scheerpost | The New York Times on February 25 published an explosive story of
what purports to be the history of the CIA in Ukraine from the Maidan
coup of 2014 to the present. The story, “The Spy War: How the CIA
Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,” is one of initial bilateral
distrust, but a mutual fear and hatred of Russia, that progresses to a
relationship so intimate that Ukraine is now one of the CIA’s closest
intelligence partners in the world.
At the same time, the Times’ publication of the piece, which
reporters claimed relied on more than 200 interviews in Ukraine, the US,
and “several European countries,” raises multiple questions: Why did
the CIA not object to the article’s publication, especially with it
being in one of the Agency’s preferred outlets? When the CIA approaches
a newspaper to complain about the classified information it contains,
the piece is almost always killed or severely edited. Newspaper
publishers are patriots, after all. Right?
Was the article published because the CIA wanted the news out there?
Perhaps more important was the point of the article to influence the
Congressional budget deliberations on aid to Ukraine? After all, was
the article really just meant to brag about how great the CIA is? Or
was it to warn Congressional appropriators, “Look how much we’ve
accomplished to confront the Russian bear. You wouldn’t really let it
all go to waste, would you?”
The Times’ article has all the hallmarks of a deep, inside look at a
sensitive—possibly classified—subject. It goes into depth on one of the
intelligence community’s Holy of Holies, an intelligence liaison
relationship, something that no intelligence officer is ever supposed to
discuss. But in the end, it really isn’t so sensitive. It doesn’t
tell us anything that every American hasn’t already assumed. Maybe we
hadn’t had it spelled out in print before, but we all believed that the
CIA was helping Ukraine fight the Russians. We had already seen
reporting that the CIA had “boots on the ground” in Ukraine and that the U.S. government was training Ukrainian special forces and Ukrainian pilots, so there’s nothing new there.
The article goes a little further in detail, although, again, without
providing anything that might endanger sources and methods. For
example, it tells us that:
There is a CIA listening post in the forest along the Russian
border, one of 12 “secret” bases the US maintains there. One or more of
these posts helped to prove Russia’s involvement in the 2014 downing of
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That’s great. But the revelation exposes
no secrets and tells us nothing new.
Ukrainian intelligence officials helped the Americans “go after” the
Russian operatives “who meddled in the 2016 US presidential election.”
I have a news flash for the New York Times: The Mueller report found that there was no meaningful Russian meddling in the 2016 election. And what does “go after” mean?
Beginning in 2016, the CIA trained an “elite Ukrainian commando
force known as Unit 2245, which captured Russian drones and
communications gear so that CIA technicians could reverse-engineer them
and crack Moscow’s encryption systems.” This is exactly what the CIA is
supposed to do. Honestly, if the CIA hadn’t been doing this, I would
have suggested a class action lawsuit for the American people to get
their tax money back. Besides, the CIA has been doing things like this for decades. The CIA was able to obtain important components of Soviet tactical weapons from ostensibly pro-Soviet Romania in the 1970s.
Ukraine has turned into an intelligence-gathering hub that has
intercepted more Russian communications than the CIA station in Kiev
could initially handle. Again, I would expect nothing less. After all,
that’s where the war is. So of course, communications will be
intercepted there. As to the CIA station being overwhelmed, the Times
never tells us if that is because the station was a one-man operation at
the time or whether it had thousands of employees and was still
overwhelmed. It’s all about scale.
And lest you think that the CIA and the U.S. government were on the
offensive in Ukraine, the article makes clear that, “Mr. Putin and his
advisers misread a critical dynamic. The CIA didn’t push its way into
Ukraine. U.S. officials were often reluctant to fully engage, fearing
that Ukrainian officials could not be trusted, and worrying about
provoking the Kremlin.”
It’s at this point in the article that the Times reveals what I
believe to be the buried lead: “Now these intelligence networks are more
important than ever, as Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is more
dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies
far behind enemy lines. And they are increasingly at risk: “If Republicans in Congress end military funding to Kiev, the CIA may have to scale back.” (Emphasis mine.)
NYTimes | CIA ties to international drug trafficking date to
the Korean War. In 1949, two of Chiang Kai-shek's defeated generals, Li
Wen Huan and Tuan Shi Wen, marched their Third and Fifth Route armies,
with families and livestock, across the mountains to northern Burma.
Once installed, the peasant soldiers began cultivating the crop they
knew best, the opium poppy.
When China entered the Korean War, the CIA had a
desperate need for intelligence on that nation. The agency turned to the
warlord generals, who agreed to slip some soldiers back into China. In
return, the agency offered arms. Officially, the arms were intended to
equip the warlords for a return to China. In fact, the Chinese wanted
them to repel any attack by the Burmese.
Soon intelligence began to flow to Washington from
the area, which became known as the Golden Triangle. So, too, did
heroin, en route to Southeast Asia and often to the United States.
If the agency never condoned the traffic, it never
tried to stop it, either. The CIA did, however, lobby the Eisenhower
administration to prevent the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,
the DEA's predecessor, from establishing monitoring posts in the area to
study the traffic. Today, the Golden Triangle accounts for about half
the heroin in circulation in the world.
During the Vietnam War, operations in Laos were
largely a CIA responsibility. The agency's surrogate there was a Laotian
general, Vang Pao, who commanded Military Region 2 in northern Laos. He
enlisted 30,000 Hmong tribesmen in the service of the CIA.
These tribesmen continued to grow, as they had for
generations, the opium poppy. Before long, someone - there were unproven
allegations that it was a Mafia family from Florida - had established a
heroin refining lab in Region Two. The lab's production was soon being
ferried out on the planes of the CIA's front airline, Air America. A
pair of BNDD agents tried to seize an Air America.
A pair of BNDD agents tried to seize an Air America
DC-3 loaded with heroin packed into boxes of Tide soap powder. At the
CIA's behest, they were ordered to release the plane and drop the
inquiry.
The CIA was made officially aware of Manuel Antonio
Noriega's involvement in the drug traffic in 1972, when Mr. Noriega was
chief of intelligence of the Panama National Guard, and a promising CIA
asset. The BNDD found evidence that Mr. Noriega was taking payoffs for
allowing heroin to flow from Spain, through Panama City airport, and on
to the United States. That information was part of a lengthy file on Mr.
Noriega compiled by Jack Ingersoll, then chief of the BNDD.
Mr. Ingersoll was aware of Mr. Noriega's ties to the
CIA, as was President Richard Nixon. When Mr. Nixon ordered Mr.
Ingersoll to Panama to warn the country's military dictator, General
Omar Torrijos, about the activities of Mr. Noriega and General
Torrijos's brother Moises, Mr. Ingersoll hoped that law enforcement was
finally "beginning to get the upper hand in its ongoing struggle with
the CIA." He was wrong. The Watergate break-in occurred shortly after
his visit. Mr. Nixon needed CIA support; his enthusiasm for the drug war
evaporated. Mr. Ingersoll's successors at the newly formed DEA - Peter
Bensinger, Francis Mullen and John Lawn - all told me they never saw his
file, although they had asked to see everything the DEA had on Mr.
