A+ A A-
The following is the bottom one-third-plus of the MLK Conspiracy Trial
Transcript, Volume 9, from November 30th, 1999, the source for which is at:
http://www.thekingcenter.com/tkc/trial/Volume9.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Testimony of Mr. William Schaap,
            attorney, military and intelligence specialization,
                   co-publisher Covert Action Quarterly,
                   on the role of the U.S. Government in
                  the assassination of Martin Luther King

                 MLK Conspiracy Trial Transcript - Volume 9
                             November 30, 1999



     THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE
     THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS
     _______________________________________________
     CORETTA SCOTT KING, MARTIN
     LUTHER KING, III, BERNICE KING,
     DEXTER SCOTT KING and YOLANDA KING,
     Plaintiffs,
     Vs. Case No. 97242-4 T.D.
     LOYD JOWERS and OTHER
     UNKNOWN CO-CONSPIRATORS,
     Defendants.
     _______________________________________________
     PROCEEDINGS
     November 30th, 1999
     VOLUME IX
     _______________________________________________
     Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen,
     Division 4, Judge presiding.
     _______________________________________________
     DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI,
     RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD
     COURT REPORTERS
     Suite 2200, One Commerce Square
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 529-1999
     DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD
     (901) 529-1999

     1185
     - APPEARANCES -
     For the Plaintiffs:
     MR. WILLIAM PEPPER
     Attorney at Law
     575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006
     New York, New York 10022
     (212) 605-0515
     For the Defendant:
     MR. LEWIS K. GARRISON, Sr.
     Attorney at Law
     100 North Main Street, Suite 1025
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     (901) 527-6445
     Reported by:
     MS. MARGIE J. ROUTHEAUX
     Registered Professional Reporter
     Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski,
     Richberger & Weatherford
     2200 One Commerce Square
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD
     (901) 529-1999

     1186
     - INDEX -
     WITNESS: PAGE NUMBER
     . . .
     WILLIAM SCHAAP
     Direct Examination
     By Mr. Pepper --------------- 1299
     TRIAL EXHIBITS
     24 --------------- 1265 (Collective)
     25 --------------- 1271
     26 --------------- 1275
     27 --------------- 1286
     28 --------------- 1304



     MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Mr. William Schaap to the stand.

     WILLIAM SCHAAP, Having been first duly sworn, was examined and
     testified as follows:

     DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER:

     Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Schaap.

     A. Good afternoon.

     Q. Would you state your full name and address for the record,
     please.

     A. My name is William Schaap. My address is 143 West Fourth
     Street, New York, New York.

     Q. Could you give us a summary of your professional background,
     please.

     THE COURT: Before you do that, spell your last name.

     THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. S C H A A P.

     THE COURT: Thank you.

     A. I'm an attorney. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law
     School in 1964. I've been a practicing lawyer since then. And I'm
     a member of the bar of the State of New York and of the District
     of Columbia. I specialized in the 1970's in military law. I
     practiced military law in Asia and Europe. I later became the
     editor in chief of the Military Law Reporter in Washington for a
     number of years. And in the 70's and 80's I was staff counsel of
     the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.

     I also in the late 1980's was an adjunct professor at John J.
     College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York
     where I taught courses on propaganda and disinformation.

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Have you also been involved in journalism and
     publishing?

     A. Yes, I have. Since 1977 or '78, in addition to being a
     practicing lawyer, I've also been a journalist and a publisher and
     a writer specializing in intelligence-related matters and
     particularly their relationship to the media. For more than 20
     years I've been the co-publisher of a magazine called the Covert
     Action Quarterly which particularly deals with reporting on
     intelligence agencies, primarily U.S. agencies but also foreign.

     I published a magazine for a number of years called Lies Of Our
     Times which specifically was a magazine about propaganda and
     disinformation. And I've been the managing director of the
     Institute for Media Analysis for a number of years. I also, for
     about 20 years now, I think, was one of the principals in a
     publishing company called Sheraton Square Press that published
     books and pamphlets relating to intelligence and the media.

     Q. Do you also write? Have you authored articles and works?

     A. Yes, I do. I've written, oh, dozens of articles on --
     particularly on media and intelligence. I've edited about seven or
     eight books on the subject. I've contributed sections to a number
     of other books and had -- I've -- many of my articles, of course,
     have appeared in my own -- our own publications, but I've also had
     articles appear around the world including New York Times,
     Washington Post and major media like -- like those.

     I've appeared a lot on radio and television as an expert on
     intelligence and the media. I'm slowing down a bit now because I'm
     getting older. But I used to do a lot of speaking at universities
     and colleges around the country and debating government officials
     and people connected to organizations that supported the CIA and
     the other -- FBI and the other intelligence agencies.

     Q. Have you ever testified as an expert witness in the area of
     governmental use of media for disinformation and propaganda?

     A. Yes, I have. I've -- I've testified as an expert in that field
     in both state and federal courts in this country. I've testified
     in foreign courts. I testified once before the United Nations on
     that subject and once before the U.S. Congress.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, I'm going to show you a copy of a -- of your own
     CV. It's a summary of your professional qualifications. I want you
     to confirm its accuracy.

     A. Yes, that's -- that's my CV that I prepared.

     MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, we move admission of Mr. Schaap's CV and
     move that he be accepted as an expert witness in the matter at
     hand for the issues of government use of media or disinformation
     and propaganda purposes.

     THE COURT: Objections?

     MR. GARRISON: I have no objection.

     THE COURT: All right. (Whereupon said document was marked as Trial
     Exhibit Number 28.)

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, in the course of your research,
     have you had occasion to study the use of the media by government
     agencies?

     A. Yes, I have. I've studied many government reports on the
     subject. Many, many books have been written about it and articles.
     In fact, I've written many of those articles.

     Q. Can you give the Court and the Jury a brief summary of the
     subject indicating the extent to which this type of activity by
     government still takes place?

     A. Yes, I can. I -- I won't go into ancient history, but it should
     be noted that -- that governments around the world have secretly
     used the media for their purposes for many hundreds of years,
     probably thousands. But certainly from the 16th and 17th century
     in England on there has been a great deal of research about the
     use by governments -- a secret use of the media.

     For our purposes though, the -- particularly relating to the U.S.,
     the most significant and the first major deliberate program in
     this country was during World War I when President Wilson set up
     an organization called the Committee For Public Information under
     a public relations executive -- a man named George Creole. The
     purpose of this committee was to propagandize the war effort
     against Germany. This was created immediately after the U.S.
     entered World War I in 1917. And in propagandizing the war effort
     and war news, it was the policy of this committee to have no
     compunctions about falsifying the news whenever it was felt that
     that was necessary to help the war effort.

     Q. Can you give us an example of the type of falsification of the
     news that you're talking about.

     A. Yes. They -- the Committee For Public Information purported
     very often to release documents, supposedly genuine documents, to
     the press in order to substantiate whatever particular position
     the -- the Wilson government might have been taking at the time.
     And one of the most famous that happened early in its creation in
     1917 was a disinformation campaign to suggest that the Russian
     revolutionaries, Lenin in particular and Trotsky, were actually
     German agents being paid by the Kaiser.

     The Government and Creole's committee made up the story. They made
     up -- created phony documents. They passed it all to friends in
     the major newspapers. And almost immediately this was front page
     news around the United States and around the world.

     Q. I'm going to show you a New York Times headline of that era and
     see if that's the kind of falsification you're talking about.

     A. Yes, this is -- the rest of the text is from an article where
     that headline appeared. But that was on the front page of the New
     York Times in 1917. And later it transpired that the documents
     were -- were forgeries that had been created by Mr. Creole. And,
     of course, it was obvious by the current course of history, the
     Russian revolutionaries were hardly friends of the Kaiser.

     Q. Yes, indeed.

     A. Much less employees.

     Q. Can you continue with your summary, please.

     A. Yes. After World War I, the U.S. continued to be the -- or
     actually became the world's leader in the control of information.
     Britain had been more pre-eminent before World War I. But at the
     end of the war, the U.S. was really in control of all the world
     communication media. And disinformation was used by the government
     sporadically during the inter-war years. It was particularly used
     in the red scares of the 1920's and the creation of disinformation
     suggesting various opponents of the government were communists.

     But it wasn't a major aspect of government policy until the advent
     of World War II. And that was when deliberate disinformation or a
     structure for emitting deliberate disinformation became very, very
     important.

     Q. What happened at that point in history to bring about that
     resurgence?

     A. Well, at the very beginning of World War II there were really
     two schools of thought competing, both of which had government
     agencies. One that was set up was called the Office of War
     Information which was a civilian organization although it worked
     closely with the War Department, as it was then called. And it was
     headed by a man named Elmer Davis who was a very famous reporter
     -- journalist.

     His philosophy was that the agency should tell the American people
     exactly what was happening -- tell them the truth. If we lost a
     battle somewhere in Europe or the Pacific, we should tell the
     people we lost that battle. If we won a battle, we'd tell them we
     won it. But he believed that in the long run we would do best by
     reporting the truth.

     But at the same time another key organization that developed
     during World War II was the Office of Strategic Services, the OSS,
     which was headed by a military man, William Donovan, who was known
     as Wild Bill Donovan, who believed the saying that George Creole
     had -- his philosophy from World War I, which was that you should
     lie to the people whenever it's necessary, whenever you think
     lying will help maintain morale and win the war.

     This struggle was taking place, of course, in the context of World
     War II. And Donovan won both with President Roosevelt and
     afterward with President Truman. His philosophy that
     disinformation was a powerful -- a valuable weapon for a country
     to have, and that the disadvantages of lying to the American
     people were outweighed by the advantages of being able to
     manipulate the media.

     So when the war was over, the Office of War Information was
     dissolved. The OSS was transformed into the CIA. And the CIA was
     now existing in peace time, mind you. World War II is over, and
     now the CIA is set up with this information as a major part of its
     work and, in fact, as most of the reports later pointed out, the
     largest single part of the CIA's operations.

     The -- within the government at least, the acceptability of lying
     to the public became very widespread and acceptable even in time
     of peace. There had been people who felt, well, it's one thing
     when you're at war. But even in time of peace it became
     acceptable, and it spread from other agencies, including the --
     the FBI which also began to engage in media manipulation in a
     very, very large way.

     Q. So in addition to being a war time strategy with respect to the
     security of the nation and the -- the promulgation of -- of
     falsehoods in times of war, this tactic started to be used in
     peace time.

     A. Exactly. That was the major difference. Certain things were --
     were much more acceptable or expected over the course of history
     in time of war and were generally supposed to stop when the war
     was over. Now, there were people who argued in the late 40's that
     the Cold War was a war just like a hot war, and that was the war
     that was on, and that was why we had to do this.

     But what really happened is there were not battles being waged
     between soldiers. There was not a hot war going on anywhere, and
     yet the -- the infrastructure that had been set up to spread
     disinformation to be able to lie became institutionalized and
     became operating at a greater and greater level.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, how is it that some individuals like yourself have
     become more aware of these kinds of practices in our lifetimes
     while the mass of the population has not?

     A. Well, it's mostly because -- by coincidence there were a number
     of factors that came together, mostly in the 1970's, leading to
     major congressional investigations of these activities leading
     some newspapers to fund serious in-depth investigative reports.
     And in the middle and late 70's there were a series -- a huge
     series of congressional reports on intelligence activities, a
     whole section of which was devoted to media activities.

     And then there were major exposes in the New York Times and the
     Washington Post. It was sort of the Watergate mentality, I guess,
     that allowed this to happen. There was a window of a few years
     when exposing government misconduct, particularly past government
     misconduct -- and as far as the government was concerned, the
     older the better. But at least there was a window of opportunity
     where this was acceptable even within the mainstream, the
     establishment press. It was not frowned upon as much as it might
     have been at other times both before and since.

     Q. Before we go into some specific instances of this and details,
     can you explain to the Court and Jury really how does
     disinformation work? And why is it so -- why is it so successful?

     A. Well, you have to understand first the target of propaganda --
     of disinformation. The consumer of the false news so to speak is
     -- in what we're talking about is the American public in general
     and sometimes the public overseas. Disinformation is almost always
     by -- by definition, about things that the average person has no
     separate personal knowledge of, otherwise it couldn't really work.
     I mean, you can't fool the people you're talking about. You can
     fool the other people who don't know about it. You're not trying
     to fool the people you're talking about.

     The simplest example is during the Vietnam War when there was a
     massive bombing campaign and the U.S. was bombing Cambodia.
     President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger repeatedly made
     public statements that we were not dropping bombs in Cambodia.
     Well, you couldn't fool the Cambodians who looked up and saw the
     bombs falling in their back yard. They knew you were bombing
     Cambodia. But the American people by and large accepted these
     statements as truth, and in fact that was a disinformation
     campaign that was later admitted.

     You're -- really we're talking about things that the public has no
     separate knowledge of. And it's also reinforced by the fact that
     Americans generally tend to believe what their government tells
     them, to believe that government officials on all levels generally
     tell the truth. And that -- if you have that, that absence of
     skepticism, it's a major plus for the disinformationists.

     And, also, it's very, very unusual around the world other than in
     the United States. In most other countries, particularly in
     Europe, it's much more the opposite. People tend on average to be
     very skeptical of their government. If the Italian government
     issues a statement, the average Italian on the street will say
     it's probably a lie until you can prove to me otherwise that it's
     not a lie. Because governments lie. That's what they -- you know,
     they sort of expect them to do that whereas Americans don't expect
     that.

     The average American would hear something from the government or
     hear the news on television and assumes that what they're hearing
     is the truth unless they're shown otherwise. They assume that
     almost nothing is ever a conspiracy. In Europe it's very much the
     opposite. Anything happens. They tend to think it's a conspiracy
     unless you show them that it wasn't a conspiracy.

     I mean, after all, "conspiracy" just means, you know, more than
     one person being involved in something. And if you stop and think
     about it, almost everything significant that happens anywhere
     involves more than one person. Yet here there is a -- not a myth
     really, but there's just an underlying assumption that most things
     are not conspiracies. And when you have that, it enables a
     government which has a propaganda program, has a disinformation
     program, to be relatively successful in -- in having its
     disinformation accepted.

     The other reason why it -- why it works even though as we -- as we
     know, somewhere there are people who know it's not true. Somewhere
     they know you're lying about something. But another reason it
     works is that disinformation is very, very effective over time.
     The longer that you, whoever you are, can control the spin on a
     story, the more that spin becomes accepted as the absolute truth.
     And in this country the government has a great deal of power and
     influence over that spin.

     Q. Why is it so effective over time?

     A. Well, this is an area where I had to consult with other experts
     because it turns out really to be a neurological function. And
     that was first explained to me by a -- a professor at Harvard
     Medical School. And it has to do with the way the human brain
     remembers things, the way we learn things, the way we create
     patterns and associations and reinforce -- well, I don't know how
     you -- it sort of like channels in the brain when certain things
     trigger certain collateral thoughts.

     And when you associate one thing with another over time, just the
     mention of the one brings the association of the other. What this
     will sometimes mean is that even when something is later exposed
     as a lie, if it was accepted as a truth for a long time, the
     exposure of it as a lie is not believed. It's in one ear and out
     the other.

     The best example that we know in my field is one that John
     Stockwell reported on. He was a CIA officer in Angola -- for
     Angola. But they were based -- the CIA station was based in the
     Congo. And when the Cuban troops were sent in to help the Angolans
     fight the South Africans during the early and mid 70's, the CIA's
     task was to try to discredit the Cubans and do whatever it could
     to make people around the world think it was a terrible thing that
     the Cubans were helping the Angolans.

     So Stockwell's group in Congo sat down, and one guy says to the
     other guy, let's think of something terrible to say that the
     Cubans did. And another guy says, hey, why don't we say they're
     raping Angolan women. That would be a great thing to say. The
     other guy says, terrific. And they call in their media experts,
     and they start sitting there at their desk at the CIA office and
     they start typing out these news stories about how a group of
     Cuban soldiers raped a bunch of Angolan women in some operation.
     And then they write Story Number 2 which is that the villagers got
     incensed and decided they didn't want the Cubans anymore, and they
     were going to find the fellows who did it and arrest them. And in
     Story Number 3 the villagers captured the Cubans. In Story Number
     4 they were tried by a jury of the women victims and they were
     later executed with their own weapons.

     And they made a series of about 12 newspaper stories in a row. And
     with one phone call and one visit, it went over the wire services,
     it went into Europe, it went into the United States, it went
     around the world. And for about a six-month period there were all
     these stories about the horrible Cuban rapes in Angola. And what
     that does is when you hear -- the average person hears Angola or
     Cuban, they'll think rape of the women. And if they hear rape of
     the women, they will think Angola or Cubans. And if you get
     Angola, they'll think Cubans and rape of the women.

     And these patterns build up so that that becomes the truth
     embedded in your mind. Four years later John Stockwell quit the
     CIA and wrote a book exposing it. Wrote a big piece for the New
     York Times about how the entire Cuban/Angola story was a
     fabrication. And he sat there at the desk typing it. And the day
     after that story appeared, there was still 900 million people
     around the world who thought the phony story was true.

     Because when year, after year, after year you hear that something
     was the case, one story -- one day saying, hey, the whole thing
     was a lie, and it doesn't register on their brain. It can't beat
     those -- those patterns that have been built up.

     Q. Let's go back now taking an example -- let's go back now to the
     general area of intelligence because all of this activity is
     useless unless there's a structure into which it fits and into
     which it can be put out. Can you deal with the kind of structure
     of media operations that puts out this kind of disinformation. How
     extensive is it?

     A. Yes. We can be -- we have a lot of information about the CIA.
     We have a certain amount of information about the FBI, a certain
     amount about military intelligence. And the reason for this is
     because there were those congressional investigations that I
     mentioned before. There have been reports published, particularly
     from the Church Committee in the late 70's, where they published
     volume after volume describing the extent of media operations by
     the CIA and -- and other agencies.

     They -- the exact amounts of money that were being spent were --
     were not divulged by those initial reports because that was
     considered to be classified. The intelligence budgets are always
     classified except at the same time every few weeks you'll read
     something in the newspaper where they say, the classified budget,
     which is approximately 25 billion dollars, and so on and so on and
     so forth.

     So what we -- what we have learned from these reports is that --
     the first thing was that about a third of the whole CIA budget
     went to media propaganda operations.

     Q. Well, if a third of the CIA's budget went to media propaganda
     operations, how much would that be approximately?

     A. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year just
     for that. I mean, the intelligence budget -- now everything
     together is according to these -- all these reports that say it's
     secret, but it's about 25 to 30 billion dollars a year.

     Now, a lot of that is high-tech stuff. It has nothing to do with
     what we're talking about -- satellites and so on. But the stuff
     that goes to the CIA is several billion. And when you factor out
     overhead and things like that, you have got your operational
     amount. Most of the estimates suggest that -- that hundreds of
     billion -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- close to a billion
     dollars are being spent every year by the United States on secret
     propaganda.

     Again, we have fairly good figures for the CIA because it at least
     has been admitted in the past that they did do this stuff. They
     admit they do it now except they say they don't do it within the
     United States. But they admit that that's part of what they do.

     The FBI is much harder to -- to get figures for because they don't
     generally admit to conducting media operations. And unless and
     until something gets exposed and they have to admit that
     particular operation, they -- they deny to an extent where it's
     really hard to try and estimate how much money is being used by
     the FBI and by the military intelligence agencies.

     But it's sort of clear that hundreds of millions of dollars a year
     are being spent by various aspects of the government on
     deliberately creating and spreading lies.

     Q. Before we get into the specifics of media operations related to
     the Martin Luther King case and James Earl Ray, can you give us --
     just to finish the background, can you give us some idea of the
     influence that the CIA and the FBI have had over the media.

     A. Yes. Again, this was something that very specific figures came
     out in the 70's and 80's, and we don't know the precise figures.
     Today we have no reason to think that they are significantly less
     than when they came out. But when the Church Committee reported on
     the CIA media operations, for example, beyond friends in the
     press, beyond having people who were just generally -- thought
     along similar lines, it turned out that they had thousands of
     journalists in their employ. Not merely friendly, not merely
     agents, not merely someone you could pass a story to, but people
     who might have appeared to the outside world to be a reporter for
     CBS was in fact a CIA employee getting a salary from the CIA.

     And that was repeated thousands of times all around the world.
     They also owned outright, the CIA -- about that time 250 or more
     media organizations. That's wire services, newspapers, magazines,
     radio, TV stations -- all around the world that they owned
     outright. The actual shareholder of the company turned out to be
     some CIA front.

     The Church Committee, unfortunately, did not name very many of
     these organizations because those that got named, of course, had
     to close down immediately. But it was learned that -- even things
     like the Rome Daily American, which was a major English language
     newspaper in Rome, for 20 or 30 years had been owned by the CIA.
     This was published and, of course, the paper closed the next day.

     But most people didn't realize the extent of the intelligence
     media organization. It's fairly incredible. They sort of brag
     about it. When you read the books about the history of the CIA,
     one of the heroes was the first man in charge of media operations,
     a man named Frank Wisner. And they referred to his organization as
     the Mighty Wurlitzer. And there's this image of this guy sitting
     at one of those giant organs, you know, with seventeen keyboards
     and you're playing this -- sort of like The Phantom of the Opera
     in that scene, and there was the guy running the CIA media
     operations all around the world. And he really was because every
     single city of any size on earth, he had some employee who was --
     supposedly worked for a newspaper or a magazine or a radio station
     or a wire service, and they could get stories anywhere.

     Q. Can you give just one or two more specific examples.

     A. Yes. There was one -- actually in an article that was published
     written by a former CIA officer named James Willcot, who was not
     in the propaganda division, he was in finance. But he was so
     amazed he wrote a little article about this. And he was stationed
     in Japan one time when there was a big debate raging there over
     whether nuclear power ships should be able to dock in Japanese
     ports. It's been a very touchy issue -- at least since Hiroshima
     it's been a very touchy issue in Japan -- even peaceful uses of
     nuclear power.

     And the U.S. line was to promote the docking of nuclear power
     ships because the U.S. had more and more of them. So they wanted
     the Japanese papers to editorialize in favor of this in the debate
     that was going on.

     And Jim said he looked and he saw this guy at a nearby desk sit
     down and type -- this is a CIA officer, an employee of the U.S.
     Government -- type an editorial and then wave goodbye to
     everybody, left the office. The next morning that appeared as the
     editorial -- the lead editorial in the largest newspaper in Japan.
     Now, that level -- they didn't go to a friendly publisher and say,
     gee, we would sort of like it if you could maybe do something a
     little bit favorable to this issue. They wrote the editorial, they
     handed it to the guy. And the next day in Japanese it appears in
     the paper.

     Another thing showing the influence here in this country was
     during the Vietnam War. I don't know if -- well, some people
     might. People my age will remember it. There was -- Life magazine
     that had a cover picture of a North Vietnamese stamp that showed
     the Vietnamese shooting down American planes. And it showed U.S.
     planes with U.S. markings being burst into flames and crashing and
     U.S. pilots being killed. And it was a pretty bizarre and gruesome
     set of postage stamps.

     And there was a whole story in there basically trying to give the
     line that the Vietnamese were glorifying the killing of Americans.
     And they thought it was so great to kill Americans that they were
     putting it on their postage stamps. The only thing that was later
     learned is that these were not North Vietnamese stamps. They were
     CIA forgeries. Had never been real stamps. And the CIA was able to
     have them appear on the cover of Life magazine as if they were the
     real thing.

     That level of influence is something that many people don't
     realize. And when you read the congressional reports, page after
     page after page, it's absolutely astonishing how, given the
     urgency and given that they have hundreds of millions of dollars
     at their command, they could get almost anything to appear almost
     anywhere.

     Q. What about the FBI and domestic propaganda?

     A. Well, the FBI, there's much less documentation, again, because
     the official position is that the FBI doesn't do this. Whereas the
     official position is the CIA does do it although they tried not to
     talk about it. But what did come out in the congressional reports
     primarily is that a major FBI division that was called the crime
     reporting division was theoretically supposed to keep track of how
     federal crimes were being reported. Why that was their business, I
     don't know. But that's what its theory was.

     But in fact what it was doing was a whole division set up to keep
     track of journalists and reporters and magazines and newspapers to
     decide who could be counted on to write stories that the FBI
     wanted written, who would slant stories the way they wanted it.

     The question of whether these particular reporters were actually
     FBI employees, like so many were CIA employees, is unclear. That's
     never been admitted by the government that the FBI actually took
     its own employees and had them get a job as a correspondent on the
     newspaper, whereas we know the CIA did that in many, many places.
     There's no reason to think they couldn't have done it other than
     the fact that it hasn't yet been -- been exposed.

     But in any event, there were significant pressures available to
     the FBI to -- to use their friends. And the Church Committee
     report gives -- gives many, many examples -- copies of memos from
     Hoover on down where there would be a thing attached and say, get
     this information to our friends at the Copely News Service, get
     this information to our friends at Reader's Digest, get this to
     our friendly AP reporter and so on.

     And then, of course, they would show the clipping indicating that
     in fact someone had gotten it to their friends, and it would then
     go over the wires or appear in stories.

     Q. Let's turn now to the use of the media in this type of campaign
     against Martin Luther King, Jr. But before you do that, could you
     tell the Court and the Jury, what are the sources of -- underlying
     your testimony -- this aspect of it.

     A. Yes. I did a goodly amount of additional research and
     preparation and contemplation of appearing here. And there really
     are two main sources. The first, of course, is the various
     congressional reports that we have talked about. In addition to
     reports about the general operations or misconduct of the CIA or
     the FBI, there have been specific studies -- I don't know if they
     have been mentioned in this case, but there have been specific
     studies relating to Martin Luther King, Jr., both with respect to
     attacks on him while he was alive and also specific reports with
     respect to his murder.

     There was an entire volume published from one of the Senate
     investigations on the FBI media campaign against Dr. King. [See
     Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental
     Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United
     States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976, Book III, Dr.
     Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study --ratitor] And there was a
     House Committee that published a volume investigating his
     assassination. And these, of course, are the -- the most important
     sources for what I'm talking about and what other people have
     written about because they have a great deal of government
     documentation in them which no private journalist could ever get
     their hands on.

     There are things in there that even the best of research wouldn't
     be able to obtain. But the congressional committees had subpoena
     powers and were able to amass thousands of documents, most of
     which were photocopied and attached to their reports.

     Q. For our purposes here, as well as those sources, what other
     sources have you used?

     A. Well, I've also, of course, reviewed many books that have been
     written on the subject -- hundreds of articles. And I've -- I've
     done briefcases full of clippings that were major stories written
     about Dr. King, particularly in the last few years of his life.
     And then the -- most of the coverage in the first few years of the
     James Earl Ray case. Both before and after his guilty plea there
     was intensive coverage, as you can imagine.

     And throughout the 60's and into the early 70's, there was quite a
     bit of coverage, and those clippings that I've been able to find
     I've reviewed. Some of the sporadic coverage in the 80's and 90's
     I've also been able to assemble and review, although the level of
     that coverage has decreased very much over the last decade or so.

     Q. What do the congressional reports -- if you can summarize them,
     give some instances, what do the congressional reports tell us
     about the FBI's use of the media in general but then particularly
     as it relates to Dr. King?

     A. Well, in general, the first thing they show is that throughout
     its history, the FBI has made relations with the media a key area.
     Not so much infiltrating employees as the CIA did, but cultivating
     very, very deep connections throughout the American media. They
     had the entire division of the FBI -- the crime reporting division
     was dealing solely with developing friendly journalists,
     developing ways in which you could get what you wanted to appear
     in the papers to be there and what you didn't want not to be there
     on a level that was -- nobody realized until these -- these
     reports came out.

     The crime reporting division was keeping track of virtually every
     journalist in America that wrote anything that had to do with the
     FBI. And whether everything was being classified as friendly or
     unfriendly, it -- of course, it was somewhat complicated because
     it generally meant: Did J. Edgar Hoover like what they wrote or
     not like what they wrote? And practically -- the opinion of nobody
     else at the FBI mattered while Hoover was alive.

     But he kept charts on every significant journalist as to who was
     helpful. And when you look through the reports and the documents
     that have come out, you will see statements by Hoover and his
     immediate subordinates get this information to friendly
     journalists. Get this to our friend at U.S. News and World Report.
     Get this to some friendly reporters in Memphis. And you just see
     all that sort of stuff.

     Interestingly though, this information -- it never mattered
     whether the information was true or false. That was not what it
     was about. You find FBI planting information that's true, you find
     them planting information that's false. The critical thing was if
     they had the friend at that media place, that friend was going to
     run what they wanted without investigating it.

     Q. Could you just cut through -- tell us what the Church Committee
     said about CoIntellPro reports and explain to the Court and the
     Jury what were the CoIntellPro activities.

     A. CoIntellPro was Counter Intelligence Program, and that was the
     -- the major FBI program to counter what it conceived to be
     threats to American democracy. And it was, at least in my opinion,
     rather paranoid in what it considered threats. It had divisions
     trying to operate against communists, against socialists, against
     the New Left, against the Old Left, against what they referred to
     as Black Nationalists, what they referred to as hate groups. They
     had a separate section just on the Nation of Islam. They had a
     separate section on the Civil Rights Movement. They had a hybrid
     program on CommInfil which was to deal with the possibility that
     communists were infiltrating non-communist groups.

     So they had one section trying to disrupt groups they felt were
     communist influence or dangerous, and another one trying to
     infiltrate groups or find out about groups that they thought other
     people were infiltrating.

     Basically they -- and, of course, you have to understand, "counter
     intelligence program" was really a misnomer. Because counter
     intelligence normally means you're trying to find things out.
     Counter intelligence officers in war time and in espionage are
     supposed to be finding out information. But these were active
     committees, not passive. And what counter intelligence programs
     were, were overt attempts -- sometimes very, very complicated
     operations to disrupt organizations which they felt were a threat
     regardless of whether the organizations were committing any
     crimes.

     I mean, the irony of this is that while the FBI theoretically was
     supposed to limit itself to investigating crimes, and federal
     crimes at that, it basically took the position that, you know,
     thinking bad thoughts was a crime. Or if you didn't like the
     current government of that day, that was a crime. And if J. Edgar
     Hoover decided the group should be disrupted, then CoIntellPro
     would sit down and figure out how to disrupt it.

     Q. Where was Dr. King in this constellation? Where did they -- how
     did they regard him? How was he targeted?

     A. Well, he was just about the top of the list in terms of J.
     Edgar Hoover for reasons that are still unclear. Many books have
     been written about J. Edgar Hoover, and I don't think anybody
     quite understands what made him tick. He hated Dr. King. He made
     no bones about it. I mean, he would -- he would send letters using
     -- referring to him as garbage, referring to him as slime.

     When Martin Luther King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he
     wrote a long diatribe about how that was the most ridiculous thing
     he ever heard of in his life, and in fact started a whole thing to
     disrupt the Nobel Peace Prize program. But he and the SCLC, as Dr.
     King's organization, were by themselves a major target of the FBI
     from early on. He certainly was being investigated in the 50's. It
     wasn't until the early 60's that it really intensified.

     But Hoover was much more public about Dr. King than almost any
     other individual. He would be public about "the communists" or
     "the terrorists" or whatever. But Martin Luther King he
     specifically used -- used the most horrendous language to describe
     him. And once went on a -- the only time he ever gave a press
     interview called him -- called Martin Luther King the most
     notorious liar in the history of the United States.

     Q. Okay.

     A. And he was saying that because King had had the temerity to say
     that the FBI agents in the south weren't being terribly helpful to
     blacks who were having problems with the racism there.

     Q. Can you give an example of some of the media operations that
     the FBI and Hoover mounted against Dr. King's organization.

     A. Sure. The first really significant ones were -- were to -- to
     suggest that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was
     communist infiltrated and communist dominated. They -- the FBI had
     prepared dossiers on King and on everybody who was working with
     him and had two people who were close to Dr. King who had at some
     time in the past had some affiliations with communists.

     You should understand, because this came out later, they had no
     evidence whatsoever that either of these two people was at that
     time a communists or that either of these two people was trying to
     impose some communist line on Dr. King, but they decided to say
     that anyway.

     And they prepared dossiers on these two -- one was a white lawyer,
     Stanley Levinson, the other was a black organizer named Jack
     O'Dell. And what they did is they -- the same way, get us a friend
     at this paper, get us a friend there. They started planting
     stories. And I think I've --

     Q. Let me -- let me --

     A. -- given you one of the key ones.

     Q. Yes, let's pull up on the stand one of the stories -- screen
     one of the stories that they planted.

     A. That's the second page. I think the headline is -- right. This
     was a major story about -- about Jack O'Dell and an attempt to --
     I mean, they were attempting to discredit Dr. King and the
     organization. They were not -- they were not trying to just get
     rid of O'Dell because that would be better for the organization.
     But they spread this -- this particular clipping, I believe, is
     from The Atlanta Constitution. But it says in it that -- it makes
     reference to prior articles in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, in
     the New Orleans Times Picayune. The story which was essentially
     based on the FBI spreading this -- this information appeared all
     over the country.

     Q. Other than a general attack, is there anything -- anything else
     significant about this -- this article?

     A. Well, actually, this is a good one because it demonstrates some
     of the techniques they used. The most significant one is being
     fuzzy whenever you can. It has -- in there it talks -- it refers
     to O'Dell and says: "Has been identified as a member of the
     National Committee of the Communist Party."

     And that -- this is sort of the passive tense to avoid saying what
     -- what you know. When you say someone has been -- you don't say
     who identified him. You don't even say whether this identification
     has been confirmed. You don't say whether it's true or false. I
     mean, you know, one person anywhere can say something about
     anybody, and then you say he has been identified as a such and
     such.

     That's very important, particularly because we -- that's in the
     present tense. It says: "Has been identified as a member of the
     communist party." We know now that at the time, when the FBI gave
     this information to its friend, they knew that was untrue. Because
     they knew -- whatever might have been ten years before, they knew
     at that time that he was not a member of the Communist Party and
     yet they sent out this information saying he has been identified
     as a member of the Communist Party.

     Q. Was this a part of a broader effort on the part of the FBI to
     discredit the Black Movement and to tie the Civil Rights Movement
     to communists generally and communist infiltration?

     A. Very much so. It was one of the -- the few instances where --
     where Hoover actually testified before Congress and allowed the
     testimony to be public. He -- the line was that the -- the Black
     Movement -- the Civil Rights Movement was being exploited by
     communists. And this particular clipping is another example --
     again, this is from the New York Times -- of this program. These
     are all -- despite the fact that many of them have bylines,
     although this one does not have a byline, these are all based on
     material packets -- press packets almost that were prepared by the
     FBI and given to their -- to their friends in these -- in these
     stories.

     And in this case, it's even more significant because this was part
     of a campaign that was so organized that Hoover got his friends to
     write stories about it before his testimony became public so that
     when the testimony then became public, as it did for this one,
     people would know about it. One of his very, very close friends
     was Stewart -- Joseph Alsop, who was a syndicated national
     columnist back then. And this was Alsop's column about the
     terribly sad fact that the Civil Rights Movement in America was
     totally being run by the communists.

     This, again, was based on whatever the FBI handed him and asked
     him to publish. This was just one week before the other story
     where the -- where the testimony became public.

     Q. There was an escalating battle between Hoover's FBI and Martin
     Luther King's SCLC and the Civil Rights and then anti-war
     activities. What -- how did it intensify from the standpoint of
     media operations against Dr. King?

     A. Well, the first real escalation was in sixty -- in late '64
     when I mentioned before that Hoover gave a press conference and
     called King the most notorious liar in the country. This was sort
     of a -- it was shocking that he said it, it was shocking that he
     said it in the context of a public meeting with journalists. And
     it appeared all over the country. And the whole conference was
     reprinted in U.S. News and World Report with a short response from
     -- from Dr. King.

     That was the start of -- of a campaign which continued right up
     until -- until King's death. I mentioned before that during the
     Nobel Peace Prize period of time this was in -- the nomination was
     in late '64, and he received it in January of '65. Hoover had the
     FBI do everything they could to minimize -- he couldn't stop the
     Swedish and Norwegian governments from giving him the prize. But
     he did everything that he could to try to stop it from being
     honored here.

     There was a major banquet in Dr. King's honor in Atlanta when he
     came back from receiving the prize. Hoover got the editor of the
     Atlanta Constitution personally to go around and try and persuade
     various people not to attend the banquet. There were also a series
     of articles around this time trying to show that -- that King was
     being influenced by communists which were being -- again, we
     learned this from reports.

     The FBI, as the CIA, was actually writing the articles anonymously
     and then trying to get their friends in papers to print the
     article under somebody else's name. And there were a whole series,
     some of which actually did get printed, some of which didn't.
     There were also -- I won't go -- I mean, there are big -- hundreds
     and hundreds of pages of reports detailing all the things that the
     FBI did.

     They -- one of the most outrageous was a doctored tape recording
     that was prepared that purported to -- to be a recording of Dr.
     King engaging in raucous and possibly sexual activities with
     various people. It turned out to be -- most of it was totally
     fraudulent. And what wasn't fraudulent did not have to do with
     anything torrid going on. It was all put together. And the tape --
     in fact, the tape was originally used -- and this is one of the
     things that the House Committee found the most outrageous -- in an
     attempt to try and drive Dr. King to commit suicide.

     Shortly before he went to get the Nobel Prize, the tape was mailed
     to him with a long letter basically saying, if you don't kill
     yourself, we're going to make this public. Nothing ever happened
     because he was getting so much mail that this thing that somebody
     thought was -- somebody made a tape of one of his speeches. And
     they put it in the back room, and they didn't get to look at it
     until about nine months later, long after he had come back.

     And then they saw the note trying to get him to commit suicide.
     And then, ten years later, we discover that it was the FBI who
     wrote that note and made that tape and mailed it to Dr. King.

     THE COURT: Let's take a few seconds and stretch.

     (Brief break taken.)

     THE COURT: Bring in the Jury.

     (Jury In.)

     Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, you've described an awesome power
     that exists in government influenced and controlled, sometimes
     owned, media -- print, audio, visual media entities -- and how
     that infrastructure gets focused on opponents of the United States
     such as Martin Luther King.

     Do you see how this incredible power was brought against Dr. King
     and intensified against him during the last year of his life?

     A. Yes. I think the -- the main reason for that was very, very
     specific. There was one speech that Dr. King gave in April of 1967
     at Riverside Church in New York City where he came out against the
     war in Vietnam. And if you remember back to that period of time,
     this was a fundamental debate gripping every aspect of this
     country, the pros and cons of the involvement in Vietnam.

     And when Dr. King came out against the U.S. involvement there,
     this was immediately accepted by J. Edgar Hoover as proof that he
     was a communist, proof that he was a terrible person.

     Q. But didn't this have the effect of unifying all the forces --
     all of the intelligence forces of the United States, and so now
     just -- it was not just an FBI matter, but it -- it seemed to
     spread to military intelligence, central intelligence and other
     areas too, didn't it?

     A. Absolutely. Once Dr. King made that statement, the CIA in
     particular considered him and his movement fair game. Even to the
     extent that their operations were limited to foreign policy, the
     -- again, because of the congressional investigations, we know
     that the CIA, which people thought did not operate domestically
     within the U.S., had a huge domestic program called Operation
     Chaos which was designed to counter opposition to the Vietnam War.

     And even though they later admitted it was illegal and later
     admitted they shouldn't have been doing it, there have been whole
     books of congressional reports about all the Operation Chaos
     activity in the United States, and what they called Black
     Nationalists were a specific target of that -- that campaign.

     Q. Did this continue into 1968 in his activities with the
     Sanitation Workers' Strike in Memphis and planning for the Poor
     People's Campaign in Washington?

     A. Absolutely. The campaign against Dr. King's activities went up
     to the very last day of his life. In particular, on the -- his
     involvement with the strike in Memphis, the FBI decided at that
     point to try to spread stories that he was encouraging violence.
     One of the -- the key articles was in the Christian Science
     Monitor at the end of March of '68 and, again, gives all of the --
     the themes that the FBI wanted -- wanted planted, particularly
     about violence.

     The article uses bizarre language for something about a small
     strike in a medium-sized town that, you know, was something but
     was not like an earth-shaking event. This was the Sanitation
     Workers' Strike. And this story refers to it as a potentially
     cataclysmic racial confrontation. Not quite World War III, but
     along that kind of language.

     And stories that began to appear -- and this was just before Dr.
     King was killed -- were -- were suggesting that he was closely
     allied with violent forces.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, this Court and Jury has heard testimony from a
     former New York Times reporter who was told by his national editor
     -- Times reporters in this courtroom notwithstanding -- told by
     his national editor, Claude Sitton, to go to Memphis and nail Dr.
     King. Those were the words Earl Caldwell used in his testimony
     here. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?

     A. Oh, absolutely. Hoover was -- you see from the memos in the
     report -- and Lord knows what we don't know and haven't seen --
     was sending people out everywhere to talk to all of their friendly
     media contacts to get King. And they would usually deliver packets
     of information, much of it false, to be used as part of the -- of
     the campaign. They also were -- used a lot of interesting tactics.

     And you see in these stories a lot of fuzzy -- I mean, the story
     that's on the screen, for example, has a sentence in it near the
     end where it says: "Many blacks have mixed feelings about Dr.
     King." I mean, this is a -- they teach you in Journalism 101 not
     to use sentences like that. What does it mean "many blacks"? Many
     -- everybody had mixed feelings about everything. If you want to
     do it, you say who has what feelings.

     But the whole thing was to try to say he's violent, he's hanging
     around with violent people, and basically the blacks in this
     country shouldn't support him.

     Q. What was this operation like -- this media blitz, this media
     disinformation campaign? What was it like after Dr. King was
     killed?

     A. Well, for one thing, the attempts to discredit Dr. King --
     particularly the FBI attempts -- did not stop after his death.
     They continued to send out their little dossiers and reports and
     phony information to try and discredit his memory. They also -- in
     the beginning when, of course, the assassin had not yet been
     caught or, rather, no one yet had been caught and charged with the
     assassination, had to give the impression that the FBI was doing a
     great job.

     I mean, one of the criticisms that was unavoidable is when Hoover
     had already publicly attacked Dr. King in all these magazines and
     said he thought he was a liar and thought he was the worst problem
     facing the United States and so on, it became a problem for the
     FBI then to try and convince America that they were doing
     everything in their power to apprehend his killer. And to do that,
     they had to pull out all the stops and get all their friendly
     columnists writing story after story that they were doing
     everything they could. And also subsequently to try and add to the
     stories that they were convinced that James Earl Ray was the lone
     assassin.

     Q. Let me put up this article. This story relates to a Jack
     Anderson column.

     A. Yes. This is interesting for what it reveals later. This was a
     story that came out in 1975. That's actually an interesting
     example of Jack Anderson criticizing a group of people, of whom he
     fails to mention he was one at the time. It's something that
     happens often when columnists decide to clear the -- clear the
     slate.

     But he was reporting at this time about how the FBI had waged the
     campaign against Dr. King, how he knew about it, how he knew about
     all these gross accusations that were being -- being handed out.
     It's -- I mean, the story is only interesting because why didn't
     he say it at the time is one's first thought. But at least he
     stayed abreast of some of it. He also was able to -- to explain
     that a number of rumors about Dr. King had been proven to be not
     true. What he didn't know at the time because the Congressional
     Report came out a little bit later -- what he didn't know is that
     even the FBI at the time they were spreading the stories when Dr.
     King was alive knew that the stories were not true.

     Q. Now, at the same time they were trying to discredit Dr. King
     and continued to discredit his name after he was killed, they were
     trying to enhance the -- the manhunt and the law enforcement work
     during that time.

     A. Yes. Not only enhance, but use hyperbole that was pretty
     bizarre. Although, of course, you can understand the pressures
     that were on them when no one had been caught. Drew Pearson, who
     was a very close friend of Hoover's, had a nationally syndicated
     column and wrote one basically designed to try and kill the rumors
     that Hoover wasn't trying hard because he didn't like King.

     And in it Pearson says he is convinced that the FBI is conducting
     perhaps the most painstaking exhaustive manhunt ever before
     undertaken in the United States. Why -- how he would know is
     beyond us, but that's clearly what Hoover told him to say. They
     also -- I don't have the clipping here. But they also had another
     one of their very close operatives, Jeremiah O'Leary, who was then
     with the Washington Star, did an article for the Reader's Digest.
     And he went one beyond Pearson and said it was the greatest
     manhunt in law enforcement history in the world. So he was now
     saying this wasn't only the greatest manhunt in America, it was
     the greatest manhunt ever, anywhere.

     There were -- there are a whole -- and, of course, when Ray was
     arrested, then there was a state of sort of self-congratulatory
     columns done by the same friends of the FBI showing what a
     wonderful job they had done.

     Q. Are there any other aspects of this coverage after Dr. King's
     death that were clearly media operations?

     A. Well, there certainly are in my opinion. At this point, once we
     get beyond the things that have been admitted in the Congressional
     Reports, I'm drawing my conclusions based on my own experience and
     expertise. But it certainly seems clear that there were media
     operations around -- not only that the FBI had done a wonderful
     job, but also on the -- the campaign to demonstrate that -- not
     only that James Earl Ray had done it, but that he had acted alone.

     Q. What are the possible operations that you actually see?

     A. Well, there -- you see in stories, again by friends of the FBI,
     statements like: It looks like the theory that there was a
     conspiracy is untrue. The FBI has exploded the theory that there
     was a conspiracy. The -- even people who had -- see, they -- they
     got caught a little bit because in the beginning they were
     planting stories that had conspiracy -- I mean, there was a story
     that the FBI planted at the very beginning saying that Dr. King
     had been killed by the husband -- by an irate husband of a lover
     of his.

     Now, later -- ten years later we saw that this was invented and
     that they had made up this story. But then they were sort of
     stuck. Because if you're saying that Ray was hired by somebody
     else to do it, that's a conspiracy. So then they had to drop that
     story because now the line was there was no conspiracy. Now
     they're saying -- and the same people. Pearson mentioned that
     story and then later on denounced the generally prevalent theory
     that the murder involved a conspiracy without pointing out that he
     was one of the people who were part of the original prevalent
     theory.

     Even -- particularly, actually, after the guilty plea, when it got
     -- there was no longer a judicial proceeding going on about which
     they could feed the stories they wanted to, they still felt a
     compulsion to periodically come up with stories that there was no
     conspiracy, there was no plot. This one on the screen being
     another one of these -- these examples.

     Q. This is the continuation of the lone killer, lone nut gunman
     that was -- had to be perpetuated throughout the period of James
     Earl Ray's incarceration?

     A. Absolutely. It never -- because Ray insisted virtually from the
     day of the plea that there was a conspiracy, they felt compelled
     to -- to continue to plant these -- these stories. They -- they
     went on for a number of years at a very intense level, and then it
     sort of petered off.

     But in the first year after the plea of guilty, Anderson wrote a
     number of columns saying there just wasn't any conspiracy. Max
     Lerner wrote columns saying Ray was the killer, there's nothing to
     the conspiracy theory. And when -- another example of how they --
     they fuzzied it was even at the time of the plea, there was a
     story on the -- in the Washington Post, which I think I've given
     you a copy of, where they said: No evidence of any plot, Jury is
     told.

     Now that isn't really what the Jury was told. But if you read the
     story, it was that the prosecution was not presenting any evidence
     of a plot, which is very different from saying -- of course, they
     didn't present any evidence that there wasn't a plot either. Yet
     if you look at that headline, it looks like something has been
     said and done in court showing a jury there was no -- no plot. And
     that's not what happened. It wasn't -- it wasn't discussed either
     way.

     And they -- they -- there was a story I believe the next week in
     the Washington Post where the title of the story was: "Ray Alone
     Still Talks of a Plot." Which, again, journalistically was
     ridiculous. Because there were millions upon millions of Americans
     talking about whether there was a plot. And a story which, you
     know, tries to create the impression that James Earl Ray was stark
     raving mad and was the only person in America who thought there
     might have been a plot.

     That campaign went -- and, in fact, they then said, well, what we
     really meant was that he's the only person who is officially
     involved in the proceedings and thinks there's a plot, everyone
     else doesn't. And even that wasn't true because the next day there
     was a story in the papers that the -- the judge here -- the judge
     at the time, Judge Battle, wasn't sure and thought maybe there had
     been a plot and certainly made it clear that under Tennessee law
     if further -- if co-conspirators came up or were arrested or
     indicted, they would be subject to -- to trial.

     Q. Let me pass this article to you and ask you to look at that,
     Mr. Schaap. That's an article that appeared in the New York Times,
     Column 1 on the 17th of November, 1978, right at the time when the
     -- both Ray brothers were being questioned and examined in public
     before the House Select Committee on Assassination. And that
     article speaks of an independent investigation by the New York
     Times and the FBI and the Select Committee, into an Alton,
     Illinois, bank robbery -- an investigation which never took place
     because it's now been established.

     Is that an example of the type of disinformation that one finds in
     an attempt to train the public minds?

     A. Oh, absolutely. Given the fact that subsequently it was shown
     that they were not suspects in that robbery, it -- the first thing
     it means is that the -- the reporter is saying some things which
     had to have been simply fed to him and not checked. Because if
     you're saying something happened, which in fact very, very basic
     journalism would have proven didn't happen, you are either doing
     it on your own to spread some disinformation, which is extremely
     unlikely, or you're being asked to put a spin on something that
     you know is going to -- to be coming out.

     The -- again, I'm -- I don't know what happened in Alton,
     Illinois. But if, as I understand there's been testimony, it is
     clear that the Ray brothers were not suspects in that case, this
     story is clearly disinformation because it's designed to make it
     appear not only that they were suspects in that case but that they
     did it, and to make it appear that two investigations confirmed
     that whereas, since we know it wasn't true, it's impossible that
     either investigation could have confirmed it.

     Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has been a long road -- how you
     regard -- what is your explanation for the fact that there has
     been such little national media coverage of these -- of this trial
     and this evidence and this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
     which is the first trial ever to be able to produce evidence on
     this assassination -- what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
     is not sounding but is in fact totally silent -- almost totally
     silent?

     A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation
     is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also
     getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first
     -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the
     incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of
     time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has
     been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it
     all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short
     period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women.
     But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all
     by himself.

     And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for
     30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it.
     Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing
     me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it
     just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right
     to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect
     over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the
     brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't --
     couldn't be.

     Q. Not only -- excuse me. Not only psychological, but weren't you
     also saying neurological?

     A. Yes. I'm not a doctor. But what I understood is that these --
     the brain's patterns of thinking are a physical aspect of the
     human brain. That's how we develop patterns of thought, how we
     develop associations.

     And then, of course, the Mighty Wurlitzer we talked about is still
     there, it's still playing its tune. And even though you might
     think 30 years is a long time, that almost everybody who might get
     in trouble is probably dead by now, that's -- that's how it works.
     People obtain influence, people make vast sums of money through
     this propaganda. Those people pass that influence on to others,
     they pass the money down the line, and all of that can be at risk
     for a very, very long time.

     There are documents from the investigation of the assassination of
     Abraham Lincoln that are still classified. Don't ask me why, but
     they were originally sealed for 100 years. And then in 1965
     President Linden Johnson said, well, it's so close to the Kennedy
     assassination, if people read the Lincoln documents, it might make
     them think funny things about Kennedy, so he classified them for
     another 50 years. So now the grand children of anybody around
     Lincoln was around are long dead, and these documents are still --
     still classified. And we're talking today about a case that's 100
     years more immediate than Lincoln. And the establishment is still
     the establishment.

