MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘CIA’

JOHN KIRIAKOU: Now Imagine House Arrest – Consortiumnews

Posted by M. C. on April 17, 2020

Two hours later, this same young man went with his 8-year-old brother to a local elementary school playground to play catch with a baseball.  Within minutes, two police cars showed up with lights flashing and threatened to arrest them for “violating the quarantine.” Again, they weren’t breaking the law. But they’re kids being threatened by cops. 

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/15/john-kiriakou-now-imagine-house-arrest/

By John Kiriakou

Special to Consortium News

Most of the country has been sheltering in place for weeks.  At first it was kind of fun, so long as we were generally healthy. Instead of getting up early, showering, getting dressed for work, and beginning a long commute, you could just roll out of bed, log on, and start your day.  But that got old pretty quickly.  Many of us started to feel a little stir crazy.  And as the pandemic dragged on, things got worse.  A Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll found that 45 percent of adults say their mental health has declined during the pandemic, with 19 percent saying that the pandemic has had a “major impact” on their states of mind.  Covid-19 is literally making us crazy, especially if you already suffer from depression or anxiety.

So with that as background, imagine being under house arrest, or, what the government calls “home confinement.”  Most Americans probably assume that people who are released from prison and are sent to home confinement are grateful.  They get to sit around all day and watch TV, right? But that’s not it at all.  When you are released from prison to home confinement, it means just what it sounds like.  You cannot leave the confines of the four walls of your house.  You can’t go outside, even into your own yard. You’re stuck, and there’s nothing you can do about it.  Those walls begin to close in on you.  Depression and anxiety set in or worsen.  You begin to miss prison.  That’s exactly where we find ourselves right now.

Tougher Than Prison

In my experience, home confinement was far tougher than actual prison. In prison, I could go out to the yard and exercise.  I could hang out with my friends, play basketball, pool, or work out in the rudimentary gym.  Not so with home confinement.  Here we live on top of each other and there’s nothing we can do about it.  (My best friend from prison called me last night and said, “How do you like house arrest redux?”  He was exactly right.  This is house arrest and I don’t like it one bit.)

And just like recently-released prisoners, we have to worry about overzealous cops.  The son of a good friend of mine was sitting on a park bench in a park near his house in Arlington, Virginia yesterday.  There was literally nobody else in the park.  After only a few minutes, a cop pulled up and shouted at him with a bullhorn: “Quarantine!  Go home!” The cop was wrong, of course. Virginians are allowed out to exercise and they are allowed to go to the park, so long as they don’t congregate.  But the kid went home.  Two hours later, this same young man went with his 8-year-old brother to a local elementary school playground to play catch with a baseball.  Within minutes, two police cars showed up with lights flashing and threatened to arrest them for “violating the quarantine.” Again, they weren’t breaking the law. But they’re kids being threatened by cops.  So they picked up their ball and went home.  The situation is the same for recently-released prisoners.  Get caught outside and the cops show up.  Challenge them and they’ll make your life miserable. This new normal weighs on all of us. It’s hard to get used to.  We don’t like it.

I think we can agree that a quarantine is a form of confinement. Sure, we’ve all been thrust into it in the past couple of months against our will and without preparation.  It’s awful.  Why would we do it unless it was to protect our health and lives?  Home confinement in a time where there is no public health reason to do so is cruel.  It’s unnecessary.  It’s bad for mental health.

The federal government and most states give prisoners 10 percent of their sentences, up to six months, in home confinement, like it’s a favor of some sort.  It’s not a favor.  It’s an attack on one’s mental health.  Now that we all know what it’s like, let’s do away with it.  If your sentence is so short that you can be sent home, just leave it at that.  It’s the humanitarian thing to do.  Doing away with home confinement is not going to raise the crime rate.  It’s not going to “release dangerous criminals into the streets.”  It’s showing concern for the mental health of those Americans among the most vulnerable.

John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act — a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The US Declares War on America – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2020

These included extensive programs of mind-control experimentsinterrogation/torture experiments, deliberate infection with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposure to severe radioactivity and every manner of biological, bacteriological and toxic chemical pathogens. They encompassed brainwashing, torture, electroshock, nerve agents, drugs and exotic hypnosis and surgical experiments including lobotomies, and a wide range of pharmacological “research”, all conducted on innocent, uninformed and helpless civilian victims ranging from newborn babies to adults.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/no_author/the-us-declares-war-on-america/

By Larry Romanoff
Global Research

For the past 70 or so years, the US government waged a war against its own citizens, a reprehensible history of illegal, unethical and immoral experiments exposing countless US civilians to deadly procedures and pathogens.

According to a US Congressional investigation, by the late 1970s:

at least 500,000 people were used as subjects in radiation, biological and chemical experiments sponsored by the US Federal Government on its own citizens”.

Screenshot: Tampa Bay Times, October 7, 2005

The United States Government Accountability Office issued a report on September 28, 1994, which stated that between 1940 and 1974, the United States Department of Defense and other national security agencies studied hundreds of thousands of human subjects in tests and experiments involving hazardous substances.

“Many experiments that tested various biological agents on human subjects, referred to as Operation Whitecoat, were carried out at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in the 1950s. The human subjects originally consisted of volunteer enlisted men. However, after the enlisted men staged a sit-down strike to obtain more information about the dangers of the biological tests. No follow-ups of note were done, nor were records kept, of the participants. The US military later claimed it had contact information for only about 1,000 of the original participants. [The] United States biological defense program contains scores of divisions, departments, research groups, bio-intelligence and more, by no means all related to “defense” in any sense.”

From the document: American nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three decades of radiation experiments on U.S. citizens: Report prepared by the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, November, 1986: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1986, 65-0190

“The human subjects were captive audiences or populations that experimenters might frighteningly have considered “expendable”: the elderly, prisoners, hospital patients suffering from terminal diseases or who might not have retained their full faculties for informed consent. … no evidence that informed consent was granted. … the government covered up the nature of the experiments and deceived the families of deceased victims as to what had transpired. … subjects received doses that approached or even exceed presently recognized limits for occupational radiation exposure. Doses were as great as 93 times the (maximum) body burden recognized”. The paper then proceeds: “Some of the more repugnant or bizarre of these experiments are summarized below.”

Few Americans seem aware of their own government’s programs of human experimentation, an unconscionable litany of atrocities performed by the CIA and military on an innocent and uninformed population, always without consent and most often with tragic results.

These included extensive programs of mind-control experimentsinterrogation/torture experiments, deliberate infection with deadly or debilitating diseases, exposure to severe radioactivity and every manner of biological, bacteriological and toxic chemical pathogens. They encompassed brainwashing, torture, electroshock, nerve agents, drugs and exotic hypnosis and surgical experiments including lobotomies, and a wide range of pharmacological “research”, all conducted on innocent, uninformed and helpless civilian victims ranging from newborn babies to adults.

The substances used – the “tools of their trade” – included LSD, heroin, morphine, Benzedrine, marijuana, cocaine, PCP, mescaline, Metrazol, ether, nerve gases VX and Sarin, toxic chemicals such as zinc cadmium sulfide and sulfur dioxide, a variety of biological agents, sulfuric acid, scopolamine, mustard gas, radioactive isotopes, and various dioxins from Dow Chemical. They also included electroshock, synthetic estrogens, live cancer cells, animal sexual organs transplanted into humans, cow blood transfusions and much more. Deliberately-transmitted diseases included syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, cancer, bubonic plague, beriberi, cholera, whooping cough, yellow fever, dengue fever, encephalitis and typhoid, Lyme Disease, hemorrhagic fever and much more.

Screenshot, New York Post

Experiments were performed on children, orphans, the sick and mentally disabled, prisoners who were given no choice in participation. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fife Is In Charge

Posted by M. C. on April 13, 2020

It has become apparent recently that the Wuhan district in China has been a known viral hotspot, particularly for mutant coronavirus, since H1N1 more than ten years ago. The Daily Mail tells us that the US has spent $137 million on Wuhan research labs. Yet the CDC, NIH, Fauci’s NIAID and the WHO were caught totally unprepared. The US has a dozen or more spy agencies including the CIA, DHS, DIA and FIB. They were so busy spying on US citizens that they completely missed a deadly epidemic sweeping China until it was so bad the Chinese had to ‘fess up.
What are we paying these people for?

Oh wait!

It’s Trump’s fault!

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Regime Change through the Drug War – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2020

U.S. officials knew that it would look bad to simply invade the country and effect a regime-change operation through force of arms. Undoubtedly, they considered a state-sponsored assassination through the CIA, which specialized in that form of regime change, but for whatever reason that regime-method wasn’t employed.

https://www.fff.org/2020/04/01/regime-change-through-the-drug-war/

by

The Justice Department’s securing of a criminal indictment of Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro reminds us that when it comes to the U.S. government’s regime-change operations, coups, invasions, sanctions, embargoes, and state-sponsored assassinations are not the only ways to achieve regime change. Another way is through a criminal indictment issued by a federal grand jury that deferentially accedes to the wishes of federal prosecutors.

The best example of this regime change method involved the president of Panama, Manuel Noriega.

Like many corrupt and brutal dictators around the world, Noriega was a partner and ally of the U.S. government. In fact, he was actually trained at the Pentagon’s School of the Americas, which is referred to in Latin America as the School of Assassins. He later served as a paid asset of the CIA. He also served as a conduit for the U.S. government’s illegal war in Nicaragua, where U.S. officials were using the Contra rebels to effect a regime change in that country.

But like other loyal pro-U.S. dictators, Noriega fell out of favor with U.S. officials, who decided they wanted him out of office and replaced with someone more to their liking.

The big problem, of course, is the one that always afflicts U.S. regime-change aspirations: Noriega refused to go voluntarily.

U.S. officials knew that it would look bad to simply invade the country and effect a regime-change operation through force of arms. Undoubtedly, they considered a state-sponsored assassination through the CIA, which specialized in that form of regime change, but for whatever reason that regime-method wasn’t employed.

So, the regime-changers turned to the U.S. Justice Department, which secured a criminal indictment against Noriega for supposedly violating America’s drug laws. The U.S. rationale was that the U.S. government, as the world’s international policeman, has jurisdiction to enforce its drug laws against everyone in the world.

On December 20,  1989, the U.S. military invaded Panama to bring Noriega back to the United States to stand trial on the drug charges. One might consider the invasion to be one gigantic no-knock raid on an entire country as part of U.S. drug-war enforcement.

An estimated 23-60 U.S. soldiers were killed in the operation while some 300 were wounded. An estimated 300-800 Panamanian soldiers were killed. Estimates of civilian deaths ranged from 200 to 3,000. Property damage ranged in the billions of dollars.

But it was all considered worth it. By capturing Noriega and bringing him back for trial, U.S. officials felt that they had made big progress in finally winning the war on drugs. Equally important, they had secured the regime change that had been their original goal. At the same time, they sent a message to other rulers around the world: Leave office when we say or we’ll do this to you.

Noriega was convicted and received a 40-year jail sentence. When his lawyers tried to introduce evidence at trial of his close working relationship with the CIA and other elements of the U.S. national security state, not surprisingly federal prosecutors objected and the judge sustained their objections. Better to keep those types of things as secret as possible.

