It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


CIA: A Secret Society?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 10:43 PM
What do you guys think?

The Company where most employees are part-time, or 'on-call', and not working overtly for their employer.

Can a Company that keeps its employees a secret be considered a secret society?

Or is the CIA also just a Society with Secrets?

If it acts in secret, and we don't even learn what it pays its Agents for, how can we be sure it acts only within its mandate?

Are there any links or parallels between the CIA (or any intelligence 'gathering', like they don't act on it, agency) and Secret Societies, past or present?

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:12 PM
The CIA is a money operation that spend funds to gain information from people them they pool it all together to see if something might be benefical. They have no budget as other government agencies do for they can route money for any purpose they need.
Most so-called "Black Projects" get funds sent to them via CIA without traces that public can find.
The only secret they have is HOW TO COVER the expenses they used.
They should write the book 100 best ways to beat IRS.
Talk with scientist for the leading companies and they will tell you first hand, they have more important things to do then deal with them.

posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 11:15 PM
1. It's not a company.


where most employees are part-time, or 'on-call', and not working overtly for their employer.

lol, what are you talking about? The CIA is a regular government agency. Where do you get most employees are part time or on-call? It's a (for the most part) regular 8 hour job.
Not working for their employer? The CIA is under the executive branch. They probably report to their employer (the President) more than any other agency.

3. Yes it's not encouraged to tell people you work for the CIA, but that's for a good reason. But most emplyoees can tell their families and friends they work for the CIA. You have the misunderstanding that most who work there are "secret agents". The majority aren't.


Are there any links or parallels between the CIA (or any intelligence 'gathering', like they don't act on it, agency) and Secret Societies, past or present?

The vast majority of what the CIA does you will never know about. So how can you link something you don't know about with something else you don't know about?
There are no parallels either. The CIA is a government agency that's used to gather intelligence.
Secret societies are clubs.

btw - no, I don't work for the CIA

Their headquarters is a though, if you ever -which your probably won't- get a chance to visit. I think they offer tours

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:18 AM
Maybe if any one has information about the CIA's roots that they would like to share, we could open this discussion up.

For instance, the fore-runner to the CIA was the Office of Strategic Services. It is these days heralded for 'recruiting from America's best minds', spies that is.

They were, in fact, recruiting only from America's East Coast Establishment, rich white kids every one, future lawyers, financiers, economists, writers and scientists, working dual jobs.

After WWII, the OSS was considered too hard to control for peacetime, and was disbanded. However...

The fact that the CIA was founded using the OSS most established upper crust, well, that is explained as such: "our national objective was to "not lose" the Cold War--to somehow contain the Soviet Union and keep it from winning.

Thus the CIA's mission was to monitor, analyze, report and sometimes launch an operation whose purpose was to stop the Soviets from doing something.

President Reagan (V.P. Bush helped
)changed the U.S. objective from "not losing" the Cold War to winning it. And to help do that he named as director of the CIA William J. Donovan's OSS protégé, New York corporate attorney also named William J.--in this case, Casey. Bill Casey understood that you cannot play offense with an agency built for defense. His solution was not so much to change the CIA, but to rebuild the "OSS" within the CIA."

OK, hmmm... The OSS was too hard to control, but when they were old men they were tame enough to work for the gov again. Thats nice. Continued.

Who was brought in? More elite, uppercrust, family, you know, people you can trust.
"They were people with global Rolodexes no CIA official could match. Bill even brought a few of his aging OSS buddies on board, and the contrast between them and everyone else at the agency was a sight to behold. Of course they were visibly older, but they were almost a different species.

They knew their way around boardrooms throughout the world, and with help from the powerful people they talked to they made things happen that agency officials had insisted were impossible. They belonged to private clubs (*cough Societies cough*) no CIA official could afford to join, and all too often had never even heard of.

If they had an idea that needed immediate action and the agency was unable to fund it that afternoon, they simply wrote a check from their personal accounts."

I think we are seeing who really benefitted when they wrote those checks. Really, they did it for the good of the country (sold it on the cheap, that is!