Noriega. The material has disappeared.
Shortly after General Torrijos's death in a
mysterious airplane crash, Mr. Noriega, with CIA assistance, took
command of the Panama National Guard.
No one in the Reagan administration was prepared to
do anything about the Noriega drug connection. As Norman Bailley, a
National Security Council staff member at the time, told me, "The CIA
and the Pentagon were resolutely opposed to acting on that knowledge,
because they were a hell of a lot more worried about trying to keep
Panama on our side with reference to Nicaragua than they were about
drugs." Nowhere, however, was the CIA more closely tied to drug traffic
than it was in Pakistan during the Afghan War. As its principal conduit
for arms and money to the Afghan guerrillas, the agency chose the
Pakistan military's Inter-Services Intelligence Bureau. The ISI in turn
steered the CIA's support toward Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Islamic
fundamentalist. Mr. Hekmatyar received almost half of the agency's
financial support during the war, and his fighters were valiant and
effective. But many of his commanders were also major heroin
traffickers.
As it had in Laos, the heroin traffic blossomed in
the shadows of a CIA-sustained guerrilla war. Soon the trucks that
delivered arms to the guerrillas in Afghanistan were coming back down
the Khyber Pass full of heroin.
The conflict and its aftermath have given the world
another Golden Triangle: the Golden Crescent, sweeping through
Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of the former Soviet Union. Many of
those involved in the drug traffic are men who were once armed, trained
and financed by the CIA.
roburie |While the Washington Post has long been considered the mouthpiece of the CIA,
the New York Times has been more effective at carrying water for it in
recent years. The recent longish Times article entitled The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin
contains recitation of CIA-friendly talking points that portrays it as
indispensable to ‘our’ ability to commit pointless, petty atrocities
against Russia as the US sacrifices more Ukrainians in its misguided
war. Missing from the piece is any conceivable reason for the US to
continue the war.
The oft ascribed motive (and here)
for the CIA’s existence is to act as the US President’s secret army
abroad. The wisdom of this arrangement has been debated over the years.
Former US President Harry Truman, who oversaw the founding of the CIA
from its predecessor, the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), later regretted the decision
and argued that the CIA should be brought to heel. Later, the Cold War
presented cover for the CIA to act badly under the cover of national
defense.
In Stephen Kinzer’s book, All the Shah’s Men,
the CIA paid people to pretend to be communists so as to convey the
fiction that the CIA’s effort was about ‘fighting communism’ rather than
stealing Iran’s oil. Similarly, in the US coup that ousted
Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz for daring to raise the minimum wage
paid by foreign-owned industries in Guatemala, also featured fake
communists intended to convince the American press that the CIA was
fighting for freedom and democracy rather than to steal wages from poor
people for the benefit of rich Americans.
Together, these
imply that fake communists had been more effectively demonized by
Federal agencies than other available out groups because of the threat
they didn’t pose to American capital. Recall, in 1919 Woodrow Wilson
sent the American Expeditionary Force to join the Brits, French, and
Japanese in trying to reverse the Russian Revolution. Later, through the
Five Eyes Alliance, ‘the West’ spent the post-War era attacking the
Soviets while alleging that they were responding to political violence
that they (Five Eyes) started.
Oddly, given recent history,
the claim that the CIA is the President’s secret army still appears to
be the received wisdom in Washington and New York. This is odd because
while the CIA appears to be acting as Joe Biden’s secret army
in Ukraine and Israel, it went to war with (the duly elected President
of the US) Donald Trump for his entire four years in office. While Mr.
Trump played the victim of the US intelligence agencies to perfection,
he didn’t do what many normal humans would have done in his
circumstance--- clear out the top few levels of management at CIA, the
FBI, and NSA and see where this leaves ‘us.’
Implied
is a reversal of political causality whose proof can only be deduced. Is
Biden directing the CIA, or is the CIA directing Biden? For instance,
while Biden was Barack Obama’s point-man in Ukraine before, during, and
after the US-led coup there in 2014, Mr. Obama was publicly arguing
that Ukraine was of no strategic value to the US. With Donald Trump
following Mr. Obama as President, the CIA likely saw its 2014 coup in
Ukraine going to waste. This interpretation sheds a different light on
the Hunter Biden laptop fraud perpetrated by 51 current and former CIA employees.
(FBI informant Alexander Smirnov has been convicted of nothing
related to the new charges of ‘Russian interference.’ As was proved
with Russiagate, charges are easy to make, difficult to prove. No one---
not a single person, was convicted on the now antique charges of
Russian collusion. Those who were convicted were convicted on process
charges unrelated to the collusion charges. This use of the law as a
political weapon is called lawfare).
The view in this piece
is that Donald Trump was elected in 2016 because Barack Obama threw
several trillion dollars at the malefactors on Wall Street who blew up
the global economy while he pissed on the unemployed, the foreclosed
upon, and every working person in the US. In so doing, an income and
wealth chasm was rebuilt between the public welfare recipients who run
Wall Street and Big Tech and the former industrial workers whose jobs
were sent abroad as the final solution to the ‘problem’ of organized
labor.
With the current panic in the US over the rise of the BRICS
(China and Russia), the same politicians and economists who thought it
wise in 1995 to gut the industrial base with NAFTA are now busy
launching WWIII. These people never learn from their mistakes. For
instance, it apparently never occurred to them that outsourcing military
production might come back to bite when geopolitical tensions
inevitably flared again. Likewise, just-in-time production and inventory
management produced economic brittleness / fragility that created
problems when the Covid-19 pandemic hit.
So,
where is this going? With the CIA’s and FBI’s undermining of the
elected President’s (Trump) political agenda and its open efforts to rig
the 2020 election in favor of his opponent (Biden), it certainly
appears that the CIA is now running the US. Biden’s foreign policy
team---Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Victoria Nuland emerged from
the Clintonite death cult buried deep within the bowels of the American
foreign policy establishment, That they appear to be as uninformed and
arrogant as their policy outcomes to date suggest they are is only a
surprise inside Washington and New York.
However, this is at best a
partial explanation. What is surprising about US foreign policy is how
ignorant of world history, US history, basic diplomacy, military
tactics, economic relations, and basic human decency the American
political leadership is. It’s almost as if the answer to every foreign
policy conundrum of the last century has been to bomb civilian
populations, kill a whole lot of people, and then pretend it never
happened. Vietnam? Check. Nicaragua? Check. Syria? Check. Iraq? Check.
Ukraine? How can the body counts be hidden from beleaguered, clueless,
citizens so effectively?
Some recent history: the US launched a war against Russia when it (the US) invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked coup there in 2014 (see here, here, here)
and ousted its elected government. The Russians had taken issue with
the US / NATO surrounding it with NATO-allied states (maps below). Years
earlier, as Russian President Vladimir Putin stated in his recent interview
with Tucker Carlson, Mr. Putin had approached former US President Bill
Clinton about Russia joining NATO. Mr. Clinton ‘spoke with his people’
before telling Mr. Putin no to joining NATO as he reneged on George H.W. Bush’ s promise to keep NATO away from Russia’s border.
