Will the Real Michael Pompeo Please Stand Up

In a January 10th 2020 interview with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the Fox News program  "The Ingraham Angle", we find the following exchange between Ms. Ingraham and Mr. Pompe when asked about the Congressional briefing regarding the Soleimani assassination:

  

"Laura Ingraham: But Vice President Pence said to reveal more and the compelling intel could have compromised sources and methods Mr. Secretary.  Does that mean that the intel briefers in this administration don't trust Congress with classified information because that's what it sounded like?

Mike Pompeo: We shared an awful lot with them yesterday.  There are things that only certain members of Congress get to hear and I know Senators Lee and Paul care about this a great deal. They want to protect the prerogatives of the legislative branch. They have a view of the War Powers Resolution. I think members of Congress get frustrated by this sometimes. And so this wasn’t political in the Republican, Democrat sense. This was executive, legislative. 

And so I think there are a number of people who are using this as a political axe to grind. I think that’s most unfortunate. There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani. We don’t know precisely when -- and we don’t know precisely where. 

But it was real…" (my bolds)

So, the all powerful U.S. intelligence community was aware that there was an "imminent" threat yet, according (at least publicly) to Mr. Pompeo, they didn't know when or where the attacks were to take place.

Now, let's look at some comments that he made at a speech on January 13, 2020 entitled "The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example":

"President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence – real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic.  In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits.  It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it.  Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so….

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it perhaps best.  Had we not taken that strike against Qasem Soleimani, our leadership – the recommendation that we made to President Trump – we would have been “culpably negligent” had we not made that recommendation, imposed a significant cost on the regime for their bad decision.

Qasem Soleimani discovered our resolve to defend American lives.

And Iran hit back, and we’re grateful that no lives were lost, and we will never downplay the seriousness of any attack on the United States or its forces.  But judging from the type and intensity of the strike, the regime certainly must now understand what we will do if they ever again pose risk to American lives.  If Iran escalates, we will end it on our terms.

President Trump reinforced that deterrence when he gave a set of remarks this past week.  And these days Iran is making noise about leaving the nuclear deal.  There’s a reason that the President had as his first words in those remarks to the nation that said, quote, “As long as I am President of the United States, – Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.”  That declaration is backed by the most effective deterrence capability in the world." (my bolds)

You will notice that the narrative regarding the necessity of the attack has now switched to one of deterrence rather than one of imminence as was so strongly being pushed immediately after the assassination.

Can we trust Mr. Pompeo?  Let's look back at what Mr. Pompeo had to say at Texas A&M University in April 2019 during a speech entitled "Why Diplomacy Matters" about America's intelligence community, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency:

Let's look at the quote in context as taken from this transcript which is available on the Department of State website:

"So I always begin with a deep understanding that no secretary of state gets through their first day without recognizing it’s a tough world out there. We don’t appreciate how glorious it is to be here in the United States of America on a consistent enough basis and with enough fervor. Maybe you do here at Texas A&M, but I think too many Americans don’t understand how blessed we are. These are – are many, many tough places out there.

Having said that, not all tough places are the same. They each present a different set of challenges. I – it reminds me, you would know this as – it’s a bit of an aside. But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.) It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. (Applause.) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." (my bolds)

Let's look at one last comment from Mike Pompeo's comments on January 13, 2020:

"...– it is certainly that, having had the privilege to serve as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency for a year and a half – the first year and a half of this administration, I watched these professionals do their level best to get it right every day.  That’s not the – the Intelligence Community makes mistakes all the time, right?  Happens.

But the depth and breadth, the intellect, the capacity and reach of America’s intelligence capability is enormous.  They do their level best to present this accurately.  We do our best, indeed, to translate their products into a situation where we can talk about this publicly.  That is often difficult because we have to preserve the capacity and the resources that were put in place.  We can’t risk them to share something with the American people.  We have to protect them and preserve them because we’ve still got folks in harm’s way even as we sit here today.