     Q. Mr. Schaap, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon.

     A. Thank you.

     MR. PEPPER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

     THE COURT: Just a moment. Mr. Garrison?

     MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I have no questions of this witness.

     THE COURT: You have nothing. Very well. Sir, you may stand down.
     Thank you very much.

     THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

     (Witness excused.)

     (Court adjourned until December 1, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.)






     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.html  (hypertext)
     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.txt   (text only)
     http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.pdf  (print ready)
Published in INFILTRATION ARCHIVE

The US. Government Funded Your Favorite ‘NSA-proof’ Software.

The Snowden revelations about the NSA’s spying programs have shocked the world. While there was earlier evidence of US government spying, few thought that the NSA would try to wire-tap the entire planet. Basically, our online communications were essentially sitting ducks for curious NSA employees. Soon after the Snowden leaks, software programs were being marketed as “NSA-proof” on websites like Prism-Break. Many people believed that these software programs would make them safer. The truth however is that many of these programs were actually funded by the US government. Recently, the Associated Press published a story on USAID’s plot to fund a twitter-like app named ZunZuneo to help foment unrest in Cuba. USAID is not the only US government agency financing technology projects.

For most software projects, there are no requirements to publish their funding sources. On many of the home-pages and download pages that were visited, there was no clear indication that any of the projects received US government funding. Perhaps the exception was the Tor Project which has a sponsors page, but even that was problematic. Most people would not have known that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, SRI International, or Radio Free Asia are either US government agencies or “quasi” US government agencies. The vast majority of Tor Project’s funding continues to be through US government funding. The Tor Project’s sponsors page also lists “An anonymous North American ISP” and “An anonymous North American NGO” which perhaps leads to even more questions. Even stranger, is a mysterious “Sponsor O” that is on Tor Project’s website. “Sponsor O” appears to be a US government agency (USG is a common abbreviation) that wants to finance a secure chat program. The Tor Project website states, “The contractor shall concentrate efforts on outreach to Iranian end users and potential supporters in the technology community; to include train the trainer sessions, advertising on social networks, and interviews on radio and television stations operated by and for the Iranian diaspora.” Despite numerous requests, Tor Project has refused to reveal the identity of “Sponsor O”.

Actual organizational chart from the Open Technology Fund website.

1970386_520865104699200_905208814_nAnother software program that has recently come into vogue with the NSA revelations is Cryptocat. There is no sponsors page on Cryptocat’s home page to be found. Buried deep in Cryptocat’s blog is an annual report which shows that it received over 95% of its funding from Radio Free Asia in 2012. While Radio Free Asia is listed as a private nonprofit, it largely functions as part of the US government. The US Congress established Radio Free Asia and funds Radio Free Asia under the supervision of the US government agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In addition, the Broadcasting Board of Governors appoints the president of Radio Free Asia, and the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, also serves on Radio Free Asia’s corporate board. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is not a benign US government agency; it sees itself as a strategic part of the War on Terror and part of the US government’s soft power influence abroad. The Broadcasting Board of Governors even sees itself as combatting groups like Boko Haram and al Shabaab which the US government lists as terrorist organizations. The Broadcasting Board of Governor’s even stated in their 2014 Congressional budget request that, “the United States must retain a global information capacity as part of the country’s effective soft power projection.” Radio Free Asia funds many software projects through its Open Technology Fund including Cryptocat with received $184,000 between 2012 and 2013.

Cryptocat’s main developer, Nadim Kobessi tweeted:

 

Open Whisper Systems has built two apps that have gained considerable popularity after the NSA revelations. TextSecure, created by Open Whisper Systems, is a popular app for securing text chats. Open Whisper System’s other Android app called Redphone promises to encrypt phone calls. The RedPhone app actually runs on VoIP (voice over internet protocol), so it uses servers. After emailing Open Whisper System’s main developer, there were some interesting responses. Open Whisper System’s developer said that he does not use any server space provided by the Open Technology Fund, but refused to say who was actually hosting users’ data. When asked why the Open Technology Fund was not listed as a sponsor on Open Whisper System’s website, the developer replied, “RFA has no influence over what we do at all.” It is also important to point out that Open Whisper Systems’ developer sits on the Open Technology Fund’s advisory council. The developer also mentioned that Open Whisper Systems accepts funding from many organizations. So who else is funding Open Whisper Systems? No one knows; there’s still no sponsors listed on Open Whisper System’s home page. The Open Technology Fund listed Open Whisper Systems as accepting $455,000 in 2013.

Mailvelope promises to be an easy tool to help users encrypt their emails. Normally, email encryption programs are either built-in or additions to an email client. Mailvelope is different, because it is actually an extension for Google’s Chrome browser. Yes, that same Chrome browser which is notorious for tracking users and collecting data. Several people have warned not to use Mailvelope. They warned that it would be easy for Google to steal the encryption keys and thus rendering all the email encryption useless. In addition, Google, the maker of Chrome, knew about and participated in the NSA’s mass surveillance programs. Mailvelope does have a very tiny thank you to “Open Tecnology Fund(RFA)” at the bottom of its blog page for sponsoring a security audit. Mailvelope has received $140,320 from the Open Technology Fund.

In perhaps a bizarre coincidence, while the US government has been allegedly trying to extradite Julian Assange of Wikileaks, the US government also has been funding a similar project. Wikileaks and GlobalLeaks have similar sounding names, but they are completely different organizations. GlobalLeaks seeks to build a secure open source platform to make whistle-blowing easier. The GlobalLeaks website leads to Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights. The Hermes Center lists USAID Serbia and Radio Free Asia as its sponsors. Seeing USAID Serbia show up as a sponsor is extremely unusual. Back in the late 1990s, USAID Serbia was involved in overthrowing the Milosevic regime by funding protesters and opposition candidates to the tune of several million dollars; perhaps, that will be a story for another day. GlobalLeaks received $108,400 from the Open Technology Fund in 2012.

GlobalLeaks is hoping for more Open Technology Funding this year.

 

The Open Technology Fund also financed GSM Map by SRLabs. The GSM Map’s purpose is to find security vulnerabilities in mobile phone networks around the world with the aim to make mobile networks more secure. Most of the world uses the GSM standard for mobile phone networks: hence, the GSM Map. The financing for the project is not displayed anywhere on the website that could be found. GSM Map even asks users to download software and upload their own data for the project. Several country reports have been published on GSM Maps which shows security vulnerabilities in GSM networks such as the ability to track users, impersonate a user, and the ability to intercept data.

Open Technology Fund, a US government sponsored program comments on the “Cuban twitter” revelations. Irony?
10250290_534237916695252_874634399_n

Perhaps scariest of all is that the Open Technology Fund gave $1.1 million dollars to help build what is called a “Global Secure Cloud Infrastructure”. The Open Technology Fund’s website states that 10 internet freedom projects are now using this cloud. Which software projects are using the US government’s cloud? No one knows, because the Open Technology Fund refuses to tell anyone.

Security-In-A-Box seeks to train activists in the best methods for keeping safe online and their information secure. Security-In-A-Box is created by the Frontline Defenders(partially funded by Irish government) and the Tactical Tech Collective. Security-In-A-Box received $106,164 from the Open Technology Fund in 2013. Jillian C York, who works for the Electronics Frontier Foundation (EFF) and also sits on the Open Technology Fund’s Advisory Council, likes to recommend Security-In-A-Box to activists around the world including in the US. Cryptocat also promoted itself in the US through several hackathons(additional link). Tor Project also markets itself to activists in the US. Two Tor Project employees(additional link) even went to talk to Occupy Wall Street about how to use Tor.

When software projects receive funding from Radio Free Asia and market themselves to Americans, it might actually be illegal. The Smith-Mundt Act prohibited the US government from funding propaganda targeted at Americans. The NDAA 2013 (National Defense Authorization Act) repealed some of the language in the Smith-Mundt Act. Congress’ intent was to make news reports funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors available on request to Americans. The partial repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act was never intended to fund and market software programs to Americans. In fact, the NDAA 2013 (HR 4310, Section 1078(c)) states, “No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States” (Smith-Mundt section).

Technology rights activist, Cory Doctorow, is a proud Open Technology Fund advisor.

 

If the Open Technology Fund had never published the projects that they sponsor, their true funding sources may have never been known. The most commonly used open source license still does not require any financial disclosure at all. Which ultimately leads to a question: who else is the US government funding?

Open Technology Fund’s 2013 annual report.

Published in Police State USA

In 1948 Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects. Soon afterwards it was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the Central Intelligence Agency. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

In 1951 Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal organizations he had been a member of in the later 1940s. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative".

One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), Charles Douglas Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman) these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

After 1953 the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. By this time Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. These organizations were run by people with well-known right-wing views such as William Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time Magazine and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (Christian Science Monitor).

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning of funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers. Frank Wisner was constantly looked for ways to help convince the public of the dangers of communism. In 1954 Wisner arranged for the funding the Hollywood production of Animal Farm, the animated allegory based on the book written by George Orwell.

According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was also able to restrict newspapers from reporting about certain events. For example, the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran and Guatemala.

Thomas Braden, head of the of International Organizations Division (IOD), played an important role in Operation Mockingbird. Many years later he revealed his role in these events: "If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe - a Labour leader - suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war - the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first. Journalists were a target, labor unions a particular target - that was one of the activities in which the communists spent the most money."

In August, 1952, the Office of Policy Coordination and the Office of Special Operations (the espionage division) were merged to form the Directorate of Plans (DPP). Frank Wisner became head of this new organization and Richard Helms became his chief of operations. Mockingbird was now the responsibility of the DPP.

J. Edgar Hoover became jealous of the CIA's growing power. He described the OPC as "Wisner's gang of weirdos" and began carrying out investigations into their past. It did not take him long to discover that some of them had been active in left-wing politics in the 1930s. This information was passed to who started making attacks on members of the OPC. Hoover also gave McCarthy details of an affair that Frank Wisner had with Princess Caradja in Romania during the war. Hoover, claimed that Caradja was a Soviet agent.

Joseph McCarthy also began accusing other senior members of the CIA as being security risks. McCarthy claimed that the CIA was a "sinkhole of communists" and claimed he intended to root out a hundred of them. One of his first targets was Cord Meyer, who was still working for Operation Mockingbird. In August, 1953, Richard Helms, Wisner's deputy at the OPC, told Meyer that Joseph McCarthy had accused him of being a communist. The Federal Bureau of Investigation added to the smear by announcing it was unwilling to give Meyer "security clearance". However, the FBI refused to explain what evidence they had against Meyer. Allen W. Dulles and both came to his defence and refused to permit a FBI interrogation of Meyer.

Joseph McCarthy did not realise what he was taking on. Wisner unleashed Mockingbird on McCarthy. Drew Pearson, Joe Alsop, Jack Anderson, Walter Lippmann and Ed Murrow all went into attack mode and McCarthy was permanently damaged by the press coverage orchestrated by Wisner.

Mockingbird was very active during the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. People like Henry Luce was able to censor stories that appeared too sympathetic towards the plight of Arbenz. Allen W. Dulles was even able to keep left-wing journalists from travelling to Guatemala. This including Sydney Gruson of the New York Times.

In 1955 President Dwight Eisenhower established the 5412 Committee in order to keep a check on the CIA's covert activities. The committee (also called the Special Group) included the CIA director, the national security adviser, and the deputy secretaries at State and Defence and had the responsibility to decide whether covert actions were "proper" and in the national interest. It was also decided to include Richard B. Russell, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. However, as Allen W. Dulles was later to admit, because of "plausible deniability" planned covert actions were not referred to the 5412 Committee.

Dwight Eisenhower became concerned about CIA covert activities and in 1956 appointed David Bruce as a member of the President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities (PBCFIA). Eisenhower asked Bruce to write a report on the CIA. It was presented to Eisenhower on 20th December, 1956. Bruce argued that the CIA's covert actions were "responsible in great measure for stirring up the turmoil and raising the doubts about us that exists in many countries in the world today." Bruce was also highly critical of Mockingbird. He argued: "what right have we to go barging around in other countries buying newspapers and handling money to opposition parties or supporting a candidate for this, that, or the other office."

After Richard Bissell lost his post as Director of Plans in 1962, Tracy Barnes took over the running of Mockingbird. According to Evan Thomas (The Very Best Men) Barnes planted editorials about political candidates who were regarded as pro-CIA.

In 1963, John McCone, the director of the CIA, discovered that Random House intended to publish Invisible Government by David Wise and Thomas Ross. McCone discovered that the book intended to look at his links with the Military Industrial Congress Complex. The authors also claimed that the CIA was having a major influence on American foreign policy. This included the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran (1953) and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954). The book also covered the role that the CIA played in the Bay of Pigs operation, the attempts to remove President Sukarno in Indonesia and the covert operations taking place in Laos and Vietnam.

John McCone called in Wise and Ross to demand deletions on the basis of galleys the CIA had secretly obtained from Random House. The authors refused to made these changes and Random House decided to go ahead and publish the book. The CIA considered buying up the entire printing of Invisible Government but this idea was rejected when Random House pointed out that if this happened they would have to print a second edition. McCone now formed a special group to deal with the book and tried to arrange for it to get bad reviews.

Invisible Government was published in 1964. It was the first full account of America's intelligence and espionage apparatus. In the book Wise and Ross argued that the "Invisible Government is made up of many agencies and people, including the intelligence branches of the State and Defense Departments, of the Army, Navy and Air Force". However, they claimed that the most important organization involved in this process was the CIA.

John McCone also attempted to stop Edward Yates from making a documentary on the CIA for the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). This attempt at censorship failed and NBC went ahead and broadcast this critical documentary.

In June, 1965, Desmond FitzGerald was appointed as head of the Directorate for Plans. He now took charge of Mockingbird. At the end of 1966 FitzGerald discovered that Ramparts, a left-wing publication, was planning to publish that the CIA had been secretly funding the National Student Association. FitzGerald ordered Edgar Applewhite to organize a campaign against the magazine. Applewhite later told Evan Thomas for his book, The Very Best Men: "I had all sorts of dirty tricks to hurt their circulation and financing. The people running Ramparts were vulnerable to blackmail. We had awful things in mind, some of which we carried off."

This dirty tricks campaign failed to stop Ramparts publishing this story in March, 1967. The article, written by Sol Stern, was entitled NSA and the CIA. As well as reporting CIA funding of the National Student Association it exposed the whole system of anti-Communist front organizations in Europe, Asia, and South America. It named Cord Meyer as a key figure in this campaign. This included the funding of the literary journal Encounter.

In May 1967 Thomas Braden responded to this by publishing an article entitled, I'm Glad the CIA is Immoral, in the Saturday Evening Post, where he defended the activities of the International Organizations Division unit of the CIA. Braden also confessed that the activities of the CIA had to be kept secret from Congress. As he pointed out in the article: "In the early 1950s, when the cold war was really hot, the idea that Congress would have approved many of our projects was about as likely as the John Birch Society's approving Medicare."

Meyer's role in Operation Mockingbird was further exposed in 1972 when he was accused of interfering with the publication of a book, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia by Alfred W. McCoy. The book was highly critical of the CIA's dealings with the drug traffic in Southeast Asia. The publisher, who leaked the story, had been a former colleague of Meyer's when he was a liberal activist after the war.

Further details of Operation Mockingbird was revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to the Congress report published in 1976: "The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets." Church argued that the cost of misinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year.

Frank Church showed that it was CIA policy to use clandestine handling of journalists and authors to get information published initially in the foreign media in order to get it disseminated in the United States. Church quotes from one document written by the Chief of the Covert Action Staff on how this process worked (page 193). For example, he writes: “Get books published or distributed abroad without revealing any U.S. influence, by covertly subsidizing foreign publicans or booksellers.” Later in the document he writes: “Get books published for operational reasons, regardless of commercial viability”. Church goes onto report that “over a thousand books were produced, subsidized or sponsored by the CIA before the end of 1967”. All these books eventually found their way into the American market-place. Either in their original form (Church gives the example of the Penkovskiy Papers) or repackaged as articles for American newspapers and magazines.

In another document published in 1961 the Chief of the Agency’s propaganda unit wrote: “The advantage of our direct contact with the author is that we can acquaint him in great detail with our intentions; that we can provide him with whatever material we want him to include and that we can check the manuscript at every stage… (the Agency) must make sure the actual manuscript will correspond with our operational and propagandistic intention.”

Church quotes Thomas H. Karamessines as saying: “If you plant an article in some paper overseas, and it is a hard-hitting article, or a revelation, there is no way of guaranteeing that it is not going to be picked up and published by the Associated Press in this country” (page 198).

By analyzing CIA documents Church was able to identify over 50 U.S. journalists who were employed directly by the Agency. He was aware that there were a lot more who enjoyed a very close relationship with the CIA who were “being paid regularly for their services, to those who receive only occasional gifts and reimbursements from the CIA” (page 195).

Church pointed out that this was probably only the tip of the iceberg because the CIA refused to “provide the names of its media agents or the names of media organizations with which they are connected” (page 195). Church was also aware that most of these payments were not documented. This was the main point of the Otis Pike Report. If these payments were not documented and accounted for, there must be a strong possibility of financial corruption taking place. This includes the large commercial contracts that the CIA was responsible for distributing. Pike’s report actually highlighted in 1976 what eventually emerged in the 1980s via the activities of CIA operatives such as Edwin Wilson, Thomas Clines, Ted Shackley, Raphael Quintero, Richard Secord and Felix Rodriguez.

Church also identified E. Howard Hunt as an important figure in Operation Mockingbird. He points out how Hunt arranged for books to be reviewed by certain writers in the national press. He gives the example of how Hunt arranged for a “CIA writer under contract” to write a hostile review of a Edgar Snow book in the New York Times (page 198).

Church comes up with this conclusion to his examination of this issue: “In examining the CIA’s past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.”

In February, 1976, George Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” However, he added that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.

Carl Bernstein, who had worked with Bob Woodward in the investigation of Watergate, provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in Rolling Stone in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a 25 year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA: "Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad."

It is almost certain that Bernstein had encountered Operation Mockingbird while working on his Watergate investigation. For example, Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great) has argued that Deep Throat was senior CIA official, Richard Ober, who was running Operation Chaos for Richard Nixon during this period.

According to researchers such as Steve Kangas, Angus Mackenzie and Alex Constantine, Operation Mockingbird was not closed down by the CIA in 1976. For example, in 1998 Kangas argued that CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world."

On 8th February, 1999, Kangas was found dead in the bathroom of the Pittsburgh offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in Salon Magazine, (19th March, 1999) Andrew Leonard asked: "Why did the police report say the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into Kangas' past?"

(1) Thomas Braden, Saturday Evening Post (20th May, 1967)

In the early 1950s, when the cold war was really hot, the idea that Congress would have approved many of our (CIA) projects was about as likely as the John Birch Society's approving Medicare.

(2) John Playford, Political Scientists and the CIA, Australian Left Review (1968)

The role of US trade unions and student bodies in Cold War, projects inspired and financed by the huge, international agency of subversion known as the Central Intelligence Agency, is now widely known in Australia. Far less publicity has been given to the ties that were shown to exist between the CIA and the US Information Agency (USIA), the propaganda arm of the US government, while nothing at all has appeared in the press on the links revealed between the USIA and Dr. Evron M. Kirkpatrick, Executive Director of the prestigious American Political Science Association (APSA), which has a membership of about 16,000. 4 Before being appointed the first full-time Executive Director of APSA in 1954, Kirkpatrick held a succession of senior posts in the State Department: Chief of the External Research Staff 1948-52, Chief of the Psychological Intelligence and Research Staff 1952-54, and Deputy Director of the Office of Intelligence Research 1954. In 1956 he edited Target: The World Communist Propaganda Activities in 1955, which was published by the Macmillan Co. of New York. In the Preface, he drew attention to the fact that the US Government had devoted systematic attention to research on Communist propaganda: “Many social scientists are aware of the work the government is doing and have seen some of its results; many have participated in it. The present volume has been made possible only by drawing upon this government research, and it is the product, therefore, of the work of many people.” In the following year, Kirkpatrick edited and Macmillan published a companion volume entitled Year of Crisis - Communist Propaganda Activities in 1956. Both works bear all the earmarks of a USIA operation...

Kirkpatrick has also been President of Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR) since its formation in 1955. A non-profit research organisation set up by a group of social Scientists, lawyers and businessmen to help the USIA distribute more persuasive and polished literature both in the US and abroad, OPR reads and gives expert opinion on books which USIA then plants with publishers, without the sponsorship being publicized. It employed on a part-time basis, according to Kirkpatrick, more than a hundred social scientists, many of them members of APSA. Sol Stern has correctly summed up OPR as “a Cold War-oriented strategy organization.”

Kirkpatrick’s wife, Mrs. Jean J. Kirkpatrick, is a staff member of Trinity College in Washington DC, a Catholic women’s college conducted by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur. From 1951 to 1953 she had been an intelligence research analyst in the State Department, and since 1956 she has been a consultant to OPR. Mrs. Kirkpatrick has also had close connections with the USIA. She edited and wrote the introductory essay for The Strategy of Deception: A Study in World-Wide Communist Tactics, which was published in 1963 by Farrar, Straus and Co. of New York, and made a “special alternate selection” by the Book-of-the-Month Club. At no time was it mentioned that the USIA subsidised the book’s creation. The USIA described its venture into covert publishing as the “book development program,” of which the USIA official then in charge of it, Reed Harris, stated in testimony before the House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee in March 1964:

This is a program under which we can have books written to our own specifications, books that would not otherwise be put out, especially those books that have strong anti-communist content, and follow other themes that are particularly useful for our program. Under the book development program, we control the thing from the very idea down to the final edited manuscript.

Subsequently, the Director of the USIA, Leonard Marks, appeared before the same body in September 1966 and was asked why it was wrong “to let the American people know when they buy and read the book that it was developed under government sponsorship?” His reply was straight to the point: “It minimises their value.”

The USIA did not pay Farrar, Straus; it paid $US 16,500 to The New Leader, whose editor, the late S. M. Levitas, conceived of the book and sold the idea to the USIA. A liberal militantly anti-Communist journal, The New Leader was for more than thirty years under the editorship of Levitas, “a bitter anti-Communist out of the East European Socialist tradition” who died in 1961. In recent years, The New Leader has lost much of the blind anti-Communism which allowed it to accept too readily the positions of the “China Lobby” and the “Vietnam Lobby.”

(3) Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman: The Life and Unsolved Murder of Presidential Mistress Mary Meyer (1998)

The social connections with journalists were a crucial part of the CIA's propaganda machine. Chief among CIA friends were the Alsop brothers. Joseph Alsop wrote a column with his brother Stewart for the New York Herald Tribune and they occasionally penned articles at the suggestion of Frank Wisner, based upon classified information leaked to them. In exchange, they provided CIA friends with observations gathered on trips abroad. Such give-and-take was not unusual among the Georgetown set in the 1950s. The CIA also made friends with Washington Post publisher Phil Graham, Post managing editor Alfred Friendly, and New York Times Washington bureau chief James Reston, whose next-door neighbor was Frank Wisner. Ben Bradlee, while working for the State Department as a press attache in the American embassy in Paris, produced propaganda regarding the Rosenbergs' spying conviction and death sentence in cooperation with the CIA... Some newspaper executives - Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, among them - actually signed secrecy agreements with the CIA...

When Carl Bernstein reported that one CIA official had called Stewart Alsop a CIA agent, Joe Alsop defended his brother to Bernstein, saying: "I dare say he did perform some tasks-he just did the correct things as an American.... The Founding Fathers (of the CIA) were close personal friends of ours.... It was a social thing, my dear fellow."

Cord Meyer developed and nurtured his own friendships among journalists. He seconded the nomination of Washington Post writer Walter Pincus for membership in the Waltz Group, a Washington social organization. Pincus went on to become the Post's premier intelligence reporter. Cord also maintained friendly ties with William C. Baggs of the Miami News and foreign-affairs writer Herb Gold. Cord's ties to academia served him when he needed favors from publishers and journalists. In some accounts, he and Time writer C. D. Jackson together recruited Steinem. According to his journal, Cord dined at the Paris home of American novelist James Jones. He was also close to Chattanooga Times writer Charles Bartlett throughout his life.

(4) Thomas Braden, interview included in the Granada Television program, World in Action: The Rise and Fall of the CIA (June, 1975)

It never had to account for the money it spent except to the President if the President wanted to know how much money it was spending. But otherwise the funds were not only unaccountable, they were unvouchered, so there was really no means of checking them - "unvouchered funds" meaning expenditures that don't have to be accounted for.... If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe - a Labour leader - suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... I don't mean to imply that there were a great many of them that were handed out as Christmas presents. They were handed out for work well performed or in order to perform work well.... Politicians in Europe, particularly right after the war, got a lot of money from the CIA....

Since it was unaccountable, it could hire as many people as it wanted. It never had to say to any committee - no committee said to it - "You can only have so many men." It could do exactly as it pleased. It made preparations therefore for every contingency. It could hire armies; it could buy banks. There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war - the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first.

Journalists were a target, labor unions a particular target - that was one of the activities in which the communists spent the most money. They set up a successful communist labor union in France right after the war. We countered it with Force Ouvriere. They set up this very successful communist labor union in Italy, and we countered it with another union.... We had a vast project targeted on the intellectuals - "the battle for Picasso's mind," if you will. The communists set up fronts which they effectively enticed a great many particularly the French intellectuals to join. We tried to set up a counterfront. (This was done through funding of social and cultural organizations such as the Pan-American Foundation, the International Marketing Institute, the International Development Foundation, the American Society of African Culture, and the Congress of Cultural Freedom.) I think the budget for the Congress of Cultural Freedom one year that I had charge of it was about $800,000, $900,000, which included, of course, the subsidy for the Congress's magazine, Encounter. That doesn't mean that everybody that worked for Encounter or everybody who wrote for Encounter knew anything about it. Most of the people who worked for Encounter and all but one of the men who ran it had no idea that it was paid for by the CIA.

(5) Angus Mackenzie, Secrets: The CIA War at Home (1997)

Following the buildup of U.S. troops in Vietnam and the assassination of Diem, Sheinbaum decided it was his patriotic duty to publicize information that he hoped might put the brakes on U.S. involvement. Writing about the connections between Michigan State University, the CIA, and the Saigon police (with the help of Robert Scheer, a young investigative reporter), the Sheinbaum story was to appear in the June 1966 issue of Ramparts magazine. The article disposed that Michigan State University had been secretly used by the CIA to train Saigon police and to keep an inventory of ammunition for grenade launchers, Browning automatic rifles, and .50 caliber machine guns, as well as to write the South Vietnamese constitution. The problem, in Sheinbaum's view, was that such secret funding of academics to execute government programs undercut scholarly integrity. When scholars are forced into a conflict of interest, he wrote, "where is the source of serious intellectual criticism that would help us avoid future Vietnams?"

Word of Sheinbaum's forthcoming article caused consternation on the seventh floor of CIA headquarters. On April 18, 1966, Director of Central Intelligence William F. Raborn Jr. notified his director of security that he wanted a "run down" on Ramparts magazine on a "high priority basis." This strongly worded order would prove to be a turning point for the Agency. To "run down" a domestic news publication because it had exposed questionable practices of the CIA was clearly in violation of the 1947 National Security Act's prohibition on domestic operations and meant the CIA eventually would have to engage in a cover-up. The CIA director of security, Howard J. Osborn, was also told: "The Director [Raborn] is particularly interested in the authors of the article, namely, Stanley Sheinbaum and Robert Scheer. He is also interested in any other individuals who worked for the magazine."

Word of Sheinbaum's forthcoming article caused consternation on the seventh floor of CIA headquarters. On April 18, 1966, Director of Central Intelligence William F. Raborn Jr. notified his director of security that he wanted a "run down" on Ramparts magazine on a "high priority basis." This strongly worded order would prove to be a turning point for the Agency. To "run down" a domestic news publication because it had exposed questionable practices of the CIA was clearly in violation of the 1947 National Security Act's prohibition on domestic operations and meant the CIA eventually would have to engage in a cover-up. The CIA director of security, Howard J. Osborn, was also told: "The Director [Raborn] is particularly interested in the authors of the article, namely, Stanley Sheinbaum and Robert Scheer. He is also interested in any other individuals who worked for the magazine."

Osborn's deputies had just two days to prepare a special briefing on Ramparts for the director. By searching existing CIA files they were able to assemble dossiers on approximately twenty-two of the fifty-five Ramparts writers and editors, which itself indicates the Agency's penchant for collecting information on American critics of government policies. Osborn was able to tell Raborn that Ramparts had grown from a Catholic lay journal into a publication with a staff of more than fifty people in New York, Paris, and Munich, including two active members of the U.S. Communist Party. The most outspoken of the CIA critics at the magazine was not a Communist but a former Green Beret veteran, Donald Duncan. Duncan had written, according to then CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms, "We will continue to be in danger as long as the CIA is deciding policy and manipulating nations." Of immediate concern to Raborn, however, was Osborn's finding that Sheinbaum was in the process of exposing more CIA domestic organizations. The investigation of Ramparts was to be intensified, Raborn told Osborn.

At the same time, Helms passed information to President Lyndon Johnson's aide, William D. Moyers, about the plans of two Ramparts editors to run for Congress on an antiwar platform. Within days, the CIA had progressed from investigating a news publication to sending domestic political intelligence to the White House, just as a few members of Congress had feared nineteen years earlier.

Upon publication, Sheinbaum's article triggered a storm of protests from academicians and legislators across the country who saw the CIA's infiltration of a college campus as a threat to academic freedom. The outcry grew so loud that President Johnson felt he had to make a reassuring public statement and establish a task force to review any government activities that might endanger the integrity of the educational community. The task force was a collection of political statesmen--such as Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John Gardner--but also included Richard Helms, the CIA official who himself had been dealing in political espionage. The purpose of the task force, it soon became clear, was to forestall further embarrassment and preclude any congressional investigation of CIA operations. Helms, furthermore, organized an internal task force of directorate chiefs to examine all CIA relationships with academic institutions but that review, from all appearances, was designed only to ensure that these operations remained secret...

Meanwhile, CIA officers spent April and May of 1966 identifying the source of Ramparts's money. Their target was executive editor Warren Hinckle, the magazine's chief fund-raiser and a man easy to track. He wore a black patch over one eye and made no secret of the difficult state of the magazine's finances as he continually begged a network of rich donors for operating funds. The agents also reported that Hinckle had launched a $2.5 million lawsuit against Alabama Governor George Wallace for calling the magazine pro-Communist (information that Osborn dutifully passed on to Raborn). The real point of the CIA investigation, however, was to place Ramparts reporters under such dose surveillance that any CIA officials involved in domestic operations would have time to rehearse cover stories before the reporters arrived to question them.

Next, Raborn broadened the scope of his investigation of Ramparts's staff by recruiting help from other agencies. On June 16, 1966, he ordered Osborn to "urge" the FBI to "investigate these people as a subversive unit." Osborn forwarded this request to the FBI, expressing the CIA's interest in anything the FBI might develop "of a derogatory nature." One CIA officer, who later inspected the CIA file of the Ramparts investigation, said that the Agency was trying to find a way of shutting down the magazine that would stand up in court, notwithstanding the constraints of the First Amendment...

On March 4, 1967, Richard Ober got a report from a person who attended a Ramparts staff meeting at which magazine reporters had discussed their interviews of high executive branch government officials and their attempts to meet with White House staff members. Now Ober knew who was saying what to whom. Three days later, Ober's task force found out that a Ramparts reporter was going to interview a CIA "asset": that is, someone under CIA control. In preparation, CIA officers told the asset how to handle the reporter, and after the interview the asset reported back to the CIA.

On March 16, two of Ober's men drove from CIA headquarters to a nearby airport to pick up a CIA agent who was a good friend of a Ramparts reporter. They went to a hotel, where the CIA agent was debriefed. Then the agent and his case officers reviewed his cover story, which he went on to tell his Ramparts contact as a means of obtaining more information. During the same period Ober was trying to recruit five former Ramparts employees as informants. "Maybe they were unhappy," a CIA agent would later explain. On April 4, Ober completed a status report on his Ramparts task force. His men had identified and investigated 127 Ramparts writers and researchers, as well as nearly 200 other American civilians with some link to the magazine.

Three more CIA officers joined Ober's team, bringing to twelve the number of full-time or part-time officers coordinating intelligence and operations on Ramparts at the headquarters level. On April 5, 1967, the task force completed its tentative assessment and recommendations, setting forth future actions--which, the CIA was still insisting in 1994, cannot be released under the Freedom of Information Act. CIA officer Louis Dube described the recommendations as "heady shit" but refused to be more specific.

It is known that Ober became fascinated with Ramparts advertisers. "One of our officers was in contact with a source who provided us with information about Ramparts's advertising," Dube admitted. On April 28, a CIA analyst working for Ober tried to learn if the CIA had any friends who might have influence with Ramparts advertisers, apparently with the intention of getting them to drop their accounts.

(6) Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities (April, 1976)

The Covert Use of Books and Publishing Houses: The Committee has found that the Central Intelligence Agency attaches a particular importance to book publishing activities as a form of covert propaganda. A former officer in the Clandestine Service stated that books are "the most important weapon of strategic (long-range) propaganda." Prior to 1967, the Central Intelligence Agency sponsored, subsidized, or produced over 1,000 books; approximately 25 percent of them in English. In 1967 alone, the CIA published or subsidized over 200 books, ranging from books on African safaris and wildlife to translations of Machiavelli's The Prince into Swahili and works of T. S. Eliot into Russian, to a competitor to Mao's little red book, which was entitled Quotations from Chairman Liu.

The Committee found that an important number of the books actually produced by the Central Intelligence Agency were reviewed and marketed in the United States:

* A book about a young student from a developing country who had studied in a communist country was described by the CIA as "developed by (two areas divisions) and, produced by the Domestic Operations Division... and has had a high impact in the United States as well as in the (foreign area) market." This book, which was produced by the European outlet of a United States publishing house was published in condensed form in two major U.S. magazines."

* Another CIA book, The Penkorsky Papers, was published in United States in 1965. The book was prepared and written by omitting agency assets who drew on actual case materials and publication rights to the manuscript were sold to the publisher through a trust fund which was established for the purpose. The publisher was unaware of any US Government interest.

In 1967, the CIA stopped publishing within the United States. Since then, the Agency has published some 250 books abroad, most of them in foreign languages. The CIA has given special attention to publication and circulation abroad of books about conditions in the Soviet Bloc. Of those targeted at audiences outside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a large number has also been available in English.

Domestic "Fallout": The Committee finds that covert media operations can result in manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. Despite efforts to minimize it, CIA employees, past and present, have conceded that there is no way to shield the American public completely from "fallout" in the United States from Agency propaganda or placements overseas. Indeed, following the Katzenbach inquiry, the Deputy Director for Operations issued a directive stating: "Fallout in the United States from a foreign publication which we support is inevitable and consequently permissible."

The domestic fallout of covert propaganda comes from many sources: books intended primarily for an English-speaking foreign audience; CIA press placements that are picked up by an international wire service; and publications resulting from direct CIA funding of foreign institutes. For example, a book written for an English-speaking foreign audience by one CIA operative was reviewed favorably by another CIA agent in the New York Times. The Committee also found that the CIA helped create and support various Vietnamese periodicals and publications. In at least one instance, a CIA supported Vietnamese publication was used to propagandize the American public and the members and staff of both houses of Congress. So effective was this propaganda that some members quoted from the publication in debating the controversial question of United States involvement in Vietnam.

The Committee found that this inevitable domestic fallout was compounded when the Agency circulated its subsidized books in the United States prior to their distribution abroad in order to induce a favorable reception overseas.

The Covert Use of 11.5. Journalists and Media Institutions on, February 11, 1976, CIA Director George Bush announced new guidelines governing the Agency's relationship with United States media organizations: "Effective immediately, CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station."

Agency officials who testified after the February 11, 1976, announcement told the Committee that the prohibition extends to non-Americans accredited to specific United States media organizations.

The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets.

Approximately 50 of the assets are individual American journalists or employees of US media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are "accredited" by US media organizations and thereby affected by the new prohibitions on the use of accredited newsmen. The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad, and thus are not affected by the new CIA prohibition.

More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover.

The Committee notes that the new CIA prohibitions do not apply to "unaccredited" Americans serving in media organizations such as representatives of US media organizations abroad or freelance writers. Of the more than 50 CIA relationships with United States journalists, or employees in American media organizations, fewer than one half will be terminated under the new CIA guidelines.

The Committee is concerned that the use of American :journalists and media organizations for clandestine operations is a threat to the integrity of the press. All American journalists, whether accredited to a United States news organization or just a stringer, may be suspects when any are engaged in covert activities.



(7) Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities (April, 1976)

In examining the CIA’s past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.



(8) Alex Constantine, Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA (2000)

It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets.

In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert
operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham,a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post, was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code-named Mockingbird...

"World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world-dominating in political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than its equal share of power."

George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947, explaining that "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American flag."

On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.

The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war strategist...

The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away. Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe...

In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates.

In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence services - in fact, 23 employees were full-time employees of the Agency.



(9) Deborah Davis, interviewed by Kenn Thomas of Steamshovel Press (1992)

Kenn Thomas: Let's get back to Ben Bradlee. I know part of what's in the book and part of what upset those forces that caused the withdrawal of its first publication is what you've said about Ben Bradlee and his connection to the Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg trial. Would you talk about that a bit?

Deborah Davis: In the first edition, the one that was recalled and shredded, I looked in State Department lists for '52 and '53 when Bradlee was serving as a press attache supposedly in the American embassy in Paris. This was during the Marshall Plan when the United States over in Europe had hundreds of thousands of people making an intensive effort to keep Western Europe from going Communist. Bradlee wanted to be part of that effort. So he was over in the American embassy in Paris and the embassy list had these letters after his name that said USIE. And I asked the State Department what that meant and it said United States Information Exchange. It was the forerunner of the USIA, the United States Information Agency. It was the propaganda arm of the embassy. They produced propaganda that was then disseminated by the CIA all over Europe. They planted newspaper stories. They had a lot of reporters on their payrolls. They routinely would produce stories out of the embassy and give them to these reporters and they would appear in the papers in Europe. It's very important to understand how influential newspaper stories are to people because this is what people think of as their essential source of facts about what is going on. They don't question it, and even if they do question it they have nowhere else to go to find out anything else. So Bradlee was involved in producing this propaganda. But at that point in the story I didn't know exactly what he was doing.

I published the first book just saying that he worked for USIE and that this agency produced propaganda for the CIA. He went totally crazy after the book came out. One person who knew him told me then that he was going all up and down the East Coast having lunch with every editor he could think of saying that it was not true, he did not produce any propaganda. And he attacked me viciously and he said that I had falsely accused him of being a CIA agent. And the reaction was totally out of proportion to what I had said.

Kenn Thomas: You make a good point in the book that other people who have had similar kinds of--I don't even know if you want to call them accusations--but reports that they in some way cooperated with the CIA in the '5Os, that the times were different and people were expected to do that kind of thing out of a sense of patriotism and they blow it off.

Deborah Davis : That's right. People say, yeah, this is what I did back then, you know. But Bradlee doesn't want to be defined that way because, I don't know, somehow he thinks it's just too revealing of him, of who he is. He doesn't want to admit a true fact about his past because somehow he doesn't want it known that this is where he came from. Because this is the beginning of his journalistic career. This is how he made it big.

Subsequent to my book being shredded in 1979, early 1980, I got some documents through the Freedom of Information Act and they revealed that Bradlee had been the person who was running an entire propaganda operation against Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg that covered forty countries on four continents. He always claimed that he had been a low level press flack in the embassy in Paris, just a press flack, nothing more. Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg had already been convicted of being atomic spies and they were on death row waiting to be executed. And the purpose of Bradlee's propaganda operation was to convince the Europeans that they really were spies, they really had given the secret of the atomic bomb to the Russians and therefore they did deserve to be put to death.

The Europeans, having just very few years before defeated Hitler, were very concerned that the United States was going fascist the way their countries had. And this was a very real fear to the Europeans. They saw the same thing happening in the United States that had happened in their own countries. And so Bradlee used the Rosenberg case to say, "No this isn't what you think it is. These people really did this bad thing and they really do deserve to die. It doesn't mean that the United States is becoming fascist." So he had a very key role in creating European public opinion and it was very, very important. This was the key issue that was going to determine how the Europeans felt about the United States.

Some of the documents that I had showed him writing letters to the prosecutors of the Rosenbergs saying "I'm working for the head of the CIA in Paris and he wants me to come and look at your files." And this kind of thing. So in the second edition, which came out in 1987, I reprinted those documents, the actual documents, the readers can see them and it's got his signature and it's very, very interesting. He subsequently has said nothing about it at all. He won't talk about it all. He won't answer any questions about it. So I guess the point about Bradlee is that he went from this job to being European bureau chief for Newsweek magazine and to the executive editorship of the Post. So this is how he got where he is. It's very clear line of succession. Philip Graham was Katharine Graham's husband, who ran the Post in the '50s and he committed suicide in 1963. That's when Katharine Graham took over. Bradlee was close friends with Allen Dulles and Phil Graham. The paper wasn't doing very well for a while and he was looking for a way to pay foreign correspondents and Allen Dulles was looking for a cover. Allen Dulles was head of the CIA back then and he was looking for a cover for some of his operatives so that they could get in and out of places without arousing suspicion. So the two of them hit on a plan: Allen Dulles would pay for the reporters and they would give the CIA the information that they found as well as give it to the Post. So he helped to develop this operation and it subsequently spread to other newspapers and magazines. And it was called Operation Mockingbird. This operation, I believe, was revealed for the first time in my book.



(10) Evan Thomas, The Very Best Men: The Early Years of the CIA (1995)

He (Frank Wisner) considered his friends Joe and Stewart Alsop to be reliable purveyors of the company line in their columns, and he would not hesitate to call Cyrus Sulzberger, the brother of the publisher of the New York Times. "You'd be sitting there, and he'd be on the phone to Times Washington bureau chief Scotty Reston explaining why some sentence in the paper was entirely wrong. "I want that to go to Sulzberger!" he'd say. He'd pick up newspapers and edit them from the CIA point of view," said Braden.



(11) Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great (1979)

The Washington Post was in many ways like other "companies," as Walter Lippmann called the news organizations, fighting deadlines, living uneasily with unions, suffering with "technical conditions (that) do not favor genuine and productive debate." But the Post was also unique among news companies in that its managers, living and working in Washington, thought of themselves simultaneously as journalists, businessmen, and patriots, a state of mind that made them singularly able to expand the company while promoting the national interest. Their individual relations with intelligence had in fact been the reason that the Post Company had grown as fast as it did after the war; their secrets were its corporate secrets, beginning with MOCKINGBIRD. Philip Graham's commitment to intelligence gave his friends Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles an interest in helping to make the Washington Post the dominant news vehicle in Washington, which they did by assisting with its two most crucial acquisitions, the Times-Herald and WTOP. The Post men most essential to these transactions, other than Phil, were Wayne Coy, the Post executive who had been Phil's former New Deal boss, and John S. Hayes, who replaced Coy in 1947 when Coy was appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

(12) Mary Louise, Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation (2003)

Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40's), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation's businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950's. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the "Skull and Crossbones" Society.

Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures. Robert Parry reported the first breaking stories about Iran-Contra for Associated Press that were largely ignored by the press and congress, then moving to Newsweek he witnessed a retraction of a true story for political reasons. In 'Fooling America: A Talk by Robert Parry' he said, "The people who succeeded and did well were those who didn't stand up, who didn't write the big stories, who looked the other way when history was happening in front of them, and went along either consciously or just by cowardice with the deception of the American people."

Major networks are primarily controlled by giant corporations that are obligated by law, to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations which are often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism. There were around 50 corporations a couple of decades ago, which was considered monopolistic by many and yet today, these companies have become larger and fewer in number as the biggest ones absorb their rivals. This concentration of ownership and power reduces the diversity of media voices, as news falls into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries that interferes in news gathering, because of conflicts of interest. Mockingbird was an immense financial undertaking with funds flowing from the CIA largely through the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) founded by Tom Braden with Pat Buchanon of CNN's Crossfire.

Media corporations share members of the board of directors with a variety of other large corporations including banks, investment companies, oil companies, health care, pharmaceutical, and technology companies. Until the 1980's, media systems were generally domestically owned, regulated, and national in scope. However, pressure from the IMF, World Bank, and US government to deregulate and privatize, the media, communication, and new technology resulted in a global commercial media system dominated by a small number of super-powerful transnational media corporations (mostly US based), working to advance the cause of global markets and the CIA agenda.



(13) David Guyatt, Subverting the Media (undated)

In an October 1977, article published by Rolling Stone magazine, Bernstein reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA. Bernstein went on to reveal that this cozy arrangement had covered the preceding 25 years. Sources told Bernstein that the New York Times, America’s most respected newspaper at the time, was one of the CIA’s closest media collaborators. Seeking to spread the blame, the New York Times published an article in December 1977, revealing that “more than eight hundred news and public information organisations and individuals,” had participated in the CIA’s covert subversion of the media.

“One journalist is worth twenty agents,” a high-level source told Bernstein. Spies were trained as journalists and then later infiltrated – often with the publishers consent - into the most prestigious media outlets in America, including the New York Times and Time Magazine. Likewise, numerous reputable journalists underwent training in various aspects of “spook-craft” by the CIA. This included techniques as varied as secret writing, surveillance and other spy crafts.

The subversion operation was orchestrated by Frank Wisner, an old CIA hand who’s clandestine activities dated back to WW11. Wisner’s media manipulation programme became known as the “Wisner Wurlitzer,” and proved an effective technique for sending journalists overseas to spy for the CIA. Of the fifty plus overseas news proprietary’s owned by the CIA were The Rome Daily American, The Manilla Times and the Bangkok Post.

Yet, according to some experts, there was another profound reason for the CIA’s close relations with the media. In his book, “Virtual Government,” author Alex Constantine goes to some lengths to explore the birth and spread of Operation Mockingbird. This, Constantine explains, was a CIA project designed to influence the major media for domestic propaganda purposes. One of the most important “assets” used by the CIA’s Frank Wisner was Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post. A decade later both Wisner and Graham committed suicide – leading some to question the exact nature of their deaths. More recently doubts have been cast on Wisner’s suicide verdict by some observers who believed him to have been a Soviet agent.



(14) Michael Hasty, Secret Admirers: The Bushes and the Washington Post (5th February , 2004)

In an article published by the media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), Henwood traced the Washington Post's Establishment connections to Eugene Meyer, who took control of the Post in 1933. Meyer transferred ownership to his daughter Katherine and her husband, Philip Graham, after World War II, when he was appointed by Harry S. Truman to serve as the first president of the World Bank. Meyer had been "a Wall Street banker, director of President Wilson's War Finance Corporation, a governor of the Federal Reserve System, and director of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation," Henwood wrote.

Philip Graham, Meyer's successor, had been in military intelligence during the war. When he became the Post's publisher, he continued to have close contact with his fellow upper-class intelligence veterans - now making policy at the newly formed CIA - and actively promoted the CIA's goals in his newspaper. The incestuous relationship between the Post and the intelligence community even extended to its hiring practices. Watergate-era editor Ben Bradlee also had an intelligence background; and before he became a journalist, reporter Bob Woodward was an officer in Naval Intelligence. In a 1977 article in Rolling Stone magazine about CIA influence in American media, Woodward's partner, Carl Bernstein, quoted this from a CIA official: "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from." Graham has been identified by some investigators as the main contact in Project Mockingbird, the CIA program to infiltrate domestic American media. In her autobiography, Katherine Graham described how her husband worked overtime at the Post during the Bay of Pigs operation to protect the reputations of his friends from Yale who had organized the ill-fated venture.

After Graham committed suicide, and his widow Katherine assumed the role of publisher, she continued her husband's policies of supporting the efforts of the intelligence community in advancing the foreign policy and economic agenda of the nation's ruling elites. In a retrospective column written after her own death last year, FAIR analyst Norman Solomon wrote, "Her newspaper mainly functioned as a helpmate to the war-makers in the White House, State Department and Pentagon." It accomplished this function (and continues to do so) using all the classic propaganda techniques of evasion, confusion, misdirection, targeted emphasis, disinformation, secrecy, omission of important facts, and selective leaks.

Graham herself rationalized this policy in a speech she gave at CIA headquarters in 1988. "We live in a dirty and dangerous world," she said. "There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."



(15) Doug Henwood, The Washington Post: The Establishment's Paper (January, 1990)

After World War II, when Harry Truman named this lifelong Republican as first president of the World Bank, Meyer made his son-in-law, Philip L. Graham, publisher of the paper. Meyer stayed at the Bank for only six months and returned to the Post as its chairman. But with Phil Graham in charge, there was little for Meyer to do. He transferred ownership to Philip and Katharine Graham, and retired.

Phil Graham maintained Meyer's intimacy with power. Like many members of his class and generation, his postwar view was shaped by his work in wartime intelligence; a classic Cold War liberal, he was uncomfortable with McCarthy, but quite friendly with the personnel and policies of the CIA. He saw the role of the press as mobilizing public assent for policies made by his Washington neighbors; the public deserved to know only what the inner circle deemed proper. According to Howard Bray's Pillars of the Post, Graham and other top Posters knew details of several covert operations - including advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion - which they chose not to share with their readers.

When the manic-depressive Graham shot himself in 1963, the paper passed to his widow, Katharine. Though out of her depth at first, her instincts were safely establishmentarian. According to Deborah Davis' biography, Katharine the Great, Mrs. Graham was scandalized by the cultural and political revolutions of the 1960s, and wept when LBJ fused to run for reelection in 1968. (After Graham asserted that the book as "fantasy," Harcourt Brace Jovanovich pulled 20,000 copies of Katharine the Great in 1979. The book as re-issued by National Press in 87.)

The Post was one of the last major papers to turn against the Vietnam War. Even today, it hews to a hard foreign policy line - usually to the right of The New York Times, a paper not known or having transcended the Cold War.

There was Watergate, of course, that model of aggressive reporting by the Post. But even here, Graham's Post was doing the establishment's work. As Graham herself said, the investigation couldn't have succeeded without the cooperation of people inside the government willing to talk to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

These talkers may well have included the CIA; it's widely suspected that Deep Throat was an Agency man (or men). Davis argues that Post editor Ben Bradlee knew Deep Throat, and may even have set him up with Woodward. She produces evidence that in the early 1950s, Bradlee crafted propaganda for the CIA on the Rosenberg case for European consumption. Bradlee denies working "for" the CIA, though he admits having worked for the U.S. Information Agency - perhaps distinction without a difference.

In any case, it's clear that a major portion of the establishment wanted Nixon out. Having accomplished this, there was little taste for further crusading. Nixon had denounced the Post as "Communist" during the 1950s. Graham offered her support to Nixon upon his election in 1968, but he snubbed her, even directing his allies to challenge the Post Co.'s TV license in Florida a few ears later. The Reagans were a different story - for one thing, Ron's crowd knew that seduction was a better way to get good press than hostility. According to Nancy Reagan's memoirs, Graham welcomed Ron and Nancy to her Georgetown house in 1981 with a kiss. During the darkest days of Iran-Contra, Graham and Post editorial page editor Meg GreenfieId - lunch and phone companions to Nancy throughout the Reagan years - offered the First Lady frequent expressions of sympathy. Graham and the establishment never got far from the Gipper.