Alas, Noriega’s conviction and incarceration did not bring an end to the war on drugs, as this crooked, corrupt, failed, and racially bigoted government program continues to this day. Moreover, as Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro might soon find out., the drug war continues to provide an effective way for U.S. officials to effect regime change.

Be seeing you

4ec7b-iu

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who are the Narco-Terrorists: George H. Walker Bush: The Bush Family and the Mexican Drug Cartel – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on April 3, 2020

The CIA protects the multibillion dollar global drug trade as well as the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. Moreover, it is estimated that 300 billion dollars (annually) worth of drug money is routinely laundered in casinos across America including Las Vegas and Atlantic City… as well as in Macau and Singapore. Guess who are the World’s richest casino owners.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/jeb-bush-the-mexican-drug-cartel-and-free-trade/5448747

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

In December 2019, Donald Trump offered to intervene in Mexico, i.e. “to go after the Drug Cartels”. The Mexican president turned down Trump’s generous offer.

And then President Trump confirmed that his administration was considering categorizing “drug cartels” as “terrorists”,  akin to Al Qaeda (with the exception that they are “Catholic terrorists”).

They would henceforth be designated by Washington as “foreign terrorist organizations”.

What is the intent? 

Create a justification for US-led “counterterrorism” (military) operations directed against Latin America countries?

Extend the “War on Terrorism” to Latin America?  “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). Go after the “Narco-terrorists”. 

And now, US federal prosecutors are accusing Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro of  participating (according to the NYT) “in a narco-terrorism conspiracy, in a major escalation of the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure him to leave office”. 

The unspoken truth is (which the NYT fails to mention):

1. Al Qaeda and its related terrorist organizations (including ISIS) in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia are creations of the CIA.

2. The CIA protects the multibillion dollar global drug trade as well as the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. Moreover, it is estimated that 300 billion dollars (annually) worth of drug money is routinely laundered in casinos across America including Las Vegas and Atlantic City… as well as in Macau and Singapore. Guess who are the World’s richest casino owners.

4. Both American and Latin American politicians are known to have ties to the drug trade.

Flash back to the 1990s: George H. W. Bush, the dad of  Bush Junior had developed close personal ties with Carlos Salinas de Gortari (former president of Mexico) and his dad Raul Salinas Lozano who, according to the Dallas Morning News (February 27, 1997) was “a leading figure in narcotics dealings that also involved his son, Raul Salinas de Gortari…  And Raul was an intimo amigo of  Jeb Bush, (former Governor of Florida) and the brother of  George W, Bush.  

The Bush family has ties to the Bin Laden Family as well as ties to the Salinas de Gortiari family. Is it relevant?

The following text was published in May 2015 under the title  Jeb Bush, the Mexican Drug Cartel and “Free Trade”. The Bush Family and Organized Crime. It also documents the signing of the North american Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by a Mexican head state with links to the Drug Cartels.  

Michel Chossudovsky, April 2, 2020

***

Jeb Bush is a presidential candidate.  [was in 2015]

But Jeb is not only the brother of George W. and the son of George H. W. Bush.

Jeb Bush also had close personal ties to Raul Salinas de Gortari, brother of Mexico’s former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari. In the 1990s, Raul the “drug kingpin”, according to Switzerland’s  federal prosecutor Carla del Ponte, was one of the main figures of the Mexican Drug Cartel.  

Jeb Bush  –before becoming Governor of the Sunshine State– was a close friend of Raul Salinas de Gortiari (image right):

“There has also been a great deal of speculation in Mexico about the exact nature of Raul Salinas’ close friendship with former President George Bush’s son, Jeb. It is well known here that for many years the two families spent vacations together — the Salinases at Jeb Bush’s home in Miami, the Bushes at Raul’s ranch, Las Mendocinas, under the volcano in Puebla.

There are many in Mexico who believe that the relationship became a back channel for delicate and crucial negotiations between the two governments, leading up to President Bush’s sponsorship of NAFTA.” (Prominent intellectual and former foreign Minister of Mexico Jorge G. Castañeda, The Los Angeles Times. and Houston Chronicle, 9 March 1995, emphasis added)

The personal relationship between the Bush and Salinas families was a matter of public record. Former President George H. W. Bush  had developed close personal ties with Carlos Salinas and his father, Raul Salinas Lozano. (left)

Raul Salinas Lozano was the family patriarch, father of Carlos and Raul Junior. According to the former private secretary to Raul Salinas Lozano (in as statement to US authorities):

“… Mr. Salinas Lozano was a leading figure in narcotics dealings that also involved his son, Raul Salinas de Gortari, his son-in-law, Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu, the No. 2 official in the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, and other leading politicians, according to the documents. Mr. Ruiz Massieu was assassinated in 1994.” (Dallas Morning News, 26 February 1997, emphasis added).

Former president George H. W. Bush and Raul Salinas Lozano were “intimo amigos”. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A 70-Year War On “Propaganda” Built By The CIA | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on March 15, 2020

Don’t worry, the CIA will eventually admit that they are elbow deep in all of the above, it just won’t be released until 30 years from now…In the meantime, I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the newspaper to stoke the fires for another war.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/70-year-war-propaganda-built-cia

 

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here”

– William Shakespeare (The Tempest Act 1 Scene 2)

War has always depended on a reliable system to spread its propaganda. The Arthashastra written by Chankya (350-283 BCE) who was chief advisor to the Emperor Chandragupta (the first ruler of the Mauryan Empire) discusses propaganda and how to disperse and apply it in warfare. It is one of the oldest accounts of the essentialism of propaganda in warfare.

Propaganda is vital in times of war because it is absolutely imperative that the people, who often need to make the greatest sacrifices and suffer the most, believe that such a war is justified and that such a war will provide them security. To the degree that they believe this to be true, the greater the degree of sacrifice and suffering they are willing to submit themselves for said “promised security”.

