Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out one way or another, we get pulled into them.
And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.
So, I'm gonna keep on at it.
Ah man, VLC player always ruins the end of my soundbites.
I'm gonna keep at it, he said.
Well, that was slightly out of context.
He was saying we have to work with all the countries all around the world all the time to prevent conflicts from breaking out, because every conflict that breaks out ends up drawing us in.
Perfect example of that seems like is going on in Kyrgyzstan right now.
I don't even know if I'm saying that right.
The other Scott Wharton knows all about Kyrgyzstan.
He's the co-founder of the American University in Bishkek.
He is no relation to me, but I'm a big fan.
He's a contributing editor of Harper's Magazine, writes no comment, the blog there, lectures at Columbia Law School, and he's led a number of studies of abuse issues associated with the conduct of the War on Terror for the New York City Bar Association, where he has chaired several committees, including most recently the Committee on International Law.
He's also a member of the board of the National Institute of Military Justice, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, the Eurasia Group, and the American branch of the International Law Association.
Welcome back to the show, other Scott.
How are you doing?
Hey, great to be with you, Scott.
Well, I'm really happy to have you here today.
Let's start with what's going on in Kyrgyzstan real quick, since we had the sound bite there and everything.
Am I even saying that right?
Where is Kyrgyzstan, and how could it possibly have anything to do with the United States of America way over here in the New World?
Slightly to the left of China, that's where Kyrgyzstan is, at the roof of the world.
High mountains, you know, there's a big chain.
The bottom, the Himalayas, and then you go to the Hindu Kush, and then you come to the Alatu Mountains, and then the Tien Shan Mountains, the mountains of the celestial mountains.
And it's right in the middle of that mountain chain at the top, on the frontier between what used to be the Soviet Union and China.
Very remote country, Central Asian country, with a Turko-Mongol population, and very rebellious nature, those Kyrgyz.
I mean, two revolutions in five years, that's amazing.
Yeah, well, the first one was a put on by the CIA, right?
No, I don't think so, actually.
I mean, I think it's really unclear which side the U.S. had in the first revolution.
And, you know, the U.S. was sort of unhappy with their president, but U.S. didn't have great relations with the government that followed, either.
And the second one, however, that just occurred last week, pretty clear that it caught the U.S. completely unaware.
In fact, I'm hearing from people in the U.S.
Embassy that there's some senior people from the State Department over there today saying, how is it you missed this?
Who lost Kyrgyzstan?
Because it's clear that this revolution has got some connections to Russia.
But on the other hand, viewing everything in terms of a Russia versus U.S. dynamic doesn't answer many questions.
Well, as you say in your, well, as you already said just a second ago, and as you say on your blog No Comment here at Harper's.org, these are very rebellious people.
You talked about, I guess, a smart-aleck college student calling out the president for corruption live in front of everybody in a way that Americans and other Asians would never do.
That's right.
I mean, I, they have all their own motivations for revolution besides power politics of the big powers.
That's right.
I mean, this country is, it's a nomadic country with nomadic traditions, and the Kyrgyz are famous for being completely self-reliant.
I mean, the idea that everybody should stand on their own two legs.
And, you know, they have strong traditions of a nuclear family.
They don't have strong traditions of a state.
And they have, but they have a great habit of ridiculing anybody who comes into high office.
It's question authority time.
That's sort of a Kyrgyz instinct.
Yeah, it sounds like a whole society of would-be Rothbardians.
That's right.
Cool.
All right, so now the reason this matters to the Empire is because we have a giant airbase there.
Very important.
In fact, you know, supply, the Afghan war has become the focal military effort for this administration.
You know, we've more than doubled our presence in Afghanistan.
You're adding contractors and military.
And the supply artery used to run through the south, through Pakistan, but that's really frustrated and difficult.
So the U.S. has had to reconfigure it and do its logistical support through the north.
And the critical hub for that supply effort is in Kyrgyzstan.
It's at a place called Gansey, used to be called Gansey Air Force Base, but to lower the profile now it's called the Manas Transit Center.
But it's an American airbase, essentially.
Yeah, and so far, anyway, the caretaker interim government that they're calling themselves here, they've been recognized by both the Americans and the Russians, and they've, at least so far, said we can keep the base.
Is that it?
I think they're definitely not going to overturn the base through the run of the current lease, which is through July, and they've indicated that there will be a one-year rollover.
But beyond that, I think they're stressing that they're really concerned about changing the relations between the U.S. and Kyrgyzstan on the base.
And this revolution came to power attacking the prior president as very, very corrupt.
And the number one item of corruption in their list was his dealings with the United States.
They said he concluded all these completely corrupt private fuel supply contracts for this base that were bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars to his private purse.
So there was a pretty strong criticism directed at the United States, you know, that you're corrupting our government by making these grease payments to the president, and therefore our president isn't acting in our national interest, he's acting in his own personal interest.
And I think this was used very effectively against this guy, but Kiev caused public opinion, supporting him to collapse, and paved the way for this revolution, which has brought a new group in.
And the new group that's come in, it's not really clear right now who's going to be in top, but you've got a group of roughly 14 people forming this governing body, and of the 14 people, I'd say three or four of them have strong, you know, pro-American credentials, you know, good track record of working with the United States and so forth.
You've got about a half dozen who seem to have very, very tight ties with Russia, and then the others can't really be pulled out one way or the other.
But I'd say one thing, they're all really much more focused on themselves and Kyrgyzstan than on foreign relations.
That's a minor chapter.
All right, now, being an American, especially raised in the 1980s when detente was over and it was the Cold War again and all that, I'm supposed to suspect the worst motivations of the Russians at all times.
So in this case, I'm going to suspect that they're out to get us.
But if I was them and I was out to get us, what I would do is what Medvedev says he's doing, which is encourage the Kyrgyz to let us keep our base there, which would seem to me to go along with the plan of, you know, giving us our own Vietnam and Afghanistan and bleeding our empire to death and destroying it.
I think the Russians have sort of split inclinations on this one.
Let's say, first of all, they really don't like the idea of the Americans establishing this network of military installations in their backyard and former Soviet territory.
And in addition to this base in Manas, we have these logistical arrangements in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
We have two lily pad bases that have been set up in Turkmenistan.
We have a base that's been set up in Azerbaijan.
So U.S. military is just stretched all throughout this post-Soviet space.
That really makes them upset.
On the other hand, we're doing their work for them in Afghanistan because they're very concerned about Islamic fundamentalism in the area.
It's a very dangerous force for Russia itself.
Remember, we just had those subway bombings in Moscow.
There are problems in Chechnya and in other locations.
So I think they, you know, they like the idea of the military action being waged in Afghanistan designed to root out al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalists.
So I think their idea is we'd like to see you pursue this war, but get over with it quickly and get out of here.
We don't want you here for the long term.
I think that's their attitude.
All right, now let me ask you about Georgia because I know that you spent some time in Georgia and then you taught the guy that's currently the president there at Columbia University, right?
And he worked for me for a while, Misha Saakashvili.
He's a good friend of mine.
And is he still pushing to be part of NATO and are you for that?
He is.
I think that's a big aspiration for Georgia to become part of NATO.
And my view is it's not really realistic.
I mean, I think we U.S. has got, we have a big problem with NATO generally in defining what NATO's purpose is right now.
And, you know, NATO is playing a significant role in this war in Afghanistan.
It's sort of pushing the outer pocket of the NATO mandate, which is for self-defense of, you know, the NATO territory, which broadly speaking is Europe.
And Georgia, you know, I think Georgia becoming part of NATO at the current time would just be an act of provocation targeting Russia.
And previously it was going to be Georgia and Ukraine coming in as a deal together.
But Ukrainians are backing off the idea of NATO membership right now.
Yeah, the Orange Revolution has been reversed there.
Well, it seems like Georgia is kind of the front line in our continuing Cold War with Russia.