But I can say to the American people you should have enormous confidence in the Intelligence Community that their efforts are genuine, they are real, they are authentic, they are trying to provide good datasets to – now I’m on the other side as the policy advisor for the President receiving this intelligence, informing our decision making." (my bolds)

Now, let's look at additional remarks from Mike Pompeo from October 11, 2019 at a speech given to the American Association of Christian Councselors:

"We’re both in very people-intensive lines of work, and we’re both appealing to the hearts and minds to change behaviors.  As believers, we draw on the wisdom of God to help us get it right, to be a force for good in the life of human beings.

Now, I know that even having just said that, I know some people in the media will break out the pitchforks when they hear that I ask God for direction in my work.  (Applause.)  But you should know, as much as I’d like to claim originality, it is not a new idea.  (Laughter.)  I love this quote from President Lincoln.  He said that he – he said, quote, “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.”  (Laughter.)

And so with that in mind, I want to use my time today to think about what it means to be a Christian leader, a Christian leader in three areas:

First is disposition.  How is it that one carries oneself in the world?  The second is dialogue, talking.  How is it that we engage with others around the world?  And third is decisions, decisions that we make.  How do we make choices?  Upon what basis?  What do we use as our bedrock to get to those decisions?  These are things that you face in your work every day.  They are issues that the State Department and President Trump, each of us, must face.

And my focus too, to be quite candid, is not just on being a leader.  I learned how to lead at whatever level I’m blessed with during my time at West Point and other experiences, but I want to talk today about being a Christian leader.  I learned that through a very different experience, an experience with God and my own personal faith in Christ.

Like a lot of people – and you don’t have to admit it today – but like a lot of people, I grew up going to church but with a relationship with God that wasn’t especially important for me, because I was destined to be in the NBA.  (Laughter.)  But as I grew older, when I started my time at the United States Military Academy, there were two young men – they were in the class ahead of me – who invited me to a Bible study.  They were very intentional to me in explaining God’s Word.  And after some study and discipleship with them, they helped me begin my walk with Christ...

But back – Susan and I have been – had Christ at the center of our lives.  Back in my church in Wichita I was a deacon.  She and I taught fifth grade Sunday School, which was a great, great lesson for my time as Secretary of State.  (Laughter and Applause.)  But we also saw in that, in our time serving in that, we saw how many challenging issues that you all address every single day….

Scripture calls us to be “transformed by the renewing of [our] minds.”  And so I keep a Bible open on my desk, and I try every morning to try and get in a little bit of time with the Book.  I need my mind renewed with truth each day.  And part of that truth is, as my son reminds me, is to be humble.  Proverbs says, “With the humble is wisdom.”...

We should all remember – we should all remember that we are imperfect servants serving a perfect God who constantly forgives us each and every day.  He keeps using us – (applause) – he keeps using us to do a higher work.  And my work at the State Department, as it is for those who work alongside of me, is to serve America each and every day...

I’ve found this in life – truth telling isn’t just a matter of private conversations for me.  It’s what I try to do publicly as we lay down President Trump’s foreign policy to keep Americans safe and secure." (my bolds)

So, who is the real Mike Pompeo?  To me, it certainly appears that his realness depends on who his audience is and, given his powerful position, that should concern all of us.

The Bethlehem Doctrine and the New Definition of Imminent

In this posting, I want to take a look at the concept of imminence as it relates to terrorist attacks in specific.  While the concept of imminence may seem obvious to most of you, as you will see in this posting, the post-9/11 use of the word imminence (or imminent) is driven by government's desire to justify its extralegal actions against other state and non-state actors.

Let's start with this tweet from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo:

Here's Mike Pompeo once again reiterating the imminence of the looming Iranian terror attack while being interviewed on CNN on January 3, 2020:

Note the exchange at the three minute mark where Mr. Pompeo is directly asked about whether the imminent attack was going to take place in the "coming days", a typical use of the word "imminent", and he deflects by stating that he doesn't wish to talk about details of the plotting that was taking place.

