CIA

Scott McClellan maintains that when Bush presented discredited information about mobile bioweapons laboratories in Iraq, he had no choice because the discrediting data was classified and it would be inappropriate to make use of it to modify a set of talking points to make sure that it wasn’t full of falsehoods and misrepresentations to present to the American public: I think the CIA will tell you – and I spoke to them earlier today – that a finished product like this, a white paper like this, takes coordination, it takes debating, it takes vetting, and it’s not something that they will tell you turns on a dime. It’s a complex intelligence white paper and it’s … one derived from highly classified information takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and to run through a declassification process. And they will tell you this. And the intelligence comes in many different forms – human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source – and it’s not a trickle, it’s a constant flood, is what they told me this morning. And weighing and assessing it is something that takes a lot of time and is a technology-intensive process. So you’re making an assumption that something is immediately taken and assessed by your comments.Yet at the same time, the Bush administration takes such a cavalier view of the declassification process (or rather, such a strong view of the power of the President to act upon the whims of the moment) that he can approve leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent in order to get revenge on a U.S. Ambassador who is criticizing the administrations falsehoods about Iraq attempting to purchase uranium in Niger. Meanwhile, Alberto Gonzales says that the President could legally intercept domestic communications without FISA Court approval as a result of the AUMF (authorization for the use of military force in Iraq), in addition to being able to unilaterally declare U.S. citizens to be enemy combatants and hold them indefinitely without trial and engage in torture. It is growing more and more clear that the current administration thinks the President’s powers are unlimited, and Bush’s December 18, 2000 comment that “if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier–so long as I’m the dictator” and his July 30, 2001 Business Week comment that “A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it” weren’t really jokes.

At the New York Sun: A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded “National Intelligence Estimate” on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case. The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.Via Talking Points Memo.

The Chicago Tribune has reported that it was able to identify 2,653 employees of the CIA, including covert agents, from online data providers who charge for access to public records. The Tribune reports that it identified agents through telephone listings, real estate transactions, voting records, property tax records, and other documents, and that they were able to identify internal CIA phone numbers, covert mailing addresses, and two dozen CIA facilities. One facility, “The Farm” at Camp Peary, VA, was looked up via ordinary Internet searches, which yielded the names of 26 people who work there. (John Young’s cryptome site features this May 31, 2005 New York Times story on Camp Peary.) ...

The latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (March/April 2006) features an article titled “Hoaxers, Hackers, and Policymakers: How Junk Science Persuaded the FBI to Divert Terrorism Funding to Fight Hackers” by Carolyn Meinel. The descriptive text on the first page (between the article title, subtitle, and author’s name) says “Hoaxers warned of an imminent and deadly electronic Pearl Harbor. Consequently, the FBI diverted resources and attention away from terrorism and toward fighting hackers. This may have contributed to the September 11, 2001, attacks. Use of critical inquiry and the scientific method could have avoided this misdirection." While most of the article appears to me to be accurate and its conclusion about treating claims from self-proclaimed computer security experts with scrutiny is sound, the article itself contains unsubstantiated arguments (in particular the arguments of the title and subheading) and comes from a self-proclaimed hacking expert of questionable credibility. Meinel’s article is in three sections–an introductory section about the title, a section about specific claims made by two hackers, and a section on “critical analysis of e-terrorism.” I find little to criticize in the latter two sections, except for its implication that Peter Neumann’s testimony before Congress was unfounded (Neumann is a highly respected expert on computer risks, the editor of the RISKS Digest, and author of the book Computer-Related Risks, 1995, The ACM Press). Meinel begins by describing Fred J. Villella bringing hackers “Dr. Mudge” (Pieter Zatko, though Meinel never mentions his name) and “Se7en” (“Christian Valor”, who was indeed exposed as a chronic fabricator as Meinel claims in the second part of her article) to meetings of federal policymakers where they warned of “a looming electronic Pearl Harbor.” The most notable such meeting was testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on May 19, 1998, where the above-mentioned Neumann testimony took place, and where Mudge testified that he could make the Internet unusable with less than thirty minutes of effort. Meinel argues that this testimony “may have contributed to an entrapment scheme” by the FBI against hacker “Chameleon” (Marc Maiffret, now “Chief Hacking Officer” of eEye Digital Security) as a way to show that “hackers were actually collaborating with enemies of the U.S.” But she provides no evidence of a connection between the testimony and the action. She falsely states that “books (Penenberg 2000; Mitnick 2005) hyped the raid [on Maiffret] to say that hackers were in league with al Qaeda.” Neither of these two books says that. Adam Penenberg, in his book Spooked: Espionage in Corporate America (with Marc Barry, 2001, Perseus Books), writes that “Hackers are always on red alert for the FBI. In fact, when Maiffret was contacted over the Internet by the alleged terrorist Khalid Ibrahim, a member of Harkat-ul-Ansar, a militant Indian separatist group on the State Department’s list of the thirty most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world, he assumed Ibrahim worked for the feds.” Kevin Mitnick, in his book The Art of Intrusion (2005, Wiley, pp. 32-34), raises the possibility that Khalid Ibrahim was part of an FBI operation, but questions it on the ground that only Maiffret received any money from him. On the other hand, he points out that Maiffret told Wired News “he had not provided any government network maps” and wonders why, despite his confession to accepting money from an terrorist-connected individual (Mitnick writes “foreign terrorist”), no charges were ever filed. Then, he writes “Perhaps the check wasn’t from Khalid after all, but from the FBI.” (As an aside, Mitnick’s book states that few know the true identity of “Chameleon,” but Penenberg’s book had already published his identity in 2000.) Perhaps Maiffret avoided prosecution by agreeing to work with the FBI, as other hackers have done (such as Justin Tanner Petersen, “Agent Steal,” whose story is partly told in Jonathan Littman’s The Watchman: The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen, 1997, Little, Brown). The specific argument of the title and subheading–that the testimony of these hackers led to a diversion of funding that may have contributed to the success of the 9/11 terrorist attacks–is stated in a single paragraph in the second column of the first page of the article (p. 32). In that paragraph, Meinel states that cyberspace czar Richard Clarke’s formation of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) diverted funding increases “earmarked against terrorism to hire FBI agents for the hacker beat.” This diversion of funds led to only $4.9 million spent by NIPC on counterterrorism, and it therefore lacked the resources to follow up on Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams’ warning about al Qaeda members training at U.S. flight schools. This argument assumes that NIPC, rather than the FBI’s counterterrorism unit, is the organization which should have followed up on Williams’ memo. It also overlooks the role of the FBI’s incredibly antiquated computer systems, which technophobe FBI Director Louis Freeh had refused to take steps to upgrade (with Congress withholding $60 million in funding for FBI’s IT infrastructure between 1998 and 2000 because of its failure to produce a credible upgrade plan). Not until July 2000, when Freeh appointed Bob Dies to begin work on an overhaul, did Freeh address the issue. The result was that the FBI had 42 separate database systems that could not be searched simultaneously and many agents had computers that did not work or could not display images or connect to the Internet. Many agents used home computers in order to receive email photo images of suspects from local police departments. (See the “Missing Documents” chapter of Ronald Kessler’s The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI, 2002, St. Martin’s Press. Similar observations are made in the “9/11” chapter of James Bovard’s The Bush Betrayal, 2004, Palgrave Macmillan. Bovard cites (p. 27) a Los Angeles Times story that reports the FBI diverting $60 million in funds earmarked for IT upgrades in the year 2000 to be used for staffing and international offices. The fact that the dollar figure is the same in Bovard and Kessler may indicate that Bovard is misdescribing the same $60 million Kessler mentions.) By contrast, NIPC’s entire budget (PDF) was under $20 million per year through 2000, and Bush requested a budget of $20.4 million for NIPC in 2001. (This is not to say that NIPC was effectively using what funds it had–it wasn’t. But Meinel’s complaint that only $4.9 million of NIPC’s budget was spent on counterterrorism should be put in context–that was a quarter or more of its annual budget.) These IT failings and the other failures reported in the 9/11 Commission Report and elsewhere strike me as more plausible reasons for the U.S. government’s failure to avert the 9/11 attacks than trying to pin it on the hackers who testified before Congress in 1998 about the dangers of cyber attacks. Ironically, in October 2001 an article arguing that the Code Red worm demonstrates that there really are significant risks of Internet-based attacks on U.S. infrastructure (“They would be far worse than not being able to make bids on eBay–potentially affecting product manufacturing and deliveries, bank transactions, telephony and more. Should it occur five years from now, the results could be a lot more severe.”) appeared in Scientific American. The author of this article, “Code Red for the Web,” was Carolyn Meinel. It’s more surprising to me that Skeptical Inquirer published an article by Carolyn Meinel at all. Meinel’s author description printed in SI states: ...