I mean, that's where the pipeline goes from the Caspian Basin through to the Mediterranean Sea, right?
Isn't that like a big anti-Russian plot to have Shaukashvili let us put that pipeline through there?
Well, there is a pipeline that goes through and into Turkey.
That's right.
And certainly Misha Shaukashvili has been, has taken a very provocative position vis-a-vis Russia.
And I think that's one of the things that led to the war last summer, but not the only thing.
I mean, I think the Russians themselves, I think Putin and Medvedev both feel that the best way to play to the Russian voters is to beat up on some little guy from time to time.
And that may be Chechnya one year and Georgia the next.
And conversely, the same sort of thinking works really, really well in election time in Georgia, because the Georgian politicians all tell me that nothing plays better to the voters in Georgia than beating up on Russia.
Yeah, or beating up on the South Ossetians.
Or the Abkhazians.
Yeah.
Well, and how's that working out?
I mean, the de facto independence that was won when Georgia launched that war, when Shaukashvili launched that war in August of 2008, that's pretty much remained, right?
They got what, Russian troops guaranteeing their independence now?
So called?
Well, they were there before, in fact, and both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
So I mean, on the map, it's colored as part of Georgia, but in fact, it is part of the Russian Empire.
There's just no doubt about that.
And I think Russians have a long term strategy for absorbing and incorporating these territories.
I think they'll nominally declare their independence, but most of the people there will acquire Russian citizenship and Russian passports.
And effectively, these areas will just be part of the Russian Federation.
I think that's the reality that Russia is aiming for.
But the international community is, of course, not going to recognize that.
Well, I mean, is that what the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia want?
Or they just want independence and friendship with Russia, maybe a security guarantee or something?
Well, the people of Abkhazia, I'd say roughly 90% of them are very happy to be part of Georgia, but they were expelled from Abkhazia.
It's only the ethnic Abkhaz, who are less than 15% of the population, who occupy and control the territory right now.
And that was done as a Russian sponsored maneuver.
South Ossetia is a different situation.
I mean, that's a distinct ethnic group.
And they have historically been very, very pro-Russian.
And there is North Ossetia is part of Russia now.
So Ossetia itself was split down the middle.
And, and there the population is overwhelmingly for union with Russia.
But there's a substantial Georgian minority in South Ossetia.
Well, you know, I'm just not as worldly as you, I guess, I just think we ought to abolish NATO.
And then any of these little border disputes in the Caspian Basin be none of my concern ever.
I mean, you know, you got friends there.
So you're gonna be concerned.
But why should the average American have to deal with a anything resembling a border dispute with Russia in the Caspian Basin?
Well, I think you put your finger on the reason why Georgian membership and NATO is such a disturbing thought for most NATO members today.
And that is that every NATO member commits to protect the territorial integrity of every other NATO member.
So if that's Poland, or that's Germany, that's one thing.
But now if it's Georgia, that means next time there's a Russian troop movement into South Ossetia or Abkhazia, all of NATO will be committed to oppose it.
And that would be an awfully edgy thing.
Well, and you know, they were talking about putting in, even the Obama team, I think was talking about putting in some form of so called defensive missiles on Russia's border in Poland.
But I guess that's going to be off now too, huh?
I think that Obama has come in with a major initiative designed to ratchet down the tension over missiles.
And I think we're seeing that unfold step by step right now.
I think his National Security Advisor for Russia, Michael McFaul, you know, has talked about this in a number of public settings, as have some members of his campaign.
I mean, they felt that the Bush administration, particularly Vice President Cheney, had sort of picked out points to antagonize the Russians with, you know, one of them was Georgia, another was pipeline politics.
Another was the relationship with Ukraine.
Another was disarmament and this defensive missile posture.
And I think what you're seeing Obama do is basically back off of these provocative positions and instead extend a hand of friendship and cooperation on security issues, which we see right now with the nukes.
So it's really a totally different posture vis-a-vis Russia.
