What It’s About (Updated)

(Note: I have made this post sticky and added a fold. New stuff will appear below this one).

From here (Book II of the Church Hearings, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, p. 1):

The third is covert action designed to disrupt and discredit the activities of groups and individuals deemed a threat to the social order.

What if the people doing the “deeming” are religious fundamental zealots? What if the primary American intelligence agency has been “infiltrated” by radical Mormons (as reported in the NYT in the 1980s, they hired them in inordinate numbers)? What if they “deem” anyone who supports gay marriage, equal rights and representation of atheists, and any group friendly to non-radical religious beliefs (or different ones) to be “a threat”?

201206013 Add: Additionally, there is a lot of money to be made by wreaking havoc and then receiving Federal contracts for security, defense, and intelligence work. Combining greed with a misguided belief that God approves of these illegal activities makes for a perfect storm not unlike that following WWII and up to the 1970s.

(In reference to the Alien and Sedition Acts):

Those actions, however, were fundamentally different from [these] intelligence activities examined by this Committee. They [actions under the Alien and Sedition Acts, for example] were generally executed overtly under the authority of a statute or a public executive order. The victims knew what was being done to them and could challenge the Government in courts and other forums. Intelligence activity, on the other hand, is generally covert. It is concealed from its victims and is seldom described in statutes or explicit executive orders. The victim may never suspect that his misfortunes are the intended result of activities undertaken by his government, and accordingly may have no opportunity to challenge the actions taken against him.

Further (I still have to re-locate the source, it’s testimony and/or another NYT article), the crux of the “excuse”: the CIA’s (and whenever I type CIA, I also mean ONI, ONR, INSCOM, NSA, etc.) “right” to protect it’s methods and sources:

From the New York Times, Sunday, December 22, 1974, “HUGE C.I.A. OPERATION REPORTED IN U.S. AGAINST ANTIWAR FORCES, OTHER DISSIDENTS IN NIXON YEARS” by Seymour M. Hersh:

“If you’re an agent sitting in Paris and you’re asked to find out whether Jane Fonda is being manipulated by foreign intelligence services, you’ve got to ask yourself who is the real target,” the official said. “Is it the foreign intelligence services or Jane Fonda?”

However, this official and others insisted that all alleged domestic C.I.A. operations against American citizens had now ceased and that instructions had been issued to insure that they could not occur again.

A number of well-informed official sources, in attempting to minimize the extent of alleged wrongdoing posed by the C.I.A.’s domestic actions, suggested that the laws were fuzzy in connection with the so-called “gray” area of C.I.A.-F.B.I. operations–that is, when an American citizen is approached inside the United States by a suspected foreign intelligence agent.

The legislation setting up the C.I.A. makes the director “responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unuathorized disclosure.”

One official with close access to Mr. Colby contended at length in an interview yesterday that the C.I.A.’s domestic actions were not illegal because of the agency’s legal right to prevent the possible revelation of secrets.

‘Gray Areas’

“Look, you do run into gray areas,” the official said, “and unquestionably, some of this fell into the gray area. But the director does have an obligation to guard his sources and methods. You get some foreigner snooping around and you have to keep track.”

“Let’s suppose as an academic exercise, hypothetically,” the official said, “that a foreigner believed to be an intelligence agent goes to a Washington newspaper office to see a reporter. What do you [the C.I.A.] do? Because it’s a Washington newspaper office and a reporter, do you scratch that from the C.I.A.’s record?

“Sure, the C.I.A. was following the guy, but he wasn’t an American.”

A number of other intelligence experts told of that example, described it as a violation of the 1947 statute and a clear example of an activity, even if involving a foreigner, from which the C.I.A. is barred.

Prof. Harry Howe Ranson of Vanderbilt University, considered a leading expert on the …

[Photo: CIA emblem and headquarters
The Central Intelligence Agency building in Langley, Va. The agency’s emblem symbolizes vigilance, directed to all points of the compass.]

C.I.A. and its legal and Congressional authority, said in a telephone interview that in his opinion the 1947 statute included “a clear prohibition against any internal security functions under any circumstances.”

Professor Ransom said that his research of the Congressional debate at the time the C.I.A. was set up makes clear that Congress expressed concern over any police state tactics and intended to avoid the possibility. Professor Ransom quoted one member as having said during the floor debate, “We don’t want a Gestapo.”

Similar reservations about the C.I.A.’s role in domestic affairs were articulated by Mr. Colby during his confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September, 1973.

Asked by Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat of Missouri, about the “gray” area in the 1947 legislation, Mr. Colby said:

“My interpretation of that particular provision is that it gives me a charge but does not give me authority. It gives me the job of identifying any problem of protecting sources and methods, but in the event I identify one it gives me the responsibility to go to the appropriate authorities with that information and it does not give me any authority to act on my own.”

‘No Authority’

“So I really see less of a gray area (than Mr. Helms) in that regard. I believe that there is really no authority under that act that can be used.”

Beyond his briefings for Senator John C. Stennis, Democrat of Mississippi, and Representative Lucien N. Nedzi, Democrat of Michigan, the respective chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence subcommittees of the Armed Services Committees, Mr. Colby apparently had not informed other Ford Administration officials as of yesterday of the C.I.A. problems.

“Counterintelligence” one high-level Justice Department official exclaimed upon being given some details of the C.I.A.’s alleged domestic operations. “They’re not supposed to have any counterintelligence in this country.”

