It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Anonymous' CIA Officer is Identified

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The active U.S. intelligence officer known only as "Anonymous," who has gained world renown this month as author of an upcoming book called "Imperial Hubris," is actually named Michael Scheuer, according to an article in the Boston Phoenix today by Jason Vest.

Speculation about his identity has run rampant since a June 23 article in The New York Times discussed the book and the background of the author. The book, "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror," asserts, among other things, that Osama bin Laden is not on the run and that the invasion of Iraq has not made the United States safer.

www.editorandpublisher.com...

Interestingly, the CIA Officer did not want to be Anonymous. It appears the CIA insisted on anonymity. Nonetheless, now we will be subjected to the media dragging Anonymous' personal life through the mud.




posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
...just as a sworn servant of the government should be dragged through the mud when he turns on the decisions of the government itself.

Sorry, but when someone decides to become an employee of the CIA they have to realize that the person in the white house -- be he Republican or Democrat -- is the person in charge. The CIA exists to execute the commands of this country's political leadership... it does not get to 'decide' policy on its own (nor do its members). In the same light, an agent of the intelligence services should realize that his job is to execute orders, not undermine them (do you want privates who disobey sergeants on the battlefield?).



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Your are correct. The CIA officer should have either resigned prior to publication, remained anonymous, or kept it to themselves.

Nonethless, this does not affect the validity of their analyses. It does however affect our perception of their sense of duty and loyalty to the President.

I suppose the CIA officer can claim they were defending against a domestic enemy. It's a long shot though.

Their career is over, right?



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
...just as a sworn servant of the government should be dragged through the mud when he turns on the decisions of the government itself.

Sorry, but when someone decides to become an employee of the CIA they have to realize that the person in the white house -- be he Republican or Democrat -- is the person in charge. The CIA exists to execute the commands of this country's political leadership... it does not get to 'decide' policy on its own (nor do its members). In the same light, an agent of the intelligence services should realize that his job is to execute orders, not undermine them (do you want privates who disobey sergeants on the battlefield?).


You've just given a great description of how a 'Dictatorship' is supposed to operate. Interesting isn't it?

I think the KEY in understanding what is happening here is revealed within these following sections of the article:

When asked to confirm or deny his identity in an interview with the Phoenix, Anonymous declined to do either, explaining, "I've given my word I'm not going to tell anyone who I am, as the organization that employs me has bound me by my word."

Jonathan Turley, a national-security-law expert at George Washington University Law School, told Vest, "The requirement that someone publish anonymously is rare, almost unheard-of, particularly if the person is not in a covert position. It seems pretty obvious that the requirement he remain anonymous is motivated solely by political concerns, and ones that have more to do with the CIA."


So what all is being said and not said here?

'Michael Scheuer', agent of the CIA, would be bound by the 'Rules of Secrecy' that 'Michael Scheuer' undoubtedly swore an oath to upon employment within the CIA. Therefor 'Michael Scheuer' would not be allowed to write any such book.. 'Michael Scheuer', CIA agent, DID NOT write the book though. Neither has 'Michael Scheuer', CIA agent, refused any commands given to him, as you've suggested.

'Anonymous', who is simply a member 'Of the People' is under NO OBLIGATION to avoid writing a book. 'Anonymous' never took an oath to submit to the authority of the CIA, nor could 'Anonymous' do so as I doubt the CIA would allow the phrase 'I, Anonymous, hereby swear..." or anything of that sort.

You see, obviously 'Anonymous' is 'Intelligent' enough to know the difference between 'Who he/she is' & 'His/Her Title'. 'Anonymous' obviously understands the difference between Fantasy & Reality. The Fantasy is that a 'Name or Title or Social Security Number' etc. equals The Reality of Who or What those 'Words' Represent. The Reality is that they are NOT the same. A HUGE CLUE, which has significance far beyond this and which effects All People Everywhere BTW, is this phrase here, so read it carefully: "The organization that employs me has bound me by my word.

Now ask yourself, 'What is Real?' 'What is Fantasy?' 'Who are you?' 'What realm do you live in, Reality or Fantasy?'

If that still doesn't make sense and some 'Authority' or 'Law' is still required to show Justification for all this, although depressing as it may be, it can still be done as well. Read Carefully:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, it would appear that 'The People', regardless of what their 'Legal Name, Title, etc.' may be, are obligated already. Also, this Primary Obligation comes before any and all other 'commitments or oaths' any of 'The People' are involved with later in their lives.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Regardless of what name he took the oath under if the writer known as anonymous is the same entitty as the C.I.A. employee known as Michael Scheuer then both are bound.
The idea tht he can shirk his obligtions by chnging hs name is about as ridiculous as Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is"



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   
The Bush administration stepped in it big time, as Dubya would say, when they repeatedly scape-goated the CIA (over their own failures and misdeeds) and when they outted NOC Valerie Plame. You do not cross the company. You do not turn your own agents. Most people don't grasp the full ramifications of what her outting has meant. Also, Cheney and Rumsfeld, throughout their cherry-picking of data in the run-up to the war, constantly blew off solid analysis by the CIA's most seasoned veterans. Had the administration been listening to them, the invasion would not have occurred.