And I'm seeing some reaction to it in Russia, because I remember the last two times I visited Russia, the hostility and animosity towards the United States couldn't have been clearer.
But right now we see a lot of softening, we see actually quite a bit of a positive presentation of Barack Obama.
He's constantly presented as someone who is innovative, non-anti-Russian, willing to think through and try and understand the Russian position and so forth.
Very, very different from the way they portrayed Bush.
Well, that's really good to hear, because of course, it's the most important issue in the world.
There's nothing more important for the future of humanity's existence than our relationship with that country.
There's nothing I can possibly compare.
Yeah, Russia and the United States, between us, we've got 95% of the thermonuclear material in the world.
So, you know, we are capable of destroying the world if we get into a war.
So it's a very good thing that we focus on avoiding that.
Absolutely.
All right.
Now, everybody, I'm talking with the other Scott Horton, no relation, heroic international human rights, anti-torture lawyer from New York City there, where he lectures at Columbia Law School.
Tell us about any recent developments in your story about the Gitmo quote-unquote suicides.
I heard your interview with your star witness accompanying you on Australian radio.
Very interesting.
Sounds like a credible source to me.
What else is going on there?
Well, we've got it.
We have a little bit more information coming out.
I'm planning to write some more on it.
So I'll just give you sort of some general outlines.
We have we have two more guards who've come forward and corroborated the story that Joe Hickman gave us.
So it's actually a very large number of soldiers now.
They all pretty much agree on what happened and they all agree that the official account isn't possible.
And we're getting a little bit of information from inside the intelligence community now about Camp No and what was going on at Camp No.
And, you know, we're hearing that definitely it was in use by the CIA in 2006.
And also that there were some specialized behavioral science so-called biscuit teams that were doing work there with prisoners on a special, highly covert and sensitive project that seems to have been designed to to break and reprogram some of these prisoners, particularly the ones who were involved in the hunger strike.
So that dovetails pretty much with what we've reported so far.
And I think that helps us frame the deaths of these individuals.
But we're still not getting inside the room where they died that night.
Holy moly.
All right.
Well, first of all, you're going to be able to name these sources that are telling you that Camp No was a CIA facility?
Well, we're working on that.
All right.
Yeah, you do that.
Inside the intelligence community who continue to tell us all this is highly classified.
So we bet that it may be possible we'll get them out by name at some point.
Yeah.
Well, tell them to put all the stuff on WikiLeaks and then you can just cite that.
All right.
Now, WikiLeaks is really establishing itself, isn't it?
Yeah, indeed.
Well, so wait, what about this?
You're talking about Alfred McCoy, you know, Joseph Mengele, no touch torture, MKUltra, mind control, Jose Padilla treatment being given to these guys.
This isn't the same as just manacling them to the floor or crucifying them, hanging them from the ceiling, Scott.
No, we know that there were these teams of psychologists and behavioral scientists who were assigned to work with these prisoners at Guantanamo.
And we've also got pretty good information right now that in 2005, some of these teams were assigned to get inside the leadership of the hunger strike and try and break it.
And it seems that Camp No was used in connection with these operations.
But, you know, in terms of the specifics of what techniques were being used and who the subjects were and who were on the biscuit teams who were doing this, that we're we're running against running up to a black wall, a brick wall on.
So and that's obviously highly sensitive information.
You call them biscuit teams as in gravy?
Yeah, well, that's that's shorthand for it's a behavioral modification team.
I see.
And now, well, let's talk about Jose Padilla there, because according to his lawyers, they really did do the MKUltra style Nazi torture techniques on him, right.
Gave him acid and all this stuff where no one was allowed to touch him for years on end in total isolation on a cell block all by himself.
Or he can't even see the empty hallway out the window because it's blacked out.
The only person who ever touches him is the same guy that tortures him in like just straight out of room 101 in George Orwell, where O'Brien is your best friend and your electrocutor as well.
Yeah, sensory deprivation and sensory overload seemed to be standard procedures that were being used and a number of other things.
It definitely seems that that drugs were being used frequently.
And so I think we picked up a lot of stuff sort of on the parameters of this program.
But, you know, I'm not in a position right now to say specifically what they were doing and their efforts to break the hunger strikers.
You know, I mean, we know so we know we've got these three prisoners who were pulled out and who come back dead.
And we know that Chuck Romero, another one of the strikers, seems to have been subjected to this special treatment, too.
I've been trying to to track down more about what's happened with Chuck Romero.
I've talked to his lawyers and on this case, you know, the British government has been pushing aggressively for him to be released.
He's the last Brit who's still held at Guantanamo and the U.S. won't let him go.
On the other hand, the U.S. doesn't have any charges against them.
They have no criminal charges, no law of war charges, not much of anything.
And the information they have tying him to Al-Qaeda, U.S. intelligence sources themselves acknowledge is really very weak.
So the question is, you know, why are they keeping him and why are they keeping him locked up and out of contact with third parties?
Something very suspicious there.
All right.
Now, I'm sorry to ask you to speculate here.
Feel free to refuse.
But I kind of don't understand this murder here.
They take these three guys one at a time to Camp No.
And then they kill them with these rags.
And was it just they do you think they just wanted to, OK, we got to execute these guys, but we got to be able to make it look like a suicide later.
Or they accidentally gagged three guys to death in a row with rags or what?
To me, it doesn't really look like intentional homicide.
That strikes me as relatively unlikely.
It seems strange that they would make the same mistake two more times in a row, though, to write.
Well, I think what was going on was that these rags were applied as part of a restraint technique to prevent them from crying out.
And I think the person who applied them didn't do it correctly.
Yeah.
You kill them.
You're doing it wrong.
Yeah.
And they wound up swallowing the rags and suffocating, asphyxiating on them.
And if you have the same person applying at the same time three times, you could just could very easily wind up reducing the death by asphyxiation of three people, I think.
So, you know, I would say in my mind, the idea that this is intentional homicide, not likely that that strikes me as quite unlikely.
Much more likely is that someone misapplied a technique and the people were not being monitored closely enough.
And therefore that resulted in death.
All right.
Now, I'm sorry.
In the last couple of minutes here.
Well, I got a choice.
I could ask you about the guy resigning.
But now I want to ask you about the McCain bill that would make us all enemy combatants or illegal enemy belligerents or whatever they're called now, Scott.
Yeah.
The problem with the McCain-Lieberman bill, to me, it's this this right of the president to hold people for indefinite periods of time.
So, you know, the core of our notion of liberty is that nobody can be deprived of their freedom without due process of law and without the right of review of some court.
And Joe Lieberman and John McCain seem to have decided that that's not that may have been a basis for the American Revolution.
But it's not a great concept that basically we should give the president the right to throw someone he is concerned about in prison forever and throw away the key.
I think this is a terrible, terrible idea.
Bad precedent.
But we'll see.
Looks like the White House is trying to make some compromises with people behind this legislation.
Really, the White House, meaning they're trying to get it passed in one way or another there.
And this would mandate, right, this would mandate the pedia treatment for anybody accused of terrorism.
Well, a mandate is too strong, but it would give the president the power to do that, if it was.
And I think, you know, the attitude of a lot of people in the White House is, oh, they want to give us more power.
How horrible.
Right.
We'll take that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Who cares about, you know, the grandkids and the future of humanity or anything?
It's not like you have any responsibility.
You should.
You should.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Here are these people.
Well, anyway, we're out of time.
Thanks very much, Scott.
Hey, great to be with you.
Take care, everybody.
That's the other Scott Horton, heroic international human rights lawyer.
He writes for Harper's dot org, his blog.
No comment.
And keep a track of all kinds of very important things all over the world, including very soon, I'm sure he'll have his update about the counterterrorism guy at CIA that was forced to resign today that I didn't get a chance to ask him about.
So anyway, see you all tomorrow.
