General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress
July 25, 2014
WASHINGTON The CIA obtained a confidential email to Congress about alleged whistleblower retaliation related to the Senates classified report on the agencys harsh interrogation program, triggering fears that the CIA has been intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.
The CIA got hold of the legally protected email and other unspecified communications between whistleblower officials and lawmakers this spring, people familiar with the matter told McClatchy. Its unclear how the agency obtained the material.
At the time, the CIA was embroiled in a furious behind-the-scenes battle with the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panels investigation of the agencys interrogation program, including accusations that the CIA illegally monitored computers used in the five-year probe. The CIA has denied the charges.
The email controversy points to holes in the intelligence communitys whistleblower protection systems and raises fresh questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies can elude congressional oversight.
The email related to allegations that the agencys inspector general, David Buckley, failed to properly investigate CIA retaliation against an agency official who cooperated in the committees probe, said the knowledgeable people, who asked not to be further identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/25/234484/after-cia-gets-secret-whistleblower.html#storylink=cpy
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Is this a representative democracy or not?
defacto7
(13,485 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)postulater
(5,075 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Don't like it? Then why do you have child porn on your computer? Or why were you driving drunk? Now these transgressions could be overlooked ...we will talk next week about your committees overzealous work.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Someone said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.", they were exactly right.
Preserving due process and the constitution has become ever more essential.
SharonAnn
(13,773 posts)Still true, now.
Or, from this article in Newsweek:
http://www.newsweek.com/catholics-time-break-all-male-club-70645
"Studies show what we intuitively know: without checks and balances, insular groups of men do bad things."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Especially in old institutions where conservative men hold sway. You know them.
Nice to hear from you, SharonAnn.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Also, again when a litany of CIA war crimes were exposed in the 1970s and no one went to prison for them.
Also, again when the "old" CIA of Bush and Co. rode back into power in 1981 and started doing whatever the fuck they wanted.
Also, again when some of their crimes were exposed, and nothing happened.
Also... you get the picture?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)the Bush and Co. CIA boys.
The picture? It's ugly. I don't need to quote Zappa.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Vindicates Snowden's decision not to go to Congress with his information. He did the right thing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and I wonder how many in the future will do what Drake so naively did?
Uncle Joe
(58,361 posts)Thanks for the thread, Ichingcarpenter.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Thanks for the link to your thread, though. I was delighted to call bs on the claim that no one had a clue.
They rely on collective amnesia, or maybe they think they've mastered Obi Wan Kenobe's most memorable Jedi mind trick.
glowing
(12,233 posts)decide they should be able to circumvent the constitution. There is a reason we have certain rules set up about personal space and rights to privacy. Now, we have various govt agencies spying on one another and most likely using ill gotten info in nefarious ways that has nothing to do with actually "protecting or serving" the citizens of this country.
They are all eating their own at this point. And on another, what are they doing that they need to spy and collude to protect their secrets. If the public can't know, it may just be worse news for all of us!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Although Truman said he thought Dulles was a man of integrity, Dulles apparently lied to media about Truman's criticism of the CIA, a lie that Truman corrected via a letter to the editor. Id.
And Supreme Court Justice Goldberg once said the Dulles brothers had been traitors during the war.
http://kerry-patton.com/allen-dulles-spy-or-traitor/
Some historians believe that Allen Dulles became head of the newly formed CIA in large part to cover up his treasonous behavior and that of his clients.
http://amunaor.com/?app-download=ios
However, the criticisms of Truman described above came after Truman had left the office of CIC and Chief Executive. While in office and head of the Executive Branch, Truman signed the CIA into being. And, as the CIA itself has pointed out on its website, every President, starting with Truman, has written a letter thanking the CIA for its service.
I have several times pointed out that Eisenhower gets way too much credit for his MIC speech, even though he gave it on the day he left office after 8 years as CIC and POTUS.
