Tag Archives: CIA

25 Rules of Disinformation

Kristan T. Harris | American Intelligence Report

Can You Identify Which of these Rules are Still in Use by Our Leaders Today?

25 Rules of Disinformation – Possible rules of Operation Mocking Bird

PROPAGANDA, “PSYOPS”, DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

911 CIA Whistle Blower Was in Prison for a Year under the Patriot Act

Susan Lindauer worked for the CIA. She was a whistle blower who approached Congress through the proper channels and was then charged under the Patriot Act for sedition. She spent one year of her life in prison on an Air Force base without ever knowing what the charges were against her. We are living in a police state.

“”EXTREME PREJUDICE delivers an explosive, high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA’s advance warning of 9/11 and an insider’s look at Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence, told by one of the very few U.S. Assets covering Iraq before the War. It reveals the depths of deception by leaders in Washington and London to promote a successful image of their terrorism policy, and the shocking brutality to suppress the truth of their failures from Americans and the world community.”

Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

Torture, Iraq and 9/11

[This article from 2009 is highly relevant today considering the  details of CIA torture partial disclosed this month.]

Posted on April 22, 2009 by WashingtonsBlog
www.washingtonsblog.com

5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam”.

He also said “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.

Moreover, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda”.

And a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.

And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed repeatedly for years that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Moreover, President Bush’s March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph:

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Therefore, the Bush administration expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks. See this.

Tortured Logic

Yesterday, Seator Levin revealed that the U.S. used torture techniques aimed at extracting false confessions.

Today, McClatchy fills in some of the details:

Former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration…

For most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document…

When people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder,” he continued.”Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam . . .

A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under “pressure” to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

“While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”

“I think it’s obvious that the administration was scrambling then to try to find a connection, a link (between al Qaida and Iraq),” [Senator] Levin said in a conference call with reporters. “They made out links where they didn’t exist.”

Levin recalled Cheney’s assertions that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, in the Czech Republic capital of Prague just months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FBI and CIA found that no such meeting occurred.

In other words, top Bush administration officials not only knowingly lied about a non-existent connection between Al Qaida and Iraq, but they pushed and insisted that interrogators use special torture methods aimed at extracting false confessions to attempt to create such a false linkage.

Writing about this today, Paul Krugman says:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

What Does That Say About the Persuasiveness of the 9/11 Commission Report?

As noted by Newsweek:

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA’s interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission’s final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission’s report may have been subjected to “enhanced” interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission….

Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydah—is cited throughout two key chapters of the panel’s report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda.

Footnotes in the panel’s report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report’s footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.

Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel’s behalf.

The commission’s report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had “no control” over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information “with documents and statements of others.”

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission, told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking. …

Kerrey said it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11. Those now calling for more 9/11-style panels would be wise to heed his words.

Indeed, as I have repeatedly noted, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on a third-hand account of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.The 9/11 Commission itself is complaining that the government lied to – and hid evidence from – the Commission. See this, this, this and this.Now that we know that the interrogators used torture techniques aimed at extracting false confessions, does the 9/11 Commission Report carry any weight whatsoever?

Government Promises to Stop Lying Because of Drudge Report Spotlight

Shows the power of the real media in breaking through the electronic Berlin Wall

Adan Salazar and Alex Jones
infowars.com

Originally posted on July 28, 2013

In a groveling public display earlier this week, the Department of Defense announced plans to increase its public affairs efforts due to the devastating effect independent media is having on the Pentagon’s ability to control its news, more specifically, its ability to quash negative news stories before they go viral.

On Thursday, the DoD bemoaned DrudgeReport.com and the fact that, because of citizen journalists, social media and other online platforms reporting news in real time, the public is more quickly becoming aware of the constant patterns of contradictions and habitual lying by a government long ago captured by a group of corrupt interests.

Drudge Report quote around 14:00; Staff Sgt. Hostutler speaks near 27:30.

“..we cannot hide our bad news stories. Bad news gets out one way or the other and we must come to terms with telling bad stories as well as the good,” the secretary of defense for public affairs, George Little, stated at the Defense Media Activity’s headquarters on Fort Meade in Maryland.