It is crucial that when the people look at the “enemy” they see something sub-human, for if they recognise that said “enemy” has in fact humanity, the jig is up so to speak.

And thus we are bombarded day after day, hour after hour of reminders as to why the “enemy” is not human like us, not compassionate like us, not patient, just and wise like us.

No doubt, war has been a necessary response when tyranny has formed an army to fight for its cause, but I would put forth that most wars have been rather unnecessary and downright manipulated for the design of a small group of people.

During WWI, on Dec 25th 1914, something rather unexpected occurred and a series of widespread unofficial ceasefires along the Western Front took place between the French/British soldiers and the German soldiers. Some even ventured into “no man’s land”, given its name since none left it alive, to mingle with the “enemy” and exchange food and souvenirs. There were joint burial ceremonies and prisoner swaps. A game of football took place as well. It is said that these truces were not unique to the Christmas period but that they were much more widespread during the holiday season.

These fraternisations would understandably make it quite difficult to return to combat against one another…for no apparently good reason. Some units needed to be relocated since they had developed friendships with the opposing side and now refused to fight them.

The lesson was quickly learned and propaganda was heavily pumped down the throats of the Allied countries, and by the course of just a few years, they no longer viewed the Germans as human.

The CIA’s Family Jewels and Operation Mockingbird

For us to understand the implications of modern propaganda and how it is used in warfare today, our story starts post-WWII with Churchill’s announcement of the “Iron Curtain” which launched the Cold War and has kept the East and West divided to this day.

Quickly after the Cold War was announced by Churchill, it was necessary to create a fervor of fear and paranoia amongst the American people in order to have them quickly forget the fact that the Russians were their greatest allies during both WWI and WWII, and to replace it with the image of a ghoulish race of boogeymen.

If Americans were to remember that the Russians had fought valiantly during WWII and had paid by far the largest sacrifice to the cause, that they had in fact been their comrades in arms against the brutality of fascism, if this were remembered then the Cold War division could never occur, and that was something that could not be tolerated by Churchill and the Empire. Thus terror was unleashed on the American people and McCarthyism was given precedence over the people’s right to question and form conclusions for themselves. That sort of thing could not be tolerated when the “enemy” could be anywhere; they could be your neighbour, your child’s teacher, your co-worker…your partner.

In order to combat the “threat” of Soviet “propaganda” entering the U.S. and seducing Americans, Operation Mockingbird was created as a form of “control” over information dissemination during the period of McCarthyism. Operation Mockingbird was an “alleged” CIA program that was started in the early 1950s in order to control the narrative of the news. Though this role has never been confirmed entirely, in the CIA Family Jewels report compiled in the mid-1970s, it is confirmed that Project Mockingbird did exist as a CIA operation and that it was guilty of wire-tapping journalists in Washington.

At the helm of this project was none other than CIA Director Allen Dulles, an enemy of JFK, who by the early 1950s “allegedly” oversaw the media network and had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. Its function was to have the CIA write reports that would be used by a network of cooperating “credible” reporters. By these “credible” reporters spreading the CIA dictated narrative, it would be parroted by unwitting reporters (mockingbirds) and a successful echo chamber would be created across the world.

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), originally named Office of Special Projects but that was thought to conspicuous, was a covert operation wing of the CIA and was created by the United States National Security Council (NSC). For those who are unfamiliar with the origins of the NSC and its close relationship with the CIA, who was born on the same day, refer to my paper on the subject.

According to Deborah Davis’ biography of Katherine Graham (the owner of Washington Post), the OPC created Operation Mockingbird in response to addressing Soviet propaganda and included as part of its CIA contingency respected members from Washington PostThe New York TimesNewsweekCBS and others.

The Family Jewels report was an investigation made by the CIA to investigate…the CIA, spurred in response to the Watergate Scandal and the CIA’s unconstitutional role in the whole affair. The investigation of the CIA would include any other actions that were deemed illegal or inappropriate spanning from the 1950s-mid 1970s.

We are told “most” of the report was declassified on June 25, 2007 (30 years later) hoping that people would have lost interest in the whole brouhaha. Along with the release of the redacted report was included a six-page summary with the following introduction:

“The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s.”

The most extensive investigation of the CIA relations with news media was conducted by the Church Committee, a U.S. Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated the abuses committed by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS. The Church Committee report confirmed abundant CIA ties in both foreign and domestic news media.

It is very useful that there exists an official recognition that false news was not only being encouraged by the CIA under the overseeing of the NSC during the Cold War period, but that the CIA was complicit in actually detailing the specific narrative that they wanted disseminated, and often going so far as to write the narrative and have a “credible” reporter’s name stamped on it.

But the question begs, “Did the Cold War ever end?” and if not, why should we believe that the CIA’s involvement in such activities is buried in its past and that it has “reformed” its old ways?

Western Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys News

In order to answer this question, let us visit the sad case of Udo Ulfkotte. Udo Ulfkotte is a well-known German journalist and author of numerous books. He worked for 25 years as a journalist, 17 of which were for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), including his role as editor. In his 2014 book “Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys News” Ulfkotte goes over how the CIA along with German Intelligence (BND) were guilty of bribing journalists to write articles that either spun the truth or were completely fictitious in order to promote a pro-western, pro-NATO bent, and that he was one of those bought journalists.

In an interview, Ulfkotte describes how he finally built up the nerve to publish the book, after years of it collecting dust, in response to the erupting crisis in Ukraine stating “I felt that the right time had come to finish it and publish it, because I am deeply worried about the Ukrainian crisis and the possible devastating consequences for all of Europe and all of us…I am not at all pro-Russia, but it is clear that many journalists blindly follow and publish whatever the NATO press office provides. And this type of information and reports are completely one-sided”.