And, of course, prior to that, he had been educated at West Point and served in the military most of his life, including at very high levels, his military role in WWII no doubt playing a large role in his popularity and therefore his election to the Presidency. So, he lived off the MIC most of his life, and did not end its dangers during his 8 years as the most powerful man in the world.
If he was unable to do anything about the MIC during his 8 years in that slot, what were average American people supposed to do with his warning? Just glorify him for decades after, I guess, because that is what I see Democrats doing over and over.
Anyway, Truman's protestations about the CIA that he helped create are not entirely dissimilar to Ike's warning about the MIC in his farewell address. While in office, while he had the power to do something about the CIA, he did not. Maybe both he and Ike were afflicted with a case of "Watch what I say (when it's too late for me to act on it), not what I do (or did, when I had power)?"
Maybe that is just a common affliction of Presidents--or those who give the words of Presidents more credence than the actions of Presidents.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)When I was growing up in the 50's and early 60's, the CIA was a whisper, with many doubting it really existed, and it was seen a super secret spy agency.
Late 60's/early 70's it started to get publicity as being involved in View Nam, but still mostly hush hush.
Now, for the last decade or so, it has not only come out into the light, but is known for assassinations, for causing revolts and toppling of governments,
and of late, for actually physically fighting, with guns and bombs etc.
appears we are just beginning to truly understand how much control the CIA, NSA, and M.I.C. do have over our government.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Doubted what the hell it was doing and to whom and why--I can see that.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)This got published in the Washington Post and, evidently, few other newspapers at the time:
Limit CIA Role To Intelligence
By Harry S Truman
The Washington Post, December 22, 1963 - page A11
INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21 I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence AgencyCIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department "treatment" or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its "natural raw" state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisionsand I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
Since the responsibility for decision making was histhen he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being "upset."
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigueand a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about "Yankee imperialism," "exploitive capitalism," "war-mongering," "monopolists," in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrityand I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special fieldand that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.
SOURCE: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html
So. One month after the assassination, President Truman expressed public concern CIA had strayed off the reservation from intelligence gathering of foreign news sources to cloak-and-dagger operations. Time -- and the Church Committee -- has since shown CIA operated, illegally, domestically.
Allen Dulles, on behalf of CIA, even asked Truman to retract it. From Ray McGovern...
Fox Guarding Hen House
The well-connected Dulles got himself appointed to the Warren Commission and took the lead in shaping the investigation of JFKs assassination.
Documents in the Truman Library show that he then mounted a small domestic covert action of his own to neutralize any future airing of Trumans and Souerss warnings about covert action.
So important was this to Dulles that he invented a pretext to get himself invited to visit Truman in Independence, Missouri. On the afternoon of April 17, 1964, Dulles spent a half-hour trying to get the former President to retract what he had said in his op-ed. No dice, said Truman.
No problem, thought Dulles. Four days later, in a formal memo for his old buddy Lawrence Houston, CIA General Counsel from 1947 to 1973, Dulles fabricated a private retraction, claiming that Truman told him the Washington Post article was all wrong, and that Truman seemed quite astounded at it.
No doubt Dulles thought it might be handy to have such a memo in CIA files, just in case.
A fabricated retraction? It certainly seems so, because Truman did not change his tune. Far from it.
In a June 10, 1964, letter to the managing editor of Look magazine, for example, Truman restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in strange activities.
CONTINUED...
SOURCE: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/122909b.html
Democracy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Exclusive: National security secrecy and a benighted sense of whats good for the country can be a dangerous mix for democracy, empowering self-interested or misguided officials to supplant the peoples will, as President Truman warned and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern explains.
By Ray McGovern
ConsortiumNews, December 22, 2013
EXCERPT...
Dulles and Dallas
Dulles could hardly have expected to get Truman to recant publicly. So why was it so important for Dulles to place in CIA files a fabricated retraction? I believe the answer lies in the fact that in early 1964 Dulles was feeling a lot of heat from many who were suggesting the CIA might have been involved somehow in the Kennedy assassination. Columnists were asking how the truth could ever be reached, with Allen Dulles as de facto head of the Warren Commission.
Dulles had good reason to fear that Trumans limited-edition Washington Post op-ed of Dec. 22, 1963, might garner unwanted attention and raise troublesome questions about covert action, including assassination. He would have wanted to be in position to dig out of Larry Houstons files the Truman retraction, in the hope that this would nip any serious questioning in the bud.
As the de facto head of the Warren Commission, Dulles was perfectly positioned to protect himself and his associates, were any commissioners or investigators or journalists tempted to question whether Dulles and the CIA played a role in killing Kennedy.
And so, the question: Did Allen Dulles and other cloak-and-dagger CIA operatives have a hand in John Kennedys assassination and in then covering it up? In my view, the best dissection of the evidence pertaining to the murder appeared in James Douglasss 2008 book, JFK and the Unspeakable. After updating and arraying the abundant evidence, and conducting still more interviews, Douglass concludes that the answer is Yes.
CONTINUED...
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/22/trumans-true-warning-on-the-cia/
As Nixon said, "Beg your pardon."
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)than any evidence I have seen for other theories about the Kennedy assassination. I have not read as much as many others on this topic. Thanks for posting this. It makes sense. That does not mean that it is correct, but it really makes sense.
I remember Truman very well. Thanks to Truman I learned what a "constitutional" was. Nothing to do with the Constitution of course. So typically truman to have that word used in connection with him.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)They shone a spotlight under the rock and what scurried there is pretty hideous. Dan Hardway once served as a staff investigator and researcher for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. I attended a conference to "Pass the Torch" on what we've learned since Nov. 22, 1963. Hardway's program was entitled "A View from the Trenches: The HSCA and the CIA." Hardway detailed how CIA worked to hinder Congress' investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy.
A body formed by the House of Representatives in 1976, the HSCA was founded to investigate the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In brief, the HSCA was to follow up on information that the Church Committee in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House -- and other Congressional investigations after Watergate -- uncovered, including the startling revelations that the CIA and the Mafia conspired to murder foreign leaders, starting in 1960 with Patrice Lumumba in Congo and later that year to include Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Hardway's work included interviewing people and researching documents related to the Central Intelligence Agency, including their connections to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The record shows, Mr. Hardway said, that within 24 hours of the assassination of President Kennedy, an anti-Castro organization in Miami, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE, an acronym based on the Spanish phrase for Directorate of Revolutionary Students) began to issue information to the United States press that linked Lee Harvey Oswald to Fidel Castro. The information included an episode in New Orleans where Oswald was handing out pro-Castro literature to passers-by in his "role" as chapter head of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. During the leafleting, DRE members confronted Oswald, pushing him around and calling him a communist dupe. The police were called and arrested Oswald, who was not belligerent and had not initiated the confrontation.
This episode in New Orleans was even more important to Hardway and the HSCA than he knew in 1977 when he first began to investigate it. The reason: George Joannides, the intelligence officer the CIA assigned to serve as liaison to the HSCA in the late 1970s, also was in charge of paying almost $450,000 a month (in today's dollars) to the DRE in 1963. This vital information was not made known to the HSCA, nor to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s.
Below are Mr. Hardway's words, including a partial transcription of his presentation at Duquesne, and some observations on why his testimony is vitally important for our future as a democracy.
If (the Oswald, the Pro-Castro Commie story) was that coordinated, that quick, and as detailed, it would be reasonable to infer that it had been laid on in advance. I set out to identify the sources of these stories that came out immediately after the assassination with detailed information on Oswald and his pro-Castro activities. I started asking for the CIA files on all those sources. I got a lot of them before we lost access, but I did not get them all. That was one of the things I was really pressing on, when I got shut down.
In the same period, I also found a reference to a CIA debriefing of Johnny Roselli, after Drew Pearson published his piece about Castro turning the assassins sent to kill him around and sending them back to kill Kennedy. I asked for the records about the debriefing that was part of what I was looking into with Bill Harvey. That's how I came across that. I very clearly remember some of the details about this. The debriefing happened at a CIA safe house over a period of two weeks in 1967. Sheffield Edwards was one of the debriefers. He was brought out of retirement, I think in order to do that, I think I remember that he was brought out of retirement.
And that was when the CIA changed the procedures on us. They brought George Joannides out of retirement to be the new liaison for me and Ed (Edwin L. Lopez), primarily. He closed our office at Langley. The agency set up a safe room for us to use as committee offices. I no longer had direct contact with any CIA employees to request files. All further requests for documents and files had to be in writing and approved through official channels. Files (we requested) were not produced for weeks after being requested. My whole inquiry into areas outside and inside the scope of my portfolio ground to a halt. We soon thereafter lost unexpurgated access and perk
Long and short on the Rosselli debriefing: I was told eventually -- I was given expurgated access to it. As a matter of fact, it was the first expurgated document I was handed. It happened out at the old meeting room that I had at the CIA. It was one of the few times that I am sure I met George Joannides. Ed remembers meeting him a lot. I don't remember meeting that many times, but I know I met him that time because when I walked in, it was just me, him, and Scott Breckenridge.
They handed me the file. It was about 2-inches, 2-and-a-half-inches thick. I sat down at the desk and they stood there, grinning, which struck me as unusual, and I thought maybe they don't trust me to look at the file without them present, because usually whoever delivered the file (in the past) would leave and let me work on them. And they were standing there, grinning in anticipation. And I opened it. And not only was the document expurgated, instead of taking the document and blacking out the lines on the copy, which is what they always did, they had retyped the whole document leaving white spaces where things were left out.
I blew up. I left. And, uh. They agreed, after the committee issued a subpoena, they agreed to let Gary Cornwall see it, unexpurgated. Gary went out there one day in the middle of trying to get the final report written, with 20 things on his agenda to get done. He stayed maybe two hours. He was out of the office about two hours. I know because I was waiting for him to get back, because I wanted to find out what he'd seen. And when he came back in he said, It doesn't have anything to do with what you're working on for the final report. Forget it. And that was the end of it.
That was the end of it until I went before the Assassination Records Review Board, which I was subpoenaed before to testify. And after they'd asked me about all the documents they wanted to ask me about, they asked me if there was anything else that they should ask me about that they had not asked me about. I told them about the debriefing of Johnny Roselli, about Sheffield Edwards' involvement, about Harvey, leaving the (inaudible) with the Harvey files. They (ARRB) said they would search for that, because it certainly sounded interesting and relevant and something that should be disclosed. They later had the kindness to get back to me, to tell me there was no record of any such file having ever existed or having ever been requested by the House Select Committee on Assassinations...
The George Joannides case shows the lengths to which the CIA went to stonewall the HSCA investigation. That's not just what Mr. Hardway said, it's what G. Robert Blakey, the chief counsel and staff director of the HSCA said:
I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee...
SNIP...
I was not told of Joannides background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.
That the Agency would put a material witness in as a filter between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.
The committees researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.
They were certainly right about one question: the committees researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agencys integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.
SNIP...
Significantly, the Warren Commissions conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
CONTINUED...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/#addendum
Federal Judge John Tunheim, who headed the ARRB panel, the government body charged with finding, reviewing and releasing all pertinent JFK and MLK assassination records, said he was very surprised to learn to what extend the CIA went to obstruct HSCA Congressional investigators, the ARRB and the law:
It really was an example of treachery, Tunheim said in a recent interview of the CIAs handling of the Joannides affair. If (the CIA) fooled us on that, they may have fooled us on other things.
SOURCE: http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/11/25/government-still-withholding-thousands-documents-jfk-assassination/PvBM2PCgW1H11vadQ4Wp4H/story.html
What other things? If this is a democracy, We the People should know and know soon, if not immediately. The JFK assassination records still held by CIA, the Pentagon and other government agencies are mandated by law to be released by 2017 -- unless the President in 2017 determines they should not be released. I don't know about you, Dear Reader, but that fact alone makes me want to vote for the Democrat, even if it's someone I -- Octafish -- don't support in the primary. The GOP wing of CIA, the ones who entered into league with the Mafia to kill, has demonstrated they can't be trusted to do the right thing, let alone what's Constitutional.
Thanks for posting this
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Thanks Octafish!
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)For a few months after Watergate zipped Nixon, Otis Pike in the House and Frank Church in the Senate tried. That was 1975.
It's been war-war-war for control and profit ever since.
1975 and to a certain extent Jimmy Carter and Stansfield Turner in the late 70s (in the wake of the Church Committee findings). They predictably met great resistance.
One example was in the form of former Warren Commission member (John McCloy):
Rockefeller also established the highly secret, Project Alpha. The main objective was to persuade Carter to provide a safe haven for Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (code-named "Eagle" . McCloy, Rockefeller and Kissinger were referred to as the "Triumvirate". Rockefeller used money from Chase Manhattan Bank to pay employees of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy who worked on the project. Some of this money was used to persuade academics to write articles defending the record of Pahlavi. For example, George Lenczowski, professor emeritus at the University of California, was paid $40,000 to write a book with the "intention to answer the shah's critics".
Kissinger telephoned Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Carter, on 7th April, 1979, and berated the president for his emphasis on human rights, which he considered to be "amateurish" and "naive". Brzezinski suggested he talked directly to Jimmy Carter. Kissinger called Carter and arranged for him to meet David Rockefeller, two days later. Gerald Ford also contacted Carter and urged him to "stand by our friends".
McCloy, Rockefeller and Kissinger arranged for conservative journalists to mount an attack on Carter over this issue. On 19th April, George F. Will wrote about Carter and the Shah and said; "It is sad that an Administration that knows so much about morality has so little dignity."
On 19th April, Rosalynn Carter wrote in her diary: "We can't get away from Iran. Many people - Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Howard Baker, John McCloy, Gerald Ford - all are after Jimmy to bring the shah to the United States, but Jimmy says it's been too long, and anti-American and anti-shah sentiments have escalated so that he doesn't want to. Jimmy said he explained to all of them that the Iranians might kidnap our Americans who are still there."
McCloy had meetings with President Carter in the White House on 16th May and 12th June where he outlined his reasons for providing Mohammad Reza Pahlavi with sanctuary. Carter listened politely to his arguments but refused to change his mind.
During the summer of 1979 McCloy contacted Zbigniew Brzezinski, Cyrus Vance, Walter Mondale and Dean Rusk about the Shah being allowed to live in the United States. McCloy told them that Carter's refusal to provide sanctuary to an old U.S. ally was "ungentlemanly" and dismissed the idea that lives in Iran might be jeopardized. Vance later recalled that: "John (McCloy) is a very prolific letter writer. The morning mail often contained something from him about the Shah".
In July 1979, Mondale and Brzezinski told Jimmy Carter that they had changed their minds and now supported asylum for the Shah. Carter replied: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe." He added that despite the fact that "Kissinger, Rockefeller and McCloy had been waging a constant campaign on the subject" he did not want the Shah "here playing tennis while Americans in Teheran were being kidnapped or even killed."
McCloy then tried another tactic in order to destabilize Carter's administration. In September, a story was leaked that the CIA had "discovered" a Soviet combat brigade in Cuba. It was claimed that this violated the agreement reached during the Cuban Missile Crisis. McCloy, who had negotiated the agreement with Adlai Stevenson and the Soviets in 1962, knew this was not true. The agreement said that only those Soviet troops associated with the missiles had to leave the island. There was never a complete ban on all Soviet troops in Cuba. Therefore the presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba was not a violation of the 1962 agreement.
In October, 1979, David Rockefeller's assistant, Joseph V. Reed, called the State Department and claimed that the Shah had cancer and needed immediate treatment in a U.S. medical facility. Cyrus Vance now told Carter that the Shah should be allowed in as a matter of "common decency". Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, argued that if the Shah died outside the United States, Kissinger and his friends would say "that first you caused the Shah's downfall and now you've killed him." Carter replied: "What are you guys going to advise me to do if they overrun our embassy and take our people hostage?"
Faced with the now unanimous opposition of his closest advisers, the president reluctantly agreed to admit the Shah. He arrived at New York Hospital on 22nd October, 1979. Joseph V. Reed circulated a memo to McCloy and other members of Project Alpha: "Our mission impossible is completed. My applause is like thunder." Less than two weeks later, Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and took hostage 66 Americans. Thus beginning the Iranian Hostage Crisis...
http://spartacus-educational.com/USAmccloyJ.htm
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Here's a fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission: Two of its members were directly responsible for the rise of post-war fascism. Allen Dulles, as a top official of the OSS and CIA, incorporated NAZI war criminals into the CIA from its founding. John McCloy, as High Commissioner for Germany, allowed Klaus Barbie and who-knows-who-else to escape justice. Of course, both men were also barons of Wall Street and Beltway Insiders. We all can see what that means today.
Banana Republicans who've pretty much greased the way for today's global feudalism.
MinM
(2,650 posts)Here's a 1967 interview John McCloy did with Walter Cronkite as part of a CBS special designed to prop up waning support for the Warren Report.
This segment with McCloy however never aired because he was so obviously skirting the truth in his dodgy responses to Cronkite. It reminds me of a show from a few years back called 'Lie to Me' only you don't have to be an expert in reading tells to know what's going on here with McCloy ..
http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2014.html
More McCloy (@50:00+)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to expose the depth of the rot and corruption in our government.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)This is internal politics at the highest level, involving whistleblowing - a particularly touchy subject for our spy agencies these days.
Yet here we have a story leaked about the CIA obtaining a confidential Congressional email....sourced to "people familiar with the matter".
merrily
(45,251 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)When they go public, they demonstrate 1. how the US will treat whistleblowers (which is a lesson in and of itself) and 2. provide an example to others who want to step forward but who are perhaps waffling.
This particular story is being purposefully leaked it seems. In order to expose the relationships at the top - I find it fascinating that someone felt this needed to get out to the public.
Things that make me go hmmmmmm
merrily
(45,251 posts)Right now, it seems Congress is trying to show that, until recently, it had no knowledge of, or responsibility for, the extent of the excesses of "interrogation" during the Bush years. However, they did.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)If there is any "baby" it is dead, consumed by the sea of poison, if it is alive it is a monstrous mutant and child of the sludge it has thrived in for generations.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....into CIA spying on Senate Intelligence Committee.
Just a few weeks ago.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Congress, Pentagon, State were all clients of DC Madame, including Pampers Vitter.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)do with sex. More likely with money. What in the world she needs so much money for I do not know. Maybe to make up for the money her accountant took from her and the lawyering it took to try to get the money back?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)War profiteer and war criminal
by Gerry Bello
July 5, 2013
EXCERPT...
Feinstein's political fortunes rest not on representing the human rights values of her base in San Francisco, but on the considerable fortune of her husband, investment banker Richard Blum. This fortune, although technically separated from hers by various trusts, has been greatly enhanced by the war on terror. Blum's war profiteering is anchored by his Blum Capital group, which owns major defense contractor URS. Blum also has ownership interest in a defunct cargo airline with defense department contracts, Astar Cargo, and a major construction firm with major contracts for the military as well as civilian reconstruction contracts with Iraq.
URS's position as a major defense contractor was secured by its purchase of EG&G from the Carlyle Group in 2002 and re-branding the company URS Federal Services. The Free Press has a list of all the DoD contracts that URS is party to as a prime or subcontractor. The list, which was downloaded from publicly accessible government computers is so incomprehensibly huge our IT department custom built a computer to crunch the data. For instance, URS is party to 12147 contracts that we could find with the Special Operations Command alone.
URS Federal Services provides communications maintenance support to the 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing, the key military unit that operates Predator drones worldwide. Thus Feinstien's position as chairwoman of the Senate select intelligence committee provides the veneer of congressional legality for the secret illegal assassination program. Meanwhile, the expansion of drone warfare against civilian targets also secretly enriches her and her husband and ensures the flow of blood money needed to keep her in office.
Feinstein has publicly derided whistleblower Edward Snowden as a traitor, but has remained mostly silent on the issue of whistleblower Bradley Manning. Manning is alleged to have downloaded footage of war crimes from CENTCOM computers and given it to Wikileaks. This footage, which shows American attack helicopters killing Reuters journalists, formed the basis of the film Collateral Murder. Manning is also alleged to have downloaded and leaked thousands of diplomatic cables that continue to shed public light on the seedy secret side of important world events. URS is the prime contractor for network defense and security for CENTCOM. When documents are leaked and Dianne Feinstien shrilly cries treason, one could be unsure if she the treason she refers to is treason to her bank account or to her country. Perhaps she did not single Manning out for fear of drawning attention to her husband's profiteering.
The decade of URS ownership by Richard Blum has proved lucrative in subcontracting as well. A brief overview over products and services provided to the DoD by URS includes "MISC DESKS", satellite communication equipment and "CHICKEN, PCS, BRD, FZN." Dozens of companies subcontract to URS on various projects, perhaps hoping to get a green light from a company that has a powerful senator guarding their interests in Congress. Prime Contractors on these projects range from Boeing to Booz Allen Hamilton. Several of these contracts list Palantir as the prime contractor, suggesting that URS may be directly involved in PRISM.
CONTINUED...
http://freepress.org/departments/display/13/2013/5057
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)It's sickening to realize how many self-identified Democrats are ignoring the story.
Thanks to McClatchy for fine reporting.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)DHS classified David Lindorff's ThisCantBeHappening a "Threat."
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Do people think they'd have stopped all by themselves???????
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)since 2001 at least.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Me too.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)questionseverything
(9,654 posts)someone alerted on your links posted in the 50 shades thing and i was a juror...you won 6-1 btw
back to this op....
i found this line chilling,
Clapper earlier this year discussed the need to continually evaluate the trustworthiness of federal employees with security clearances as part of the Insider Threat Program by monitoring their official and off the job communications.
Were going to need to change our security clearance process to a system of continuous evaluation, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 11. The intelligence community, he continued, needed to have a way of monitoring their behavior, both their electronic behavior on the job as well as off the job.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/25/234484/after-cia-gets-secret-whistleblower.html#storylink=cpy
the article goes on to explain it is not just security jobs being monitored but every federal employee
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I never thought I would see and understand my own country to be at this level of paranoid criminality.
Thanks for letting me know the links served their intended purpose and that you didn't miss this thread (which has only gotten more interesting and chilling over time...see above). I really appreciate your underscoring that particularly disturbing part of the article.
Also, thank you for being a juror and letting me know about the ongoing attempts at message control by those who are threatened by posts decrying message control and linking to real news.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Or their connections. This includes the CIA, FBI, NSA on down to the lowest peon. This includes all conspiracies and dirty deeds.
MinM
(2,650 posts)http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-exactly-are-the-spy-agencies-doing-with-their-bag-of-dirty-tricks/5391555
Rod Blagojevich: ...the Feds Were After Barack Obama...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)A Reagan appointee:
NSA Court Judges Invest in Verizon While Surveillance Warps Law and Journalism
By Thor Benson
Posted on Jul 30, 2014
We must never be surprised when we learn once again that our lawmakers and law interpreters are in bed with the countrys largest corporationsthis is how the American government now operates. A July 25 article in Vice includes documentation that shows three judges from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, the tribunal that evaluates the legality of the NSAs practices, own stock in Verizon. Although there doesnt seem to be a direct financial incentive for judges to allow the NSA to rifle through the data (our data) of a company in which they have invested, it does show the intimate relationship the NSA, the FISA Court and Verizon share.