“When bad things happen, the American people should hear it from us, not as a scoop on the Drudge Report,” Little said.

When it came time for a brief question and answer segment, Staff Sgt Hostutler, a junior enlisted member of Air Force production, highlighted that many in her position feel that, as a result of recent spates of negative publicity, the American people are just not buying their stories anymore, making it difficult to execute positive spin effectively.

“My question is: you mentioned that we need to start telling the story about the bad news as well as the good, and the issue I see that we’re facing… It seems like we have this culture in our career to kinda glaze over these issues and put out this positive press, and “No, our jets are fine,” and so with the good and the bad, I don’t think the American people actually trust us to deliver accurate information.

“What’s the plan to change that in the way ahead, because to continue the way we have, to continue to put that positive spin, it feels like we’re losing a lot of our audience because they’re not listening, because we keep saying the same thing over, everything is okay, and it’s not…

“… Is there a plan to kinda change the way that we think? Because as it is, a lot of people, from what I can see, are going through, “We’re putting out mindless propaganda,” is what some of us feel that we’re putting out and what the American people feel that we’re putting out, so how do we change this?”

In essence, this is a signal of defeat to the power that is independent media, and shows just how large of an effect it is having. Alex Jones lends his analysis:

“Just as the term ‘Google’ became synonymous with ‘search engine,’ DrudgeReport.com has become the catchword for all independent forms of journalism alive on the web today.”

Jones believes Drudge’s mention in the DoD speech is a testament to how legit and credible Drudge really is. This is the reason why the news aggregator has so frequently been the target of naysayer critics ranging from exiting-DHS secretary Janet Napolitano to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer, who said that Drudge’s stories actively “hurt” the White House’s message “on a daily basis.”

On one hand, the government has revealed it is not invincible to the onslaught of curious, honest and hard-working journalists eager to obtain and report the truth. It shows just how vulnerable the man behind the curtain really is; in all his power, he’s upset over the few forms of media he can’t control.

With Drudge continually pouring out their contradictions, the federal government is finding it harder to keep their stories straight and consistently gets caught off-guard.

On the other hand, the DoD’s announcement that it will become more “engaged” with journalists is even more unsettling in light of the fact that just two weeks ago the CIA was given a green light to flood America with even more government propaganda.

The fact that they’re openly announcing their intent to infiltrate the media means they’re ready to move forward with plans to squelch the First Amendment.

Indeed, this is the opening salvo public announcement of open war on the power of the press.

“This is a completely cynical move by the Pentagon,” Alex says. “They’ve been engaged forever in domestic psy-op operations, but now that they’ve been blown wide open by alternative media, we’re seeing the psy-op of cognitive infiltration.

“They say they’re going to reach out to the media (that means persuading members of the alternative media with money as well) basically setting up operations against it, but they’re announcing, ‘This is not an assault! We’re your friends! We come in peace! We promise we’ll be truthful and we’re gonna communicate! Listen to us!’ It’s actually the opposite. This is the Pentagon, psy-warfare and cyber-security all declaring war on the First Amendment.”

“The only huge website out there that you can call mainstream but also alternative that is really challenging the establishment is the Drudge Report, which should be considered a world treasure, along with all other alternative media.

“We shouldn’t be demoralized by this development, we should be excited, because this shows we’re having an effect in keeping freedom alive and spreading it worldwide.”

RELATED ARTICLES

CIA Will Now Openly Propagandize Americans

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban

Study: 935 False statements preceded Iraq war

Database of Administration Iraq Claims

NSA scandal: Is the CIA involved with Ed Snowden?

by Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

Everyone wants to see a hero.

When that hero emerges from the shadows and says all the right things, and when he exposes a monolithic monster, he’s irresistible.

However, that doesn’t automatically make him who he says he is.

That doesn’t automatically exempt him from doubts.

Because he’s doing the right thing, people quickly make him into a spokesman for their own hopes. If he’s finally blasting a hole in the dark enemy’s fortress, he has to be accepted at face value. He has to be elevated.

When dealing with the intelligence community and their spooks and methods, this can be a mistake. Deception is the currency of that community. Layers of motives and covert ops are business as usual.