(16) Carl Bernstein, CIA and the Media, Rolling Stone Magazine (20th October, 1977)

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services - from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America’s leading news organizations.

The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception...

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.

From the Agency’s perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community...

Many journalists were used by the CIA to assist in this process and they had the reputation of being among the best in the business. The peculiar nature of the job of the foreign correspondent is ideal for such work; he is accorded unusual access, by his host country, permitted to travel in areas often off-limits to other Americans, spends much of his time cultivating sources in governments, academic institutions, the military establishment and the scientific communities. He has the opportunity to form long-term personal relationships with sources and -- perhaps more than any other category of American operative - is in a position to make correct judgments about the susceptibility and availability of foreign nationals for recruitment as spies.

The Agency’s dealings with the press began during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting-and-cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.

American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing us commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner; publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA era and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting” In all, about twenty-five news organizations (including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency...

Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue.

Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. “You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it,” said one Agency official. “They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces - shredded the consensus and threw it in the air.” Another Agency official observed: “Many journalists didn’t give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency.”

The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told, “You’re going to be a journalist,” the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400-some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency. The Agency’s relationships with journalists, as described in CIA files, include the following general categories:

* Legitimate, accredited staff members of news organizations - usually reporters. Some were paid; some worked for the Agency on a purely voluntary basis.

* Stringers and freelancers. Most were payrolled by the Agency under standard contractual terms.

* Employees of so-called CIA “proprietaries.” During the past twenty-five years, the Agency has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers -- both English and foreign language -- which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives.

* Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well-known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects.

Murky details of CIA relationships with individuals and news organizations began trickling out in 1973 when it was first disclosed that the CIA had, on occasion, employed journalists. Those reports, combined with new information, serve as casebook studies of the Agency’s use of journalists for intelligence purposes.

The New York Times - The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible...

CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions...

The Columbia Broadcasting System - CBS was unquestionably the CIA’s most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS president William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well-known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings...

At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley’s cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite the denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant’s investigators. “It wouldn’t do any good,” said one CBS executive. “It is the single subject about which his memory has failed.”

At Newsweek, Agency sources reported, the CIA engaged the services of several foreign correspondents and stringers under arrangements approved by senior editors at the magazine...

“To the best of my knowledge:’ said [Harry] Kern, [Newsweek’s foreign editor from 1945 to 1956] “nobody at Newsweek worked for the CIA.... The informal relationship was there. Why have anybody sign anything? What we knew we told them [the CIA] and the State Department.... When I went to Washington, I would talk to Foster or Allen Dulles about what was going on .... We thought it was admirable at the time. We were all on the same side.” CIA officials say that Kern's dealings with the Agency were extensive...

When Newsweek was purchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. “It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,” said a former deputy director of the Agency... But Graham, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said...

Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements...

Other major news organizations - according to Agency officials, CIA files document additional cover arrangements with the following news gathering organizations, among others: the New York Herald Tribune, Saturday Evening Post, Scripps-Howard Newspapers, Hearst Newspapers, Associated Press, United Press International, the Mutual Broadcasting System, Reuters and The Miami Herald...

“And that's just a small part of the list,” in the words of one official who served in the CIA hierarchy. Like many sources, this official said that the only way to end the uncertainties about aid furnished the Agency by journalists is to disclose the contents of the CIA files - a course opposed by almost all of the thirty-five present and former CIA officials interviewed over the course of a year.

The CIA’s use of journalists continued virtually unabated until 1973 when, in response to public disclosure that the Agency had secretly employed American reporters, William Colby began scaling down the program. In his public statements, Colby conveyed the impression that the use of journalists had been minimal and of limited importance to the Agency.

He then initiated a series of moves intended to convince the press, Congress and the public that the CIA had gotten out of the news business. But according to Agency officials, Colby had in fact thrown a protective net around his most valuable intelligence assets in the journalistic community...

At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley’s cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite the denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant’s investigators. “It wouldn’t do any good,” said one CBS executive. “It is the single subject about which his memory has failed.”

Time and Newsweek magazines. According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines. The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.

At Newsweek, Agency sources reported, the CIA engaged the services of several foreign correspondents and stringers under arrangements approved by senior editors at the magazine...

After Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any US news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” ... The text of the announcement noted that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. Thus, many relationships were permitted to remain intact.



(17) David Guyatt, Subverting the Media (undated)

In discussing the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Dan Rather, the well-loved anchorman for CBS Television, described the now famous Zapruder film that captured footage of the shot which killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie, taken by amateur cameraman, Abraham Zapruder, was quickly snapped-up by Life magazine for $250,000.00. Although Life published still frames of the movie, the 18 second film was kept under lock and key – not to be seen by Americans until 1975.

But Rather’s remarks were misleading. He told his viewers that the film showed JFK falling forward – confirming the official view that Kennedy had been shot from behind. However, the film clearly showed Kennedy lurching violently backwards, evidence of a frontal shot. To add to the confusion, the Warren Commission report printed two frames of the film in reverse – again implying a rear shot - an accident the FBI typified as a “printing error.”

Meanwhile, still pictures lifted from the Zapruder film were also published by Life magazine. Remarkably, they too were published in reverse order, thereby creating the impression that the President had been shot from behind by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald. Until the film was shown to Americans in its entirity, no one was the wiser. Following the broadcast in 1975, a massive controversy followed giving rise to ongoing allegations of conspiracy.

The Zapruder film clearly showed President Kennedy had also been shot from the front. The result immeasurably strengthened the charge - that had been bubbling in the background – that the President had been assassinated as a result of a well orchestrated conspiracy, and that this was covered-up to protect the guilty, who many now believe involved senior figures in the CIA and US military. Not least it was pointed out that Henry Luce, the founder of Life magazine was a close personal friend of Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA. Moreover, the individual who purchased the Zapruder film for Life magazine was C.J. Jackson, formerly a “psychological warfare” consultant to the President.

Inevitably, these events were to lead to accusations that the media were culpable of the worst form of toadying and propaganda. This, in turn raised serious questions about the role and integrity of the mass media. Some years later, Washington Post reporter, Carl Bernstein – who came to fame with his colleague Bob Woodward, for their expose of the Nixon administration’s illegal re-election campaign activities, known as “Watergate” – dropped a media bombshell on an unsuspecting America.

In an October 1977, article published by Rolling Stone magazine, Bernstein reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA. Bernstein went on to reveal that this cozy arrangement had covered the preceding 25 years. Sources told Bernstein that the New York Times, America’s most respected newspaper at the time, was one of the CIA’s closest media collaborators. Seeking to spread the blame, the New York Times published an article in December 1977, revealing that “more than eight hundred news and public information organisations and individuals,” had participated in the CIA’s covert subversion of the media.

“One journalist is worth twenty agents,” a high-level source told Bernstein. Spies were trained as journalists and then later infiltrated – often with the publishers consent - into the most prestigious media outlets in America, including the New York Times and Time Magazine. Likewise, numerous reputable journalists underwent training in various aspects of “spook-craft” by the CIA. This included techniques as varied as secret writing, surveillance and other spy crafts.

The subversion operation was orchestrated by Frank Wisner, an old CIA hand who’s clandestine activities dated back to WW11. Wisner’s media manipulation programme became known as the “Wisner Wurlitzer,” and proved an effective technique for sending journalists overseas to spy for the CIA. Of the fifty plus overseas news proprietary’s owned by the CIA were The Rome Daily American, The Manilla Times and the Bangkok Post.

Yet, according to some experts, there was another profound reason for the CIA’s close relations with the media. In his book, “Virtual Government,” author Alex Constantine goes to some lengths to explore the birth and spread of Operation Mockingbird. This, Constantine explains, was a CIA project designed to influence the major media for domestic propaganda purposes. One of the most important “assets” used by the CIA’s Frank Wisner was Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post. A decade later both Wisner and Graham committed suicide – leading some to question the exact nature of their deaths. More recently doubts have been cast on Wisner’s suicide verdict by some observers who believed him to have been a Soviet agent.

Meanwhile, however, Wisner had “implemented his plan and owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers…” according to Deborah Davis in her biography of Katharine Graham – wife of Philip Graham - and current publisher of the Washington Post. The operation was overseen by Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence. Operation Mockingbird continued to flourish with CIA agents boasting at having “important assets” inside every major news outlet in the country.” The list included such luminaries of the US media as Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, of the New York Times and C.D. Jackson of Fortune Magazine, according to Constantine.

But there was another aspect to Mockingbird, Constantine reveals in an Internet essay. Citing historian C. Vann Woodward’s New York Times article of 1987, Ronald Reagan, later to become President of the US, was a FBI snitch earlier in his life. This dated back to the time when Reagan was President of the Actor’s Guild. Woodward says that Reagan “fed the names of suspect people in his organisation to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned an informer’s code number, T.10.” The purpose was to purge the film industry of “subversives.”

As these stories hit the news, Senate investigators began to probe the CIA sponsored manipulation of the media – the “Fourth Estate” that supposedly was dedicated to acting as a check and balance on the excesses of the executive. This investigation was, however, curtailed at the insistence of Central Intelligence Agency Directors, William Colby and George Bush – who would later be elected US President. The information gathered by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator Frank Church, was “deliberately buried” Bernstein reported.

Despite this suppression of evidence, information leaked out that revealed the willing role of media executives to subvert their own industry. “Let’s not pick on some reporters,” CIA Director William Colby stated during an interview. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.” Bernstein concluded that “America’s leading publishers allowed themselves and their news services to become handmaidens to the intelligence services.” Of the household names that went along with this arrangement were: Columbia Broadcasting System, Copley News Service – which gave the CIA confidential information on antiwar and black protestors – ABC TV, NBC, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Newsweek, Time, Scripps-Howard, Hearst Newspapers and the Miami Herald. Bernstein additionally stated that the two most bullish media outlets to co-operate were the new York Times and CBS Television. The New York Times even went so far as to submit stories to Allen Dulles and his replacement, John McCone, to vet and approve before publication.

Slowly, the role of Mockingbird in muzzling and manipulating the press began to be revealed. In 1974, two former CIA agents, Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, published a sensational book entitled “The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence.” The book caused uproar for the many revelations it contained. Included amongst them was the fact that the, until then, widely respected Encounter magazine was indirectly funded by the CIA. The vehicle used to covertly transfer funds to Encounter and many other publications, was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF)– a CIA front. A decade earlier, in 1965, the CCF was renamed Forum World Features (FWF) and purchased by Kern House Enterprises, under the direction of John Hay Whitney, publisher of the International Herald Tribune and former US Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

The Chairman of Forum World Features was Brian Crozier, who resigned his position shortly before the explosive book went on sale. Crozier, a former “Economist” journalist, was a “contact” of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6). His employment to head up the CIA financed Forum World Features in 1965, caused a row with MI6 who felt the CIA had breached the secret agreement between the UK and USA by recruiting one of their own assets.
Crozier’s media style was more discrete than Mockingbird. He preferred, when possible, to insert his pre-spun propaganda stories to unwitting members of the media, who would reprint them unaware of the bias they contained. In time, Crozier would go on to head up a shadowy anti subversive and dirty tricks group called the “61,” that sought to counter communist propaganda. Another group of which he was a member was the Pinay Cercle – a right wing Atlanticist group funded by the CIA - that claimed credit for getting Margaret Thatcher elected as British Prime Minister.

Another propaganda operation, run from Lisburn barracks in Northern Ireland, and under nominal British Army control, participated in extensive media manipulation around the same time. Known as “Clockwork Orange” this involved the construction of propaganda material designed to discredit prominent members of the then Labour government as well as some in the Conservative shadow cabinet. Especially targeted was then Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Clockwork Orange relied heavily on forged documents that would be given to selected journalists for publication. Many of these forgeries sought to demonstrate secret communist ties – or east bloc intelligence affiliations – amongst high profile politicians.

The aim was to destabilise Wilson and the Labour government by falsely showing them to be soft on communism or even pro communist. This operation clearly favoured a right wing Conservative administration under the leadership of Mrs. Thatcher. In the event, Wilson resigned, said to have been sickened by the numerous personal snipe attacks against him. During the time he was under siege, Wilson experienced numerous break ins at his office, as well as having his phone lines tapped -courtesy of unnamed officials in the security service, it is believed. By 1979 the Conservative party was returned to power.

Yet, with the demise of the cold war the motive for media propaganda has collapsed. Or has it? James Lilly, former Director of Operations at the CIA later became Director of Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute – a think tank heavily staffed by former intelligence types. Lilly, in giving testimony to a Senate committee during 1996 observed: “Journalists, I think, you don’t recruit them. We can’t do that. They’ve told us not to do that. But you certainly sit down with your journalists, and I’ve done this and the Station Chief has done it, others have done it…”

But even as the cold war rationale for subverting the media recedes into the distance, press manipulation continues anon. A classified CIA report surfaced in 1992, that revealed the Agency’s public affairs office “… has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation.” The report added that the benefits of these continued contacts had been fruitful to the CIA by turning “Intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories…” Basking in a glow of self satisfaction, the report continued “In many cases, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests.”

But the last word goes to Noam Chomsky. A Professor of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chomsky has extensively investigated the role of today’s media. His analysis is un-nerving. The democratic postulate, Chomsky says, “is that the media are independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth…” Despite this axiom, Chomsky finds that the media supports “established power” and is “responsive to the needs of government and major power groups.” He additionally argues that the media is a mechanism for pervasive “thought control” of elite interests and that ordinary citizens need to “undertake a course of intellectual self-defence to protect themselves from manipulation and control…” The covert role of the media has now apparently shifted its focus. One time expediter of the “cold war,” it now clamours for the extension of “corporate power.”



(18) Steve Kangas, The Origins of the Overclass (1998)

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface - and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent - the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"

Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His financial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from society’s elite...

Although many people think that the CIA’s primary mission during the Cold War was to "deter communism," Noam Chomksy correctly points out that its real mission was "deterring democracy." From corrupting elections to overthrowing democratic governments, from assassinating elected leaders to installing murderous dictators, the CIA has virtually always replaced democracy with dictatorship. It didn’t help that the CIA was run by businessmen, whose hostility towards democracy is legendary. The reason they overthrew so many democracies is because the people usually voted for policies that multi-national corporations didn't like: land reform, strong labor unions, nationalization of their industries, and greater regulation protecting workers, consumers and the environment...

Journalism is a perfect cover for CIA agents. People talk freely to journalists, and few think suspiciously of a journalist aggressively searching for information. Journalists also have power, influence and clout. Not surprisingly, the CIA began a mission in the late 1940s to recruit American journalists on a wide scale, a mission it dubbed Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The agency wanted these journalists not only to relay any sensitive information they discovered, but also to write anti-Communist, pro-capitalist propaganda when needed.

The instigators of MOCKINGBIRD were Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham was the husband of Katherine Graham, today’s publisher of the Washington Post. In fact, it was the Post’s ties to the CIA that allowed it to grow so quickly after the war, both in readership and influence.

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism...

The CIA also secretly bought or created its own media companies. It owned 40 percent of the Rome Daily American at a time when communists were threatening to win the Italian elections. Worse, the CIA has bought many domestic media companies. A prime example is Capital Cities, created in 1954 by CIA businessman William Casey (who would later become Reagan’s CIA director). Another founder was Lowell Thomas, a close friend and business contact with CIA Director Allen Dulles. Another founder was CIA businessman Thomas Dewey. By 1985, Capital Cities had grown so powerful that it was able to buy an entire TV network: ABC.

For those who believe in "separation of press and state," the very idea that the CIA has secret propaganda outlets throughout the media is appalling. The reason why America was so oblivious to CIA crimes in the 40s and 50s was because the media willingly complied with the agency. Even today, when the immorality of the CIA should be an open-and-shut case, "debate" about the issue rages in the media...

In the mid-1970s, at this historic low point in American conservatism, the CIA began a major campaign to turn corporate fortunes around. They did this in several ways. First, they helped create numerous foundations to finance their domestic operations. Even before 1973, the CIA had co-opted the most famous ones, like the Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. But after 1973, they created more. One of their most notorious recruits was billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. During World War II, Scaife's father served in the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. By his mid-twenties, both of Scaife's parents had died, and he inherited a fortune under four foundations: the Carthage Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundations and the Allegheny Foundation. In the early 1970s, Scaife was encouraged by CIA agent Frank Barnett to begin investing his fortune to fight the "Soviet menace." From 1973 to 1975, Scaife ran Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world. Shortly afterwards he began donating millions to fund the New Right.

(18) CIA Document Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report (#1035-960)

1. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent - and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

 

Original: http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2007/06/operation-mockingbird.html

Published in INFILTRATION ARCHIVE

The CIA and the Media

After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below.

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

BY CARL BERNSTEIN

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:

■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad.

■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.

The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business.

In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right .... Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest.

“I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it,” said Joseph Alsop who, like his late brother, columnist Stewart Alsop, undertook clandestine tasks for the Agency. “The notion that a newspaperman doesn’t have a duty to his country is perfect balls.”

From the Agency’s perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community. As Stuart Loory, former Los Angeles Times correspondent, has written in the Columbia Journalism Review: ‘If even one American overseas carrying a press card is a paid informer for the CIA, then all Americans with those credentials are suspect .... If the crisis of confidence faced by the news business—along with the government—is to be overcome, journalists must be willing to focus on themselves the same spotlight they so relentlessly train on others!’ But as Loory also noted: “When it was reported... that newsmen themselves were on the payroll of the CIA, the story caused a brief stir, and then was dropped.”

During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

THE AGENCY’S DEALINGS WITH THE PRESS BEGAN during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting‑and‑cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.

American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.”  In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

In addition to cover capability, Dulles initiated a “debriefing” procedure under which American correspondents returning from abroad routinely emptied their notebooks and offered their impressions to Agency personnel. Such arrangements, continued by Dulles’ successors, to the present day, were made with literally dozens of news organizations. In the 1950s, it was not uncommon for returning reporters to be met at the ship by CIA officers. “There would be these guys from the CIA flashing ID cards and looking like they belonged at the Yale Club,” said Hugh Morrow, a former Saturday Evening Post correspondent who is now press secretary to former vice‑president Nelson Rockefeller. “It got to be so routine that you felt a little miffed if you weren’t asked.”

CIA officials almost always refuse to divulge the names of journalists who have cooperated with the Agency. They say it would be unfair to judge these individuals in a context different from the one that spawned the relationships in the first place. “There was a time when it wasn’t considered a crime to serve your government,” said one high‑level CIA official who makes no secret of his bitterness. “This all has to be considered in the context of the morality of the times, rather than against latter‑day standards—and hypocritical standards at that.”

Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue. Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. “You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it,” said one Agency official. “They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces—shredded the consensus and threw it in the air.” Another Agency official observed: “Many journalists didn’t give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency.”

From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies. Dulles and his successors were fearful of what would happen if a journalist‑operative’s cover was blown, or if details of the Agency’s dealings with the press otherwise became public. As a result, contacts with the heads of news  organizations were normally initiated by Dulles and succeeding Directors of Central Intelligence; by the deputy directors and division chiefs in charge of covert operations—Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer Jr., Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Karamessines and Richard Helms himself a former UPI correspondent); and, occasionally, by others in the CIA hierarchy known to have an unusually close social relationship with a particular publisher or broadcast executive.1

James Angleton, who was recently removed as the Agency’s head of counterintelligence operations, ran a completely independent group of journalist‑operatives who performed sensitive and frequently dangerous assignments; little is known about this group for the simple reason that Angleton deliberately kept only the vaguest of files.

The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400‑some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency.

The Agency’s relationships with journalists, as described in CIA files, include the following general categories:

■ Legitimate, accredited staff members of news organizations—usually reporters. Some were paid; some worked for the Agency on a purely voluntary basis. This group includes many of the best‑known journalists who carried out tasks for the CIA. The files show that the salaries paid to reporters by newspaper and broadcast networks were sometimes supplemented by nominal payments from the CIA, either in the form of retainers, travel expenses or outlays for specific services performed.  Almost all the payments were made in cash. The accredited category also includes photographers, administrative personnel of foreign news bureaus and members of broadcast technical crews.)

Two of the Agency’s most valuable personal relationships in the 1960s, according to CIA officials, were with reporters who covered Latin America—Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star and Hal Hendrix of the Miami News, a Pulitzer Prize winner who became a high official of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. Hendrix was extremely helpful to the Agency in providing information about individuals in Miami’s Cuban exile community. O’Leary was considered a valued asset in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Agency files contain lengthy reports of both men’s activities on behalf of the CIA.

O’Leary maintains that his dealings were limited to the normal give‑and‑take that goes on between reporters abroad and their sources. CIA officials dispute the contention: “There’s no question Jerry reported for us,” said one. “Jerry did assessing and spotting [of prospective agents] but he was better as a reporter for us.” Referring to O’Leary’s denials, the official added: “I don’t know what in the world he’s worried about unless he’s wearing that mantle of integrity the Senate put on you journalists.”

O’Leary attributes the difference of opinion to semantics. “I might call them up and say something like, ‘Papa Doc has the clap, did you know that?’ and they’d put it in the file. I don’t consider that reporting for them.... it’s useful to be friendly to them and, generally, I felt friendly to them. But I think they were more helpful to me than I was to them.” O’Leary took particular exception to being described in the same context as Hendrix. “Hal was really doing work for them,” said O’Leary. “I’m still with the Star. He ended up at ITT.” Hendrix could not be reached for comment. According to Agency officials, neither Hendrix nor O’Leary was paid by the CIA.

■ Stringers2 and freelancers. Most were payrolled by the Agency under standard contractual terms. Their journalistic credentials were often supplied by cooperating news organizations. some filed news stories; others reported only for the CIA. On some occasions, news organizations were not informed by the CIA that their stringers were also working for the Agency.

■ Employees of so‑called CIA “proprietaries.” During the past twenty‑five years, the Agency has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers—both English and foreign language—which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives. One such publication was the Rome Daily American, forty percent of which was owned by the CIA until the 1970s. The Daily American went out of business this year,

■ Editors, publishers and broadcast network executives. The CIAs relationship with most news executives differed fundamentally from those with working reporters and stringers, who were much more subject to direction from the Agency. A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements. But such formal understandings were rare: relationships between Agency officials and media executives were usually social—”The P and Q Street axis in Georgetown,” said one source. “You don’t tell Wilharn Paley to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t fink.”

■ Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects. Three of the most widely read columnists who maintained such ties with the Agency are C.L. Sulzberger of the New York Times, Joseph Alsop, and the late Stewart Alsop, whose column appeared in the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post and Newsweek. CIA files contain reports of specific tasks all three undertook. Sulzberger is still regarded as an active asset by the Agency. According to a senior CIA official, “Young Cy Sulzberger had some uses.... He signed a secrecy agreement because we gave him classified information.... There was sharing, give and take. We’d say, ‘Wed like to know this; if we tell you this will it help you get access to so‑and‑so?’ Because of his access in Europe he had an Open Sesame. We’d ask him to just report: ‘What did so‑and‑so say, what did he look like, is he healthy?’ He was very eager, he loved to cooperate.” On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist’s byline in the Times. “Cycame out and said, ‘I’m thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?’” a CIA officer said. “We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it.” Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. “A lot of baloney,” he said.

Sulzberger claims that he was never formally “tasked” by the Agency and that he “would never get caught near the spook business. My relations were totally informal—I had a goodmany friends,” he said. “I’m sure they consider me an asset. They can ask me questions. They find out you’re going to Slobovia and they say, ‘Can we talk to you when you get back?’ ... Or they’ll want to know if the head of the Ruritanian government is suffering from psoriasis. But I never took an assignment from one of those guys.... I’ve known Wisner well, and Helms and even McCone [former CIA director John McCone] I used to play golf with. But they’d have had to he awfully subtle to have used me.

Sulzberger says he was asked to sign the secrecy agreement in the 1950s. “A guy came around and said, ‘You are a responsible newsman and we need you to sign this if we are going to show you anything classified.’ I said I didn’t want to get entangled and told them, ‘Go to my uncle [Arthur Hays Sulzberger, then publisher of the New York Times] and if he says to sign it I will.’” His uncle subsequently signed such an agreement, Sulzberger said, and he thinks he did too, though he is unsure. “I don’t know, twenty‑some years is a long time.” He described the whole question as “a bubble in a bathtub.”

Stewart Alsop’s relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger’s. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: “Stew Alsop was a CIA agent.” An equally senior official refused to define Alsop’s relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments—asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.

“Absolute nonsense,” said Joseph Alsop of the notion that his brother was a CIA agent. “I was closer to the Agency than Stew was, though Stew was very close. I dare say he did perform some tasks—he just did the correct thing as an American.... The Founding Fathers [of the CIA] were close personal friends of ours. Dick Bissell [former CIA deputy director] was my oldest friend, from childhood. It was a social thing, my dear fellow. I never received a dollar, I never signed a secrecy agreement. I didn’t have to.... I’ve done things for them when I thought they were the right thing to do. I call it doing my duty as a citizen.

Alsop is willing to discuss on the record only two of the tasks he undertook: a visit to Laos in 1952 at the behest of Frank Wisner, who felt other American reporters were using anti‑American sources about uprisings there; and a visit to the Phillipines in 1953 when the CIA thought his presence there might affect the outcome of an election. “Des FitzGerald urged me to go,” Alsop recalled. “It would be less likely that the election could be stolen [by the opponents of Ramon Magsaysay] if the eyes of the world were on them. I stayed with the ambassador and wrote about what happened.”

Alsop maintains that he was never manipulated by the Agency. “You can’t get entangled so they have leverage on you,” he said. “But what I wrote was true. My view was to get the facts. If someone in the Agency was wrong, I stopped talking to them—they’d given me phony goods.” On one occasion, Alsop said, Richard Helms authorized the head of the Agency’s analytical branch to provide Alsop with information on Soviet military presence along the Chinese border. “The analytical side of the Agency had been dead wrong about the war in Vietnam—they thought it couldn’t be won,” said Alsop. “And they were wrong on the Soviet buildup. I stopped talking to them.” Today, he says, “People in our business would be outraged at the kinds of suggestions that were made to me. They shouldn’t be. The CIA did not open itself at all to people it did not trust. Stew and I were trusted, and I’m proud of it.”

MURKY DETAILS OF CIA RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS and news organizations began trickling out in 1973 when it was first disclosed that the CIA had, on occasion, employed journalists. Those reports, combined with new information, serve as casebook studies of the Agency’s use of journalists for intelligence purposes. They include:

The New York Times. The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.

Sulzberger was especially close to Allen Dulles. “At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,” said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. “There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions.  It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates.... The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability.

A senior CIA official who reviewed a portion of the Agency’s files on journalists for two hours onSeptember 15th, 1977, said he found documentation of five instances in which the Times had provided cover for CIA employees between 1954 and 1962. In each instance he said, the arrangements were handled by executives of the Times; the documents all contained standard Agency language “showing that this had been checked out at higher levels of the New York Times,” said the official. The documents did not mention Sulzberger’s name, however—only those of subordinates whom the official refused to identify.

The CIA employees who received Times credentials posed as stringers for the paper abroad and worked as members of clerical staffs in the Times’ foreign bureaus. Most were American; two or three were foreigners.

CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions.

Sulzberger informed a number of reporters and editors of his general policy of cooperation with the Agency. “We were in touch with them—they’d talk to us and some cooperated,” said a CIA official. The cooperation usually involved passing on information and “spotting” prospective agents among foreigners.

Arthur Hays Sulzberger signed a secrecy agreement with the CIA in the 1950s, according to CIA officials—a fact confirmed by his nephew, C.L. Sulzberger. However, there are varying interpretations of the purpose of the agreement: C.L. Sulzberger says it represented nothing more than a pledge not to disclose classified information made available to the publisher. That contention is supported by some Agency officials. Others in the Agency maintain that the agreement represented a pledge never to reveal any of the Times’ dealings with the CIA, especially those involving cover. And there are those who note that, because all cover arrangements are classified, a secrecy agreement would automatically apply to them.

Attempts to find out which individuals in the Times organization made the actual arrangements for providing credentials to CIA personnel have been unsuccessful. In a letter to reporter Stuart Loory in 1974, Turner Cadedge, managing editor of the Times from 1951 to 1964, wrote that approaches by the CIA had been rebuffed by the newspaper. “I knew nothing about any involvement with the CIA... of any of our foreign correspondents on the New York Times. I heard many times of overtures to our men by the CIA, seeking to use their privileges, contacts, immunities and, shall we say, superior intelligence in the sordid business of spying and informing. If any one of them succumbed to the blandishments or cash offers, I was not aware of it. Repeatedly, the CIA and other hush‑hush agencies sought to make arrangements for ‘cooperation’ even with Times management, especially during or soon after World War II, but we always resisted. Our motive was to protect our credibility.”

According to Wayne Phillips, a former Timesreporter, the CIA invoked Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s name when it tried to recruit him as an undercover operative in 1952 while he was studying at Columbia University’s Russian Institute. Phillips said an Agency official told him that the CIA had “a working arrangement” with the publisher in which other reporters abroad had been placed on the Agency’s payroll. Phillips, who remained at the Times until 1961, later obtained CIA documents under the Freedom of Information Act which show that the Agency intended to develop him as a clandestine “asset” for use abroad.

On January 31st, 1976, the Times carried a brief story describing the ClAs attempt to recruit Phillips. It quoted Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the present publisher, as follows: “I never heard of the Times being approached, either in my capacity as publisher or as the son of the late Mr. Sulzberger.” The Times story, written by John M. Crewdson, also reported that Arthur Hays Sulzberger told an unnamed former correspondent that he might he approached by the CIA after arriving at a new post abroad. Sulzberger told him that he was not “under any obligation to agree,” the story said and that the publisher himself would be “happier” if he refused to cooperate. “But he left it sort of up to me,” the Times quoted its former reporter as saying. “The message was if I really wanted to do that, okay, but he didn’t think it appropriate for a Times correspondent”

C.L. Sulzberger, in a telephone interview, said he had no knowledge of any CIA personnel using Times cover or of reporters for the paper working actively for the Agency. He was the paper’s chief of foreign service from 1944 to 1954 and expressed doubt that his uncle would have approved such arrangements. More typical of the late publisher, said  Sulzberger, was a promise made to Allen Dulles’ brother, John Foster, then secretary of state, that no Times staff member would be permitted to accept an invitation to visit the People’s Republic of China without John Foster Dulles’ consent. Such an invitation was extended to the publisher’s nephew in the 1950s; Arthur Sulzberger forbade him to accept it. “It was seventeen years before another Times correspondent was invited,” C.L. Sulzberger recalled.

■ The Columbia Broadcasting System. CBS was unquestionably the CIAs most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS President William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well‑known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA3; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.

The details of the CBS‑CIA arrangements were worked out by subordinates of both Dulles and Paley. “The head of the company doesn’t want to know the fine points, nor does the director,” said a CIA official. “Both designate aides to work that out. It keeps them above the battle.” Dr. Frank Stanton, for 25 years president of the network, was aware of the general arrangements Paley made with Dulles—including those for cover, according to CIA officials. Stanton, in an interview last year, said he could not recall any cover arrangements.) But Paley’s designated contact for the Agency was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News between 1954 and 1961. On one occasion, Mickelson has said, he complained to Stanton about having to use a pay telephone to call the CIA, and Stanton suggested he install a private line, bypassing the CBS switchboard, for the purpose. According to Mickelson, he did so. Mickelson is now president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, both of which were associated with the CIA for many years.

In 1976, CBS News president Richard Salant ordered an in‑house investigation of the network's dealings with the CIA. Some of its findings were first disclosed by Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times.) But Salant's report makes no mention of some of his own dealings with the Agency, which continued into the 1970s.

Many details about the CBS‑CIA relationship were found in Mickelson's files by two investigators for Salant. Among the documents they found was a September 13th, 1957, memo to Mickelson fromTed Koop,CBS News bureau chief  in Washington from 1948 to 1961. It describes a phone call to Koop from Colonel Stanley Grogan of the CIA: "Grogan phoned to say that Reeves [J. B. Love Reeves, another CIA official] is going to New York to be in charge of the CIA contact office there and will call to see you and some of your confreres. Grogan says normal activities will continue to channel through the Washington office of CBS News." The report to Salant also states: "Further investigation of Mickelson's files reveals some details of the relationship between the CIA and CBS News.... Two key administrators of this relationship were Mickelson and Koop.... The main activity appeared to be the delivery of CBS newsfilm to the CIA.... In addition there is evidence that, during 1964 to 1971, film material, including some outtakes, were supplied by the CBS Newsfilm Library to the CIA through and at the direction of Mr. Koop4.... Notes in Mr. Mickelson's files indicate that the CIA used CBS films for training... All of the above Mickelson activities were handled on a confidential basis without mentioning the words Central Intelligence Agency. The films were sent to individuals at post‑office box numbers and were paid for by individual, nor government, checks. ..." Mickelson also regularly sent the CIA an internal CBS newsletter, according to the report.

Salant's investigation led him to conclude that Frank Kearns, a CBS‑TV reporter from 1958 to 1971, "was a CIA guy who got on the payroll somehow through a CIA contact with somebody at CBS." Kearns and Austin Goodrich, a CBS stringer, were undercover CIA employees, hired under arrangements approved by Paley.

Last year a spokesman for Paley denied a report by former CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr that Mickelson and he had discussed Goodrich's CIA status during a meeting with two Agency representatives in 1954. The spokesman claimed Paley had no knowledge that Goodrich had worked for the CIA. "When I moved into the job I was told by Paley that there was an ongoing relationship with the CIA," Mickelson said in a recent interview. "He introduced me to two agents who he said would keep in touch. We all discussed the Goodrich situation and film arrangements. I assumed this was a normal relationship at the time. This was at the height of the Cold War and I assumed the communications media were cooperating—though the Goodrich matter was compromising.

At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley's cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite tile denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant's investigators. "It wouldn't do any good," said one CBS executive. "It is the single subject about which his memory has failed."

Salant discussed his own contacts with the CIA, and the fact he continued many of his predecessor's practices, in an interview with this reporter last year. The contacts, he said, began in February 1961, "when I got a phone call from a CIA man who said he had a working relationship with Sig Mickelson. The man said, 'Your bosses know all about it.'"  According to Salant, the CIA representative asked that CBS continue to supply the Agency with unedited newstapes and make its correspondents available for debriefingby Agency officials. Said Salant: "I said no on talking to the reporters, and let them see broadcast tapes, but no outtakes.  This went on for a number of years—into the early Seventies."

In 1964 and 1965, Salant served on a super-secret CIA task force which explored methods of beaming American propaganda broadcasts to the People's Republic of China. The other members of the four‑man study team were Zbigniew Brzezinski, then a professor at Columbia University; William Griffith, then professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology., and John Haves, then vice‑president of the Washington Post Company for radio‑TV5. The principal government officials associated with the project were Cord Meyer of the CIA; McGeorge Bundy, then special assistant to the president for national security; Leonard Marks, then director of the USIA; and Bill Moyers, then special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson and now a CBS correspondent.

Salant's involvement in the project began with a call from Leonard Marks, "who told me the White House wanted to form a committee of four people to make a study of U.S. overseas broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain." When Salant arrived in Washington for the first meeting he was told that the project was CIA sponsored. "Its purpose," he said, "was to determine how best to set up shortwave broadcasts into Red China." Accompanied by a CIA officer named Paul Henzie, the committee of four subsequently traveled around the world inspecting facilities run by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty both CIA‑run operations at the time), the Voice of America and Armed Forces Radio. After more than a year of study, they submitted a report to Moyers recommending that the government establish a broadcast service, run by the Voice of America, to be beamed at the People's Republic of China. Salant has served two tours as head of CBS News, from 1961‑64 and 1966‑present. At the time of the China project he was a CBS corporate executive.)

Time and Newsweek magazines. According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines.  The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.

For many years, Luce's personal emissary to the CIA was C.D. Jackson, a Time Inc., vice‑president who was publisher of Life magazine from 1960 until his death in 1964.While a Time executive, Jackson coauthored a CIA‑sponsored study recommending the reorganization of the American intelligence services in the early 1950s. Jackson, whose Time‑Life service was interrupted by a one‑year White House tour as an assistant to President Dwight Eisenhower, approved specific arrangements for providing CIA employees with Time‑Life cover. Some of these arrangements were made with the knowledge of Luce's wife, Clare Boothe. Other arrangements for Time cover, according to CIA officials including those who dealt with Luce), were made with the knowledge of Hedley Donovan, now editor‑in‑chief of Time Inc. Donovan, who took over editorial direction of all Time Inc. publications in 1959, denied in a telephone interview that he knew of any such arrangements. "I was never approached and I'd be amazed if Luce approved such arrangements," Donovan said. "Luce had a very scrupulous regard for the difference between journalism and government."

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine's foreign correspondents attended CIA "briefing" dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS. And Luce, according to CIA officials, made it a regular practice to brief Dulles or other high Agency officials when he returned from his frequent trips abroad. Luce and the men who ran his magazines in the 1950s and 1960s encouraged their foreign correspondents to provide help to the CIA, particularly information that might be useful to the Agency for intelligence purposes or recruiting foreigners.

At Newsweek, Agency sources reported, the CIA engaged the services of' several foreign correspondents and stringers under arrangements approved by senior editors at the magazine. Newsweek's stringer in Rome in the mid‑Fifties made little secret of the fact that he worked for the CIA. Malcolm Muir, Newsweek's editor from its founding in 1937 until its sale to the Washington Post Company in 1961, said in a recent interview that his dealings with the CIA were limited to private briefings he gave Allen Dulles after trips abroad and arrangements he approved for regular debriefing of Newsweek correspondents by the Agency. He said that he had never provided cover for CIA operatives, but that others high in the Newsweek organization might have done so without his knowledge.

"I would have thought there might have been stringers who were agents, but I didn't know who they were," said Muir. "I do think in those days the CIA kept pretty close touch with all responsible reporters. Whenever I heard something that I thought might be of interest to Allen Dulles, I'd call him up.... At one point he appointed one of his CIA men to keep in regular contact with our reporters, a chap that I knew but whose name I can't remember. I had a number of friends in Alien Dulles' organization." Muir said that Harry Kern, Newsweek's foreign editor from 1945 until 1956, and Ernest K. Lindley, the magazine's Washington bureau chief during the same period "regularly checked in with various fellows in the CIA."

"To the best of my knowledge." said Kern, "nobody at Newsweek worked for the CIA... The informal relationship was there. Why have anybody sign anything? What we knew we told them [the CIA] and the State Department.... When I went to Washington, I would talk to Foster or Allen Dulles about what was going on. ... We thought it was admirable at the time. We were all on the same side." CIA officials say that Kern's dealings with the Agency were extensive. In 1956, he left Newsweek to run Foreign Reports, a Washington‑based newsletter whose subscribers Kern refuses to identify.

Ernest Lindley, who remained at Newsweek until 1961, said in a recent interview that he regularly consulted with Dulles and other high CIA officials before going abroad and briefed them upon his return. "Allen was very helpful to me and I tried to reciprocate when I could," he said. "I'd give him my impressions of people I'd met overseas. Once or twice he asked me to brief a large group of intelligence people; when I came back from the Asian‑African conference in 1955, for example; they mainly wanted to know about various people."

As Washington bureau chief, Lindley said he learned from Malcolm Muir that the magazine's stringer in southeastern Europe was a CIA contract employee—given credentials under arrangements worked out with the management. "I remember it came up—whether it was a good idea to keep this person from the Agency; eventually it was decided to discontinue the association," Lindley said.

When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.

In 1965‑66, an accredited Newsweekstringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some, Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said.

Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements.

All editors‑in‑chief and managing editors of the Post since 1950 say they knew of no formal Agency relationship with either stringers or members of the Post staff. “If anything was done it was done by Phil without our knowledge,” said one. Agency officials, meanwhile, make no claim that Post staff members have had covert affiliations with the Agency while working for the paper.6

Katharine Graham, Philip Graham’s widow and the current publisher of the Post, says she has never been informed of any CIA relationships with either Post or Newsweek personnel. In November of 1973, Mrs. Graham called William Colby and asked if any Post stringers or staff members were associated with the CIA. Colby assured her that no staff members were employed by the Agency but refused to discuss the question of stringers.

■ The Louisville Courier‑Journal. From December 1964 until March 1965, a CIA undercover operative named Robert H. Campbell worked on the Courier‑Journal. According to high‑level CIA sources, Campbell was hired by the paper under arrangements the Agency made with Norman E. Isaacs, then executive editor of the Courier‑Journal. Barry Bingham Sr., then publisher of the paper, also had knowledge of the arrangements, the sources said. Both Isaacs and Bingham have denied knowing that Campbell was an intelligence agent when he was hired.

The complex saga of Campbell’s hiring was first revealed in a Courier‑Journal story written by James R Herzog on March 27th, 1976, during the Senate committee’s investigation, Herzog’s account began: “When 28‑year‑old Robert H. Campbell was hired as a Courier‑Journal reporter in December 1964, he couldn’t type and knew little about news writing.” The account then quoted the paper’s former managing editor as saying that Isaacs told him that Campbell was hired as a result of a CIA request: “Norman said, when he was in Washington [in 1964], he had been called to lunch with some friend of his who was with the CIA [and that] he wanted to send this young fellow down to get him a little knowledge of newspapering.” All aspects of Campbell’s hiring were highly unusual. No effort had been made to check his credentials, and his employment records contained the following two notations: “Isaacs has files of correspondence and investigation of this man”; and, “Hired for temporary work—no reference checks completed or needed.”

The level of Campbell’s journalistic abilities apparently remained consistent during his stint at the paper, “The stuff that Campbell turned in was almost unreadable,” said a former assistant city editor. One of Campbell’s major reportorial projects was a feature about wooden Indians. It was never published. During his tenure at the paper, Campbell frequented a bar a few steps from the office where, on occasion, he reportedly confided to fellow drinkers that he was a CIA employee.

According to CIA sources, Campbell’s tour at the Courier‑Journal was arranged to provide him with a record of journalistic experience that would enhance the plausibility of future reportorial cover and teach him something about the newspaper business. The Courier‑Journal’s investigation also turned up the fact that before coming to Louisville he had worked briefly for the Hornell, New York, Evening Tribune, published by Freedom News, Inc. CIA sources said the Agency had made arrangements with that paper’s management to employ Campbell.7

At the Courier‑Journal, Campbell was hired under arrangements made with Isaacs and approved by Bingham, said CIA and Senate sources. “We paid the Courier‑Journal so they could pay his salary,” said an Agency official who was involved in the transaction. Responding by letter to these assertions, Isaacs, who left Louisville to become president and publisher of the Wilmington Delaware) News & Journal, said: “All I can do is repeat the simple truth—that never, under any circumstances, or at any time, have I ever knowingly hired a government agent. I’ve also tried to dredge my memory, but Campbell’s hiring meant so little to me that nothing emerges.... None of this is to say that I couldn’t have been ‘had.’”.Barry Bingham Sr., said last year in a telephone interview that he had no specific memory of Campbell’s hiring and denied that he knew of any arrangements between the newspaper’s management and the CIA. However, CIA officials said that the Courier‑Journal, through contacts with Bingham, provided other unspecified assistance to the Agency in the 1950s and 1960s. The Courier‑Journal’s detailed, front‑page account of Campbell’s hiring was initiated by Barry Bingham Jr., who succeeded his father as editor and publisher of the paper in 1971. The article is the only major piece of self‑investigation by a newspaper that has appeared on this subject.8

■ The American Broadcasting Company and the National Broadcasting Company. According to CIA officials, ABC continued to provide cover for some CIA operatives through the 1960s. One was Sam Jaffe who CIA officials said performed clandestine tasks for the Agency. Jaffe has acknowledged only providing the CIA with information. In addition, another well‑known network correspondent performed covert tasks for the Agency, said CIA sources. At the time of the Senate bearings, Agency officials serving at the highest levels refused to say whether the CIA was still maintaining active relationships with members of the ABC‑News organization. All cover arrangements were made with the knowledge off ABC executives, the sources said.

These same sources professed to know few specifies about the Agency’s relationships with NBC, except that several foreign correspondents of the network undertook some assignments for the Agency in the 1950s and 1960s. “It was a thing people did then,” said Richard Wald, president of NBC News since 1973. “I wouldn’t be surprised if people here—including some of the correspondents in those days—had connections with the Agency.”

■ The Copley Press, and its subsidiary, the Copley News Service. This relationship, first disclosed publicly by reporters Joe Trento and Dave Roman in Penthouse magazine, is said by CIA officials to have been among the Agency’s most productive in terms of getting “outside” cover for its employees. Copley owns nine newspapers in California and Illinois—among them the San Diego Union and Evening Tribune. The Trento‑Roman account, which was financed by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism, asserted that at least twenty‑three Copley News Service employees performed work for the CIA. “The Agency’s involvement with the Copley organization is so extensive that it’s almost impossible to sort out,” said a CIA official who was asked about the relationship late in 1976. Other Agency officials said then that James S. Copley, the chain’s owner until his death in 1973, personally made most of the cover arrangements with the CIA.

According to Trento and Roman, Copley personally volunteered his news service to then‑president Eisenhower to act as “the eyes and ears” against “the Communist threat in Latin and Central America” for “our intelligence services.”  James Copley was also the guiding hand behind the Inter‑American Press Association, a CIA‑funded organization with heavy membership among right‑wing Latin American newspaper editors.

■ Other major news organizations. According to Agency officials, CIA files document additional cover arrangements with the following news‑gathering organizations, among others: the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday‑Evening Post, Scripps‑Howard Newspapers, Hearst Newspapers Seymour K. Freidin, Hearst’s current London bureau chief and a former  Herald‑Tribune editor and correspondent, has been identified as a CIA operative by Agency sources), Associated Press,9 United Press International, the Mutual Broadcasting System, Reuters and the Miami Herald. Cover arrangements with the Herald, according to CIA officials, were unusual in that they were made “on the ground by the CIA station in Miami, not from CIA headquarters.

“And that’s just a small part of the list,” in the words of one official who served in the CIA hierarchy. Like many sources, this official said that the only way to end the uncertainties about aid furnished the Agency by journalists is to disclose the contents of the CIA files—a course opposed by almost all of the thirty‑five present and former CIA officials interviewed over the course of a year.

COLBY CUTS HIS LOSSES

THE CIA’S USE OF JOURNALISTS CONTINUED VIRTUALLY unabated until 1973 when, in response to public disclosure that the Agency had secretly employed American reporters, William Colby began scaling down the program. In his public statements, Colby conveyed the impression that the use of journalists had been minimal and of limited importance to the Agency.

He then initiated a series of moves intended to convince the press, Congress and the public that the CIA had gotten out of the news business. But according to Agency officials, Colby had in fact thrown a protective net around his valuable intelligence in the journalistic community. He ordered his deputies to maintain Agency ties with its best journalist contacts while severing formal relationships with many regarded as inactive, relatively unproductive or only marginally important. In reviewing Agency files to comply with Colby’s directive, officials found that many journalists had not performed useful functions for the CIA in years. Such relationships, perhaps as many as a hundred, were terminated between 1973 and 1976.

Meanwhile, important CIA operatives who had been placed on the staffs of some major newspaper and broadcast outlets were told to resign and become stringers or freelancers, thus enabling Colby to assure concerned editors that members of their staffs were not CIA employees. Colby also feared that some valuable stringer‑operatives might find their covers blown if scrutiny of the Agency’s ties with journalists continued. Some of these individuals were reassigned to jobs on so‑called proprietary publications—foreign periodicals and broadcast outlets secretly funded and staffed by the CIA. Other journalists who had signed formal contracts with the CIA—making them employees of the Agency—were released from their contracts, and asked to continue working under less formal arrangements.

In November 1973, after many such shifts had been made, Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general‑circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high‑level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy‑five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976.

Colby, who built a reputation as one of the most skilled undercover tacticians in the CIA’s history, had himself run journalists in clandestine operations before becoming director in 1973. But even he was said by his closest associates to have been disturbed at how extensively and, in his view, indiscriminately, the Agency continued to use journalists at the time he took over. “Too prominent,” the director frequently said of some of the individuals and news organizations then working with the CIA. Others in the Agency refer to their best‑known journalistic assets as “brand names.”)

“Colby’s concern was that he might lose the resource altogether unless we became a little more careful about who we used and how we got them,” explained one of the former director’s deputies. The thrust of Colby’s subsequent actions was to move the Agency’s affiliations away from the so‑called “majors” and to concentrate them instead in smaller newspaper chains, broadcasting groups and such specialized publications as trade journals and newsletters.

After Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full‑time or part‑time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station” At the time of the announcement, the Agency acknowledged that the policy would result in termination of less than half of the relationships with the 50 U.S. journalists it said were still affiliated with the Agency. The text of the announcement noted that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. Thus, many relationships were permitted to remain intact.

The Agency’s unwillingness to end its use of journalists and its continued relationships with some news executives is largely the product of two basic facts of the intelligence game: journalistic cover is ideal because of the inquisitive nature of a reporter’s job; and many other sources of institutional cover have been denied the CIA in recent years by businesses, foundations and educational institutions that once cooperated with the Agency.

“It’s tough to run a secret agency in this country,” explained one high‑level CIA official. “We have a curious ambivalence about intelligence. In order to serve overseas we need cover. But we have been fighting a rear‑guard action to try and provide cover. The Peace Corps is off‑limits, so is USIA, the foundations and voluntary organizations have been off‑limits since ‘67, and there is a self‑imposed prohibition on Fulbrights [Fulbright Scholars]. If you take the American community and line up who could work for the CIA and who couldn’t there is a very narrow potential. Even the Foreign Service doesn’t want us. So where the hell do you go? Business is nice, but the press is a natural. One journalist is worth twenty agents. He has access, the ability to ask questions without arousing suspicion.”

ROLE OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE

DESPITE THE EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD CIA USE OF journalists, the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff decided against questioning any of the reporters, editors, publishers or broadcast executives whose relationships with the Agency are detailed in CIA files.

According to sources in the Senate and the Agency, the use of journalists was one of two areas of inquiry which the CIA went to extraordinary lengths to curtail. The other was the Agency’s continuing and extensive use of academics for recruitment and information gathering purposes.

In both instances, the sources said, former directors Colby and Bush and CIA special counsel Mitchell Rogovin were able to convince key members of the committee that full inquiry or even limited public disclosure of the dimensions of the activities would do irreparable damage to the nation’s intelligence‑gathering apparatus, as well as to the reputations of hundreds of individuals. Colby was reported to have been especially persuasive in arguing that disclosure would bring on a latter‑day “witch hunt” in which the victims would be reporters, publishers and editors.

Walter Elder, deputy to former CIA director McCone and the principal Agency liaison to the Church committee, argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction because there had been no misuse of journalists by the CIA; the relationships had been voluntary. Elder cited as an example the case of the Louisville Courier‑Journal. “Church and other people on the committee were on the chandelier about the Courier‑Journal,” one Agency official said, “until we pointed out that we had gone to the editor to arrange cover, and that the editor had said, ‘Fine.’”

Some members of the Church committee and staff feared that Agency officials had gained control of the inquiry and that they were being hoodwinked. “The Agency was extremely clever about it and the committee played right into its hands,” said one congressional source familiar with all aspects of the inquiry. “Church and some of the other members were much more interested in making headlines than in doing serious, tough investigating. The Agency pretended to be giving up a lot whenever it was asked about the flashy stuff—assassinations and secret weapons and James Bond operations. Then, when it came to things that they didn’t want to give away, that were much more important to the Agency, Colby in particular called in his chits. And the committee bought it.”

The Senate committee’s investigation into the use of journalists was supervised by William B. Bader, a former CIA intelligence officer who returned briefly to the Agency this year as deputy to CIA director Stansfield Turner and is now a high‑level intelligence official at the Defense Department. Bader was assisted by David Aaron, who now serves as the deputy to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser.

According to colleagues on the staff of the Senate inquiry, both Bader and Aaron were disturbed by the information contained in CIA files about journalists; they urged that further investigation he undertaken by the Senate’s new permanent CIA oversight committee. That committee, however, has spent its first year of existence writing a new charter for the CIA, and members say there has been little interest in delving further into the CIA’s use of the press.

Bader’s investigation was conducted under unusually difficult conditions. His first request for specific information on the use of journalists was turned down by the CIA on grounds that there had been no abuse of authority and that current intelligence operations might he compromised. Senators Walter Huddleston, Howard Baker, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale and Charles Mathias—who had expressed interest in the subject of the press and the CIA—shared Bader’s distress at the CIA’s reaction. In a series of phone calls and meetings with CIA director George Bush and other Agency officials, the senators insisted that the committee staff be provided information about the scope of CIA‑press activities. Finally, Bush agreed to order a search of the files and have those records pulled which deals with operations where journalists had been used. But the raw files could not he made available to Bader or the committee, Bush insisted. Instead, the director decided, his deputies would condense the material into one‑paragraph sum­maries describing in the most general terms the activities of each individual journalist. Most important, Bush decreed, the names of journalists and of the news organizations with which they were affiliated would be omitted from the summaries. However, there might be some indication of the region where the journalist had served and a general description of the type of news organization for which he worked.

Assembling the summaries was difficult, according to CIA officials who supervised the job. There were no “journalist files” per se and information had to be collected from divergent sources that reflect the highly compartmentalized character of the CIA. Case officers who had handled journalists supplied some names. Files were pulled on various undercover operations in which it seemed logical that journalists had been used. Significantly, all work by reporters for the Agency under the category of covert operations, not foreign intelligence.) Old station records were culled. “We really had to scramble,” said one official.

After several weeks, Bader began receiving the summaries, which numbered over 400 by the time the Agency said it had completed searching its files.

The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency’s files on the use of journalists. “We gave them a broad, representative picture,” said one agency official. “We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us.” A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists—including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks.

Bader and others to whom he described the contents of the summaries immediately reached some general conclusions: the sheer number of covert relationships with journalists was far greater than the CIA had ever hinted; and the Agency’s use of reporters and news executives was an intelligence asset of the first magnitude. Reporters had been involved in almost every conceivable kind of operation. Of the 400‑plus individuals whose activities were summarized, between 200 and 250 were “working journalists” in the usual sense of the term—reporters, editors, correspondents, photographers; the rest were employed at least nominally) by book publishers, trade publications and newsletters.

Still, the summaries were just that: compressed, vague, sketchy, incomplete. They could be subject to ambiguous interpretation. And they contained no suggestion that the CIA had abused its authority by manipulating the editorial content of American newspapers or broadcast reports.

Bader’s unease with what he had found led him to seek advice from several experienced hands in the fields of foreign relations and intelligence. They suggested that he press for more information and give those members of the committee in whom he had the most confidence a general idea of what the summaries revealed. Bader again went to Senators Huddleston, Baker, Hart, Mondale and Mathias. Meanwhile, he told the CIA that he wanted to see more—the full files on perhaps a hundred or so of the individuals whose activities had been summarized. The request was turned down outright. The Agency would provide no more information on the subject. Period.

The CIA’s intransigence led to an extraordinary dinner meeting at Agency headquarters in late March 1976. Those present included Senators Frank Church who had now been briefed by Bader), and John Tower, the vice‑chairman of the committee; Bader; William Miller, director of the committee staff; CIA director Bush; Agency counsel Rogovin; and Seymour Bolten, a high‑level CIA operative who for years had been a station chief in Germany and Willy Brandt’s case officer. Bolten had been deputized by Bush to deal with the committee’s requests for information on journalists and academics. At the dinner, the Agency held to its refusal to provide any full files. Nor would it give the committee the names of any individual journalists described in the 400 summaries or of the news organizations with whom they were affiliated. The discussion, according to participants, grew heated. The committee’s representatives said they could not honor their mandate—to determine if the CIA had abused its authority—without further information. The CIA maintained it could not protect its legitimate intelligence operations or its employees if further disclosures were made to the committee. Many of the journalists were contract employees of the Agency, Bush said at one point, and the CIA was no less obligated to them than to any other agents.

Finally, a highly unusual agreement was hammered out: Bader and Miller would be permitted to examine “sanitized” versions of the full files of twenty‑five journalists selected from the summaries; but the names of the journalists and the news organizations which employed them would be blanked out, as would the identities of other CIA employees mentioned in the files. Church and Tower would be permitted to examine the unsanitizedversions of five of the twenty‑five files—to attest that the CIA was not hiding anything except the names. The whole deal was contingent on an agreement that neither Bader, Miner, Tower nor Church would reveal the contents of the files to other members of the committee or staff.

Bader began reviewing the 400‑some summaries again. His object was to select twenty‑five that, on the basis of the sketchy information they contained, seemed to represent a cross section. Dates of CIA activity, general descriptions of news organizations, types of journalists and undercover operations all figured in his calculations.

From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, ‘60s and even early ‘70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both—particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.

“There is quite an incredible spread of relationships,” Bader reported to the senators. “You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level.”

Ironically, one major news organization that set limits on its dealings with the CIA, according to Agency officials, was the one with perhaps the greatest editorial affinity for the Agency’s long‑range goals and policies: U.S. News and World Report. The late David Lawrence, the columnist and founding editor of U.S. News, was a close friend of Allen Dulles. But he repeatedly refused requests by the CIA director to use the magazine for cover purposes, the sources said. At one point, according to a high CIA official, Lawrence issued orders to his sub‑editors in which he threatened to fire any U.S. News employee who was found to have entered into a formal relationship with the Agency. Former editorial executives at the magazine confirmed that such orders had been issued. CIA sources declined to say, however, if the magazine remained off‑limits to the Agency after Lawrence’s death in 1973 or if Lawrence’s orders had been followed.)

Meanwhile, Bader attempted to get more information from the CIA, particularly about the Agency’s current relationships with journalists. He encountered a stone wall. “Bush has done nothing to date,” Bader told associates. “None of the important operations are affected in even a marginal way.” The CIA also refused the staffs requests for more information on the use of academics. Bush began to urge members of the committee to curtail its inquiries in both areas and conceal its findings in the final report. “He kept saying, ‘Don’t fuck these guys in the press and on the campuses,’ pleading that they were the only areas of public life with any credibility left,” reported a Senate source. Colby, Elder and Rogovin also implored individual members of the committee to keep secret what the staff had found. “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared,” said another source. Exposure of the CIA’s relationships with journalists and academics, the Agency feared, would close down two of the few avenues of agent recruitment still open. “The danger of exposure is not the other side,” explained one CIA expert in covert operations. “This is not stuff the other side doesn’t know about. The concern of the Agency is that another area of cover will be denied.”

A senator who was the object of the Agency’s lobbying later said: “From the CIA point of view this was the highest, most sensitive covert program of all.... It was a much larger part of the operational system than has been indicated.” He added, “I had a great compulsion to press the point but it was late .... If we had demanded, they would have gone the legal route to fight it.”

Indeed, time was running out for the committee. In the view of many staff members, it had squandered its resources in the search for CIA assassination plots and poison pen letters. It had undertaken the inquiry into journalists almost as an afterthought. The dimensions of the program and the CIA’s sensitivity to providing information on it had caught the staff and the committee by surprise. The CIA oversight committee that would succeed the Church panel would have the inclination and the time to inquire into the subject methodically; if, as seemed likely, the CIA refused to cooperate further, the mandate of the successor committee would put it in a more advantageous position to wage a protracted fight .... Or so the reasoning went as Church and the few other senators even vaguely familiar with Bader’s findings reached a decision not to pursue the matter further. No journalists would be interviewed about their dealings with the Agency—either by the staff or by the senators, in secret or in open session. The specter, first raised by CIA officials, of a witch hunt in the press corps haunted some members of the staff and the committee. “We weren’t about to bring up guys to the committee and then have everybody say they’ve been traitors to the ideals of their profession,” said a senator.

Bader, according to associates, was satisfied with the decision and believed that the successor committee would pick up the inquiry where he had left it. He was opposed to making public the names of individual journalists. He had been concerned all along that he had entered a “gray area” in which there were no moral absolutes. Had the CIA “manipulated” the press in the classic sense of the term? Probably not, he concluded; the major news organizations and their executives had willingly lent their resources to the Agency; foreign correspondents had regarded work for the CIA as a national service and a way of getting better stories and climbing to the top of their profession. Had the CIA abused its authority? It had dealt with the press almost exactly as it had dealt with other institutions from which it sought cover — the diplomatic service, academia, corporations. There was nothing in the CIA’s charter which declared any of these institutions off‑limits to America’s intelligence service. And, in the case of the press, the Agency had exercised more care in its dealings than with many other institutions; it had gone to considerable lengths to restrict its role to information‑gathering and cover.10

Bader was also said to be concerned that his knowledge was so heavily based on information furnished by the CIA; he hadn’t gotten the other side of the story from those journalists who had associated with the Agency. He could be seeing only “the lantern show,” he told associates. Still, Bader was reasonably sure that he had seen pretty much the full panoply of what was in the files. If the CIA had wanted to deceive him it would have never given away so much, he reasoned. “It was smart of the Agency to cooperate to the extent of showing the material to Bader,” observed a committee source. “That way, if one fine day a file popped up, the Agency would be covered. They could say they had already informed the Congress.”

The dependence on CIA files posed another problem. The CIA’s perception of a relationship with a journalist might be quite different than that of the journalist: a CIA official might think he had exercised control over a journalist; the journalist might think he had simply had a few drinks with a spook. It was possible that CIA case officers had written self‑serving memos for the files about their dealings with journalists, that the CIA was just as subject to common bureaucratic “cover‑your‑ass” paperwork as any other agency of government.

A CIA official who attempted to persuade members of the Senate committee that the Agency’s use of journalists had been innocuous maintained that the files were indeed filled with “puffing” by case officers. “You can’t establish what is puff and what isn’t,” he claimed. Many reporters, he added, “were recruited for finite [specific] undertakings and would be appalled to find that they were listed [in Agency files] as CIA operatives.” This same official estimated that the files contained descriptions of about half a dozen reporters and correspondents who would be considered “famous”—that is, their names would be recognized by most Americans. “The files show that the CIA goes to the press for and just as often that the press comes to the CIA,” he observed. “...There is a tacit agreement in many of these cases that there is going to be a quid pro quo”—i.e., that the reporter is going to get good stories from the Agency and that the CIA will pick up some valuable services from the reporter.

Whatever the interpretation, the findings of the Senate committees inquiry into the use of journalists were deliberately buried—from the full membership of the committee, from the Senate and from the public. “There was a difference of opinion on how to treat the subject,” explained one source. “Some [senators] thought these were abuses which should be exorcized and there were those who said, ‘We don’t know if this is bad or not.’”

Bader’s findings on the subject were never discussed with the full committee, even in executive session. That might have led to leaks—especially in view of the explosive nature of the facts. Since the beginning of the Church committee’s investigation, leaks had been the panel’s biggest collective fear, a real threat to its mission. At the slightest sign of a leak the CIA might cut off the flow of sensitive information as it did, several times in other areas), claiming that the committee could not be trusted with secrets. “It was as if we were on trial—not the CIA,” said a member of the committee staff. To describe in the committee’s final report the true dimensions of the Agency’s use of journalists would cause a furor in the press and on the Senate floor. And it would result in heavy pressure on the CIA to end its use of journalists altogether. “We just weren’t ready to take that step,” said a senator. A similar decision was made to conceal the results of the staff’s inquiry into the use of academics. Bader, who supervised both areas of inquiry, concurred in the decisions and drafted those sections of the committee’s final report. Pages 191 to 201 were entitled “Covert Relationships with the United States Media.” “It hardly reflects what we found,” stated Senator Gary Hart. “There was a prolonged and elaborate negotiation [with the CIA] over what would be said.”

Obscuring the facts was relatively simple. No mention was made of the 400 summaries or what they showed. Instead the report noted blandly that some fifty recent contacts with journalists had been studied by the committee staff—thus conveying the impression that the Agency’s dealings with the press had been limited to those instances. The Agency files, the report noted, contained little evidence that the editorial content of American news reports had been affected by the CIA’s dealings with journalists. Colby’s misleading public statements about the use of journalists were repeated without serious contradiction or elaboration. The role of cooperating news executives was given short shrift. The fact that the Agency had concentrated its relationships in the most prominent sectors of the press went unmentioned. That the CIA continued to regard the press as up for grabs was not even suggested.

Former ‘Washington Post’ reporter CARL BERNSTEIN is now working on a book about the witch hunts of the Cold War.

Footnotes:

1 John McCone, director of the Agency from 1961 to 1965, said in a recent interview that he knew about "great deal of debriefing and exchanging help" but nothing about any arrangements for cover the CIA might have made with media organizations. "I wouldn't necessarily have known about it," he said. "Helms would have handled anything like that. It would be unusual for him to come to me and say, 'We're going to use journalists for cover.' He had a job to do. There was no policy during my period that would say, 'Don't go near that water,' nor was there one saying, 'Go to it!'" During the Church committee bearings, McCone testified that his subordinates failed to tell him about domestic surveillance activities or that they were working on plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. Richard Helms was deputy director of the Agency at the time; he became director in 1966.

2 A stringer is a reporter who works for one or several news organizations on a retainer or on a piecework basis.

3 From the CIA point of view, access to newsfilm outtakes and photo libraries is a matter of extreme importance. The Agency's photo archive is probably the greatest on earth; its graphic sources include satellites, photoreconnaissance, planes, miniature cameras ... and the American press. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Agency obtained carte‑blanche borrowing privileges in the photo libraries of literally dozens of American newspapers, magazines and television, outlets. For obvious reasons, the CIA also assigned high priority to the recruitment of photojournalists, particularly foreign‑based members of network camera crews.

4 On April 3rd, 1961, Koop left the Washington bureau to become head of CBS, Inc.’s Government Relations Department — a position he held until his retirement on March 31st, 1972.  Koop, who worked as a deputy in the Censorship Office in World War II, continued to deal with the CIA in his new position, according to CBS sources.

5 Hayes, who left the Washington Post Company in 1965 to become U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, is now chairman of the board of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty — both of which severed their ties with the CIA in 1971.  Hayes said he cleared his participation in the China project with the late Frederick S. Beebe, then chairman of the board of the Washington Post Company.  Katharine Graham, the Post’s publisher, was unaware of the nature of the assignment, he said.  Participants in the project signed secrecy agreements.

6 Philip Geyelin, editor of the Post editorial page, worked for the Agency before joining the Post.

7 Louis Buisch, presidentof the publishing company of the Hornell, New York, Evening Tribune, told the Courier‑Journal in 1976 that he remembered little about the hiring of Robert Campbell. "He wasn't there very long, and he didn't make much of an impression," said Buisch, who has since retired from active management of the newspaper.

8 Probably the most thoughtful article on the subject of the press and the CIA was written by Stuart H. Loory and appeared in the September‑October 1974 issue of Columbia Journalism Review.

9 Wes Gallagher, general manager of the Associated Press from 1962 to 1976, takes vigorous exception to the notion that the Associated Press might have aided the Agency. "We've always stayed clear on the CIA; I would have fired anybody who worked for them. We don't even let our people debrief." At the time of the first disclosures that reporters had worked for the CIA, Gallagher went to Colby. "We tried to find out names. All he would say was that no full‑time staff member of the Associated Press was employed by the Agency. We talked to Bush. He said the same thing." If any Agency personnel were placed in Associated Press bureaus, said Gallagher, it was done without consulting the management of the wire service. But Agency officials insist that they were able to make cover arrangements through someone in the upper management levelsof Associated Press, whom they refuse to identify.

10 Many journalists and some CIA officials dispute the Agency's claim that it has been scrupulous in respecting the editorial integrity of American publications and broadcast outlets.


Published in INFILTRATION ARCHIVE
Featured photo - How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations A page from a GCHQ top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:


The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

Documents referenced in this article:

 

 

 - - - - - - - - - COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL POSTING AT TheIntercept.com - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

  1. DIogenes

    Reading these comments is fascinating. We have an intersection of
    1 People trying to get out the truth or find it
    2 Paranoid lunatics basking in justifications for their paranoid world view
    3 Government agents posing as 1 and 2
    4 Anarchists posing as 3
    5 Government agents posing as 4
    6 The rest of us
    7 Lunatics and government agents posing as the rest of us

    If the effort is to neutralize the internet as a force to mitigate government power, the strategy is working. How can it not? Truffers, pseudo-truffers, lunatics, pseudo-lunatics, anarchists, pseudo-anarchists. The MSM is owned by the government, now so is the internet. Next we will find out that Greenwald is a CIA agent, who’s actually a double agent working for Putin, who is working for the Chinese. Then we’ll find out that the CIA spread that rumor and falsified the information to defange Greenwald.

    Who wants pizza?

     
  2. Caligula

    A conspiracy is merely a plan to do something. The United States actually does this all the time , and will boast about it even. They have a very good record of success also. The Raid to Kill or capture Bin Laden ; They conspired to do it, then they put it into action. It was a conspiracy, textbook definition.They use it in almost all levels of government, they conspire to give a tax hike for this or that, while they counter balance it in another manner, even your local city counsel conspire. In the office, on the phone, at the golf course and bar afterwards. WHy does the idea strike people as crazy. Guess we like things not to rock our little comfortable illusions we feel secure in.

     
  3. Paul

    What if all the comments here have been generated by government trolls making use of the playbook that the article is talking about?

     
  4. Michael Wolf

    By the way, if anyone wants to know what causes our leaders to be the idiots they are, to act without regard for humanity, to act with nothing but selfish concern; then you might consider reading this:

    http://www.wolveswolveswolves.org/moralreasoning/DevelopmentalDisorderImpactingHumanSocialEvolution.htm

    Please be patient, it is only the second draft, and I did suffer an injury which affected my ability to clearly articulate my thoughts. I stumble once in a while and haven’t gotten around to proofreading the paper yet.

     
    • Jon

      Excellent Michael Wolf – couldn’t agree more, well done!

       
    • Worzel Gummidge

      The “learned” aspect of pyscopathy in a society (with relevance to GCHQ and NSA) is that when society does not punish behavior of the sort these slides reveal has been going on the deterrent for the state (and its officials) to break it’s own laws vanish. Justice must be seen to be done, e.g the deterrent for taking a life does to some extent work as it incurs lengthy jail time if caught; but within government there appears to be no deterrent what so ever apart from we’ll vote you out in 4 years.

      4 years of meta data handed over to the next government to analyze!

      There needs to be real public debate especially in the United Kingdom, shrouding the subject in secrecy linked to terrorism is not going to help whether it is indeed a smokescreen or not.

      Most acts of terrorism at their root are not psychopathic in my view, they may be miss guided and many other things. It is by definition alone as we all know that it just as terrorizing for a member of society to read the above article and to find out that government are using this kind of actions against it’s own citizens.

      Violence has many forms. It seems to me that the idea that a subject might be too difficult to understand for the public stops an informed debate dead in its tracks. If giving up our privacy we need to do this with the full understanding of all the implications. This means different things for different people, for example some people really couldn’t care less about PORN metadata.

      The legislation has been rushed through to get us in to this situation where the above article’s miss use of powers have arisen. What we ought to think about is imagine there was no Snowdon and we discovered this 10 years from now… What then??

       
    • Caligula

      History has shown us again and again a ruling “class” will somehow develop a type “superior” view in regards to themselves vs. those they are charged with leading. Pharaohs: adopted the belief they were the direct decendants of the gods, Moses: self proclaimed himself the hand of god to impose his ideals of morality upon the isrealis, so much so, if you do believe its accuracy, he took credit for the miracle of striking the stone and water springing from beneath in the desert. Ceasar(s): Came to the conclusion , since he had dominion over the entire known civilized world, he must in fact BE a GOD and demanded not only taxes but religeous sacrifices and tithes. Napoleon, very similar complex , and even the Nazi Party with their “superhuman” and Racial purity views. We see it today, where certain Acronymed agencies think the law only applies to the general population, nothing they need to follow,and the view of many in the Judicial, and enforcement branches proclaiming necesity to break the law in order to protect us from lawbreakers. Oblivious to the hypocrisy of the idea because they are the “good guys” so to say. Now they have a new theory to base their delusions on , genetics. the drug addict is ( without any evidence other than theory, and rumor) a genetic mishap,or the poor are that way because they lack the desire to be successful, a genetic trait passed on to them from their lazy poor parents.
      The perfect conditions set long enough, a fungus, rust, disease, will inevitably set in,and thrive,flourish, if let be, whether or not you acknowledge it, or deny it in your mind. It’s only doing what it does, and so it will.

       
  5. Michael Wolf

    What is missing from this story is information on who the NSA targets, and what criteria they use to target those individuals.

    When I was arrested after the National Park Service officer used the NSA surveillance tools to find my online information and set a trap for me because I turned in a marijuana grow operation he was protecting, I initially thought that it was just a coincidence that my reputation had been threatened twice by Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service employees.

    My question then is, how do we know who is targeted with this program? Are there any examples? Can we ask Snowden? Is this limited to terrorist suspects, or does the NSA silence anyone who critiques the established powers-that-be?

    Could I have been twice a victim of the NSA surveillance – found because I turned in a grow operation where the workers were running us off the road; but previously harassed for 7 years now in a massive campaign to defame me spanning the entire globe – as the stalker used foreign servers to get around my DMCA notices? The stalker also used IP blocking software.

    I honestly don’t think the NSA would target me, but I don’t know. Since my work in wolf recovery, I have since been a journalist (http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1022022/michael_wolf.html), and tried to start a rally, part of which included a pledge we the people would require our leaders to sign as a condition of service (http://www.wolveswolveswolves.org/federalpledge.htm). Or perhaps it is my internet show (user zapocalypsediaries on Youtube, or my video diary, Diaryofawolf. There is also my involvement as an amicus on the wolf delisting case in Montana, and the Proposition 8 case in California, where I was the first to argue that the gay marriage bans violate the Establishment Clause because people have been duped into believing that marriage is a religious, rather than a legal institution? Could these have been sufficient “crimes” to warrant trolling by the NSA?

    Or is it just a coincidence that I am stalked by a man and his dozens of followers who just so happen to use the same exact techniques described in this story.

    I think it’s a fair conclusion that either the NSA is stalking me, or the NSA is using the same methods. In other words, if the NSA isn’t stalking me, then they are behaving in the same exact manner as childish internet trolls.

    Given the interference in world affairs and the whole of these Snowden revelations; I think the fair conclusion would be that yes indeed the NSA are no more than a bunch of internet trolls…likely because that’s who they recruited.

    I, for one, am dispensing with the internet and am working to develop a MESH network which works on routers and uses the HAM system to connect meshes together. Anyone care to help?

     
  6. meowser

    You left out all the best stuff about magicians who work for spy agencies!

     
  7. Wnt

    The one ray of hope is that all these goofy social science flowcharts are as meaningless to the people they were meant for as they seem to me. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean they can’t cause people all kinds of grief anyway, with a child’s innate aptitude for cyberbullying.

     
  8. Wnt

    I see the “9/11 Truthers” have turned up — and there is no online campaign that I have ever been more suspicious of it being run by some kind of secret agency. I mean, the idea that after a jet plane crashes into a tower, you need a separate bomb to blow it up is so impossibly stupid, how would anyone ever fall for it? But by beating the drums, day in and day out for thirteen years, they drown out all the more interesting conspiracy theories – like that Bush allowed or even encouraged Osama bin Laden to attack, to authorize the spy agency takeover of the government that has by this point become de facto law. Real 9/11 conspiracy theories should ask _why_ the planes hit when they did, not come up with physically ludicrous alternative explanations. Somebody ask Snowden if any of those documents ADMIT this is the reason we’ve suffered this nonsense.

     
    • Lariokie

      It appears to me that you are more obsessed with the 9/11 Truthers, as you call them, than they are with the tragedy. Why don’t you just go off and develope a series of science-based, engineer sanctioned, and First-responder approved Youtubes on your 9/11 “theories” and leave this blog to those interested in the subjects at hand? This is about real US government and UK government spying on their own publics. If that doesn’t chill your spine, perhaps you don’t have one.

       
    • Robbie Martin

      now all 9/11 truthers subscribe to things you are describing. I would describe myself as a ‘truther’ but i think as you said the ‘more interesting’ SCADS (state crimes against democracies) are what truthers should be focusing on. The Bush administration lied about what happened on 9/11, lied about their level of foreknowledge, and then covered it up in the form of a whitehouse directed 9/11 commission. These are facts not ‘theories’, but to default or er on the side of the official Bush narrative, that the government was simply incompetent would be at this point pretty absurd. I think it’s just a matter of time before people stop knee jerking against ludicrous 9/11 theories and look at the ones blatantly in plain sight (saudi connections, FBI moles in Bin Laden’s inner circle, eerily similar war game scenarios proving that it was not a ‘failure of imagination) that contradict what we’ve been told.

       
    • PAUL HARVEY

      Wow, try to discredit one crazy theory, only to insert another one !!

       
    • Anonymous

      Ok, answer these questions then, how did two buildings manage to collapse almost exactly straight down into their own footprint ? Why did WTC 7 collapse when it was not hit by a plane. This was also the first day in the history of concrete core buildings when one has ever collapsed, bit on the day of 911 three collapsed. Supposedly collapse was caused from the aircraft fuel, but the problem with that is that burning aircraft fuel cannot reach a higher enough temperature to have melted, and weakened sufficiently the concrete core structures. Then of course their is the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon. Hmm no seats or visible aircraft parts strewn everywhere which you would expect to see when a large plane hits a building. Oh and the Pentagon has hundreds of surveillance cameras, why no footage released of the plane hitting the building. Then of course there is the mystery of the intense temperature and burning which continued in the ground for weeks following 911, and the explosions going up the stairs as reported by fire crews and the mysterious molten metal dripping from various structural points well below the point of impact of the planes. Even structural engineers, and demolition experts have gone on record questioning how two planes could hit two buildings at random structural points and manage to bring two enormous structures down so perfectly into their own footprints. This is very difficult to achieve even for the best demolition companies in the World.

       
    • Blowblowblowthe whistle
       
    • Unzinkable

      Way to demonstrate the tactics revealed in this article!

       
  9. DG

    Wow, I’ve always expected commercial interests to influence people on the Internet, but kind of sad our great nation feels insecure enough to resort to these tactics, makes me sick in a way.

     
    • Scout

      It’s not even our nation anymore. Our nation was taken over in a policy coup by Nazis prior to 9/11. It was by design that they didn’t bother to inform us.

       
  10. AmericanGestapo14

    That’s exactly right, people are being tortured to death with Directed Energy Weapons. If you go to the Army’s research site. It states that their greatest area of research is ” the effects of electricity on the human body”. I would be very curious to know who signed up as the “test subjects”…unwitting activists, artists and journalists. Plus targets of opportunity to fill out the research sample population by gender, age and ethnicity.

    One of the many delusions that that the foot soldiers/ cannon fodder of the stalking operation are under…is that this is all legal. They think using a Directed Energy Weapon against an innocent civilian is legal, whereas physically attacking them or shooting them in the head is not.

    Point A, the military is expressly prohibited against using psychological operations against American citizens. They are certainly not allowed to do human experimentation. Being instructed or paid off by the military or their contractors, does not get you a “get out of jail free card”, because everything they are doing is illegal. Federal agencies and local police can open an investigation on a U.S. citizen, based on probable cause. They can get a warrant collect evidence, interrogate the suspect, then charge the suspect with a crime. That is the only law enforcement activity that is legal in the United States.

    Let’s talk about some of the crimes that these stalking groups and their Directed Energy torturing goon counterparts are committing on a daily basis. Keep in mind, they have openly bragged to me they will never go to jail:

    1. Attempted murder
    2. Felony gang assault
    3. Stalking
    4. Computer tampering
    5. Breaking and entering
    6. Grand Larceny ( if they have destroyed property or stolen)
    7. Criminal conspiracy
    8. Terrorsim
    9. Interstate terrorism (if they’ve crossed state lines to follow a target)
    10. International terrorism (if they have contacted counterparts in a foreign country and/or followed a target to a foreign country

    Any of these charges, if proved, will result in a life sentence. Think about that you stalking torturing goons! Do you feel lucky?

     
    • Moviestar

      Well said. Yes, targeting of this nature is indeed a serious crime yet they continue to get away with it. Any form of covert harassment like this is indeed murder. Take from me , someone that has survived it for nearly 2 decades and veterans like me have almost all taken their own lives or ended up, wrongly I might add, in mental institutions being misdiagnosed. This harassment destroys families, jobs friends and worst of all hope. Gratefully I can now usually smell a rat in comments under an article or a youtube video. Most of these creeps use the same boring tactics of insults and meanness. As far as alternative media and sites giving out the info, my advice, always do your own research. Also if the spin about someone is unfounded, rumor or shallow accusations then be wary. Nothing is what it seems in this cyber world we now live in. Character assassinations are generally a good indication that perhaps that person is in fact telling the truth. The spin on the adage ‘conspiracy nut’ has been well planned

       
      • Scout

        Well said. ” Character assassinations are generally a good indication that perhaps that person is in fact telling the truth. “

         
  11. Ian

    Our scumbag western governments will stop at nothing, manipulating the stock market, the bond market, the gold and silver market, you name it these scum manipulate it, but the market will in the end decide, it’s just a matter of time!

     
    • The Feds Are Evil

      With all due respect, the market will not decide in the end. Only true goodness that has influenced the market will decide in the end. The markets are now controlled by a small group of oligarchical elitists protected by their evil twins in government that are periodically rotated in and out of office through entertainment style “elections” (in the US, the UK and elsewhere). Together, they form a network of banking, business and government “officials” that attempts to display an outward looking appearance of legitimacy. In reality, they are secretive grifters that manipulate interest rates, currency values, trading, world conflicts, and, even the price of a loaf of bread. These official grifters cannot be bothered with what they deem to be simple nuisances, like human dignity, genuine liberty, the law and a constitution. At the same time, they are fearful about getting exposed, which is why US government officials are now engaging in contorted gymnastics to crucify Mr. Snowden simply because he exposed the maggots and their machinery. Every person has a moral duty to speak out and expose corruption whenever you see it. Not only for your own sake, but for the sake of everybody else in this world and for future generations. In the end, evil will lose and goodness will prevail.

       
  12. Franky goes to Hollywood

    Never seen this before, what happened on the 26th of DEC 2013?:
    http://www.digitalattackmap.com/#anim=1&color=0&country=ALL&time=16065&view=map
    The more I read about military surveillance, cyber warfare (including bots) and agency intercept powers in general the more it seems although a knee jerk response probably the only course necessary for a supper power to keep it’s world dominance in place.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nACOyzPKidQ

     
  13. George B

    http://cryptome.org/2013/11/snowden-tally.htm

    Just to let you know – I have nothing against Glen, hardly know him, because I don’t follow him everywhere like some people here. If somebody wants to attack me – go ahead, don’t give a damn!
    Have to mention that if he (Glen) really wanted to release something, he will do it all at once and complete, without the blacked out parts even if that was not his idea, he should have demanded the complete info.
    I am someone who experienced all of the so far released techniques and more, but I am still here!!!
    Not as comfortable in my life as Glen surely is (releasing all ‘this’ without consequences), but I will get where I want to get: my total self-sufficiency, if someone up ‘there’ likes it or not!
    I have battled UK government agencies, banks and corporations whenever they tried to cheat or steal from me and my son.
    Refused to pay my tax – so not supporting any wars and illegal occupations!
    Finally they had enough and gently (not really) forced us to leave the UK.
    Not asking for any support from anyone – have worked many jobs in my life and I am not afraid of getting my hands dirty. See you later.

     
  14. cindi sterling

    My android ph has been been *hijacked* in a quite sinister manner, while never leaving my side. For example, the weather app suddenly showed my locale as *island of the dragons, spain* (rather than small town usa), then on google out of 15 playlists on my google music, the ONLY list to “suddenly vanish” was titled Praise n contained spiritually uplifting tunes. (Versus all the other lists like Rock or Dub etc). So apparently *somebody* isnt feelin the positive, higher-vibe..(or WORSE!??)

     
  15. Timothy JW

    I know someone who was burglarized 3 times in a 2 years and someone else who experienced attempted arson. Those crimes were never solved and hardly investigated -just examples. There is a huge law enforcement need, in the US at least, and this is the kind of minimally useful, invasive, and unconstitutional junk that the gov’t will spend billions on.

     
    • JH

      It appears that law enforcement has been re-routed to serve the interests of the powerful, or to act or not as each agency finds convenient. These slides really point to tactics used against environmental groups and others practicing perfectly legitimate, legal activism, while criminals slip through the “web” of protection. Really dispiriting.

       
  16. Tony Purdom

    The government have been running such operations on me for over 5 months now due to my development of a theory of the mind and gamification system that I have been developing. I am also active as an activist. I could shed some light on how these tactics are employed as I have seen them first hand and I have some training in psychology.

    One particularly tyrannical thing they do is reverse engineer psychology. They take the descriptions of someone who is paranoid or psychotic and seeing patterns that are not there and turn them into a defense for their attack. It is a hit and run strategy. When their target complains about the attack they can claim that the person is crazy and some sort of threat to the community. They can deny having anything to do with the activity. When you are being persecuted in this fashion you will falsely attribute attacks to these agencies. What they have ultimately done to me I can not say. I do believe that they would like the systems that I have developed for their own purposes. My research sheds some rather negative light on the way that government is conducted around the globe. Teaming up with the government is not really a natural partnership for this reason. How would you feel about teaming up with someone who makes you the target of constant attacks? Anyways if someone would like more first hand accounts of how such operations can be conducted I can be contacted at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I have a lot more information to share but I want this comment to be short enough that people read it. This shit is real and a large number of people being targeted probably don’t know it.

     
    • Per_S

      A omnipotent agency can troll you (for lack of a better term) 24/7, but they don’t have the means to get the systems and theorys you’ve been crafting, without you cooperating with them? With all due respect Sir, I don’t follow :/

       
  17. Tobias Karlsen

    The NSA and Co has become that evil organization that is in crime movies. Only this time its not a eccentric billionaire who’s running it, but the world’s biggest military force(s). No laws can get the lawmakers, except the constitutions which they don’t care about. Where is Superman when we needs him?

     
  18. Michael Santomauro

    Dear friend,

    Food for thought.

    Justice Matthew Cooper who is Jewish, is convinced I am anti-Semitic. But, why would he conduct himself from the bench in such a way that would fuel anti-Semitism? Unless his outburst is an inspection of his own brain for his hatred of Gentile fathers of European decent.

    Maybe he knows Jay Lefkowitz who said to The New York Times:

    “Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the Jews – reminds them who they are” (New York Times Magazine, February 12, 1995 p. 65). These comments were made by Jay Lefkowitz, a lawyer, who served as President Bush’s Special Envoy for Human Rights. The fact that the comments originated with a lawyer is uncanny, but even more so because of his background and his status as a Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. What the comments really demonstrate is that a desirable amount of anti-Semitism – Mr. Lefkowitz needs “a little anti-Semitism”, not a lot – whenever absent, can and must be induced by provocation to perpetuate the cause for Jewish group stratagem.

    Just thinking out loud.

    Fanaticism is now mainstream in the legal community, that it is affecting my divorce case:
    When a Judge (or the lawyers) loses his or her objectivity, then the truism applies:
    Everything is religious, everything is political.

    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Sending me this about “The Fucking Jews”
    Mr. Santomauro: No, actually, it was the opposite of that. It was “Fuck the Arabs” in the essay.
    Sandra Schpoont (Attorney for my 11 year old son): Oh, that’s better.
    Steven Mandel (Attorney for my ex-wife): Oh, that’s better.
    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: Oh, that’s better.

    Letter from The Mandel Law Firm (Steven J. Mandel) 12-9-13
    http://tinyurl.com/ozkcek8

    Justice Matthew F. Cooper: “Is that [Jewish] agenda to dilute the Aryan race?” On page 20:

    http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/Newsletter%20727.pdf

    +++
    The essay in question:
    +The Myth of the Innocent Civilian

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article674-the-myth-of-the-innocent-civilian.html

    “Justice Matthew F. Cooper has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, ‘Jewish conspiracy’ is completely false, in spirit and in word.

    “It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Justice Cooper has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction.

    “Michael Santomauro promotes the ideal of “scientific journalism” – where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely in order to avoid these type of distortions. Michael Santomauro treasurse his strong Jewish support just as he treasures the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share the hope for a just world.” –I.S.

    Peace.
    Michael Santomauro
    Cell: 917-974-6367
    +TWITTER: http://twitter.com/#!/Santomauro

    “An anti-Semite condemns people for being Jews, I am not an anti-Semite.”–Michael Santomauro.

     
  19. Alice
     
  20. Araldo Cattolico

    The reality is that the secret service chiefs and their minions in NSA and other secret agencies already have unfathomable more secret power and information about us citizens, than Lavrentiy Beria or Heinrich Himmler both infamous secret services chiefs during Stalin’s rule of the Soviet Union or Hitler’s rule of Nazi Germany. Now, they want to take away the freedom of the press, which make them accountable to us all. All that, because they want to have absolute control. Those chiefs are no different from other human beings anywhere, when given uncontrolled power they become corrupt, paranoid and quite dangerous to us all. It is high time to stop them using any available non-violent means of resistance as our freedoms and democracies are at stake!

    Glenn, I big thank you for your courage and great journalistic service to democracy!

    Araldo

     
  21. Bill Wolfe

    Glenn – why didn’t you pitch this story to NBC and all the other mainstream media outlets that are running the sex driven spying stories?

    Those stories were pitched just as you rolled out here – another clever marketing tool.

    I think this is what pisses your critics off – and rightly so in many cases.

    Notice that no media have written this story. Small audience of loyal followers who already understand the implications.

    That’s not how social and political change is made.

     
  22. american rooster

    These tactics are definitely true and I have seen the evidence of these tactics myself. It appears that some of these covert agents are already at work in the comments of this page.

     
  23. Trini Politi

    Navy Admits to Electric Powered Laser Weapons

    Reporter, David Sharp, from the Associated Press, recently wrote an article about the U.S. Navy already having sophisticated laser weapons at their disposal. The name of the article is
    ‘Star Wars’ at sea: Navy ready to deploy laser system this summer – rail guns not far behind

    The one problem they were encountering in using the electric laser weapons; is that these weapons require ample amounts of electricity to work.

    Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute said, “the rail gun requires a vast amount of electricity to launch the projectile.”

    The “projectile” referred to by Loren Thompson, is a laser emitting electrical charge that is invisible to the naked eye, that produces searing heat onto the target.

    “The Navy: “Producing enough energy for a rail gun is another problem.”

    “The Navy’s new destroyer, the Zumwalt, under construction at Bath Iron Works in Maine, is the only ship with enough electric power to run a rail gun. The stealthy ship’s gas turbine-powered generators can produce up to 78 megawatts of power. That’s enough electricity for a medium-size city — and more than enough for a rail gun.” Said Capt. James Downey, the program manager.

    The Yahoo article where these quotes came from confirm what I have known for almost 3 years now. That I had been attacked by a sophisticated laser that harnessed the energy of electricity. Not enough to kill me, but enough to disrupt my sleeps and make me appear “insane.”

    It was August 1, 2011. At around 5AM, my wife and I were awoken to a car crashing almost directly in front of our house. A car driving at a very high rate of speed, plowed and crashed into the telephone pole next to our telephone pole. My father, who lives in the house next door to us, went out to see what had happened. The driver of the car had fled on foot, and was gone, never to be seen again.

    A bald headed man, who lived across from my house at the time, who said he had just moved into the area, ran out as did my father, and asked my father if he was going to call the police, because he himself, “didn’t want to get involved.” So my father, who was going to call the police, decided not to either.

    By the way, the driver was never caught or arrested for leaving the scene of a crash, and according to an unnamed policeman, it was kept, “hush, hush.” The incident never made it into any local newspapers.

    On August 2, 2011, my wife and daughter had just come home from purchasing an air filled swimming pool, so our daughter could play, and keep cool in the hot weather.

    What we came home to on our street, was the scene of about 30 “workers” who were installing a new phone pole. One “worker” I’ll never forget, was obviously a very strong man who was, by himself holding up the phone pole as the other damaged phone pole was being taken away. It was quite a site, to say the least.

    That night, while sleeping, I started to feel heat on my head. Almost as if being electrically pricked, over and over again. The first time I thought, ok, I’m having a nightmare, and I woke up. But, this went on for 6 nights. No Sleep for 6 nights. Never happened to me before. Let me also state, that never in my 43 years did I ever have a mental illness, or a diagnosis of mental illness.

    With lack of sleep, and an attack by way of the telephone, (yes, a burst of air blew my eardrum out causing me to become ill, I still have ringing to this day in my right ear) that was witnessed by my wife and child, I had had enough. I went into NYC, and tried to find the United Nations. I couldn’t find it, and wound up at Union Square Park, where I gave a calm, coherent speech to about 200 or so, New Yorkers.

    I was arrested by a brigade of “police.” In January 2014, my arrest video surfaced.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcMhVUrgbM4

    In it, we can hear an “EMT” answer a man in the crowd as to why I am being arrested. The “EMT” replies: “we’re not arresting him, we’re going to put him in an ambulance.”

    An arrest, according to The Rutherford Institute, that by the way is handling the case of Media Darling, former, decorated marine, Brandon J. Raub, who was “falsely arrested,” states, “that whenever handcuffs are used, it is taking away the liberty of the person, when that person is being held against their will, whether they go to a hospital or jail. It constitutes as an arrest.”

    Why would the “EMT” say I wasn’t being “arrested,” when in fact, I was? Why would the hospital continue this lie to my family?
    It’s called a COVER-UP. When two or more parties enter into an agreement to enter into illegal activity, it is called a CONSPIRACY.

    To my chagrin, I found out that one only has 90 days from the point of incident to file a “False Arrest” case.

    Well, that gives me my answer. Once the 90 days had past, they were in the clear.

    I recently put in another claim with the same office, and requested this ruling be lifted due to the new evidence from my arrest video, clearly showing handcuffs being used, and the beginning of a “cover-up,” when the man said they weren’t arresting me.

    After the false arrest, I then was brought to a NYC Psych Hospital, and was forced to stay 23 days. These were no ordinary days. They were filled with drugs, a full fledged, that I could best describe as a POW Mind Control Experiment. Looking back now, the most intriguing aspect of this stay, was the lack of sleep for another 23 days.

    As I lay trying to sleep, an electric charge kept hitting me, making sleep impossible. Remembering back to this time, there was one day however, that I was not zapped. The day the electric power went out in NYC due to a Nor Easter that caused a power outage. Remember that? I want you also to remember what the Navy said: Vast Amounts of electricity needed to operate the electric laser weapon.” ELECTRICITY

    Before these traumatic events happened to me, I had never been diagnosed with a metal illness. I was running many miles a day, had just finished my master’s degree. I was also putting the finishing touches on my third music album,

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CFEP3Z6/ref=dm_ws_sp_ps_dp

    and a self-produced movie by the same name, Kyrie. http://distrify.com/films/7060-kyrie

    The doctors (who I believe were also in on this conspiracy) made the story I told to them even more fantastical. The Official Medical Report was filled with more inaccuracies and distortions and untruths – that would make even The Warren “JFK” Report blush.

    The Official Medical Report: “Mr. Iannacchino said he felt as if “a big hand, a wand were over him.” I Never Said This. I said that it was quite possible that the electricity from the outside was being harnessed into a weapon, and the “electric work” being done the week before, where heavy transformers were placed on our phone pole were installed should be investigated. Why was a heavy electric transformer installed on our unaffected phone pole, when their had never been one there before?

    Hopefully, the FOIA request put forth by me, to the electric company will answer and shed some light on these and many other questions pertaining to all work done and to the identities of the workers who worked on the August 2, 2011 job on my street.
    Once I got back from the different psych hospitals, I went searching on the internet. Surely, I could find people that went through this. I made the mistake of stumbling upon a “human rights group” that dealt specifically with people being tortured by these sophisticated weapons.

    What I found out however, from my own research, is that this group is made up of Disinfo Agents, and their job is to distort and confuse the public with this subject. It is also intriguing to me, that major news outlets will use this “human rights group” as the “goto official source” from time to time.

    This group had many “members” complaining of the most far out stories. Maybe some of them were mental, but I could see why they would distort the facts on purpose. I had specifically told the leader of this group that they should have me speak with reporters, that the “victims” they were using were making the group look more “crazy and unbalanced.” I now suspect, that this was the true goal of the group. To appear to the public at large as “fucking crazy.”

    First off, the leader of this group, who I spoke to on the phone tried to change the direction of my conclusions that these weapons ran off of electricity and came from lasers. Incredibly, this former Navy, NSA man, who leads this organization, told me that satellites and cell towers were most likely the cause of our “targeting.” BULLSHIT.

    There are other reasons I suspect this “leader” is a charlatan. Back in August of 2012, I suspected that I was being targeted for assassination at my place of employment. I spoke to this “leader.” He told me that I had to go back to work, and “face them.” But before ending the call, he wanted to “say a prayer” with me.

    I want to personally thank the writer, David Sharp of the Associated Press, as it confirms and supports my claims and suspicions that in fact, that more than likely, these sophisticated electric laser weapons were used on me.

    The electric connection confirmed by the Navy, would also confirm that The electric power lines outside our houses then would work fine in powering these weapons. Wouldn’t they?

    It is interesting to note, that when I first saw this article up on Drudgereport, it had disappeared from its website just as soon as I came across it.

    Another piece of interesting trivia. Back in 2011, when I was first attacked by these electric laser weapons, just as I was trying to make sense of it all, I contacted the mayor’s office in my “medium- sized city.” He referred me to another department. In fact, a man came and did do an “investigation.” Not much more came of it, and I went on to other things.

    Today, nearly three years later, we have a new mayor in our city. Paradoxically, our old mayor was able to find a job in record time – working at The Electric Company in a prestigious position.
    Find more articles at http://www.kyriemovie.blogspot.com

     
    • Obama's fusion mamma.

      I know a guy that does that to people. He helps set them up, one after another they die. He just sits there torturing people to death. High tech torture cult with interactive satellite technology or something.
      He was trying to get me to do it, showing me how it works… It’s like, “Hey you wanna help me kill as many people as you can? It’s perfectly legal, you just look for the strongest, smartest, healthiest most beautiful people you can find and then go like this”.

      Naturally I reported murder to the authorities. They get back to me saying they’re well aware of the situation because their the ones doing it and that I’m probably sick or need to be arrested.

      They’re all a specific type of Western European that do that (of course a couple are lobotomized tokens or abused looters). Obama’s mamma looks like one of them so he’s probably one too (a half brain).

       
    • Shoda

      You’re not alone with this electric shock torture. One of the attacks I started experiencing over a year ago was a small electric shock sensation in my head at the very moment I was about to cross over into sleep. There would be a rush of energy after the shock, and they do this to me over and over to deny me sleep and try to drive me mad.

      When I was trying to find what was causing these symptoms I read many different threads with many different people all suffering this. No doctors could ever find a solution and that’s because it’s not something a doctor is going to be able to “cure” :). Here is just one thread that comes up with lots of victims discussing it, they have no idea they’re being harassed or experimented on.

      http://www.healthboards.com/boards/sleep-disorders/860013-electric-shock-sensation-while-falling-asleep.html

      Interesting enough, I just recently read this article…http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/02/18/air-force-stimulates-brain-waves-improve-performance-drone-operators/V8ZG5DEYze4lCoGlloq14H/story.html

      That is pretty much exactly what was being done to me for many months. It sounds like it’s similar to your own experience as well.

      Burning under the skin. It can be very small and focused or my entire body. Voice to skull harassment. Particularly they spam repeat small sections of songs to try and distract me or deny me sleep. Forced muscle spasms. Waves of nausea which I recently learned are actually a sonic based attack, you can even buy one off amazon for 40 bucks! http://www.amazon.com/Sonic-Nausea-Electronic-Audible-Device/dp/B004MTL3O2. Intense rushes of anxiety that wake me up. Vertigo. Dazing. Cointelpro-like stalking out in public. Vandalism. I’ve had my car broken into a few times at work. They threw my papers all over in my car, took the nobs off my radio and turned all the lights on. Didn’t steal anything. They have flattened my tires with nails, busted up my rims and keyed the fuck out of my car. After my targeting started I noticed a large increase in semi trucks blatantly running me off the expressway despite not being in their blind spot. One of the strangest things they’ve done to me while on my way to work was box me in with 4 black suvs on the highway and slowed me down to 40 mph (go figure it was black suvs, right?). I was late to work that day. Constant cyber stalking and hacking, especially in online games. Stuff I would do in my room my stalkers would repeat to me immediately through messages in games, essentially taunting me and letting me know they have complete and total surveillance of my life. This happens in public to. Complete strangers run into me when I’m grocery shopping and then repeat something I just said over the phone to a friend.

      These tactics were known to be used by the Stasi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi Read about Zersetzung. The goal is to drive a target to suicide, and most people will never even know they’re being targeted by a govt hit squad. It seems here in the US they’re not only using this incredible abuse of power, but they’ve even taken it further by adding on psychotronic and dew weapons to the list. It’s inescapable torture and it’s also very hard to prove. Where do you go if you can’t even hide from it in your own home?

      I’ll pull a quick quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

      The TECOM Technology Symposium in 1997 concluded on non-lethal weapons, “determining the target effects on personnel is the greatest challenge to the testing community”, primarily because “the potential of injury and death severely limits human tests”.[42]

      Also, “directed energy weapons that target the central nervous system and cause neurophysiological disorders may violate the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980. Weapons that go beyond non-lethal intentions and cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” may also violate the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977.”[43]

      That is EXACTLY what this technology is being used for. Massive suffering and discrediting campaigns (just try and tell a doctor about all this, they will label you as delusional or schizo).

       
  24. Trini Politi

    Save this man, First Look Intercept.http://www.kyriemovie.blogspot.com/

     
  25. RF

    Were there any specific examples except for Paypal 14 that I missed? If you steal data, you are a thief, plain and simple. These people who hide behind their internet wall because they do not like “The Man” have no guts to show their faces or they move to Russia. Whetever ?

     
  26. KeriDoll

    He fought for you, now we must stand for him.
    ACLU: Grant Edward Snowden Immunity Now
    https://www.aclu.org/secure/grant_snowden_immunity?ms=tw_acluaction_131217

     
  27. ishkabibble

    fun stuff

     
  28. Dayna Hislope

    Did you see my post on this I posted 3 different links for this!!!