In another interview Ulfkotte stated:

it is clear as daylight that the agents of various Services were in the central offices of the FAZ, the place where I worked for 17 years. The articles appeared under my name several times, but they were not my intellectual product. I was once approached by someone from German Intelligence and the CIA, who told me that I should write about Gaddafi and report how he was trying to secretly build a chemical weapons factory in Libya. I had no information on any of this, but they showed me various documents, I just had to put my name on the article. Do you think this can be called journalism? I don’t think so.

Ulfkotte has publicly stated: “I am ashamed of it. The people I worked for knew from the get-go everything I did. And the truth must come out. It’s not just about FAZ, this is the whole system that’s corrupt all the way.

Udo Ulfkotte has since passed away. He died January 2017, found dead in his home, it is said by a hear t attack. His body was quickly after cremated and thus prevented any possibility of an autopsy occurring.

You Can’t Teach An Old Dog New Tricks

The Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act is a bipartisan bill that was passed into law in December 2016, it was initially called Countering Information Warfare Act. It was included together with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill was brought into effect just weeks before Trump was to enter office….hmmm, foreshadowing much?

Soon after the 2016 U.S. election, the Washington Post led the charge asserting that it was due to Russian propaganda that the U.S. elections turned out the way it did, that is, that Hillary had somehow, inconceivably, lost to Donald Trump and that the American people had been turned against her like a child caught in the middle of a messy divorce case. But there is no need here to set the record straight on Hillary, when Hillary herself has done suffice damage to any illusion of credibility she once had. That ultimately not even Hillary could hide the fact that her closet full of skeletons turned out to be the size of a catacomb.

But we are told that citizens do not know what is best for one’s self. That they cannot be trusted with “sensitive” information and in accordance act in a “responsible” manner, that is, to have a strong enough stomach to do what is “best” for their country.

And therefore, fear not subjects of the land, for the Global Engagement Center (GEC) is here to make those hard decisions for you. Don’t know what to think about a complicated subject? GEC will tell you the right way!

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would allow for the Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of Defense, and other Federal agencies in the year 2017 to create the Global Engagement Center (GEC). The GEC’s purpose in life is to fight propaganda from foreign governments and publicize the nature of ongoing foreign propaganda and disinformation operations against the U.S. and other countries.

Let us all take a moment to thank the GEC for such a massive task in the cause for justice all around the world.

The GEC had a very slow start in its first year, however, it has been gaining momentum in the last year under Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who seems especially excited over the hiring of Lea Gabrielle as special envoy and coordinator of GEC.

Mike Pompeo was the CIA Director from 2017-2018. On April 15, 2019, Pompeo participated in a discussion at the Texas A&M University where he voluntarily offered the admission that though West Points’ cadet motto is “You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.”, his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating “I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment”.

This is apparently the man for the job of dealing with matters of “truth” and “justice”.

Lea Gabrielle was approved for her position by Mike Pompeo, what are her “qualifications”? Well, Gabrielle is also CIA trained, and while assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), she “directed and conducted global clandestine strategic intelligence collection operations.” Gabrielle also “deployed in tactical anti-terrorist operations in hostile environments”. After 12 years of active duty service, Lea Gabrielle became a television news journalist, who worked at NBC and FOX News.

Noticing a pattern?

The CIA really does not have the best track record for their role in “managing” foreign wars and counter-insurgency activities. In fact, they have been caught rather red handed in fueling such crisis situations. And these are the people who are deciding what information is fit for the American public, and western public in general, and what is not fit for their ears.

Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, See No Evil

On March 5, 2020, Lea Gabrielle testified on the role of GEC in countering state-sponsored and non-state propaganda and disinformation. Gabrielle states: “We have the full support of Secretary Pompeo who is committed to deploying a broad suite of tools to stop America’s adversaries from using disinformation, malign propaganda, and other tools to undermine free societies.” She goes on to acknowledge that the hearing is focused on countering Russian government and CCP disinformation and propaganda. She then goes on to outline her criticisms of both governments with no factual detail or evidence but rather generalised accusations and criticisms, obviously pulling from her experience as a news journalist for NBC.

Following this, Gabrielle proceeds to outline her “rules of engagement” in countering this offensive with what seems to be the beginnings of McCarthyism 2.0, amounting to a threat to anyone who dares not take a hard stance against Russia and China, that such a person will be considered complicit in essentially committing treason. Hell, if Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard (who was unconstitutionally prohibited from participating in the final democratic presidential debates) have both already been accused of being a Russian agent, what can we expect for the average Joe?

Gabrielle concludes,Both the Russian government and the CCP view censorship, media manipulation, and propaganda as appropriate tools to control public opinion. Both exploit open, democratic societies to further their own ends while tightening controls around their own countries.”

Don’t worry, the CIA will eventually admit that they are elbow deep in all of the above, it just won’t be released until 30 years from now…In the meantime, I wouldn’t believe everything you read in the newspaper to stoke the fires for another war.

Be seeing you

mbird

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More Dying for Nothing in Iraq – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on March 14, 2020

That’s how this entire sordid process has turned into a perpetual “war on terrorism,” one that sacrifices U.S. soldiers for nothing and, in the process, ends up destroying our rights and liberties here at home in the name of keeping us “safe” from the enemies that the Pentagon (and the CIA) are producing over there.

https://www.fff.org/2020/03/13/more-dying-for-nothing-in-iraq/

by

Two more U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Yes, that Iraq — the Iraq that never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so — the Iraq that the U.S. government invaded and has occupied for umpteen years under the rubric of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

What did those two soldiers die for? They died for the same thing that 58,000 U.S. soldiers died for in Vietnam — nothing.