A
bit of additional history is needed here. The USSR was dissolved in
1991 to be replaced by non-communist Russia surrounded by former Soviet
states. Ukraine is one such state. The political – economic reference
point of post-Soviet Russia was an anachronistic form of neoliberalism.
Recall, Americans had been told since at least the early twentieth
century that ‘communism’ was the ideological foe of Western liberalism.
Current Russian President Vladimir Putin is proudly anti-communist. But
the US MIC (military-industrial complex), of which the CIA is a part,
needs enemies to justify its existence.
Following the
dissolution of the USSR (1991), there was discussion inside the US
regarding a ‘peace dividend,’ of redirecting military spending inflated
by the Cold War towards domestic purposes like schools, hospitals, and
civilian infrastructure. However, the CIA had been so hemmed in by
Federal budget constraints that it had inserted itself into
the international narcotics trade forty years prior in apparent
anticipation of just such an event. With the (George H.W.) Bush
recession of 1991, an election year, the peace dividend was rescinded.
sonar21 | Americans are by-and-large decent, genial folks. But when it comes to
history, most have the memory of an Alzheimer’s patient. Sam Cooke was
speaking for most Americans when he crooned, “Don’t know much about
history …”. So I will make this simple — America’s hatred of Russia has
its roots in the U.S. Government’s post-WW II embrace of Nazis. Tim
Weiner writes about this in his essential book, Legacy of Ashes.
In the immediate aftermath of the fall of Berlin, U.S. Army
intelligence recruited and relied on German General Reinhard Gehlen:
“During World War II, General Gehlen had tried to spy on the Soviets
from the eastern front as a leader of the Abwehr, Hitler’s military
intelligence service. He was an imperious and cagey man who swore he had
a network of “good Germans” to spy behind Russian lines for the United
States.
“From the beginning,” Gehlen said, “I was motivated by the following
convictions: A showdown between East and West is unavoidable. Every
German is under the obligation of contributing his share, so that
Germany is in a position to fulfill the missions incumbent on her for
the common defense of Western Christian Civilization.” The United States
needed “the best German men as co-workers…if Western Culture is to be
safeguarded.” The intelligence network he offered to the Americans was a
group of “outstanding German nationals who are good Germans but also
ideologically on the side of the Western democracies.”. . .
“But in July 1949, under relentless pressure from the army, the CIA
took over the Gehlen group. Housed in a former Nazi headquarters outside
Munich, Gehlen welcomed dozens of prominent war criminals into his
circle. As Helms and Sichel feared, the East German and Soviet
intelligence services penetrated the Gehlen group at the highest levels.
The worst of the moles surfaced long after the Gehlen group had
transformed itself into the national intelligence service of West
Germany. Gehlen’s longtime chief of counterintelligence had been working
for Moscow all along.”
In the wake of this debacle, the CIA failed to recruit and run any
significant sources in the Soviet Government. The CIA had very few
officers who spoke Russian and swallowed whole hog the belief that the
Soviets were intent on conquering the world and that it was up to the
United States — relying heavily on the CIA — to stop the Soviets. That
became the cornerstone of American foreign policy and explains the CIA’s
obsession with regime change. No one in the intelligence hierarchy was
encouraged or permitted to raise the alternative view — i.e., the
Soviets, fearful of a Western invasion, took firm control of the
European nations on its western border and installed governments that
would served the Soviet interest. The CIA started its life as a new
bureaucracy in Washington firmly committed to destroying the Soviet
Union.
One of its first projects was recruiting and funding an insurgency
with Ukrainians who had sided with the Nazis. While that effort was
crushed by the Soviets, it served to further convince Stalin and others
in the Soviet hierarchy that the West was in bed with Nazi survivors and
could not be trusted.
The failure of the CIA to predict critical world events was an early
distinguishing feature of the CIA from the start. The Soviets detonated
their first nuke on August 29, 1949. Three weeks later a U.S. Air Force
crew flying out of Alaska detected traces of radiation beyond normal
levels. Weiner recounts what happened next:
“On September 20, the CIA confidently declared that the Soviet Union
would not produce an atomic weapon for at least another four years.”
The CIA’s leaders knack for getting it wrong continued with the
failure to heed warnings that China was going to intervene on behalf of
North Korea in 1950. Here is Weiner’s account:
“The president left for Wake Island on October 11, 1950. The CIA
assured him that it saw “no convincing indications of an actual Chinese
Communist intention to resort to full-scale intervention in
Korea…barring a Soviet decision for global war.” The agency reached that
judgment despite two alarms from its three-man Tokyo station. First the
station chief, George Aurell, reported that a Chinese Nationalist
officer in Manchuria was warning that Mao had amassed 300,000 troops
near the Korean border. Headquarters paid little heed. Then Bill Duggan,
later chief of station in Taiwan, insisted that the Chicoms soon would
cross into North Korea. General MacArthur responded by threatening to
have Duggan arrested. The warnings never reached Wake Island.
At headquarters, the agency kept advising Truman that China would not
enter the war on any significant scale. On October 18, as MacArthur’s
troops surged north toward the Yalu River and the Chinese border, the
CIA reported that “the Soviet Korean venture has ended in failure.” On
October 20, the CIA said that Chinese forces detected at the Yalu were
there to protect hydroelectric power plants. On October 28, it told the
White H ouse that those Chinese troops were scattered volunteers. On
October 30, after American troops had been attacked, taking heavy
casualties, the CIA reaffirmed that a major Chinese intervention was
unlikely. A few days later, Chinese-speaking CIA officers interrogated
several prisoners taken during the encounter and determined that they
were Mao’s soldiers. Yet CIA headquarters asserted one last time that
China would not invade in force. Two days later 300,000 Chinese troops
struck with an attack so brutal that it nearly pushed the Americans into
the sea.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? While it is true there were
some solid intelligence officers in the ranks of the CIA, any attempt to
raise a warning that flew against conventional wisdom or defied what
the leaders wanted to hear was ignored or punished. The failures of the
CIA leadership to correctly predict the Soviets producing a nuclear bomb
and the Chinese invasion of Korea are not isolated incidents. When it
comes to big, critical issues — e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Tet
offensive, the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Shah
of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam’s 1990 invasion
of Kuwait, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 9-11 plot, weapons of
“Mass Destruction in Iraq” and Russia’s ability to survive western
sanctions and spin up its defense industry to outpace the U.S. and NATO
countries combined — the CIA missed them all.
politico | John McCone came to the CIA as an outsider. An industrialist and an
engineer by training, he replaced veteran spymaster Allen Dulles as
director of central intelligence in November 1961, after John F. Kennedy
had forced out Dulles following the CIA’s bungled operation to oust
Fidel Castro by invading Cuba’s Bay of Pigs. McCone had one overriding
mission: restore order at the besieged CIA. Kennedy hoped his management
skills might prevent a future debacle, even if the Californian—mostly a
stranger to the clubby, blue-blooded world of the men like Dulles who
had always run the spy agency—faced a steep learning curve.