Specifically, the article states: On May 28 last year, Judge James Zagel, a FISA Court member since 2008, purchased stock in Verizon. In June of this year, Zagel signed off on a government request to the FISA Court to renew the ongoing metadata collection program. The piece goes on to say that FISA Court Judges Susan Wright and Dennis Saylor also own shares in the company, and although Vice wasnt able to obtain accurate numbers for the amount invested, it appears to be in the thousands of dollars.
The Vice article notes that judges are supposed to remove themselves from cases in which they might have a financial stake in the outcome or from any case in which they might find it difficult to be impartial. The Verge also pointed out that telecommunication companies like Verizon receive millions of dollars from the government in their record-sharing deals.
Cases are supposed to be reassessed when there is evidence of a conflict of interest. Perhaps it is time the government rethinks why it is allowing massive surveillance of its citizens when the majority of Americans are opposed to that practice and there appears to be a relationship between the court allowing it and the companies harvesting the information. Lets also not forget that President Obama can unilaterally shut down the NSAs phone surveillance, but hes also the guy whos just fine with a former Monsanto executive leading the FDAs food and nutrition programs.
A recent Human Rights Watch report details the overarching effects of NSA surveillance. The report starts by outlining how it affects journalists, highlighting that the Insider Threat Program makes government officials less likely to interact with writers for fear of prosecution. It goes on to say that lawyers, who are meant to retain full confidentiality with their clients, have less freedom to share information electronically. So it appears that surveillance is making it hard for Americans who handle delicate information to do their jobs.
Alex Sinha, one of the authors of the Human Rights Watch report, told Truthdig on Tuesday about what he learned in the process of researching and writing it. One of the leading journalists I talked to estimates that his productivity has been cut in half, simply due to the need to take such measures to protect his information and protect his communications, he said. In other words, the more effort journalists have to put into keeping their communications and information secure, the fewer stories they produce and the fewer details they may uncover for readers.
CONTINUED...
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/nsa_court_judges_invest_in_verizon_while_20140730
Guy served at Blagojevich's second trial. It's like Double Jeopardy where the question always is: Who protects billionaires?
MinM
(2,650 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)The New York Times and the rest of Corporate McPravda, not so much.
CIA improperly accessed Senate computers, agency finds
By Jonathan S. Landay and Ali Watkins
McClatchy Washington BureauJuly 31, 2014
EXCERPT...
In January, Brennan confronted Feinstein behind closed doors over a committee request for top-secret material that the CIA determined the panel staff already had obtained. He contended that her staff may have improperly accessed the material.
In her speech in March, Feinstein asserted that her staff found the material in the data base and that the CIA had discovered the staff had it by monitoring their computers in violation of the user agreement.
Recognizing the importance of this matter and the need to resolve it in a way that preserved the crucial equities of both branches, Director Brennan asked the CIA Office of Inspector General to examine the actions of CIA personnel, Boyd said.
The committee report, which is being reviewed at the White House following a declassification process at the CIA, found that the use of the harsh interrogation techniques produced little valuable intelligence, according to classified conclusions obtained by McClatchy.
It also determined that the agency misled the Bush administration, the Congress and the public on its results, according to the conclusions.
Former Bush administration officials, the CIA and those who oversaw the program, which ran from 2001 until 2006, have vigorously disputed those findings.
SOURCE: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/31/234997/cia-staffers-accessed-senate.html
Gosh. If anything, Corporate McPravda's owners and operators are lucky they aren't in prison for their roles in lying America into war, covering up torture and spherical domestic spying by the secret government.
indeed.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)shouldn't be concerned about it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)from the article:
Snowden has said that he decided to leak to the media thousands of top-secret documents on the NSAs sweeping collection of Americans communications data in part because he did not trust the system designed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.