Presidents and their administrations have limited power as they are only in office for a short time. Real power lies within the beauracracies of State, Defense and Intelligence. A smart leader knows how to play ball with them. Our current leader has been so ill-served in this regard, he will pay the price. The CIA is in the process, I believe, of exacting their revenge from the shadows. And who can blame them? They are not responsible for the current morass we are in (Iraq, Afghanistan). This is why these books are coming out. And their will be more intreague to come. Be sure of it.

When someone in the government writes a book such as anonomous's, there is a vetting process. Once they give it the once-over and are confident nothing in it jeapardizes national security, they give the ok. In this case, you can be sure Anonomous has the blessing and backing of the organization. Otherwise, you would not be seeing it. Retribution is sweet.

Anonomous took an oath to defend this country against enemies both foreign AND domestic. Most people skim over the latter, thinking it unlikely or impossible that anyone in our government would be a traitor. Anonomous correctly sees traitors in our midst and he is calling them on it. Traitorous actions take many forms. Illegally invading and occupying Iraq has placed our nation and our citizens at grave risk, like never before. Our actions have inflamed the Islamic world to an untold degree, creating even more would-be terrorists. This is a national security threat of the highest order. War crimes have been committed, stemming from directives issued from the very top (Rumsfeld) of the chain of command. And on and on.

As someone who has taken an oath in the military, I can tell you, it is up to every servant who takes it, to disobey unlawful orders, come what may, and to uphold the rule of law and US constitution. That comes before bowing to the desires and demands of any administration.

It's about damn time the good soldiers started coming forward to set the record straight. Our Republic's very life may depend on it.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Regardless of what name he took the oath under if the writer known as anonymous is the same entity as the C.I.A. employee known as Michael Scheuer then both are bound.


Really??? Based on what??? Compliance to some 'Fantasy set of Laws' which People created and either choose to believe in or not believe in. It's nothing more than a Collective Fantasy of 'Words', not some Universal Truth of Reality.

For example, just because I take an Oath or make a promise or Swear on something that 'I do hereby promise that I am a Pickle.' Well, that doesn't make me a pickle now does it? I can 'Imagine' that it does but that's it. Why? Cause it's NOT REAL!!! It's a Fictional set of Rules that are based in 'Belief' not Reality. Then Enforced by others who choose to 'Believe in the Same Fantasy' and 'Play Along'.

Like it or not, THAT'S REALITY!!


The idea that he can shirk his obligations by changing HS name is about as ridiculous as Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is"


Well let's see.....Keeping in mind what is written above. The whole 'idea' of obligations, changing names, meanings of 'Words' and so on, 'IS' All Ridiculous!! Funny that Everyone puts so much 'FAITH' in such 'CONCEPTS' as if they're REAL THINGS. 'Belief' in Imaginary Things is Quite Interesting isn't it?

All that aside, and 'Still playing by the Rules', as I've already Stated. As one of the 'People' of the United States of America. This Person, Michael or Anonymous or whoever, already had an 'Obligation' To establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity as stated in the Constitution. So, if by writing a book to communicate to the other People of this Country and/or World that there is an Enemy, Foreign and/or Domestic, then he is doing Exactly what he should be doing.

Perhaps the problem is that everyone isn't using the same set of 'Imaginary Rules'. But that kind of thing often pops up when we 'Play Make Believe'!



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Yes, we swear allegience to the CONSTITUTION! Not to a PRESIDENT! People seem to forget that.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

If that still doesn't make sense and some 'Authority' or 'Law' is still required to show Justification for all this, although depressing as it may be, it can still be done as well. Read Carefully:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Read carefully or read the way you want it interpretted?

Reading carefully one would follow this diagram.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anonymous took an oath to defend this country against enemies both foreign AND domestic. Most people skim over the latter, thinking it unlikely or impossible that anyone in our government would be a traitor. Anonymous correctly sees traitors in our midst and he is calling them on it. Traitorous actions take many forms. Illegally invading and occupying Iraq has placed our nation and our citizens at grave risk, like never before. Our actions have inflamed the Islamic world to an untold degree, creating even more would-be terrorists. This is a national security threat of the highest order. War crimes have been committed, stemming from directives issued from the very top (Rumsfeld) of the chain of command. And on and on.

As someone who has taken an oath in the military, I can tell you, it is up to every servant who takes it, to disobey unlawful orders, come what may, and to uphold the rule of law and US constitution. That comes before bowing to the desires and demands of any administration.

It's about damn time the good soldiers started coming forward to set the record straight. Our Republic's very life may depend on it.


That was Pure Poetry, Kid!!!

There ya go folks. Now you've heard it from a 'Ranting Lunatic' like myself as well as an Actual Soldier like EastCoastKid. Before you decide to 'Rake someone over the coals for Breaking the Rules'. Figure out which 'Rules' to follow and why. Only Dictators need an Army of 'Yes Men' who never question anything.

Or take that next step and admit that the Rules we Create are All Fictional anyway. Taking this step all at once is a little rough for most though, so taking it in sections might suit some people better. Like always, it's up to you.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
so let me se f I understand your logic. If I kill a man as mwm1331 and then change my name to bob the odd I'm no longer a murderer?



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Read carefully or read the way you want it interpreted?

Reading carefully one would follow this diagram.


Well, that seems to be the 'Big Question' now isn't it. Personally, I could care how less how YOU read them. As I've tried explaining a couple times already, It's all just Make Believe Rules for an Imaginary Game anyway. So all your little Systems and 'Sentence Diagrams' make NO DIFFERENCE to me. 'We are all just Actors playing our parts'.

They're 'Your' rules, so read them any way you want. Just don't be surprised when others don't 'Play by Your Rules' that's all.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Read the book The CIA at War, by Ronald Schessler(?)
One of the few people to ever get access to top personnel, etc.
A great book that gives a frightening look at some of the things the CIA is involved in.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
so let me se f I understand your logic. If I kill a man as mwm1331 and then change my name to bob the odd I'm no longer a murderer?


Well, I guess that all depends on YOUR RULES doesn't it. It has nothing to do with MY LOGIC either. Regardless of what I say about YOUR NAME or how YOU CHANGE IT or how YOU DEFINE MURDER, makes NO DIFFERENCE does it.

I think you're 'Making Things' complicated for yourself. There is no logic or mystery behind it. It is just that simple 'REALLY'.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I hearya mOjOm.


There's a very good reason we follow the rules of law, of UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It's a wicked world out there, most especially in war. When laws are trounced the whole system corrupts. Criminal activity within the ranks and without proliferate. War crimes become a common occurrence. When our soldiers treat POW's contemptuously and cruelly, word definitely gets back to the street. It further enrages the enemy as well as giving his forces ammo to use against us. When our troops are taken prisoner afterwards, they are treated unmercifully because of retaliation. How can we expect otherwise?

I remember a time when we followed UCMJ. When we honored the rule of law and discipline. When the constitution came first. I remember when POW's weren't treated poorly, but with human respect. Most importantly, I remember when the average soldiers in the opposition force, at least recognized that if they fell into our hands, they would not be tortured and molested. It gave us credibility and to some measure, a begruded respect. Most of the regular Iraqi troops we faced off against did not have anything against our regular troops. We all doing the jobs we were called to do.

During the Gulf War, while we were in Iraq finishing up, we had tons of POW's that we kept down in Saudi Arabia near Riyadh. They were treated quite humanely and openly. They were fed an Islamic diet, allowed to pray uninterupted three times a day and that we know of, they were NOT ABUSED. I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that we kept it clean and as transparent as possible. The men and women I served with were outstanding in their performance.

Let me just add this, too. Many of our leaders fought one or more tours in Vietnam. When I joined, their experience in war (which was seared into them) was not that far behind them. Those guys learned some pretty hard lessons over there and they seemed to all agree on one thing: they would never again allow to happen to us what happened to them. They instilled in us respect for the law and for humanity. Before we deployed to Arabia, they made it clear to us that it was our duty to refuse to obey any order from ANYONE who would tell us to do something we knew to be illegal or immoral. I promised myself, having full faith and confidence that my leadership would back me up, that I would NEVER obey an unlawful order. No matter what price I'd pay. That's what it means to be a soldier.



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by mwm1331
so let me se f I understand your logic. If I kill a man as mwm1331 and then change my name to bob the odd I'm no longer a murderer?


Well, I guess that all depends on YOUR RULES doesn't it. It has nothing to do with MY LOGIC either. Regardless of what I say about YOUR NAME or how YOU CHANGE IT or how YOU DEFINE MURDER, makes NO DIFFERENCE does it.