Lastly, here is an excerpt from an interview with Mike Pompeo on Fox and Friends on January 3, 2020:

"President Trump made the decision, a serious decision which was necessary.  There was an imminent attack.  The orchestrator, the primary motivator for the attack was Qasem Soleimani, an attempt to disrupt that plot.  You all have been talking this morning about the history of who Qasem Soleimani is.  He’s got hundreds of American lives’ blood on his hands.  But what was sitting before us was his travels throughout the region and his efforts to make a significant strike against Americans.  There would have been many Muslims killed as well – Iraqis, people in other countries as well.  It was a strike that was aimed at both disrupting that plot, deterring further aggression, and we hope setting the conditions for de-escalation as well." (my bold)

During this relatively short interview, he uses the word "imminent" four times.  Obviously, the imminent nature of the attack forms a key part of the narrative justifying the assassination of Qasem Soleimani.

Let's switch gears for a moment.  Here is the definition of "imminent" from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

ready to take place : happening soon

often used of something bad or dangerous seen as menacingly near

I think that most of us would agree that the concept of imminence means that something is about to happen soon.  As you will see in this posting, in our post 9/11 reality, the concept of imminence has changed, at least to those who we elect to office.

Like me, I am guessing that most of my readers have not heard of the Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence.  This doctrine was developed by Sir Daniel Bethlehem, an international lawyer and former legal adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu's government.  It was Bethlehem who advised the Israeli government that it was legal to build their security wall through the West Bank.  As well, between 2006 and 2011, he was the principal Legal Advisor of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office during the government of Tony Blair .  In a during which he argued that the war in Iraq was legal because Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United Kingdomas shown in this quote from his Minutes of Evidence to the UK's Select Committee on Foreign Affairs:

"The central thesis of this Memorandum is that there are significant shortcomings in the law relating to the use of force and self-defence. While these shortcomings are not a consequences of recent events, and in particular do not derive from the action in Iraq, they are nevertheless crystallised more sharply by the coincidence of large scale terrorist activity, particularly of a suicidal kind, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of its technology. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the international community has a special responsibility to undertake a considered review of international law and institutions relative to the combating of this threat."

In his paper entitled "Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State's Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors" which you can find here (and I would suggest that you read it to better understand his argument), Bethlehem advises that states have a clear right to "preemptive self-defence" against "imminent attack".  This is a concept that is difficult to argue against, particularly when one considers Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which states that:

"Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

You will note, however, that Article 51 provides for the right of self-defence only when responding to an attack that has already taken place not for attacks that may occur in the future.  As such, Bethlehem goes on to state the following:

"We conclude that the notion of ‘imminence’ should be reconsidered in light of new threats to international peace and security—regardless of whether the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence is a distinctively new legal development. We recommend that the Government work to establish a clear international consensus on the circumstances in which military action may be taken by states on a pre-emptive basis." (my bolds)

There's the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-emptive Self-Defense; the very concept of "imminence" needs to be redefined.  Here is a further quote from his paper:

"There is little scholarly consensus on what is properly meant by “imminence” in the context of contemporary threats. Similarly, there is little consensus on who may properly be targetable within the non- state-actor continuum of those planning, threatening, perpetrating, and providing material support essential to an armed attack....

Separate from the above, while “imminence” continues to be a key element of the law relevant to anticipatory self-defense in response to a threat of attack, the concept needs to be further refined and developed to take into account the new circumstances and threats from non- state actors that states face today." (my bold)

As such, Bethlehem has developed twelve principles relevant to a state's right to self-defence against an imminent or actual attack by nonstate actors.  The key to his entire thesis is found in Principle 8 which I quote here:

"Whether an armed attack may be regarded as “imminent” will fall to be assessed by reference to all relevant circumstances, including (a) the nature and immediacy of the threat, (b) the probability of an attack, (c) whether the anticipated attack is part of a concerted pattern of continuing armed activity, (d) the likely scale of the attack and the injury, loss, or damage likely to result therefrom in the absence of mitigating action, and (e) the likelihood that there will be other opportunities to undertake effective action in self-defense that may be expected to cause less serious collateral injury, loss, or damage. The absence of specific evidence of where an attack will take place or of the precise nature of an attack does not preclude a conclusion that an armed attack is imminent for purposes of the exercise of a right of self-defense, provided that there is a reasonable and objective basis for concluding that an armed attack is imminent."

There's the key; if states redefine the very concept of "imminence", they can justify killing just about anyone based on "intelligence" which suggests that a terrorist attack could take place even if there are no details about when, where or how the attack could take place.  The Bethlehem Doctrine has been used by governments to justify the drone attacks on foreign soil that have been used as the weapon of choice since the War on Terror evolved into a battle with very few "boots on the ground". 

While we will never know for certain, my intuition tells me that Mike Pompeo's repeated and very obvious use of the word "imminent" was the Bethlehem definition of imminence, not the Merriam-Webster definition of imminence that is most commonly used by non-politicians, thus enabling him to fool his audience.  This rather Orwellian definition of imminent gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect.

Christians United for Israel - How the Republican Party is Rallying the Anti-Iran Forces

Updated September 2019

Washington's chief warrior, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Advisor John Bolton and Vice President Mike Pence recently found themselves sharing the podium at the annual Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit in Washington, D.C.  The attendance at this event by these three headlining gentlemen shows us how important Donald Trump values his pro-Israeli evangelical Christian base.  At this event, all three men gave rousing speeches that included comments on the ever present boogeyman in the room, Iran, the existential enemy of Israel.  In this posting, I will provide you with key excerpts from all three speeches, showing how Washington is playing into Israel's narrative of Iran.

Let's start with the Vice President.  Here is what Mike Pence had to say about Iran to his Israel-friendly Christian audience:

"And let me assure you, while any peace will undoubtedly require compromise, you can be confident of this: The United States of America will never compromise the safety and security of the Jewish State of Israel. (Applause.)

In the wake of all those actions, finally the President also made one other promise.  He promised to stand up to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.  And he did just that when he withdrew the United States of America from the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. (Applause.)  There will be no more pallets of cash to the mullahs in Iran. (Applause.)

Now, Pastor Hagee mentioned that I served in the Congress of the United States.  I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee.  And back when I was in the Congress, there was actually a bipartisan group of members of Congress who brought together sanctions on Iran, years ago.  And those sanctions were isolating a regime that was — and bringing tremendous pressure on it.

But, in 2015, we all remember, when the Iran nuclear deal was signed, all of that pressure went away.

The previous administration’s so-called deal didn’t prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  It simply delayed it for roughly a decade.  In exchange, the deal gave away billions of dollars in cash and sanctions relief that Iran has used to fund more terrorist attacks on innocents across the region.

President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, and we have re-imposed every last sanction that was lifted. (Applause.)

And under this President, we’ve implemented a maximum-pressure campaign to change Iran’s malign behavior and hold the regime accountable for its destructive actions.  It’s remarkable to think that, as we speak, our actions are already having an effect.  They’re cutting off the regime’s ability to support their terrorist minions across the Middle East.

The Iranian economy is reeling under unprecedented U.S. sanctions. And now — now Iran must choose between caring for its people and continuing to fund its proxies who spread violence and terrorism throughout the region and breathe out murderous hatred against Israel.

Over the last several months, despite promises and hopes to the contrary in 2015, Iran has been even increasing more of their malign activity and violence in the region.  We’ve all witnessed it.  Last month, Iran attacked tankers passing near the Strait of Hormuz, and they downed an unmanned American drone.

And last week, Iran exceeded the amount of low-enriched uranium it can have.  Today — today, it actually proclaimed it was going to start enriching uranium beyond the levels permitted by the agreement."

He then went on to discuss his trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau, reminding his audience that another holocaust could lie in wait, just around the corner, thanks to malign actors like Iran.

Now, let's look at what Mike Pompeo had to say.  Here is a video of his entire speech:

Here are some key excerpts:

"This administration has made a real effort to protect Christians and other threatened religious minorities in Iraq and elsewhere, and we’re making real progress.  (Applause.) The flame of existence of Christians must not be snuffed out.  Their unalienable rights – Christians’ unalienable rights in the Middle East – their right to worship must not be taken away.  (Applause.)

Persecution of the faithful is especially intense inside the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The regime’s militant adherence to the noxious tenets of the Islamic Revolution dictates all elements of life – and especially the suppression of other faiths.

In Iran, if Muslims try to convert non-Muslims, the penal code calls for a death sentence.

The government does not recognize converts to Christianity. It levies beatings and solitary confinement on Christians caught worshiping in violation of government dictates.

Last year, an Iranian court upheld a 10-year prison sentences on four Iranian Christians who were “acting against national security” by, quote, “promoting Zionist Christianity,” end of quote, and running house churches. This is something we know in America.

Instead, instead of following the normal summons procedure, authorities raided their homes, beat them, and used electroshock weapons on them. They then threw them into Evin Prison – a regime dungeon inside of Tehran.

Every day I pray, and I’d ask you too, to pray for our brothers and sisters in Iran – and not just for them, but people of all faiths who are persecuted there in Iran.  (Applause.)

I’m from Kansas, and there are – yeah, I love it, we’ve got Kansans out there.  I’m sure there’s more and you’re just quiet people.  (Laughter.)  A lot of people get spun up with the wrong ideas that American evangelicals want to impose a theocracy on America.  I wish they would be concerned about the real theocratic takeover that has been happening in Iran for the last four decades.  (Applause.)  The ayatollahs have grievously deprived the Iranian people of that most basic, simple, fundamental right, their right to worship.

That same twisted, intolerant doctrine that fuels persecution inside Iran has also led the ayatollah and his cronies to cry out, quote, “death to Israel” for four decades now.  This is similar to a cry that came out of Iran – then called Persia ‒ many, many years ago.  The Book of Esther teaches us about this.  It was in the 5th century B.C.  There was a wicked advisor named King Xerxes.  A fellow named Haman hatched a plot to kill all the Jews in the Persian Empire.  He secretly wrote letters with the king’s seal to all the provincial governors, ordering the people to rise up and attack the Jews.  This edict, once issued, could not be revoked.  But thanks to the courageous intervention of Queen Esther, who begged the king to show mercy to her people, Haman’s plot was exposed and the Jews were ultimately spared.  Today this marks the Jewish holiday of Purim and it commemorates this amazing miracle. (Applause.)

I wanted to tell this story today for a couple of reasons, because similar threats to the Jewish people have marked other eras as well – think of the Roman devastation of Jerusalem, the vicious pogroms throughout European history, and the Holocaust.   The Jews have had a target on their back in every era of history. And as the Book of Ecclesiastes says, “There is [indeed] nothing new under the sun.”

But thank God.  Thank God we have a leader in President Trump – an immovable friend of Israel. (Applause.)  His commitment, his commitment – President Trump’s commitment is the strongest in history, and it’s been one of the best parts of my job to turn that commitment into real action.  (Applause.)

You know the stories, but we’ve implemented the strongest pressure campaign in history against the Iranian regime, and we are not done. (Applause.)

We’ve cut off billions in funds that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s leadership would have used for various nefarious purposes, not the least of which would have been their efforts to destroy the state of Israel.

It is also the case that under President Trump, the Israel haters such as Hamas and Hizballah and Islamic Jihad receive far less blood money from Iran to pursue their terrorism than ever in recent history.  (Applause.)"

While some of John Bolton's comments were cut off on this recording, here is a 20 minute-long video of his speech:

Here are some key excerpts:

"I am here to tell you today, President Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran is working. (Applause) A little over a year ago, our critics predicted we couldn’t do it. Our unilateral sanctions, they said, would not be effective. Since then, the United States has levied the toughest ever sanctions on the Iranian regime and Iran’s economy is, to quote the Financial Times, “collapsing under their weight.” (Applause)…

As I said earlier this year in Miami, under this administration no regime that chants “Death to America” or “Death to Israel” will get a deal from this administration. (Loud Applause) We will continue to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime until it abandons its nuclear program and ends its violent activities across the Middle East, including conducting and supporting terrorism around the world."