As many people now know, James Frey’s bestseller and Oprah Book Club selection A Million Little Pieces has been exposed by The Smoking Gun as a collection of fabrications–yet Oprah continues to support the book. There’s a whole genre (at least one) of phony autobiography, and those who get suckered into believing them often continue to support them even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them. Mike Warnke’s book, The Satan Seller, tells of how he was inducted into a coven of Satan-worshippers and became a leader in the group, leading a debauched life before finding God and becoming a Christian standup comedian. The Christian magazine Cornerstone did a comprehensive investigation into his past, and found that none of it was true. Similarly, Cornerstone exposed “Lauren Stratford”’s claim of being raised by Satan-worshippers, forced to participate in sex orgies, and to sacrifice her own child to be the fabrications of a mentally disturbed woman who was raised in a Christian home. Michael Esses told a story of being a God-hating rabbi converted to Christianity in his 1973 book, Michael, Michael, Why Do You Hate Me? John Todd claimed to be a member of the Illuminati. “Dr. Alberto Rivera” claimed to be a Jesuit priest trained to destroy Protestant churches in a story published as a comic book by Jack Chick. Cathy O’Brien claimed in Trance-Formation of America to have been subjected to CIA mind control and made into a sex slave for presidents and celebrities. The male versions emphasize that the individual involved was a tough guy, a bad guy, and a leader involved in these nefarious deeds; the female versions, by contrast, portray themselves as victims under the control of evil conspirators. In both cases there seems to be an element of pride in the vivid descriptions of the actions confessed–the motivations behind these are no doubt similar to the motivations of false or embellished confessions in rehab and twelve-step programs. It’s worth noting that the same people are behind a number of the Christian fakes–David Balsiger ghost-authored Warnke’s book and was director of marketing for the publisher of Esses’ book (and has a longstanding reputation for dishonesty), Jack Chick promoted John Todd and “Alberto." In Frey’s case, publisher Nan Talese admits having long-standing arguments with her husband, Gay Talese, about whether “nonfiction” can include fabrications–her husband defending truth in nonfiction while she defends falsehood presented as fact. Frey, for his part, has admitted that he has taken some liberties, but asserts in the face of overwhelming evidence from The Smoking Gun exposure that his account is still basically accurate. Why are so many people willing to support and endorse this kind of dishonesty? Some, like Nan Talese, are doing so explicitly–a position that forgives minor distortions, even when they accumulate into major ones. It allows for “bullshitting” and for “noble lies” of the sort the neo-conservatives defend. I find it fascinating that some of the biggest defenders of this kind of falsehood are people who claim to be absolutists about morality–the only thing that can be said in their defense is that some of them truly believe it and think the exposures can be refuted. Over time, the position can become untenable for most, and the followers of people like Warnke fall away in quiet embarrassment.

Blairwatch has published the text of memos from Craig Murray, UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which complain about the U.S. giving aid to the country after accepting sham improvements in human rights, as well as collecting intelligence information obtained via torture. Some excerpts: I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging). […] We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror. […] I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as “From detainee debriefing.” The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured. […] I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact. ...

This is from a Mel Gibson interview with Playboy magazine in the July 1995 issue. I haven’t verified it myself, though I’ve found consistent excerpts (though they could all have an identical bogus source). The positions taken are quite plausibly attributed to Gibson, though I’m surprised at his foul mouth. On evolution: PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution or that God created man in his image? GIBSON: The latter. PLAYBOY: So you can’t accept that we descended from monkeys and apes? GIBSON: No, I think it’s bullshit. If it isn’t, why are they still around? How come apes aren’t people yet? It’s a nice theory, but I can’t swallow it. There’s a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something’s been around, how accurate is that, really? I’ve got one of Darwin’s books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don’t think you can swallow the whole piece. Why does anyone think his first point is a good argument against evolution? I’ve never heard anyone argue that Italian-Americans couldn’t have come from Italy because there are still Italians there. And I wonder what book by Darwin he has. On assorted moral issues: PLAYBOY: We take it that you’re not particularly broad-minded when it comes to issues such as celibacy, abortion, birth control. GIBSON: People always focus on stuff like that. Those aren’t issues. Those are unquestionable. You don’t even argue those points. PLAYBOY: You don’t? GIBSON: No.On women: PLAYBOY: What about allowing women to be priests? GIBSON: No. PLAYBOY: Why not? GIBSON: I’ll get kicked around for saying it, but men and women are just different. They’re not equal. The same way that you and I are not equal. PLAYBOY: That’s true. You have more money. GIBSON: You might be more intelligent, or you might have a bigger dick. Whatever it is, nobody’s equal. And men and women are not equal. I have tremendous respect for women. I love them. I don’t know why they want to step down. Women in my family are the center of things. And good things emanate from them. The guys usually mess up. PLAYBOY: That’s quite a generalization. GIBSON: Women are just different. Their sensibilities are different. PLAYBOY: Any examples? GIBSON: I had a female business partner once. Didn’t work. PLAYBOY: Why not? GIBSON: She was a cunt. PLAYBOY: And the feminists dare to put you down! GIBSON: Feminists don’t like me, and I don’t like them. I don’t get their point. I don’t know why feminists have it out for me, but that’s their problem, not mine.Interesting that he thinks a woman being a priest would be “a step down.” From many occupations, I’d agree. Gibson on political conspiracy theory: PLAYBOY: How do you feel about Bill Clinton? GIBSON: He’s a low-level opportunist. Somebody’s telling him what to do. PLAYBOY: Who? GIBSON: The guy who’s in charge isn’t going to be the front man, ever. If I were going to be calling the shots I wouldn’t make an appearance. Would you? You’d end up losing your head. It happens all the time. All those monarchs. If he’s the leader, he’s getting shafted. What’s keeping him in there? Why would you stay for that kind of abuse? Except that he has to stay for some reason. He was meant to be the president 30 years ago, if you ask me. PLAYBOY: He was just 18 then. GIBSON: Somebody knew then that he would be president now. PLAYBOY: You really believe that? GIBSON: I really believe that. He was a Rhodes scholar, right? Just like Bob Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who want to strive for a new world order. Have you heard that before? George Bush? CIA? Really, it’s Marxism, but it just doesn’t want to call itself that. Karl had the right idea, but he was too forward about saying what it was. Get power but don’t admit to it. Do it by stealth. There’s a whole trend of Rhodes scholars who will be politicians around the world. PLAYBOY: This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense of world history. You must be quite an assassination buff. GIBSON: Oh, fuck. A lot of those guys pulled a boner. There’s something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried. I can’t remember what it was, my dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I’ll end up dead if I keep talking shit. (Note added 30 December: I’ve heard from several people who have now verified the accuracy of these quotations.) ...

Howard Kurtz writes in yesterday’s Washington Post that Bush has been attempting (without success in a few notable recent instances) to suppress stories about CIA prisons and wiretapping. In the same article, he reports that Doug Bandow accepted payments of as much as $2,000 a story for pieces favorable to lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s clients. He has resigned from the Cato Institute in the wake of the story, exposed by Business Week, issuing a statement that “I am fully responsible and I won’t play victim … Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize." Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation is unapologetic about accepting similar payments; Jonathan Adler of the National Review reports that he was offered similar payments when he worked at a think tank but declined them. It’s more evidence that think tank output tends to be generated by starting with paid-for conclusions and generating arguments and selecting evidence to support them–similar to Feith’s selection of intelligence information to support the invasion of Iraq. Think tanks supported by particular interests simply aren’t a good way of getting objective information. More examples in Kurtz’s piece.

News is now out that the Bush administration, in 2002, authorized the National Security Agency to conduct eavesdropping (on international email or phone calls) against U.S. citizens without court oversight. The NSA’s domestic surveillance is supposed to be limited to foreign embassies and missions, and to require court approval. This is not a power granted to the president by the U.S. Constitution. This abuse of power has apparently been exercised against as many as 500 people in the U.S. at any given time. The NY Times reports that some NSA officials, to their credit, refused to participate due to their concerns about the legality of the program. Note that the standards which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court uses to approve wiretaps are already incredibly low (their decision algorithm is pretty close to “say yes to everything”), but apparently that was considered too great a barrier and it had to be bypassed. Approval of torture, secret CIA prisons in Europe, kidnapping citizens of other countries and taking them to Afghanistan… apparently the Bush administration has no respect for the U.S. Constitution on the principles behind it. ...

Steven M. Greer, M.D., the creator of CSETI (Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence), brought the Freedom Summit to a low point. Greer, whose CSETI group used to go wandering in the woods to communicate with aliens by waving their high-powered flashlights (as documented by Alex Heard in Outside magazine), was promoting his Disclosure Project. Greer gave a rambling speech filled with claims of his direct connections with senior government officials which prove that the U.S. has been in possession of alien propulsion technology since the 1950s. According to Greer, this technology obsoletes gas, oil, coal, nuclear, and all other forms of energy production in use today–that we have not needed to burn any such fuels since 1950. He claimed that billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been put into black budget projects involving this alien technology, which is being suppressed by the “kleptocracy,” an “interlocking” group of government officials and private families which run the world. He did not explain the economics of why the government would be pouring billions of dollars into suppressing the use of a technology which could generate trillions of dollars in revenue. He made much of an alleged briefing he gave to CIA Director James Woolsey on UFOs in 1993, while failing to note Woolsey’s account of that meeting, which characterizes it as a “dinner party” at which Greer sat at a table with Woolsey and his wife Suzanne and with James Petersen and his wife Diane. The four of them signed the letter to Greer chiding him for publishing a “distorted” account and for portraying their “politeness as acquiescence and questions as affirmations." It wasn’t clear how many, if any, people in the audience were taking him seriously, though they did let him speak. The first question in the Q&A session was a good one: “Why haven’t you been killed?” Greer answered that he took plenty of precautions by going public very loudly (appearing on Larry King) and that he had the protection of a third of the secretive (and nonexistent!) MJ-12 organization who want the truth about UFOs to come out, but that he has received many threats. The next questioner, noting that Greer kept referring to “we” with respect to his organization, asked how many people are in his organization. Greer misheard the question as being how many of his people have been killed, and said that three of them had been murdered. Greer’s talk was rambling and disjointed, and was punctuated with lots of specific accurate facts (such as that CIA Director William Colby’s dead body was found floating in the Potomac; Greer attributed this to a murder designed to keep him from going public with UFO-related information). The content and manner of his talk reminded me of the works of those who claim to be targets of CIA mind control experiments, like Cathy O’Brien and “Brice Taylor” (Susan Ford)–they like to drop names of famous people and claim direct contacts with them, but they work everything into a bizarre and only semi-coherent fantasy structure with zero plausibility. While I enjoy occasionally listening to the rantings of a kook, it was a discredit to the organizers of this conference that they gave a public forum to Dr. Greer. If they seriously thought that Greer had a meaningful and important message, it casts serious doubt on their credibility or ability to distinguish fact from fiction. Even many in the UFO community recognize that Greer is a kook (you can find many examples searching for Greer’s name at virtuallystrange.net).