Steven Ivens

A new hypothesis floating around about missing rogue FBI agent Steven Ivens posed by former FBI-turned-Monaco-intel-chief Robert Eringer (though he lists the two other possibilities as well, simple nervous breakdown and something more akin to what I talked about here).

I’m not familiar with Eringer, but sounds like he’s lead an interesting life.

I have a primary problem with theories one and three. The first does not explain the other arrest, that of Donald Sachtleben. Nor does the third one. Wouldn’t that mean that a twenty-five year veteran is also a Russian agent?

However I can see why he brought it up. First, by visiting the Russian ambassador, he could make it clear that his cover is blown. Second, the manner in which he did so could make the papers (spying 101, don’t get noticed but if you are and arrest is imminent, do as much damage as you can). Third, Ivens still hasn’t been found, therefore he might be in Moscow.

But, let’s take another view, option two. Ivens did find out something disturbing, so disturbing that he got drugged in order to have an excuse to arrest him (see last portion). He fled because that stuff really mucks with your head and decided it made sense to tell the Russians since they are likely to take the opportunity to try to embarrass the US. Whichever (FBI, CIA, etc.) decides to turn that around and make it seem like what I described in the previous paragraph and Ivens has been arrested (or, you know…isn’t with us anymore) and they spread the rumor he’s in Moscow to blow the whole thing off as a traitor fleeing. This is plausible because the Russians planted the story (that I don’t much doubt).

They both work because Ivens isn’t here to say the rest of the story and all parties involved are so deceitful as to not be believed, or as my old pappy used to say, “If they said that the Sun was in the sky at noon, I’d go look out a window.”

(Added note: the people who stuck electrodes in a young woman’s head to see what it would do will now try to bend things again–now I guess I know which version I believe, thanks for that—to say that the SVR got the idea—which all major intel apparatuses have engaged in for decades—from my personal experiences with the US intel community.

In case it isn’t clear, yes, the harassment continues. This is the result. They started it. I didn’t ask for it. It is criminal and not even in any way helpful to US interests, just those of a few traitors).

Advertisements

Whistleblower Carl Clark

Thanks to FFCHS for sending out the link to a English translation (PDF) {link updated 20150127} of this German article (PDF) – “Secret Surveillance and Electromagnetic Torture by the Secret Services.”

It’s a bit over-the-top in places, and yet much of what he describes (note the article is from April 2004 and I only just saw the thing a few days ago) matches my experience and my interpretation of the possible explanations for the experiences of others.

Continue reading

Wesley Clark on American Military Action in the Middle East

YouTube – FORA.tv – Wesley Clark 2007 Speaking Event, San Francisco, CA (via Sibel Edmond’s Boiling Frogs Post)

Clark describes how he learned about the future invasion of Iraq, how it related back to a discussion in 1991, how there was not and still is not any debate about the wisdom of these actions, and what is essentially the plan of neoconservative Michael Ledeen to turn the Middle East into a “boiling cauldron” (that was Ledeen’s description of it), to realign the Middle East after the fall of the Soviet Union and before the rise of China as a new superpower.

Again, my primary complaints with how this was done include: A) that 9-11 could have been prevented easily and was purposely allowed to proceed (Clark suggests is was something else in the beginning of the clip), B) that the lack of debate and the lies surrounding all of it suggest that they didn’t believe that the American people would agree with their reasons for doing it, and C) they have saddled the American people with the burden of dealing with these policies both in the cost of treasure and blood while making out quite well financially themselves and not having to make any personal risks. Chickenhawks is the term.

Around five minutes in, Clark mentions that knocking down governments was becoming the new mission of the US military, and not preventing large conflicts, not peacekeeping.

My lifelong fascination with the intelligence business was largely centered around that same idea: that good intelligence, good analysis, informed policy, and a little smart use of covert operations could mean that there would not ever have to be a World War III. It could be avoided and the benefits were in part economic because it’s cheaper to avoid war than wage them.

All of that has been turned on its head. Instead, we are manufacturing intel, strife, and terrorism in order to justify, for example, drone strikes that take out large numbers (in terms of ratio, 17 others to one terrorist, for example) of people ensuring that we will be fighting these wars and looking over our shoulders for decades to come, maybe longer. One cannot help but notice that that fact again plays into the hands of those who profit off of all of these defense and related sectors and again leaves the American people twisting in the wind, having to fear terror attacks and being despised around the world.

It’s a house of cards, but a very big one and with a lot of powerful people willing to stand around holding it up or lying to us any time it shows the least sign of falling.

One thing I marvel at every day is how I would not be in this position, would not be doing this, if I had simply been left alone, if whichever (and truly, it was probably a bit of all of the big ones) agency had simply followed the law, used some common sense, remembered or even slightly cared that it was their fellow Americans (and Canadians) that they were targeting. A country that doesn’t know its friends from its enemies, that stifles debate of ideas, cannot stand.