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 03:28 AM
it wouldnt be a secret society. because everyone knows about it its a part of the government

posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 11:23 AM
My thoughts on this changed a lot when I had an ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) check done on me to do a job for the South Australian Police and was surprised to find out that I am not allowed to see my own ASIO file, the same is true with the CIA and MI-5.
These ARE secret societies, but in theory they are answerable one really unless you can get the single head of government to hear your case.
I haven't had any REAL problems with these groups...except that someone in ASIO "accidentally leaked" my file to a bunch of people (....guess who?)
On the bright side it was quite a non-event really, just a single *possible* misdemeanor.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:36 PM
akilles is exactly right, and impressive insight into the CIA's origins I might add. All of that is about half of the entrance exam!
Except the name Dulles should be chanted as a mantra....

Anyhoo, the OSS was founded from a group of frat boys, and the CIA was then built from the OSS, so one COULD say that the early CIA was a secret society, but since those beginnings, it's far too large an entity and far too bureaucratic these days to be one.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:50 PM
Anyways, don't secret societies have secret meeting places?

Correct me if Im wrong, havent seen mission impossible in a couple years

But, I think I recall me rembering that thier "secret" meeting place, club house, whatever you wanna call it is at Langley.

So I believe that would DQ it from being classified as a secret society

Oh yeah, they have a website too...what other secret societies have a website? That's a DQing factor aswell, having a website I mean.


posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 03:50 AM
Whats funny is, I don't think the CIA has linked to every website they have authored on their official site there.

There have been many a Disinfo site posted by Intelligence organizations. Why else do you think the Military had to start the development of the Internet?

Why do you think 80s underground culture was so closely monitored? So that effective disinfo could be prepared (!) BEFORE the grande unleashing of the electronic masterpiece of half-truths that we call the Internet.

posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 04:00 AM
CIA motto a quote out of context
The CIA has its motto inscribed in stone just inside the front door : “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

IMHO, what an oxymoron.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 03:01 AM
Its not an oxymoron, its reverse symbolism.

The dove represents peace, but it also has the duality of standing for the Goddess, and as few people realize:
"of course, all goddesses had aspects that were both evil and good"
Yet were not called evil!
"Hecate, for example, was the goddess of witches and their curses---but aside from causing them, she also protected those who prayed to her from them."

So the perfect example is the 'Virgin Mary', represented by the dove.

"The identification of Mary with Semiramus is perhaps most marked in the use of the dove as her symbol, for Semiramus was the dove goddess of Babylon and she was worshipped later as Juno, the Dove in Rome and Venus Urania, Dione, the "Heavenly Dove".
"The symbol of the Holy Spirit is, of course, the dove; thus the blasphemous identification of Semiramus as the Holy Spirit or third member of the trinity."

Hmmm, are they possibly worshipping the "veiled one", the destroyer aspect of the goddess, that destroys to create anew?

Of course, we must look to the roots of who founded the CIA, you could say OSS stood for Occult Secret Service.

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by akilles

Yes there is an obvious connection and CIA was founded by a secret society.
If you write in reverse SKULL AND BONES and place the word between www. and .com click enter and you will be surprised.

posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 02:03 AM

Some insight in their alleged operations

posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 01:36 PM
CIA is an executive branch in the hands of manipulators

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 01:28 AM
Certainly the CIA is a "secret society" and a branch of the world's leading terrorist organisation (the US military) despite defining itself as a civillian organisation. Most of the discussion on this subforum seems to be about Freemasonry; however the Freemasons are just one of many gangs of organised Capitalists which have religious type initiations; the US military on the other hand is probably human history's most genocidal and destructive military organisation with a long history of narcotics trafficking, overt and covert warfare, assassinations, military coups and false flag / black military operations, and thus a "leading" Capitalist gang of militants.

The Hidden History of CIA Torture: America's Road to Abu Ghraib
By Alfred W. McCoy

From ancient Rome's red-hot irons and lacerating hooks to medieval Europe's thumbscrews, rack, and wheel, for over 2,000 years anyone interrogated in a court of law could expect to suffer unspeakable tortures. For the last 200 years, humanist intellectuals from Voltaire to members of Amnesty International have led a sustained campaign against the horrors of state-sponsored cruelty, culminating in the United Nation's 1985 Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Clinton administration in 1994.

Then came 9/11. When the Twin Towers collapsed killing thousands, influential "pro-pain pundits" promptly repudiated those Enlightenment ideals and began publicly discussing whether torture might be an appropriate, even necessary weapon in George Bush's war on terror. The most persuasive among them, Harvard academic Alan M. Dershowitz, advocated giving courts the right to issue "torture warrants," ensuring that needed information could be prized from unwilling Arab subjects with steel needles.

Despite torture's appeal as a "lesser evil," a necessary expedient in dangerous times, those who favor it ignore its recent, problematic history in America. They also seem ignorant of a perverse pathology that allows the practice of torture, once begun, to spread uncontrollably in crisis situations, destroying the legitimacy of the perpetrator nation. As past perpetrators could have told today's pundits, torture plumbs the recesses of human consciousness, unleashing an unfathomable capacity for cruelty as well as seductive illusions of potency. Even as pundits and professors fantasized about "limited, surgical torture," the Bush administration, following the President's orders to "kick some ass," was testing and disproving their theories by secretly sanctioning brutal interrogation that spread quickly from use against a few "high target value" Al Qaeda suspects to scores of ordinary Afghans and then hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

As we learned from France's battle for Algiers in the 1950s, Argentina's dirty war in the 1970s, and Britain's Northern Ireland conflict in the 1970s, a nation that harbors torture in defiance of its democratic principles pays a terrible price. Its officials must spin an ever more complex web of lies that, in the end, weakens the bonds of trust that are the sine qua non of any modern society. Most surprisingly, our own pro-pain pundits seemed, in those heady early days of the war on terror, unaware of a fifty-year history of torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), nor were they aware that their enthusiastic proposals gave cover to those in the Bush Administration intent on reactivating a ruthless apparatus.

Torture's Perverse Pathology

In April 2004, the American public was stunned by televised photographs from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison showing hooded Iraqis stripped naked, posed in contorted positions, and visibly suffering humiliating abuse while U.S. soldiers stood by smiling. As the scandal grabbed headlines around the globe, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly assured Congress that the abuses were "perpetrated by a small number of U.S. military," whom New York Times columnist William Safire soon branded "creeps."

These photos, however, are snapshots not of simple brutality or even evidence of a breakdown in "military discipline." What they record are CIA torture techniques that have metastasized like an undetected cancer inside the U.S. intelligence community over the past half century. A survey of this history shows that the CIA was, in fact, the lead agency at Abu Ghraib, enlisting Army intelligence to support its mission. These photographs from Iraq also illustrate standard interrogation procedures inside the gulag of secret CIA prisons that have operated globally, on executive authority, since the start of the President's war on terror.

Looked at historically, the Abu Ghraib scandal is the product of a deeply contradictory U.S. policy toward torture since the start of the Cold War. At the UN and other international forums, Washington has long officially opposed torture and advocated a universal standard for human rights. Simultaneously, the CIA has propagated ingenious new torture techniques in contravention of these same international conventions, a number of which the U.S has ratified. In battling communism, the United States adopted some of its most objectionable practices -- subversion abroad, repression at home, and most significantly torture itself.

From 1950 to 1962, the CIA conducted massive, secret research into coercion and the malleability of human consciousness which, by the late fifties, was costing a billion dollars a year. Many Americans have heard about the most outlandish and least successful aspect of this research -- the testing of '___' on unsuspecting subjects. While these CIA drug experiments led nowhere and the testing of electric shock as a technique led only to lawsuits, research into sensory deprivation proved fruitful indeed. In fact, this research produced a new psychological rather than physical method of torture, perhaps best described as "no-touch" torture.

The Agency's discovery was a counterintuitive breakthrough, the first real revolution in this cruel science since the seventeenth century -- and thanks to recent revelations from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, we are now all too familiar with these methods, even if many Americans still have no idea of their history. Upon careful examination, those photographs of nude bodies expose the CIA's most basic torture techniques -- stress positions, sensory deprivation, and sexual humiliation.