     
  29. George B

    Just poking around and look…..http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37800.htm

    See you later

     
  30. civilrightsattorney

    Those in the US use arrest and the mental health system, which discredits the victim and ruins many aspects of his/her life.

    See: http://revolutionpac.com/articles/welcome-to-the-american-gulag-using-involuntary-commitment-laws-to-silence-dissenters

    Welcome to the American Gulag: Using Involuntary Commitment Laws To Silence Dissenters

     
  31. Rebel Siren

    Hired internet TROLLS are recruited by corporations that subcontracted agencies not only for marketing purposes, but also in a global effort to muddy the waters of truth and prevent public unification and outcry about unsustainable polluting programs such as climate engineering/weather modification, the dangers of genetically modified foods, and any issue where profiteers put their bottom line and lust for control, over the destruction of the planet at the expense of our health. These age old political tactics have been used for political purposes throughout history. It should be no surprise that these same tactics are being employed to manipulate the public for any number of reasons; if an entity has enough money, they can afford to hire a whole army of trolls to sway the masses. http://rebelsiren.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/dispelling-internet-disinformation-tactics-debunking-the-debunkers/

     
  32. Michael Wolf

    Last April I found out firsthand that this program exists, that the NSA is surveilling Americans in an effort to control and manipulate the entire population.

    Worse, I discovered that the NSA tools are made available to any Federal Officer and thus any friend of a Federal Officer in law enforcement.

    Yes folks, the NSA is going after people through your internet use. And if you, like me, happen to turn in a marijuana grow operation, you, like I, will find out firsthand that the NSA provides the results of these tools and techniques to any law enforcement agent who simply makes the request; whether legal and legitimate or not.

    The NSA surveillance tools are in fact used to control the population of America, and indeed the world.

    Greenwald and Snowden and a few others understand what I have come to understand; that the tools above, stolen from the Nazis and perfected by Americans, are among the tools utilized by the most sinister and evil psuedo-government in conjunction with private enterprise, to tilt the entire global game in their own favor.

    If you want to know precisely what the NSA does to an individual, I urge you to look up “informationcides” and “infocides” and see what the NSA and FBI not only allowed to go on for, so far, seven years; but likely recruited the guy, or perhaps even WAS infocides – given the techniques used which I assumed were simply being employed by a clever hacker.

    I don’t know if Infocides is the NSA, but I do know that the NSA has become what we ALL dread – a bunch of childish internet trolls who happen to have “administrator status” over the entire fucking globe.

     
  33. Mister

    Report in The Guardian

    Senators to investigate NSA role in GCHQ ‘Optic Nerve’ webcam spying
    Three senators condemn UK spy agency’s ‘breathtaking lack of respect’ over interception of Yahoo users’ webcam images

    Spencer Ackerman in Washington
    theguardian.com, Friday 28 February 2014 17.14 GMT

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/nsa-gchq-webcam-spy-program-senate-investigation

     
  34. AmericanGestapo14

    It’s now February 28th. This article was published on February 24th…and all I hear is crickets! Now how exactly is a story like this kept outside of the mainstream media worldwide??? I did hear that Justin Bieber had a problem with drugs etc… NYT and Washington Post did cover the “Yahoo is taking pictures (sometimes naked) over webcams story” at a rate of 2 million non-suspects per 6 months and Yahoo is furious. Of course the story was buried on the back pages. This is fucking outrageous! And I hope the silence indicates that the Senate and Congress are in the process of planning their hearings. May I suggest Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. He may have lost out on the top FBI job, but if you want to clean up Dodge…he’s the guy.

     
  35. Dan

    My tax $$ at work. To the employees of these organizations please act with a clear conscious. If you don’t have a conscious you are a psychopath and should defer to a spiritual leader. Reap what you sow.

     
  36. Morality_rules

    Heck. All U.S. companies do this. They hire “social media” kids to use internet scan bots to find every instance of their company’s name on the internet and then respond on the appropriate blogs as an anonymous person who just happened to see the reference. It’s the American way of pretending to be fair and open.

    When Maduro tried to get Edward Snowden asylum in Venezuela, little did he know the consequences and power behind what can be done behind the scenes to someone who goes against the Administration’s grain. Reuters reported he offered Snowden “humanitarian asylum” so he could avoid “imperial North American persecution.” Hmm. Now look what’s happening to Maduro.

     
    • civilrightsattorney

      Not all US companies do this..and what is described here goes beyond a simple post.

       
    • Gary T

      Sounds like apologist talk.
      Two major differences, the government doing it is fundamentally different than private companies doing it, the government has the power of the state and all its resources as cover for its activities, there is no effective counter action an aggrieved person can do.
      And, the government literally has no business doing this, it has its own charter to govern within the laws, not to actively subvert its citizens’ private or public life.

       
      • holy cow

        “And, the government literally has no business doing this, it has its own charter to govern within the laws, not to actively subvert its citizens’ private or public life.”

        So did you read this article?

         
  37. Fake People Everywhere!!

    I have been noticing “fake people” all over the internet comment sections ever since I started talking. Because of their obviousness I have exposed them by the dozen and their agenda’s vary but most have the same basic qualities: they are athiest, hateful, “peer reviewed” science obsessed and use psychiatric techniques to upset people so as to make them look unstable and therefor discredit them. They are easy to spot if you can access their “profile.” Some push racism, some push GMO’s are yummy and praise MonSatan, they love vaccines, and they all hate “Climate change Deniers.” Others have more subtle topics, but I can see them. Anyone speaking about “morgellons disease” will eventually get attacked like there’s no tomarrow. For some reason I have always been able to see them and I will not stop exposing them when I do. I have listed them out in my comments by the dozen on touchy topics, which angers them and gets them going. Once they are exposed they will eventually create new profiles. You can always tell when an article is likely true and there is a cover-up on information because they will show up in hordes and sometimes they will up-vote each other and expose whole groups of themselves that way. Often (but not always) their profiles are private and unviewable. They are surely trained in psychiatric harrassment but they aren’t very smart beyond that. They often use generic scripts, but not completely.

    Groups of these “shills/trolls” have ganged up on me and attacked me personally online as a giant hordes of creeps, and sometimes it is obvious there is only one or two people playing the roles of dozens so the person being targeted and harrassed will think there are lots of people who hate them. They will fill up your e-mail will hate messages if responses to your own comments get sent to your e-mail. This is a psychiatric nightmare for someone who doesn’t see these “people” are fake! Learn to spot them and expose every last one!! Never take what they say to heart. They are PAID to upset people, create hate and create fear by making the general population look like a bunch of scary, evil thugs, changing a persons perspective of the world and people around them.

    They will CLONE your account (on disqus, for example), steal your avatar and run around pretending to be you and saying mean or backwards things to destroy your reputation. They have done this to many people. The Natural News website has had severe problems with cloning by vaccine-promoting shills. They also “follow” people under fake profiles that link up to “disqus” employees via following the “follow” button trail. I have one following me and “ironically” following only one other person: the head of communications at Disqus(t). It’s incredibly f**ked!! Follow your intution and you’ll see them.

     
  38. Tom Czerniawski

    Just noticed something in the documents linked above.

    One of the attack methods the NSA describes is “False Flag.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_tonkin_incident#NSA_report

    That’s how they triggered the Vietnam war.

     
  39. Trytobreathe

    Why should I worry? I’m not doing anything wrong.

     
    • jmledeux

      the reason you should worry is because that is the point of the article, people that use sites like this are targeted

       
    • XY1776

      Meanimg you’re not disobeying the guv’ment in any way. Cuz datz baaaaad.

       
    • Stan Burnitt

      You just did.

       
    • Phil Mccanless

      You don’t get to decide what’s “wrong” or whether you’ve done it or not. Those with arbitrary power get to decide.

       
      • Trytobreathe

        Sorry guys. I was being sarcastic. Ever since the Ed Snowden defected from the NSA, about a third of the people that have commented (to me) on the domestic spying, have said: “Why should I worry? I haven’t done anything wrong.”
        The biggest problem with the Secret Police State (otherwise known as the United Secret Police State of America), is: Secret Laws & Secret Punishments.
        Tell this to all the yellow bellied sheep, every time you hear that cop out.

         
        • Stan Burnitt

          If you weren’t being sarcastic, then you are both very worried, and doing something very wrong, 007. If not, agreed; those assinine “Why should I worry, [fill in the blank]!?” statements are extremely noxious.

          But they’re funny too. My favorite, commonly heard in the US , was “Why should I worry, I’m an American!?”. Then I heard this in London, after the the US & UK went a-viking in Iraq, but just before the Underground/Bus bombings: “Why should you worry, you live in a democracy!?”.

           
  40. Trytobreathe

    Those Phucking Limeys! What will they think of next?

     
  41. Michael Wolf

    I’m working against the NSA/GCHQ: user zapocalypsediaries on YouTube. Give me a week or two to get all 100 episodes back to public so that something going on in my life can blow over.

     
  42. Michael Wolf

    half an hour trying to post my story and it was lost…

     
  43. Trytobreathe

    Hail to the United Secret Police State of America! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

     
  44. yvan zev

    I hope one day we can read ours minds ….so the nsa dont need anymore our money for make the internet a form of spy to the citizens (a real joke ) and wheres snowden information nothing will goona change Imo…

     
  45. dubinsky

    ” compromising the integrity of the internet itself”

    is that a joke?

    what integrity?

     
    • Person

      what integrity?

      Do me it is not the integrity of the internet, but the integrity of the government. There was recently a story in the news about how the same aide that grid-locked the George Washington Bridge to punish the Ft Lee, NJ mayor who didn’t endorse Governor Christie had also joked about grid-locking the neighborhood around a rabbi’s house who refuse to endorse him. The rabbi actually was a big supporter of Christie, but didn’t endorse him because he understood that this was not his role as a member of the clergy. Likewise, it is not the role of the government to be anonymously discrediting individuals that they do not agree with. It is the role of the government to prosecute these individuals if they do anything illegally.

      Another good comparison I could make is that people in the US military are always (at least among the senior staff) publicly apolitical. Only after they retire, do they participate in partisan politics. There is a certain neutrality that we expect from the clergy, from the military, and from the government. When the IRS started to go after Tea Party folks, everyone including the President was outraged. In my eyes, this is the same thing. It is not acceptable for secret branches of the government to anonymously slander people.

       
      • Person

        And the reason that it is not ok to do that is because there is no Due Process which is gauranteed in the 5th amendment:

        No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

         
    • jh

      Right? It’s just that these little details look an awful lot like what a totalitarian dictatorship might do to its own citizens. Malignant governmental power and expansion are the only things that appear to matter to these agencies, and I guess it works because it gives people an identity, a sense of importance and power, and a paycheck (or is better than jail).

       
  46. Richard Verville

    Many people here have asked where are the “victims” I am a TI Targeted Individual. I have been for over 13 years now. I retired from the University of Maine in 2001 after a distinguished 34 year career and am professor emeritus there. My “crime” I now know was that I successfully spearheaded a move to collect over 74,000 citizen signatures to shut down a car exhaust testing company in Maine.
    For most of the first few years the 24/7/365day harassment was mild and I could live with it ok. Little did I know after my retirement that a new “friend” was a plant by the Fusion Center who acted as a secret agent for them. For the past 3-4 years the level of harassment was suddenly increased to severe harassment being imposed on me. It ranged from stealing money, breaking my belongings and property, abusing my pet cat, practicing controling/crashing my computer to stop me from communicating with people, denial of service, fake web sites and the list goes on and on. Fusion Center ” government zombies” are now sent out in cars/on foot to harass me with coughs, loud noises, obnoxious odors and the list for that goes on and on, while in the safety of my home, they also surround me with loud vehicular noise every 15-30 minutes using super loud motorcycle , cars with very loud mufflers and the like to be sure that they tell me they are still there waiting to harsass me even more if I go out. The nasty thing about all this is that they have never told me anything of this directly….but boy did they make sure that I knew that the harassments were deliberate, hateful and hurtful. They continue to use gangstalking/gaslighting/psyop with full vengeance. I have leaned the majority of nasty tricks and do challenge them many times but I am powerless most of the time and must endure all the things they do. I have done nothing illegal nor have I been charged with any crime. The use of the harassments/gangstalking etc surely break the law. Stealing from me certainly does. My family and friends have all deserted me after visits by secret visits by the Fusion Center team. I am hoping that other TI will recognize my story and contact me. I would welcomed any help I could have with other people also trying to cope with this monstrous government travesty. feel free to email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . there is strength in numbers. ( what I have not addressed here is the use by the Fusion Center of Corporations to deny/harass me)
    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

     
    • Tom Czerniawski

      I’ve seen this post religiously pasted in just about every discussion of the NSA’s activities.

      I suspect it of being an NSA discredit bot. Sound mentally ill, pull the discussion down with you, that sort of thing.

       
      • americanGestapo14

        Hi Tom, Gangstalking is real and I suspect run by MIC, NSA and DARPA. Now they probably have tons of disinfo agents working the posts. So who is a real victim, who is posting disinformation…well they main goal is to make people targeting by this harassment look crazy. Just last week I was surrounded by 3-4 NYPD/MTA officers 6 feet tall, who started the conversation by telling me they where “going to throw me into a mental institution”. Quite an escalation, considering they were surrounding a middle age female from Long Island. My crime…admittedly while drunk was pointing out all of the surveillance cameras in Penn station NY and loudly questioning how you could have a huge gangstalking operation taking place under surveillance cameras. I might have also mentioned that Booz Allen Hamilton (Snowden’s Defense Department contractor 70% of NSA) is owned by the Carlyle Co. Gee you mention Carlyle and the Bush connection, some paid off law enforcement goons surround you pretty quick, with an immediate threat to throw you into a mental institution. I’m sorry, I was under the impression that loudly mentioning surveillance and defense department contractors would fall under “disorderly conduct” for law enforcement purposes.

        So do you want to know what’s really going on Tom. These torturing Motherf#$$f**ckers are testing/deploying Directed Energy Weapons against the American public (and abroad) every day 24/7. If you are a target, your life is a living hell. You are harassed by hundreds/ sometimes thousands of stalking goons and targeted with incapacitating experimental weapons. They appear to be going after dissidents, whistleblowers, artists, journalists and “targets of opportunity”…the rest of the world population is next on the hitless. What do you think this is all about Tom?

        Do you really think they are just surveilling and there is no ground operation? The only question is, does Snowden have the documents to back it up.

         
      • Richard Verville

        I am real. the things happening are real. I have never posted this anywhere. What is your point? Who would make a discredit bot and how do you do it? I would love to meet you in person. My name is Richard Verville. I live in Londonderry NH USA. I invite you to email me at my email box….not a bot box. I have masses of documents and video to show these things going on. You are invited to look them over anytime. Now…would any bot do that? As to your mentally ill charge… how do you arrive at that DR. Czerniawsi? Or do you have other motives to smean someone without any proof?

         
        • Moviestar

          Fucin’ eh Richard! Sticking up for yourself! I was starting a very big production company that Lion in the title.(hint hint( was married to a woman I met in Paris who I believe turned to be a call girl , assassin etc, take your pick(Eyes Wide Shut) She was an adviser/contributor on Shane Black’s Long Kiss Goodnight. Anyhoo, I became enemy of the state over 18 years ago. As crazy or paranoid as any of this man’s story sounds, shit happens. It is perfect isn’t it. Daily conditioning of harassment, making one sensitive to a noise campaign for example and oh boy, speak out about it and you are considered ‘ill’. Piss off. I was lucky, I was a movie actor with death threats recorded. I had some tangible proof like safety box break ins. Blacklisted and ridiculed. Fun fun fun!! However I am a resilient mo fo and reinvented myself. All scripts, story treatments stolen I just wrote more and sidestepped into an art career. But I will stick up for my fellow man and perhaps my story is more grandiose doesn’t detract from this man’s story. Sure, T.I. sites are full of fakers and perps and of course some real looney tunes but not all.I like to think that after all the years I have become more savvy about what is real and what is memorex. This man seems genuine. I know in the beginning of this harassment I had hoped someone would have just killed me because perhaps then my story would have been believed.
          I could name drop all over this comment but what’s the point. It ain’t about me anymore,

          Fear and apathy are the real enemies

           
  47. mdcambridge

    Lookup “Network Analysis” — not the same as the InterNET.

    The NSA programs are an application of “network analysis” that connects associations and generates inference from the collective “meta data”, which is far more powerful than the conversations itself. With network analysis, the government will be able to gerrymander down to the individual house (read “override the democratic process”), vilify or support key central nodes (bloggers, community leaders) in a political issue (read “send IRS to audit key activists during an election”).

    Just KNOWING that two corporate entities are in negotiations is information that can be used to leverage profits outcomes and profits, not to mention the power that comes with monitoring other world leaders.

    No, it’s not about terrorism — it’s about having untethered knowledge to control the masses. Terrorism is just the fear card used to sell the program.

     
  48. Dan, the Conservative one!

    I used to be very wary of anything that smacked of “conspiracy theory”. However, with the technological advancement we are seeing everyday, I am not so cynical about it anymore.

     
  49. darragh

    Wilhelmina – spot on.

    There is nothing even remotely new about any of this. The media, even in the days of hard copy only, has always attempted to manipulate the naive (take a look at the Guardian sometime or the Daily Mail) for their own political or corporate (i.e. profit) reasons. Left and right opinions rarely co-incide even on the same subject so they try and manipulate their readers with spoof stories or non-inclusion of facts and inclusion of non-facts.

    Smear campaigns are the norm in the media and that is precisely what this article is.

    How many articles have you read where some journo refuses to ‘reveal his/her sources’. What he/she is actually saying is ‘I made it up but there’s no way I’m going to admit it’.

    If you are unhappy with what spy agencies do but bury your head in the sand over ‘private’ manipulation then you can’t be surprised when what you believe to be the truth turns out not to be.

    Don’t believe me? Ask Rebeka Brooks.

     
    • Wilhelmina

      Anyone who employs techniques that are specifically designed to manipulate public discourse (incl. online discussions ) should be equally condemned.

       
    • John Dane

      I agree, governments have used printed media to manipulate the masses and to discredit political opponents for hundreds of years. The important thing today with the advent of the net is that the people can now answer back. All propaganda is used by the state to quell rebellion and conserve the powerbase of evil little shits who seek to control us. Those shits are by qualification unprincipled opportunists who will do or say anything that gives them an edge and keeps the lucre rolling in but at the first sight of a rebellion politicnicks always collapse, defer or run as their cynical policial masters jump onto the new bandwagon. Thus the internet and the masses who use it have the ability to destroy the evil little shits (ELS). The ELS sense this and will seek to divide and conquer by using small-minded peoples’ bigoted fears against them. The cure for JTRIG is more freedom of speech and a better educated populace who can drag their philosophically bankrupt policians into a new form of democracy. Well done Snowden. Well done Assange. Well done Manning. Believe nothing. Question everything.

       
  50. Wilhelmina

    How does the government’s behavior differ from that of bloggers who attempt to surreptitiously influence the opinions of their readership through the use of shills and sock puppets?

     
    • Tom Czerniawski

      If bloggers are met with someone who disputes their opinions, they can’t send a drone to murder the one doing it, unlike the government. I suppose that’s where the chief difference lies.

       
      • Wilhelmina

        “If bloggers are met with someone who disputes their opinions, they can’t send a drone to murder the one doing it, unlike the government. I suppose that’s where the chief difference lies.”

        Red herring must be the fish of the day…

         
    • Patty

      Just off the top of my head it seems the difference is that the government is using our own money to spy on us (and has the power to arrest us or whatever) , whereas bloggers don’t have the same powers and they are not using our own money to buy their computers and such. Another factor is that if a blogger tries to discredit you or ruin your reputation, you can sue them. You can’t sue the NSA.

      This is similar to the argument many news media have wrongly suggested, i.e., that because sometimes we freely choose to give out our personal information to different groups — Credit Card agencies, Groupon, Amazon, etc. that we shouldn’t object to the government having that same personal information. Of course, that doesn’t follow.

       
    • Jay Dee

      Crikey we’re really screwed if people are downplaying this. Unlike the government we don’t pay those bloggers to propagandise us. And those bloggers don’t have virtually limitless professional resources to do so in a systematic way.

       
    • Citizen

      Because opinionated bloggers aren’t bankrolled by my tax dollars in secret?

       
    • Nameless

      One is a citizen and another is an entity for citizens aka the government. Are you implying there is no difference between a blogger and a govt. entity that can plant any “fact” into main stream.

       
    • Josefina

      We’re paying the government to do it, and a lot of people die at the hands of our government. Think Iraq. Any knucklehead who was paying a smidgen of attention to the reports prior to the invasion knew we were being fed a steaming pile of rubbish.

      Any other questions?

       
    • Gary T

      Sounds like apologist talk.
      Two major differences, the government doing it is fundamentally different than private companies doing it, the government has the power of the state and all its resources as cover for its activities, there is no effective counter action an aggrieved person can do.
      And, the government literally has no business doing this, it has its own charter to govern within the laws, not to actively subvert its citizens’ private or public life.

       
  51. James Fingleton Wild

    1000 comments.
    Do I win a years’ subscription?

     
  52. Om

    Some comments on this revelation and the Yahoo revelation in this report published on http://www.wsws.org

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/28/gchq-f28.html

     
  53. Jack Mason

    It is funny that serious journalists writing about this topic are using googleapis for their own web site. We all know how tied in Google is to the surveillance activities of the government (the Snowden revelations are just the tip of the iceberg.) Now all their readers are compromised.

     
  54. Joshua

    What if the goal of these organizations was to paralyze freedom of speech by making everyone afraid to use it on the internet?
    The goal of the FBI back in the day was to make it seem like there was an agent behind every mailbox, Who’s to say it isn’t the same goal?

     
    • Sasquatch

      “paralyze freedom of speech by making everyone afraid to use it on the internet?”

      That would be one of the effects of these programs, whether it’s the goal or not.
      How to counteract it? There’s safety in numbers. Even the Stasi weren’t able to put everyone in jail. So it’s important not to let yourself be ruled by fear. Speak up publicly, speak up in private. Organize.

       
  55. The Feds Are Evil

    This stuff is simply beyond the imagination of a normal person (which, is why it has been created and implemented by abnormal persons that have contaminated a government entity). Nothing surprises me though. I am an attorney and I am now in “Year Number 9″ of being a “Target” of The U.S. Attorney’s Office. Obfuscation, misrepresentations, the use of fake documentary evidence and suborning perjury from their own petrified witnesses is their standard practice. Then when they get caught, their fall back position is to lie about it with a smile. We live in very troubled times.

     
    • Richard Verville

      I would like to know more about what you said here. Can you contact me please. My name is Richard Verville mail address: 2 Currier dr. Londonderry NH. 03053. My email box is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I am not certain that I can receive emails from anyone outside NSA/Fusion Center zombies approved list… can you try?

       
      • THe Feds Are evil

        Dear Richard: I attempted to send an Email message to you at your designated address, but I received a message stating that your address could not be recognized. Perhaps you could try a different Email address?

         
  56. nick

    These tactics are identical to those used by the advertising industry, the public relations industry, political campaigns, big pharma, mining/fracking companies when astroturfing… standard operating procedure for keeping the wheels of late capitalism greased, in other words. Having assumed for a long time that this was the case, I find this latest revelation somewhat underwhelming. At this point in history, there is very little functional distinction between big business and government. So the Brits got some advertising/PR/political campaign consultant to advise them on how to manipulate their perceived foes. Whupty do. Anyone can play that game. Let’s take solace in the fact that these tools can also be used in the other direction, asymmetrically.

     
    • Kitt

      Let’s take solace in the fact that these tools can also be used in the other direction, asymmetrically.

      Can we fund our “other direction” with bundles and bundles of tax payer money? Will we be targeted, arrested, prosecuted, jailed, imprisoned, tortured, stopped at airports and questioned/harassed when we use your “standard operating procedure” against the government? Is it just “Whupty do” to you that all of that is also “standard operating procedure” which only works one way?

      Exposing this stuff with actual documents is not just “Whupty do.” It’s movement in a direction to do something about it.

       
      • nick

        No, we can’t match their financial resources, but we don’t need to. We don’t need bundles and bundles of taxpayers’ money. We are more numerous than they are. We have more intelligence, collectively, than governments do. And we have moral supremacy. It will not be easy, it will take time, and we will face resistance — state power — but we will prevail.

        Their standard operating procedure, not ours, btw. We don’t need the creepy manipulative stuff, because we have the moral high ground, but we can and should use their techniques against them. My point in the original comment, restated differently: this new disclosure, while indeed welcome, does not describe a unique new direction or set of techniques that governments are using. We already knew this, and shouldn’t be at all surprised. And these techniques, specifically the psychological insights, are in the public domain, available to the rest of us. Indeed they are often used by activist groups and other political actors to push back in the other direction. What we need to do now is refine our own technique to maximise our effectiveness.

         
        • Gary T

          Now that is a clear and potent statement that I do not think could come from a govt spy troll.
          What you said is absolutely, and recursively, true.
          With the catalyst of the internet, it can become even more true. That is why the NSA et al have worked so hard at undermining the power of the internet.

           
    • Stan Burnitt

      “Whupty do. ” – 007

       
      • Sun Tzu

        I would recommend “The Art of War” to not only expose the strategy being used against “We the People” and also as you say “these tools can also be used in the other direction, asymmetrically”

         
  57. Dave

    misallocation of resources. cut now, cut deep.

     
  58. Harold Alberts

    Just consider the implications of these shenanigans from these governments. If they don’t like what you’ve said online, they can contact your employer and tell lies about you, contact your next door neighbor when you’re not home and tell your neighbor lies about you. Then get both your employer and neighbors to give them info about you, making them believe it’s their civic duty to help their “investigation” of you. They can even contact a potential employer and prevent you from getting a job. No measure is too corrupt for these New World Order puppet masters.

     
  59. Franky goes to Hollywood

    If Politics doesn’t work and Journalism is illegal maybe Music might help?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlUsMuz9_RU

     
    • Franky goes to Hollywood

      When Katy Perry sings about the NSA America might wake up. Here in the UK got caught hacking queen might make a propper statement or the likes of Morrisey might sing with Sir Cliff Richard:

      !!WRAP HER UP IN THE NEWS OF THE WORLD!!

      Public Enemy
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPWz3Eil3qc

       
    • xavior breff

      music IS helping- the state.

      that was horrifying- so many other groups of people could have been featured singing a pop song, but Russian police? it’s like daddy playing monster, except in this case the daddy is fake and the monster is real.

      perhaps the men in this choir mean well, but I suspect they are not aware that they are being used to soften the bayonet. and heaven help any of them who are gay

       
  60. Cadawa Waller

    GCHQ’s response is a page out of their own book.
    Operations carried out ‘under strict legal policy’ like shaking down the Guardian, dragging their editor in front of Parliament? Detaining people at airports for hours without any indication of criminal activity? A government interfering in the private internet communications of individuals is not operating legally or anything like it. Honey traps….since when is entrapment legal?
    I don’t know which is worse.; the twisted ideology that builds programs like this or their lack of understanding/concern of what legality and justice are.

     
  61. texasladyjuanita

    Up to now, I would doubt myself from time to time – “Perhaps I am over-reacting?” “Maybe our government is not gone completely rogue.” . . . (you know, etc., etc.)
    I will never doubt my deductive reasoning skills / my critical thinking skills again.
    Over 40 years in business and my gut was never wrong when using those skills.
    I want so much to believe that our government has not stopped functioning within the checks and balances of our Constitution – because I am a thinker and a doer – an optimist – a decision maker – one who makes things work well, but also owns up to my own mistakes – and corrects them and/or my behavior based on learning from my mistakes. I guess I just need to understand that those in the “profession” of politician are not like me at all.

     
  62. Leonard Adame

    Looks like some, in the comments section, don’t take this fascist criminality seriously.

    Given Snowden’s revelations, why wouldn’t everyone understand the danger in this latest corruption of democracy from the government: and Obama. Snowden didn’t make up the information he posted. And the fact that the government wants to hang him also legitimizes his act of civil disobedience.

    These days, the government is violating privacy laws and most protections offered by the Constitution, all of which is supported by the fascist Supreme Court. One thing people say about this obtrusiveness is: I have nothing to hide. The problem is that it’s up the government spies to decide whether anyone is hiding something. People may think they have nothing to hide, but given the above information, the government can make up something, can say that you’re hiding this or that, or, worse, you’re thinking this or that.

    Those who blanket themselves with denial, thinking they’re innocent of anything, are cowards in the end. They tend to believe that the government goes after someone because that someone must be guilty of something or other. They don’t understand, the deniers, that much of what was written above is about intimidation: people will not want to criticize the government. This means in the end that the methods above and other laws, most of which were written by corporations, are put in place to protect corporations from any scrutiny or lawsuits regarding their methods and practices and products.

    Keeping people in fear is an old tactic of a fascist government. And it works.

    People should read Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery.” People who live in fear will sacrifice anyone, including members of their family. Government spying brings out the cowards among us, people who will never object to anything the government does even if it means members of their own families are framed, judged, and sentenced.

    For the sensible people among us, it’s clear that using our votes, we have to stop the government from continuously breaking civil rights laws. We need to vote en masse. These next round of elections constitute a turning point. This will be time to ensure that democracy remains intact and that the government understands that it can no longer do these terrible things, for any reason.

    What’s the good of destroying democracy to protect democracy, as the idiots doing these terrible things say and think?

    All people/voters should take these all too serious cloak and dagger policies seriously. To not do so gives the government permission to do these things and more.

     
    • Farleyagain

      Voting only works when it represents an accurate count on valid votes by valid voters. The incredibly easy to hack voting machines make all elections suspect. As do the greater than the population of adults vote counts from the past several elections in various precincts.

      The Republican Party knowingly and illegally changed primary counts in Maine and Indiana as reported by the caucus leaders there. In addition, they have announced their intention to refuse to assist Constitution supporting candidates in the next election. Both parties are bent on protecting the status quo. The only way I can see to win at the ballot box is to require paper ballots, which are verifiable (unlike the machines, where no recount is possible) and to coalesce behind one primary candidate en mass to be sure that person ends up on the general ballot. In the past four elections, we have experienced as many as 5 Constitution supporting candidates running in the primary against one incumbent. Guess who wins?

       
  63. Seeking traction

    Did they address the one where you open a hidden channel of communication with someone, then use it to threaten people around them? Perfect catch-22 discrediting, works on anyone.

     
  64. BottleSlinger

    Everyone should read through these comments to see which ones were false flag posts by the CIA or GCHQ…

     
    • Worzel Gummidge

      Perhaps it’s a race between the Various organisations to be crowned with post 1000. I fancy GCHQ: smaller resources and big balls to keep coming out with:
      All of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee
      http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?s=d82c35861f3531b7fc007be806d5f60a&t=196350&page=2
      Who cares if the other side of the argument is a pro?

      I like to believe my amateur status is no handicap in such an arena.

      As pros have a mandate to push talking points, a script, a mantra, it will be far easier to irritate, confound, and frustrate them with free thought, free flow discourse. As they must stay within the margins of their sanctioned points of view, I can run willy-nilly around them, flank their entrenched philosophical position, and ultimately give them the high, hard one from the rear.

      We all know the greatest tools of government manipulation are leverage and intimidation. If they can apply neither effectively to you, they slink away, looking for easier prey.

      Face it, they work for the gov’t. The gov’t is the refuge for those of little acumen and imagination.
      __________________
      Countering Nonsense With Triviality

      Philosophy shapes history, and history shapes philosophy.

       
      • Worzel Gummidge

        A good way to do this for anyone who has the time (as I already have) is to copy and paste the whole lot in to your favourite text application. There are plenty of clever ways to zoom around the text and examine the time of posts etc. I do believe there are lot less spooks here than some seem to imagine and outing one would be a bit childish for a forum such as this IMHO. Rather we should seek to appeal to their human side as suggested in a previous post.

        SHAREINT

        I’M LOVEINT

         
  65. coram nobis

    Just did a search on NYT’s website for “optic nerve”. Nothing on the GCHQ/Yahoo story, but plenty of stories about glaucoma and optic-nerve disorders. I suppose it’s one way of explaining NYT’s overlooking this story.

     
    • bsbafflesbrains

      LOL It is fascinating how MSM like NYT always seem to cover the same stories and not cover others. Is it determined by conference call everyday or does each editor know what to cover and what to avoid from general rules given to them by their bosses.

       
    • Kitt

      Abby Martin covered this article on her Breaking The Set program on RT.

       
    • civilrightsattorney

      I read that the NYT was too afraid to publish articles about this

       
  66. David

    How did things degrade to such a low level of lies, deceit and lack of humanity? How has a culture so dark and heartless developed within our midst? What are the motivating forces that keep it in place? How is it that decent people will turn against their fellowman with such disregard to their consequences? What kind of philosophy, justification, or reward could contribute to such a Psychopathic development in a so called normal person so that they would willingly be a part of such a harmful and twisted culture of deceit and lies? Why would someone wish to follow the orders of someone else who tells them to harm another human being and see what they did all in a days work? What kind of mind control is at work here? Do they recruit only certain people who they know they can control and dominate? How old is this culture? Is it recent or is it ancient? Is it all about world domination? Is it about some people being more worthy than others? Is it an elite philosophy that justifies their actions? How do they keep themselves hidden? Are there man and women in congress who are part of this culture of cruelty? How many people in government are part of this culture of domination and control for the good of this elite few? Does this culture spread into business, religion, education, science, the arts, and do they use occult means to arrive at their objectives? Have they covered all the bases in their view? Is the world media controlled by this culture of control and domination for the benefit of an elite few who seek a world empire that they control? Does the world media, used by this culture, seek a “brave new world” where people are but bio-robots controlled and directed by their propaganda? Is compassion and love for humanity seen as a weakness to be cultivated? Are their other forces beyond this human elite who control them? Who are they and what is their long term agenda? Is humanity being herded like cattle is a specific direction? Do they know that humanity has the potential of eliminating their control and that is why they hid and lie and hope we don’t wake up to our divine power and find them out? Questions needing answers ASAP! Renounce with all your body, mind, heart and soul their control, power and domination over you, right now!!!! You are free.

     
    • Bobby Rachelle

      How can someone post such a long comment without using paragraphs?

       
    • Michele Chapman

      HEAR HERE!!!!! Very well put and questions I have always had my own self.

       
    • mark

      I suspect the trickle-down theory from Washington DeCeit caused what we have today, but it wasn’t born there. It goes way back. I’d like to coin a new term for the silly attempts to rule others: Sigh-ops.
      Live well, be free.

       
    • md444444444

      These are the questions…

       
    • Think

      The mistake you are making is that you assume they are 100% human. The truth is out there. Why else do you think “they” would go to this much trouble. Find it. Maybe start with Michael’s song “They don’t really care about us” … its a deep and wide rabbit hole.

       
    • DIMOJABE

      I’ll tell you how a large number of humans have reached this level of mental obscurity – About 60 years of chemical attack:

      1) Inedible toxic sugar – did you know that government factions tried to stop its introduction in both the UK and the USA because it was known to be toxic?

      2) Fossil fuel fertilizers – Started in the USA w/Truman after WWII. That’s the election where Dewey went to bed thinking he’d one, and woke up a loser. Well, the guy he picked for Secretary of Agriculture was going to ban fossil fuel fertilizers. Funny that. Oh, and now they’ve figured out that trace minerals in the plants grown in it can’t be absorbed by humans… and then there’s the tumors it causes.

      3) Flouride & Chlorinated Water – The water we drink is ‘bacteria free and chemical heavy.” This means it kills the bacteria in our guts. Probiotics are a MUST, not a luxury because the death of good bacteria has lead to an overgrowth of Candida Yeast in 70% of the USA population. The list of diseases a Candida Yeast over growth can cause is VERY long and well documented since the introduction of sugar. Read the new book “Grain Brain” for the brain fog effect caused by excess Candida. // Flouride. Nasty and doesn’t prevent cavities… but it does interfere with many human metabolic systems… too many to list here. Ever met a person with brown teeth? That was a really unfair thing to do to kids in the 1960′s.

      4) Dietary Prescription – Three square meals a day was the drill in the USA – protein, vegetable and starch. Well, if the stomach is handed a starch, it makes alkaline compounds to break it down. If it is handed a protein, it will produce acidic compounds. It cannot produce both. A steak eaten with a potato will take 12 hours to fully digest. Without the potato, the steak will take 3 hours to digest. By making people believe in a certain diet and timing consumption, the whole concept of feeding the body only what it needs and when it needs it – went right out the f-ing window. So now most people eat “foods that fight” and have to then metabolize the resulting toxin load that is produced in the stomach.

      5) Smoking – Even Doctors prescribed cigarettes! How many decades did that mantra persist? And now the dirty secret they are still busy hiding is that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of ALL cancers.

      6) Plastics – Go to Motherjones.org. Read the plastics article and weep. The same MF’s who helped the tobacco industry hide for 2 decades, are busy doing the exact same BS for the plastics conglomerates. The take away from that article is frighteningly simple: ALL plastics are outgassing chemicals ALL of the time and the effect of those outgassed chemicals is TOXIC. Next time you are in the grocery store – stop somewhere near the dairy aisle and just look around yourself.

      7) Pollution – From point source, diffuse, solid or liquid, air or water borne – it does not matter. Pollution get’s into everything. From the cigarette butt tossed from the car to the construction trash landfill to the municipal incinerator to the big corporate messes on the Mexican Maquiladora. The USA now has 340,000 toxic dumps and less than a quarter of it’s so-called “SuperFund Sites” have been cleaned up since it was started. And now we have hydrolic fracturig – the injection of a selection of 600 hidden chemicals into our aquifers under high pressure in over 1 million locations, then we pump a portion of them back out, to inject into another place once again as ‘waste in 155,000 Class II “injection liquid waste wells.” So factor in pollution.

      8) Food Additives – The one that caught my eye last week was a glycerol compound. We used to play with that one in Chemistry Class. We certainly wouldn’t eat it. It is used as an emulsifier in Cadbury Chocolate. Basically, the food conglomerates w/their desperate search for the “bliss point” and the perfect “mouth feel” have not given a damn about the actual long term effect on us… and how many people have you lost to cancer? Now, substitute that word with “measles.” The US Center for Disease Control would be all over it, if it was measles.

      9) Pharmaceuticals – OK, if 1) through 7) didn’t flatten the person, there’s always pharmaceuticals. All of that “trust us” subliminal programming on the telly from 1945 to the present… Seriously, how many people have to get side affects for Pfizer to NOT be able to pay a $4 billion dollar fine? Anti-depressive medications pack a serious punch in human awareness and cognitive ability. In most situations, it isn’t how much you know, it’s how fast you can think. Feel me?

      10) The Drug War combined with Low Wage Dead End and/or Abusive Jobs paying a Minimum Wage that is 30 years out of date against Current Iinflation – Enough said… but Bill Moyers actually said that the USA minium wage adjusted for inflation would be $21/hour (02/09/14).

      11) Television — Save the best for last. Does everybody know that an image flashed on a screen at better than 1/48th of a second will only be seen by the subconscious mind? With the telly, the subconscious is where it’s at. From the music to the camera angle to the visual appearance of the archetypal characters…it is all designed to lull us into dull sense of familiarity in a reality defined by the mega corps. Since we are what we think – lamestream TV at this point is actually harmful to your health. Throw it out and go internet.

      So, are you going to buy stock in glass container, bamboo and recycled natural container companies? Are you going to learn to make ‘living’ water out of dead? Are you going to take your TV to the local toxic waste drop off and use the internet instead? It’s time.

       
      • richard bittner

        This is among the best posts I’ve ever read on the internet. We are all vicitims of an amoral toxic corporate enterprises that have no regard for public health. The all pervasive power of our DemPublicanCFR elite must be confronted and destroyed. They are robbing from the future for petty personal profit. Ifwe continue on this course, what will the state of planet at the end of this century? Thank you for your time and effort.

         
    • Farleyagain

      Yes to most of that. Do they hire only syncophants? Check out the WH appointments.

       
    • Bibiana
       
  67. KeriDoll

    So, has this story had any coverage by the big networks? I haven’t seen it on Huffington Post.

     
  68. Jay23

    Will we ever hear from Pierre on the paypal 14??

     
  69. Unconstituted

    Julian Assange’s rape charges that were dropped, and (bizarrely for Swedish law), re-instated spring to mind.

     
  70. Stan Burnitt

    Because justice systems within banana republics are banana republic justice systems, this is the most appropriate place for NSA/GCHQ targets to corroborate their experiences — hence the panic induced nonsense flooding this discussion thread.

    Anyone care to speculate on how much it costs US and UK tax payers to maintain these Lorem Ipsum Generators?

     
    • Worzel Gummidge

      “Latin placeholder text isn’t just a simple nuisance. It’s a plague on web design, a massive obstacle to building truly great online experiences. There’s no need for it in a world where content goes right to the heart of every successful website.” – John McGarvey.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOTNAe3j7Bs

      62 roger (10 4 good buddy) copy?

       
  71. Gary

    NSA is smokescreen!

    The snoops are packed with the standard wind-up key in their back and sent to guard our schizophrenic society against any semblance of logic or normality.

    How else could a handful of corporations carve up our world among themselves, if it were a functional, sensible society?

    What possible role would there be for multinational parasites like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft…, to name but a few, in a sane, rational and coherent community?

    Any other slant on the role of NSA is illusory.

    When was the last time the 99.99 percent had a chance of influencing the events.

     
  72. LoLa

    LOL.

    Only would govt assholes feel the need to formulate a PowerPoint ‘plan’…for what they could’ve done practically for free, by hiring gossipy teen girls.

    At the end of the day, that’s all this is: a promulgated teenbopper gossip.

    Frankly, if you see a govt-troll-esque response, go on the non-sequitur ‘you and your Cheetos in mommy’s basement, never having seen the south side of a wo/man’s navel….blah blah blah’ always works. It’s just matter of patience, or not, online. It’s not about winning, it’s about tiring the other asshole at the other end. And, like everything else govt does, while they’re great at destroying shit, and ‘creating’ channels of destruction, they’re never truly creative, nor innovative, than a 5yo with a perpetual temper tantrum and a gun.

    Just ponder what kind of asshole would want to get hired, to be paid to waste their time, and of others’ on and offline. Then, you’ll have your typical psych profile of a perpetual high school loser, or a just another run of the mill socipathic fascist control freak nerd-raging otaku, who make up the majority of govt terrorists: little kids, with little minds, with delusional sea of citizenry ‘granting’ them power to enslave them with, one in which the control freaky mind loves to centralize…everything with.

    There you have it; that’s all corprotists, fascists, govt terrorists, and their acquiescent perpetually willful Blue Pill-ing assholes are: overgrown high school losers, and sociopaths and sociopathic nerds prone to whining and control-freaky centralizing.

    How ‘hard’ is that really to spot, deal with, and p0wnz??

    Sadly, the reality of the world these monkeys have sown, is a terrible one; there is no staving off the currency collapse at the Fed. Reserve/BIS’ current trajectory. As such, more civil unrests, and all the mechanisms of militarized, networked policestate will be deployed, with food sources poisoned with GMO and FUK-U-shima radiation, globally, the world these sociopathic nerds have sown is one in which they themselves will not be able to survive in, nor their loved ones and/or progeny (if they even have any).

    Popcorn, anyone??

     
    • Saul Grenoble

      “Only would govt assholes feel the need to formulate a PowerPoint ‘plan’…for what they could’ve done practically for free, by hiring gossipy teen girls.”

      I think you downplay exactly what this article is about. Creating a blog site as a victim of a person is not something a “gossipy teen girl” would do.

      Can you recommend some good restaurants in the Ft. Meade area?

       
  73. Franky goes to Hollywood
     
  74. Om
     
    • James Fingleton Wild

      Original Article
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
      News
      World news
      The NSA files

      UK spy agency intercepted webcam images of millions of Yahoo users
      • Optic Nerve program collected Yahoo webcam images in bulk
      • 1.8m users targeted by GCHQ in six-month period alone
      • Yahoo: ‘A whole new level of violation of our users’ privacy’
      • Material included large quantity of sexually explicit images

      Spencer Ackerman and James Ball
      theguardian.com, Friday 28 February 2014 01.08 AEST

       
      • Worzel Gummidge

        Coupled with this information surely there ought to be an immediate response from UK government. Perhaps this was the reason for silence at the guardian on the above story?

         
        • Mister

          I agree with you fully Worzel, and I can also see thousands of customers of Yahoo deserting the website.

          Have they recently been doing the same with Skype, Line, and other webcam sites ?

          Yahoo should take legal action to seek damages and compensation, and to protect the privacy of their members. GCHQ should be made to apologize, and to compensate those who’s privacy they have violated, and they need to explain their actions, and to destroy the images which they intercepted.

          I would like to know why they wanted to intercept a large quantity of sexually explicit images, and what they were doing targeting over 1.8 million users ?

          What have they done with these images, and what do they intend to use them for ?

          This is a potentially hugely damaging revelation, and this surely, will be widely reported on everywhere.

           
          • coram nobis

            It’s damaging, all right — to Yahoo and, probably, to other Silicon Valley firms that do social media or related stuff. A big hit to one of the few sectors of the US economy that was successful.

            Orwell and his two-way telescreens weren’t far off the mark. Only diff was that in our universe the users were paying for it.

             
      • Worzel Gummidge

        Perhaps an explanation of MSM (in particular the guardian) quietness in the UK of above article. Surely the combination of both these stories will force the UK government in to making a statement!!?

         
  75. surmez

    Breaking news: Things just got even worse -
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

    “Dear NSA, Can I please have my vagina back, if your quite finished with it?”

     
    • Om

      LOL that’s the funniest post yet ! Don’t know why they wanted a picture of my dick though, they have enough dick heads in that infamous Cheltenham building already !

      Maybe they just felt inferior, or wanted to run some sort of perverse study on size ?

       
    • Pedinska

      “Dear NSA, Can I please have my vagina back, if your quite finished with it?”

      It’s interesting that they aren’t too concerned with the legality of such endeavors while they are merely “researching” its use,

      Discussing adding automated facial matching, for example, analysts agreed to test a system before firming up its legal status for everyday use.

      “It was agreed that the legalities of such a capability would be considered once it had been developed, but that the general principle applied would be that if the accuracy of the algorithm was such that it was useful to the analyst

      “Useful to the analyst” in what way? Nice of them to admit that they will craft the law to fit what they are doing, as opposed to crafting it to meet accepted legal parameters put forth by elected representatives of society. But this bit made me laugh,

      It further notes that “under GCHQ’s offensive material policy, the dissemination of offensive material is a disciplinary offence”.

      So, they will watch whatever they please when they please, for as long as they find it “useful”, and will make sure the law not only allows but encourages their actions. But heaven forfend some prude in the watch room be offended by some bits s/he wasn’t expecting to lay eyeballs on. The willful masturbators, OTOH, will be good to go. lulz.

      The new GCHQ motto: “Motivated by Greed, Ambushed By Prurience“.

       
  76. Eddie Bates

    Americans shouldn’t have to choose between new technology and keeping their personal information private. Protections for online privacy are justified and necessary, and the government must help draw boundaries to ensure that Americans’ privacy stays intact in the Digital Age. Americansrighttoprivacy.com DOES NOT collect your personal information. Regarding online privacy, we have heard people say they have nothing to hide and don’t care if their privacy is violated. Sadly, they are missing the point. As Americans, it is about standing up for our privacy rights as a law abiding citizen per the Constitution. Our Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures which is being violated everyday by many Email providers, hackers and Government agencies through unwarranted searches. One only needs to just read the U.S. Patriot Act or the latest CISPA legislation to verify this disturbing trend.

    Americans Right to Privacy has solutions and I am anxious to share them with you. We offer secure, encrypted email, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) which secures your computer’s internet connection, to guarantee that all of the data you’re sending and receiving is encrypted and secured from prying eyes. Also a “Swiss Bank Account for your Data” Digital Safe! Switzerland, a country known for its strict data privacy laws, has no back door access to encryption for any government agency, not even Switzerland itself
    We offer a professional global email service solution for both personal and business use. PrivacyAbroad email service is free of advertising, SPAM and provides private communication with your emails saved and backed up in Switzerland, renowned for its strong data privacy protection laws. Email comes with 1 GB of expandable storage space.

    Your search for online privacy is over…
    http://www.americansrighttoprivacy.com

     
    • James Fingleton Wild

      SPAM and EGGS

      We offer a professional global email service solution for both personal and business use. PrivacyAbroad email service is free of advertising, SPAM and provides private communication with your emails saved and backed up in Switzerland, renowned for its strong data privacy protection laws. Email comes with 1 GB of expandable storage space.
      …..service is free of advertising, SPAM …………
      SPAM

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFrtpT1mKy8
      Monty Python – SPAM

       
  77. David

    We used psyops and black propaganda against Nazi Germany. Now the target is us. And we thought the Russians were bad…

     
  78. Bronson Kaahui

    The US government is no longer a legitimate government. The very source of its authority and legitimacy is derived from the Constitution, a document it no longer feels compelled to obey. Thus, if the Constitution is no longer the source of the legitimacy and authority of the United States government, from where does it come?

    Nowhere. It is no longer a legitimate government, and people shouldn’t feel compelled to obey illegitimate governments.

     
  79. aligzanduh

    The examiner published an extremely wierd article stating that the UFOs would be used for a false flag operation to militarize outer space. If you follow the discussion between Michio Kaku and Leslie Kean (the only reputable journalist on the subject that has the backing of the scientific community) I hate to say this but UFO’s are indeed likely real. So I too want to know what the UFO slides are meant to convey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIv696A815o Link to Michio Kaku bringing this subject out of the closet.

     
  80. jackf

    We’ve read how they are taught to troll professionally. How does this pan out in practice on a message board like this? Here’s a list, please add if you have any more…

    1. Stream of consciousness – nonsensical and long wearying posts.
    2. Ropadope – compliment the author, then question the source.
    3. Mock outrage – how dare you suggest they are against us not with us?
    4. Schizophrenic ramblings – I’m nuts!
    5. Bore to tears – begin with mimicry, then round in endless circles.
    6. The druggy – I’m clearly a drug addict and I love this writer.
    7. The illiterate – cram what looks like a meaningful post with so many typos it’s a chore to read.

     
    • jackf

      8. Poor me – I only said I disagree with everything, why should that make me a troll? (Well, it doesn’t necessarily but it does seem highly likely.)

       
    • jackf

      8. Poor me – I only said I disagree with everything, why should that make me a troll? (Well, it doesn’t, but it does seem highly likely.)

       
      • L

        9. Joke diversion – Trying to reroute deadly serious writtings into something funny so the message loses sharp edge.

         
    • Jose

      9. Destabilize — release it all now! Names, everything.

       
      • jackf

        11. Follow ups – a deceitful message quickly followed by 3 or 4 seemingly random short messages of praise.

         
    • Worzel Gummidge

      4,6,7 would certainly be ‘useful techniques’ but these are the very damaged people who’s real world lives ought not to be Joked about 1. by people here and 2. (most abhorrent) at a government level (“Government” Communications HQ) to be used as Decoy’s to disrupt political dissent etc.

      I think if this “forum” was to become serious place for discussion “Spooks” in particular ought not to be absolutely black listed from the outset as I expect some of them truly believe what they are doing is the right thing. Perhaps “in the line of duty” while they are “professionally” engaged in posing as “nut jobs” they might be a prime target for reading something that might appeal to their human side.

      10. Anti-Muslim religious rhetoric?

       
    • PJ3

      In RealTime chat, some methods are to deaden a chat area by kicking/banning users until the room is silent & chat no longer happens there. Another method is to constantly drag conversation into the topic of drugs/pot or abortion. Everytime current pertinent topics start, I notice the same culprits try and distract the topic to pot or abortion. Another tactic is to gain operator status in the chatroom & use that power to define what is allowed to be discussed & whom is allowed to enter & remain. Abusive Ops.

       
      • jackf

        The reason I double posted a couple of things earlier on this thread was because this page became very glitchy, my Internet connection is high speed and stable, but when I tried to post the background to the text went completely red, unusually in this view the posts were numbered, also in a different font. It seemed my posts were not appearing so I resent them. Perhaps this is just a glitch on a new website, which wouldn’t be surprising – or maybe what you are referring to was happening and I was being temporarily blocked.

         
    • Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg

      12. “Only a conspiracy nut would believe this stuff!” Or other ways to shame the author that invoke “structuralist” modes of analysis that presume the elite is made up of well meaning people who just make clumsy decisions.

       
      • jackf

        14. Off topic – what about plastics leaking into the foodchain, fertilisers, etc. etc.?

         
  81. Sweetness..

    Wow. This place is bombing. Even the Huffington Post has grown weary of the Power Point. Never fear, Libertarians. 2016 is still a ways out, and your chosen one, Christie, still has time to dig himself out of that black hole to secure your much desired Republican domination of Congress and the White House. Sorry about that Bitcoin thing, though.

     
  82. Chad

    “disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats.”

    As a journalist you would most definitely agree words and the definitions associated with, have great importance in the eyes of a journalist as well as in the eyes of the law. Heck! you need to avoid legal action brought against you for misquotes or unsubstantiated claims.

    Why not look to the legal definitions of the words surrounding this story in the eyes of the law. Legal definitions and lawful definitions of words are very different, The later can be found in a very old book I will not name for reasons not worth expanding on now. Hint! it has no copy right on it and has never and will never have any claim of ownership placed upon it.

    U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113B › § 2331
    18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions

    (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
    (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
    (B) appear to be intended—
    (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
    (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
    (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

    The KEY word above is appear lets look at the word appear. Lets not forget laws are to be expressed not implied. Appear at who’s discretion? Is appear based in facts and evidence or assumption? Expressed or implied.

    The web of receipt i would suggest goes far deeper than questions of privacy and rights. I would suggest it may go to the very core of the world we see around us and what governs it for the majority, and that is law(mans) and the manipulation of our common understanding of words. One is to be licensed to intemperate law(mans) these laws carry crown copy rights. Legalize and common meaning of words are not the same.

    If one does not understand this truth, one is at the mercy of the word smith. Casting spells??? hahaha.

    Just wanted to point out the fact that the words are the key to understanding the word around us. Behind every business deal,every will written, every estate sale and every insurance company…exists the man who speaks a foreign language that only his/her law society fraternity members can “legally” intemperate. Yet most of us never question this gross monopoly on “meaning”

    Small fish in a sea of sharks are we with out accepting this truth…. I believe.

     
  83. Gary Weglarz

    There seems to be an unlimited number of individuals who when presented the opportunity are more than ready and willing to shove their heads up the arse of power, and who find the view and ambience quite to their liking. These individuals commonly work for our “intelligence” services.

     
  84. coram nobis

    Please help us! Greenwald has been raiding our shire, stampeding the serfs, devouring our cattle, trampling our crops, burning our mead-halls and besmirching our baron’s escutcheon! Will no one tell King John what we have suffered at his hands?

     
  85. stephen sivonda

    Shortly after the NSA revelations by Ed Snowden, I mentioned to my wife that I suspect that Eliot Spitzer just might have been set up and his phone meta data used to scandelize him enough for him to resign his position. He was…a thorn in the side of the big banks .

     
    • Jim Moore

      Agreed. My thoughts exactly.

      If both people in a transaction receive what they want and it doesn’t hurt someone who is not part of the transaction, I’m Ok with it. As I understand it, Elliot used his own money – he didn’t steal it. Spitzer was trying to get to the source(s) of government evils so he had to go. The NSA/CIA/FBI/.., who were spying on all of us, provided the connection, and down he went. The evil powers that wanted him gone gloated in his downfall.

       
  86. Yelena Davidov

    Super Cyber Weapon ???! World is so small and so big. Trust no one! Consider facts and statistics, (trust your own)people you know personally. Eye contact safe way of communications when you know body and mimics languages – ask offset question, body or eyes will give you clue of false statements /hearing helps right away when you watch some “presidents” putting vein out : unfortunately many can hear false notes in voices ), otherwise those who don’t may these “basics” knowledge on human behavior may find themselves deep in jungles. No matter what those in the top will manipulate people… this is about people knowing how to have their 24 unarmed weapons …

     
  87. Steve

    There is nothing new here except that it is being done on the Internet. These are tried and true techniques for good old-fashion government espionage. We’d be up in arms if our own governments weren’t doing all of these things to further our interests.

     
    • Sasquatch

      How can these techniques further our interests? They’re designed for only one purpose – to subvert and destroy the democratic process. They’re what governments use when they fear their own people.

      “These are tried and true techniques for good old-fashion government espionage.”

      Yes, J Edgar Hoover’s FBI used these techniques against the civil rights and antiwar movements in the US. Mielke’s Stasi used these techniques against similar groups in East Germany. In both countries these techniques ruined the lives of well-meaning individuals who committed no crime. In both countries these techniques failed to stop the political movements they were targeted against.

       
    • Om

      Further whose interests, the interests of the elite, their corporate supporters, and themselves maybe In this age of austerity, which was caused by the Financial Institutions, the only people whose interests are being furthered are the wealthy and elite, and at the expense of the poor. The only espionage here is the espionage conducted by the Governments and their backers. If you describe editorial free press, and fearful journalists that fight censorship, and unlawful mass surveillance as espionage then you are sounding like a extremist, military minded “right wing nut job” Either that or you are Government. or one of the few elite members of society that has benefited,. Your entitled to your view, but If you seriously believe what you have said, I doubt you will find many supporters on here or in the free press.

       
    • Anony

      It is in our interest to have government do these things to us?

      You sir, are a masochist.

       
      • Jim Moore

        “You sir are a masochist” fits this poster, Steve, like a glove. Thanks for such a succinct description of Steve and posters who echo him.

         
  88. Sasquatch

    It is now 2 days after this article has come out, and the English-language mainstream media has been silent on this story. Searched Google News. Searched individual English-language outlets. Not a peep, except from the usual suspects such as Democracy Now, which don’t count as mainstream. Several mentions in the German media, though. It’s as if goons have fanned out and personally threatened the families of journalists and editors throughout the Five Eyes countries.

    More likely, this is so “out there”, so similar to some of the tactics used by East Germany’s MfS (Stasi) in the ’70s and ’80s, that the mainstream media are too scared to touch this story with a ten foot pole.

     
    • Sasquatch

      And then there’s the explanation Mona posted earlier today:
      “I didn’t expect the MSM to go big with this story. It is of concern to those who value Internet freedom and the rights of political dissidents, but won’t resonate with average news consumers.
      COINTELPRO didn’t bother white bread America, and neither will this.”
      I hope she’s wrong, but I fear she’s right. It’s the most depressing explanation of all.

       
  89. Mark

    Cointelpro for the internet age.

     
  90. Mayer Rothschild

    I have noticed a jump in shills in recent weeks. They must be getting desperate. One thing to look for are the commenter s that attack other comments, and try to steer discussion. Not the run of the mill- “your and idiot’ stuff but fake intellectual attempts to steer discussion. They provide no evidence to support their opinion, and usually digress to – that’s a conspiracy. T hey use all the disinfo techniques when confronted. I actually IP traced one guy today- ‘Profit Prophet’. Be positive- Listen to ALL- Follow none.

     
    • Amalgovinus

      “Pseudointellectual” is the perfect description for a lot of the left-leaning (but not really) establishment trolls on slashdot, youtube and dailykos. They’ll defend things like drone strikes while weaseling around the fact that they actually for them, and they’ll defend the NSA by attacking Assange / Snowden / Greenwald. On the IP thing, though, chances are the software they’re using guarantees fake addresses from various other countries. IMO it’s probably more likely to be a troll account if the IP isn’t from the US.

       
      • Pedinska

        IMO it’s probably more likely to be a troll account if the IP isn’t from the US.

        I wouldn’t make that assumption necessarily. It’s not hard to spot the British readers in any given column’s comment section. Glenn developed a worldwide readership while he was writing at the Guardian. And in the interim between when he left the Graun and started writing here, he had bylines on stories published in news organizations all over the world. I suspect that a large portion of those readers will have followed him here.

         
        • Amalgovinus

          I’m not saying to doubt someone extra just because they’re not from the US, but if they already seem dubious due to other troll-like tells, the fact that they’re not from the US should increase one’s scrutiny.

           
  91. Orangutan.

    Are 9/11 Truth comments allowed here? Why can’t people vote comments up and down like many other online forums? When is the next schedules mainstream media appearance by Glenn Greenwald or Edward Snowden? Is Wikileaks still going to release any damning information that can be used to prosecute those in power of the U.S.A.?

     
    • UK dissident

      I don’t think post votes would be a good thing on such a sensitive site, i mean… look at the content of this aarticle alone. Post votes would be bombarded by GHCQ/NSA influence. Also you’ll find many people disregard the content of a post and decide whether the post is “correct” simply by looking at the vote number. Reddit ultimately fails because of that system. Nobody looks past the vote, they mostly can’t decide for themselves in the content of a post.

       
  92. ectoendomezo

    As I go through my day..thinking about this article..read at 6am this morning…the angrier and more sickened I become.

    Amongst my initial conclusions..is this:

    This is a WEAPON!

    A WEAPON, people, POINTED at YOU and I and ANYONE else who “Gets it their way”.

    The Weaponization of the web..and the FACT that what is described above IS a WEAPON..seems to me to be being…”Ignored”..or more likely it is almost “Automatically” becoming the immediate product of “Denial and Rationalization”.

    HOW can the American public..even those of you who “Get What This Means”…deny the fact that a WEAPON is being USED against you?

    This is now quite frankly a “New Cold War” scenario..a Cold CIVIL War..in which the Bureaucratic Class in league with their “Corporate Partners” are literally Attacking the People..with “Weaponized” forms of Control, coercion and mass surveillance…

    So for me..the next question is this;

    Can this WEAPON be TURNED on its current Users?

    Obviously the “Hardware” or “Infrastructure” in this case is LITERALLY “Unique”..NSA/GCHQ have Billions to utilize etc..

    But the “Intellectual” and “Social” “Infrastructure” is decidedly NOT “Unique” and in fact I would argue that amongst “We The People” resides an even GREATER “Tool Chest” or in this case “ARSENAL” of Minds and Will to use this vile NSA/GCHQ/Bureaucratic Class…WEAPON..for we are not inherently FASCIST or inherently devoid of all those characteristics “Weeded Out” by various “Pre-Employment Screening” that seeks to hire “Only Sociopaths” for NSA et al ad nauseam..so we may be positioned to use Their Weapon Against Them with even greater “Efficiency” then they themselves are capable of…

    So let us use it.

    I mean think “Redford and Newman Using NSA/GCHQ Guidelines In ‘The Sting’ Not To simply Profit From Some Gangster But To CHANGE EVERYTHING..”..I mean since “The Long Con” is pretty much outlined above..lets use it against its makers and teach them a little something about “Karma”.

    After all..the Quickest Way to STOP someone from ‘Leaving Boards With Nails In Them Lying Around Where They Can Be Stepped On’..is to make SURE they Step On One Themselves!

    Dig?

    How’s that for a “Digital Tell”? Think you know me Now?

     
  93. AGW

    Something really bothers me about the comments on this article. The fact that anyone who thinks this is not plausible is being accused of being “asleep” or “a government agent”.

    They’ve already won. People can not unite because we’re so divided we can’t even refrain from attacking one another on the internet for differing ideas. And if you think the government is blind to this fact, you’re naive.

    It’s unfortunate that we can all agree things are completely out of hand, but can not unite to solve problems because we’re too busy attacking and arguing with people who don’t feel EXACTLY what we feel to the letter. Sad.

     
    • Sasquatch

      “The fact that anyone who thinks this is not plausible is being accused of being asleep”

      The relevant documents are available for your perusal, sir.

      The reaction of the authorities to the publication of these documents suggests that at least some of them are genuine.

      So when you suggest that we dismiss this story out of hand, it looks odd.

       
  94. Steve

    Narcissist’s will kill their own brothers or sisters to protect his or her own reputation. The problem is everything is based on lie’s, if anything were to be based on truth there would be no human suffering anywhere in the world. This is what the Declaration of Independence guaranteed us. What this shows is that there reputations are based on lie’s. The definition of the Anti-Christ is lies and deception, Satan worshiping.

     
    • coram nobis

      Glenn really has to confront the Pelagian heresy, which has gone on long enough. And he needs to re-examine the St. Bartholomew’s Day Unpleasantness.

       
  95. ctuton

    From the article, “… all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework … ”

    The GCHQ and the Five Eyes Alliance is a criminal organization engaging in criminal activity. Arrest, try and sentence to the full extent of the law. Distribute their pensions to victims.

    LIBEL: Defamatory statement published through any manner or media. If intended to simply bring contempt, disrespect, hatred, or ridicule to a person or entity it is likely a civil breach of law.

    SLANDER: Oral defamation; the speaking of false and malicious words concerning another, whereby injury results to his reputation.

    DEFAMATION: The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements.

    Definitions from the thelawdictionary.org

     
  96. ctuton

    “… all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework …”

    A criminal organization engaging in criminal activity. Arrest, try and sentence to the full extent of the law. Distribute their pensions to victims.

    LIBEL: Defamatory statement published through any manner or media. If intended to simply bring contempt, disrespect, hatred, or ridicule to a person or entity it is likely a civil breach of law.

    SLANDER: Oral defamation; the speaking of false and malicious words concerning another, whereby injury results to his reputation.

    DEFAMATION: The taking from one’s reputation. The offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements.

    Definitions from the thelawdictionary.org

     
  97. kitts

    HISTORY – Nazi Germany – Dictatorship

    ….Germany became a NATION of SNOOPS. People were employed in each street, in each building complex etc. with the sole purpose of keeping an eye on others in their ‘area’ and reporting them to the authorities if they believed that something was amiss. The reputation of the Nazi police and the secret police lead by Himmler was such that no-one wished to cause offence. People kept their thoughts to themselves unless they wished to invite trouble. In this sense, Nazi Germany was a nation run on fear of the government. Hitler had created a one party state within months of being appointed chancellor.
    His only remaining problem from his point of view was loyalty within his own party ranks.
    In June 1934, he overcame this with the Night of the Long Knives.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm

     
  98. fred jansen

    These are tactics also applied by the regular Dutch police.

     
  99. Christian C. Holmer

    This program (or an early beta version) was rolled out ON MY HEAD (ouch) in San Francisco in late 2010 and early 2011. They did nearly everything described here in GGs latest GCHQ powerpoint.

    I ran a government transparency project FOR the SF Board of supervisors PURSUANT TO A BOS RESOLUTION written in 2004 by Matt Gonzalez then SF Board Prez. He was the Green Party guy that ran with Nader in 2004 – REMEMBER?

    Of course hat they’re doing to targets goes far deeper than what Glens revealed so far but this document did bring me the same sense of relief I experienced with the first story on call detail record metadata content collection for it was that point I realized THEY WERE TAPPING EVERYONE not just my own family.

    So nice to have company.

    :-)
    We collected only what the City Attorney approved (nsf files pst files redacted homeland security documents etc. etc.) and made our bones with the SF Department of Homeland Security during the Bush Administrations regional SUASI grant sweepstakes. We were very good at what we did.
    Reply

     
  100. Michael

    This will get worse. Whistleblowing will get out of fashion and the usual paranoid conspiracy guy gets a hollywood comeback. Gambits anyone?

     
  101. James Fingleton Wild

    I have to say that I can see the meme of Sibel Edmonds construction has done its dirty work.
    I had and in a diminished waywood way, still see her as a champion of sorts.
    However her potboilers of late are very biased and she has kept the cauldron at the boil.
    It seems to me, that she feels Mr Greenwald should have written about her in his articles.
    This is a bit too precious for me. I think she feels left out and it was Mr Greenwald’s solemn duty to raise her profile by mentioning her in many articles.
    I read some of what she wrote at boiling frog. But the Colbert report was a favourite of mine till she appeared on it. I wont link it or the articles.
    Hell it seems has no fury ……..
    This “documents and journalism for hire” meme is more telling on her personality than Mr Greenwald’s integrity.
    Shame really. Sibel had suffered unfairly but maturity would see her being more circumspect
    Reason not the need as Lear said.
    I hope see can see that an apology is overdue.
    Greenwald does not do motives but I do.

     
    • Amalgovinus

      Absolutely. Sibel’s treatment of Amy Goodman has been especially unprofessional, calling Amy “prostitute” and claiming some Soros-funding hogwash. I have no patience left for Sibel, that she would smear fellow activists and well-meaning people just because she hates media competition.

       
  102. james clements

    >What’s compromising the internet is that you have the biggest fucking racket around: Posting powerpoint >slides with no context whatsoever and projecting whatever phobias you’re hiding under your tinfoil hat >while Pierre pays you the big bucks for it.

    Gee, this sounds like an NSA troll trying to discredit this article. Makes me wonder if, as it should have been all along, we’ll all start disregarding trolls.

     
  103. ectoendomezo

    Personally I feel its time for T-Shirts and Bumper Stickers..to wit:

    Say a T-Shirt with the word “Sociology” on the Front and then on the back “Obedience and Compliance”.

    How about a bumper sticker that says:

    “I’m A Victim Of The Hofstede Dimension: Interaction Across Cultures”

    How about an “App” that can “Determine” when in fact “Fracture Points” and a chime could sound warning you that “This Is The Kind Of Thing That Pulls A Group Apart”.

    And Finally..I TRULY Believe that The ENTIRE “GAMBITS FOR DECEPTION” chart should absolutely become the Subject of a NATIONWIDE Billboard and Advertising Campaign.

    I think I coined this next one..but not certain:

    “Wealth Is Wasted Upon The Wealthy, As Youth Is Wasted Upon The Young”..

    Point is if I had Zuckerburgs Money..such Billboards WOULD be going up right now..people need to KNOW not only how “Simply” they “Can” be manipulated..but how “Convenient” their ONGOING Manipulation IS.

     
    • Clapper

      Why would zuckerburg put up billboards going against what his whole business revolves around ? I understand what you are saying but zuckerburg is the worst person to use as an example. Oliver North and many other big name folks have been working hard but cannot seem to connect to the folks who haven’t transitioned off of the boob tube and onto the WWW yet….

       
    • James snapper

      Why would zuckerburg put up billboards going against what his whole business revolves around ? I understand what you are saying but zuckerburg is the worst person to use as an example. Oliver North and many other big name folks have been working hard but cannot seem to connect to the folks who haven’t transitioned off of the boob tube and onto the WWW yet….

       
  104. Jose

    Because of the way reddit.com works, it’s possible to have a peek inside the active, concerted effort to have this story censored.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ywspe/new_snowden_doc_reveals_how_gchqnsa_use_the/

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/reddit-censors-story-government-manipulation-disruption-internet.html

    Clearly, reddit.com would not be the only outlet where this is going on. That’s just the one where the process can be publicly observed.

     
  105. Christian C. Holmer

    This program (or an early beta version) was rolled out ON MY HEAD (ouch) in San Francisco in late 2010 and early 2011. They did nearly everything described here in GGs latest GCHQ powerpoint.

    I ran a government transparency project FOR the SF Board of supervisors PURSUANT TO A BOS RESOLUTION written in 2004 by Matt Gonzalez then SF Board Prez. He was the Green Party guy that ran with Nader in 2004 – REMEMBER?

    Of course hat they’re doing to targets goes far deeper than what Glens revealed so far but this document did bring me the same sense of relief I experienced with the first story on call detail record metadata content collection for it was that point I realized THEY WERE TAPPING EVERYONE not just my own family.

    So nice to have company.

    :-)
    We collected only what the City Attorney approved (nsf files pst files redacted homeland security documents etc. etc.) and made our bones with the SF Department of Homeland Security during the Bush Administrations regional SUASI grant sweepstakes. We were very good at what we did

     
    • James Fingleton Wild

      or it was that point I realized THEY WERE TAPPING EVERYONE not just my own family.

      So nice to have company.

      Good point. I too, some how feel better knowing they are watching all. A bit lonely if you think you are the only one, or one of a few.
      However if I take myself out of the equation, it is obviously worse if they are doing it to all.
      Can not Congress do something?
      Why has no one in Congress tried to get assurances for Mr Greenwald to return to his home country to receive his rightly earned journalism prize without the chance of incarceration? Has it been raised in the house or the senate? Why not?
      Surely the image of the United States could do with a lift.
      What better way to acheive this, than to act honourably.
      I guess I just answered myself, “honour” does not exist in Washington.

       
    • richard verville

      I would like to hear more about your experience since I have had the same thing happen to me. Can you contact me please. My name is Richard Verville mail address: 2 Currier dr. Londonderry NH. 03053. My email box is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I am not certain that I can receive emails from anyone outside NSA/Fusion Center zombies approved list… can you try?

       
  106. Explain it again

    You are missing the point. Say there was a gov run agency breaking the law. A group like this for example in the US might try and discredit the source and place information making the issue sound ridiculous or nothing more than a conspiracy theory. It also discusses the use of a psychological approach to deal with the individual, business or group. For starters it is a violation of free speech. Combined with a more direct approach It can include the ultimate destruction of their adversary. It can include financial ruin, prevention of new employment, discrediting and isolation.

    “Hoover directed all of the Bureau’s Offices to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize” African American organizations ”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-flint-taylor/the-fbi-cointelpro-progra_b_4375527.html

    Often on blogs they are referred to as Gov Bots or Gov Trolls and they can redirect a discussion and something as simple as flooding the comments to push out an individuals opinion. They can go at the individual at the same time. In an of its self it appears somewhat harmless. Yet given its focus and currency and combined with a more direct approach it can have illegal and often destructive results. This type of activity challenges freedom of speech, internet information reliability and allows the gov to potentially manipulate an otherwise free society.

     
    • avelna2001

      Who’s missing the point?

       
    • jeanette

      Even though it has been going on since Hoover’s time it is more electrifying to us when we have direct knowledge of how the Secrecy agencies operate. Also I don’t think Congress does anything because they are also being watched.

       
  107. Lark Larkson

    Mr Greenwald,

    thank you and keep up your good work!

    Considering all those comments spreading conspiracy stories and belittling your work, I wonder whether attempts at diversion are going on on your site right now…

     
  108. Om
     
    • Pedinska

      Thank you for linking to this Om. This is a key bit, IMHO:

      You don’t even need to believe in or support DDoS as a protest tactic to find the latest Snowden revelations troubling. There are clearly defined laws and processes that a democratic government is supposed to follow. Yet here, the British government is apparently throwing out due process and essentially proceeding straight to the punishment — using a method that is considered illegal and punishable by years in prison. Even if DDoS attacks would do more damage upstream (than to IRC), it’s a surprising revelation.

      The real concern here is a shotgun approach to justice that sprays its punishment over thousands of people who are engaged in their democratic right to protest simply because a small handful of people committed digital vandalism. This is the kind of overreaction that usually occurs when a government is trying to squash dissent; it’s not unlike what happens in other, more oppressive countries.

      And it amazes me how many people find this race to the bottom just fine and dandy.

       
  109. Common 'Tater

    Time for a piece on just how craven and subservient the UK national press must be, to see a report that their government is in the business of destroying reputations with disinformation campaigns and remain sheepishly silent. Aren’t they the slightest bit curious about whose reputations their government is slandering with false information? It would be interesting to contact the representives of some UK papers and ask them whether they believe such behavior is necessary for Britain’s national security. Even if they just say they aren’t competent to judge, that would be quite revealing. Britain used to pay lip service to honor.
    Life every man holds dear; but the dear man holds honor far more precious dear than life.
    William Shakespear

     
    • icit

      I think you hold the British press in to high a regard, they have continually aided in these character assassinations and obfuscation of facts. Many are willing instruments of the state and have no desire to shine a light into it’s dark recesses.

       
  110. Mr. Blair M. Phillips

    What can a Canadian citizen do to demonstrate our disagreement and outrage at the actions of the Government of the United States of America/NSA who is controlled and receives directions from Corporations/Banking Institutions or Capitalism? Killing people is not an option! Do I stop buying products and services to demonstrate my disaggreement? Do I vote for the Communist Party of Canada in local, provincial and federal elections? What?
    Max
    Canada

     
    • A Lang

      Canada’s Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is a partner in the NSA’s cyber-shenanigans. As a member of the “Five Eyes” alliance, Canada is an important player in the Panopticon of surveillance under which we now all live. Other member nations (all English-speaking BTW) are Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom along with the aforementioned Canada and the United States.

       
    • Kevin Schmidt

      If you haven’t noticed lately, your own government has been taken over by the same fascists who run the US. I suggest you start by cleaning your own house first, not that the extra isn’t needed here in the US.

       
    • Bill Owen

      One thing is for sure do not vote for the Dauphin, the hair to the throne, Justin Trudeau. NDP is not much better but better. Trudeau is a stupe and dupe. Loves the tar sands and America, and hates Putin as is required for all card carrying deep state members these days.

      Tweet your MP. Tweet our fake journalists (pretty much all of them) (at least people will see it). Put up some posters, organize!

      Good luck eh!

       
  111. Tom D Harry

    Anyone have a link to the full version of the ‘Cyber Offensive Session: Pushing the Boundaries against Action against Hacktivism’ presentation without NBC’s notes?

    It’s confusing how this news is being represented here and in other places. It appears that the ‘Discredit a target / company’ stuff and other stuff on the blue background is part of the ‘Art of Deception’ presentation released today when it’s not.

    Thanks.

     
    • Dave Burnett

      Speaking of, where can I find a good cache of all documents released so far? I need some catching up.

       
  112. Tom D Harry

    Anyone have a link to the full version of the ‘Cyber Offensive Session: Pushing the Boundaries against Action against Hacktivism’ (blue background) presentation in colour and without NBC’s notes?

    It’s confusing how this news is being represented here and in other places. It appears that the ‘Discredit a target / company’ stuff and other stuff on the blue background is part of the ‘Art of Deception’ presentation released today when it’s not.

    Thanks.

     
  113. Lawqrence Washington

    As you may know, in the last few months first Google and now Yahoo have begun locking down anonymous accounts. This prevents people from posting unless they have identified themselves with a phone number (“confirm text message” process). I strongly suspect the gestapo required this so they can further list and eliminate any True American who dares stand for the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America, with its Bill of Rights. Odd that as I type this I realize the gestapo will use my statements to label me as an enemy of the state. What state? Certainly not the United States of America. What state does the gestapo represent?

     
    • richard verville

      this just happened to me today with Outlook (Hotmail.com). what is going one with this ? I would like to know more about what you said here. Can you contact me please. My name is Richard Verville mail address: 2 Currier dr. Londonderry NH. 03053. My email box is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I am not certain that I can receive emails from anyone outside NSA/Fusion Center zombies approved list… can you try?

       
  114. Terry Reeves

    what’s 30 years late between friends? (do the math)

     
  115. convinced i'm vangogh

    Don’t know what’s going on here. This seems like a lot of gobbledygook and the accompanying narrative strikes one as unhinged and rather hysterical. But if you want to point out their ranks are filled with Mengeleses, then yaeh. They’d even take down the towers–just to see the hell it caused, I reckon.

     
  116. d.g. snowden ... and distant relations

    I wonder if the APA (American Psychological Association) would approve?

    *Reminds me of Pavlov’s Dogs: “Watch what I can make Pavlov do. As soon as I drool, he’ll smile and write in his little book.”

     
  117. AinsliePlace

    Great. So all this is is a shitty powerpoint presentation purporting nefarious things that we think GCHQ does–because there’s no context AT ALL–using techniques that anyone can use right now.

    “Cass Sunstein wants the government to “cognitively infiltrate” anti-government groups” – No. Way. Like no one has ever thought THAT idea up before.

    “Write a blog purporting to be one of their victims.” Really? I need to be with a government agency to do that??

    “tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets” – That’s what Yelp is for. Don’t need a government agency to do that.

    “Email their colleagues,” etc. A guy I knew going through a divorce was the target of a nasty e-mail blast sent by his soon to be ex-wife. Was she NSA or GCHQ?

    This is the most risible charge of all: “these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.”

    For fuck’s sake, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker did that telling his employees and campaign aides to go to news websites and post comments promoting him and his record (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-urged-county-staff-campaign-aides-to-promote-him-online-b99210902z1-246713991.html) Is he working for NSA or GCHQ too?

    What’s compromising the internet is that you have the biggest fucking racket around: Posting powerpoint slides with no context whatsoever and projecting whatever phobias you’re hiding under your tinfoil hat while Pierre pays you the big bucks for it.

     
    • zorglub

      *… What’s compromising the internet is that you have the biggest fucking racket around: Posting powerpoint slides with no context whatsoever and projecting whatever phobias you’re hiding under your tinfoil hat while Pierre pays you the big bucks for it…*

      Nuff said :)

      I wonder why you came here ? waste of time imho, please go back to sleep if you dont want to wake up. In fact you came here while dreaming.

       
    • James Fingleton Wild

      If I understand your position, you are saying that it matters little that the government does this because ordinary people do the same thing.
      Not much of an argument really.
      The government can do bad things because other people do bad things.
      Way to go. Why bother even posting such dribble?
      Whats that?
      A dollar a word..

       
    • Glenn Greenwald

      For fuck’s sake, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker did that telling his employees and campaign aides to go to news websites and post comments promoting him and his record (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-urged-county-staff-campaign-aides-to-promote-him-online-b99210902z1-246713991.html) Is he working for NSA or GCHQ too?

      Now *that is a dedicated and hard-core Democratic partisan shill and Obama loyalist: finding ways to turn a story about NSA/GCHQ deceit into a complaint about some Republican governor. Congrats. An MSNBC chair awaits.

      What’s compromising the internet is that you have the biggest fucking racket around: Posting powerpoint slides with no context whatsoever and projecting whatever phobias you’re hiding under your tinfoil hat while Pierre pays you the big bucks for it.

      NO CONTEXT is the new preferred Dem partisan platitude when faced with documents that make them uncomfortable.

      This isn’t the first story I’ve reported on these documents. It’s the fourth. NBC spent a good deal of time talking to GCHQ about the “context”. The documents themselves provide a lot more. There’s zero question they used these tactics as the links make clear, and the very last page of the new document says that they are currently training 150+ new operatives trained in these tactics for full roll-out in early 2013. There’s your context.

       
      • AGW

        Whether what you’re sharing here is fact or fiction is irrelevant to me after reading some of these comments. When you meet criticism of your work with responses like “partisan shill” and “loyalist”, you show yourself to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. YOU are manipulating discourse by responding to it like a child throwing a tantrum rather than furnishing those who have doubts with the evidence necessary to disprove those doubts.

        Now assume you have great insight regarding my personal opinions and respond with more semi-articulate kicking and screaming. Hack.

         
        • james clements

          Yes! Good one! Distract from the main topic and turn attention back on the author with a vague comment discrediting the author! Well done!

           
      • eugene

        >There’s zero question they used these tactics as the links make clear, and the very last page of the new document says that they are currently training 150+ new operatives trained in these tactics for full roll-out in early 2013. There’s your context.

        The gist of your article is that those tactics are used against targets that are outside of common understanding of legitimate target for such ops (whatever it may be), for this you provide no proof and, yes, no appropriate context. This is a legitimate gripe and accusing a person who questions you on this basis a “Dem shill” is incredibly lame.

         
      • KeriDoll

        Glenn, I cannot thank you and Edward enough for your courage in bringing these documents to light. THANK YOU!

         
    • Jeremy

      Is it fuck around on the web time at GCHQ? Get back to work ruining lives!

       
    • Bill Owen

      Sorry your butt hurts.

       
  118. suprabrew

    ” Construct experience in mind of target [general public] which should be accepted so they don’t realize it” This is brainwashing 101 by the state.
    I have all certainty Mr. Greenwald has, and in good time, will elaborate on this evil and tyrannical practice being perpetrated against us all. This story will prove the biggest of the decade, if not the century. Yet in 12 hours time not a single mainstream media outlet has touched it….go figure.
    However, I am relieved by these slides to realize the state is too stupid and overly concerned with personal career advancement to achieve much success with these evil schemes. As usual, government employees promote the latest theories, which they themselves don’t understand and are too lazy to study. The average government employee is too stupid and lazy to comprehend the psychology behind these plans of population control. If they could understand them, they would refuse to participate, exactly as Mr. Snowden refused to participate.
    The combined effect of trying to teach all these brainwashing techniques to nitwits is failure: ‘pearls before swine.’

     
    • lysias

      Austrian socialist leader Victor Adler characterized the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as “Despotismus gemildert durch Schlamperei” [despotism tempered by sloppiness). Let us hope there is a lot of Schlamperei in our intelligence agencies.

       
  119. Dereliction

    This strikes me as the same stuff exposed in the Wikileaks e-mails regarding Team Themis, where the Chamber of Commerce was targeting liberal groups who criticize them.

     
    • Jose

      Yes, the private sector can do it too. But when a government does it, it’s way more menacing. They have other types of resources at their disposal, and can do very destructive stuff with virtual impunity.

      It is rather amazing that there were no legal consequences for anyone at Team Themis, while those who exposed them got in a lot of trouble, including Barrett Brown. That’s the world order in a nutshell: not only unjust, but immoral.

       
    • ectoendomezo

      As regards the questions such as ‘Didn’t This ALSO Occur In The ‘Private Sector’?” (btw; No SUBSTANTIVE Difference between public/private sector at certain levels of Corporate Fascism) One needs to remember/recall;

      “The Revolving Door”.

      ALL these “Intelligence” agencies consisting of “Bureaucratic Class” maggots..have their “Corporate Partners”..combine this with the more “Traditional” Revolving Door (look at FDA for truly sickening examples like “Day 1″ Obama Appointee Michael Taylor to FDA..a 30 YEAR..Thirty…Year..Career Monsanto “Fixer” now still undermining food and drug safety on a literally daily basis)..I digress..

      The Point is these “Techniques” are already now “Both” (and here I wish I could call up some of their corpie-speak psychotic jargon..I’ll give it an admittedly lame try) “Public And Private Sector Utilizable” (yeah I know ‘sic?’)..which simply means the “Tool Box” is now employed by anyone and everyone who has either hired or is infested with these psychotic denial ridden fascists.

      Booz Allen for example was VERY “Active” with “The Chamber”..so its all just “The Playbook” at this point with “Agents” now literally interchangeable amongst, for example, ‘GCHQ/NSA/CIA and The Chamber Of Commerce Or ‘Other’ Corporate Fascist Allies’.

      Continued Payment = Approval.

      All we have is the mortal fatal flaw in all of this “For Profit” control.coercion and mass surveillance insanity.

      Tax Strikes and Boycotts are all we have..they are truly “The Citizens Nuclear Option”..ask yourselves this critical and undeniable question:

      “How Many Employees Of EITHER CIA or Chamber Of Commerce (For example) Would Show Up To Work IF THEY WERE NO LONGER BEING PAID?”

      It is literally as simple as that.

      Stop Paying Them To destroy Your Freedom!

       
  120. Cy Aupse

    There is an answer for all this: http://voteafterparty.org

     
  121. Zorglub

    Good news from MIT Technology Review.

    With a heavy emphasis on encryption and strong controls over all data from your phone, Blackphone launches amid intense interest at Mobile World Congress.

    “The entire reason for the phone to exist is to protect your privacy,” says Phil Zimmermann, a Blackphone cofounder who invented a widely used encryption system known as PGP for “pretty good privacy.” “We are not a phone company adding a privacy feature; we are a privacy company selling a phone.”

    Blackphone was a work in progress before NSA contractor Edward Snowden began leaking files about the scope of mass surveillance by the American spy agency. Those events have likely fueled user interest in the product, Weir-Jones says. “I think what we have seen is a heightened sensitivity of what the loss of privacy can mean,” he says.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/524906/a-629-ultrasecure-phone-aims-to-protect-personal-data/

     
  122. I.M. Irrelevant

    These traitors are paid how much to agitate online for a living? I see a substantial budget savings by “reducing headcount” of these fascist adolescents.

    If they’re crashing the economy soon, why pay taxes if this pathetic angst driven spying & character assassination is what it buys? When there are riots everywhere, the internet has been turned off, the agitators have to go home do you really think the IRS will be dropping by?

     
  123. drbaltazar

    ARENT THOSE CALLED TROLL

     
  124. Terry

    These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand.”

    Ahh yes. Prop up the fake whistleblower lies while hammering home the idea that the media is on our side and fighting for the good guys. Give me a fucking break.

     
  125. Kalif

    You don’t even state what GCHQ stands for. *rolls eyes* Not very journalistic.

     
    • Glenn Greenwald

      You don’t even state what GCHQ stands for. *rolls eyes* Not very journalistic.

      I also didn’t state what “NSA” stands for – or, for that matter, “US” or “UK”. Especially in my column, as opposed to a news article, I assume a basic knowledge of the most well-known facts.

       
      • Harland

        I didn’t know what GCHQ meant, either. I think you’re so far in your own world that you don’t realize that other people exist outside of it. It’s a common failing of journalists and other people who associate exclusively with their own kind.

         
        • Adam

          Oh come on. I think everybody using the internet knows how to double click, copy, and google search these days. If you don’t know how to find what GCHQ means, then you probably never read this.

           
        • Tom Czerniawski

          So wait… you’re posting on the Intercept… a publication recently launched to discuss the NSA and GCHQ… and you don’t know what the GCHQ is?

          You work for them, don’t you.

           
          • KeriDoll

            Well, they have to find ‘something’ ANYTHING to scrutinize. It’s what they’re trained to do. I think if that’s all they got it is a sign of desperation.

             
          • KeriDoll

            Well, they have to find ‘something’ ANYTHING to scrutinize. It’s what they’re trained to do. I think if that’s all they have it’s a sign of desperation.

             
        • TomCat

          Have you hear anything about googling or searching for an acronym on line? Try that once in a while, it would help calm you down…

           
        • Bill Owen

          Double click on the word. That selects the word. Right click, that bring up a menu. The second choice is “search Google for….”.

          How hard is that?

           
        • Pedinska

          I prefer duckduckgo.com over google as they don’t keep track of your searches:

          https://duckduckgo.com/html

          GCHQ is an intelligence and security organisation, working to keep Britain safe and secure in the challenging environment of modern communications.

          Of course, they leave out the bit about being assholes who break the law to get even with people who piss them off, but what can one expect from self-pwnage these days?

           
        • Daniel

          I dunno like mate, This was one of the focal points of the biggest scandals in recent time. Basic reading of any decent article around the time would surely cover GCHQ, if not that, then wikipedia.

           
      • nojokes

        Sorry, what does USA stand for? This is ridiculous! Look it up if you really are too insular to know!

         
      • ZKurten

        Aside from the great work you and Co. do, I find you to be hysterically funny. Thank you. It must be most tiresome answering the “idiot’s delite” , AKA general public’s ill-fated attacks upon your excellent journalism.

         
      • wgalison

        Thank you Glenn, I was about to write the same.

         
    • nah

      why don’t you go to http://www.gchq.gov.uk/ to find out? you’re not very smart or are you? by the way, what do you expect they stand for? of course they struggle relentlessly to spread and keep the peace, love and happiness all over the fucking globe. cheers.

       
    • Wiltmellow

      Google it.

      Duh.

       
    • Common 'Tater

      Its full name is Gung-ho Covert Halfwits and Quacks. The organization itself, however, generally just uses the acronym rather than the full name, for some reason.

       
    • Jim Moore

      Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
      National Security Agency (NSA)
      Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
      Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
      Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) United Kingdom (UK)

      Internet search is a very helpful tool to decode abbreviations.

       
      • Jim Moore

        Sorry, meant Acronyms not abbreviations. There is an Acronym Finder site (free) that claims to have over 4 million searchable acronyms or abbreviations. As a test, I just searched for GCHQ and it returned “Government Communications Headquarters (UK)”. Give it a try – you will be pleased.

        Or you can just do a regular search.

         
  126. Om

    Two more spying revelations of Democracy Now, and one is an exclusive so read it on the site, and here for ya all the other :

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/28/broadcast_exclusive_declassified_docs_reveal_military

     
  127. noneya

    OMG – After this story Rachel Maddox did ANOTHER bridge story for the masses today…omg. We’re all so doomed. I mean really, really F****d. Wake me when the apocalypse starts…I want don’t want to miss all the pretty colors. :)

     
  128. Wade

    It is really annoying to try to read comments that are not in chronological order. Many web sites offer options as to the order comments are presented; as far as I can tell, this one does not. Reverse chronological seems to be the only order available.

    Please fix this; whether options are offered or not, chronological order should always be the default presentation, with new comments being added AT THE END.

     
    • Morning's Minion

      I think these threads would be topping a thousand if there were a better system.

       
  129. Shallisa

    This is the work of the Tavistock institute.

     
  130. Mike McDonald

    My respect for Glen Greenwald goes up

     
  131. sprockethawk

    Gee, Glenn, there are far more powerful ways of infiltrating than those methods you describe here.

    Take for instance Google Analytics. The mischief of Google, their long-time cooperation with the Fed spies, algorithms for the DoD, Schmidt’s understanding that we’ve reached ‘the end of privacy’ and should just get over it, and all the sundry Google product leechings of human knowledge on a scale that will be useful to future AI development but is a catastrophe on the human scale, where privacy is still required for consciousness to breathe….

    And then of course there’s Amazon, which tracks every search and sale you make (whether you like it or not); Amazon with its flip smirk over drone deliveries, twerking in the face of those concerned by drone usage; Amazon, with its nearly impossible-to-cancel accounts (go ahead and try, just for the exercise, I dare you); and, Amazon with their very recent announcement that they are partnering with the CIA to build cloud services for the spies….

    And Intercept uses the services of these malignant capitalizers. Indeed, according to my Ghostery listing, coming to Intercept means being tracked by Google, Amazon, and Mixpanel (“The most advanced analytics platform ever…”). And presumably eBay caches in at the back end, too. What it means, obviously enough, is that First Look tracks its viewers just as vigorously as any other player out there and provides Big Data with more marketing opportunities. One imagines that the kinds of people who read and respond favorably to your piece on infiltators above, for instance, would be of some interest to the authorities. (And we knows how the Googles an’Amzons likes to share they data wif Big Bro.) This would be ironical, Glenn, except that it’s too frightening to be merely glib about. I mean, after all, you built this city on rock and roll.

    First Look is not the only “alternative journalism” site that employs such metrics, of course. Just the other day I was shocked to discover that Counterpunch tracks every time you open their e-newsletters. So if you read about the Fukushima meltdown, next thing you know you’re being prodded to buy more Blackmore’s iodine tablets (or some such). Looks like Big Data has everyone by the short follicles, but still: Don’t you think–you know, being The Most Transparent Blogger Ever (TM)–that you should make people explicitly aware of this practice and explain why you do it? Maybe explain how you can ‘reveal’ Google machinations, for instance, and then consciously employ their system to make a buck. Maybe, you know, if you feel like it…

    BTw, and on a related (positive) note, I’ve found a good way of getting rid of ads while browsing is by using AdFender (adfender.com), which is a systems install and, thus, works for any browser.

     
    • empireinrecline

      This is a genuine problem. I see a ray of hope but it’s still off in the distance. That hope is this: as we get farmed for more and more information, that information will become more and more freely available. Since big data is collecting everyone’s secrets and personal information we will reach a tipping point where secrecy will be impossible and big data will be relatively useless because everyone will have it; remember value and scarcity often go hand in hand. Governments are stupid and shortsighted enough to not see their own peril yet, that all this data collection will eventually make it impossible for them to keep any secrets too. At this point everyone will be able to find out anything about anyone and societies will shift away from caring about keeping secrets and move toward dealing with everyone openly and honestly. Ultimately a win-win if it plays out that way a couple decades from now.

       
    • S. Wolf Britain

      Excellent comment, my friend. It blows my mind that these websites that claim to stand for truth, transparency, privacy, anonymity, and against spying, etc., use all of these spy mechanisms on us, which also slow down the load of their webpages, often causing them to timeout in the midst of connecting with Google, etc. I am constantly having to reload pages that won’t finish loading because they’ve either timed out or are hung up on some external site like Google that isn’t working right. It’s driving me bananas! But do these sites care? No. All they mostly care about, though they of course claim otherwise, and that they “put readers first”, is mainly keeping enough money flowing in to pay salaries, and they’ll use a lot of methods to do so that they should, and probably do, know better than to use, knowing the government is using those methods to spy on everyone, but they rationalize it because otherwise, supposedly, they won’t be able to keep enough money flowing in to stay afloat. Well, my argument is, if this kind of thing is what it takes for them to stay in existence, then they shouldn’t remain so, but SHOULD go under; and, if they do, good riddance to them, because they’re part of the problem!

       
    • thelastnamechosen

      Something I have shamelessly stolen in paraphrase…

      The internet, that for a brief moment, once showed us a glimpse of what could be, now has been tortured and turned, now a honeypot, now a spider’s web of tracking, surveillance and blackmail. It must be killed while we still have the chance. Before it is too late.

      —-

      Tech has been a hobby, a career, and a passion for most of my life. I’m close to done. I’m not giving up, but I am tired of subsidizing this crap. Dismantle it and start all over. In many ways, first look is really the last gasp. The last chance. I’m not giving up, but I am tired of forgiving myself. Turn it off and start all over.

      I consider myself a geek, but now I spit on geeks. We failed. We fucked it up. Generations betrayed for table scraps. In less than a decade we threw it all away.

      On this topic, journalists have long exploited the luxury of ignorance, but those youthful days are gone. We built the whore houses, you are the whores. I do not say this lightly or with malice. We built the hooks, you are the bait. Fishers of men indeed.

      There is a certain cynical sickness required to offer up revelations of surveillance and tracking as baited honeytrap for surveillance and tracking. But frankly, as a geek, my only credible complaint is that you stole our business model.

      Fuck us all.

      I know it makes no sense, but we deserve better than what we are. We deserve better than what we have become. To say that history will not be kind is being too kind. History will hang us.

       
      • pieceofcake

        BUT it is so wonderful absurd if the surveiller complains about surveillance…
        -(and let me add to your F… us all – and say: “especially facebook”!)

         
      • Harv

        ‘Tis strange and funny, I have yet to see except for rereading my own words at various places anyother acknowledgement that all of us allowed this shit to happen because we didn’t clamor loud enough to get gov’t to stop the first use of cookies when they first started appearing. Would it have made a differerence? Was it already too? I suppose it was. (I must quite typing, my screen is about a half of a second slow in displaying the keys that I punch. I’ve not had this happen in years. I wonder why?

         
    • James Fingleton Wild

      I use Firefox with a ghostery plug-in and it shows only two trackers here on Mr Greenwald’s article.
      Google Analytics and Mixpanel, which I block of course.
      No Amazon?
      I agree that it might be something for the Intercept to be up front and tell its readers that they are being tracked by use of the Intercepts arrangement with third parties.
      That would be transparent.
      Still one Ron Paul article by GG at Salon had 38, count them 38 trackers.
      I hated Salon.

       
      • Glenn Greenwald

        Take for instance Google Analytics.

        I’m no expert in analytic programs, but as I understand it, there are good reasons for using GA: it provides important data that few other things provide. But it’s also true there are serious privacy issues with it. We’re 15 days old. We’ve instituted some of innovative privacy and security features that few other media organizations are using. Still, there are several critiques around about how we can do better still – including alternatives to GA – and they’re all being seriously examined and considered.

        All that said, as serious as those issues are, I think it’s just absurd to describe these problems as “far more powerful” than systematic surveillance and manipulation by the state.

         
        • thelastnamechosen

          Glenn Greenwald wrote:

          “I’m no expert in analytic programs, but as I understand it, there are good reasons for using GA: it provides important data that few other things provide.”

          Glenn,

          Send whoever is making these decisions into the comment section to defend their choices and logic. If they can’t or are unwilling find someone who will.

          If the tech people at the Intercept are bamboozling you with bullshit, and frankly it doesn’t sound like you are being well served at all, better to know about it now than a year from now.

          From what I have seen your tech hires are in way over their head, and seem to have no real concerns about dragging you down along with them.

          You have put together a dream team of journalists here. Don’t let them be subverted by some idiots who have no interest in civil liberties or putting in an honest day’s work.

          You deserve better than this.

          With all that said–

          “…it provides important data that few other things provide.”

          Are you fucking kidding me? Listen to yourself.

          You didn’t even have the courage to say–

          “…it provides important data ABOUT YOU that few other things provide.”

           
          • Joseph K junior

            Well don’t be so mysterious tell us more on the ABOUT YOU . . .

             
          • thelastnamechosen

            @Joseph K junior

            Replace “ABOUT YOU” with “about readers of the Intercept.”

            Whatever information Google Analytics provides about the readership of Intercept that “few other things provide” will have to be explained by Glenn and The Intercept.

            I have no insight into Glenn’s objectives concerning the tracking and analysis of his readership, or what is so important that only Google or a few others are capable of providing. Truthfully it sounds like a bunch of crap.

            I am also not sure why a best of breed tracking and analytics system was considered a higher priority than a functioning website. These are some of the questions I would like answered.

             
        • S. Wolf Britain

          I second the emotion about “are you kidding (us)”?!… Glenn, you know very well that Google is working with, if not a front company of, or at least an asset of, the spymaster U.S. government; and you’re using them on your website anyway?! I should think that, considering the level of what you know is really going on, you would know better than to rationalize it as you’ve done in your foregoing reply comment, and that you would make sure that this site has nothing to do with ANY asset of the authoritarian militarized police state that the U.S. government now is.

          Therefore, please stop using ANY AND ALL spyware on this website. I mean, come on, really, you use this government-connected garbage considering what you ostensibly stand for?! If this keeps up, I’m going to have to start take Boiling Frog Post’s apparently-legitimate concerns more seriously!! I would also think that you would be seeking to avoid any appearance(s) of impropriety with this site, and anything and everything that makes Sibel Edmonds and company’s concerns look even more legitimate.

          [Or are Sibel Edmonds and associates, U.S. government controlled "opposition" and/or gatekeepers seeking to ("falsely"?) discredit this new publishing endeavor before it even got out of the starting gate? (Perhaps you ought to look into that, if you haven't already, and write an article about it. Or write an article at least letting us know if any of Boiling Frog Post's concerns vis-a-vis First Look are legitimate; and, if not, how they are discredited.)]

          http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/12/11/bfp-breaking-news-omidyars-paypal-corporation-said-to-be-implicated-in-withheld-nsa-documents/

          Thank you.

           
        • sprockethawk

          Absurd? I’ll tell you what’s absurd, Glenn–you misrepresenting the point I was making, which was: Why worry about ‘infiltrators’ in the threads of political columns like this, if said threads are going to employ the very data collection tactics they decry in their columns? I’m surprised to see your attempt to separate government collection from corporate collection, given your past rhetorical essays on their collusion. I mean, gee, your Prism piece for the Guardian clearly infers Google’s longstanding relationship with the government.(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data)

          As for seemingly propping up the virtues of Google Analytics, well what can one say to that? Google Analytics, with its sytematic algorithmic data catching, is the very prototype of the Surveillance State. Google Analytics, and its cousins, is responsible for the disposition matrix Obama uses to determine who to drone. Google Analytics probably alerted the feds to Tarek Mahenna. Google Analytics may have led our brave joy-sticky American heroes to the whereabouts of al-Awaki’s son. Google Analytics and its generated data stores make online infiltration redundant and unnecessary, since, as you have pointed out in the past, the NSA has access to the servers on which such metadata is stored. So talk up the marketing virtues of Google, Glenn; let’s hear how they do no evil, now that they optimize for your website.

          Equally disturbing is the cavalier explanation of IP address collection provided by the Intercept (First Look). The Policy blithely explains, in parenthesis, almost as an unnecessary after aside, “(Your IP address is a numerical address that is used by computers and other devices connected to the Internet to identify your device so that data – such as the web pages you want to view – can be transmitted to you.)” Yeah, no big deal, right? Except that the IP address personally locates you in time and space, allowing hackers and spies to find you quickly and efficiently. And the rest of the Privacy Policy is not pretty either, with all the 3rd party data collections that First Look waives responsibility for usage. Indeed, the Privacy Policy has all kinds of lawyerly loophole language serving to place the reader at his or her own risk.

          And why is Amazon part of the collection package, Glenn? Oh, right, they are currently pre-selling your pre-ordained Pulitzer Prize winning entry, No Place To Hide. It’s important to shape your readers toward other consumables they may desire.

          If Omidyar’s First Look video intro is any indication, with all its package talk, what the Great Man wanted from you was not so much your Walter White-like product (call it crystal blue persuasion methology), but the solid number of exploitable followers you attract. Just keep serving up the suggestive but generic Powerpoint slides that hint at possibilities rather than actual deeds. Mention no specific names, dates or deeds, and let everyone pretend you beat James Bamford to the NSA ‘revelations’. (See the 2009 Nova program based on Bamford’s research: The Spy Factory: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/spy-factory.html

          This whole enterprise, thus far, reminds me of the Twilight Zone Episode “To Serve Mankind”–the one with the freaky tall alien who looked strangely like Malcolm X–bidding all to come aboard, peace and love and justice and transparency. Then you finally crack the Privacy Policy code and it says: To Serve Mankind, A Cookbook.

          Mmm, comfy self-contented middleclass grazers taste just like chicken. Yum!

           
        • coram nobis

          Glenn, is NoScript any help? A bitcoin for your thoughts.

           
      • James Fingleton Wild

        How bizarre. Ghostery now shows no trackers on this page?
        Anybody else showing no trackers.

         
        • James Fingleton Wild

          Now they are back.
          Strange days indeed mumma.

           
        • James Fingleton Wild

          Okay.
          Ghostery now shows the two trackers.
          A script on this page
          Script:chrome://browser/content/browser.js:16101
          was non responsive.
          Strange I do not have Google Chrome installed.

           
        • annenigma

          Same here. My Firefox shows two trackers now but none earlier. It keeps changing. I don’t have Chrome either.

          Frankly, I thought this website would be far more sophisticated in many ways. Given the money involved, I don’t understand why it looks like a shoestring operation. I’m starting to wonder about Pierre.

           
          • James Fingleton Wild

            Cheers.
            This site does not provide the scripts. They are the third party”s handy work.
            Still it was interesting to find that that unresponsive script could influence Ghostery’s findings.
            This stuff does my head in sometimes.
            It is early days here and I have full confidence that things can only get better.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj4wcuo9Mgo

             
    • Joseph K junior

      Well, hawk, you seem mighty ticked, and apparently more concerned about the commercial realm with all those advertisements than what’s being emphasized with this article—the political realm and the latest iteration of the SS (snoops and slide-eyes). “Far more powerful”? We’d probably need to get further into definitions and delineations of “harm.” Thanks for the AdFender rec—seems like your thing is advertisement rage mostly.

       
      • sprockethawk

        Absurd? I’ll tell you what’s absurd, Glenn–you misrepresenting the point I was making, which was: Why worry about ‘infiltrators’ in the threads of political columns like this, if said threads are going to employ the very data collection tactics they decry in their columns? I’m surprised to see your attempt to separate government collection from corporate collection, given your past rhetorical essays on their collusion. I mean, gee, your Prism piece for the Guardian clearly infers Google’s longstanding relationship with the government.

        As for seemingly propping up the virtues of Google Analytics, well what can one say to that? Google Analytics, with its sytematic algorithmic data catching, is the very prototype of the Surveillance State. Google Analytics, and its cousins, is responsible for the disposition matrix Obama uses to determine who to drone. Google Analytics probably alerted the feds to Tarek Mahenna. Google Analytics may have led our brave joy-sticky American heroes to the whereabouts of al-Awaki’s son. Google Analytics and its generated data stores make online infiltration redundant and unnecessary, since, as you have pointed out in the past, the NSA has access to the servers on which such metadata is stored. So talk up the marketing virtues of Google, Glenn; let’s hear how they do no evil, now that they optimize for your website.

        Equally disturbing is the cavalier explanation of IP address collection provided by the Intercept (First Look). The Policy blithely explains, in parenthis, almost as an unnecessary aside, “(Your IP address is a numerical address that is used by computers and other devices connected to the Internet to identify your device so that data – such as the web pages you want to view – can be transmitted to you.)” Yeah, no big deal, right? Except that the IP address personally locates you in time and space, allowing hackers and spies to find you quickly and efficiently. And the rest of the Privacy Policy is not pretty either, with all the 3rd party data collections that First Look waives responsibility for usage. Indeed, the Privacy Policy has all kinds of lawyerly loophole language serving to place the reader at his or her own risk.

        And why is Amazon part of the collection package, Glenn? Oh, right, they are currently pre-selling your pre-ordained Pulitzer Prize winning entry, No Place To Hide. It’s imporatant to shape your readers toward other consummables they may desire.

        If Omidyar’s First Look video intro is any indication, with all its package talk, what the Great Man wanted from you was not so much your Walter White-like product (call it crystal blue persuasion methology), but the solid number of exploitable followers you attract. Just keep serving up the suggestive but generic Powerpoint slides that hint at possibilities rather than actual deeds. Mention no specific names, dates or deeds, and let everyone pretend you beat James Bamford to the NSA ‘revelations’.

        This whole enterprise, thus far, reminds me of the Twilight Zone Episode “To Serve Mankind”–the one with the freaky tall alien who looked strangely like Malcolm X–bidding all to come aboard, peace and love and justice and transparency. Then you finally crack the Privacy Policy code and it says: To Serve Mankind, A Cookbook.

        Mmm, comfy self-contented middleclass grazers taste just like chicken. Yum!

         
        • Pedinska

          So talk up the marketing virtues of Google, Glenn; let’s hear how they do no evil, now that they optimize for your website.

          Except he didn’t do that. This what he said:

          We’ve instituted some of innovative privacy and security features that few other media organizations are using. Still, there are several critiques around about how we can do better still – including alternatives to GA – and they’re all being seriously examined and considered.

          Why doesn’t that hold at least as much weight for you as the two sentences you chose to focus on? Just curious. I don’t like being subject to GA either, so I appreciate the fact that they are taking that criticism to heart and are pursuing alternatives.

           
    • Pedinska

      I just tweeted @micahflee to see if he might be amenable to writing a blurb giving us some general info on what’s happening with the comment section architecture (not even sure if that’s the word to use), as well as the choice to use GA (trackers). If I get a response I will forward.

      I think it’s fair to note Glenn’s comment about only being up and running for 15 days. And, IIRC, the start up was rushed a bit by a premature disclosure of plans that left Glenn in a sort of no-man’s land with no place to write his own pieces. He put that to good use by pairing up with writers at other news organizations all over the place, but I’m sure that also cut short the prep time needed.

      If folks took a look at the tweet he linked in his comment, there are indications that the Intercept is taking security steps that have impressed Christopher Seghoian, the Principal Technologist and a Senior Policy Analyst with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project:

      Big media take note. Omidyar’s @FirstLook are not only using HTTPS by default, but they’re also running their own jabber server. Impressive.

      Mr. Lee worked for the Electronic Frontier Foundation before his migration to First Look. I think that gives him a bit of cred so I’ll reserve judgment until we have a chance to hear from him.

      Botticelli painted Venus on the half shell and she was lovely to behold. But even his Venus didn’t spring forth, fully formed, anatomically correct and ready to inspire at the first stroke of the brush. ;-}

       
    • Trytobreathe

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

       
  132. Gofuk Urselv

    How the hell do I disable beta? As a totally blind reader, this shit is making it almost impossible for my screen reader to parse worth a damn. From a zillion “article regions”, seemingly random headers for no apparent reason, and so much blank space it makes me wonder if the ‘reader has stopped working, this is absolute crap. I hate to say it, but the beta needs to die. Please put someone with a functioning brain in charge of site UI, hand them a copy of the American’s with Disabilities Act, highlight the part about Accessibility, and tell them to fix the damned thing. Go to Freedom Scientific, grab a current copy of Jaws, & install it. Let it run, turn off your monitor, & LISTEN to what this cluster fuck sounds like. If you don’t want to kill the UI folks after that, you’re either deaf or brain dead. FIX THE DAMNED SITE.

     
  133. Joseph K junior

    Well bless my sharries*, people, I would like to ask the lewdies among us who happen to be using the slide program as their guide to comment behavior here just you know why do you do it, what’s in it for you—it’s a job, right, and you’re stuck? But seriously what do you get out of it and what value system are you using to guide your sleep at night? Can we hear from you? Lay it out—maybe it’s the money. I mean the Pentagon budget is very high around 900 bn I believe and rising. Or, you’re saving the country from . . . commenters who don’t like The System? “What’s it going to be then, eh?” (*beware: Nadsat language employed, Clockwork Orangishly).

     
  134. AmericanGestapo14

    This is one of the most disturbing articles I have ever read in my entire life. What I can tell you as a “target” is that there is a concurrent ground operation using similar tactics. Ultimately the goal is to destroy “the target”, a person who may just be an artist or someone who doesn’t agree with a political policy or an unfortunate that pissed the wrong person in power off…

    It’s a very sad state of affairs and until we start holding hearings and putting the people responsible for these crimes in handcuffs (and in jail), the United States has no business lecturing anyone about human rights

     
  135. -Mona-

    Reddit appears to be censoring this story. At least that’s what I’m seeing on Twitter and in links like this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/reddit-censors-story-government-manipulation-disruption-internet.html

     
    • shillshillingshills

      They’re not censoring the story. An article reporting this presentation has made its way to the top. Links to this page technically do not qualify as news. A news report on this presentation, however, does, which is why that link has not been removed.

      Reddit just hates their moderators, and will often lead witch hunts against them without reading the rules.

       
    • Doug Salzmann

      Who isn’t censoring this story? I’be seen very few outlets picking it up.

       
      • -Mona-

        I didn’t expect the MSM to go big with this story. It is of concern to those who value Internet freedom and the rights of political dissidents, but won’t resonate with average news consumers.

        COINTELPRO didn’t bother white bread America, and neither will this.

         
        • incline

          NBC isn’t ‘MSM’ Mona? This is just a rehash of (better) stories Glenn contributed on for NBC.

           
          • Glenn Greenwald

            NBC isn’t ‘MSM’ Mona? This is just a rehash of (better) stories Glenn contributed on for NBC.

            False.

            NBC didn’t focus on these issues at all when we did those reports.

            Aside from the fact that I published a new article here that is vital to the story, that’s why I wrote this.

            And apparently, huge numbers of people got the point from this article, but not from our NBC articles, disproving your claim that (1) it’s just a rehash of what NBC (with me) reported and (2) our NBC articles reported it better.

             
      • Fly

        Outlets not picking a story up != Censorship. That’s a ridiculous line of logic.

         
        • Rocco Iannacchino

          Since we’re talking about “censorship.”

          Raub VS Iannacchino: A Tale Of Two “False Arrests”

          It is interesting to note that on August 16th, 2012, former decorated Marine, Brandon J. Raub, was “falsely arrested” for posting on Facebook; Raub wrote: “Sharpen my axe; I’m here to sever heads.” Raub was brought to a mental ward, and was released only a few days later. Raub garnered media attention, a law firm to represent him and a following on Facebook within hours of his arrest.

          In no way Raub’s case comes even close to what Mr. Iannacchino’s horrific experience has been.

          Compare Raub and Iannacchino: Raub has tremendous media attention. Iannacchino zero media attention. Raub has a law firm. Iannacchino has tried in vain to get a law firm to represent a clearly illegal arrest for free speech and not being a “status 9.39″ which this false arrest video proves that Mr. Iannacchino was speaking in a park, and was “not a danger to himself or others.” Raub supposedly wrote he wanted to “sever heads.” Mr. Iannacchino never made any threats but feared for his families safety. Raub has a Facebook following. Mr. Iannacchino has no Facebook following.

          Mr. Iannacchino suspects that this whole Raub event was planned and coordinated by military intelligence. That Raub is in fact still working for the government, but now has moved on to the Intelligence sector. Mr. Iannacchino believes that Raub is being rewarded for his exemplarily decorated military service, and has done like many young men that leave the military do – work for the civilian intelligence.

          Mr. Iannacchino also finds the date of Raub’s “false arrest” intriguing; August 16th, 2012, as that is the date of Mr. Iannacchino’s last date of employment with an employer he wishes not to name. On that date, Mr. Iannacchino had become aware of a plot, he suspects, to have had him assassinated at his place of employment. Most likely by way of a “heart attack.”

          Could this have been a symbolic gesture on the part of the military intelligence to have Raub have an eerily similar event that Mr. Iannacchino had had one year prior on August 8th, 2011? That was the date Mr. Iannacchino who was in fear of his life, brought his family to New York City to seek Political Asylum, but ended up at Union Square Park, where he gave a calm speech about his fear of a secret government wanting to kill him. Mr. Iannacchino was falsely arrested as hundreds of New Yorkers watched on in condescending disbelief.

          The arrest followed by the mental ward… On August 16th, Raub is rewarded with lawyers, a lawsuit, media attention within hours of his “arrest.” Mr. Iannacchino who got none of those things would on August 16th, 2011, receive a symbolic sacrifice of death. Mr. Iannacchino is assassinated, but everyone will think it was natural – except for those in the know, that is.

          Mr. Iannacchino who was at the time of his arrest, running 3 to 5 miles a day, a Vegan, happily married with child, an award winning, Grammy voting, filmmaker-musician with no history of mental illness whatsoever who had just completed his Masters Degree – was hauled off to a NYC Hospital where the nightmare and horror would go on for 23 days.

          “It was like being in an MK ULTRA Mind Control experiment,” Mr Iannacchino said.

          Cops Don’t Do “Diversions”

          DoD definition of the word “diversion.”
          “The act of drawing the attention and forces of the enemy from the point of the principle operation; an attack, alarm, or feint that diverts attention. A change made in the prescribed route for operational or tactical reasons.”

          On August 8th, 2011, Rocco Iannacchino brought his wife and child to NYC to seek political asylum, but ended up going to a park to tell his story of being harassed by covert factions of the government.

          He was arrested and sent to an insane asylum for 23 days. He was dangerously misdiagnosed; dangerous life threatening drugs administered, subjected to a Brain CT scan that had 500 times more radiation than a regular X-ray, and nearly broke his arm when a guard tackled him. The arm did not break but turned completely black. All for a free speech in a park.

          Towards the end of his arrest video, a man from the crowd yells out “diversion.” The cameraman who had filmed the whole speech and arrest followed the action as this man ran down the street as “cops” chased after him. When the camera swung back to film the arrested man, he was gone.

          Cops don’t do “diversions”

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcMhVUrgbM4

           
        • Jose

          No, it’s called self-censorship. I don’t believe the reason they are not reporting it is because it’s more newsworthy and interesting to report that Delta made a change to its frequent flyer program.

           
        • UK Dissident

          It is certainly a form of censorship. It’s selective editing. They could just air a weeks worth of cat videos and make it look like they are reporting the new, while completely avoiding a worthy story.

          A chair of a newspaper/network can easily make the decision that 1000 cat videos are more important than global spying/disinformation.

           
    • Doug Salzmann

      Not covering this, or outright censoring it, seems the popular option for the MSM. Here’s what Google News found, just now:

      https://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=gchq&ncl=dx5JsJ6Q8PWwyZMsnJFJ0C6TLz70M&cf=all&scoring=d

       
    • samy

      Not surprising, it’s not the first time these idiots at reddit are censoring sensitive and alternative news

       
  136. coram nobis

    Does this little sidebar out of Seattle fit this pattern?

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/02/25/more-evidence-about-the-us-army-spy-who-befriended-local-activists-and-encouraged-the-purchase-of-guns

    - – -
    “When four sit down to talk revolution, three are fools and the fourth is a police spy.” — Russian proverb

     
  137. Rocco Iannacchino

    This is a test to see if my post is being Intercepted. I’m being heavily censored.

    Cops Don’t Do “Diversions”

    DoD definition of the word “diversion.”
    “The act of drawing the attention and forces of the enemy from the point of the principle operation; an attack, alarm, or feint that diverts attention. A change made in the prescribed route for operational or tactical reasons.”

    Towards the end of his arrest video, a man from the crowd yells out “diversion.” The cameraman who had filmed the whole speech and arrest followed the action as this man ran down the street as “cops” chased after him. When the camera swung back to film the arrested man, he was gone.

    Cops don’t do “diversions”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcMhVUrgbM4

     
  138. wildthought

    Is there any evidence that this is being used by the NSA against American political activists? Some will accuse me of being naive, and I was a OWS protester. I do not have an issue doing this against foreign groups who are committing financial crimes against American interests. I hate the banks, however that does not give someone the right to steal their money. It seems to be a legitimate way to fight cyber warfare. Is there any doubt that other countries are committing cyber warfare against the US and our interests?

    Now, if the NSA is actively targeting Americans or colluding with the British in the targeting of Americans than what they are doing is criminal and treasonous. However, if they are targeting foreigners with these techniques then I am not surprised at all. It seems to me when the Chinese/Russians/Whomeever are targeting American’s this seems like a fair response. I am interested in what people think assuming the targeting is all foreign. I say this knowing what is good for the goose…. and if an American was practicing Hacktvisim against a particular Russian interest and this was there response it seems measured to me.

    Calling a Denial of Service Attach free speech seems to be stretching the definition. It is more akin to Civil Disobedience, doing something illegal because of ones own beliefs. I just ask people conduct a thought experiment. An outside government from your own colludes with its local citizen civilians to hack your local businesses to steal trade secrets. You know it is happening, you know it is being done, you know who is doing it. What is the appropriate government response?

    This is happening every day, all the time. I think it is legitimate to use these tactics against such individuals. There is no world court to prosecute such actions. The UN cannot do anything about it. Do you really thing all Psych Ops should be banned? That sounds to me like surrender and appeasement.

     
    • sara

      you certainly dont sound like a shill at all

       
    • Boots Riley

      Who calls themself an “OWS Protester”?
      None of the “OWS Protesters” I’ve met and communicated with. Which are a lot of them.

      I’ll bet you came to one- if any.

      Not that this matters, but you’ve used it as some sort of proof of not being right-wing before spilling out your right wing commentary, in order to make your comments seem like they might be ones that a reasonable person could have.

      Is this performance art, or are you just coincidentally doing the mimic/derail thing that’s suggested on the slides?

       
  139. Gary S. Bekkum

    On August 11, 2013, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. National Security Agency.

    As a rogue, Jedi journalist, I was curious about what NSA might have collected with my name attached (as e-mail recipient or sender) since I have numerous contacts and sources, some of whom are foreign nationals. I was also curious about what information NSA might have on file concerning STARstream Research, the virtual organization I established in 2004 to monitor “way-out” developments in alternative fringe science and military technology developments, following on from information I had provided to Nick Cook, then at Jane’s Information Group (Jane’s is a British private intelligence collection business and publisher). At the time, Cook was working on his expose’ “The Hunt for Zero Point” about fringe physics research into mining the quantum vacuum for energy (the 21st Century version of the perpetual motion machine).

    NSA acknowledged my FOIA request in admirably efficient fashion, responding by letter dated September 9, 2013.

    In my request, I identified various sources and contacts I expected would be of interest to the American and foreign intelligence services, and asked for a wide-ranging amount of information including all database information, metadata, memorandums, draft letters, e-mail and audio or video recordings on file. The request, submitted by e-mail using the handy FOIA service at the NSA website, now bears government identifier DOCID: 4069449.

    I was especially interested in three areas I expected were also of interest to the intelligence community at large.

    The first involved standard collection on open-sources: copies of articles or books I had written or articles published by STARstream Research, as well as other (possibly foreign) sources online, republishing my material (recently it was brought to my attention that private intelligence source Stratfor had shared by e-mail one of my articles about Ron Pandolfi of the CIA — this e-mail was among those now posted by WikiLeaks from a stolen collection hacked by Anonymous).

    The second involved what I consider to be one of our major investigative breakthroughs: confirmation by NSA whistle-blower Tom Drake (a former senior NSA manager) that British psychic Chris Robinson’s warning of passenger planes hitting the twin towers in New York City had been shared with the American intelligence community prior to the actual attacks on September 11, 2001.

    The third involved persons and information I had received which I later learned were related in part to Laura Bradshaw Eisenhower Mahon (Laura Eisenhower), the great-granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and her claim of recruitment by a black-ops group concerning a Mars colonization mission.

    I was also curious if NSA had been following developments in faster-than-light speed communication theory, and my friend Shan Gao who had been working on this concept for over a decade in Beijing, China. In 2008, I helped to arrange a meeting between Gao and Dr. Christopher Green, a former senior CIA analyst who was interested in mind-to-mind communication.

    NSA quickly blocked my request, noting, “To the extent your request seeks any information on you in relation to NSA intelligence programs, or in relation to any specific methods or means for conducting the programs, we cannot acknowledge the existence or non-existence of such information.”

    A 2004 generic request to the FBI concerning government policy for contact by persons we had identified with CIA, DIA and OSD resulted in a response from the Joint Terrorism Task Force:

    Mon, 8 Nov 2004 19:25:50 +0000
    From: “SA Joe Rivers”
    To:
    Subject: E-mail contact with CIA/DIA employees
    Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:25:40 -0600

    Gary,

    Please call me if /with your concerns on this issue. You are correct in that there are some guidelines that must be followed for contact but, I am not comfortable detailing those here.

    Joe Rivers
    Joint Terrorism Task Force
    Minneapolis, MN

    One of my key sources/contributors, Caryn Anscomb, was later smeared with a rumor she was working with or for MI6, after meeting with Ron Pandolfi, then identified with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This resulted in Anscomb being shut off from a source Pandolfi later accused of possibly being a spy in a series of leaked e-mail messages, some of which we later published. The expositional structure of the messages made them appear to be a setup, with discussion of DIA sources etc.

    http://www.starpod.us/2010/12/22/cia-unauthorized-spy-games-the-pandolfi-green-doty-affair-leaked-email-stream-source-dr-ronald-s-pandolfi-cia/

     
  140. wilmers13

    It is important to note that it is now documented: What’s on your site or attributed to you may be from someone else. Therefore, if ever anybody is taken to court for what’s attributed to him/her, the defence is ‘Someone else put it there, not me’, even if you’ve done it yourself.

    Archive the link, so you’ve got it ready if or when you need it. In East-Berlin they used to say ‘they can’t put each and everyone of us in jail, can they, because they don’t want to repair the plumbing themselves.’

     
  141. Binghui Huangfu

    I am appealing for you help
    I am one of the victims of the GCHQ’s attack. Starting around 2007 my profile photo image on the Google search engine became image of skeleton. There were also many other harassments that took place in multiple forms, to destroyed the dignity of my person. Everyday and every second of my life, is under the scrutiny of these government agencies thugs belonging to the five eye countries.

    I have been a victim of Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) Mind Control technology for more then 24 years (as early as 1989). Over the years the Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) attack has intensified.
    The Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) mind control technology operated by these criminals can affect all of your senses. They can cause your body discomfort in all sorts of ways. everyday headaches, stomach pains, bone-joint pain etc. They can play your mind in order to play your sexual stimulation.
    The victim becomes an object of a transmitter. The victim became a bio-listening device and biological camera. The victim’s brain activities can be seen by computer and can be controlled remotely through satellite anywhere in the world. The computer can feed sound, taste, visual images, pain on the victim’s body.

    This technology can mimic all memories stored in the victim’s brain and can feed it back into the victims.

    The cruelest effects are sleeping deprivation using the “Voice to skull” technology. 24 hours day, every second the attacker can sending sound into the victim’s brain to stop the victim’s capacity to sleep. When this succeeds which means the victim’s health became weaker. The attacker can play horrible mind games and tricks to make the victim appear to be a psychotic. Particularly when the victims do not know what happening to them and have no knowledge about this type of inhuman attack the result could be disastrous.

    Many of the victims could not sustain such tortures causing them to make suicide decisions. Some of the victims try to get help by talking to the institution such as police forces. Many of them not only did not get help but have been sent to psychiatric hospitals or been intimidated by these institutions, which the victims were trying to get help from.

    The EMF attack is multi-facetted. The attacker is playing with the victim’s thoughts in victim’s brain. This extends in using common forms of surveillance of victim’s any electronic materials. These are revealed by Edward Snowden’s review of NSA prism. All the victim’s phone and email communication, media reading, research material was under scrutiny of the intelligence officers.

    Often all these tools of connecting to the outside of the world were disrupted to assist the mind game which the attacker playing at that time. There were also added stalking by random incidents such as people speaking certain word at particular context for the victim to hear.

    The words or sentences seems nothing to do with the victim but it was serving the function of the mind game for the attacker in the other end of the transmitting signal. The victim’s real life taking place every second such as eating, talking, associate with others etc., simultaneously the attacker’s game is taking place in the victim’s head. So everything could become a source of material for the attacker to play with the victim’s mind. That is why, without understanding the technology, so many people have been treated as having a psychiatric condition.

    This attack intensified by multifaceted action to the victim. It is cruel. Inhuman.
    This military high tech method to spy on the mass population is inhuman. This technology was secretly used for interrogation of terrorists in the US military.

     
    • RICHARD VERVILLE

      I am a Targeted Individual. I greatly resent your post of “out of world fiction” to make it seem that it is only “crazies” who claim to be Targeted individuals of the FIve Eyes countries. My name is Richard Verville mail address: 2 Currier dr. Londonderry NH. 03053. My email box is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I welcome other Targeted Individuals to contact me. Sock puppets like you need not bother.
      It is amazing how hard the governments use these trolls and shills to disgrace those of us that are really on the receiving end of this harassment. You are despicable.

       
  142. David W Bruner

    To those who do not know the Word I apologize… But more than any time in our history as a bunch of Earthlings it is imperative that each of us read the instruction book ! If it be any comfort to you I do not believe there is another person on Earth that believes as I do . I speak as a teacher and not a preacher If you are offended by what I say you are not alone(I am blacklisted on Obama’s personal site)!! Regardless… what I tell you should sound bazaar because I have never heard anyone with the same theology. The Bible is incredibly old… older than you can even imagine . But not as the complete Living Bible of planet Earth . Matter of fact the way I understand , it is only the first sentence that is ageless… IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTHS… Again in john 1 “IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD AND THE WORD WAS GOD….They are the same phrase but different understanding to us…My point is this; the enemy of your/our souls is attacking our nation/and our planet . Most of those being used by Satan are not even aware of this intergalactic chess game going on 24/7 in their own mind. The Bible has been given to us to allow us to whip Satan’s ass openly in front of the world !! However you must quit believing the lies his servants tell you about the Bible… It has been handed down through the blood of endless numbers of martyrs (FOR YOU !) so that we would have victory in this century and the next generation will be able to prosper under Gods Love… Don’t be stupid ! Join those of us who know how to defeat the power of those controlling demons who enslave our children to drugs , pornography , Muslim hate , murder , bigotry , political bribery , and the destruction of our families… We can do this !!

     
  143. Bill Jones
     
    • Bill Owen

      Peter Dale Scott: After almost two years of the Obama presidency, I have to conclude, regretfully, that the influence of the deep state, or more accurately what in my new book I call the American war machine, has continued to increase, just as it has under every US president since Kennedy. A key sign is the extent to which Obama, despite his campaign rhetoric, has continued to expand the scope of secrecy in US government, and especially to punish whistle-blowers: his campaign against Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has not been charged yet with any crime, is without precedent in US history.

      Peter Dale Scott

      http://www.voltairenet.org/article169316.html

       
  144. Rick

    We could do the same thing to them.Just keep mentioning what they do in any of our comments that we make pertinent to the NSA. I do it to the CIA all the time.If we all say something enough times people begin to believe it.What better way do we have to make it hard for them to even exist after years of people not trusting them.Sooner or later there are bound to be political figures come into office that have heard this all the time.Enough of those and BAM good bye CIA,NSA or GC.I know if Jesse Ventura was ever elected their days would surely be numbered.

     
  145. Preston Childers

    Clearly people will now see that the “Dragnet Surveillance Apparatus” is about control and not protection, right? This is some truly creepy ass shit.

     
  146. Perry

    This illegal police state business has very much upset me from the beginning, but this set of docs really outraged me. If GCHQ is doing this then I believe it’s very likely the NSA is doing this inside the US also.

    So if I begin to comment publicly against the illegal spying of the police state – then I can expect the NSA to actively seek to ruin my business by leaking my company’s confidential information to competitors and seeking to destroy my business relationships?

    This is nothing less than some thugs doing the same thing if I don’t pay my “protection” money.

    No charge of any crime, no connection to actual harm to the country, no intention to carry out any malicious act, not a conviction, but I can very realistically expect people in the dark to destroy what myself and my family have worked years to build for nothing more than organizing resistance to them, just as the ally thugs would do if I started organizing with other businesses on the street against them.

    This is *exactly* why we can’t allow anyone to build spying machines of this scale. It’s not even as if I would eventually be questioned and have some previously recorded information used out of context against me – it wouldn’t even go that far. I now have hard proof that the way my government would deal with me, if I began to speak negatively of them – by simply destroying my life, that of my family, and that of my employees.

    After 911 happened, I was not terrified. I was a bit more cautious in large gatherings, but I never felt “fear”. I now feel fear. Very real chilling sick to my stomach fear. I am truly a victim of terrorism – terror placed on me by my own government.

    Thank you Glenn and others. God bless the work you’re doing and I hope it spreads. Firstlook is a beacon of hope, and there aren’t many of those left these days.

     
  147. Defundandprosecute Now

    I await the next document release, possibly regarding similar U.S. National Security behavior, in which case I’m SURE Attorney General Holder would find it impossible not to prosecute it’s agents.

     
  148. Doc Holiday

    Gang and Counter-gang, anyone?

     
  149. George Buzzetti

    There is not a thing new here in humanity. Only the technology has changed. The underlying game is not new at all. They are not trick. I work it backwards on them. Who says you cannot if you understand the game and know how to do it yourself. When self taught they do not know the key. Now they are confused. This sucks them into dangerous situations and they go crazy and make fatal errors if you know how to play the game back on them.

    Basically, they know most people are sheep and do not have the guts to do anything or the mentality to take the pressure so they are easy targets for their psychological profiling. If they get your profile to your mind they can cook your mind if you do not know what is happening and know what to do. For me the only dicey time is when they decide to go rogue and physical. After all they are totally insane.

     
  150. Worzel Gummidge

    Chinese Whispers (English expression)
    Telephone Arab (French expression)
    I believe the American expression is a mixture of both. I wonder what kind of butterfly would have to be flapping it’s wings in Peeking for anyone in the intelligence community to think that the kind of tactics revealed so far on this site are making anything secure.

    SHAREINT

     
  151. PacRim Jim

    These mind-poisoners are the counterparts of the poisoners of Ancient Rome.
    Absolute power still corrupts absolutely.

     
  152. Sean

    She should have died hereafter;
    There would have been a time for such a word.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    These idiots must have real history mixed up with their illusions; remember that their virus will consume itself when there is nothing left. We are with you Glen.

     
  153. Nemo_Est_Insula

    My Country ‘Tis of Thee—Sweet Land of Liberty?

    As a young lad in the 1950s still free and less crowded U.S.A, one of my favorite grade school classes was Music (and then P.E and every rowdy boy’s favorite, Class Recess). We learned about songs that helped make this country great. A few of those immortal songs of strife, pain, work, and humanity were The Erie Canal (Low Bridge Ever’body Down), Down in the Valley, and patriotic songs like Lincoln and Liberty Too and My Country ‘Tis of Thee (America) The last song is the subject of this post, since in 2014 it drips with copious irony.

    The ironies: My Country ‘Tis of Thee is based upon a British melody derived from the national anthem of the UK ‘God Save the Queen’, that is, it is the same melodic tune. Aretha Franklin sang this song during President Obama’s first inaugural address and so did Ms. Kelly Clarkson at Obama’s second inaugural—the man who has reigned like a British Monarch/King over the destruction of civil liberties enumerated in the U.S. Constitution in this once-‘sweet land of liberty’ (that phrase being the theme of My Country ‘Tis of Thee).

    NSA (Ennessay* in my song parody) and GCHQ (Gkeew) have brought U.S. full circle to where the British are now invading—through cyberspace—the country that defeated them during the Revolution and undermining our U.S. Constitution with the U.S.A.s help via NSA et al.

    I penned some new parodic lyrics to the tune. Sing along by following the imaginary bouncing ball that was a common ‘metronome’ in melodies displayed on the big screen of the 1940s and 50s. (Disclaimer: NSA/GCHQ spy monitors, you do not get to sing along with the kiddos; you must sit in the corner under your Dunces’ caps).

    Our Countries ‘Tis Of Thee
    Bitter lands of tyranny
    Of thee I scream
    Lands where our Freedoms die
    By Ennessay* and Gkew spies
    Over cyberspaces’ once-clear blue skies
    They’ve. Killed. Freedom’s. Dream

    *Thanks to our resident ‘barrister’ commenter, Coram nobis, for that enunciation of the NSA borrowed from one of his comments.

     
    • Jerry

      I don’t think it is the British we have to blame here, but our own government. Our cousins over the pond are experiencing the same problems we are.

       
  154. marQc

    Wow. Bearing false witness against your fellow man is absolutely nothing new to history. Many movements and regimes–especially Marxist/Leninist/Socialist etc. ones whose underlying ideology underpins Mr. Greenwald’s world view as well as probably many of the commentators here–were especially adept at the politics of personal destruction and agitprop. In fact you could say they perfected early more crude incarnations of the techniques described above–adapted to the media of their day of course–to advance their own revolutionary agendas. It should come as no surprise that these “weapons” may now be turned against them by their adversaries i.e. nation states as well as other political factions etc.

     
    • -Mona-

      Shorter marQc: GCHQ is only doing to the commies what the commies used to do, so it’s all good.

       
    • Strangely Enough

      Certainly you can do better than ” Marxist/Leninist/Socialist.” It’s like you’re not even trying…

       
      • Kurt Sperry

        Indeed. Those attempting to throw those terms around as pejoratives in the post cold war era seem quaint, eccentric and trapped in a paradigm that no longer exists. Particularly funny in an ironic way are those who attach those terms to Obama, that quintessential tool of rapacious unchecked neoliberal capitalism. I doubt such reckless and misdirected usage finds traction with anyone born after the fall of the Soviet Union.

         
    • Leyt

      Are we still crying commie whenever facts challenge the inherit “rightness” of a truth-stifling status quo?

       
    • Jose

      They were especially adept? I’d say they were almost amateurish in comparison in many ways.

      It’s like propaganda. What’s more effective, propaganda that you know for sure is government propaganda, or one that appears to not be propaganda at all?

       
    • Jim Moore

      Maybe I should be surprised with you equating “Bearing false witness against your fellow man” to today’s GCHQ/NSA technical capability and capacity to bear false witness against all men – all men and women worldwide. I’m not. I’m not surprised with your claims as they clearly illustrate many of the discrediting/deceitful/destructive actions of the GCHQ shown in the slides. I’ll give you a “D” on your posting.

       
    • god

      marQc is stupid fucking cunt. marQc is a fine example of the uneducated retarded fucknuts fox news and the right wing morons produce.

       
    • Cal

      Good point! Governments are the same everywhere and throughout history. Wake up people. Government is the most dangerous superstition. We don’t need them!

       
      • Wiltmellow

        Good point! Governments are the same everywhere and throughout history. Wake up people. Government is the most dangerous superstition. We don’t need them!

        So the government of North Korea is the same as the government of South Korea; the government of China is the same as the government of Sweden, and the government of Texas is the same as the government of Fiji???

        Nonsense. You might as well say your computer needs no cpu or that mountains have no need of valleys.

        Governments are simply the rules by which any society lives. If the institution has become incompetent or corrupt or unresponsive or even evil, it is not government that has failed, but those who think their underwear picks itself up, washes itself, dries itself, folds itself and puts itself away in the sock drawer. Ask your wife about that.

        Magical wishing may keep lions from living under your bed, but government should ensure stuff like clean water, electricity, non-toxic foods roads and animal control. Things get done because people do things. Unless you want to live in a cave, government will determine your quality of live whether you want it to or not. It’s called “civilization”.

        If you don’t like your government, work change it. Imagining or advocating that government should disappear merely opens the door for corruption. (This is why US politicians repeatedly campaign against it — by feeding off your anger, they feed off the population at large.) Whining is a form of defeatism, a child’s self-pity. Grow up.

        Of the great falsehoods promulgated in the last decades of the 20th century, this has to be the most pernicious and most self-serving for corporations, financiers, politicians, spies and those who destroy the lives of others for personal profit.

         
    • NoOneYouKnow

      Shorter MarQc: Accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing. Does Booz pay well, dude?

       
  155. Worzel Gummidge

    I’m not sure what one of these looks like in the UK or what the equivalent would be:

    Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (2005)

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/guidelines.html

    When does a persons life history not show these traits.

    You simply cannot trust individuals in a society where the rule of law is

     
  156. Fido

    Mr Greenwald:

    Even though there are very sound reasons for not publishing the names, it’s'a crying shame that they are not.

     
  157. bsbafflesbrains

    The uber wealthy will do anything to maintain the status quo and fear everything that exposes the unfairness of the status quo. The real question is will these tactics work? Many comments here correctly point out that tactics like these have been used throughout human history to discredit and destroy members of the opposition but as we see from GG and many other real Journalists the internet is a game changer for exposing these tactics and the true purpose of those that employ them. If First Look is true to it’s mission statement then a path to a more fair World is more possible. Most people want fair and honest and truth is necessary as the main ingredient. Godspeed GG et al.

     
  158. -Mona-

    Jacob Appelbaum has tweeted a link to a translation of a Stasi document on “decompostion measures” for destroying political activists. Very similar stuff.

    http://ix.io/aJq

     
    • abbadabba

      EXCELLENT! Keep the companion pieces coming!!

       
      • kitt

        Here’s another ‘Companion Piece.’ Many of us are familiar with the crux of this story about Glenn and HBGary, but Digby, who authored the post, and Conor Friedersdorf, who was linked or was a contributer to the post, strongly connect it all to what we’re reading in this Intercept post.
        Hullabaloo/Digby

         
        • Jim Moore

          Thanks for pointing to this well-written and factually sourced article. I’ve come late to the party as my alarm bell re our surveillance state didn’t really become deafening until the Snowden revelations. As you indicate, this is a enlightening example of what Glenn’s article discloses.

           
    • CitizenSane

      Humorously enough, it has been reported that now deceased Markus Wolf (of Stasi fame) consulted with, and aided our Government in setting up the Department of Homeland Security.

       
    • Jose

      Some of those bullet points are chilling, in light of what’s happened to Assange, Snowden & Glenn in the last few years:

      * the systematic discrediting of reputation due to spreading of true, checkable, discrediting statements and wrong but believable, non deniable, discrediting statements.

      * the focused destruction of convictions associated with certain ideals, role models etc and the creating of doubts about the personal angle.

      * the creation of mistrust and mutual suspicion in groups and organisations.

      * the creation, exploitation and reinforcement of rivalry in groups and organizations due to aimed exploitation of weaknesses from certain members.

      * the keeping of organizations and groups busy with their internal problems with the aim to stop negative hostile-actions.

      * local and temporal prevention and restriction of mutual relationships of group/organization members due to legal actions like workplace binding and assignment of remotely located workplaces.

      * focused spreading of rumors about targeted individuals, a group, groups or organization.

      I suppose it’s possible this kind of behavior can arise naturally and not as a concerted, conscious effort. But then again, I might be giving people too much benefit of the doubt.

       
  159. Pro. Homer

    What is constructing global news media?

     
  160. Bill Owen

    Anyone who wishes to read Cass Sunstein’s vile thoughts on the cognitive infiltration of the internet may do so here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

    And never ever forget, virtually everything that Glenn, Laura and Gellman have revealed in the last months was denigrated and laughed at for years and years as “conspiracy theory”.

    Abstract:
    Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.

    You will have to download a pdf, so be advised.

     
    • P. Orin Zack

      This abstract starts off by framing anyone who does not subscribe to the ‘official’ explanation of something to be a danger — to create serious risks. That’s an intentionally empty phrase. A risk to whom? The reader assumes to themselves, of course, and then buys into the rest of the fear meme embedded in the text.

      The reason I didn’t buy the explanation for what happened on 9/11 is that I studied physics, and practiced logical thinking. The official explanation had too many problems. The question, though, is what actually DID happen?

       
      • abbadabba

        Worst thing you could do in the 1600s was question the legality of witch hunting. Always got you charged and burned without a trial. But we kept at it until the more we tried them, the less we charged and eventually we felt pretty sick about the whole lawless thing. A mark of our failure to think straight and trust justice, however flawed it might be.

         
        • Jim Moore

          During these times, a town in the Netherlands (Holland at that time) offered, for a fee, a Certificate that stated you were not a witch. Folks from surrounding countries traveled to this town to get their Certificates in case they were later accused by a revengeful relative, neighbor, or anyone that didn’t like them. An accusation by someone with more “power” than you was an automatic death sentence during these times. The town’s technology was a scale that measured your weight as “witches” were assumed by the populace to be lighter than normal folks. My wife, daughter, and I have our certificates. I wonder if my Certificate will protect me from the NSA. Maybe not.

           
          • James Fingleton Wild

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU
            Signum et manus et oculus.
            They threw suspected witches into water. If they sank and drowned they were deemed not to be a witch.
            If they didn’t drown, they were witches and burnt at the stake.
            Same old same old. A Muslim is a terrorist by similar logic.

             
      • Bill Owen

        A risk to the deep state, the power structure, our shadowy masters. Them. For sure not “us’.

        Is a cabbie in NYC “at risk” because his passenger is a truther? Not bloody likely.

        Is Cheney? hmmm

         
    • abbadabba

      i wonder what they made of PJ’s little homemade video.

      I got two cousins who I call Apache Twins, Monster Slayer and Child of the Waters. They like to stir shite up with media. One made that viral video “Zeitgeist” long before it woke up, and the other does cancer’s business end.

      That’s my hubby’s side of the blood line. They come down from immigrant stock who took part in a few labor struggles themselves. Toot, toot! Their Gpa, my hubby’s uncle, told PJ Parts One and Two were not credible to his elder mind but Part Three? That’s been rolling since before HE was born.

      Roll on boys, can’t harm anyone but monsters and water spoilers.

       
    • Strangely Enough

      Whenever I hear “crippled epistemology,” Sunstein immediately comes to mind.

       
    • Sasquatch

      “The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper”
      Easy: excessive government secrecy is the fertilizer on which conspiracy theories thrive.

      “the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined”
      Easy: transparency in government and business. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

      As Upton Sinclair said: it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

       
  161. trini politi

    Are these posts being fucking censored???? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1391545942

     
  162. Tori

    My husband gave a free speech in NYC about a “secret govt within a govt” wanting to kill him, and he was arrested falsely by rogue cops. The 200 New Yorkers who were watching were clearly on his side, but once the video was uploaded to Liveleak, the opposite happened. The posters were now All Against him! View arrest video here. It is wild. Also, copy video because it is being censored. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1391545942

     
  163. keller

    No.

     
  164. Rocco Iannacchino

    This is exactly what is happening to me! I was falsely arrested in NYC for saying I was in fear of my life. The crowd of about 200 New Yorkers were on my side, but when the video recently surfaced and I uploaded it to Liveleak, the viewers were all against me as if it was a planned attack. There is so much more to my story, and I have been writing my own articles about it. I was complaining of a secret govt within a govt trying to kill me and my family. Check out my arrest video here: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1391545942&comments=1

     
    • RICHARD VERVILLE

      I would like to know more about what you said here. Can you contact me please. My name is Richard Verville mail address: 2 Currier dr. Londonderry NH. 03053. My email box is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I am not certain that I can receive emails from anyone outside NSA/Fusion Center zombies approved list… can you try?

       
  165. Jules

    Just because government is *attempting* to do this doesn’t mean it’s capable of doing it *well*. The problem with liars is they get caught. Back in college, the immature but brilliant tried these techniques out on the internet, against their personal enemies—the spoofed email, the spoofed Usenet News posting. People who regularly used the internet got fairly sophisticated fairly quickly at recognizing these behaviors for what they were.

    Note one of the statements on one of the slides that gaming this “requires empathy.” That’s one of their main problems. The willingness to conduct character assassination on innocent people requires that a person lack a conscience. People who lack a conscience are also deficient in empathy.

    The agents provocateur who conduct the whispering campaigns are surely doing their best to apply modern psychology to its limits. However, modern psychology still has limits. The chiefest limit is that the old law still applies: “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

    People who lack a conscience are (under present diagnostic terminology) generally classified as either narcissists or sociopaths. There are problems with having to rely on such folks to do your work–in this case, dirty work–for you. Along with their “positive” personality trait that they’re willing to do anything you order them to do, without messy scruples getting in the way, comes the _rest_ of the traits of their idiosyncratic and rather unlovely personalities.

    Sociopaths and narcissists exist by preying on other humans, and they survive by hiding in plain sight among the rest of us. However, modern psychology knows enough about them now that experts can recognize them pretty easily. They don’t have normal brains. Their willingness to lie and blacken the characters of innocent people comes along with a lot of other brain idiosyncracies that are like a giant neon sign over their heads, to someone who knows enough about the brain and personality disorders.

    They’re a small fraction of the population, and they can’t hide the ways in which they’re “differently normalled” for very long. Not from an expert. So if you have one of these jokers claiming to be the “victim” of someone who has been a pain in the butt for government or other large, moneyed interest, the faux victim has a dilemma. He can drive-by blog and disappear, or he can stick around and continue to present himself according to his “legend.” Exposing him if he sticks around is not all that hard if you can get an expert to talk to him and investigate his story. If his story is a drive-by, then its credibility is suspect just by virtue of having no real person sticking around backing it up.

    There are people who will believe every whispering campaign that comes down the line. There are people who actually believed Bill Clinton’s smear machine that every woman he directed unwanted sexual attention at was a nut or a slut. (His accusers were demonstrably real human beings who stuck around to stand behind their allegations).

    Those are the some of the people you can fool all of the time.

    The trouble with a government gone rogue is that it puts itself in the position of having to fool all of the people all of the time to survive. Long term, that can’t be done. The masses always _eventually_ wise up, and you can’t keep dancing ahead of them forever, either–it’s been tried.

    Humanity has had an arms race between liars and people’s ability to detect lies that is older than our species itself. It’s because lying successfully can be a matter of survival, and detecting lies can be a matter of survival, too.

    NSA’s strategy relies on liars being able to win the arms race, hands down and permanently, against detection of lies. They simultaneously rely on being able to win the other side of the arms race and win the lie detection side, hands down and permanently, against people trying to lie to _them_.

    In other words, they’re relying on being super-beings with super-powers that suddenly trump millions of years of evolution spreading the best genes and memes fairly evenly through the gene and meme pools.

    Thinking (mistakenly) they’re super-beings with super-powers is a “feature” common to the distorted thinking of narcissists and sociopaths. It’s usually the failing that causes their grandiose plans to come undone and fail spectacularly.

    They can do a lot of damage to a lot of innocent people before what goes around comes around, but the problem with this kind of strategy is the faster and harder you pursue it, the faster and more catastrophically it unravels on you.

    They’ve over-reached, and they haven’t figured it out even now—when anyone with a near-normal brain would have already twigged.

     
    • Carol Dewey

      Immensely empowering discussion. I especially liked “The trouble with a government gone rogue is that it puts itself in the position of having to fool all of the people all of the time to survive. Long term, that can’t be done. The masses always _eventually_ wise up, and you can’t keep dancing ahead of them forever, either–it’s been tried.”

      “Humanity has had an arms race between liars and people’s ability to detect lies that is older than our species itself. It’s because lying successfully can be a matter of survival, and detecting lies can be a matter of survival, too.”

      I also liked your conclusion that their “superpower feature” is “the failing that causes their grandiose plans to come undone and fail spectacularly”.

      Comforting to know. Well done.

       
    • Kurt Sperry

      Yes, well explicated. Lying has real short term utility–or can, but over the longer term it erodes authority in a systemic and irreversible way. Productive human interaction always requires trust and once that trust is degraded one’s ability to further influence others is similarly so. Past a certain point, all that remains holding the system in place is crude coercion and intimidation and even that has its real limits. Once the agents employed by the system to enforce it no longer trust it–and there is no way to indefinitely maintain trust even within the system using crude carrots and sticks, there’s precious little left to prop it up any longer.

       
    • Jim Moore

      Thank you. You have given me hope that All this shall pass. I sincerely hope that the majority of Americans, including those that watch Fox News, will some day see through all the lies that they are being fed by our government.

       
      • Anonymous

        Jules, few people have such wisdom and psychological insight. If you usually have those traits, then you would make a lot of money in investing. If you’re interested just pick up books on value investing and read :-).

         
      • WorldOfTruth

        But even more importantly, I sincerely hope that the majority of Americans that watch MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS will some day see through all the lies that they are being fed by Commies like you, and all other tyrants both in, and out, of any government.

         
    • Bill in Lexington

      The singular fly in your ointment is that those who can be fooled constitute a clear and vocal / violent majority and anyone who can be fooled some of the time can usually be fooled most of the time. It is merely a matter of bringing sufficient resources to bear as desired and this is made rather much easier by the fact that fools are quite willing to pay for their own nooses in order to see someone else hang first.

      Fools are in the majority most of the time and it behooves us to ratchet our hubris back a notch in recognition thereof.

       
  166. Paranoid Humanoid

    What’s this? The Rumsfeld Handbook for Dummies, PowerPoint edition?

     
    • Rocco Iannacchino

      Where’s my last post? My story is being censored. I was falsely arrested by rogue cops. The 200 New Yorkers present were on my side. I post my arrest video to Liveleak, and the posters are all against me. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44e_1391545942&comments=1

       
    • abbadabba

      And for the kids, we have AntiCrisisGirl. Grrrrr…

      Geesh, wiki hasn’t whacked that up, yet. It looks like Ukranian Girl Band if you search for it.