“Oh, my God,” he said, “oh, my God.”

A former high-level F.B.I. official who operated in domestic counterintelligence areas since World War I, expressed astonishment and then anger upon being told of the C.I.A.’s alleged domestic activities.

“We had an agreement with them that they weren’t to do anything unless they checked with us,” he said. “They double-crossed me all along.”

Got that? To protect it’s methods. And sources.

Now, what do I, Peter Watts, George Clooney, Jeremy Scahill, R. Scott Bakker, and, yes, even Barack Obama have in common?

Me – Witness to illegal human experimentation projects, black op training or testing in 1989 and 1990. And I’m not the only one who was there who is capable of understanding what happened.

Peter Watts – See the back of most of his novels. They include notes describing experiments, methods, and research that is not happening in secret, is not top secret, but most certainly of interest to intelligence and military (as well as various political groups). And yet not in the public eye because it gets published in “boring” scientific journals. This very kind of research, largely conducted on campuses of colleges and universities all over the country and the world, was often funded by the intelligence community and military where projects like MKULTRA were concerned. Many times, the researchers did not know the true source of their funding. “Cut-outs,” front companies and foundations are used. This is why CIA fought very hard (and won) when Congress tried to get some of those people to testify in the 1970s. They did not appear and so CIA was able to keep more of the programs’ true natures secret in addition to who was involved.

George Clooney – Likewise with being in Syriana (and I’m sure it doesn’t help that he championed the plight of Africans caught in civil war and other atrocities, not when there is so much future attention aimed at that continent for exploitation of natural resources, arable land, and one day cheap labor), he revealed that the CIA does things based on the will and desires of special business interests, even when those things are in opposition to protecting American lives (and I would argue, does nothing to help the American economy either, but what’s the point in trying to change the minds of greedy sociopaths who have long ago made up their minds about that?).

Jeremy Scahill – Sources. Obvious, isn’t it? I mean one could argue that the whole existence of “Top Secret America” (a tax waste of gynormous proportions) was the result of his work on uncovering the use of mercenaries in our wars and in place of CIA.

R. Scott Bakker – As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, even the first chapter of his novel Neuropath contains a reference that could be considered drawing attention to what the CIA and DOD did in the 1950s in Canada (where, among other things, they reduced a 19-year old female honors student to the mental capacity of a toddler–right out of the Nazi experiments on jews, BTW, where they tried with chemicals–using electrodes attached to her brain). I can only imagine what else is in that book that would make them nervous. I have since read the book. It’s about NSA going off the rails, agents reprogramming their own brains (removing conscience, empathy, etc.) and others. Mr. Bakker was recently the subject of a smear campaign artempting to paint him as a sexist or misogynist, and thereby to hurt his book sales, his career. The main person behind the personal attacks was entirely unreasonable and I believe likely a subject of behavioral modification pushing her to do so. There are other examples on this blog of character assassination (as well as actual assassination) by proxy and I have usually listed possible motives and probable culprits.

Before I get to the POTUS, here’s a bonus one:

Alan Moore – It was long after the 1980s before NYC re-opened the Frank Olson case. It was assumed a suicide. It turned out that Pierre Lafitte and George Hunter White threw him out, actually through, the window (and the curtains). You know… like Ozymandias did to the Comedian. I don’t know specifically what harassment has come Mr. Moore’s way, only that it was, based on The Watchmen and my own experience, inevitable.

Barack Obama – The Open Government Directive. That was to bring a new era of transparency to the operations of government. To show what we were up to. Of course people who engaged in torture, extraordinary rendition, human experimentation, breaking the law on American soil, etc. were going to resist, to balk, to seek revenge, to see to it that that decision (rendered in written form on December 8, 2009, the same day–due to car trouble–that Peter Watts attempted to cross the border back into Canada) would one day be regretted. This is doing of the likes of Dick Cheney, Cofer Black (set to be a bigwig national security peep in a potential Romney administration), and those seven or eight outdated, insane dinosaurs in the Pentagon. That they also are all tied to money involving the criminalization of free speech, of protesting war, etc. also shows that it is not all ideology but also greed at work. And where there is both, how can people lacking human compassion resist?

And so when things don’t go well or one of us loses our temper, we blame the other(s) instead of the true cause. We have to stop doing that.

I could point out that the past several months have been dealing with (really, at this point believe me it was just a minor annoyance) other people using voice-to-skull to try to convince me that I’m bicameral. Really, think about it. Easy to do.

Or remind how I spent six or eight weeks in extreme pain in Minneapolis because of a swollen gland in my throat, which came right after the posting of a sample of writing from an upcoming novel that reminds me of the line in “Hey You” by Pink Floyd: “…and the worms ate into his brain.”

But that isn’t the one that stuck with me. It was instead, “Together we stand. Divided we fall…we fall…we fall…”

So, keep writing. Keep doing what you are doing. Hang in there. F*** the bastards.

It’s not about “a cat”, “a dog”, or even “killing grandma” (though how that and the fire could be ignored, I just don’t understand). It’s about shaping the world the way that these people want it: fearful, hateful, non-questioning, earth-pillaging, murdering, torturing, and profiting off of it while everyone else begs for bread and water.

You know, vulture capitalism.

PS: Suck it, Cynthia, you pedophilic pimping slut.

PPS: I’m still voting green party come November.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. […] pretend to run CIA after CIA stomps your boss’s guts for daring to suggest something like the Open Government Directive. Bad Commander-in-Chief, […]


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI