Former Spy With Agenda Operates a Private C.I.A.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by soficrow

 

The Under Government and NGOs? Thanks for this information. It's a never-ending fascinating passtime to watch these people operate, isn't it?

One of our own ATS members, Truth1000, has just published a book entitled:

"INCUBUS: The Untold Story of the Undergovernment"

that you may want to check out; he posted this in a thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by manta78

Thanks....I have both his books Fascinating reading on a fascinating topic for sure.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Ok. I look forward to ordering the one I mentioned soon.
What is the name of his other book?

reply to post by manta78


See U2u

Saw this in the NYT this morning.

reply to post by Bunken Drum

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by soficrow

 

Thats a really interesting article that brings up several issues. An important 1 is how is it possible for Clarridge to have been indicted for lying to Congress over the Iran-Contra scandal & needing to be pardoned by Bush Snr to get him off, but having to resign from the CIA, to be privately contracted to work for the US Govt in the same field?

I'm sure you've noticed that it happens all the time. Called a payoff.

...there are many private individuals that can plan logistics ahead, co-ordinate the activities of trained specialists, organise the timing, prepare for set-backs, think on their feet to respond to changing circumstances @/or goals & still bring the project in on time & budget. For eg, charities working in disaster zones, a long tour of huge rock concerts, big budget action films, etc. The skillset is the same as covert/overt military action/intel ops, its just that the specialists need different skills & equipment.

Excellent observation - and true. People who know how to get things done can transfer those skills fairly easily.

In the meantime, he has a track record of giving info to political pundits that may not be true, but if it is would be highly sensitive.

78yrs old? I'd say a heart attack is entirely plausible...

Ah yes, the old heart attack gambit (the Robert Ludlum maneuver). Either that or a rapidly progressive untreatable cancer, probably prostate (the Michael Crichton stratagem).

The first couple paragraphs make is sound as if he is simply trying bypass red tape and do some good. Then we get to the bottom of page 1 and this:

“Sometimes, unfortunately, things have to be changed in a rather ugly way,” said Mr. Clarridge, his New England accent becoming more pronounced the angrier he became. “We’ll intervene whenever we decide it’s in our national security interests to intervene.”

“Get used to it, world,” he said. “We’re not going to put up with nonsense.”

He is no different from the actual CIA and Pentagon. Running around doing whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences and wrongdoing. This guy is no hero; this becomes especially evident when we read that he was involved in Iran-Contra.

reply to post by soficrow

I'm sure you've noticed that it happens all the time. Called a payoff.

Oh totally, but it seems Mr. Obama's Pentagon dont want any loose cannons rolling around the deck pointing port side, eh? It'll be interesting to see if the official that hired Clarridge does get prosecuted or just quietly resigns. Hey, either way, he'll probably end up working for Xe or Wackenhut doing the exact same job but costing the US Govt a lot more!

I also wonder if the Bayh-Dole Act has anything to do with this. That the US Federal Govt cant do anything thats in competition with private enterprise? If so, I suppose any private company that tenders a proposal to do something the Govt does, so long as its not specifically illegal for anyone but the Govt to do, would have to be given the contract. Scary!

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
The first couple paragraphs make is sound as if he is simply trying bypass red tape and do some good. Then we get to the bottom of page 1 and this:

“Sometimes, unfortunately, things have to be changed in a rather ugly way,” said Mr. Clarridge, his New England accent becoming more pronounced the angrier he became. “We’ll intervene whenever we decide it’s in our national security interests to intervene.”

“Get used to it, world,” he said. “We’re not going to put up with nonsense.”

Wait 'til this guy gets bored and decides to run some operations "back home" if you know what I mean. . .
This man's outfit is a threat to our democracy.

reply to post by Bunken Drum




...I'm also wondering if Clarridge is being offered up as a scapegoat Re: military funding cuts.

I also wonder if the Bayh-Dole Act has anything to do with this. That the US Federal Govt cant do anything thats in competition with private enterprise? If so, I suppose any private company that tenders a proposal to do something the Govt does, so long as its not specifically illegal for anyone but the Govt to do, would have to be given the contract. Scary!

Now that is a scary thought! And a very interesting legal angle. ...Seems to contradict the role of the military in the Constitution though. Still, we could see some challenges.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

This guy is no hero; this becomes especially evident when we read that he was involved in Iran-Contra.

S& for actually reading the article.

Thanks for commenting.

reply to post by soficrow

..I'm also wondering if Clarridge is being offered up as a scapegoat Re: military funding cuts.

Ah now there's an angle I hadn't thought of. I suppose that when you're broke, something's got to give. I've had to move into a smaller place & sell my nice car. Of course I dont tell my clients this, or they'd be trying to get me to do more for less & the 1st thing to get hammered would be my expenses. Still, unlike the US Govt, I dont have a parent company, so I can work towards a new career. The US Govt cant. They must do as they're told & stay in Afghanistan until either Iran can be destabilised or invaded, or a political solution with China can be achieved that obviates the need to prevent a land link-up between those 2 countries. But every US$ spent, created out of nothing by the Fed, strengthens China's hand, so yeah, something has got to give.


Re: the constitution
Isn't it technically unconstitutional to have a standing army in the 1st place? Isn't that what the 2nd Amendment is all about: that y'all have the right to bear arms b/c y'all have a responsibility to be the militia that can repel foreign invasion or overthrow tyranical govt?
Hmmm... Seems like something went badly wrong about the time of the US Civil War & has since become so normal that just about any Tom, Dick & Harriet, with enough money, can make the constitution say whatever they want it to mean.

The CIA needs to be disbanded. They do not work for America. The work for the Corporate Elite.

reply to post by groingrinder


Also themselves though... It amazes me with the Government agencies in the US and here in Aus as well and how compartmentalised they are..

I dont know how they can work with each other, they will never share ''raw'' intel, only a conlcusion based on that raw information and thats at the best of times. Sometimes that wont even happen because no one knows what the other agency is doing.

9/11 is a good example ( depending on which theory you beleive ) but the mainstream theory about how the terrorists just got one up on all off us is a great example - if true.

The CIA knew about Al-Quida in the 80's or 90's they knew about Bin Laden. The FBI had some leads in the months leading up to it, other agencies probably had other information as well, but yet none of them talked to or communicated and collaborated....

To Many Secrets.... ( lol yes i got that from Sneakers - great movie )

Its all well and good until the owners of these organisations shave their head, start looking for a volcano to live in and start spending inordinate periods of time stroking cats..

Its even more alarming when the organisation rebrands to "VENOM".....

reply to post by Bunken Drum

Re: the constitution
Isn't it technically unconstitutional to have a standing army in the 1st place?

Seems so - having one looks like a technicality - it's okay for defense and (ongoing) war - riding on 'definitions.'

But if a standing army is unconstitutional, then surely paying for government-hired merc services is too...?

reply to post by groingrinder


The last person who tried to do this ended up dead.. You should ask John F Kennedy how things turned out when he decided to dismantle the CIA...

So far nothing that was listed in the articles is illegal...

He is a businessman in a legitimate field... despised yes, illegal no...

This is just a fallacy of rulers of the past... New younger members of the CIA must have graduated up... the new tactics smell of them... Mercanaries ect move into such a realm...

Before you jump to conclusions...

If the Agency still controls them it is a wise policy... It allows deniability... They are just citizens... They run services for foreign powers even better... you get better reports back in...

It is a win win for the agency...

If you view at as wrong.. which law did they violate... the CIA's investment arm might be the stretch but then they would have a point over new tools to fight in warfare... economic... it allows more room and is cheaper then the government is...

The most that might get them is death or international warcrimes... and well lets say its only death...

“Sometimes, unfortunately, things have to be changed in a rather ugly way,” said Mr. Clarridge, his New England accent becoming more pronounced the angrier he became. “We’ll intervene whenever we decide it’s in our national security interests to intervene.”

“Get used to it, world,” he said. “We’re not going to put up with nonsense.”

Has there ever been a more naked expression of our nation's foreign policy? When he speaks of 'nonsense' I guess he's talking about things like honest elections, a nation demanding to be sovereign, a country pursuing its own economic interests, etc.

“We’ll intervene whenever we decide it’s in our national security interests to intervene.” .... “We’re not going to put up with nonsense.”

When he says "we," do you think he's talking about the USA---or the CIA?