WHO's a "Traitor?!"

The "American" - there are thirty-four other nations in the hemisphere, you know - public is a society awash in an ocean of lies. Most, of course, are lies perpetrated by the society on itself. The way of all flesh. Then there are lies by the government - far, far more dangerous. The following essay asks how democracy - rule of the people - is possible where the government does not have to tell the truth about its actions. If the people we elect are free to lie, what is to protect us from, for instance, electing an ally of an enemy foreign, power?

But what is even more critical, perhaps, is a news media and press complicit in the deception. If the media, with its ability to create virtual reality and vast powers of persuasion so derived, deliberately lies and deceives the voters, is that not a crime?

Cal Thomas, "nationally syndicated columnist," writes this morning that Mary McCarthy, the CIA "officer" who allegedly "leaked" secrets and was fired for so doing should be shot. "They shoot traitors in wartime, don't they?" he asks, the proceeds to quote the dictionary definition of traitor, and points out that in time of war, traitors are by law executed. Interesting. Interesting most, I mean, as a vehicle by which to assess the value of our nation's media as information services and intelligence concerning how we might - as a republic - control our government and nation. There is hardly a line here that can be taken at face value, something one finds in just about every word "reported" by the "American" press.

First, the secret that McCarthy "leaked" was the fact known to half the civilized world - citizens of the United States not included, for some reason (and, yes, I did say that the way I intended) - knew that we were running illegal prisons, where we likewise torture prisoners, in Europe (and elsewhere). Next, we learn (that apparently while Mr. Thomas was writing his latest prevarication by dissimulation) that when McCarthy's lawyer asseverated that his client had no part in the Washington Post story by one Dana Priest, the CIA was forced to admit that was true. If I wonder what it was, then, that it was that resulted in her being fired, I shouldn't be alone. Mr. Thomas doesn't mention any of this, of course - too busy preparing the rope for the lynching.

Next, to get back to the gentlemen's column and the related story, there is the indisputable fact that to know a crime is being committed - and torture of prisoners, no matter who they are, is a crime - and do nothing is a crime known to lawyers and such as misprision. Working for the U.S. Government since the big war (Two, not Vietnam) is a bitch kitty, I can tell you - always caught between the Scylla and Charybdis of being imprisoned for committing international war crimes or being shot as a traitor to your government.

Shouldn't we consider somewhere in this blizzard of bullshit, and now that we're talking about treason, that we AREN'T actually at war (that's a matter of law, and an act of Congress, let us remember), and that the only war is a politician's rhetorical device, one designed to further the lie that brought us to killing the citizens of a foreign nation?

Then we have a fact that the tunnel-visioned Thomas seems to overlook completely. If we substitute the name and title "President George W. Bush" for "CIA Officer Mary McCarthy," we have the same story - and legal reasoning - with only the further need to substitute "leaks" related to another CIA Officer, Valerie Plame. Mr. Thomas, therefore, suggests that we shoot for treason the nation's chief executive. I agree. Obviously, though, treason by the President is far more "severe to our capabilities of carrying out our mission," to quote the CIA's inimitable director, Porter Goss. Porter, of course, is our latest super-patriot and knight in shining armor.



Porter, parenthetically, you know, was among the "Operation 40" that grew out of the gay little band I was recruited for way back then, the "Executive Action Group" - "Executive Action" was synonymous to insiders with "assassination" - who planned the international crime of assassinating the head of a foreign government, one Fidel Castro. The same band of swashbuckling heroes blew up the Belgian freighter La Coubre in Havana Bay, killing 75 and injuring more than 200 innocent noncombatants ("collateral damage," you understand). When a guy named "Puerco" ("Pig") said later that this was Op 40 first operation, he termed it "successful." Porter would have agreed with that. If you think aberrations the CIA torture camps in Europe - or the School of the Americas here at Fort Benning, for that matter - you're not paying attention.

"Operation 40" wasn't just involved in sabotage operations. In fact, it was intended from the beginning to be a team of assassins. Not only was I a member of the group it was spun off from, one member, a guy named Frank Fiorini (whether his name was Rank Angelo Fiorini - the name I knew him by - or Frank Anthony Sturgis I was never sure) claimed: "this assassination group (Operation 40) would upon orders, naturally, assassinate either members of the military or the political parties of the foreign country that you were going to infiltrate, and if necessary some of your own members who were suspected of being foreign agents... We were concentrating strictly in Cuba at that particular time. During the Church Hearings - remember (no, I don't suppose)? - everybody CIA denied the whole thing. Richard Helms, convicted later of perjury in the hearings, said, "We don't do that sort of thing." That was interesting for a guy like me.

Anyway, back to our story:

It's also interesting, always, to hear one of these warrior wannabees get to bloviating about shooting people for treason, "leaking secrets" and all that. Mr. Thomas, those who read here will recall, is among those who "did not serve." Let's consider for a moment who the real threat to our nation is. Our "leaders" - congressional representatives, senators, presidents and all the rest - are beyond any reasonable doubt the biggest collection of the biggest liars on earth. Or in its history. Now who is a bigger traitor - let us recall Mr. Thomas' definition: "One who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" - the CIA "Officer" who leaks to the press (who else would she tell that would listen or do anything about it?) evidence of actions which are crimes both here and internationally, or the "representative" who lies in order to get into office, or to stay there? How about a President of the United States who lies in order to get us to go to war and/or to further his own, personal agenda? HMMMMM?!

How do we have a democracy or republic when the prospective voting public is completely mislead? How do we know that the individual being sent to Congress, the White House, and the other seats of government is not a traitor, an ally of a foreign enemy? What if he's a rapist (we were pretty close to that here lately, you know; and he lied, too - under oath), or other kind of criminal conspirator. Of course, we know they all are, but that's a matter of more definitions and not my object here. Tell me, Mr. Thomas, why isn't lying to the public by an elected official a far bigger crime than leaking evidence of malfeasance in office? Tell us about that.


Tell us why a national media - guys like you, stud - who keep the voting public bewildered and lost in a fog of cynically deceitful propaganda from both right and left, all of it designed to further the agenda of this or that special interest - shouldn't be shot when it takes off after some tabloid tale like the latest instance of rape somewhere.

Isn't that like a guard during time of war deserting his post for a roll in the hay with some chippie?

Who's a traitor nowadays seems a question mostly of whose ox is being gored - DOESN'T it?! Or is it whose palm is being greased?