They certainly didn’t die for freedom. Just as the North Vietnamese were never threatening the freedom of the American people, neither is anyone in Iraq, including ISIS, the group that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq brought into existence.

The Pentagon announced that it has retaliated for the killings by bombing an “Iranian-backed militia” that the Pentagon is “confident” was responsible for the killing.

And then what? Then that Iranian-backed militia retaliates by killing more U.S. soldiers, which then motivates the Pentagon to retaliate again, which causes the Iranian-backed militia to retaliate again.

That’s how this entire sordid process has turned into a perpetual “war on terrorism,” one that sacrifices U.S. soldiers for nothing and, in the process, ends up destroying our rights and liberties here at home in the name of keeping us “safe” from the enemies that the Pentagon (and the CIA) are producing over there.

What business do U.S. soldiers have in Iraq? No business at all. The longer they are kept there, the greater the chance that more of them will be dying for nothing.

Be seeing you

Trump Names America First, Fascist Warmonger John Bolton ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Myth of Moderate Nuclear War — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2020

In fact, the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe — as would all nuclear wars, because there’s no way, no means whatever, of limiting escalation.

The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents that could be described as “moderate rebels” is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how Washington’s planners classify such people.

Likewise moderate nuclear weapons.

It is not like congress is running the show. Who would benefit from aiding moderate rebels and low yield nukes?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/03/03/the-myth-of-moderate-nuclear-war/

 Brian Cloughley

There are many influential supporters of nuclear war, and some of these contend that the use of ‘low-yield’ and/or short-range weapons is practicable without the possibility of escalation to all-out Armageddon. In a way their argument is comparable to that of the band of starry-eyed optimists who thought, apparently seriously, that there could be such a beast as a ‘moderate rebel’.

In October 2013 the Washington Post reported that “The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, US-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war,” and the US Congress gave approval to then President Barack Obama’s plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight against Islamic State extremists. The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents that could be described as “moderate rebels” is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how Washington’s planners classify such people. It obviously didn’t dawn on them that any person who uses weapons illegally in a rebellion could not be defined as being moderate. And how moderate is moderate? Perhaps a moderate rebel could be equipped with US weapons that kill only extremists? Or are they allowed to kill only five children a month? The entire notion was absurd, and predictably the scheme collapsed, after expenditure of vast amounts of US taxpayers’ money.

And even vaster amounts of money are being spent on developing and producing what might be classed as moderate nuclear weapons, in that they don’t have the zillion-bang punch of most of its existing 4,000 plus warheads. It is apparently widely believed in Washington that if a nuclear weapon is (comparatively) small, then it’s less dangerous than a big nuclear weapon.

In January 2019 the Guardian reported that “the Trump administration has argued the development of a low-yield weapon would make nuclear war less likely, by giving the US a more flexible deterrent. It would counter any enemy (particularly Russian) perception that the US would balk at using its own fearsome arsenal in response to a limited nuclear attack because its missiles were all in the hundreds of kilotons range and ‘too big to use’, because they would cause untold civilian casualties.”

In fact, the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe — as would all nuclear wars, because there’s no way, no means whatever, of limiting escalation. Once a nuclear weapon has exploded and killed people, the nuclear-armed nation to which these people belonged is going to take massive action. There is no alternative, because no government is just going to sit there and try to start talking with an enemy that has taken the ultimate leap in warfare.

It is widely imagined — by many nuclear planners in the sub-continent, for example — that use of a tactical, a battlefield-deployed, nuclear weapon will in some fashion persuade the opponent (India or Pakistan) that there is no need to employ higher-capability weapons, or, in other words, longer range missiles delivering massive warheads. These people think that the other side will evaluate the situation calmly and dispassionately and come to the conclusion that at most it should itself reply with a similar weapon. But such a scenario supposes that there is good intelligence about the effects of the weapon that has exploded, most probably within the opponent’s sovereign territory. This is verging on the impossible.

War is confusing in the extreme, and tactical planning can be extremely complex. But there is no precedent for nuclear war, and nobody — nobody — knows for certain what reactions will be to such a situation in or near any nation. The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review stated that low-yield weapons “help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely”. But do the possible opponents of the United States agree with that? How could they do so?

The reaction by any nuclear-armed state to what is confirmed as a nuclear attack will have to be swift. It cannot be guaranteed, for example, that the first attack will not represent a series. It will, by definition, be decisive, because the world will then be a tiny step from doomsday. The US nuclear review is optimistic that “flexibility” will by some means limit a nuclear exchange, or even persuade the nuked-nation that there should be no riposte, which is an intriguing hypothesis.

As pointed out by Lawfare, “the review calls for modification to ‘a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warheads’ to provide a low-yield option.

It also calls for further exploration of low-yield options, arguing that expanding these options will ‘help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.’ This is intended to address the argument that adversaries might think the United States, out of concern for collateral damage, would hesitate to employ a high-yield nuclear weapon in response to a ‘lower level’ conflict, in which an adversary used a low-yield nuclear device. The review argues that expanding low-yield options is ‘important for the preservation of credible deterrence,’ especially when it comes to smaller-scale regional conflicts.”

“Credible deterrence” is a favourite catch-phrase of the believers in limited nuclear war, but its credibility is suspect. Former US defence secretary William Perry said last year that he wasn’t so much worried about the vast number of warheads in the world as he was by open proposals that these weapons are “usable”. It’s right back to the Cold War and he emphasises that “The belief that there might be tactical advantage using nuclear weapons – which I haven’t heard being openly discussed in the United States or in Russia for a good many years – is happening now in those countries which I think is extremely distressing.” But the perturbing thing is that while it is certainly being discussed in Moscow, it’s verging on doctrine in Washington.