For over 2,000 years, from ancient Athens through the Inquisition, interrogators found that the infliction of physical pain often produced heightened resistance or unreliable information -- the strong defied pain while the weak blurted out whatever was necessary to stop it. By contrast, the CIA's psychological torture paradigm used two new methods, sensory disorientation and "self-inflicted pain," both of which were aimed at causing victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and so to capitulate more readily to their torturers. A week after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, General Geoffrey Miller, U.S. prison commander in Iraq (and formerly in Guantanamo), offered an unwitting summary of this two-phase torture. "We will no longer, in any circumstances, hood any of the detainees," the general said. "We will no longer use stress positions in any of our interrogations. And we will no longer use sleep deprivation in any of our interrogations."

Under field conditions since the start of the Afghan War, Agency and allied interrogators have often added to their no-touch repertoire physical methods reminiscent of the Inquisition's trademark tortures -- strappado, question de l'eau, "crippling stork," and "masks of mockery." At the CIA's center near Kabul in 2002, for instance, American interrogators forced prisoners "to stand with their hands chained to the ceiling and their feet shackled," an effect similar to the strappado. Instead of the Inquisition's iron-framed "crippling stork" to contort the victim's body, CIA interrogators made their victims assume similar "stress positions" without any external mechanism, aiming again for the psychological effect of self-induced pain

Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, the CIA's "no touch" torture actually leaves deep, searing psychological scars on both victims and -- something seldom noted -- their interrogators. Victims often need long treatment to recover from a trauma many experts consider more crippling than physical pain. Perpetrators can suffer a dangerous expansion of ego, leading to escalating acts of cruelty and lasting emotional disorders. When applied in actual operations, the CIA's psychological procedures have frequently led to unimaginable cruelties, physical and sexual, by individual perpetrators whose improvisations are often horrific and only occasionally effective.

Just as interrogators are often seduced by a dark, empowering sense of dominance over victims, so their superiors, even at the highest level, can succumb to fantasies of torture as an all-powerful weapon. Our contemporary view of torture as aberrant and its perpetrators as abhorrent ignores both its pervasiveness as a Western practice for two millennia and its perverse appeal. Once torture begins, its perpetrators, plunging into uncharted recesses of consciousness, are often swept away by dark reveries, by frenzies of power and potency, mastery and control -- particularly in times of crisis. "When feelings of insecurity develop within those holding power," reads one CIA analysis of the Soviet state applicable to post-9/11 America, "they become increasingly suspicious and put great pressures on the secret police to obtain arrests and confessions. At such times police officials are inclined to condone anything which produces a speedy 'confession' and brutality may become widespread."

Enraptured by this illusory power, modern states that sanction torture usually allow it to spread uncontrollably. By 1967, just four years after compiling a torture manual for use against a few top Soviet targets, the CIA was operating forty interrogation centers in South Vietnam as part of its Phoenix Program that killed over 20,000 Viet Cong suspects. In the centers themselves, countless thousands were tortured for information that led to these assassinations. Similarly, just a few months after CIA interrogators first tortured top Al Qaeda suspects at Kabul in 2002, its agents were involved in the brutal interrogation of hundreds of Iraqi prisoners. As its most troubling legacy, the CIA's psychological method, with its legitimating scientific patina and its avoidance of obvious physical brutality, has provided a pretext for the preservation of torture as an acceptable practice within the U.S. intelligence community.

Once adopted, torture offers such a powerful illusion of efficient information extraction that its perpetrators, high and low, remain wedded to its use. They regularly refuse to recognize its limited utility and high political cost. At least twice during the Cold War, the CIA's torture training contributed to the destabilization of two key American allies, Iran's Shah and the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos. Yet even after their spectacular falls, the Agency remained blind to the way its torture training was destroying the allies it was designed to defend.