In previous articles, I’ve raised a number of specific doubts about Ed Snowden.

Here I want to replay four statements Snowden made and examine them.

“When you see everything, you see them on a more frequent basis and you recognize that some of these things are actually abuses, and when you talk about them in a place like this [NSA]…over time that awareness of wrongdoing sorts of builds up and you feel compelled to talk about it, and the more you talk about it, the more you’re ignored, the more you’re told it’s not a problem…”

This statement describes Snowden, an analyst working at NSA, chatting regularly to colleagues about his growing doubts over the morality of NSA spying. This is quite hard to believe.

As Steve Kinney, writing at the Centre for Research on Globalisation points out, Snowden would have raised all sorts of red flags about himself.

If he hadn’t been fired outright, he certainly would have come under serious scrutiny, which, at the very least, would have reduced his ability to hack documents out of NSA’s most secret recesses.

And yet, Snowden, an analyst, claims he had access to “full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth.”

Really?

That stretches doubt far beyond the point of credulity.

Both The Guardian and the Washington Post supposedly vetted Snowden carefully. I’d really like to see the results of that vetting.

“Rosters of everyone working at the NSA [and] the entire intelligence community…” That’s untold thousands of people. That’s referring to many separate agencies.

Snowden doesn’t stop there. He maintains the security of NSA is not just a sieve, it’s also thousands of separate hunting parties, undertaken at the whim of any analyst:

“Any analyst at any time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere… I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President…”

Sure. NSA just opens the door to their own analysts, who can, on their own hook, launch spying episodes on anyone in the US. Boom. No operational plans, no coordination. A free-for-all.

“Hey, dig this. Nancy Pelosi was just talking to her hairdresser. I’m going to follow up on her. Think I’ll spy on Nancy and her husband, see what they’re up to. I’ll file reports as I go along…”

“A guy at Los Alamos just wrote to his boss about a new weapons system. Want to see what they’re planning?”

Finally, Snowden claimed he could “shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention.”

Not just spy on everybody in the US. Snowden asserts he could do that. But he could also make the entire spying apparatus of NSA (and even all other intelligence agencies?) go dark with a few hours of work—and he’d evade notice of his NSA bosses as he performed this herculean task.

No. Ridiculous. The very first thing an agency like NSA does is set up a labyrinth to prevent itself from being taken down.

Consider these four Snowden statements together, back up and think. These are propositions that cast the man into a deep pit of doubt.

Who is he?

What is his mission? Is that mission his own, or is he working for someone who wants to punch a hole in the NSA?

In another article, I’ve developed the hypothesis that Snowden is still actually operating for his former bosses at the CIA; people at the CIA, long engaged in a turf war with the NSA, are running him in this op.

Snowden didn’t steal anything from NSA. He couldn’t. People at the CIA could and did steal, and they handed him documents to use in his assigned op.

There are other possible explanations. None of them exonerates the NSA or what it is doing. Let’s be clear about that.

But how far would the CIA go in exposing the guts of the NSA? It’s clear that these intelligence agencies overlap in their efforts (crimes). Therefore, the CIA would be satisfied to smear the NSA without exposing too much.

If so, Snowden’s cache of documents won’t “go all the way.”

His documents won’t yield the longed-for holy grail, though Snowden implies he could unwrap it. I’m talking about the entire interlocking system of US and global surveillance and how it isbuilt.

More than piecemeal exposures about PRISM, US hacks of China, and the G20 meeting in England, an account of the technical “architecture,” as John Young of Cryptome rightly calls it, would torpedo the underlying global Surveillance State.

If Snowden can do that, he hasn’t shown it so far. Right now, he’s put his work in the hands of several journalists, who will dole it out on their own inexplicable timetables.

Why make that move? Why hasn’t Snowden put up a dozen sites and laid everything he has on the line? Before those sites could be taken down, the material would have been copied and sent around the world thousands of times.

Snowden has already said he won’t endanger specific spies or operations that could actually prevent terrorists’ missions.

All right. Then give us everything else. Give us the whole shooting match. Let’s see how the watchers have built their edifice.