After JFK’s assassination in Dallas in November 1963, President
Lyndon Johnson kept McCone in place at the CIA, and the CIA director
became an important witness before the Warren Commission, the panel
Johnson created to investigate Kennedy’s murder. McCone pledged full
cooperation with the commission, which was led by Chief Justice Earl
Warren, and testified that the CIA had no evidence to suggest that Lee
Harvey Oswald, the assassin, was part of any conspiracy, foreign or
domestic. In its final report, the commission came to agree with
McCone’s depiction of Oswald, a former Marine and self-proclaimed
Marxist, as a delusional lone wolf.
But did McCone come close to perjury all those decades ago? Did the
onetime Washington outsider in fact hide agency secrets that might still
rewrite the history of the assassination? Even the CIA is now willing
to raise these questions. Half a century after JFK’s death, in a
once-secret report written in 2013by the CIA’s top in-house
historian and quietly declassified last fall, the spy agency
acknowledges what others were convinced of long ago: that McCone and
other senior CIA officials were “complicit” in keeping “incendiary”
information from the Warren Commission.
According to the report by CIA historian David Robarge, McCone, who
died in 1991, was at the heart of a “benign cover-up” at the spy agency,
intended to keep the commission focused on “what the Agency believed at
the time was the ‘best truth’—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet
undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” The most
important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its
1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of
CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots
with the Mafia.
Without this information, the commission never even knew
to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or
elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots.
While raising no question about the essential findings of the Warren
Commission, including that Oswald was the gunman in Dallas, the 2013
report is important because it comes close to an official CIA
acknowledgement—half a century after the fact—of impropriety in the
agency’s dealings with the commission. The coverup by McCone and others
may have been “benign,” in the report’s words, but it was a cover-up
nonetheless, denying information to the commission that might have
prompted a more aggressive investigation of Oswald’s potential Cuba
ties.
Initially stamped “SECRET/NOFORN,” meaning it was not to be shared
outside the agency or with foreign governments, Robarge’s report was
originally published as an article in the CIA’s classified internal
magazine, Studies in Intelligence, in September 2013, to mark the
50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. The article, drawn from a
still-classified 2005 biography of McCone written by Robarge, was
declassified quietly last fall and is now available
on the website of The George Washington University’s National Security
Archive. In a statement to POLITICO, the CIA said it decided to
declassify the report “to highlight misconceptions about the CIA’s
connection to JFK’s assassination,” including the still-popular
conspiracy theory that the spy agency was somehow behind the
assassination.
kcstar | The CIA's director and its top lawyer told White House attorneys in
advance about their plans to file an official criminal complaint
accusing Senate Intelligence Committee aides of improperly obtaining
secret agency documents, the White House confirmed Wednesday.
Lawyers
in the White House counsel's office did not approve the CIA's move to
refer its complaint to the Justice Department or provide any advice to
the agency, presidential spokesman Jay Carney said.
"There was no
comment, there was no weighing in, there was no judgment," Carney said,
citing protocol not to interfere in the ongoing inquiries into the
matter by the FBI and the CIA's inspector general.
The public
controversy erupted on Wednesday when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, head of the
intelligence panel, accused the CIA of snooping in a computer network
it had set up for committee aides conducting an investigation, possibly
violating the Constitution as well as federal law.
She also
disclosed that a top CIA lawyer had filed papers with the Justice
Department saying committee personnel may have violated the law by
possessing certain agency documents.
Carney made his comments at
the White House as the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence
Committee avoided taking sides in the dispute between Feinstein,
D-Calif., and the spy agency.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said
in a brief speech on the Senate floor he does not know all the facts,
and a special investigator may be needed to find out what happened. He
said pointedly that GOP staff aides were not involved in the activities
at the heart of the dispute.
Carney did not say whether President
Barack Obama was directly aware of the decision. "The president has been
aware in general about the protocols and the discussions and occasional
disputes involved," he said.
Obama avoided commenting on his
involvement in the dispute at the end of a meeting Wednesday with female
Democratic lawmakers on women's economic issues. He added that "with
respect to the issues that are going back and forth between the Senate
committee and the CIA, (CIA Director) John Brennan has referred them to
the appropriate authorities. And they are looking into it. And that's
not something that is an appropriate role for me and the White House to
weigh into at this point."
Carney's confirmation of the White
House's awareness of the CIA's decision deepens the complicated
chronology that led the committee head to denounce the CIA and top
officials Tuesday for allegedly trying to intimidate and monitor
congressional overseers.
Feinstein's committee has been
investigating the CIA's now-shuttered "black site" overseas prison
system and harsh interrogation of prisoners. The committee's
long-overdue report has been stymied by its inability to fully review a
classified CIA report on the George W. Bush-era secret interrogations,
while CIA officials have questioned whether Senate investigators
breached a classified computer system in their efforts to press for the
material.
Carney said Brennan and the acting general counsel,
Robert Eatinger, informed White House officials about the decision to
make a referral to the Justice Department. Carney would not say when the
notification occurred.
A spokesman for James Clapper, the
director of national intelligence, said Wednesday that Clapper has been
"fully aware of the circumstances related to this matter and is in
regular contact with Director Brennan." The DNI spokesman, Shawn Turner,
did not say whether Clapper was told in advance of the CIA's plans to
file its complaint to Justice or whether he approved of the decision.
"Commenting
on this issue while it is under review by the Justice Department would
be inappropriate for someone in his position," Turner said.
Feinstein
castigated Eatinger, though not by name, and characterized the move as
"a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and I am not taking it
lightly."
She contends CIA officials monitored Senate aides as
they worked on their report, raising concerns of a clash between the
legislative and executive branch.
Brennan said the CIA was "not in any way, shape or form trying to thwart this report's progression."
Obama
said he was "absolutely committed" to declassifying the Senate
Intelligence Committee's report. "I would urge them to go ahead and
complete the report, send it to us," Obama said. "We will declassify
those findings so that the American people can understand what happened
in the past, and that can help guide us as we move forward."
Makheruspeaks |And there were basically two forms of support
for the Contras. The one was the arms-for-money deal to provide black money to
sustain the Contra revolt for the decade that it dragged on. And the other
thing was a kind of hands-off approach. There was a DEA operative, a Drug
Enforcement Administration operative, in Honduras that was reporting on the
Honduran military complicity in the transit traffic of cocaine moving from
Colombia through Central America to the United States. He was removed from the
country. And then the CIA, because of Congress cutting off the arms shipments
periodically for the CIA, the so-called Boland amendment that imposed a kind of
embargo upon U.S. support for the Contras, they needed to periodically
warehouse their arms. And what they found was that the Bay Islands off the
coast of Honduras, particularly Roatan Island, was an ideal logistics point
right off the coast — it was a major transshipment point for cocaine moving
from Colombia across the Caribbean to the United States but it’s also an ideal
place for the U.S. to warehouse and then ship its arms to the Contras on the
border with Nicaragua and Honduras.
And so, the kingpin, the drug kingpin of the Bay
Islands was a notorious international trafficker named Alan Hyde who had 35
ships on the high seas smuggling cocaine from Colombia into the United States.