In late February US Defence Secretary Esper was reported as having taken part in a “classified military drill in which Russia and the United States traded nuclear strikes.” The Pentagon stated that “The scenario included a European contingency where you’re conducting a war with Russia and Russia decides to use a low-yield, limited nuclear weapon against a site on NATO territory.” The US response was to fire back with what was called a “limited response.”

First of all, the notion that Russia would take the first step to nuclear war is completely baseless, and there is no evidence that this could ever be contemplated. But ever if it were to be so, it cannot be imagined for an instant that Washington would indulge in moderate nuclear warfare in riposte. These self-justifying wargames are dangerous. And they bring Armageddon ever closer.

 

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

aipac

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The CIA’s Role in Operation Condor – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on February 29, 2020

After World War II, the federal government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of totalitarian governmental structure with omnipotent, dark-side powers, such as the powers to assassinate, kidnap, and torture suspected communists.

For example, unbeknownst to the American people at the time, the CIA entered into a secret conspiracy with the Mafia to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro, even though Cuba had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Former President Lyndon Johnson would later refer to the CIA’s assassination program as a “damned Murder Inc.”

The MIC has a strange habit of attacking countries that have never attacked US and aiding countries that have attack US.

https://www.fff.org/2020/02/17/the-cias-role-in-operation-condor/

by

The Washington Post is reporting today that top secret documents confirm the role that the CIA played in Operation Condor, the international state-sponsored assassination, kidnapping, torture, and murder ring run by U.S.-supported military dictatorships in South America in the late 1970s. The documents confirm that the CIA’s role in the operation was to provide communications equipment to the ring, which enabled them to coordinate cross-border efforts to kidnap, torture, and kill suspected communists, which, of course, were nothing more than people who believed in socialism or communism.

Over the years, I have written about Operation Condor, and FFF has linked to many article detailing this sordid, dark-side conspiracy. See:

https://www.fff.org/?s=condor

The Post article make it clear that the CIA was fully aware of the horrific human-rights abuses that the Latin America military regimes were engaged in and said and did nothing to prevent them.

One of the most laughable parts of the secret documents are ones that imply that the CIA struggled on whether it should do anything about the abuses.

Why is that laughable?

Because it is clearly nothing more than a “cover ourselves” protection in the event that Operation Condor ever was uncovered.

How do we know that?

Because the Operation Condor goons were doing precisely what the U.S. national-security apparatus wanted them to do — eradicate the threat of communism in the Americas!

The Cold War

Remember: This was the Cold War, when the U.S. national security establishment was 100 percent convinced that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the United States and the rest of the world, a conspiracy that was supposedly based in Moscow, Russia. (Yes, that Russia!)

The American people were exhorted to be on the constant lookout for communists. “Security” was the byword. People were looking for communists in the State Department, the military, Congress, Hollywood, and lots of other places. Suspected communists were hauled before Congress and asked whether they had ever been a member of the Communist Party. Even Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was suspected in some circles of being a communist agent.

If you want to get a sense of what life was like in the United States during the Cold War, take all the national-security hoopla surrounding the “war on terrorism” and multiply it by about a thousand.

After World War II, the federal government was converted from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of totalitarian governmental structure with omnipotent, dark-side powers, such as the powers to assassinate, kidnap, and torture suspected communists.

For example, unbeknownst to the American people at the time, the CIA entered into a secret conspiracy with the Mafia to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro, even though Cuba had never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Former President Lyndon Johnson would later refer to the CIA’s assassination program as a “damned Murder Inc.”

In principle, Operation Condor’s assassination program was no different from the CIA’s assassination program.

The Chilean coup

It was the national-security state’s obsessive fear of communism that led to the CIA’s orchestration of the coup in Chile in 1973 that ousted the democratically elected socialist president of the country, Salvador Allende, and replaced him with the brutal right-wing unelected military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Although it appears that Allende ended up committing suicide, no doubt to avoid being tortured, there is no doubt that at the inception of the coup, the Chilean national-security establishment was trying to assassinate him with missiles fired from Chilean fighter planes into Allende’s position in the national palace, with the full approval of its counterparts in the U.S. national-security establishment.

Moreover, we mustn’t forget the CIA’s kidnapping and murder of Gen. Rene Schneider, the head of Chile’s armed forces. They targeted him because he was opposed to the U.S.-orchestrated coup. He took the position that his oath to support and defend the constitution of Chile superseded US. demands for a coup to protect Chile from Allende’s socialism. Thus, U.S. officials targeted him for removal.

After Pinochet took power, he instituted a reign of terror in which his national-security henchmen kidnapped, tortured, raped, disappeared, or murdered tens of thousands of suspected communists, with the full support of U.S. officials.

Operation Condor

Operation Condor followed from that reign of terror. To ensure that suspected communists could not escape to neighboring countries, several other South American right-wing military dictatorships conspired with the Pinochet military dictatorship to coordinate efforts to ensure that no suspected communists could get away. As the secret documents revealed in the Washington Post article confirm, the CIA’s role in this Cold War operation was to provide the communications equipment that enabled its Latin American counterparts to efficiently coordinate their efforts.

Moreover, don’t forget also that the Pentagon and the CIA had just been defeated by the communists in Vietnam. Given their mindsets that the communists were winning and that America was now in greater danger than ever before of being taken over by the Reds, the Operation Condor brutes were viewed as great heroes for protecting America and the world from a  communist takeover.

The people who paid the price for this sordid, dark-side paranoia, of course were the tens of thousands of innocent people who were rounded up, tortured, raped, abused, disappeared, assassinated, and murdered.

The worst mistake the American people have ever made was permitting the federal government to be converted from a limited government republic to a national-security state. That conversion perverted America’s sense of moral values, conscience, and right conduct. Operation Condor is further proof of that fact.

