Did Barack and Raul Discuss Fidel’s War Crimes/POWs?

Obama ignored the history again especially when it came to the topic of human rights in Cuba much less war crimes. Fidel gets a pass by the White House and the whole Obama front team.

JudicialWatch: Cover-up on American POWs in Cuba? Seventeen U.S. airmen captured during the Vietnam War may have been flown to Cuba, held captive in a prison noted for holding political prisoners, and used for medical experiments on torture. We don’t know for sure, because the Obama Pentagon is balking at requests for records. This week we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense to obtain records about American POWs who may have been held captive by Cuban government or military forces on the island of Cuba. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:16-cv-00151)). We filed this suit after the Defense Department failed to comply with a June 1, 2015, FOIA request seeking:

Any and all records depicting the names, service branch, ranks, Military Occupational Specialty, and dates and locations of capture of all American servicemen believed to have been held captive by Cuban government or military forces on the island of Cuba since 1960.

When U.S. Navy F-4 pilot Lt. Clemmie McKinney’s plane was shot down in April 1972, he was reportedly held in the Cuban compound called Work Site Five in North Vietnam. The Department of Defense reportedly said he was killed in the crash, but a CIA document later published included a picture of McKinney standing next to Fidel Castro. Lowery also reported:

More than 13 years later, on August 14, 1985, the North Vietnamese returned Lt. McKinney’s remains, reporting that he died in November 1972. However, a U.S. Army forensic anthropologist established the “time of death as not earlier than 1975 and probably several years later.” The report speculated that he had been a guest at Havana’s Los Maristas prison, with his remains returned to Vietnam for repatriation. (We also paid big money for the remains-delivered in stacks of green dollars to Hanoi aboard an AF C-141 from Travis AFB, California.) Unfortunately, our servicemen held in the Cuban POW camp near Work Site Five (Cong Truong Five), along with those in two other Cuban run camps were never acknowledged nor accounted for and the prisoners simply disappeared.

In 1999, during testimony before Congress, Mike Benge, former prisoner of war (POW) and POW historian stated: “I have also uncovered evidence of the possibility that American POWs from the Vietnam War have been held in Los Maristas, a secret Cuban prison run by Castro’s G-2 intelligence service.” American POWs describe the Cuban section of a Hanoi prison as the Zoo. Cuba reportedly provided personnel who helped improve the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which was used by the communists to support military attacks against U.S. military forces in Vietnam. The fact that we had to sue the Obama administration to get simple answers as to whether Cuba held and tortured American POWs strongly suggests that a cover-up is underway. The Obama administration admires Castro’s Cuba so much that even the fate of the regime’s victims, even American POWs, is of little concern.
***** The story you missed.

Cuban War Crimes Against American POWs
During the Vietnam War*

 

Cuban officials, under diplomatic cover in Hanoi during the Vietnam War, brutally tortured and killed American POWs whom they beat senseless in a research program “sanctioned by the North Vietnamese.”(1) This was dubbed the “Cuba Program” by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the CIA, and it involved 19 American POWs (some reposts state 20). Recent declassified secret CIA and DOD intelligence documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the extent of Cuba’s involvement with American POWs captured in Vietnam. A Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report states that “The objective of the interrogators was to obtain the total submission of the prisoners…”(2)

According to former POW Air Force Colonel Donald “Digger” Odell, “two POWs left behind in the camp were ‘broken’ but alive when he and other prisoners were released [1973 Operation Homecoming]. … They were too severely tortured by Cuban interrogators” to be released. The Vietnamese didn’t want the world to see what they had done to them.”(3)

POWs released during “Operation Homecoming” in 1973 “were told not to talk about third-country interrogations. …. This thing is very sensitive with all kinds of diplomatic ramifications.”(4) Hence, the torture and murder of American POWs by the Cubans was swept under the rug by the U.S. Government.

The “Cuban Program”

The “Cuban Program” was initiated around August 1967 at the Cu Loc POW camp known as “The Zoo”, a former French movie studio on the southwestern edge of Hanoi. The American POWs gave their Cuban torturers the names “Fidel,” “Chico,” “Pancho” and “Garcia.” The Vietnamese camp commander was given the name “The Lump” because of a fatty tumor growth in the middle of his forehead.

Intelligence and debriefing reports reveal that testing “torture methods were of primary interest” of the “Cuban Program.” The Cuban leader of the “Cuban Program” [“Fidel”] was described in debriefing reports as “a professional interrogator,” and a second team member was described as looking like a Czech [“Chico”]. “The Cubans has (sic) the authority to order NVNS [North Vietnamese] to torture American PWs [POWs].” The Vietnamese “catered” to the Cubans.(5)

________________

*Research conducted for the National Alliance of Families for the Return of America’s Missing Servicemen by Board Member and former Vietnam POW Mike Benge.

According to a 20 January 1976 deposition, Marge Van Beck of DIA/DI, Resources and Installation Division, MIA/PW Branch, states that she was told by the “Air Force that the CIA had identified FIDEL.”(6) Since the CIA and the FBI has not released all documentation relevant to the “Cuban Program”, there were no copies of any photographs accompanying the Defense Department’s September 11, 1996, report to Congress, Cuban Program Information.(5)

Several other documents corroborate that the CIA analysts identified two Cuban military attaches, Eduardo Morjon Esteves and Luis Perez Jaen, who had backgrounds that seemed to correspond with information on “Fidel” and “Chico” supplied by returning POWs.(7) Reportedly, in 1977-78, Esteves served under diplomatic cover as a brigadier general at the United Nations in New York and no attempt was made to either arrest or expel him.(8)

However, unless the Cubans were overconfident, it is highly unlikely that those who participated in the “Cuban Program” would have used their actual names when they went to Vietnam, since it is standard practice in undercover operations to use new identities. According to an expert on Cuba, “Fidel’s” profile fits that of Cuban Dr. Miguel Angel Bustamente-O’Leary, President of the Cuban Medical Association. [DPMO’s compilation lists a Professor Jose Bustamante, who was the president of the Pan-American Medical Confederation.] Dr. Miguel Bustamente is said to be an expert at extracting confessions through torture and he was compared to Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengale.(9)

“Chico’s” profile fits that of Major Fernando VECINO Alegret, described in two intelligence reports as being “un-Cuban in appearance makes [sic] one wonder if he was a Cuban, or a block officer (possible Czech) in Cuban uniform.” “He has studied in the USSR,” and “…his Spanish…does not sound like Cuban Spanish.” He was active in the Rebel Youth Association (AJR) and Union of Young Communists (UYC).(5b) His background would give him a natural tie-in to the international communist youth training center and the Vietnamese interrogation center in Cuba. It would also explain the observation of and participation in the “Cuban Program” by young Vietnamese officer trainees (see below).

According to POW debriefing reports, “The Lump” told a group of POWs that the ‘Cuban Program’…was a Hanoi University Psychological Study.”(5c) [Also see section on Vietnamese and Soviet Bloc Research on American POWs]

The torture and murder of American POWs in Vietnam by Cubans ets an unconscionable precedent and is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War that the North Vietnamese communists signed.

The Beatings

“Fidel” called one of the American POWs the “Faker”. However, he wasn’t faking it. He was one of the three American POWs who had already been beaten senseless by “Fidel” and his cohorts.