But so far, Snowden has shown himself to be a different kind of person, someone who makes claims that far exceed his reach.

Read his four statements again. The sub-text is:

I could complain, raise doubts, and criticize NSA openly at work. No one cared. It was a typical office you’d find in any company. It certainly wasn’t a super-controlled environment. Things were so loose, I could access the complete map of the entire NSA network. Names, places, operations. On a whim, any analyst could spy on anyone in the US. If I wanted to, I could shut down all of US intelligence in a few hours. Forget the popular image of NSA as a fortress with dozens of layers of protection. Forget the notion that I’d have to be granted elite privilege to all sorts of secret keys to get into the inner sanctum, or that, while navigating my way in, I’d be setting off alarm bells all over the place. It was a piece of cake.

Smear.

“NSA is an open book. A book written by idiots. It cost a trillion dollars, but anyone could waltz in there and read the whole thing. Use a thumb drive, and you can also walk out with the whole thing.”

If you set aside Snowden’s remarks about his motives, his morality, and his high mission, his explanation falls apart. It makes no sense.

His CIA handlers would now be telling him that. “Hey Ed, tone down the ‘child’s-play’ angle, okay? You’re making it sound too easy. Remember? You’re the ‘whiz kid genius.’ Yeah, we want to smear NSA, but it’s got to be credible. People have to think it took at least some ingenuity to access the most heavily protected data in the world. Get it?”

A common man of the people, serving the greater good, exposing ongoing crimes that threaten the very lifeblood of the Republic? Is Ed Snowden that hero?

Or is he an operator, an agent?

So far, he’s made himself seem like the agent.

Executives at the NSA are well aware of this. Sitting down with their counterparts at the CIA, they’d be getting an earful. CIA people would be saying:

“Of course Snowden is our boy. He worked for us in Geneva, and he’s working for us now. We told you, after 9/11, we didn’t like you clowns at NSA throwing all the blame on CIA for the Trade Center attacks. We didn’t like that at all. And in the intervening years, we haven’t liked you cutting us out of the spying game. We warned you. So now we’ve given you a taste of what we can do. We can do more. Either we play ball together, or we’ll put NSA in the dumper. Get it?”

Playing ball together. Harmonization.

A sharp reader has just pointed out to me that this is the op behind the op. The fallout from Snowden will be used as the reason for more and better global sharing of spying and surveillance data.

Separate Surveillance States, which already share mountains of data, will come together to coordinate their efforts in an even tighter Surveillance Planet.

The US NSA won’t be tolerated as the pompous king of the hill any longer. It will have to play well with others.

After all, Globalism means the whole globe.

And “we’re all in this together.”

“We” meaning the elites who want to track every move made by every person on Earth, 24/7, in order to predict and control in the new paradise, where the sun rises every day on …compliance.

That’s the takeaway from the Snowden affair. That’s why the secret surveillance/spying at the G20 meeting in England was exposed.

“Gentlemen, we’re all rational here at the table. This is ridiculous. We’re all spying on each other. This can’t go on. It’s counterproductive. We want to work together. So let’s do it. We all want the same thing. A planet under control. The way to achieve that goal is to cooperate. We’ll spy on those who need to be spied on: the population of the planet. We’ll do it together. The primary violator of cooperation is that cowboy outfit in America, the NSA. They have to be brought into line. They have to learn they’re only part of the Whole. Agreed?”

“Agreed.”

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

 

Boston Bombers’ Uncle Married Daughter of Top CIA Official

Saturday, 27. April 2013

Sibel Edmonds

boilingfrogspost.com

Graham Fuller: Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege, FBI Gladio-B Target, Handler-Sponsor of Turkey’s Imam Gulen

A major break in the Boston Terror CIA Connection took place last night when I came across a post outing CIA Operative Graham Fuller as the father of the woman married to Boston terror suspect’s infamous uncle Ruslan Tsarni. Further confirmation of this bombshell was received via mainstream reporter Laura Rozen here. Let me first provide a few excerpts from the original reporting site (a real alternative media):

Boston Bombers’ Uncle Married Daughter of Top CIA Official

The uncle of the two suspected Boston bombers in last week’s attack, Ruslan Tsarni, was married to the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller . Ruslan Tsarni married the daughter of former top CIA official Graham Fuller, who spent 20 years as operations officer in Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong. In 1982 Fuller was appointed the National Intelligence Officer for Near East and South Asia at the CIA, and in 1986, under Ronald Reagan, he became the Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, with overall responsibility for national level strategic forecasting.

…

Now, take a look at the most explosive aspect of this original report on Graham Fuller’s outing in the CIA Boston Terror Connection [All Emphasis Mine]:

On a more ominous note, Graham Fuller was listed as one of the American Deep State rogues on Sibel Edmonds’ State Secrets Privilege Gallery,. Edmonds explained it featured subjects of FBI investigations she became aware of during her time as an FBI translator.

Criminal activities were being protected by claims of State Secrets, she asserted. After Attorney General John Ashcroft went all the way to the Supreme Court to muzzle her under a little-used doctrine of State Secrets, she put up twenty-one photos, with no names. One of them was Graham Fuller.

…

I presented CIA’s Graham Fuller as one of the top culprits in my State Secrets Privilege Case when the government invoked the State Secrets Privilege and several additional gag orders to cover up the FBI’s investigations and files pertaining to CIA-NATO terror operations in Central Asia & the Caucasus since the mid-1990s. Guess what? I provided this information to the US media long before it became public in 2008 via my website and this website. Not a single media outlet (including quasi and pseudo ones) was willing to touch this. And this, despite of all the gag orders, state secrets privilege invocations, congressional gag orders … you name it. I could name more than a dozen publications that said: ‘no way.’

Not only that. I have been covering one of the main CIA operation figures in Central Asia & the Caucasus-Imam Fethullah Gulen, and this Turkish Imam’s relationship and official Connections to CIA’s Graham Fuller. I’ve been doing this since 2009. Let me provide you with a few explosive examples and excerpts. First a few excerpts from over two years ago published at Boiling Frogs Post:

Turkish Intel Chief Exposes CIA Operations via Islamic Group in Central Asia

First of all, there have been tens if not hundreds of articles establishing Graham Fuller as one of Gulen’s official references to the court for his residency, you can view some of these here, here, here. This quote comes from Foreign Policy Journal:

Fethullah Gulen became a green card holder despite serious opposition from FBI and from Homeland Security Department. Former CIA officers (formally and informally) such as Graham Fuller and Morton Abromovitz were some of the prominent references in Gulen’s green card application.

And Stein let that slide?! I’d quickly ask: ‘how often do you write to the FBI on people you think have been unfairly targeted or treated by them?!’ Last but not least on Graham Fuller is my own on-the-record, more accurately, on-the-album, naming of individuals implicated (criminally) in my case, thus protected via invocation of the State Secrets Privilege:…

…

Then the following excerpt from an article I wrote in 2010:

After years of investigating him the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, due to his guardian angels in the State Department and the CIA, are prevented from bringing an indictment against him, so they try to kick him out of the US. But once again Gulen’s CIA angels step in and portray Gulen as a scholar, despite the fact that Fethullah Gulen doesn’t even have a high-school diploma and never went beyond the 5th grade. Among his angels who vouched for him were Graham Fuller, George Fidas, and Morton Abramowitz.

And this excerpt from another related article I wrote in 2010:

You may remember one of these foreign policy makers from my State Secrets Privilege Gallery and my under oath testimony in the Krikorian case. Here is a quote from Graham A. Fuller, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence:

‘The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.’

And this from another commentary I wrote on the Gulen-CIA nexus:

No one is daring to mention one of his top backers in the US, another butler of Israel, Mort Abramowitz, or and how Abramowitz vouched for Gulen during his deportation hearing. No one is talking about Gulen’s other CIA bodyguard, Graham Fuller. No ‘real’ questions on Gulen’s ‘real’ sources of multibillion dollar funding…No emphasis on Gulen’s real role for the real US decision-makers’ use, and their strategy for Central Asia since 1997…

Some of these reporters have their hands tied by their MSM editors. Some of the semi- independent journalists have fallen for the creators of the smoke and mirrors. And others are simply guided by ignorance and utter dumbness emboldened by their arrogance. Well, they are just the latest being sold and fed garbage when it comes to Gulen.

…

If you haven’t watched our Operation Gladio series, please do so now: Sibel Edmonds on Operation Gladio Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V. And I urge you to watch and disseminate the following video interview on my analysis linking the CIA & the Boston Terror Case:

You can check out our latest updates on this case here, here and here.

Let’s watch and observe the coverage, or lack of, pertaining to CIA’s Graham Fuller and his three-decade long connections to CIA-Made terror in the Caucasus and Central Asia. I suspect we will not be seeing any coverage with substance. You will not find a single media outlet in the United States that would dare expose what I exposed several years ago on Graham Fuller’s major role in my State Secrets Privilege Case, in black operations in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and in the propping and handling of infamous Islamic Imam Fethullah Gulen and his $20+ Billion Dollar network of NGO’s in the US.

CONFIRMED: Both FBI & CIA Watched Boston Bombing Suspects for Years

FBI & CIA now admit to putting Boston bombing suspect on 2 “watch lists,” directly contradicting previous public statements. CIA most likely sponsored suspect’s trips to meet US-backed terrorists in Chechnya, Russia.

Tony Cartalucci

landdestroyer.blogspot.com

April 25, 2013 (LD) – It is now confirmed that Russian investigators contacted the FBI at least as early as 2011 in regards to Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and again just 6 months before the Boston attacks. Additionally, it is now revealed that both the FBI and CIA had Tsarnaev on at least 2 terrorist watch lists, contradicting previous FBI statements that the case was “closed” after not finding “any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign.”

FBI Caught in Staggering Series of Lies

The suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev and brother Dzhokar Tsarnaev, would be revealed to the public by the FBI a day after a bizarre press conference cancellation and a security scare at the federal courthouse where a suspect was allegedly being brought.

The FBI would feign ignorance over the suspects’ identity, appealing to the witless public for help identifying and apprehending them. It would be claimed by the suspects’ family members that the FBI had long been in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and that the bombing was a set-up.

The FBI’s bizarre behavior grew more suspicious when CBS reported that initially the FBI denied it had any prior contact with the Tsarnaev’s. In their report, “CBS News: FBI Interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev 2 Years Ago,” CBS claimed:

CBS News reports although the FBI initially denied contacting Tsarnaev, the brothers’ mother said they had in an interview with Russia Today.

That interview with Russia Today, in an article titled, “‘They were set up, FBI followed them for years’- Tsarnaevs’ mother to RT,” stated of the suspects’ mother:

But her biggest suspicion surrounding the case was the constant FBI surveillance she said her family was subjected to over the years. She is surprised that having been so stringent with the entire family, the FBI had no idea the sons were supposedly planning a terrorist act.

She would say of the FBI to Russia Today:

“They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me…they were telling me that he [the older, 26-y/o Tamerlan] was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step…and now they say that this is a terrorist act! Never ever is this true, my sons are innocent!”

The FBI would finally recant its earlier denial, and disclose on April 19, 2013 in an official statement on FBI.gov that indeed, they had been in contact with Tamerlan Tsarnaev as early as 2011:

The two individuals believed to be responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings on Monday have been positively identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, now deceased, and Dzhokar Tsarnaev, now in custody. These individuals are brothers and residents of Massachusetts. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a legal permanent resident and Dzhokar Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Charges have not yet been filed against Dzhokar Tsarnaev and he is presumed innocent.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was previously designated as Suspect 1, wearing a black hat. Dzhokar A. Tsarnaev, age 19, was designated as Suspect 2, wearing a white hat. Both were born in Kyrgyzstan.

Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

However, the case was not “closed.” Additional evidence would reveal that the FBI had been warned again, just 6 months before the Boston bombings by Russian investigators. The FBI was told Tamerlan Tsarnaev had visited Russia and was in contact with known-terrorists operating in and around Chechnya. Somehow, this additional information “escaped” the FBI’s April 19, 2013 public statement.

The British Daily Mail in their article titled, “Russia asked FBI to investigate bomber just 6 MONTHS ago after being spotted with ‘a militant’ on trip to Dagestan: Was it this known terrorist who Boston killer liked on YouTube?,” would state:

Speculation is growing that one of the Boston bombers met a known Jihadist terrorist in 2011 – as it emerged the FBI failed to follow up on a Russian tip that he was seen with an Islamic militant six times.

The Daily Mail would also report that:

The FBI has confirmed that Russia alerted the agency in 2011 that Tsarnaev had ties to ‘radical Islam’ groups in his homeland. Homeland Security sources have also revealed the agency received tips in 2012 about his ties to extremists connected to a Boston mosque.

In the wake of the FBI’s serial lies, yet more evidence is coming to light of now not only the FBI’s increasingly entangled relationship with the suspects prior to the bombing, but the CIA’s role as well. In the New York Times article, “2 U.S. Agencies Added Boston Bomb Suspect to Watch Lists,” it was reported that:

Despite being told in 2011 that an F.B.I. review had found that a man who went on to become one of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings had no ties to extremists, the Russian government asked the Central Intelligence Agency six months later for whatever information it had on him, American officials said Wednesday.
After its review, the C.I.A. also told the Russian intelligence service that it had no suspicious information on the man, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a shootout with the police early last Friday. It is not clear what prompted the Russians to make the request of the C.I.A.
The upshot of the American inquiries into Mr. Tsarnaev’s background was that even though he was found to have no connections to extremist groups, his name was entered into two different United States government watch lists in late 2011 that were designed to alert the authorities if he traveled overseas.

Therefore, in addition to first denying, then confirming having interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 and never mentioning the now confirmed warning by Russia just 6 months ago, the FBI and CIA also put Tsarnaev on at least 2 terrorist watch lists. Inexplicably, the FBI would have the public believe they found no evidence of terrorist activity, but then put Tsarnaev’s name on 2 separate terrorist watch lists anyway – and still somehow failed to prevent the Boston bombings. Clearly, that doesn’t add up.

Evidence Points to Tsarnaev as CIA Asset 

While the establishment media predictably attempts to make the serial lies told by the FBI, and both FBI and CIA’s involvement and foreknowledge of the suspects years before the Boston attacks, appear to be just an innocent bureaucratic foul-up, former-FBI translator Sibel Edmonds reported in incredible detail what most likely transpired, even before revelations of the CIA’s involvement became public.

In a 45 minute interview on the Corbett Report, Edmonds explained that multiple warnings by Russian investigators to the FBI were likely ignored because the CIA was in all probability using Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an asset to travel to Russia’s Caucasus region and make contact with US-backed terrorists.

It is a long-documented fact that the United States has extensively backed terrorists operating in Russia’s Caucasus region.

It is clear that at the very least, the FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other federal agencies knew well ahead of time of Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and did nothing to prevent him from allegedly carrying out an attack. Understanding the insidious behavior of both the FBI and CIA, opens up a second and more troubling possibility – that the FBI and/or the CIA were directly involved in the Boston bombings themselves, using the Tsarnaev brothers as patsies.

Regardless of which is true – there is more than enough evidence currently to remove the FBI from the Boston bombing investigation and open an immediate and urgent inquiry into both the FBI and CIA’s involvement and criminal improprieties in the lead up to the attacks.

There is also enough evidence for the American people to realize they have exchanged for the past decade, their liberty and dignity for safety and clearly have been left none of the above. It is also now clear that the American people possess the moral imperative to seize back their liberties and to throw off this expansive, ineffectual, stifling, incompetent and/or criminal federal security apparatus – from the DHS and TSA, to the FBI and CIA – who despite receiving billions annually and nearly limitless authority failed utterly to prevent the Boston Marathon bombings, and in fact appear to have played a central role in facilitating them.

 ….

Further Reading: For more information on US sponsorship of terrorism in Russia, read: “Barbarians at the Gate: Terrorism, the US, and the Subversion of Russia.” For more information on the FBI’s history of handing “terror suspects” weapons and live explosives, read: “FBI Casting Set Stage for Boston Marathon Bombing, Shootout, Charade.”