Every U.S. security agency involved, the Coast Guard, the CIA itself, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, they all had reports about Alan Hyde being a Class
A trafficker, arguably the biggest smuggler in the Caribbean. And to get access
to his warehouses what the CIA did was they basically blocked any investigation
of Alan Hyde from 1987 to 1992, during the peak of the crack-cocaine epidemic,
and so the CIA got to ship their guns to his warehouses and then onward to the
border post for the Contras. And Alan Hyde was given an immunity to
investigation or prosecution for five years.
That’s — any criminal, that’s all they need, is
an immunity to investigation. And this coincided with the flood of cocaine
through Central America into the United States. This CIA inspector general in
response to protests in South Central, Los Angeles, conducted an investigation
also in response to Gary Webb’s inquiries and they released Report 1, they
called “The California Connection.” They said that Gary Webb’s allegations that
the CIA had protected the distributors, the deal of the Nicaraguan dealers who
were brokering the sale of the import cocaine to the Crips and Bloods gangs in
South Central, L.A., that that all that was false.
Then they issued, the inspector general in 1998,
issued part two of that report, the executive summary said similarly: no case
to answer, CIA relations with the Contras in Central America complex, but
nothing about drugs. But if you actually read the report, all the way through,
which is something historians tend to do, you get to paragraph 913 of that
report and there are subsequently 40 of the most amazing revelations, 40
paragraphs of the most amazing revelations stating explicitly in cables and
verbatim quotes from interviews with CIA operatives about their compromised
relationship with the biggest drug smuggler in the Caribbean, Alan Hyde.
And if you go on the CIA website and you look
for that 1998 Inspector General Report, you’ll find a little black line that
says paragraphs 913-960 have been excised. Those are those paragraphs. But you
can find them on the internet.
Scahill: One of the fascinating
aspects of this — it’s a short part of your book, but I think it’s always
important to point this out, the name Robert Gates pops up at the time that the
CIA had this relationship with Hyde. Gates was the deputy director of the CIA,
and of course now is one of the beloved figures in the bipartisan foreign
policy consensus. He was defense secretary under both George W. Bush and Barack
Obama. And Gates, his hands are all over this thing as well.
McCoy: Yeah, there’s, how am
I going to put it? That illustrates the disparity between the formal rhetoric
of politics and the geopolitics of the exercise of global power. And the
difficulties, the demands, the moral and political compromises required to run,
well let’s call it an empire. A global empire. And, from a pure realpolitik
imperial perspective, that Contra operation, by seeking an effective complementation
between the flow of drugs north, very powerful illicit economic force, and the
Contra guerrilla operations, accomplish their objective. You know? After 10
years of supporting the Contras, the Sandinistas lost power for a time in a
democratic election. They were finally pushed out of office. The CIA
accomplished its mission.
Now, if you compare that with where we are with
drugs and covert operations and military operations in Afghanistan, it was very
successful in the 1980s, as a result of the CIA’s alliance of the Mujahideen,
provisioning of arms and tolerance for their trafficking and drugs, which
provided the bulk of their finance. You know, in 1989, the Soviet Red Army left
Kabul, they left Afghanistan, the CIA won. Well today, of course, that drug
traffic has been taken over by the Taliban and it funds the bulk of the
Taliban’s guerrilla operations, pays for a new crop of teenage boys to become
fighters every spring, and we’ve lost control of that. So from a realpolitik
perspective, we can see a weakening of U.S. controls over these covert
operations that are another manifestation of our, of the decline of the U.S.
hegemony.
realitysandwich | I recently put my foot in it. I stepped, as they say, on a hornet's nest. All hell broke loose and verbal fury was loosed upon me. Here's what happened.
Some months ago, a chap called Jan Irvin, who runs Gnostic Media, put out a request for funds to help him pursue a project concerned with unveiling a sinister Elite/CIA/NWO conspiracy. Mind you, this was not just any old sinister Elite/CIA/NWO conspiracy. This one involved, allegedly, a vast labyrinthine PSYOPS involving psychedelic mushrooms, Gordon Wasson, Aldous Huxley, The Esalen Institute, Teilhard De Chardin, 2012 eschatology, Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, and all manner of other psychedelic spokesmen and counter-culture luminaries. The gist of it is that the whole hippy psychedelic movement was stage managed by the CIA/Elite/NWO and that the malign manipulations of these ultra-powerful puppet masters stretch back further even than Albert Hofmann's infamous LSD trip bicycle ride (Irvin even thinks Hofmann's bicycle trip was a "fabrication" and "BS"). Thus, Irvin is attempting nothing less than a total rewrite of psychedelic history. Believe me, with everything being bent into an infernal conspiracy shape, it's scary bad trip stuff. Of course, one might simply dismiss all this as the lunatic fringe, yet Irvin is backed and supported by numerous fans and supporters. Indeed, he has already managed to raise 3,000 bucks to fund this latest work.
What originally got me involved were Irvin's insinuations about Gordon Wasson. Recall that Wasson was the ethnomycological scholar who published a groundbreaking article about psilocybin mushrooms in Life magazine in 1957. This article was just as significant as Aldous Huxley's 1954 book The Doors of Perception in sparking the West's interest in psychedelics. Wasson was instrumental in channeling the psilocybin mushroom's mind expanding influence from the backwaters of Mexico to the very heart of the West. If you have ever experienced "magic mushrooms," then you have Gordon Wasson to thank -- at least in part.
Now, the conventional view of Wasson is that there was indeed a connection with dodgy mischief-makers -- in this case the thin-tied, shade-wearing CIA. But this connection was minor and indirect. The conventional view, which has been well documented, is that the CIA got an agent to infiltrate one of Wasson's mushroom hunting trips to Mexico. Here is what I wrote about it in my book The Psilocybin Solution:
"In his book The Search for the ‘Manchurian Candidate,' John Marks tells us of the CIA's covert involvement with our hero Wasson. In its relentless and arguably psychotic search for ever-more effective weaponry, the CIA had, by the 1950s, initiated a massive twenty-five million dollar long-term program called MKULTRA. True to its suspicious-sounding name, Project MKULTRA involved finding chemical and biological materials for use in "mind kontrol" and other psychological unpleasantries. Despite the morally questionable nature of such an unsavory federal project, its dogmatic pursuit meant that it was soon to pick up on rumors of sacred Mexican mushrooms. After learning of Wasson's 1955 experiences with the mushroom, an unscrupulous chemist named James Moore immediately began to work undercover for the conspiratorial agency. Presumably dollars changed hands surreptitiously. At any rate, in 1956, Moore craftily wrote to Wasson informing him that he knew of a foundation willing to finance another Mexican trip in order that he and Wasson bring back some of the legendary mushrooms. Moore innocently claimed that, as a chemist, he simply wanted to study the chemical structure of the mushroom's active constituents. The foundation was the CIA-backed Geschwickter Fund for Medical Research, and they were offering a two-thousand dollar grant. Would Wasson be interested?
