lonnie - will take a look. These posts help guide us, since there's so much material here at any given time.
The only problem is that Rutilus Extraho doesn't pass basic fact checking. Retired military officers have Tricare--his medical bills would've been covered. Military retirees have absolutely incredible healthcare for them and their dependents--look it up!

Until I pointed it out to him, Rutilus' Facebook public page showed he graduated high school in 1983 and college in 1996. It would've been impossible for him to be a retired military officer in 1999. (After I pointed it out to him he changed the settings and that info is no longer visible.)

His posts are inconsistent. In one post he says ("A Man in Peril") he says he was fighting in 1987 at age 23. That means if he entered the military at 17 he'd have been in for 6 years in 1987. then he couldn't have retired until 2001 (20 years) at the earliest, not 1999.

When I pointed these inconsistencies in comments on his posts, he deleted them and immediately closed comments on all posts.

The guy's a fraud.

The best way to fact check military service is at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/scra/scraHome.do

You'll need his first/last name and birthdate. I'm sure if you contact him and he is legit, he'd give you the info for verification.