CIA Torture Research

The CIA's torture experimentation of the 1950s and early 1960s was codified in 1963 in a succinct, secret instructional booklet on torture -- the "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, which would become the basis for a new method of torture disseminated globally over the next three decades. These techniques were first spread through the U.S. Agency for International Development's Public Safety program to train police forces in Asia and Latin America as the front line of defense against communists and other revolutionaries. After an angry Congress abolished the Public Safety program in 1975, the CIA worked through U.S. Army Mobile Training Teams to instruct military interrogators, mainly in Central America.

At the Cold War's end, Washington resumed its advocacy of universal principles, denouncing regimes for torture, participating in the World Conference on Human Rights at Vienna in 1993 and, a year later, ratifying the UN Convention Against Torture. On the surface, the United States had resolved the tension between its anti-torture principles and its torture practices. Yet even when Congress finally ratified this UN convention it did so with intricately-constructed reservations that cleverly exempted the CIA's psychological torture method. While other covert agencies synonymous with Cold War repression such as Romania's Securitate, East Germany's Stasi, and the Soviet Union's KGB have disappeared, the CIA survives -- its archives sealed, its officers decorated, and its Cold War crimes forgotten. By failing to repudiate the Agency's propagation of torture, while adopting a UN convention that condemned its practice, the United States left this contradiction buried like a political land mine ready to detonate with such phenomenal force in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Memory and Forgetting

Today the American public has only a vague understanding of these CIA excesses and the scale of its massive mind-control project. Yet almost every adult American carries fragmentary memories of this past -- of '___' experiments, the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam, the murder of a kidnapped American police adviser in Montevideo who was teaching CIA techniques to the Uruguayan police, and of course the Abu Ghraib photographs. But few are able to fit these fragments together and so grasp the larger picture. There is, in sum, an ignorance, a studied avoidance of a deeply troubling topic, akin to that which shrouds this subject in post-authoritarian societies.

With the controversy over Abu Ghraib, incidents that once seemed but fragments should now be coming together to form a mosaic of a clandestine agency manipulating its government and deceiving its citizens to probe the cruel underside of human consciousness, and then propagating its discoveries throughout the Third World.

Strong democracies have difficulty dealing with torture. In the months following the release of the Abu Ghraib photos, the United States moved quickly through the same stages (as defined by author John Conroy) that the United Kingdom experienced after revelations of British army torture in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s -- first, minimizing the torture with euphemisms such as "interrogation in depth"; next, justifying it on grounds that it was necessary or effective; and finally, attempting to bury the issue by blaming "a few bad apples."

Indeed, since last April, the Bush administration and much of the media have studiously avoided the word "torture" and instead blamed our own bad apples, those seven Military Police. In July, the Army's Inspector General Paul T. Mikolashek delivered his report blaming 94 incidents of "abuse" on "an individual failure to uphold Army Values." Although the New York Times called his conclusions "comical," the general's views seem to resonate with an emerging conservative consensus. "Interrogation is not a Sunday-school class," said Republican Senator Trent Lott. "You don't get information that will save American lives by withholding pancakes." In June, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 35% of Americans felt torture was acceptable in some circumstances.

In August, Major General George R. Fay released his report on the role of Military Intelligence at Abu Ghraib. Its stunning revelations about the reasons for this torture were, however, obscured in opaque military prose. After interviewing 170 personnel and reviewing 9,000 documents, the general intimated that this abuse was the product of an interrogation policy shaped, in both design and application, by the CIA.

Significantly, General Fay blamed not the "seven bad apples," but the Abu Ghraib interrogation procedures themselves. Of the 44 verifiable incidents of abuse, one-third occurred during actual interrogation. Moreover, these "routine" interrogation procedures "contributed to an escalating 'de-humanization' of the detainees and set the stage for additional and severe abuses to occur."

After finding standard Army interrogation doctrine sound, General Fay was forced to confront a single, central, uncomfortable question: what was the source of the aberrant, "non-doctrinal" practices that led to torture during interrogation at Abu Ghraib? Scattered throughout his report are the dots, politely unconnected, that lead from the White House to the Iraqi prison cell block: President Bush gave his defense secretary broad powers over prisoners in November 2001; Secretary Rumsfeld authorized harsh "Counter-Resistance Techniques" for Afghanistan and Guantanamo in December 2002; hardened Military Intelligence units brought these methods to Iraq in July 2003; and General Ricardo Sanchez in Baghdad authorized these extreme measures for Abu Ghraib in September 2003.