Understandably, Wasson took the bait, and so it came to pass that the CIA's secret quest for the sacred mushroom became Subproject 58 of the MKULTRA program, possibly representing the most crass approach to psilocybin to date. It was as if the CIA were lobbing stones at angels. Fittingly, it transpired that the double-dealing Moore was well out of his comfort zone in Mexico and loathed the entire episode. Wasson later recalled that Moore had absolutely no empathy for what was going on. Whereas Wasson was sensitive to the customs of the native Mexican Indians and respectful of their cultural beliefs about the mushroom, Moore was there merely as a CIA pawn.
Once again, all those who were in Wasson's party took part in a mushroom ceremony hosted by the shaman Maria Sabina, though it was Moore alone who had a bad experience. Despite this, Moore was still able to bring back some of the fungi to the United States in the hope of isolating the active ingredient. Thankfully, however, he was beaten in his pharmaceutical pursuit by Roger Heim, an eminent French mycologist and coworker of Wasson, who managed to grow a supply of the mushroom from spore prints that he had taken in Mexico. Heim sent his newly cultivated samples to Albert Hofmann of Sandoz Laboratories in Switzerland, and it was Hofmann, a highly distinguished chemist who had originally synthesized LSD, who, in 1958, first isolated and then named the entheogenic alkaloid within the mushroom. Psilocybin was thus officially born, a name devoid of the weaponry connotations the CIA would invariably have conferred upon the substance had they successfully isolated it first."
The thing to bear in mind is that Wasson did not know that he was being duped by the CIA. It is also worth driving home the point that all these events took place during the paranoid anti-Communist McCarthyism Cold War era of the 1950s, when the CIA had an active interest in mind control drugs for use in espionage. However, things never worked out that well for the CIA, as psilocybin cannot be used as a mind control "truth drug." As users will know, psychedelic drugs are more like de-conditioning agents that can make one challenge orthodoxy and cultural control structures. Indeed, that is probably one principal reason why psilocybin has been demonized and illegalized by the authorities. If you wish to control someone and extract information, or get them to do your dirty espionage work or whatever, then the psilocybin mushroom is not a tool for your arsenal.
TheIntercept |Jeremy Scahill: Ralph Nader, welcome to this extended episode of Intercepted.
Ralph Nader: Thank you, Jeremy.
JS: Let’s start with Gina Haspel. This campaign that
the CIA is publicly waging to support her nomination, leaking or
publicizing memos that seem to exonerate her of any direct role in the
destruction of torture tapes. First question is just: Have you ever seen
anything like the CIA social media campaign that’s being waged right
now in an effort to get Gina Haspel confirmed as CIA director?
RN: No, and the reason why, one is that the CIA
desperately wants someone from their own ranks, they don’t want an
outsider. They’ve been battered at times by Trump and others, which is
pretty unheard of for a president to do that. So they’re hunkering down,
and they don’t want to lose this one.
JS: Right, but, at the same time, isn’t the CIA
supposed to be prohibited from engaging in domestic propaganda? I mean,
it does seem like they’re utilizing their social media platforms to
campaign for someone that there’s very serious questions about her role
in torture, black sites and other issues.
RN: Well, who has ever found a boundary for the CIA?
I mean they’re not supposed to deal with overt armed action abroad,
according to their original charter, they’re just supposed to collect
intelligence, and we know where that’s gone — that’s out of the window.
The CIA does what it wants, under the cloak of secrecy and national
security, does whatever it wants, and who’s going to stop it? It has so
many feelers all over the country and the world, and they really want
her in because they think that Trump is perfectly capable of nominating
an outsider who would give them a lot of trouble. And they’ve been
jolted more than usual, publicly, as an agency, and they want stability,
as they define it. And it doesn’t matter what she did in Asia in terms
of the Thailand episode and torture. I mean, that’s what they do. That’s
what the CIA does all over the world.
JS: You know it’s interesting, as I watch Trump
supporters who are railing against the deep state and saying that, you
know, you have all of these powerful people within the CIA/NSA/FBI
bureaucracy that are plotting against Trump, the thing that comes to my
mind is that if I were a really dark character within the CIA, right
now, I’d be very content with Trump being the commander-in-chief because
he doesn’t seem to understand the full range of powers that the CIA
has. And it seems to me like they’re able to do basically whatever they
want right now without much questioning from the White House.
RN: Well that’s been true of prior presidents. They
want deniability. They don’t really want to know what the NSA and CIA
do. President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton — they don’t want
to know that the NSA was dragnet snooping on virtually all Americans, a
clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as the FISA Act.
And President Trump is no different in that way. What they are really
upset about is: When was the last time we ever heard a president attack
“the deep state”? He’s not attacking some rogue outfit in Afghanistan
that’s an offshoot and maybe under contract. He’s attacking the military
industrial complex’s core secrecy operations and that is freaking out
people at the CIA, especially career people who have never been fingered
that way from the White House. That’s why they want the stability of
this present nominee.
craigmurray | I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and
grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt
whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the
leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been
the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here,
and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the
American broadcasts also.
A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they
“know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been
absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its
pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to
believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a
foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows
who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited,
or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other
restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The
anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are
beneath contempt.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from
the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks,
they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two.
And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not
connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage
Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions
to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the
Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy
influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very
weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost
Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never
acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.
I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while
the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks
were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the
Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have
specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were
said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close
associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They
are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked
them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a
leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to
people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have
arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not
been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge
whatsoever.”
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home
page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one
repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming –
incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the
information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory,
that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my
obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they
arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who
those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the
KGB.
rsn | In
the wake of an explosive new allegation that the CIA spied on Senate
intelligence committee staffers, one senator felt this morning that he
needed to make something clear.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the CIA, not the other way around," Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M) said in a press release.
In normal circumstances, that would have been a statement of the obvious. Today, it was more a cry for help.
McClatchy News Service
on Tuesday reported that the CIA's inspector general has asked for a
criminal investigation into CIA monitoring of computers used by Senate
aides who were investigating the agency's prominent role in the Bush-era
torture of detainees.
Specifically, McClatchy reported: "The committee
determined earlier this year that the CIA monitored computers - in
possible violation of an agreement against doing so - that the agency
had provided to intelligence committee staff in a secure room at CIA
headquarters that the agency insisted they use to review millions of
pages of top-secret reports, cables and other documents, according to
people with knowledge."
In a letter to President Obama
on Tuesday, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) referred to what he called
"unprecedented action against the Committee in relation to the internal
CIA review," and described it as "incredibly troubling for the
Committee's oversight responsibilities and for our democracy."
The allegation comes on the heels of a fruitless quest by members of the House and Senate
to get NSA officials to confirm or deny whether information on phone
calls by members of Congress has been swept up in the agency's metadata
dragnet. (Since it's so indiscriminate, presumably they have, but the
NSA won't say so.)
The Senate report at the heart of this confrontation
took four years to complete, runs 6,000 pages, and was adopted by the
committee in December 2012. It is said to be highly critical of both the
CIA's role in the torture regime and its public protestations of
innocence. But the White House, under ferocious lobbying by the CIA, has
refused to declassify it.
Most recently, controversy has arisen over an internal CIA report that was reportedly critical of the agency's practices, but was withheld from Senate investigators.
Heinrich, in his statement, complained: "Since I
joined the Committee, the CIA has refused to engage in good faith on the
Committee's study of the CIA's detention and interrogation program.
Instead, the CIA has consistently tried to cast doubt on the accuracy
and quality of this report by publicly making false representations
about what is and is not in it."
The resistance to oversight about torture mirrors
similar problems legislators have experienced when it comes to trying to
monitor surveillance programs and other secret activities, with one
huge exception: The torture report was championed and endorsed by Senate
intelligence committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other
senior members of that committee. By contrast, Feinstein and House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) have emerged as
the strongest defenders of surveillance activity, leaving the so-far-losing battle for disclosure to be fought by more rebellious legislators.
The consistent theme is that members of Congress are
finding themselves at an ever-increasing disadvantage when it comes to
even finding out what intelligence agencies are doing - not to mention
reining them in.
FAS | An extraordinary 95 percent of all Americans have at least heard or
read something about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), and 57 percent
believe they are real. (1)
Former US Presidents Carter and Reagan claim to have seen a UFO.
UFOlogists--a neologism for UFO buffs--and private UFO organizations are
found throughout the United States. Many are convinced that the US
Government, and particularly CIA, are engaged in a massive conspiracy
and coverup of the issue. The idea that CIA has secretly concealed its
research into UFOs has been a major theme of UFO buffs since the modern
UFO phenomena emerged in the late 1940s. (2)
In late 1993, after being pressured by UFOlogists for the release of additional CIA information on UFOs, (3)
DCI R. James Woolsey ordered another review of all Agency files on
UFOs. Using CIA records compiled from that review, this study traces
CIA interest and involvement in the UFO controversy from the late 1940s
to 1990. It chronologically examines the Agency's efforts to solve the
mystery of UFOs, its programs that had an impact on UFO sightings, and
its attempts to conceal CIA involvement in the entire UFO issue. What
emerges from this examination is that, while Agency concern over UFOs
was substantial until the early 1950s, CIA has since paid only limited
and peripheral attention to the phenomena.
Background
The emergence in 1947 of the Cold War confrontation between
the United States and the Soviet Union also saw the first wave of UFO
sightings. The first report of a "flying saucer" over the United
States came on 24 June 1947, when Kenneth Arnold, a private pilot and
reputable businessman, while looking for a downed plane sighted nine
disk-shaped objects near Mt. Rainier, Washington, traveling at an
estimated speed of over 1,000 mph. Arnold's report was followed by a
flood of additional sightings, including reports from military and
civilian pilots and air traffic controllers all over the United States. (4)
In 1948, Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining, head of the Air Technical
Service Command, established Project SIGN (initially named Project
SAUCER) to collect, collate, evaluate, and distribute within the
government all information relating to such sightings, on the premise
that UFOs might be real and of national security concern. (5)
The Technical Intelligence Division of the Air Material Command
(AMC) at Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) in Dayton,
Ohio, assumed control of Project SIGN and began its work on 23 January
1948. Although at first fearful that the objects might be Soviet secret
weapons, the Air Force soon concluded that UFOs were real but easily
explained and not extraordinary. The Air Force report found that almost
all sightings stemmed from one or more of three causes: mass hysteria
and hallucination, hoax, or misinterpretation of known objects.
Nevertheless, the report recommended continued military intelligence
control over the investigation of all sightings and did not rule out the
possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena. (6)
Amid mounting UFO sightings, the Air Force continued to collect
and evaluate UFO data in the late 1940s under a new project, GRUDGE,
which tried to alleviate public anxiety over UFOs via a public relations
campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing
unusual or extraordinary. UFO sightings were explained as balloons,
conventional aircraft, planets, meteors, optical illusions, solar
reflections, or even "large hailstones." GRUDGE officials found no
evidence in UFO sightings of advanced foreign weapons design or
development, and they concluded that UFOs did not threaten US security.
They recommended that the project be reduced in scope because the very
existence of Air Force official interest encouraged people to believe in
UFOs and contributed to a "war hysteria" atmosphere. On 27 December
1949, the Air Force announced the project's termination. (7)
With increased Cold War tensions, the Korean war, and continued
UFO sightings, USAF Director of Intelligence Maj. Gen. Charles P. Cabell
ordered a new UFO project in 1952. Project BLUE BOOK became the major
Air Force effort to study the UFO phenomenon throughout the 1950s and
1960s. (8)
The task of identifying and explaining UFOs continued to fall on the
Air Material Command at Wright-Patterson. With a small staff, the Air
Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) tried to persuade the public that
UFOs were not extraordinary. (9)
Projects SIGN, GRUDGE, and BLUE BOOK set the tone for the official US
Government position regarding UFOs for the next 30 years.
Early CIA Concerns, 1947-52
CIA closely monitored the Air Force effort, aware of the
mounting number of sightings and increasingly concerned that UFOs might
pose a potential security threat. (10) Given the distribution of the sightings, CIA officials in 1952 questioned whether they might reflect "midsummer madness.'' (11)
Agency officials accepted the Air Force's conclusions about UFO
reports, although they concluded that "since there is a remote
possibility that they may be interplanetary aircraft, it is necessary to
investigate each sighting." (12)
A massive buildup of sightings over the United States in 1952,
especially in July, alarmed the Truman administration. On 19 and 20
July, radar scopes at Washington National Airport and Andrews Air Force
Base tracked mysterious blips. On 27 July, the blips reappeared. The
Air Force scrambled interceptor aircraft to investigate, but they found
nothing. The incidents, however, caused headlines across the country.
The White House wanted to know what was happening, and the Air Force
quickly offered the explanation that the radar blips might be the result
of "temperature inversions." Later, a Civil Aeronautics Administration
investigation confirmed that such radar blips were quite common and were
caused by temperature inversions. (13)
Although it had monitored UFO reports for at least three years,
CIA reacted to the new rash of sightings by forming a special study
group within the Office of Scientific Intelligence (OSI) and the Office
of Current Intelligence (OCI) to review the situation. (14)
Edward Tauss, acting chief of OSI's Weapons and Equipment Division,
reported for the group that most UFO sightings could be easily
explained. Nevertheless, he recommended that the Agency continue
monitoring the problem, in coordination with ATIC. He also urged that
CIA conceal its interest from the media and the public, "in view of
their probable alarmist tendencies" to accept such interest as
confirming the existence of UFOs. (15)
Upon receiving the report, Deputy Director for Intelligence (DDI)
Robert Amory, Jr. assigned responsibility for the UFO investigations to
OSI's Physics and Electronics Division, with A. Ray Gordon as the
officer in charge. (16)
Each branch in the division was to contribute to the investigation,
and Gordon was to coordinate closely with ATIC. Amory, who asked the
group to focus on the national security implications of UFOs, was
relaying DCI Walter Bedell Smith's concerns. (17)
Smith wanted to know whether or not the Air Force investigation of
flying saucers was sufficiently objective and how much more money and
manpower would be necessary to determine the cause of the small
percentage of unexplained flying saucers. Smith believed "there was
only one chance in 10,000 that the phenomenon posed a threat to the
security of the country, but even that chance could not be taken."
