Neocon James Woolsey Called For Ed Snowden to be "Hanged" in 2013

R. James Woolsey Jr., a made member of the permanent reactionary faction of the U.S. power structure, had this to say about the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden, (whom he now blames for the Islamic State attack in Paris), on Rupert Murdoch's agitpropaganda TV channel Fox "News" on December 17, 2013: "He should be prosecuted for treason. If convicted by a jury of his peers, he should be hanged by his neck until he is dead." ["If" he is convicted, indeed. That's just keeping up the pretense of "fair" trials in a U.S. kangaroo court in a political case.]

But Woolsey is far more sympathetic to the convicted spy Jonathan Jay Pollard, whom the U.S. has just announced is to be freed from prison. Pollard is the American Jew and Zionist fanatic who stole large quantities of highly classified military information and delivered it to his Israeli handlers. Woolsey attributes Pollard's long imprisonment to "anti-Semitism." [1]

Pollard of course acted in secret to aid a foreign power.  He committed espionage. Edward Snowden gave his information to the entire world through media outlets, which chose what to publish. Snowden acted as an altruist and patriot. [2]

Woolsey's "pro-Semitism" is nicely balanced by his hostility against Muslims. He is an actor in the demagogic, inflammatory attacks on Muslims generally. For example, he campaigned for the 2010 Oklahoma ban on "Sharia law," contributing a recorded agitprop message that thousands of Oklahomans were subjected to. He's a key figure in various Muslim Threat-mongering organizations. One of these propaganda mill/political pressure outfits, the so-called "Center for Security Policy," put out a book by Woolsey, fellow permanent member of the reactionary power constellation Frank Gaffney, Jr, and the notorious violent extremist Lt. General William Boykin, luridly titled Shariah: The Threat to America. [3]

Notice; not "Jihad," or "Islamic Terrorism." Sharia. Which is a code of conduct for Muslims, religious "law." These guys sure seem like Crusaders. I guess they want a Christian vs. Muslim war. That'll end up well!

Just to give you the flavor of this reactionary rabble-rousing rant, here's a quote: "Most mosques in the United States already have been radicalized, that most Muslim social organizations are fronts for violent jihadists and that Muslims who practice sharia law seek to impose it in this country," (my emphases). Considering the long list of their activities, these arch-reactionaries probably had their underlings ghostwrite this extended political pamphlet in the guise of a book, but obviously they reviewed and approved it. It reflects their mentality and ideology.

I guess it makes sense that Woolsey has a soft spot for Pollard. Woolsey by his actions is very much aligned with the Likud and even farther rightwing Israeli elements. In their view, it serves Israeli interests to whip up American Christians against Muslims. Too bad it doesn't serve American interests, or world interests. (Or even, ultimately, Israeli interests.)

I'm an atheist. So I realize that all religion is guff. However, creating permanent hostility between billions of these fool "believers" who "believe" different things. (Although ironically Christianity is basically a mutation of Judaism, and Islam is just a knock-off of Judeo-Christianity; but that doesn't stop them killing each other, even within Islam and Christianity- recall the numerous wars in Europe between Catholics and Protestants.) I also think it is necessary to fight the Islamofascists. However, just fighting ISIS or Al-Qaeda or whoever is treating the symptoms of a disease without treating the cause. Thus it is no cure. The root of the disease continues to be spread by Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabist evangelizing worldwide, and by the Pakistani military's support for its various Frankenstein monster terrorists aimed at India and at "exerting influence in Afghanistan," as Pakistan's apologists like former CIA officers Bruce Riedel and Michael Scheuer have it.

I should mention; Woolsey, predictably, is a defender of CIA torturers. What did you expect?

1] Letter from Woolsey published in rabidly rightwing Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch), on July 5, 2012.

A useful synopsis of facts about Woolsey and his "career" is at Wikipedia.

2] A naive patriot, however. I think opposition to the U.S, mega-police state should be based on human rights. American guff about freedom and democracy and rights is just that, guff. I'm an anti-nationalist. No human "owes" any loyalty to any nation-state, which are artificial political constructions run for the benefit of their rulers and rich citizens. (Well,maybe there could be exceptions for Scandinavian countries and such, where the politicians have been forced to run things to benefit the citizens generally.  But there the state serves the people, not vice versa as in places like the U.S., China, Russia, Iran, the UK, etc.)

3] Boykin is a fundamentalist Christian and latter-day Crusader who explicitly sees the "war on terror" as a religious war. He was appointed to top positions overseeing death-squad-type units in the military and CIA, a terrifying commentary on the fascistic fanatics who staff the U.S.' instruments of violence. Scroll down to the "Controversies" section of his Wikipedia entry to start your education on this lethally violent, dangerous zealot.