In case you haven't heard enough from the 2019 edition of CUFI, here is a three hour and forty-five minute video of some of the speeches given:

Since these three men represent America's Christian community, Israel's very best friends forever, let's close with this brief look at what the Bible has to say about the topic of peace.  Various forms of the word "peace" are used 429 times in the King James Version of the Bible.  One of the best known verses that invokes peace is found in Matthew 5:9 as follows:

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God."  

Two other pertinent verses that invoke peace are found as follows:

"Turn away from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it." Psalm 34:14

"So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding."  Romans 14:19

These three gentlemen who are being used to solidify the electoral support of America's Christian right seem to have forgotten that one of the key tenets of Christianity is the concept of peace.  Their "turning of plowshares into swords", particularly when it comes to Iran, stands in complete opposition to what they claim to believe in their religious lives.  That, to me, is a prime example of "Cafeteria Christianity" where one picks and chooses what they believe.

Global Human Rights Abuses - How Washington Turns a Blind Eye

Every year, the United States Department of State releases its analysis of human rights across the globe.  The 43rd annual Country Reports on Human Rights for 2018 contains a great deal of information about nations, both advanced and developing, throughout the world. 

One of the most interesting but not terribly surprising aspects of the report is the cover letter, signed by current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.  Here is a screen capture of the entire letter:

In my opinion and given Washington's rather inconsistent global diplomatic track record when it comes to human rights, this is the most interesting line in the letter:

"The policy of this Administration is to engage with other governments, regardless of their record, if doing so will further U.S. interests."

In light of Washington's massive $110 billion defense deal with Saudi Arabia that was announced in May 2017 and the nation's further investments in the United States as shown here:

"After my heavily negotiated trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Kingdom agreed to spend and invest $450 billion in the United States. This is a record amount of money. It will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States. Of the $450 billion, $110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries — and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business." (my bold)

...let's look at what the report has to say about the Saudi record when it comes to human rights, particularly its use of the death penalty.  Here is a lengthy quote from the Executive Summary:

"Human rights issues included unlawful killings; executions for nonviolent offenses; forced renditions; forced disappearances; and torture of prisoners and detainees by government agents. There were also reports of arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners; arbitrary interference with privacy; criminalization of libel, censorship, and site blocking; restrictions on freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and movement; severe restrictions of religious freedom; citizens’ lack of ability and legal means to choose their government through free and fair elections; trafficking in persons; violence and official discrimination against women, although new women’s rights initiatives were implemented; criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual activity; and prohibition of trade unions.

Government agents carried out the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 2. King Salman pledged to hold all individuals involved accountable, regardless of position or rank. Several officials were removed from their positions, and on November 15, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (PPO) announced the indictment of 11 suspects. The PPO announced it would seek the death penalty for five of the suspects charged with murder and added that an additional 10 suspects were under further investigation. At year’s end the PPO had not named the suspects nor the roles allegedly played by them in the killing, nor had they provided a detailed explanation of the direction and progress of the investigation. In other cases the government did not punish officials accused of committing human rights abuses, contributing to an environment of impunity.

The country continued air operations in Yemen as leader of a military coalition formed in 2015 to counter the 2014 forceful takeover of the Republic of Yemen’s government institutions and facilities by Houthi militias and security forces loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saudi-led coalition airstrikes in Yemen resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure on a number of occasions, and the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, reported that some coalition airstrikes caused disproportionate collateral damage. Houthi-aligned militias carried out cross-border raids into Saudi territory and fired missiles and artillery into Saudi Arabia throughout the year, killing and injuring Saudi civilians. The coalition’s Joint Incident Assessment Team, established by the Saudi government and based in Riyadh, investigated allegations of civilian casualties, published recommendations, and in some cases promised to provide compensation to affected families, although no prosecutions occurred." (my bold)

Here is what the report has to say about the implementation of sharia law in Saudi Arabia and its consequences for its citizens:

"Under the country’s interpretation and practice of sharia (Islamic law), capital punishment may be imposed for a range of nonviolent offenses, including apostasy, sorcery, and adultery, although in practice death sentences for such offenses were rare and often reduced on appeal. The government, however, frequently implemented capital punishment for nonviolent drug trafficking offenses. According to the governmental Saudi Press Agency, the country carried out 145 executions as of December 19, 57 of which were for drug-related offenses. Three of those executions were carried out in public." (my bold)

Here is what the report has to say about the implementation of death sentences:

"Since the country lacks a comprehensive written penal code listing criminal offenses and the associated penalties for them, punishment--including the imposition of capital punishment--is subject to considerable judicial discretion.Defendants are able to appeal their sentences. The law requires a five-judge appellate court to affirm a death sentence, which a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court must unanimously affirm. Appellate courts may recommend changes to a sentence, including increasing a lesser sentence to the death penalty.

Defendants possess the right under the law to seek commutation of a death sentence for some crimes and may receive a royal pardon under specific.

Many of those executed during the year had been convicted in trials that did not meet international minimum fair trial standards,according to NGOs such as Amnesty International. Amnesty noted that “those sentenced to death are often convicted solely on the basis of ‘confessions’ obtained under torture and other mistreatment, denied legal representation in trials which are held in secret, and are not kept informed of the progress of the legal proceedings in their case....

The government also imposed death sentences for crimes committed by minors. According to the European Saudi Organization for Human Rights (ESOHR), at year’s end eight individuals on death row were minors when detained, or at the time they committed offenses” (my bolds)

Given that an appeal can result in the imposition of a death sentence when one has received a lesser sentence certainly would prevent individuals from seeking an appeal of their sentence.

According to Amnesty International's death penalty database, there were 146 executions in Saudi Arabia in 2017 (the latest year for which data is available), third highest in the world as shown on this graphic:

Saudi Arabia was also responsible for the second highest number of executions related to drug offences as shown here:

Let's take a very brief look at the Saudi's use of torture.  Here is what the report states:

"The law prohibits torture and makes officers, who are responsible for criminal investigations, liable for any abuse of authority. Sharia, as interpreted in the country, prohibits judges from accepting confessions obtained under duress. Statutory law provides that public investigators shall not subject accused persons to coercive measures to influence their testimony.

Multiple human rights organizations, the United Nations, and independent third parties noted numerous reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees by law enforcement officers. In November HRW and Amnesty International reported that some female right-to-drive activists arrested in May and June were subjected to torture and sexual harassment while in detention at Dhahban Prison near Jeddah. Human rights organizations and Western media outlets reported the women had been subjected to electric shocks, whipping, and forced kissing.

In a September SCC hearing attended by diplomatic representatives, three defendants reported their confessions had been forced after they were subject to abuse including beatings, sleep deprivation, being forced to stand for long periods, and food deprivation. In a June report, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism Ben Emmerson called on authorities to investigate allegations of the torture of detainees. While noting the country had “suffered numerous terrorist acts” and had a duty to protect its citizens, Emmerson said he had “well-documented reports” of torture and mistreatment by law enforcement officials against individuals accused of terrorism, as well as the use of coerced confessions." (my bold)

Doesn't the last paragraph sound familiar in light of the U.S.-led War on Terror that ended up with this:

You have to love the double-talk, don't you?

Apparently, Secretary of State Pompeo is right, it doesn't really matter what human rights violations take place, Washington really is prepared to make "deals with the devil" if it benefits "the homeland".  In the case of Saudi Arabia, it certainly appears that Washington is able to turn a blind eye when it comes to the use of capital punishment and torture as long as the Saudi royal family is willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the United States, an investment that will create jobs for Americans.

Mike Pompeo and the CIA's Business Model

A recent speech entitled "Why Diplomacy Matters" (a rather ironic title once you learn what was said in the speech) given at Texas A&M University by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gives us an inside view of how this gentleman did business while he was at the helm of the Central Intelligence Agency.  While it should come as no particular surprise to anyone, it is interesting to see exactly how a former Director of the CIA interpreted the business model of the world's largest intelligence agency.

Before we get to the key part of this speech, let's open by looking at how Mr. Pompeo warmed up his Texas audience and how he worked to attract students into serving in America's global diplomatic mission:

"It’s great to be in Texas, one of the greatest countries in the world. (Laughter and applause.) Yeah, I just came back from South America, now Texas, and I’ll return to the United States in the morning, yes. (Laughter.)

Seeing you all here reminds me of a George Patton quote. He said, “Give me an Army of West Point graduates and I’ll win a battle. But if you give me a handful of Texas Aggies, I’ll win a war.” (Cheers.) That’s tough to take from a West Point graduate. (Laughter).

Look, I understand that this institution has sent more of its graduates into the military than any other university other than our military academies. It’s because you all are tough, you’re committed, and you want to serve. You should be proud of that, and I love it. And it’s why I really wanted to be here today…everyone here – Cadets, Bush school students, anyone looking to give back to America – should consider potentially one day working for the United States Department of State.

Now, I know, I get it, diplomacy doesn’t sound as thrilling as firing anti-tank weapons, flying F-16s, crawling through mud. There’s no “Top Gun” version of the State Department. Instead we get “Madame Secretary.” No offense to Tea Leoni, those of you who are her fans.

But there’s a good reason that many former military officers end up working as diplomats serving our country. It’s because the work that we do is important for our soldiers, the soldiers need us, and we need them. Neither diplomacy nor the military can succeed at delivering for presidents and for our country without the other....

In other words: Diplomacy and military strength go hand in hand. They are indeed intimately related. Each relies on the other."

Here's an interesting quote that followed his comments on how the State Department was responsible for putting the strongest sanctions in history on North Korea and how the department was working to "...warn our friends and partners against buying Chinese 5G technology..." (i.e. Huawei) because these companies "...will take (Americans') private information and transfer it to the Chinese Government..."  I guess it's better to have our private data fall into the hands of the American intelligence network and its Five Eyes partner nations.

Here's the final reason why the Department of State is so important:

"The State Department helps with our American diplomats promoting and protecting our values – indeed, our very way of life.

The U.S. is the global standard-bearer for democracy, for freedom, for liberty, and for human rights as well. If we don’t speak up, no one else will." (my bold)

As you will see in the next section of this posting, his comments about the United States being the global standard-bearer are rather hypocritical at best.

Now, we move to the question and answer section of the speech.  Here is the key question:

Question:  "Hi, Mr. Secretary. My name is Ben Allen (ph), and I’m a civil engineering student. My question for you is: How do you balance condemnations with concessions in diplomacy with a controversial government such as Saudi Arabia? Thank you.

Secretary Pompeo:  "So I always begin with a deep understanding that no secretary of state gets through their first day without recognizing it’s a tough world out there. We don’t appreciate how glorious it is to be here in the United States of America on a consistent enough basis and with enough fervor. Maybe you do here at Texas A&M, but I think too many Americans don’t understand how blessed we are. These are – are many, many tough places out there."

Having said that, not all tough places are the same. They each present a different set of challenges. I – it reminds me, you would know this as – it’s a bit of an aside. But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.) It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. (Applause.) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.

And so when you deal with these countries, you have to just recognize they’re not all the same. Some of these difficult, nasty places want to partner with the United States and just haven’t gotten to the right place yet, just haven’t been able to move their own institutions. And some of them may only be trying half as much as they ought to be trying, but they’re trying to move in the right direction. That presents a very different way of thinking about how the United States ought to address them. In those cases, we ought to assist them." (my bold)

In case you missed it, here it is again:

...and there you have it, the CIA's business model of lying cheating and stealing straight from the mouth of a former CIA director.