The sight of the prisoner stunned Bomar, he stood transfixed, trying to make himself believe that human beings could so batter another human being. The man could barely walk; he shuffled slowly, painfully. His clothes were torn to shreds. He was bleeding everywhere, terribly swollen, and a dirty, yellowish black and purple from head to toe. The man’s head was down; he made no attempt to look at anyone. He had been through much more than the day’s beatings. His body was ripped and torn everywhere; “hell- cuffs” appeared almost to have severed the wrists, strap marks still wound around the arms all the way to the shoulders, slivers of bamboo were embedded in the bloodied shins and there were what appeared to be tread marks from the hose across the chest, back and legs. Fidel smashed a fist into the man’s face, driving him against the wall. Then he was brought to the center of the room and made to get down onto his knees. Screaming in rage, Fidel took a length of rubber hose from a guard and lashed it as hard as he could into the man’s face. The prisoner did not react; he did not cry out or even blink an eye. Again and again, a dozen times, smashed the man’s face with the hose. He was never released.(10)

Air Force ace Major James Kasler was also tortured by “Fidel” for days on end during June 1968. “Fidel” beat Kasler across the buttocks with a large truck fan belt until “he tore my rear end to shreds.” For one three-day period, Kasler was beaten with the fan belt every hour from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and kept awake at night. “My mouth was so bruised that I could not open my teeth for five days.” After one beating, Kasler’s buttocks, lower back, and legs hung in shreds. The skin had been entirely whipped away and the area was a bluish, purplish, greenish mass of bloody raw meat.(11)

DPMO’s Evaluation

The “Cuban Program” was evaluated by two of the Department of Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office’s (DPMO) chief analysts Robert Destatte and Chuck Towbridge. In an email to Commander Chip Beck, an intelligence officer who at the time was working at DPMO, Destatte said he had concluded that the “Cuban Program” was nothing more than a program “to provide instruction in basic English to PAVN [North Vietnamese Army] personnel working with American prisoners.”(12) According to Destatte, it was an English language program that had gone awry.

Destatte also has the audacity to claim that the Vietnamese were unaware of the “Cuban Program,” and it was stopped once the Vietnamese found out that “Fidel” and the others were torturing the American POWs. However, the evidence that Destatte studied in compiling the report to Congress belies his assertion. It is very clear from the POWs’ debriefing reports that the camp commander, “The Lump”, guards and various other Vietnamese cadre were present during torture sessions.

Destatte also professes, “The Vietnamese explanation is plausible and fully consistent with what we know about the conduct of the Cubans in question…”(12) And how had Destatte reached his conclusion? Destatte asked the North Vietnamese communists, and this is what they told him! These are the very same people who broke every agreement they made with the United States, and who systematically murdered over 80,000 political prisoners after the communist takeover of South Viet Nam in 1975. A military historian once told Commander Beck not to underestimate “dumb,” and Beck said Destatte would have to be brain-dead, however, to be that dumb.(13)

It is evident that DOD’s analysis of the “Cuban Program” is incomplete for it did not examine the possible link to a Hanoi University research study, nor was there any investigation of Cuba’s role in maintaining the Ho Chi Minh Trail where numerous American servicemen were captured. In early 1999, DPMO’s chief, Bob Jones, told members of the organizations representing the families of POW/MIAs that he had proposed a meeting among Vietnam, Laos and Cambodian officials to discuss the fate of American POW/MIAs. The author, representing the National Alliance of Families, suggested that Cuba should also be invited to participate, since they were responsible for the “Cuban Program” as well as for maintaining a good share of the Ho Chi Minh Trail where many servicemen became MIA. Jones retorted that my suggestion was ridiculous for there was no evidence that the Cubans were ever involved. [“See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil,” author.]

Other Cuban Involvement With POWs

Documents reveal that Cubans not only tortured and killed a number of American POWs in Vietnam, but may have also taken several POWs to Cuba in the mid-1960s. The POWs, mostly pilots, were reportedly imprisoned in Las Maristas, a secret Cuban prison run by Castro’s G-2 intelligence service. The source of this information reportedly was debriefed by the FBI; however, this debriefing report was not in DPMO’s report to Congress, and no evidence has surfaced that there was any other follow up.(14)

According to a February 1971 State Department cable, a former aide to Fidel Castro offered “…to ransom POWs in NVN [North Viet Nam] through the Castro Government.” The cable concluded, “Propose doing nothing further unless advised.”(15) Evidently no advice was forthcoming, and there is no evidence of any other agency investigating this matter.

One intelligence source reportedly interviewed “Fidel”, “Chico” and “Pancho” after they returned from Hanoi to Cuba and said they claimed that their real job was to act as gate-keepers to select American POWs who could aid international communism.(16)

According to a DIA “asset”, Hanoi made “a political investment in all cases where prisoners [could] be ideologically turned around in order to someday serve its designs in behalf of international communism.”(17) This is corroborated by several other intelligence reports. One, a CIA briefing memo, reveals that “As of September 1967 [redacted] a great deal of proselytizing of American pilots was being carried out in an effort to try to convince them to go to other communist countries as advisors. [redacted] This was disclosed during an official Party briefing [redacted]. The North Vietnamese claimed the communist countries needed the advice of American pilots to counter any attack which the U.S. might make against the communist countries.”(18) This was the same time period that the “Cuban Program” was in full operation.

Those Americans targeted for selection by the communists as “advisors” for the communist countries would have been the highly-skilled pilots and electronic warfare back-seaters, skills highly prized by Soviet Bloc countries. The reported American POWs (“pilots”) reported to have been held in Las Maristas prison in Cuba could have been some of these highly skilled people, who would have been prized assets for communist Cuba.

DPMO’s analyst Bob Destatte wrongly concluded that the “Cuban Program” was terminated by the Vietnamese in August 1968 because of “Fidel’s” excesses in torturing the American POWs. This is far from the truth, for the Vietnamese communists routinely continued to torture American POWs in other camps long after the “program” was terminated.

Besides being part of a medical study linked to the University in Hanoi, Cuba was carrying out an aggressive propaganda campaign and other subversive activities against the U.S. According to the Cuban paper El Mundo, in August 1968, Professor Miguel A. D’Estafano, who headed the Cuban Solidarity with Vietnam Committee, “prolonged his stay in the DRV to complete a program with various organizations and institutions to collect extensive information that can serve as the basis for the second symposium against genocide in Vietnam…” According to POW debriefings, a Cuban (presumably D’Estafano) showed up at the Zoo during that time and “Fidel,” “Chico” and “Pancho” left with him. Their return was timed so they could prepare a presentation for the communist internationale Second Symposium Against Yankee Genocide in Vietnam held in Cuba, October 18-21, 1968.(19) There, films and tapes were shown of the research on American POWs in the “Cuban Program” that served to boost the morale of the communists that the war in Vietnam was being won.(1) [Similar to the Bertrand Russell War Crimes Tribunal “kangaroo court” and “dog and pony show” held in Denmark in July 1967.(20)]

“Fidel”, “Chico” and “Pancho” weren’t the only Cubans who were involved with American POWs. As part of their propaganda program, Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish-born psychologist, interviewed Lt. Cmdr. John Sidney McCain Jr. (now a U.S. Senator) for an article published in Cuba’s house-organ Granma on January 24, 1970.(21) Barral was a card-carrying communist internationale residing in Cuba and traveling on a Cuban passport.

Cubans on the Ho Chi Minh Trail

The Cubans were heavily involved in the Vietnam war. Cuba had a very large contingent of combat engineers, the Giron Brigade, that was responsible for maintaining a large section of the “Ho Chi Minh Trail;” the supply line running from North Vietnam through Laos and Cambodia to South Vietnam. The contingent was so large that Cuba had to establish a consulate in the jungle.(22)

A large number of American personnel serving in both Vietnam and Laos were either captured or killed along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and in all likelihood, many by the Cubans. One National Security Agency SigNet report states that 18 American POWs “are being detained at the Phom Thong Camp…” in Laos, and “…are being closely guarded by Soviet and Cuban personnel with Vietnamese soldiers outside the camp.”(23)

Cubans and Other POWs

According to CIA documents Cuban communist party committee members, Cuban “journalists” Raul Valdes Vivo and Marta Rojas Rodriguez, “visited liberated areas of South Vietnam where they interviewed [interrogated] U.S. prisoners of war being held by the Viet Cong.”(24) [Many of the American POWs held in the South Viet Nam, were in fact under the command-control of the North Vietnamese’s Enemy Proselytizing Bureau, but temporarily farmed-out to Viet Cong.] Rojas told of her “interviewing” American POWS in South Viet Nam at the Bertram Russel mock war crimes tribunal in Denmark in 1967.(20) Photographs of some of the POWs, and related articles, appeared in Cuban and various other communist media. American POWs Charles Crafts, Smith, McClure, Schumann and Cook were among those interviewed and photographed by Rojas and Vivo. This leads one to ask, “Why hasn’t DOD pursued questioning Cubans about the fate of American POWs?

One POW camp holding a large number of Americans was located about 100 km from the Chinese border between Monkai and Laokai, (an area where Cuban engineers were constructing military installations after 1975). According to an intelligence source, “one day the camp just disappeared, guards and all”.(25) [also see End Notes]

The disappearance of American POWs near the Cuban facilities at Monkai and Laokai wasn’t an isolated incident. American POWs also disappeared in the vicinity of two other Cuban installations. One American POW camp, located at “Work Site 5” (Cong Truong 5) just north of the DMZ, was adjacent to a Cuban field hospital that Fidel Castro visited in 1972. None of the POWs held in that camp were ever released, including black American aviator Lt. Clemmie McKinney. McKinney was shot down in April 1972, approximately the same time as Castro’s visit. McKinney’s remains were returned on August 14, 1985. The Vietnamese claim that McKinney died in November 1972; however, “A CILHI (U.S. Army Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii)

forensic anthropologist states his opinion as to time of death as not earlier than 1975 and probably several years later.”(26) Had McKinney been a guest of the real “Fidel” to be exploited by Castro’s G-2 at Las Maristas and later returned to Vietnam?

Another Cuban installation was near Ba Vi, where numerous sightings of “white buffalos” [i.e., American POWs] were made by South Vietnamese undergoing “reeducation” in the North. According to one of the recently returned Vietnamese 34-A commandos, he saw 60 American POWs at the Thanh Tri Prison complex in 1969.(27) Also in the same prison complex were approximately 100 French and Moroccan POWs captured in the early 1950s. Later the French and Moroccans were transferred to the Ba Vi Prison complex near the Cuban facility. There were a small number of American POWs held for a while in a section of the Thanh Tri Prison complex, appropriately dubbed “Skidrow”. However, they numbered about 20, not 60, and none had been held with French and/or Moroccan POWs.[see End Notes]

The commando’s report corroborates numerous other similar sightings; however, DPMO has made a conscious effort to discredit all of these reports–although from unrelated sources and too numerous to ignore.

 

Other Cuban Involvement

Several reports indicate that Cubans were piloting MIGs in aerial combat with American pilots over North Vietnam. One American advisor flying in an H-34 used a M-79 grenade launcher to shoot down a Cuban flying a biplane in Northern Laos.(28)

This was the same kind of plane used in the attack against Lima Site 85–the top-secret base in Laos providing guidance for American planes in the bombing of North Vietnam.

The involvement with American POWs was just a part of Cuba’s long history of commitment to assist the Vietnamese communists, and just another chapter in their role as “communist internationales” on behalf of the Soviet Union. The Cubans first showed up in Vietnam not too many years after they consolidated power on their own island in the early 1960s. Soon after, the Cubans soon began operating en masse alongside their Vietnamese brethren. They even accompanied the North Vietnamese through the gates of the South Vietnamese Presidential Palace in Saigon on April 29, 1975.(21) However, the Cuban’s assistance to the North Vietnamese continued well beyond 1975.

Raul Valdes Vivo: The creditation of Raul Valdes Vivo as a journalist, however, was only a cover, for he was in fact a DGI (Cuban Intelligence) officer and a high-ranking Cuban communist party member. [Latinos often hyphenate their last name in recognization of the matrilineal side of the family. Therefore, the last name of Raul Valdes Vivo (Valdes-Vivo), may in fact be Valdes. However, he will be referred to as Vivo in this paper.] In his book, El Gran Secreto: Cubanos en el Camino Ho Chi Minh, Vivo wrote that he first met Marta Rojas in 1965 at a Cuban Communist party meeting. Vivo was the Cuban communist party representative to the IndoChinese communist party from 1965 thru 1974.(21)

Vivo claims to have established a Cuban embassy in the jungle in Vietnam in South Viet Nam in 1969. The truth is Vivo was attached to the Central Office for South Vietnam (COSVN), the central command for North Vietnam’s operations in South Vietnam, which was located well inside Cambodia. Much to the chagrin of the Vietnamese, Vivo was assigned to COSVN upon the insistency of Raul Castro, Fidel’s brother, who was head of the Cuban armed forces. The Vietnamese reluctantly acquiesced, since Cuba was supplying several thousand soldiers to build, maintain and guard a sizeable portion of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and providing a large amount of other “technical” and material assistance. COSVN was in fact a front for a front. [For propaganda purposes, the North Vietnamese maintained that COSVN was the headquarters for the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF), a political arm of the Viet Cong. However, in fact, the NLF was a “front” for Hanoi, and COSVN was entirely controlled by the North Vietnamese. It was the North Vietnamese headquarters for staging and directing operations into South Vietnam.]

During a reception in Cuba for a high-ranking Vietnamese communist party official, in a loud voice, Castro chided Vivo for not inviting him to “his embassy.” In fact, Castro wasn’t at all chiding Vivo, for the barb was aimed at the North Vietnamese for not inviting Castro to COSVN headquarters in Cambodia. Vivo responded by telling Castro the difficulty in accessing “his embassy” after Cambodian General Lon Nol’s coup d’etat 1970, indicating that Castro’s safety in Cambodia could not be assured. Vivo was evidently in charge of Cuban intelligence in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Initially, the soviet-block subversion of Cambodia was coordinated by the Cubans out of the Cuban embassy in Phnom Penh. After General Lon Nol took over in 1970, the intelligence staff of the Cuban Embassy in Phnom Penh was moved into Hanoi along with a core of Vietnamese trained high-ranking Khmer Rouge officials to form a “Cambodian government in exile.” In another section of his book, Vivo refers to himself as the Cuban Ambassador “in” Hanoi in 1971.

Later in his book, Vivo says that Cubans were with the North Vietnamese communists in 1975 when they took over Saigon, “although a modest presence.” These statements are very important, for historians have yet to admit the extent of the involvement of Cuba and the other Soviet-Bloc in the directing the Vietnam War as part of the “communist internationale.”

Vietnamese in Cuba

While a POW in Hanoi, I was interrogated by “The Lump” and another individual who had a Spanish accent. After learning about the “Cuban Program” upon release, I assumed the person with the Spanish accent might have been “Fidel.” After my release in 1973, I identified “The Lump” in a photograph taken in Cuba shown to me by a member of a Congressional committee. In the picture, “The Lump” was with a U.S. anti-war contingent. I was told that he had been identified by intelligence agents as being responsible for funneling KGB money to the American anti-war groups, such as those that Jane Fonda led.(9)

The foreign affairs element of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, code named “CP-72,” was positioned only 90 miles off the coast of Florida during the war and their personnel worked closely with the Cuban Government in manipulating the anti-war movement in the United States. Many of the propaganda themes directed at influencing groups in the United States were developed from information gathered by “CP-72” and was fed to the Cuban interrogation experts who were involved in exploiting American POWS in Vietnam for propaganda.(29).

Also, CIA and DIA reports reveal the operation of an international communist youth training center southeast of Santiago de Cuba in the mid-and-late 1960s. The young people, many of whom were blacks and Vietnamese, were being trained for subversive operations against the United States. One intelligence source reported that many of these young people were children of French soldiers who had either defected to the Vietnamese communists during the French Indochina or were children of French forces who were POWs and still held by the Hanoi communists. Reportedly, they had been given Vietnamese wives, and the children were taken away from their parents at a very young age and sent to communist youth camps similar to those in the Soviet Union and “Hitler’s Children” in Nazi Germany.(30)

According to a DIA source, their control officer was Jesus Jiminez Escobar. “The students (agents) were to be infiltrated into the United States through normal airlift channels and would be claimed by relatives on their arrival.” “Their subversive activities against the United States would include sabotage in connection with race riots…”16 Another DIA source said that “the 5th contingent was infiltrated into the U.S. from Canada through Calais, Maine.”17

The same source said that DIA also monitored a center in Cuba during the same period where Vietnamese were being trained by the Cubans in POW interrogation methods. “Fidel”, “Chico”, and the other Cubans associated with the “Cuban Program” in Hanoi in all likelihood may have been staff associated with this center. Maj. Fernando Vecino Alegret, “Chico”, has an extensive background in youth movements. This presumption is strengthened by the debriefing reports of American POWs who were in the “Cuban Program.” They reported that “a large number of VN officer trainees” came to the camp, and the Cubans “Conducted interrogation training, using [American] POWs.”[DPMO] The trainees were estimated to be approximately 20 years of age. One would logically assume that this was in-service training of Vietnamese graduates from the training camp in Cuba.

Vietnamese and Soviet Bloc Research on American POWs

The Cubans used standard scientific methologies in selecting American POWs for the “Cuban Program;” i.e., random selection with a control group. Everett Alvarez was initially interviewed for the “Program” but was disqualified purportedly because he was of Spanish decent and presumed to speak Spanish.(5)

A 1975 secret CIA counterintelligence study states that the Medical Office of Hanoi’s Ministry of Public Security (MPSMO) was responsible for “preparing studies and performing research on the most effective Soviet, French, communist Chinese and other…techniques…” of extracting information from POWs. The MPSMO “…supervised the use of torture and the use of drugs to induce [American] prisoners to cooperate.” MPSMO’s functions also “…included working with Soviet and Communist Chinese intelligence advisors who were qualified in the use of medical techniques for intelligence purposes. …. The Soviets and Chinese…were… interested in research studies on the reactions of American prisoners to various psychological and medical techniques…”(32)

The “Cuban Program” in Vietnam parallels that of a similar Soviet program in Korea according to congressional testimony on September 17, 1996 by General Jan Sejana, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet Block during the “Cold War.”(33) After defecting, Sejana worked for years as a top-secret analyst for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. According to Gen. Sejana,”Americans were used to test physiological and psychological endurance and various mind control drugs. Moscow ordered Czechoslovakia to build a hospital in North Korea for the experiments [on American POWs] there.” As in North Korean, Soviet, East German, Czechoslovakian and Cuban “medical specialists” were assigned to the top-secret “Hospital 198” in Hanoi where American POWs were believed to have been taken for “treatment”.(34) This would have been the hospital where at least one of the American POWs in the “Cuban Program” was taken for shock treatment.[35]

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Gen. Sejana had been in charge of communist Czechoslovakia’s Defense Council Secretariat, and from 1964 on, First Secretary at the Ministry of Defense. In his various official capacities, he was constantly meeting with Soviet officials, receiving instructions, and relaying those instructions to various Czech agencies and departments. “At the beginning of the Korean War, we received directions from Moscow to build a military hospital in North Korea. ….. The Top Secret purpose of the hospital was to experiment on American and South Korean POWs. …. It was very important to the Soviet plans because they believed it was essential to understand the manner in which different drugs…affected different races and people who had been brought up differently; for example on better diets. …. Because America was the main enemy, American POWs were the most highly valued experimental subjects. …. I want to point out that the same things happened in Vietnam and Laos during the Vietnam War. The only difference is the operation in Vietnam was better planned and more American POWs were used, both in Vietnam and Laos and in the Soviet Union.”

Several sets of remains of American servicemen repatriated from Vietnam evidenced that they were of POWs who had suffered severe and depraved conditions long after the purported release of all POWs in 1973. The skull of one had been sawn open, evidence of an autopsy as part of an experiment common to Soviet-style research on the affect of certain drugs on the brain.(36)

Cuba’s End Game in Vietnam

According to a DIA “asset”, after the signing of the cease-fire on January 21, 1973, 4,000 Cuban army engineers arrived in Hanoi. They helped rebuild the Phuc Yen/Da Phuc Airfield North of Hanoi where, according to intelligence reports, American POWs were used as technicians after the war. Later, the Cubans disappeared into the mountains of the north and constructed and eqvuipped secret bases about 100 km from the Chinese border between Monkai and Laokai. Here, the Soviets equipped the bases with mobile launch ramps, medium-range strategic missiles, possibly with tactical nuclear warheads, capable of hitting population centers in the southern part of China.(17) This is the same area where the above mentioned POW camp containing American prisoners “disappeared, guards and all.”(25)

Units of this same Cuban engineering contingent were building the airfield in Grenada when Americans overran the island. U.S. military intelligence captured reams of documents and photographs relating to this unit’s operations in Vietnam. However, no evidence has surfaced that these documents were ever analyzed for information on POWs by DPMO or any intelligence agency.

In the spirit of communist solidarity, Hanoi reciprocated for Cuba’s assistance during the Vietnam war by sending U.S. arms and ammunition, captured in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, to South America to fuel the “revolution” directed by the Cubans there.

As agents of the Soviets, and continuing their belief in the communist internationale, the Cuban government expanded its role in the communist internationale.

The Cubans sent troops to Angola. In 1975, Vivo again surfaces in Angola posing as a journalist. Vivo “interviewed” western mercenaries who were put on trail in a “kangaroo court” in yet another slanted propaganda coup against the U.S. One of the mercenaries was an American who’s body has yet to be recovered.(13)

Evidently, Cuba’s partnership with Vietnam in subversive activities against the U.S. has continued. In 1996, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that “Vietnam has been training Cuban Special Forces troops to undertake limited attacks in the USA… …. Havana’s strategy in pursuing such training is to attack the staging and supply areas for U.S. forces preparing to invade Cuba. …. The training program is focused on seaborne and underwater operations, roughly comparable to those assigned to U.S. Navy Seals. …. The political objective would be to bring the reality of warfare to the American public and so exert domestic pressure on Washington.”(37)

Vietnam and Cuba are closely linked by their belief in exporting international communism. Hanoi praised Cuba for its shootdown of two American planes and denounced the Helms-Burton Bill as “Insolent!” Hanoi recently reaffirmed the unswerving solidarity of the communist party, the government and people of Vietnam with the Cuban revolution.(38)

Conclusion

The behavior of “Fidel”, “Chico” and “Pancho” in the torture and murder of Americans is beyond the pale and is clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of Prisoners of War, which North Vietnam signed. Allowing these Cubans to go unpunished sets an ugly precedent, and adds to America’s growing “paper tiger” image. Although the Cubans’ crimes are smaller in number, they are no less than some of the war criminals that are being tried in Bosnia.

If the communist regime in Hanoi was fully cooperating in resolving the POW/MIA issue as President Clinton, Senator John McCain, and Ambassador Pete Peterson profess, the Vietnamese communists would have turned over to the U.S. the names of the Cubans who tortured and killed American POWs in the “Cuban Program.” Full cooperation by the communist government in Hanoi includes the full disclosure of the true identities and roles of these Cuban “diplomats”, who were “advisors” to the Hanoi prison system, and were directly responsible for the murder, torture, and severe disablement of American POWs.

Although the “Cuban Program” was reviewed by the Department of Defense’s Prisoner of War and Missing in Action Office (DPMO), its analysis was incomplete. DPMO’s chief analyst Robert Destatte’s claims that the “Vietnamese’s story is plausible and fully consistent with what DPMO knows about the conduct of the Cubans in question” are ludicrous and grossly incompetent. DPMO’s analysis of the “Cuban Program” is glaringly incomplete, indicating either incompetence, negligence, or an attempt at political correctness in keeping with our present policy toward Cuba.

DPMO did not thoroughly, nor competently, analyze the documentation they presented to Congress, and other related material including:

— POW debriefing reports containing the statements by the camp commander that the ‘Cuban Program’ “was a Hanoi University Psychological Study.”

— POW debriefing reportings that clearly state that the Vietnamese camp commander (“The Lump”), cadre and guards were well aware of, and often participated in, the torture.

— the CIA report, North Viet-Nam: The Responsibilities of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam Intelligence and Security Services in the Exploitation of American Prisoners of War.

— DIA reports on the training of Vietnamese prison interrogators by the Cubans.

— no mention of the interviews and photographs made by Cuban journalists cited in documentation, and no there is no indication that it attempted to pursue the Cuban connection.

 

— obtaining information from FBI files relating to the “Cuban Program,” reports by Cuban refugees of American POWs from Vietnam being held in Cuba, or electronic and other surveillance of Eduardo Morjon Esteves during his “service” at the United Nations.

— no attempt to obtain the intelligence information relating to their operations in Vietnam garnered from the seizure documents by Army intelligence from the Cuban engineers building the airfield in Granada during the U.S. incursion of that island.

End Notes

DPMO maintains, as did the defunct Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, that there is no conclusive evidence that American POWs were left behind in Vietnam after “Operation Homecoming” in March 1973. However, eyewitness reports, such as Col. Odell’s, and numerous intelligence documents, belie these claims. Pentagon officials weren’t the only ones who wanted to keep this secret, and it wasn’t only because of third-country diplomatic ramifications. The Nixon Administration, and chief negotiator Henry Kissinger, in particular, wanted to hide the fact that POWs had been left behind in their haste to close the chapter on the Vietnam War.

There are numerous intelligence reports of a group of American POWs seen north of Hanoi, who were suffering from severe war wounds or mental disorders. They were still being held because the communists feared their release would have an unfavorable impact on public opinion. It is very likely that these POWs are the ones who simply disappeared at Monkai and Laokai, for conspicuously absent from the Operation Homecoming release in 1973 were POWs suffering from severe war wounds (amputees) and mental illnesses.

An abnormal, disproportionate number of Americans captured in Laos were never released. Although the CIA has acknowledged that approximately 600 men are missing in action in Laos, given the nature of the “Secret War,” it is reasonable to presume that the number could be much higher. The fact that out of the 600 acknowledged missing in Laos, only 10 persons survived is unbelievable. Only 10 were released. When the North Vietnamese communists negotiated the treaty to end the IndoChina War with the French in 1954, they never acknowledged the capture of POWs in Laos. A 1969 RAND report warned that when the U.S. negotiated with the dogmatic Vietnamese communists, they would most likely again deny that they captured any American POWs in Laos. U.S. intelligence showed that over 82% of American losses in Laos were in areas under total control of the North Vietnamese.

American POWs captured in Laos were likely candidates for “transfer” to other Soviet Bloc countries, such as Cuba, since the Vietnamese considered them as “free commodities.”

Much of DOD’s analysis of POW camps and evaluations of live sighting reports are based on the time-frame that the camps were occupied by POWs who returned in 1973. Therefore, if a live sighting pertains to a period of time that does not correspond to the time it was occupied by returned POWs, it is most often disregarded or debunked. Also, the analysts often failed to take into consideration the fact that many of these camps were vast complexes with annexes often hundreds of kilometers apart that have the same name as the main camp. An excellent example is the Son Tay POW camps, one north of Hanoi and the other south of Hanoi. Thus, if a live sighting report correlates to the name of a camp but the coordinates are different from the main camp, the live sighting may be discounted. This is what happened in the case of most of the Thanh Tri complex and Ba Vi Prison live sighting reports.

DPMO analysts, and DOD’s Joint Task Force-Full Accounting (which conducts on-the-ground investigation of live sighting reports in Vietnam), discredits most live sighting reports by providing the names of the sources to the Vietnamese communist secret services weeks before interviews–a violation of good intelligence procedures, who subsequently disappear or are coerced; or by simply discrediting the sources because they had been political prisoners. However, DPMO’s Bob Destatte uses these same sources (political prisoners) to vilify “Bobby” Garwood, a detainee who was courtmartialed for collaboration with the Vietnamese communists and reported live sightings of Americans in Vietnam. If many of the reports are “triangulated,” several live-sightings from unrelated sources are very similar–too much so to be mere coincidence (e.g., “white buffalos”).

For some unfathomable reason, DOD sent pilots, who had worked in top-secret projects such as the atomic energy program, on tactical bombing missions over North Vietnam only to be shot down and captured. The loss of a great many planes over North Vietnam could have been easily avoided. According to National Security Council advisor William Stearman (1971-76 & 1981-93), “One of the untold scandals of the Vietnam War was the refusal of battleship foes [i.e., within the Pentagon] to follow an expert panel’s advice and deploy them to Vietnam until it was too late. Of all the targets struck by air in North Vietnam, with a loss of 1,067 aircraft and air crews, 80 percent could have been taken out by a battleship’s 16-inch guns without endangering American lives or aircraft.”(39)

The loss of pilots was further exacerbated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s Dr. Strangelove-like obsession of directing targets to be bombed at the same time every day. To some, it seemed as if DOD, led by McNamara, was intentionally aiding the communists by providing them with some of our best and brightest military minds [e.g., one F-111 pilot was shot down over North Vietnam shortly after leaving the Gemini space program.] Concurrently the Soviet equivalent to the Gemini program made quantum leaps over the next two years in the area of the F-111 pilot’s specialty. An F-111 capsule was found in a Russian museum by U.S. investigators. There are several other similar examples of vast improvement in communist technologies after the capture of these pilots. According to DIA’s “asset”, the American POWs were “a gold mine of information to brief … specialists in the technologies used by the enemy.”

Michael D. Benge* More here with citations.

Clinton Foundation Donor’s Flight

Bombshell: Clinton Foundation Donor’s Flight From Justice Aided by Hillary Allies

Clinton donor smeared a decorated DEA agent and helped crooked Venezuelan friends escape justice

Observer: Recent news reports indicate that the FBI is investigating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for granting favors to her family’s foundation donors and for its systematic accounting fraud. In January, the Sunday Times of London cited former Judge Andrew Napolitano, a conservative libertarian and frequent Fox News guest, as saying that the FBI was taking evidence “seriously” and that Hillary “could hear about that soon from the Department of Justice.”

It’s hard to believe that the Obama administration and its hideously politicized Justice Department would ever indict Ms. Clinton, given that President Barack Obama picked her for secretary of state and its clear favoritism toward her in the presidential race. But there is massive evidence that shows financial abuses—including money laundering—at the Clinton Foundation and overwhelming evidence that donors were helped by Ms. Clinton.

To take one of so many examples, there’s the case of Clinton Foundation donor Claudio Osorio—who is now housed at a federal prison serving 12 years for fraud—who in 2010, with Ms. Clinton’s (and Bill Clinton’s) help, won a $10 million loan from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

The loan was granted to an Osorio firm called InnoVida, which was supposed to build houses in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. Instead, Osorio pocketed the money and used it to underwrite his lavish lifestyle and to pay off politicians. For political muscle, Osorio—who also had close ties to Jeb Bush, who sat on the board of a bank he owned—paid a lobbyist and major Hillary fundraiser named Jonathan Mantz.

Claudio Osorio's mugshot.

Claudio Osorio’s mugshot. (Wikimedia Commons)

And that leads me to another Clinton Foundation donor Ms. Clinton helped out who happened to use Mr. Mantz (who now runs Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign Super PAC) and apparently with the same great effect: Gonzalo Tirado, a crooked Venezuelan financier.

Mr. Tirado was president of and ran Venezuelan operations for the famously corrupt Stanford Bank, which was headquartered in Antigua and was named for its American founder, Allen Stanford. He and Mr. Stanford came to be extremely close and “were like father and son,” one well-placed source told me.

Mr. Stanford’s name may ring a bell as he was sentenced to prison for 110 years for committing an $8 billion Ponzi scheme. In 2006, the Hugo Chavez government was asked to investigate Mr. Tirado by scandal-plagued, pro-Wall Street New York Congressman Gregory W. Meeks, a member of the House Committee on Financial Services and a major recipient of cash and perks from jailbird Allen Stanford. Mr. Tirado was charged with tax evasion and theft, The Hill newspaper reported.

As I’ll detail below—and I uncovered this story with help from the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group—Tirado soon fled for Miami to avoid prosecution and petitioned the State Department, through Mr. Mantz, for political asylum. It’s not clear if he won asylum—and he doesn’t seem to merit it as he had no record of political opposition to the Chavez government—but it is clear that he was allowed to remain in the U.S. and live a life of luxury.

(Mr. Tirado, who did not reply to a request for comment, has kept a low profile as of late. His last reported sighting came in 2014, when he unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide, or at least claimed he intended to kill himself.)

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) announces his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) announces his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. (Photo Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Incredibly, the Obama administration not only failed to help the Chavez government investigate Mr. Tirado, but it also indicted a legendary former DEA agent named Tom Raffanello, a one-time  head of the DEA’s Miami office and the agency’s chief of congressional affairs during Bill Clinton’s first term as president.

Mr. Raffanello’s  subsequent prosecution, which ended in abysmal failure, almost surely was prompted and abetted by Mr. Tirado, a secret FBI informant. Unsurprisingly, the vindicated Mr. Raffanello had few kind words for Mr. Tirado or Ms. Clinton during a recent interview.

“Tirado believed in buying influence,” Mr. Raffanello said of the crooked financier. “He wouldn’t give away 10 cents that he didn’t think he’d get back a dollar on. That was his entire philosophy.”

As for Ms. Clinton, he said that during her years in the Obama administration the “prevailing wisdom in Miami at the time, among people in high profile civil and criminal defense circles, was that giving money to the Clinton Foundation was very helpful. She was secretary of state and a potential future president. I’m sure that’s the same thinking now.”

(Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign did not reply to a request for comment.)

Up until 2006, life was cushy for pampered, wealthy, jet-setting Gonzalo Tirado, who was running the Stanford Bank’s Venezuela operations. Events took a turn for the worse when an internal Stanford Bank audit discovered that he had fleeced about $5 million from the company.

Mr. Tirado’s actions did not sit well with Stanford, and the Venezuelan beat a hasty exit from his job. He soon opened a bank of his own and lured in a few local investors. His new enterprise went down the tubes, and the defrauded locals, who were very close to the Chavez government, looked to it for help, leading to an investigation of Mr. Tirado.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. (Photo Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images)

At the same time, the Chavez government was investigating Mr. Tirado at the behest of Stanford, through his hand-picked emissary, Congressman Meeks. (See this Wikileaked cable for more on the topic and on Mr. Tirado’s feud with the Venezuelan government.) That led to the filing of criminal charges against Mr. Tirado, as noted above. (The Venezuelan embassy in Washington did not reply to a request for comment.)

Mr. Tirado, apparently a conscienceless paranoid who felt no remorse for his actions, became convinced that Stanford Bank was monitoring his activities and tapping his phone and was the source of all of his troubles. Perhaps sensing he was in deep trouble, he fled Venezuela for Miami.

Mr. Tirado began spending money like a drunken sailor. He purchased at least two luxury estates in the Miami area. He also became a major investor in several companies, including a security firm called Command Consulting Group for which he recruited as a front man W. Ralph Basham, a former senior official with the Department of Homeland Security under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Command Consulting Group, “an international security and intelligence consulting firm that provides advisory services to governments, corporations, and high net worth individuals,” according to its website, and whose top officials include a number of other former senior government terror and security veterans, is currently run out of an office in Washington. (Mr. Basham did not reply to a request for comment.)

As 2009 dawned, life could hardly have been better for the pampered Mr. Tirado. There was just one small problem: He needed to stay in the U.S. to avoid being sent back back to Venezuela, where he was sure to face trial and imprisonment. To stay in the U.S., Mr. Tirado needed the continued indulgence of the U.S. State Department.

Fortunately for Mr. Tirado, the U.S. government had been hostile to Venezuela ever since the South American nation of 31 million moved to the left in 2002, when Chavez was elected to the first of his three terms.

(Note and disclosure: Chavez died in 2013, and the country is now led by his former vice president, Nicolás Maduro. Despite its flaws, the country’s socialist government has made remarkable strides in bettering the lives of Venezuela’s poor majority. In 2004, I met Chavez as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, and I consider him to be the greatest force for democratic change in modern Latin American history with the possible exception of Che Guevera.)

The George W. Bush administration had regularly conspired with the rancid political opposition, which Chavez displaced from power, and had sought to destabilize and overthrow the Chavez government with the help of local Venezuelan surrogates. Incoming President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were rabid opponents of Chavez’s as well, but Mr. Tirado didn’t want to count on that alone.

Jonathan Mantz.

Jonathan Mantz. (BGR Group)

Knowing how the corrupt U.S. political system works, he hired an American lobbyist, Jonathan Mantz, to game the asylum process for him while he took it easy and spent his loot in America.

Mantz then worked at BGR, the firm of Republican Haley Barbour, the famously overweight former Mississippi governor and one of the most prominent of all GOP lobby shops. He had previously worked as finance director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and for the laughably corrupt New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

Mr. Mantz, who had no real qualifications to be a lobbyist other than his ability to raise money—and who did not reply to a request for comment—had drummed up cash for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Currently Mr. Mantz chairs Hillary’s 2016 Super PAC, Priorities USA Action. Mr. Tirado paid BGR $350,000.

Now sufficiently motivated, Mantz went to work lobbying Hillary’s State Department to let Tirado stay in Miami. Meanwhile, the crooked Mr. Tirado donated between $5,000 and $10,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website. As is its custom, the foundation does not state when the donation was made and declined to answer questions about the money it took from Mr. Tirado.

Coincidentally or not, Mr. Tirado was one four of Mr. Mantz’ clients who donated to the Clinton Foundation during his brief 16-month career as a lobbyist.

Thomas Raffanealo.

Thomas Raffanello. (LinkedIn Profile)

Now let’s discuss the story of former DEA agent Thomas Raffanello, at which point this story becomes even more outrageous.

Mr. Raffanello worked for the DEA for more than three decades. He left in 2004 and went to work as the head of security for the Stanford Bank. “We set up cameras to prevent bank robberies and generally provided security at bank offices and functions,” Mr. Raffanello told me last weekend during the course of several lengthy phone interviews. “I was based in Miami but had offices in Caracas, Quito, Antigua and a few other places.”

Mr. Raffanello said Allen Stanford “couldn’t balance a checkbook” and described him as “a spoiled billionaire.” When I asked him why he went to work for Stanford in the first place he said, “I did due diligence. I called several associates, including the former head of DEA in Miami before me and several former assistant U.S. attorneys who worked for him. No one ever gave me a bad word; they said he was eccentric but a straight shooter. Madeleine Albright worked for him, and the former president of Switzerland was one of his board members.”

Stanford Bank collapsed and was put into receivership in 2010, at which point Mr. Raffanello left the company. But well before then Mr. Tirado—who, a source told me, had become an FBI informant—had become convinced that Mr. Raffanello was the source for all of his problems with the Chavez government and its investigation into him. Hence, he began a smear campaign against Mr. Raffanello in Venezuela and the United States.

As I mentioned above, it was Congressman Meeks—who currently supports Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and who took in more money from Stanford than any single member of Congress other than Charles Rangel and Pete Sessions of Texas—who prompted the Chavez government to look into Mr. Tirado.

But the paranoid Mr. Tirado, certain Mr. Raffanello was to blame, paid Venezuelan writers to place stories saying Mr. Raffanello worked for the CIA, Mr. Raffanello told me. That led to the Chavez government questioning Mr. Raffanello for alleged corruption involving the Stanford bank, though it determined the allegations were groundless and never charged him.

“Venezuela is like Casablanca,” Mr. Raffanello said. “If you tell a story twice it becomes the truth. It became impossible for me to go to Venezuela because I feared I’d get picked up by law enforcement.”

“I thought I was going to get Shanghaied, but you can’t make something out of nothing.” — Thomas Raffanello.

Meanwhile, Mr. Raffanello said, Mr. Tirado told the FBI and the Justice Department that he was trying to arrange Mr. Tirado’s kidnapping and was spying on him. “The guy knows how to play the game, and he played it at a high level because he had plenty of money,” Mr. Raffanello said.

About a year after Mr. Raffanello left Stanford Bank, he was indicted by the Obama Justice Department for allegedly shredding Stanford Bank documents. The case went to trial in Miami in 2010. On February 10 of that year, as the jury was deliberating, Judge Richard Goldberg interrupted its deliberations and unilaterally acquitted Raffanello (and another defendant), saying the evidence against him was “substantially lacking.”

It is highly unusual for a person to escape conviction after being indicted by a federal grand jury, let alone for the government to be humiliated in court as it was in the Raffanello case. Stunned federal prosecutors begged the judge to at least allow the jury to render a verdict because the acquittal would prevent them from appealing a verdict.

The judge dismissed their plea, and Mr. Raffanello’s ordeal was over. “I thought I was going to get Shanghaied, but you can’t make something out of nothing,” he said.

To sum up here, a corrupt Venezuelan banker hired a lobbyist close to Hillary Clinton, made a donation to her family’s foundation and has been allowed to live in the United States without fear of prosecution in his homeland. At a time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Obama Administration staged what can only be described as a political prosecution of an honest man and long-time government employee.

Mr. Raffanello has concluded this about Hillary Clinton’s campaign: “I learned a lot about her and her family when I was in the government, and how they are put together,” he said. “She is a person who will say and do anything in order to get elected president. I don’t think she’s going to win, but there’s nothing she won’t do while trying.”

Obama, More Iran Concessions Coming

If you thought Obama was done making concessions to Iran — think again

WashingtonExaminer: One of the arguments critics of the Iran deal made during last year’s debate was that beyond the staggering immediate concessions to Iran, the deal paves the way for ongoing and future concessions. The reason is that the reality of the agreement leaves the U.S. hamstrung by fear that Iran can use anything as a pretext to pull out of the deal. We’re now starting to see this play out, as Obama administration officials are signaling that they may provide additional sanctions relief to address Iranian complaints, even though they promised Congress no such relief would ever be provided.

Specifically, the Associated Press reports that the U.S. government could be on the verge of a major capitulation: “The Obama administration is leaving the door open to new sanctions relief for Iran, including possibly long-forbidden access to the U.S. financial market.”

Last summer, as the deal was being debated, administration officials told Congress that this would never happen as a way of reassuring skeptics who feared that the entire sanctions regime against Iran was being unraveled. Plenty of layers of sanctions still remained to pressure Iran, the administration argued.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew insisted to Congress that under the deal Iran would “be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.”

Additionally, the head of Treasury’s sanctions division said, “Iran will not be able to open bank accounts with U.S. banks, nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking sector.”

When asked if this was still the case, Lew said the U.S. may take future action to “make sure Iran gets relief.” The Treasury Department told the AP, “We will continue to analyze the sanctions lifting and its effects.”

To recap, in addition to $150 billion in sanctions relief, through the nuclear agreement, the administration caved into Iran on uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, inspections, the duration of the deal’s restrictions and the maintenance of a facility under a bunker.

When the U.S. received nothing from Iran in terms of ending its sponsorship of terrorism or its human rights violations, the excuse from administration officials was always that there was a concerted effort to limit the negotiations to the Iranian nuclear program.

But the latest concession evidently under consideration by the administration would blow a hole in the entire sanctions regime. So it seems that in reality, it was only Iran’s concessions to the U.S. that were limited to the nuclear program — and even those were paltry. In reality, the U.S. will continue to make concessions that will make it easier for Iran to sponsor terrorism and make them a stronger bad actor throughout the Middle East.

As it is, since the deal was signed, the administration has been weak in responding to Iranian ballistic missile tests and it has accepted a prominent role for the radical regime in the Syrian peace process, even though Iran shares a lot of the blame for the situation in Syria.

In other words, the Obama administration’s concessions to Iran did not end in Vienna last summer. They merely started there.

*****

In part AP: Rep. Ed Royce, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, expressed alarm in a letter this week to the president that the U.S. could grant Iranian businesses the ability to conduct transactions in dollars within the United States or through offshore banks. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said he is “deeply troubled” by the possibility.

The concession would go a long way to meet Iran’s complaints that it hasn’t been sufficiently rewarded by the West for taking thousands of uranium-spinning centrifuges offline, exporting its stockpile of the bomb-making material and disabling a facility that would have been able to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Asked if such a move was being considered, the Treasury Department told The Associated Press in an emailed statement: “We will continue to analyze the sanctions lifting and its effects.”

The State Department wouldn’t comment.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress after the July accord that Iran would still be “denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.”

“Iran will not be able to open bank accounts with U.S. banks, nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking sector,” Adam Szubin, the department’s sanctions chief, told a House panel at the time. He said that would hold true even for simple transactions to “dollarize” a foreign payment.

But asked specifically about that commitment earlier this week, Lew allowed for future U.S. action to “make sure Iran gets relief.” More here.

8 Points to Know on Closing Gitmo

8 Key Points on President Obama’s Plan to Close the Terrorist Prison at Guantanamo Bay

Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee questioned two top administration officials at the Department of State and Department of Defense charged with overseeing the president’s push to empty out the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay before he leaves office.

Here are 8 key takeaways from the hearing:

  1. Bringing terrorists held at GITMO to the United States is still against the law.Chairman Royce: Secretary of Defense Carter and Attorney General Lynch have both stated that transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the United States are legally prohibited. Is that your understanding of the law as well?

    Mr. Wolosky: It is my understanding of the law that the statute in its current form prohibits transfers to the United States.

  2. It won’t deter ISIS.Rep. Trott: So if we move the detainees to U.S. soil, that’s not going to be used as a recruitment tool by ISIS? They’re going to go silent now that we’ve ‘done right by our allies?’

    Mr. Lewis: It still will be a tool.

  3. Instead, it would likely result in more threats to the U.S. homeland.Chairman Royce: If you move them to U.S. soil, in fact that will be a magnet for terrorists—the fact that jihadists are being held in the United States.
  4. In its rush to empty out the terrorist prison, the Obama administration is being less than straightforward with foreign countries.Chairman Royce: The top State Department official overseeing Guantanamo at the time wrote to the President of Uruguay that there was no information about these 6 that they were involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities against the United States or its partners or allies. No information? They were known to have been hardened al-Qaeda fighters involved in forging documents, trained as suicide bombers, fighting at Tora Bora, committing mayhem, committing murders in Afghanistan.
  5. Making matters worse, the Obama administration is releasing detainees to countries that don’t have the capability or the intent to keep them from returning to the terrorist battlefield.Chairman Royce:But the fact is [Ghana] doesn’t have top-notch intelligence or law enforcement services to deal with this kind of problem. The GDP per capita is like $4,000. It’s 175th in the world. The fact is that their leaders have many, many challenges in Ghana facing them every day.

    “So I’m going to guess that tracking and monitoring former Guantanamo detainees isn’t a priority, just as it wasn’t in other examples that I’ve…laid out for you, like Uruguay.”

  6. And, in some cases, the Obama admin doesn’t know the key foreign officials charged with mitigating threats posed by these terrorists.Rep. Smith: And if a government has a person walking point on a particular issue, like this one, and it happens to be this Minister of Interior, I think we would want to know whether or not he is a person who can be trusted. Particularly with such people who have committed terrorism, and may recommit.

    Mr. Wolosky: Well again, as I’ve said, I have not met him, so I feel uncomfortable offering a personal assessment.

  7. According to the Obama administration’s own figures, more than 30 percent of released detainees have returned to the terrorist battlefield.Chairman Royce:The overall number is in the neighborhood of 31 percent.

    “And if we begin to focus on some of the recent examples of those who did, it is — it is pretty concerning, given Ibrahim al-Qosi — he was one of the high-risk detainees, transferred by this administration. And by 2014, he had joined Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. And now he is in their leadership. And last month, we saw a video urging a takeover in Saudi Arabia.”

  8. Some of these terrorists have returned to killing Americans.Rep. Rohrabacher: How many lives have been lost by those terrorists who went back to their terrorist activities? American lives.

    Mr. Lewis: I can talk about that in a classified setting, but…

    Rep. Rohrabacher: Oh, classified? So, is it over ten?

    Mr. Lewis: Sir, what I can tell you is, unfortunately, there have been Americans that have died because of GITMO detainees.

Operation Hemorrhage

It has been said often, either fight the enemy in a true war theater on the battlefield with real war tactics or fight them at home. Brussels and Paris and in the United States in Boston and San Bernardino to mention a few, the hybrid war gets real expensive. These costs are rarely measured or questioned. We are also not measuring the cost of freedoms are giving up. Add in the cost of the cyber war…..well….going back much earlier than 9-11-01 the costs cannot be calculated.

Operation Hemorrhage: The Terror Plans to Wreck the West’s Economy

DailyBeast: Every European who flies frequently knows the airport in Zaventem, has spent time in the ticketing area that was strewn with blood, limbs, broken glass, battered luggage and other wreckage.

It was another attack on aviation that pulled the United States into the conflict sometimes known as the “global war on terror” in the first place. Since then, airports and airplanes have remained a constant target for Islamic militants, with travelers being encumbered by new batches of security measures after each new attack or attempt.

After the ex-con Richard Reid managed to sneak a bomb aboard a transatlantic flight in December 2001, but failed to detonate the explosives, American passengers were forced to start removing their shoes on their way through security. After British authorities foiled a 2006 plot in which terrorists planned to bring liquid explosives hidden in sport drink bottles aboard multiple transatlantic flights, authorities strictly limited the quantity of liquids passengers were allowed to carry. When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab snuck explosives hidden in his underwear onto a flight on Christmas Day 2009, he ushered in full-body scans and intrusive pat-downs.

Those are the misses. There have been hits, too. In August 2004, two female Chechen suicide bombers, so-called “black widows,” destroyed two domestic Russian flights. In January 2011, a suicide bomber struck Moscow’s Domodedovo airport in an attack that looked almost identical to the one that rocked the airport in Brussels: the bomber struck just outside the security cordon, where the airport is transformed from a “soft” target to a “hard” one. Just months ago, the self-proclaimed Islamic State (ISIS)—the perpetrator of the Brussels attacks—destroyed a Russian passenger jet flying out of Egypt’s Sinai, killing 224 people.

The targeting of airports and airplanes has been so frequent that in lighter times—back when the terrorists seemed so much worse at what they do—some pundits openly mocked their continuing return to airplanes and airports. In one representative discussion from early 2010, a well-known commentator described jihadists as having a “sort of schoolboy fixation” with aviation.

But the reason for this targeting, of course, is neither mysterious nor quixotic, and it’s one the jihadists have explained for themselves. Following the November Paris attacks, ISIS released an infographic boasting that its slaughter on the streets of Paris would force Belgium “to strengthen its security measures … which will cost them tens of millions of dollars.” Moreover, the group claimed, “the intensified security measures and the general state of unease will cost Europe in general and France in specific tends of billions of dollars due to the resulting decrease in tourism, delayed flights, and restrictions on freedom of movement and travel between European countries.”

And that was before the group successfully attacked the Brussels airport, despite those costly new security measures.

Even before 9/11, jihadists saw bleeding the American economy as the surest path to defeating their “far enemy.” When Osama bin Laden declared war against the “Jews and crusaders” in 1996, he emphasized that jihadist strikes should be coupled with an economic boycott by Saudi women. Otherwise, the Muslims would be sending their enemy money, “which is the foundation of wars and armies.”

Indeed, when bin Laden first had the opportunity to publicly explain what the 9/11 attacks had accomplished, in an October 2001 interview with Al Jazeera journalist Taysir Allouni, he emphasized the costs that the attacks imposed on the United States. “According to their own admissions, the share of the losses on the Wall Street market reached 16 percent,” he said. “The gross amount that is traded in that market reaches $4 trillion. So if we multiply 16 percent with $4 trillion to find out the loss that affected the stocks, it reaches $640 billion of losses.” He told Allouni that the economic effect was even greater due to building and construction losses and missed work, so that the damage inflicted was “no less than $1 trillion by the lowest estimate.”

In his October 2004 address to the American people, dramatically delivered just before that year’s elections, bin Laden noted that the 9/11 attacks cost Al Qaeda only a fraction of the damage inflicted upon the United States. “Al Qaeda spent $500,000 on the event,” he said, “while America in the incident and its aftermath lost—according to the lowest estimates—more than $500 billion, meaning that every dollar of Al Qaeda defeated a million dollars.”

Al Qaeda fit the wars the United States had become embroiled in after 9/11 into its economic schema. In that same video, bin Laden explained how his movement sought to suck the United States and its allies into draining wars in the Muslim world. The mujahedin “bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt,” bin Laden said, and they would now do the same to the United States.

Just prior to 2011, there was a brief period when jihadism appeared to be in decline. Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group that later became ISIS, had all but met with defeat at the hands of the United States and local Sunni uprisings. Successful attacks were few and far between.

People gather at a memorial for victims of attacks in Brussels on Wednesday, March 23, 2016. Belgian authorities were searching Wednesday for a top suspect in the country's deadliest attacks in decades, as the European Union's capital awoke under guard and with limited public transport after scores were killed and injured in bombings on the Brussels airport and a subway station. (AP Photo/Valentin Bianchi)

Valentin Bianchi/AP

Representative of those dark times for jihadists, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released a special issue of its online magazine Inspire celebrating a terrorist attack that claimed no victims. In October 2010, jihadists were able to sneak bombs hidden in printer cartridges onto two cargo planes. Due to strong intelligence efforts, authorities disabled both bombs before they were set to explode, but the group drew satisfaction from merely getting them aboard the planes.

“Two Nokia phones, $150 each, two HP printers, $300 each, plus shipping, transportation and other miscellaneous expenses add up to a total bill of $4,200. That is all what Operation Hemorrhage cost us,” the lead article in that special issue of Inspire boasted. “On the other hand this supposedly ‘foiled plot’, as some of our enemies would like to call [it], will without a doubt cost America and other Western countries billions of dollars in new security measures.” The magazine warned that future attacks will be “smaller, but more frequent”—an approach that “some may refer to as the strategy of a thousand cuts.”

The radical cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, writing in Inspire, explained the dilemma that he saw gripping Al Qaeda’s foes. “You either spend billions of dollars to inspect each and every package in the world,” he wrote, “or you do nothing and we keep trying again.”

Even in those days when the terrorist threat loomed so much smaller, the point was not a bad one. Security is expensive, and driving up costs is one way jihadists aim to wear down Western economies.

Unfortunately, Al Qaeda’s envisioned world of smaller but more frequent attacks proved unnecessary for the jihadists. Less than two months after the special issue of Inspire appeared that celebrated an at best half-successful attack, the revolutionary events that we then knew as the “Arab Spring” sent shockwaves through the Middle East and North Africa.

This instability would help jihadism reach the current heights to which it has ascended, where the attacks are not only more frequent but larger. Unfortunately, the United States—blinded at the time by the misguided belief that revolutions in the Arab world would devastate the jihadist movement—pursued policies that hastened the region’s instability. The damages wrought by these policies are still not fully appreciated.

The silver lining to the jihadist economic strategy is that they, too, are economically vulnerable. The damage inflicted on ISIS’s “state” by coalition bombings and other pressures forced the group to slice its fighters’ salaries at the beginning of this year. But as Al Qaeda watches its flashier jihadist rival carry out gruesome attacks on Western targets and get bombarded in return, it discerns further proof of the wisdom of its strategy of attrition.

As it watches these two sets of foes exhaust each other, Al Qaeda believes that its comparative patience will pay off. It believes that its own time will come.