According to Smith, it was CIA's responsibility by statute to coordinate
the intelligence effort required to solve the problem. Smith also
wanted to know what use could be made of the UFO phenomenon in
connection with US psychological warfare efforts. (18)
Led by Gordon, the CIA Study Group met with Air Force officials
at Wright-Patterson and reviewed their data and findings. The Air Force
claimed that 90 percent of the reported sightings were easily accounted
for. The other 10 percent were characterized as "a number of
incredible reports from credible observers." The Air Force rejected the
theories that the sightings involved US or Soviet secret weapons
development or that they involved "men from Mars"; there was no evidence
to support these concepts. The Air Force briefers sought to explain
these UFO reports as the misinterpretation of known objects or little
understood natural phenomena. (19) Air Force and CIA officials agreed that outside knowledge of Agency interest in UFOs would make the problem more serious. (20) This concealment of CIA interest contributed greatly to later charges of a CIA conspiracy and coverup.
The CIA Study Group also searched the Soviet press for UFO
reports, but found none, causing the group to conclude that the absence
of reports had to have been the result of deliberate Soviet Government
policy. The group also envisioned the USSR's possible use of UFOs as a
psychological warfare tool. In addition, they worried that, if the US
air warning system should be deliberately overloaded by UFO sightings,
the Soviets might gain a surprise advantage in any nuclear attack. (21)
Because of the tense Cold War situation and increased Soviet
capabilities, the CIA Study Group saw serious national security concerns
in the flying saucer situation. The group believed that the Soviets
could use UFO reports to touch off mass hysteria and panic in the United
States. The group also believed that the Soviets might use UFO
sightings to overload the US air warning system so that it could not
distinguish real targets from phantom UFOs. H. Marshall Chadwell,
Assistant Director of OSI, added that he considered the problem of such
importance "that it should be brought to the attention of the National
Security Council, in order that a communitywide coordinated effort
towards it solution may be initiated." (22)
Chadwell briefed DCI Smith on the subject of UFOs in December
1952. He urged action because he was convinced that "something was
going on that must have immediate attention" and that "sightings of
unexplained objects at great altitudes and traveling at high speeds in
the vicinity of major US defense installations are of such nature that
they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of aerial
vehicles." He drafted a memorandum from the DCI to the National
Security Council (NSC) and a proposed NSC Directive establishing the
investigation of UFOs as a priority project throughout the intelligence
and the defense research and development community. (23) Chadwell also urged Smith to establish an external research project of top-level scientists to study the problem of UFOs. (24)
After this briefing, Smith directed DDI Amory to prepare a NSC
Intelligence Directive (NSCID) for submission to the NSC on the need to
continue the investigation of UFOs and to coordinate such investigations
with the Air Force. (25)
NYTimes | Mr.
Colby refused comment on the domestic spying issue. But one clue to the
depth of his feelings emerged during an off‐the‐record talk he gave
Monday night at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
The
C.I.A. chief, who had been informed the previous week of the inquiry by
The Times, said at the meeting that be had ordered a complete
investigation of the agency's domestic activities and had found some
improprieties.
But he is known to have added, “I think family skeletons are best left where they are—in the closet.”
He
then said that the “good thing about all of this was the red flag” was
raised by a group of junior employes inside the agency.
It
was because of the prodding from below, some sources have reported,
that Mr. Colby decided last year to inform the chairmen of the House and
Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees of the domestic activities.
Mr.
Schlesinger, who became Secretary of Defense after serving less than
six months at the C.I.A., similarly refused to discuss the domestic
spying activities.
Anguish Reported
But
he was'described by an associate as extremely concerned and disturbed
by what he discovered at the C.I.A. upon replacing Mr. Helms.
“He
found himself in a cesspool,” the associate said. “He was having a
grenade blowing up in his face every time he turned around.”
Mr.
Schlesinger was at the C.I.A. when the first word of the agency's
involvement in the September, 1971, burglary of the office of Dr. Daniel
Ellsberg's former psychiatrist by the White House security force known
as the “plumbers” became known.
It
was Mr. Schlesinger who also discovered and turned over to the Justice
Department a series of letters written to a Mr. Helms by James W. McCord
Jr., one of the original Watergate defendants and a former C.I.A.
security official. The letters, which told of White House involvement in
the Watergate burglary, had been deposited in an agency office.
The
associate said one result of Mr. Schlesinger's inquiries into Watergate
and the domestic of the C.I.A. operations was his executive edict
ordering a halt to all questionable counterintelligence operations
inside the United States.
During
his short stay at the C.I.A., Mr. Schlesinger also initiated a 10 per
cent employe cutback. Because of his actions, the associate said,
security officials at the agency decided to increase the number of his
personal bodyguards. It could not be learned whether that action was
taken after a threat.
Many past and present C.I.A. men acknowledged that Mr. Schlesinger's reforms were harder to bear because he was an outsider.
Mr.
Colby, these men said, while continuing the same basic programs
initiated by his predecessor, was viewed by some as “the saving force”
at the agency because as a former high‐ranking official himself in the
C.I.A.'s clandestine services, he had the respect and power. to ensure
that the alleged illegal domestic programs would cease.
Some
sources also reported that there was widespread paper shredding at the
agency shortly after Mr. Schlesinger began to crack down on the C.I.A.'s
operations.
Asked
about that, however, Government officials said that they could
“guarantee” that the domestic intelligence files were still intact.
“There's certainly been no order to destroy them,” one official said:
When
confronted with the Times's Information about the C.I.A.'s domestic
operations earlier this week, high‐ranking American intelligence
officials confirmed its basic accuracy, but cautioned against drawing
“unwarranted conclusions.”
Espionage Feared
Those
officials, who insisted on not being quoted by name, contended that all
of the C.I.A.'s domestic activities against American citizens were
initiated in the belief that foreign governments and foreign espionage
may have been involved.
“Anything
that we did was In the context of foreign counterintelligence and it
was focused at foreign intelligence and foreign intelligence problems,”
one official said.
The
official also said that the requirement to maintain files on American
citizens emanated, in part, from the so‐called Huston plan. That plan,
named for its author, Tom Charles Huston, a Presidential aide, was a
White House project in 1970 calling for the use of such, illegal
activities as burglaries and wiretapping to combat antiwait activities,
and student turmoil that the White House believed was being “fomented”
—as the Huston plan stated—by black extremists.
A Foundation of Joy
-
Two years and I've lost count of how many times my eye has been operated
on, either beating the fuck out of the tumor, or reattaching that slippery
eel ...
April Three
-
4/3
43
When 1 = A and 26 = Z
March = 43
What day?
4 to the power of 3 is 64
64th day is March 5
My birthday
March also has 5 letters.
4 x 3 = 12
...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...