JFK-CIA

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

David Petraeus and the Art of Staying the Same | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on February 28, 2020

But what was really accomplished here? Frankly, having Petraeus speak laid down some simple but important markers. He was never a man of “big ideas,” just a man with political survival instincts who always said exactly what people wanted to hear. But I think we saw his limits here.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/state-of-the-union/david-petraeus-and-the-art-of-staying-the-same/

David Petraeus hasn’t changed a bit.

There was some vexation over his invitation to speak at today’s Quincy Institute/Foreign Policy conference, considering the event, entitled, “A New Vision for America in the World” was widely seen as a coming out of sorts for the ascendent restrainers and non-interventionist movement in Washington. Quincy, having brought together the powerhouse backers of both the Koch and Soros orbits, is in a way a manifestation of this moment, and a real Left-Right alignment against the old world order.

In response to some of the negative Petraeus buzz, some suggested that his presence might indicate that he is “coming around” to the new foreign policy approach, that the place to be right now is among a growing consensus against endless, expeditionary wars, and for rethinking our role in the world.

His remarks Wednesday, however, put that rosy notion to rest, quick.

In short, the “sycophant savior” believes the U.S. still needs to be deployed abroad (including Afghanistan) to control terrorism; we “almost always have to lead,” and yes, this “campaign” can be forever, as long as we are willing to spend the blood and treasure to sustain it.

And he really, really doesn’t like the word “interventionism.”

“Are we ‘intervening’ by having 30,000 troops in Korea? What do you mean by intervention?” he quipped to Jonathan Tepperman, editor of Foreign Policy, who had gently raised the idea that the American public was ripe for new non-interventionist approaches. It was Petraeus’s first flash of real personality in the 30-minute exchange, but it came off a bit testy. He ticked off a few other “endless” (and ultimately positive) U.S. occupations, including Germany and Japan. The usual jive, and a non-starter with this crowd—they’d heard that tune before.

Plus, wasn’t this supposed to be about a “new vision for America in the world”? The problem with Petraeus, a former general and CIA director who spent years around yes-men and failed up into a lucrative consulting career for the military industrial complex, is that he hasn’t had to be “new” at anything. Like Wednesday, he sprinkles a few anecdotes about being “downrange” in the last six years of his military career, and how “nobody wants to end endless wars more than those who have been fighting endless wars,” before offering assessments and solutions that are barely distinguishable from what he has prescribed for audiences over the last decade. More importantly, there is no sense of enlightenment or growth. Just a stubborn adherence to the status quo.

His “big ideas” amount to the same old dogma. If we leave Afghanistan it will create a haven for terrorists. Like Iraq. Then we’ll have to do something about it. “The problems just don’t go away.”

“Generally the U.S. has to lead,” he said, because we spend more and have superior capability than anyone else in the world. He talked about global drone surveillance, like a paternalistic watchman in the sky. “Having said that, we have to have allies, coalitions… And we want Muslim coalitions. This is a fight for the heart of the Muslim world, this is an existential struggle.”

And, “you cannot counter terrorists with just counterterrorism operations.” There has to be a “comprehensive civilian-military campaign,” although “host nations” will be doing all the fighting and negotiating. In other words, we’ll continue to put our troops and contractors in vulnerable positions in places where really angry people want to kill us, begetting more angry people who want to kill us the longer we have a presence there, while pouring all of our resources down an interminable black hole. But if we don’t lose a lot of guys and no one feels the pinch in the pocketbook, “then people will regard it like the long commitment we’ve had in Korea.”

Was he so elevated at the end of his career, so disconnected that he did not see the devastating toll the multiple deployments had taken on our armed forces? Does he not acknowledge the PTSD, the toxic exposures, the brain injuries? The painful family separations? Sure the military has “sustained” its tempo over the years, but at what cost to the rank-and-file?

“I was wondering when he was going to say something ‘new,’ something we haven’t heard in the last 20 years,” charged Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who spoke after Petraeus had made a beeline for the door, no time for questions from the audience. Khanna, unlike the man once referred to as “King David,” has only grown in stature as he has found common ground with other restrainers across the spectrum over the last two years. He even spoke at TAC’s foreign policy conference in 2018. And he stayed for questions.

There seems to be no other explanation for Petraeus’s presence here other than he provided a good foil for the non-interventionists who followed—Khanna, Will Ruger, Mark Perry, and others. We suppose someone thought he added a sheen to the proceedings, though there was really no opportunity for a “debate” as suggested. His appearance took place in a carefully controlled format—a “conversation” opposite a sympathetic host (Tepperman) who actually spent time afterwards “clarifying” some the ex-general’s comments for the audience (he’s a general, “not a politician”). Cue laugh track.

But what was really accomplished here? Frankly, having Petraeus speak laid down some simple but important markers. He was never a man of “big ideas,” just a man with political survival instincts who always said exactly what people wanted to hear. But I think we saw his limits here. He knew what we wanted to hear, and he couldn’t say it. It will take a very long time for someone like him to come over to our way of thinking (if ever) because his very identity, his livelihood, is tied to the old order and any new approach that would cut off lifeblood to his world is a threat.

There are countless men and women just like Petraeus in Washington. Quincy will have a hard time winning them over. And maybe that doesn’t matter, just as long as they know, at some point, that a new vision, is winning. His hasty exit today suggests that at some level, he knows that already.

UPDATE 2/27 : This Free Beacon article notes that Petraeus’s remarks drew serious fire from members of the Quincy Institute as well, and appears to confirm my own suspicions, that the ex-general was brought in by the Foreign Policy magazine partner, not Quincy.

Be seeing you

?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-qrBofyYyI84VGuGQWcvWsIAAAAAAAAV1Y9nOh7i099SEs1600endless_war.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »