CIA authors ‘secret key’ unlocks CIA redactions

so wait, we have to order the PHYSICAL book from his site to get the code to read the redacted info? how would that work? or is it a digital copy from his site? because the kindle version is only $12.99 but his from the site is $25.95 + $4.95 shipping and i dont want to wait months for a copy being in Australia.

anyone who has purchased from his site can you confirm its digital or physical copy? and how would the code work in a physical copy?

really keen to read this, might just pick up the kindle version anyway and hope someone on here posts the redacted material.

Not buying this story at all. Just some hype to sell his book.

If the CIA wanted him dead, he'd be dead. They wouldn't waste time with a slow toxin house that may or may not get the job done. That's just silly. I can think of a dozen methods allegedly employed by the CIA that would be faster, cheaper, and most of all assured.

The only one that has the code is sold on his site. The amazon copy is redacted. I understand that the code was placed at the end of the book with the redacted chapter staying in place. His publisher has the key and perhaps this is the only way a version could be published without the book being removed from shelves.

I don't usually buy hardbacks but this seems worth it Also, if you go to the links you will find much more.

Originally posted by Foundryman
Not buying this story at all. Just some hype to sell his book.

If the CIA wanted him dead, he'd be dead. They wouldn't waste time with a slow toxin house that may or may not get the job done. That's just silly. I can think of a dozen methods allegedly employed by the CIA that would be faster, cheaper, and most of all assured.

Right. So therefore, any information at all that comes out about the CIA being degenerate... that came from.. who again?

The people they wanted dead? Since when do the dead speak? And then by what means would you have learned that the CIA has the authority and the ability to ensure that anyone they wanted dead, it would definitely happen? Except that someone had blown the whistle? And then wouldn't they be in danger? And are they dead? Or did they speak? Has this man had a real chance to die yet? What if he dies tomorrow? THEN will you believe him?

Some thought is in order here. Chess isn't about thinking about the next move. Chess is about causing the opponent to make every move you want him to make.

Originally posted by Foundryman
Not buying this story at all. Just some hype to sell his book.

If the CIA wanted him dead, he'd be dead. They wouldn't waste time with a slow toxin house that may or may not get the job done.

So if you actually read the OP, keep in mind I'm not even asking you to read the linked article or even the book for that matter. You will see that at the time he was reassigned, they wanted to shut him up, intimidate him, get him back in line as opposed to killing him. Perhaps they went to far and when push comes to shove he simply shoved back.

I am sure now in hindsight killing him may have been the better idea. I'd wager they probably thought the same about Ray McGovern.

Again, I don't know, perhaps he is just trying to sell books, perhaps not. Isn't it worth an investisgation instead of dissmissing it out of hand? Just a thought....

Originally posted by Bassago
This does not surprise me at all. While we once may have had some use for the CIA, NSA and FBI that is no longer the case. Not because we don't have a need for intelligence but because these organizations have become so completely corrupted that any benefit they may once have provided is now overwhelmed by the evil they manifest.

Wish I could put 50 stars on this.

This is pretty much the description of the rest of fedgov. Too corrupt to be useful for anything, too damn big to squash. It's become a total waste of DNA.

Well, we know the CIA tried to kill him. Fantastic.

So why buy his version since we know that now? He's just pushing his book.

Most people want real change. Sometimes you can't change things, you just have to start over. I think that is true for the world as we know it.

Here is an excerpt from an article written by Shipp at Intelligence Summit

Reply to YodHeVauHe
Doesn't sound much like he's is a CIA operative to me.

The secrecy agreement was created to prevent legitimate leaks of classified information that could damage US security. Essentially it is a contract binding the employee to abide by US espionage laws. To use the agreement to silence witnesses or cover up negligence and unconstitutional activity - is a breach of that contract by the CIA.

The CIA will also use the State Secrets Privilege to shut down any inquiry into these secret operations and stop and seal any court cases brought against it; in violation of due process and the 1st amendment. I personally witnessed this when I was in the CIA.

With the current power held by the NSA, CIA and the FBI, our government has created a monster, which functions by its own rules and violates the constitutional balance of powers - making the president and the executive branch the equivalent of a monarchy.

We are living in a post-Constitutional era in the United States. The government has created an intelligence apparatus so big not even Congress knows the extent of its operations - and which violates the 1st and 4th amendments as a matter of standard procedure. We are in a Constitutional Crisis.

And to others who may question, his book on amazon came out in 2012, well before Snowden. He did not publish the version without redactions until Aug. 21, 2013.

Originally posted by Rosinitiate

Originally posted by Foundryman
Not buying this story at all. Just some hype to sell his book.

If the CIA wanted him dead, he'd be dead. They wouldn't waste time with a slow toxin house that may or may not get the job done.

So if you actually read the OP, keep in mind I'm not even asking you to read the linked article or even the book for that matter. You will see that at the time he was reassigned, they wanted to shut him up, intimidate him, get him back in line as opposed to killing him. Perhaps they went to far and when push comes to shove he simply shoved back.

I am sure now in hindsight killing him may have been the better idea. I'd wager they probably thought the same about Ray McGovern.

Again, I don't know, perhaps he is just trying to sell books, perhaps not. Isn't it worth an investisgation instead of dissmissing it out of hand? Just a thought....

Good OP....and very interesting responses. Killing a "known" and since he is "decorated" he would have been a known agent, to some degree, in outright ways is frowned upon, for this only gives rise to justified suspicions.

When an agent goes "rogue" or "breaks rank" and they are a known employee of said agency (IMHO, this is partly why he went to the FBI for some assisstance, perhaps not even expecting any, but just raising his red flag, so to speak), there are many ways to "deal" with this, from that agency's perspective. Usually, it's something along the lines of a purported psychotic break, due to living under too much stress that goes with the job. Sometimes it's a much worse slander campaign.

Neither of those things happened here, and then he writes book, the "approve," encoded at Chapter 26.... hmmmmm.

I'm usually of the opinion that going rogue these days, and leaks, are often preplanned events, for specific purposes. But maybe you are right: perhaps, they were trying to bring him "back line," or re-recruit him, mend fences, as it were.

Interesting story, to say the least. All things, I think, are possible....that he is leaking info and is still part of that organization and is being used to leak it for a specific purpose, thinking some kind of bait. here, or that he broke rank and they wanted him back, so they didn't go full on psycho or sicko slander, which they've often done in the past, as well. But you never trust a spy or a spy agency on the surface of things; there is always more involved than that, IMHO.

Good OP, nevertheless, and thanks for the information
Tetra50
ETA: I do think it pertinent to consider that there are "organizations" and then the individuals involved with them....in other words, surely people that work for such find times that their ethical and character considerations overwhelm their love of their job, etc. And perhaps, at times, when one goes rogue this is really that simple.....just a thought.

So just for the fact that the CIA felt the need to redact so much of the book doesn't give it more credibility?

Originally posted by Haxsaw
I'm in Australia I'm sure if it's happening in Jew(U).S.A

What exactly does that mean or am I not hip (or paranoid) enough to get it?

Originally posted by EverydayInVA
So just for the fact that the CIA felt the need to redact so much of the book doesn't give it more credibility?

Redacting anything just creates more interest and/or speculation....
2nd. IMHO, it doesn't mean anything at all. or could mean various things, all at the same time.

Originally posted by fenson76

Originally posted by Haxsaw
I'm in Australia I'm sure if it's happening in Jew(U).S.A

What exactly does that mean or am I not hip (or paranoid) enough to get it?

No, you're not understanding that comment is likely a testament to you being a better person than the sentiments expressed there.

In the spirt of ATS imagination and suspicion, I could suspect that since he was originally specialized in finding moles within the agency, this step could be to bring other dissenters out of the woodwork, who may want to be a whisleblower. They read/hear this story/book and contact him with info they want to get out to the public. A fly trap in a sense.

Kevin Shipp was one of the most widely experienced officers in the CIA, occupying positions as an Agent on the Protective Detail of the Director and Deputy Director of the CIA, a manager of ongoing operations, an internal Security Officer, a Counterintelligence investigator tasked to ferret moles out of the CIA, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a protective operations team leader and a polygraph examiner.

www.kevinmshipp.com...

Or he could be selling his book, or his efforts for truth could be legit, who knows anymore.

Originally posted by TheSpanishArcher
So they poisoned this guys house just so they could save face? They wouldn't listen to him so they tried to kill him and his family? Or am I missing something? I am extremely tired so maybe I misunderstood the article.

I know the government hates us proles, but to do this to one of their own seems to show that their paranoia has no boundaries. They also must not be the sharpest tools in the shed if the code was published right under their noses. And these are the people that are "protecting" us, huh? I've known for years the alphabet agencies were a joke, but come on, they've really been lax recently, what with this and Snowden getting the better of them.

He was causing embarrassment to them and they feared they might lose funding or the project canceled probably. Similar thing happened to me with a PhD course I took at a university.

Originally posted by TheSpanishArcher
So they poisoned this guys house just so they could save face? They wouldn't listen to him so they tried to kill him and his family? Or am I missing something? I am extremely tired so maybe I misunderstood the article.

I know the government hates us proles, but to do this to one of their own seems to show that their paranoia has no boundaries. They also must not be the sharpest tools in the shed if the code was published right under their noses. And these are the people that are "protecting" us, huh? I've known for years the alphabet agencies were a joke, but come on, they've really been lax recently, what with this and Snowden getting the better of them.

He was causing embarrassment to them and they feared they might lose funding or the project canceled probably. Similar thing happened to me with a PhD course I took at a university.

Originally posted by mr10k
That's scary. So it seems the CIA didn't want to risk anything about the leak being exposed. Maybe it was because they didn't want to risk having anyone know about it that could potentially spread it to enemy intelligence?

Or, because the mole was actually on the top running things. The 'vulnerability' might have been intentional.
Failure to "take care of the problem" could result in a radioactive afternoon tea with his real boss.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


I'm right there with ya buddy!

The Toxic house reminds me of the story of Brittany Murphy and her husband both dying at separate times in the same house. Nothing really came of it.
They both were supporters of a whistleblower but I don't remember the whole story, it's bound to be on here though.