I think you're 'Making Things' complicated for yourself. There is no logic or mystery behind it. It is just that simple 'REALLY'.



your wrong. What is, is, what isn't, isn't. Your definition of things is irrelevant, and whether or not you agree with the "rules" is as well. What is, is whether you choose to reconise it or not. To say that the rules in language are irrelevant is Idiotic at best, as an agreed upon structure is needed for language to accomplsh its purpose (communication) Changing the name of a thing does not change a thing, you can call a rose a lump of # but its still a rose.

[edit on 2-7-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
your wrong. What is, is, what isn't, isn't. Your definition of things is irrelevant, and whether or not you agree with the "rules" is as well. What is, is whether you choose to reconise it or not. To say that the rules in language are irrelevant is Idiotic at best, as an agreed upon structure is needed for language to accomplish its purpose (communication) Changing the name of a thing does not change a thing, you can call a rose a lump of # but its still a rose.
[edit on 2-7-2004 by mwm1331]


No, I am not wrong. You are not understanding what it is I'm saying. So once again let me try and explain it to you.

Changing the name of a 'thing' doesn't change a 'thing', you're correct, and I never said it did. That is because the 'Name' of a 'Thing' is NOT the 'Thing' itself. Therefor, changing and/or creating a Name for a Thing are both irrelevant as neither of them effect the Thing itself.

I can use a million different words and phrases to 'communicate' Tree to you, but no matter how many 'Words' I use it still isn't the actual 'Tree' itself is it. That is all I am saying. So IMO you can call a Rose whatever the hell you want cause regardless of whatever 'Name' you choose to give it, it is still not the actual flower itself.

So in reference to this Topic. Michael may be the persons 'Name' but it is not the Person. It is only a label. A set of 'symbols' and 'sounds' that relate to some idea of ideas that are used to 'represent' a Real Thing.

Does that make sense???

Whether or not I agree with the "rules", as in man made rules or laws, is not irrelevant. The reason is because I 'choose' to follow them or not as they are only Illusionary to begin with. Unlike something like the Law of Gravity, which I am forced to obey whether I agree with it or not.

Is that clear now???



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I dig what you're saying...but you're confusing the levels for him. Its like talking 4-Dimensional reality to someone living in the square world of 3-D.
In essence, "nothing is true, everything is perrmissable" not because an enlightened philosopher says so...but because All of our expressions as human beings are pointing to that. From quantum physics to post modern art to "cut-up" style writing to "reality" shows. Our evolution has accelerated us to a point where select individuals are able to use that momentum to redifine and question "reality" for themselves...and for all of us as well.

Nice huh??

Its like the few american indian tribes that had a libertarian philosophy. The individual was expected to leave the tribe, undergo trials and return with NEW information that could be intergrated back into the social fabric...transforming it.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r....
this american culture is SPECIFICALLY designed not to allow this re-intragration. Since it mixes its identity with the judeo-christian myth so closely, it has no choice. For them there was ONE revelation...and there can be ONLY one. Anything else is blasphemy and treated as such.
Congrats on your exploration of the inner/outer universe. Its not true unless it makes you laugh...those who are convinced that a "rose is always a rose" won't allow themselves to know that, at the moment.



There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
I dig what you're saying...but you're confusing the levels for him.


Or you might say I'm trying to reverse the 'confusion' back to the point where things are Self-Evident. But, yes, I hear what you're saying. I feel it's important to remind others of it now and then though. Especially when 'Obeying Authority' & 'Just doing what your told, without questioning' starts being spoken of as if it's some Great & True Law of Universal Order.


Since it mixes its identity with the judeo-Christian myth so closely, it has no choice. For them there was ONE revelation...and there can be ONLY one. Anything else is blasphemy and treated as such.


Interesting choice for an example. It starts making one think when you combine this idea along with the phrase:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Congrats on your exploration of the inner/outer universe. Its not true unless it makes you laugh...those who are convinced that a "rose is always a rose" won't allow themselves to know that, at the moment.



There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse


Now we know the reason Buddha & Dali Lama always had that goofy smile on their face, huh?!?!



posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Maybe placing the discussion into the Social Contract context would help.

Social Contracts thoery builds on the concept of natural rights (i.e. life liberty, pursuit of happiness) and forms the basis for a government's legitamcy and authority.

Simply put, government derives its legitimacy and authority from our willing consent. This is a contract between the governors and the governed. As opposed to kings, who derived their right to govern from God.

Through this contract, we give government the power to enforce nature's laws (our natural rights) and to punish those who break said laws.

However, if the state itself violates natural law, then the contract is null and void. And the government loses its legitimacy and authority.

Now then, we must ask ourselves: has the Bush administration violated our natural rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and if so, do we cancel the contract with it (the administration)?

The CIA officer has already made his answer public.

The rest of us will have to wait until the November election to do the same.

[edit on 3-7-2004 by BOHICA]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join