      OMG, was that a Ukraine pogrom, GCHQ? You iceholes.

       
  167. thelastnamechosen

    Don’t speak to me now of Trust.

    Trust is the basis of cooperation and society. Trust maximizes the efficiency of pooled labor and specialization. Trust builds up the foundation of science and technology.

    Trust minimizes energy expenditure. Say it once more. Trust minimizes energy expenditure.

    The total amount of labor, capital, and energy we have flushed down the toilet because of the actions of the NSA and our current leadership is mind boggling.

    We will lay stagnant for a generation compared to the growth we would have achieved. Whatever hope we have as individuals and as a species is inextricably tied to trust and cooperation. To squander our trust is to squander our humanity. We are cooperative and social beings. Trust is the basis of our empathy.

    Trust increases government’s ability provide positive and productive services to the citizenry. How many decades of progress have we thrown away? Government as a brand is now all but dead. Imagine how much energy will be spent just to rehabilitate the idea of government, just to regain trust. A generation lost.

    We are only beginning to appreciate the size and ramifications of this debacle.

     
    • barncat

      The stuff on trust is great. Specialization requires trust, that should be obvious. But this –

      We will lay stagnant for a generation compared to the growth we would have achieved … because of the actions of the NSA and our current leadership …”

      – may be a case of “pronoun trouble”. Are we presuming?

      (Methinks, in the end, the entire debate with the Libertarians comes down to that one question.)

       
    • abbadabba

      I know how to turn this sword into a plowshare!

      We can use Prism and the Utah hub to store all transactions our markets make, particularly flash trading and CDSs, so we can monitor them for manipulation and fee gouging, the obvious flaws in any bucket shop. Not to mention the black trading pools used to kick said bucket out from a fat target or sovereign state, right ,JP Morgan?.

      Clean those markets up with some good old “If you ain’t done nothin’ wrong” sanitation service and throw a nickle a pop on their transactions. That market will to die of its own uselessness in a year or three. Case closed.

       
    • Bill Jones
       
    • thelastnamechosen

      @barncat
      Most off my writing can accurately be described as “pronoun trouble”, and I presume far too much. Every criticism is confession, and I am prone to confession.

      I tried to use some arguments that might appeal to those that want government to work, and other arguments that might appeal to those that see government as the problem. I also wanted to use inclusive language evocative of cooperation and society, which somewhat explains the abundance of we.

      I do think the problem is not government or corporations, but groups themselves. Groups adopt the moral certainty of the individual, but are incapable of forgiveness. Groups subsume and multiply our physical strength, but seem uncomfortable and awkward with empathy, like it was a foreign language.

      But fellowship, cooperation and society are also the only chance we have for salvation and survival. Our only hope is giant monsters we can’t control, who really don’t like us very much. And yet all this seems far less tragic when I am with others. We are born and die on contradiction.

      @abbadabba
      We should add a nickel a pop and also slow the damn thing down. We are drowning in the liquidity of microseconds.

      @Bill Jones
      Thank you for the link.

       
      • barncat

        @thelastnamechosen

        “I tried to use some arguments that might appeal to those that want government to work, and other arguments that might appeal to those that see government as the problem. I also wanted to use inclusive language evocative of cooperation and society, which somewhat explains the abundance of we.”

        I don’t see how your arguments can appeal to the “government is the problem” camp, which was the point of my reply. You say, “I do think the problem is not government or corporations, but groups themselves.” I’m suggesting the problem is that, increasingly, the reality of the larger “group” — the “we” — is being denied.

        There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.” ~Margaret Thatcher (1987)

        Obviously, to deny the reality of “society” is even more radical than rejecting the legitimacy of government. If there is no society, then a government cannot possibly be legitimate; it can only be the result of coercion, that’s the logic. It cannot possibly be a government “of the people” because there is no “the people”.

        The problem is that the meaningfulness of the term “individual” is obvious whereas the meaningfulness of “group” can reasonably be challenged; the term can reasonably be dismissed as a meaningless abstraction. That’s what Thatcher is doing in that quote. The question is what is it that converts a number of initially distinct and isolated individuals into a “group”? Do all individuals have to freely and explicitly claim membership, positively identify as members of the group? If so, then how it is possible to meaningfully speak of a mega-group of 310 million (freely associating) individuals?

        It seems to me that, for some, an argument is needed here, and that’s all I meant to suggest. I’m not finding fault with your comment or reply; I think they’re both excellent. I just wanted to make this related point, fwiw.

         
        • thelastnamechosen

          @barncat

          Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I need to let your latest steep and take some time to come a up with a reply deserving of your post.

          I should have turned the computer off hours ago and attended to meat space issues, so it may be a while.

           
          • barncat

            Thanks for the reply! No need to reply further in this thread if you’ve got other things to do, or better things to think about. It can sit… With several brilliant comments (not the least of which was the “Pete Manhedler”), you’ve already made an immense contribution to the thread. You can take the rest of the day off.

            In the meantime, let me correct one awful mistake. The second sentence has been changed:

            Do all individuals have to freely and explicitly claim membership, positively identify as members of the group? Is it really possible to meaningfully speak of a mega-group of 310 million (freely associating) individuals?”

            The second question needs to be asked even if the first is answered in the negative.

             
  168. Stop Terrorism

    youtu.be/pE4x6tXntBc Why you should never give information to #ScotlandYard, #MI5, #FBI, about #terrorist ?

     
  169. Worzel Gummidge

    Got Caught Hacking Queen.

    I thought LOVEINT was a term generated outside of the intelligence community for what Snowdon and Manning did. To my horror on googling it it is of course spying on loved ones.

    Is there a SEXINT how many INT’s are there?

    Anyway as the word terrorist is so misused I would like to suggest that we reclaim LOVEINT to describe these incredibly brave acts that will no doubt be due to having a profound love for humanity.

     
  170. FC

    These tactics look surprisingly similar to the Church[sic] of Scient0l0gy … they have a whole IT wing.
    These people are very dangerous..

     
    • abbadabba

      You aren’t the first to say that, so we may safely assume GCHQ is not a good place for a kid to get a start? Sounds like a cult to me. Remember the Four Ds!

      Anyone read the story about the GCHQ employee found inside a “carryall,” a big old duffel bag, in his bathtub with a lock on it who probably starved to death? That is some sick twisted stuff which GCHQ found unworthy of further investigation. He just killed himself. Really?

      So they don’t even watch out for you on or off the job? Don’t keep tabs to make sure you aren’t going off the rails? I’d stay very far away from them, kids. Earn your badges working their corporate divisions if you must, but don’t trust them. Trust your gut.

       
    • OH

      Scientology is scientology – the NSA is the NSA. We are talking about the NSA – sorry – intriguing though, a discussion of scientology would be.

       
  171. debian

    Could have named this “plans for making a Communist police state, secretly in the dark”

     
  172. Bill Owen

    Watch Luke Radkowski confront Sunstein about his paper on Cognitive Infiltration. Sunstein says he does not remember even writing it.

    http://bit.ly/19xfFIL

     
    • abbadabba

      Probably got his memory wiped by that Men in Black thingy. He’s going to be proven a liar in the next reveal if my internal tarot cards tell no lies.

      Do these guys have no sense of history? Can’t they recall what they’ve done so as to avoid confirming their duplicity? We may have the same issues in the future. “I said THAT? I don’t remember saying it. (Because it typed it, iceholes!)”

       
  173. Mark Stoval

    Good report. It is always nice to see conformation of the evils that governments commit so the public can see the underbelly of the beast. This comes as no surprise to those of use who read “Anatomy of the State” years ago, but like I say, conformation is nice. Please don’t think this is an aberation: it is SOP.

    http://mises.org/document/1011 (book for free in PDF form or epub)

    Keep up the good work.

     
    • abadabba

      One of the reasons I am sick they are wrecking the net is it’s given me so much to chew on, like my ancestors’ bad luck stories.

      I recommend you stay off of bridges, NSA and GCHQ, because my lordly Gpa got poked from beneath one and it really ruined his riding habit. You might find peasants under that bridge with the trolls!!

       
  174. Don't read comments

    Don’t Read Comments
    https://twitter.com/AvoidComments

    Samples:
    “After you finish reading that article, remember to NOT scroll down and read the comments.”

    “If you have a choice between reading the comments and, well, doing anything else with your life… that seems like an easy choice.”

    “Eat a healthy diet. Exercise. Stay hydrated. Enjoy the company of friends and family. Also, avoid reading internet comments at all costs.”

     
    • abbadabba

      Commenting can cause you leg cramps, so I recommend we get off our arses once and a while for a good walk so we don’t blow out our bums. I’ve never seen such a recommendation. Where I blow, there blows other hardcore commentators. We can smoke all day long. Not good for those who require your civil service at home.

       
  175. William W HAywood

    This is really scary stuff they are doing. It would also appear that all of this spying, by both the NSA, and GCHQ, has an ulterior motive not connected with any democratic forms of government: i.e., all of this data is being used to build a data base that will allow ‘Big Brother’ the necessary information to operate in the near future. I mean, what in the hell else can they be using it for? Isn’t it quite obvious that they have now labeled terrorism, or terrorists, as any one performing any action that might challenge their rise to absolute power and wealth. This is the worst kind of tyranny! But because they are so stupid and in Inept, might they just be creating the social friction that will stop them, hopefully, dead in their tracks? Can we learn from what these criminals are trying to do to our democratic institutions? I think we all need to find out who these people who have taken over our governments really are.
    And the criminality of it all shows, for a fact, that they know that what they are doing is totally wrong headed. These governments, more and more every day, remind me of a cartel like the Sinaloa cartel that did drug smuggling, run by the recently captured chapo Guzzman.

     
    • abbadabba

      I’ve given this some thought and can only conclude they think they can control a hive mind. They cannot. Maybe a few sickly swarms, but no way can they manipulate the global hives. They cannot waggle dance for shite and bump like a bulldozer.

      Bees overcome cross-inhibition, two ideas with opposing goals, by directing others’ attention to the source material for a recon and report upon their return. They re-transmit those steps if they found the target worth moving toward. If they do not, they don’t dance.

      But some bees will butt other bees who are promoting a bad idea to gain the floor and display their steps once more. Once enough bees have got off their butts and done their due diligence, the hive will collectively conform. It goes where it wants to go to do what they wanna, wanna do.

      Now I know Chomsky says they can manufacture consent in the media, but that can’t pay the rent of that humble flat or serve you at the automat. Bees sting, boys! Don’t pizz us off, because once you do, you’ll have to go jump in a lake!!

      How in the heck can flat footed clowns like Clapper and crew get us to dance their way? They are so square!!

       
  176. septa

    I wonder if… all the times I’ve been part of a message board community, there is always one (or a few) posters who’s sole purpose seems to start fights and piss everyone off, completely destroying whatever was being discussed. Simple trolls? or the government?
    Thank you for posting the images too. WOW

     
    • OH

      The really clever ones are the ones that you don’t even notice.

       
      • Harrie

        The ones that inject some piece of information or opinion that he knows other people will pick up on. They don’t start the fights, they arm the fighters and cheer on them.

         
    • jkrumm

      My guess is you are mainly in trouble if you are identified as a target, or part of a target group… On your average lefty discussion board you are more likely to be trolled by plain old right-wing trolls fueled by Fox and other sources. This goes far beyond yelling in caps. It’s basically cointelpro online.

       
  177. Paulo Ferreira

    Seriously, I read many coments here that are trying to spot each other’s chances of being covert agents of NSA? Really? Could you PLEASE take another look on that chart that explains what DISRUPTS group actions? THe oldest trick in the book of humanity is “divide to conquer”, appeal to personal power or to petty disagreements to push everyone apart… And you are really pointing fingers at each other instead of pointing ALL fingers to the puppetmasters? Really, this is why they are able to do things like these…. THE COMMON COUSE IS TO END THE GOVERNMENT’S ILLEGAL ACTIONS – WHAT UNITES US IS THIS COMMON GOAL…

     
    • Jim Moore

      In the past two weeks (almost) of perusing The Intercept, I’ve read through 100s of posts by various authors. Today, I made a list of those authors whose posts are a waste of my time to read. Not because they disagree with me. But because their posts are incoherent, inconsistent, usually off topic after their first paragraph, and repetitive. Are they covert agents? Not my interest at this time. Reading their posts is a waste of my valuable time so I skip them. My freedom of choice.

       
    • nojokes

      There’s too much to say to this but, mainly…I can’t speak for others but, I can see through propaganda. I can tell when someone is real. I don’t distrust everybody. I don’t trust ultra conspiralists or pretendo liberals. A troll is a troll, all subvertion and disruption techniques are outlined above for all to see.

       
  178. mrk

    I have been thinking: since “intelligence agencies” and “law enforcement” now have ALL the communications, transactions, etc of everyone. Why hasn’t ALL CRIME and ALL criminal activity come to a screeching halt yet? IF they know what everyone is doing why is there still any criminal activity at all ( not counting the criminal activities of the “intelligence agencies” and “law enforcement agencies” themselves, of course… We KNOW who the REAL criminals are now.

    Just saying – if their job is to stop criminal activity and they now have everyone’s every communication why haven’t crimes stopped? Are they just not doing their job or are they totally inept? And IF either reason is the answer… why don’t they just arrest themselves and each other for NOT doing their effing job?! And leave the rest of us in peace. Just sayin… “DO your goddamned job or get the F out of the way!”

     
  179. ThePowerElite.com

    ? MANIPULATE THE MARKET ?

     
    • abbadabba

      I read Apple’s got a big worm hole in it that NSA put there, the lethal grubs. Is NSA gonna kill Wall-E, too?

      Bad, NSA, kiss my boo boo.

       
      • Bill Owen

        The Harper government in Canada got caught “cognitively infiltrating” the internet or as they called it “weighing in and correcting”. See the report on Canadian television here: http://bit.ly/1pqdba6

        Both the host and the guest wonder about the chilling effect on speech when people know that they are being watched.

         
        • abbadabba

          Did GCHQ beat up BlackBerry in the girl’s bathroom with our mean girl help? I can’t yet see all the pieces, but did our spooks get together to bust a berry for doing her job? BB can’t help it she was voted crossing guard! Mean girls suck. I see berry stains.

           
    • like_duh

      keep you going to work at a job you hate for a future you think will be. keep on consumin’.

       
  180. Chris Herz

    Thank you very much for your work. I love how you are inflicting on these Fascists the death of a thousand cuts. Keep ‘em screaming.

     
  181. jamesbrown

    Heh, remember what happened to one of Massive Attack band members in 2003 ? he was accused of being peadeophile…strangely, he didnt support “that much” UK goverment invasion in Iraq….And he supported (and still supports) many NGOs projects and so on…..Few months later, also in 2003 he got cleared from being suspicious….

     
    • abbadabba

      How about that icehole Jimmy Savile and the whole BBC looking the other way because he was so great with the kids? He abused children in hospitals because he was a fund raiser no one could say no to. Come on, lots of people knew. BCC even canceled the reveal show so they could run a Chirstmas show for the kids featuring the perv. 40 years of getting away with the worst one could think to imagine. Like the tabloid press didn’t know. Come ON! Is he Pete Townsend’s Uncle Ernie?

      Are we gonna wait until every perv in GCHQ and NSA are dead before we call them out for abusing us? Not me. “FIRE! FIRE! YOU AREN’T MY DADDY!!” Let’s practice kids, it always gets an officer’s attention.

       
      • LTB

        Oh, hell, even Pete Townshend, himself. Got a reprimand with absolutely NOTHING even close to kiddie porn on his several computers.

         
        • abbadabba

          I guess that’s what one gets for peeping, but he was also abused as a kid, right? Where’s the line? Servers should have never permitted it? I’d vote for that, but then we are skiing, again.

           
  182. OH

    They probably have about 5 guys who are good at manipulating an internet forum, as for the rest of them, ever notice how someone comes out of a communication class more f—ed up than before? Stilted? Now they got caught being creepy. Ever notice how news about someone being an idiot gradually does leak out and people remember that? For example, the NSA thinks they’re all cool and everything, they’re manipulators, ha ha, they’re up on internet forums with their how-to manual – okay – but now they’re caught! It may be a small publication and they may have access to the media to co-ordinate a response – but we know – nobody forgets when someone is creepy.

     
    • abbadabba

      I feel sorry for anyone who must spend their time making comments to serve a POV they do not hold, particularly if it incites hatred and ignorance. Might as well go build V2s in the Vosages with that kind of master.

       
      • OH

        Anyone who has a chance to be good person and blows it should regret that very much.

         
        • abbadabba

          Now I’m regretting my failings, just to make certain I don’t fall out of grace. I got a lot of nerve telling other people to be good.

           
  183. Michael Newark

    More worrying in my mind is that these organisations that have been around for sometime now seem to be increasingly very busy bees .I,m not convinced their up scaled rise from reasonable slumber to what their up to at present should cause too much alarm to ordinary folks . What concerns me is that these organisations don,t historically get excited unless they think there is a threat to the status quo in the democratic system that most free countries have. The fear of another world war is again on the agenda . It could start as in the other two wars from a small innocuous event in a country or region that at present is not on page 1 of any G8 agenda.
    We live in fragile times , natural resources are under pressure , information good bad and ugly flys around the globe frightenly fast for any of us to make informed or considered judgments . We are restless consumers and we don,t seem to know where we are going .

     
    • FunkNjunk

      I think what bothers me about this comment (I’m not attacking you, just commenting generally), is that there is an implication that these things [We live in fragile times , natural resources are under pressure , information good bad and ugly flys around the globe frightenly fast for any of us to make informed or considered judgments . We are restless consumers and we don,t seem to know where we are going] “Just happened” or that we are powerless observers being acted upon by the world. No. We live in fragile times made much the worse by our insane policy. Our insane consumerism, profit-driven psychopathic economic system, our view as life as a zero sum game, our inabilility to cooperate with the rest of humanity, our tribalism, our eschatological beliefs that our race is not logn for this world, so enjoy ourselves, etc. etc. We need to STOP now. Stop this insanity of thinking that this is some kind of game we can win. This is not a F*cking football game…… we’re in this together. If thes orgs are seeing the potential for world war III, the answer is not to throw gas on the damn fire….

       
      • abbadabba

        It’s natural to want to live at peace and hope not to have to fight to regain your security.

        It is true the world news is faster than Django, but haven’t we the character to stand up t it? Humans are crazier than honey badgers, and that’s saying something. Just try to take my Kodachrome away. I will bite your freaking balls off.

        Remember the part of the Declaration where Jefferson says we will take a lot of pressure, but eventually we blow our gaskets? Orange you glad we built expulsion and impeachment valves into this baby?

        No need to freak unless Congress won’t. And if they won’t we will freak on them in 2014 like righteous amendment defenders. They always cave for them.

         
  184. Travis

    Hey what about Andrew M. Lobaczewskis book about psychopathy in politics?? Political Ponerology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology What do we do about this??

     
  185. avelna2001

    In the paranoid minds of the intelligence agencies, whether they be US, British, Australian, etc., everyone is a potential terrorist, which is to say anyone who might disagree with their actions or policies. All thoughts , never mind actions, are potential crimes to them.

     
  186. abbadabba

    Speaking of twisted hacks, Rebekah Brooks is claiming she WOULD have authorized the illegal practice of secretly intercepting voice mail to corner a target if they were a pedophile. She loves to shield herself with those suckers. Her team is making the Public Interest Defense that Mike Rogers so loathes and the DoJ pretends does not exist. In pursuit of revealing crime, it is lawful for a reporter to commit one.

    But Brooks denies ever having once directed anyone under her to hack a cell phone. That would be a gross violation of privacy and, as she learned 6 years after the fact, illegal. I’m exceeding my irony requirements daily with these two chapters of the same book. I’ve heard the London Times in-house make the same lame ignorance claim, and it didn’t save his bacon. Oink. Somehow those sister papers never knew why they were so artfully and coincidentally avoiding detection at every turn?

    That must be why the prosecution charged the alleged conspirators with a horrifically bad taste hacking case and one so commonplace they really ought not have bothered anyone about it especially since they got the parties wrong. Covering all the bases.

    Public Interest should surely win the day should any journalist ever be drawn into some foolish effort to suppress these stories. Then the government will have to admit this war gaming is costing us more than interest on the unpaid debt. It’s destroying us from the inside out.

    Of the 72 reporters and government officials arrested from Murdoch’s UK give away bag of Sun staffers’ emails, several were let go because believe it or not, sometimes one can bribe a copper for details if it is a crime inside government and GET AWAY WITH IT!!

    One might even give such a copper a medal for the deed. Like the copper who told us police were suppressing evidence of thousands of victims of tabloid phone hacking. Now why would the Terror Unit do such a thing? To hide their own well connected cables, of course! You can’t carry those into court and get away with it! In 2006, there weren’t even twisted laws to cover for such a thing.

    I’m telling us these two scandals are one and the same. I call the whole interconnected mess Tea Pot Blown.

     
    • Wiltmellow

      Speaking of twisted hacks, Rebekah Brooks is claiming she WOULD have authorized the illegal practice of secretly intercepting voice mail to corner a target if they were a pedophile.

      A construction as common as it is misleading

      “Sure, I may have [YYYY-ed]. But I didn’t [XXX]. In fact by doing [YYY], I prevent [XXX]!

      Examples:

      Politician: Sure I took money from the Koch. But really isn’t starving children worse? I voted against starving children.

      NSA agent: Sure we spy on people, but really isn’t a terrorist attack much worse? We prevent terrorist attacks.

      Oil Baron: Sure our product contributes to climate change, but isn’t a collapsed economy and 50% unemployment worse? We keep the economy running and people employed.

      Chemical company: Sure agent orange causes cancer, but isn’t that better than letting our soldiers get killed by Viet Cong travelling on the Ho Chi Minh trail? We prevent US soldiers deaths by using Agent Orange.

      Republican: Sure we’re cruel and heartless. But letting the government regulate people to death is worse. We prevent too much government.

      Democrat? Sure we believe in government regulation. It would be worse to be cruel and heartless. We prevent too much cruelty and heartlessness.

      Plutocrat: Sure I have billions of dollars. But wouldn’t it be worse if children starved? I prevent children from starving.

      Relativism — can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

       
      • abbadabba

        But it gives us so much more to giggle about, I can’t quit that cowboy! You break down horsing around very well, melting mallow.

         
  187. Perry Fellwock

    It amazes and sickens me to see how Five Eyes, or UKUSA community, has continued to expand its mission over the years to control the world’s electromagnetic spectrum which includes human electronic communications. In my day, 40 years ago, before the Digital Revolution, this did not include communications dominion, by the electronic warriors of NSA and its Big Brothers such as GCHQ, over every single human being on the planet as can now be done in the digital age. In my day, NSA has the same attitudes of collect all signals, all electronics communications possible, the same attitudes revealed in the documents Snowden has released, but that did not filter down to individual citizens as it does now. Those who argue that such manipulation of the Internet and social media by units like JTRIG is only targeted against adversaries ignore both historical fact and present realities. NSA and JTRIG operations fit and are indispensable to the actual “adversaries” seen by the Five Eyes and their sponsors and consumers in the governments and the financial communities of the Five Eyes nations. NSA, GCHQ, etc., must be seen in the context of the War on Terror and what the Five Eyes are doing in hot spots across the globe, the economic and financial moves being made, and the political situations of these countries. Too many times in our history and even today, I would argue, the national security state including NSA and GCHQ, are deployed against adversaries that need not be adversaries in wars, both military and economic, that we need not wage. And when we wage illegal and unnecessary wars, there is inevitable blowback including the weapons of the spooks used abroad being used upon citizens. This was true when we protested the Vietnam War, and, from all reports, is true today in the wars of first Bush and now Obama.

    This article reveals that the Five Eyes are now getting into reputation destruction, which back in my day was largely the work of the CIA and FBI here in the U.S. and there counterparts in the other Five Eyes nations. I suspect that the CIA and FBI and their counterparts (such a Britain’s MI5 and MI6) have their versions of JTRIG also. The Internet and social media are treacherous grounds.

    I also noticed that contrary to statements by U.S. and British officials, the documents (that I have seen in the news reports, published by Greenwald, the Washington Post and other news outlets- which is all I know on the subject) DO NOT reveal the Five Eyes “sources and methods” only the broad policies and programs (not operations), which are damning enough. The documents in this article bare ordinary classifications and are not CODEWORD material. NSA and GCHQ are certainly hurt political by Snowden’s revelations but I doubt if they have been damaged technically or operationally. Everything I have read so far had to be broadly known by any “adversary”; these “secrets” were simply unknown to the public at large. The Five Eyes and the entire intelligence are no doubt still expanding their mission, uninterrupted.

    I noticed recently at the website of the Five Eyes (FVEY) interface with the military industrial complex, the Association of Old Crows at https://www.crows.org/conventions/50th-annual-aoc-international-symposium-and-convention.html (click on the individual dates on this page for insights into the future of this stuff) that these Old Crows (ex NSA, Five Eyes and Electronic Warfare personnel, and the industrial leaders behind them) are way ahead of most reporting on this topic. For example, the Five Eyes community is preparing to train their future electronic warriors from kindergarten through college to serve this signals intelligence and electronic warfare community. Will this stop future Snowdens? Future whistleblowers? I doubt it. Even a well trained and indoctrinated cadre will still produce people of conscience unless they figure out ways to wash that out of our brains. But then we would no longer be human.

    The real question is will citizens of the Five Eyes nations do anything to stop this madness?

    Perry Fellwock
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Fellwock
    http://gawker.com/after-30-years-of-silence-the-original-nsa-whistleblow-1454865018

     
  188. OH

    Hey NSA, you’ve read my stuff, you know I could do better work than the clowns you have, you know I am right, hey hire me I’ll fuck you up. You’re over your head NSA.

     
    • abbadabba

      Probably the hen in me, but we need not be unclear about what part of GCHQ or NSA we hope to screw. I
      am bent on blowing their minds as they bother to try and blow mine. I bet Brown said something similar and FBI blew it up into a federal offense, so be clear when sounding vague. You surely meant no harm come to them, only their screwed up policy and any consequence the law might shed on them.

       
      • OH

        If the NSA hired me, I would put together some powerpoint slides for them that would REALLY mess up their head and make them creepy as hell.

         
      • OH

        I understand, the NSA could for example take what I said, use it to add my name to an on-going secret investigation, and then as a result of my name being on that list, every piece of data could then be interpreted as suspicious, and they could save that up in case they ever have a use for it, and merely say “so and so under investigation for terrorism”. But, there’s two edges to that.

         
        • abbadabba

          I see, you are building your class action case. Go daddy.

          But remember, they don’t play fair. You’ll be waiting in a cold storage until freedom rings. OMG, the bastards have me cautioning kids. Don’t listen to me, kid. I’m over 30. I’m ashamed of myself. Your reckless age is your passport and mine.

           
          • OH

            I am not building any case, I am just being myself, if that’s what they want to make of it that’s their problem. They got bigger fish.

             
  189. P. Orin Zack

    It’s good to know that what many of us have suspected for some time is, in fact, true. A lot of what is described on the slides are techniques of NeuroLinguistic Programming (NLP). When I was first introduced to it in the early 80′s, I was horrified at the possible ways it could be misused by the military, but I didn’t imagine that it would be done against our own citizens. Fast-forward to 2007, and I was pretty certain that it was, and incorporated the surmise into a series of short stories I wrote about the members of an activist group that was only interested in ways of making governance more responsive to the people, and the spy-in-training who infiltrated them. This story is called ‘Double Agent’.

    http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/2007/09/28/short-story-double-agent/

    And I thought it was just fiction. Thanks, Mr. Greenwald, for spreading the truth we all needed to know.

     
    • abbdabba

      OMG, I remember those NLP guys. a woman I know mastered in it. They watch your eyes and can tell when we lie. More accurately, they can tell when you fabricate vs recall.

      They scare the shite out of me and lying is not my business. I just don’t like being read like a book which is enough to look suspicious in theirs.

      This is why it is not a science, it’s a crock. Not all folks look down when recalling, they might be suppressing a laugh. And looking up isn’t evidence they are searching for an answer, they may just remember where the tree house was. We used to play secret agent all up in those branches.

       
    • OH

      NLP is a branch of Hypnosis, like most mental therapeutic disciplines. The purpose of it is for healing but most people never get any except for advertisers and other manipulators. There’s a small percentage of people who are “hyper-responsive” and these people are the best subjects at stage hypnosis shows. But mostly, NLP is just a way to sharpen the rhetoric just a notch, it isn’t Darth Vader kind of stuff, it’s just more like phrase it a certain way and you may optimize your response. If you want to experience NLP, listen to NPR especially on centrist topics. In fact, if you want to experience most of deception techniques listed on the slides shown here, listen to NPR. “The big move conceals the small move” – and all that stuff is right there on NPR. Phrases like “the picture that keeps getting clearer is ____”. The big move concealing the little move is talking about how, given a particular audience with a set of beliefs, concede some seemingly major minor points so they think you’re being fair, so they don’t notice the tiny little re-framing.

       
      • abbadabba

        I presumed one could reverse engineer that observable signal, but how can one guess how it is received? No one has the exact same set of dishes. What I think works might make another barf. Come on, Dianne Rehm does not sound like that because she wants to, she’s got issues. Or is that why her voice is so compelling? She has to work at it.

        Speaking of golf, I always find that very soothing until some idiot shouts. I wouldn’t put too much credibility into it, but I bet NSA’s wasted some dimes talking to GCHQ about it.

         
        • OH

          Well there’s really 2 problems with NPR, the centrist framing techniques on one hand, and the fact that none of them talk like normal people on the other hand and that they all sound alike, means they are all going to the same vocal instructor who is obviously way overpaid.

           
  190. Nemo_Est_Insula

    Ctrl-F

    Since this ‘under construction’ comment section is currently user-unfriendly, there is a device to help you locate your and others’ posts and keywords within comments. As commenter Kitt posted yesterday, use Ctrl-F and then type in your search term(s). That will assist you in replying to those who took the time to reply to your comments, if you like, and finding those especially good comments that exemplify Greenwalds’ articles and those of the majority of his commenters.

     
  191. Wayne Bingham

    This very document is yet another ploy of deceit. Reading this document promotes the idea that there are unrestrained uses of media to abuse (virtually or reality) an individual, company, group, or idea (this is not in anyway a new use of media – just a different form). There will shortly appear, from different sources, ideas that follow this logic stating that regulation should be changed in specific slight manners to inhibit this type of behavior of media outlets. This then is the purpose of this document, to change the law through means of fear of freedom. The idea that I don’t like one thing more than my freedom, so I’ll give my freedom up to keep my self and my family from this thing that I fear. This is an ancient tactic and is constantly being used and is effective on large groups of people because of their social desires and insecurities. While this information is very real and is being used and has been for a very long time. Regurgitating it does not mean that regulation should be put in place to stop it. What should change is for personal responsibility to be reflected in each persons actions. This will prevent even slanderous material from being believed because of the person’s integrity is already known. Thus proving the statement, “by their actions ye shall know them”.

     
  192. Glenn

    Just try and picture the administrators and bureaucrats and political appointees and elected officials who know about these activities. How could anyone with a conscience condone our govt behaving this way? In one sense, I’m actually more forgiving to the intelligence types who come up with this stuff. They are advocates for a particular POV and like soldiers, they are looking to use whatever weapon they can against an “enemy”. But that’s why we have oversight, right? That is the biggest failure here, to me. It seems just as in the U.S., GCHQ has managed to so obcure its actions and bamboozle elected office holders and other govt officials, that they are running wild. Something is so wrong that I have no idea how to fix it. Thanks for exposing this.

     
  193. Joseph K junior

    For what’s it’s worth, my fellow droogs, here’s an effort to sum up (sort of):

    *first we’re don’t like the comments system which sucks big ones mostly, tho there has been the theory that it’s the way it is to make things more difficult for the Feds on the payroll (someone has suggested using ctrl F to find comments);

    *the trolls appear to be here certainly, and it seems they have a hard time hiding their hostility to GG as one indication, although they could also be I think it’s called compensating (which is in pattern with the behavior revealed by this article generally—very insecure types);

    *that is, questions and requests plus outright challenges are NOT the problem (maybe the hostile types should study their own slides more diligently?);

    *the article featured is a bombshell for most of us because it confirms what we sort of knew and hoped wasn’t the case as one of our problems has been (for years now) convincing ourselves that our “democracy” has not been functioning for quite some time now;

    *there are a number of sort of jeering calls for “evidence” that the slides and the article actually apply to reality but you need to read in here to find there are quite a few commentators who are witnesses and victims to what the slides describe;

    *Julian is being recognized as a victim of the forms of psychopathy the slides describe and I’m very happy about that, since people forget that the original charge against him is completely bogus since the females involved continued to party with him for several days following the supposed “assault”;

    *the slides themselves at times look like notes for an anti-dystopian novel that my grandfather might have cooked up when he was writing The Trial 100 years ago.

    So, hey, thanks, granpappy, as one of your sons you have helped me great ready for this moment and I thank GG et al also.

     
    • Joseph K junior

      And you know I wouldn’t mind being able to edit once in a while also.

       
      • Ryan

        Why can’t they just use Disqus or something?

         
        • OH

          That’s ridiculous. Total-Anonymous posting such as this site uses is the LEAST vulnerable to professional trolling. Professional trolls don’t mind if they have to register. Professional trolls don’t care how much you moderate, their trolling is under-the-radar. The very restrictions that are supposed to make it harder for trolls are actually giving them a paradise. I vote for the present comment system as-is. Trolls are part of any real argument.

           
    • Common 'Tater

      Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.

       
      • Joseph K junior

        “You can’t go out, you are arrested.” “So it seems,” said K. “But what for?” he added. “We are not authorized to tell you that. Go to your room and wait there. Proceedings have been instituted against you, and you will be informed of everything in due course.”

         
    • abbadabba

      Having educated youth with a state contract to avoid sexual assault, I was loath to criticize these alleged victims, but I have to say that those complaints are the strangest I have ever heard in my 10 years of disclosures, and I have heard a lot.

      I hate to suggest this, but those women sound as though they were subjected to suggestion, more commonly applied by police the other way to dismiss the offense, and their perception of what occurred was altered to fit a proffered profile. I have never heard of consensual sex with a celebrity being a crime of said celeb after the facts once two parties concur.

      Now I have heard of selfish, cruel pigs who take advantage of a person and treat them rather poorly, but not giving much of a snort after a toss is not a crime just good warning. Not my sort of thing, but I try not to judge. And good strike me down if I’ve maligned any victims, but I just don’t see any. He may be a selfish lay, but he did not exploit anyone. What the hell is wrong with Aussies and no condoms, Mel and Julian? Why so stupid?

       
      • Joseph K junior

        Interesting that he hasn’t said anything, altho he’s invited authorities to question him. So to me the not giving much of a snort and being a selfish lay are unclear. Plus the offending balloon apparently broke? Seems to me tho it would be better to wait until the partner woke up before presuming for more . . . but hey the male is a lusty zesty animal! I’m sorry.

         
    • Pedinska

      an anti-dystopian novel that my grandfather might have cooked up when he was writing The Trial 100 years ago.

      I have visited 22 Golden Lane. I believe that would be your great Aunt’s house? My husband is from Prague and we have eaten at the restaurant that is in what used to be your Grandfather’s house. How lovely to find a connection here in Glenn’s comment section.

       
      • Joseph K junior

        Pedinska, apologies. I should have said “that the creator of my grandfather might have cooked up.” I attach only to literary lineage, not biological, meaning Joseph K as the grandpa. Thank you for this nice response and I’m sorry to be disappointing.

         
        • Pedinska

          No worries. No disappointment at all! I claim all sorts of literary lineages myself. :-)

           
  194. Ali

    Glenn, a fantastic story. Maybe, we should start wearing our tin foil hats.

     
  195. kharma

    Another excellent report. Thanks.

     
  196. Cheyenne

    This article outlines who is perpetrating the REAL terrorism and insurrection against the United States (“We, the People”). Now please tell me who’s going to stop this incredible undermining of free speech and legitimate discourse?

     
  197. JerryHanlon

    Speaking of honey-traps: thousands of videos on YT pretending
    to be against surveillance & MKUltra sleep deprivation/ psychic
    driving are actually made by a sanctioned network that does
    all the above. The experts imitating mental derangement.
    I wonder if anyone familiar with corporate or Gov PR
    might instantly recognize them for what they are…
    or pretend/ lie & say the said videos are “obviously”
    made by nutjobs.

     
  198. Bill Owen

    And don’t see RussellM anywhere on that chart! Why are you still withholding documents Glenn!?

     
    • JLocke

      “Why are you still withholding documents Glenn!?”

      Bill you have to be patient with Greenwald…as the Canadian Harper government rightly points out, to deflect criticism of its collaboration with NSA/GCHQ, Greenwald has his hands full in his other line of work as a “Brazilian porno spy”, and so is only able to fence stolen documents in his spare time, even with the help of his terrorist lover (only recently caught sneaking into Britain at the behest of the Guardian, an organization that was on the cusp of betraying Britain, had it’s computers not been smashed…I don’t care how many times Rusbridger says he loves his country…If Australia hadn’t spied on that US law firm to get an advantage in trade talks with Indonesia,…Urgh, glub…ahh,…The Terrorists Win!!!!

       
  199. Bill Owen

    One thing is for sure, our shadowy masters™ really need some help with their PowerPoint layouts. Yeuch!

     
    • Presumptuous Insect

      I know, Bill! They are craptastic. I don’t think competence is the number one hiring requirement for these goons. It has to be paranoia plus an us-them mentality.

       
  200. Stan Burnitt

    I would love to hang around for some back and forth with the spooks on this thread, but I can’t because I need to get to work. (I’ll check back later tonight.)

    This subject is personal. I was branded a ‘terrorist’ after I severed relations with some pretty hard-core, right-wing religious relatives with connections to the USAF, and ever since I’ve been stalked, surveilled, and threatened (as in death-threats: “terroristic threats against my person”).

    Every individual on this thread, including Mr. and Ms. 007, knows that labeling a person ‘terrorist’ is akin to a social (up to a physical) death sentence in 21st century USA. Today, the label is used in exactly the same way “communist” was used to brand a person legitimately “destroyable” during the 20th century. Fortunately, I’m still breathing, while at least one of those who planned to kill me is not. And I know that really, really p*sses you off, 007.

    I want to ask you, 007: please explain how engaging in this ongoing, pathological gang-stalking (in the context of the death threats from those connected to the USAF), and trying to destroy this innocent person’s ability to earn a living, can be characterized as “patriotic”. Please elucidate? I would really like a sincere answer, lest the cynic in me defaults to the conviction you love stalking almost as much as you love torturing and killing ‘terrorists’. (And worst of all: the american people have your back.)

    Surely, if people like you are as courageous as Hollywood, Fox, and CNN portray you, you’ll give me a straight answer, along with your real name, address, and a workplace phone number.

    I disowned family (not a capital offense), and I criticized your country’s perpetual, offensive war binging (also not a capital offense). And you’ve been after me for at least 12 years, probably more. But I am still here. You could have just paid some kid in Sao Paulo $50 to kill me, or do it here in San Jose. The police wouldn’t do anything and you know it. After all, it’s a matter of ‘national security’. It’s absurd. Why spend so many tax dollars harassing someone as innocuous as myself? Are you bored? Do you need creative ways to spend all of each year’s budget, so you get at least the same amount in the next fiscal year? Did I get under your skin too much?

    I have explained myself. What about you?

    Don’t leave me guessing! What’s worse: me, answering for you, or you, displaying 1/10th of a gram of civil courage.

     
    • Richard Verville

      I am a Targeted Individual for 13 years now. Please see my post of February 25. I would like to know more about what you said here. Can you contact me please. My name is Richard Verville mail address: 2 Currier dr. Londonderry NH. 03053. My email box is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . I am not certain that I can receive emails from anyone outside NSA/Fusion Center zombies approved list… can you try please?

       
  201. theunpossiblefile

    Along with everything mentioned: there is the tactic of
    creating & funding your own opposition. Like Big Brother
    who formed a state controlled “underground” & then
    spread rumors about those dark subversive underground
    activities as a lure. Big T, tobacco, Big Oil do the same.

    As shown in a Matt Damon movie last year…
    Big Oil formed their own environmental anti-fossil fuel
    group always using rigged bogus material to attract
    attention. After awhile the bogus materials are “exposed”
    as being photo-shopped as planned therefore undermining
    the green movement. Damon worked for an oil company
    and found out that the guy he thought of as a pain in the ass
    activist was actually working for Big Oil also.

    This is done right in everyone’s face all across You Tube.
    Do you think all the batcrazy “Paranoid Style” mind control
    videos are really made by delusionals? Ha!

    They are mostly or all done by PR pros imitating crazy or
    serious w/ factual material expertly blended with nonsense.
    That last sentence is another version of honey-trap manipulation.
    (True Lies, the 10% that’s true is mixed with 90% BS)
    That is also the main reason for making these pretend anti-
    mind control videos by the thousand. The difference being
    that the pretend “morons” tell you, in most cases, that the
    video is BS. Then they have comment writers who support
    the videos pretending to be just as psychotic.

    And yes, a few are made by ppl who are mentally ill or by those selling DVD’d to them.

    How to prove this? Difficult to impossible.
    My guess – the above is run by civilian contractors
    who are going way out of their way to hide something
    in plain sight. Maybe trying to proactively discredit a very
    nasty program to discourage anyone from coming forward.
    Just a guess.

     
    • OH

      For example, oh I can’t mention an example because the conspiracy-theory believers would come and disagree with me that it’s a conspiracy theory.

      So, without citing any example, heck yes I myself believe most conspiracy theories are planted, trying to hide that information which is in plain public sight already.

       
    • andrew mogg

      a similar thing was done to Dan Rather with the faked up T.A.N.G. documents about Bush Jr. the story was real enough, but the planted evidence was faked up on purpose.

       
  202. Simon

    Interesting. If I didn’t know, I would have thought I was reading Scientology documents.

     
  203. JONICHI

    Publiquen in leangue Español please

     
  204. Lyra 1

    An excellent article. In reading some of the previous comments, it is only too apparent that many of the targeted audience failed to understand the greater significance of this material. That is, that everyone who is using the internet is a potential and/or identified target on all social media sites including media procurement outlets, by the greater majority of search engines, and yes, even by simply using a Microsoft or Apple computer which is connected to the internet. There is no completely safe way to operate.

    You are by the way also a potential and/or identified target by using the telephone, riding in a GPS equipped car or carrying a GPS equipped device. Most electronic devices, like televisions and computers are presently being designed with cameras they you may or may not be able to control. Did your utility company silently install a “Smart Meter” on your place of residence? Every being presently on Planet Earth is presently threatened and affected by the sheer scope of this activity . Thank you Mr Greenwald for attempting to shed light on that fact.

    Please take a clear look at the extent of the problem. A massive control grid on planet Earth is a definitive problem. Always, follow the money trail to find the root source of this problem. Perhaps Mr. Taibbi will help shed light on that matter with the second digital magazine effort being launched by firstlook.org. For now, I am grateful for The Intercept. I wish you all the most enlightened and benevolent outcome.

     
  205. Charlene Richards

    Regarding the monitoring of “conspiracy theory” discussion forums/chat rooms etc. online, I have found it to be very interesting how any discussions of, say, the events of 9/11 on most websites is now verboten.

    It appears that the actual websites have made rules that no “conspiracy theories” can be discussed (especially 9/11). John Amato at Crooksandliars.com basically said that anyone bringing up 9/11 would be bounced off the site. Comments made at Commondreams.org and HuffPo regarding 9/11 are simply moderated out.

    My question is: Have these websites been “told” to not allow any discussions of 9/11 by the PTB?

    We all know of many websites where comments are just “moderated” away if “certain things” are being mentioned. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post.

    On Obamacare there was a thread in the last week at the Los Angeles Times where “Estate Recovery” was being discussed. A recent article on it had been linked from Paul Craig Roberts website. Quite a lively discussion took place and I sent the link for the article to my friend in Massachusetts. She loved the discussion and went back to it a few days later and the link to the PCR article had been scrubbed along with several other comments against Obamacare.

    Censorship is what’s bothering me as well as the “games” the Intelligence Community appears to be playing with all of us.

     
    • OH

      Attempts to moderate forums make the forums more vulnerable to trolls and tactics like cooked-up conspiracy theories, not less.

       
  206. Chuckles

    Is this another covert recruitment drive?

     
  207. Paultheprogressive

    Would these type of activities be illegal? Sure seems like it. Or if not illegal, at least subject to law suits.

     
  208. David Griffin

    Just for kicks, have a look at an article I published back in June of 2011:

    Information Warfare Part II
    http://www.upwardvectorpubs.com/41iw2.htm

    In that article, I discussed exposing these types of operations over ten years ago.

    “Eventually, by correlating IP addresses, service providers, operating systems & browser configurations, posting times, and actual posted statements, the evidence showed that a relatively small number of persons were utilizing a large number of false online identities, going thru a variety of different service providers in different geographical locations, in order to create the illusion that a very large percentage and number of people all felt the same way about a particular topic.

    In one particular case, over 100 different posting identities were tied to a single individual, and many of them were used for rabid and vicious attacks using black propaganda and lies, while the real person behind them remained hidden.”

    Now in my particular case, I’ve been posting information about a subject which remains, to this day, a very highly-classified subject – extraterrestrial beings, groups, and operations:

    UFOs – Setting the Record Straight
    http://www.upwardvectorpubs.com/62ufos1.htm

    Do you suppose that I might possibly be a target for some of these dispicable covert operations?

    Things that make you go hmmm…

    Upward Vector Publishing
    http://www.upwardvectorpubs.com

     
    • Frank

      Really interesting documents with those UFO pics just hanging out there. Would like to have heard the full presentation to get the context. Doubt these guys would be in the loop about any UFO reality, but the whole thing is very significant. Lots of Snowden/UFO crap floated earlier . . . . . preventative disinfo? Hahahahaha.

       
  209. TomCat

    Glenn, please, give us a human example of such a campaign. Humanise this barbarity, people’s lives are being ruined by these agencies. It is scandalous how monstrously evil these agencies are. You are being quite coy about this but I am pretty sure that Assange is one clear victim!

     
    • Nemo_Est_Insula

      Mr. Greenwald, as a competent journalist and lawyer, is most likely under legitimate legal constraints regarding such disclosures. Perhaps one way around that would be for a credible person—with unimpeachable character—to sally forth with unequivocal evidence that these tactics were used against them.

       
      • Lol wtf

        Don’t forget pornographer

         
      • TomCat

        Indeed, you are right. There probably are constraints to him humanising this filth. We live in the real world so “credible person-with unimpeachable character” may well be subjective and difficult to find. In any case, we will continue to support the fight against this overbearing and illegal shadowy organisation who continually breach our rights. I must say that it is surprising that all these exposures have not created the kind of outrage which it deserves. SMH.

         
    • Bill Owen

      Glenn, please, give us a human example of such a campaign. — TomCat

      Just look what they are doing to Glenn. He’s a perfect example. Vilified, maligned, smeared, threatened, harassed, his house has been broken into his partner David’s laptop stolen, David himself being stopped, detained and questioned at Heathrow under Terrorism legislation, the Canadian government has called him a liar and a “porn spy”, we have been treated to every single detail of his personal life, the lawsuits over dogs, his defence of a Nazi, he outstanding student loans. Then there are the NSA water carriers such as Ohtarzie and Sibel Edmonds attacking him daily with their special state sauce of deranged, outré libels, even Naomi Wolf has had a kick at the can — the list just goes on and on.

      And don’t miss the comments section, here, today.

       
      • TomCat

        You are right, Bill, but I suppose that we all know that they would muck rack and come up with something sexually based on all “dissidents.’ Luckily, we should be taking this with the pinch of salt that it deserves.

         
  210. Dr. Les Dove

    All of the above mentioned tactics to smear and criminalize have been used against me for almost 40 years, and they still are. Britain’s GCHQ and all the rest of the so-called Security Services in Britain and the USA are pure scum of the worst kind!

     
    • isabel jacson

      I know just spend 6 months of 2 years sentence for speaking out about the war and I am 70 years old so age does not matter

       
  211. lucy

    In understanding someone’s psychology we often ask the question, “what was their intention?” and here you can clearly see the intention behind these tactics were based on FEAR. In my humble opinion, emotions that arise within a human being come from either a place of LOVE or FEAR. LOVE being: positive emotions; good, joy, happy, generous, healthy, strong, kind, etc…FEAR being: negative emotions: hate, manipulate, destroy, distrust, nervous and so on…. Which ever one you consistently choose and apply in your daily practices; be it personal or business, molds your character and shapes your life or in this case your business, the NSA! When you no longer care about the good of “all” only “some” and you replace “we” with “me” you no longer are living by the rules that apply to everyone else. Therefore, ultimately rendering “game it” unjust. All the while, disregarding the constitution that sits right outside your office!!! (3 exclamation points because I mean it!)…

     
  212. Lance DesouzaBERG

    wow…how said.

     
  213. NobodyImportant

    I wrote a chirpstory detailing ALL of the harassment on Twitter I could find directed at Barrett Brown. Chirpstory deleted it within a few days after a complaint from one of the security firms and I was never able to get it restored.

    I’ve told people about this & used to tweet the information, and no one really seemed to care about Barrett Brown at the time. But they sure as hell cared about shutting ME up.

    So I hope that Glenn Greenwald or somebody else looking into these matters is willing to use this information. Barrett Brown had people trying to get the CARTEL after him, and they even doxed his ex-girlfriend in Spanish, directing cartel members to her house. There’s much more, please take the time to look if you can.

    https://anonfiles.com/file/0ae4af5ca6c2e226c8b74ee1273a39ec

     
  214. Denise

    Having read some of the comments below and hearing the question: HOW TO AVOID BEING MANIPULATED, I wish to share some of what I know about that subject.

    My personal experience is with my mom who was a master at it and began her regime when I was an infant. These are some rules I picked up along the way to defend myself.

    1) Any and all information she knows will be used against you. (Avoid letting them know anything about you.)
    2) When she objects to something, it is because what you have done is a threat to her — not because you have hurt anyone.
    3) Always question things you have always assumed to be true — many of the things she taught me were lies and worse.
    4) Never trust anyone who wants you to follow them blindly.
    5) Anyone who acts disrespectful to someone else will also be disrespectful to you when that suits them. (Don’t trust anyone who slurs another person.)
    6) Anyone trying to look perfect and beyond suspicion has something to hide.

    Probably this is not a perfect list. But it works well for me with these spies that live among us in much the same way that it served to protect and heal me from the assaults I went through in my childhood.

    I share them in the hope they may help someone AND in the hope of reducing the power of the spies even if it is just by a tiny amount.

     
  215. Carl Joudrie

    During a 5 year period with my last ISP I had 14,762 500 series errors. When I would inquire about it I was told that it was my problem, not theirs. They were right, I was too stupid to move on, now the numbers are creeping up again. I have been calling for the Democratic inducement and regulation of World Federalism at http://www.foundationcanada.ca Apparently it is a forbidden idea.

     
  216. JLocke

    Oh, this is TOO good, Der-Spiegal in Germany has picked up this Greenwald story on the British GCHQ dirty tricks before any paper in Britain!

    http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/gchq-greenwald-veroeffentlicht-weitere-snowden-dokumente-a-955488.html

    ..and in the UK…not even a peep from the Guardian. Don’t you just love a free press!!!