In its short answer to this uncomfortable question, General Fay's report, when read closely, traced the source of these harsh "non-doctrinal methods" at Abu Ghraib to the CIA. He charged that a flouting of military procedures by CIA interrogators "eroded the necessity in the minds of soldiers and civilians for them to follow Army rules." Specifically, the Army "allowed CIA to house 'Ghost Detainees' who were unidentified and unaccounted for in Abu Ghraib," thus encouraging violations of "reporting requirements under the Geneva Conventions." Moreover, the interrogation of CIA detainees "occurred under different practices and procedures which were absent any DoD visibility, control, or oversight and created a perception that OGA [CIA] techniques and practices were suitable and authorized for DoD operations." With their exemption from military regulations, CIA interrogators moved about Abu Ghraib with a corrupting "mystique" and extreme methods that "fascinated" some Army interrogators. In sum, General Fay seems to say that the CIA has compromised the integrity and effectiveness of the U.S. military.

Had he gone further, General Fay might have mentioned that the 519th Military Intelligence, the Army unit that set interrogation guidelines for Abu Ghraib, had just come from Kabul where it worked closely with the CIA, learning torture techniques that left at least one Afghani prisoner dead. Had he gone further still, the general could have added that the sensory deprivation techniques, stress positions, and cultural shock of dogs and nudity that we saw in those photos from Abu Ghraib were plucked from the pages of past CIA torture manuals.

American Prestige

This is not, of course, the first American debate over torture in recent memory. From 1970 to 1988, the Congress tried unsuccessfully, in four major investigations, to expose elements of this CIA torture paradigm. But on each occasion the public showed little concern, and the practice, never fully acknowledged, persisted inside the intelligence community.

Now, in these photographs from Abu Ghraib, ordinary Americans have seen the reality and the results of interrogation techniques the CIA has propagated and practiced for nearly half a century. The American public can join the international community in repudiating a practice that, more than any other, represents a denial of democracy; or in its desperate search for security, the United States can continue its clandestine torture of terror suspects in the hope of gaining good intelligence without negative publicity.

In the likely event that Washington adopts the latter strategy, it will be a decision posited on two false assumptions: that torturers can be controlled and that news of their work can be contained. Once torture begins, its use seems to spread uncontrollably in a downward spiral of fear and empowerment. With the proliferation of digital imaging we can anticipate, in five or ten years, yet more chilling images and devastating blows to America's international standing. Next time, however, the American public's moral concern and Washington's apologies will ring even more hollowly, producing even greater damage to U.S. prestige.

Alfred W. McCoy is professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, an examination of the CIA's alliances with drug lords, and Closer Than Brothers, a study of the impact of the CIA's psychological torture method upon the Philippine military. He will publish a fuller version of this essay in The New England Journal of Public Policy (Volume 19, No. 2, 2004).

edit on 1-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: The text was not diabolical enough.

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:01 AM

Originally posted by noordmo
reply to post by akilles

Yes there is an obvious connection and CIA was founded by a secret society.
If you write in reverse SKULL AND BONES and place the word between www. and .com click enter and you will be surprised.

THAT is CREEEEPY, but, their job postings are interesting

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 05:38 AM
I wouldn't call them a secret society but there are rouge elements to the group i think everyone here understands that, this group handles there so called black op missions and such....

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:12 AM

Originally posted by King Seesar
I wouldn't call them a secret society but there are rouge elements to the group i think everyone here understands that, this group handles there so called black op missions and such....

The statement that there are "rogue" elements within in the CIA is rather like saying that there were rogue elements within the Nazis or that there are rogue elements within the Russian or Italian Mafia, or within the Bllods and the Crips. The CIA "is" the definition of a "rogue element," and like all terrorist organisations and organised crime syndicates, it is secretive by necessity. The CIA is no more likley to ever publish a itemised list of the tons of coc aine, heroin and other narcotics they have flooded America with than the Russian Mafia are likely to issue a list of their banks, arm's manufacturing companies and brothels, though everyone knows they own them,

"'In my 30—year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit.


Defrauding America: Encyclopedia of Secret Operations by the CIA, DEA and Other Covert Agencies

Rodney Stich



The CIA's role in drug trafficking into the United States has been the subject of many magazine and newspaper articles, books, testimony given to Congressional committees in closed-door hearings, and work-place conversation among CIA personnel. Movies and television documentaries have been made on the subject, and many books and articles have been written describing some particular phase of the operation. Yet, most Americans are oblivious to this serious misconduct or its far-flung implications. The DEA's drug trafficking has received little attention.
One of the first books linking the CIA to drug trafficking was Alfred McCoy's(301) The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia,(302) published in 1972, and his heavily documented 1991 update, The Politics of Heroin-CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade.(303) The author is a professor of Southeast Asian history at the University of Wisconsin, at Madison. Some of the books written about CIA drug trafficking were written by people who were part of the operation, including pilots.

Professor McCoy started investigating the drug trafficking in the 1950s, questioning people in all phases of the drug culture from the growers to the end users. He spent considerable time in Southeast Asia and throughout the world obtaining first-hand knowledge of the drug trade. He describes how CIA helicopters, supposedly fighting communists in Vietnam, were hauling drugs from the fields to distribution points, including drugs for the American GIs. He described the role of the Pepsi-Cola bottling plant in the drug trafficking, and how the U.S. media kept the lid on the mushrooming operation.

McCoy describes the pressure put upon the media by the CIA to halt his book. He describes the many people who testified in closed-door congressional hearings for the past twenty years, leaving no doubt that the CIA was involved and primarily responsible for the drug scourge in the United States.

McCoy described giving testimony in 1972 to congressional committees, including Senator William Proxmire, about the CIA role in the developing global narcotic trade. He describes how members of Congress enthusiastically accepted the CIA's denial of any role in drug trafficking, despite the overwhelming evidence of its existence.

Terry Reed, a CIA asset, and co-author John Cummings, wrote an excellent book in 1994 on drug trafficking and the CIA's role in it: Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA.(304) Reed, a former U.S. Air Force Intelligence Officer, a successful businessman specializing in advanced computer-controlled manufacturing, was recruited by the CIA to start up a CIA proprietary in Mexico. The business was to be a high technology trading and consulting firm, but developed into a CIA gun-running and drug operation.

Reed worked closely with key figures in the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency, including Oliver North and Felix Rodriguez, unaware of their involvement in a massive drug trafficking operation. Reed discovered that the CIA was misusing the company that he set up in Mexico as a CIA proprietary. In July 1987 he discovered the CIA was shipping large quantities of drugs through the company, and he wanted out. Fearing for the safety of his wife and three sons, and himself, Reed notified his CIA handlers that he was returning to Arkansas. The CIA saw him as a threat.

Using typical attorney tactics, the CIA, through the Justice Department and its control over state police agencies, in this case Governor Bill Clinton's Arkansas, charged the Reeds with engaging in drug trafficking, when in fact it was the CIA.

Working in unison with prosecutors and officials in the United States Department of Justice and with police agencies in Arkansas (while Bill Clinton was governor), sham charges were filed against Reed, claiming that he had fraudulently reported his plane as having been stolen. He was charged with mail fraud, an all-encompassing criminal statute. The prosecutors charged Reed's wife, Janis, with conspiracy, seeking to force Reed to plead guilty, at which time he would go to prison and charges would be dropped against her.

For three years the Reeds had to fight Justice Department attorneys and Governor Bill Clinton's police agencies and chief of security, Raymond Young. Clinton's state police officials engaged in a steady pattern of lies, forged documents, perjured testimony, seeking to put Terry and Janis Reed in prison, thereby silencing or discrediting their knowledge of CIA drug trafficking. Massed against the Reeds were the FBI, the CIA, Governor Bill Clinton's law enforcement agencies. and especially Clinton's close associate, Raymond Young. The perjurers had government-granted immunity for their lying under oath.

Reed describes how U.S. District Judge Frank Theis blocked their defenses, and dismissed evidence showing the sham nature of the charges as irrelevant.

In his book, Reed described the role played by George Bush and Bill Clinton in the drug trafficking. Reed describes the coverup and disinformation by Time magazine. (I also discovered the coverup (i.e., obstruction of justice) by Time and other magazines and newspapers.)

Another DEA whistleblower exposed the DEA and CIA role in America's drug crisis. A twenty-five-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Administration (and prior drug agencies), Michael Levine, authored a 1993 book(305) exposing the drug trafficking sanctioned by federal officials throughout the federal government. The former DEA agent wrote that the so-called war on drugs is the "biggest, whitest, and deadliest lie ever perpetrated on U.S. citizens by their government." He described how the CIA, the DEA, and other "intelligence" agencies, blocked investigations and prosecution of high-level drug traffickers. Levine described how the CIA was primarily responsible for the drug epidemic as seen from his perspective.

False charges were filed by DEA management against Levine when he persisted in reporting the drug trafficking, reminding me of what I went through as a federal investigator determined to expose the corruption that I found in the Federal Aviation Administration. In the FAA, when I reported the air safety corruption (as other inspectors had done) that played a major role in a series of brutal air disasters, and which exposed the criminality of United Airlines and FAA personnel, a series of petty retaliatory acts were taken against me. DEA management did the same to Levine when he persisted in reporting the drug trafficking by high-level drug traffickers, which exposed the CIA role in this activity.

Levine repeatedly discovered CIA links to the drug trafficking while he was a DEA agent, enlarging upon the evidence of drug trafficking that I had discovered during the past forty years. He discovered that the CIA was primarily responsible for the burgeoning drug activity from Central and South America into the United States, and that the biggest drug dealers are CIA assets. He described how federal judges and Justice Department prosecutors dramatically drop the amount of bail for high-level drug traffickers who are CIA assets and who have been accidentally charged, with the traffickers then fleeing the United States...

301) Professor, University of Wisconsin.
302) Harper & Row.
303) Lawrence Hill Books.
304) Authored by Terry Reed and John Curmnings.
305) The Big White Lie, by Michael Levine and Lauri Kavanau-Levine.

All 33 chapters of Rodney Stich's"Defrauding America: Encyclopedia of Secret Operations by the CIA, DEA and Other Covert Agencies can be read online at:


Keywords. CIA drugs coc aine heroin narcotics terrorism. Rodney Stich's"Defrauding America" free download.:

edit on 1-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by Lucifer777

If you haven't seen the movie the Good Shepard starring Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, Alec Baldwin it does a very good job at showing the beginings of the CIA and it captures the corrupt nature of the organization pretty well, i recommend you check it out.

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by King Seesar
reply to post by Lucifer777

If you haven't seen the movie the Good Shepard starring Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, Alec Baldwin it does a very good job at showing the beginings of the CIA and it captures the corrupt nature of the organization pretty well, i recommend you check it out.

Yes I have seen the film. It is quite interesting. The character played by Matt Damon is also portrayed as a Yale graduate and a member of Yale's infamous Skull and Bones fraternity, as are other CIA gang members. I think that most non Americans don't really understand the US frat house and sorority culture and that this leads to charges of "Satanism" from Christians, when they are really just rather childish societies which engage in Masonic style hazing rituals, BDSM style ritual humiliation and general drunken revelry; never the less such relationships do appear to continue on into the later life of many frat house members with annual gatherings and so forth (as depicted in the film); some frat houses being lifelong clubs for the children of economic elites of the kind of gangster narco-terrorist Capitalism and Neofascist (they have a history of supporting any Neofascist, anti-Communist dictator what will serve their economic interests) anti-Communism which the CIA typifies. Ultimately the CIA are just another group of organised gangster Capitalists and drugs dealers, apart from the fact that they seem to be "above the law" and can engage in terrorism, assassinations and narcotics trafficking with almost total impunity.


edit on 1-5-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in