ce399 | research archive

Sin Espíritu, Corazón y Mente Invertida (ce399 artwork)

Sin Espíritu, Corazón y Mente Inversa_ce399. 2009

No offense to horned creatures.

In 1966 LBJ Ordered FBI to Target Warren Commission Researchers

See Mae Brussell's Dialogue Conspiracy 243 for more information. Memo from LBJ ordering FBI to "get the Warren Commission researchers." Researchers became FBI COINTELPRO intelligence targets if they disagreed with Warren Commission findings. 

Related Archives: 

COINTELPRO

Homeland Security Includes "Alternative Media" in "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" (pdf file)

Related Articles: 

Obama Information Czar Outlined Plan for Government to Infiltrate Conspiracy Groups

Obama Staffer Wants Cognitive Infiltration of 911 Conspiracy Groups

MHCHAOS: How the CIA Got Away with Domestic Spying (SF Chronicle 1997)

How the CIA Got Away With Domestic Spying

The late Angus Mackenzie, a longtime affiliate of San Francisco's Center for Investigative Journalism (he died of brain cancer in 1994), spent more than 15 years researching "Secrets: The CIA's War at Home.'' It represents the best account yet of the CIA's continuing attempts to manipulate and suppress information on the basis of its own narrow definitions of national security.

Forbidden by the National Security Act of 1947 from operating within the United States, the CIA nevertheless launched a domestic spying program dubbed MHCHAOS aimed at the U.S. anti- war underground press of the 1960s and  1970s. The operation was international in scope and supposedly focused on whether anti-war publications were financed by foreign, communist sources. In fact, points out Mackenzie, MHCHAOS, like the FBI's COINTELPRO, was designed to gather information on American citizens deemed by these federal agencies to be potentially subversive.

Because MHCHAOS was patently illegal, CIA officers participating in it were required to sign secrecy agreements swearing never to divulge any information about the operation. To violate a secrecy agreement was to risk federal prosecution. Mackenzie argues that such secrecy contracts became a favorite government tool, used to muzzle disclosures by ex-Agency personnel about questionable or illegal CIA activities.

One of the several secrecy agreements that the Agency eventually required its personnel to sign stipulated that any articles, books or speeches they might write that deal with intelligence activities must be preapproved by the CIA. When challenged in court that this type of contract constituted censorship and violates First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and press, the CIA, says Mackenzie, argued that this was not  a censorship issue: "The United States was seeking neither to stop publication nor to censor. Rather, the United States was seeking 'specific performance' of a contract. This rather clever attempt to sidestep the obvious conflict between censorship and the First Amendment was persuasive to the judge.''

Another key ruling favoring the government arose out of  the publication in 1977 of former CIA officer Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval," criticizing Agency activities relating to the American withdrawal from Vietnam. Snepp refused to submit the manuscript to the CIA censors prior to publication. The Agency took Snepp to court and obtained a ruling requiring Snepp to pay all profits from the book to the government and submit future writings on intelligence for CIA prepublication review. Says Mackenzie: "This decision gave the CIA the authority to institutionalize its censorship program. It would provide the precedent for censorship to be extended to more than fifty other federal agencies.''

The chief remaining barrier to keeping details of CIA domestic espionage from the public was the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). So, in 1982, the Agency moved to create an exemption from the FOIA for counter-intelligence files, such as the records of MHCHAOS. Mackenzie details how this was accomplished with the surprising cooperation of American Civil Liberties Union executives Mark Lynch and Morton Halperin. The new FOIA exemption coincided with the issuance by the Rion Directive (NSDD 84), which was designed to prohibit federal employees from leaking classified information to the press. Mackenzie maintains that the chief result of NSDD 84 has been to discourage potential government whistle blowers.

In the end, Mackenzie suggests, the pattern of censorship that began with the CIA frantically trying to keep secret its illegal domestic spying operations has  spread to agencies of the federal government, creating a culture of bureaucratic secrecy that resembles the one generated by Great Britain's Official Secrets Act, but previously unknown in the United States, with its strong tradition of constitutionally protected free speech.

In Mackenzie, the United States lost prematurely one of its fiercest First Amendment defenders: "Almost a decade after the end of the Cold War,'' he writes in his conclusion, "espionage is not the issue, if it ever  really was. The issue is freedom .... The issue is  principle .... Until the citizens of this land aggressively defend their First Amendment rights of free speech, there is little hope that the march to censorship will be reversed. The survival of that cornerstone of the Bill of Rights is at stake.''

The San Francisco Chronicle
12 October 1997

Court rulings backing the agency set the stage for censorship, writes reporter

REVIEWED BY DANIEL L. WICK
SECRETS  The CIA's War at Home By Angus Mackenzie
University of California Press; 241 pages; $27.50

http://www.whale.to/b/cia99.html

Zine: COINTELPRO - The Danger We Face (pdf file) (in progess)

Port Militarization Resistance - Tacoma, WA 2007

Brendan Maslauskas Dunn said he met Mr. Towery in spring 2007, when Mr. Maslauskas Dunn became involved with Port Militarization Resistance, a group that has frequently tried to disrupt military shipments in Olympia, Tacoma and other ports nearby. Mr. Maslauskas Dunn, who was also active in at least one other group, Students for a Democratic Society, said Mr. Towery had identified himself as John Jacob, using his middle name as his last. He said he worked as a civilian at Fort Lewis doing computer support, Mr. Maslauskas Dunn said.

Mr. Towery, he said, frequently attended protests but had not been among those who agreed in advance that they would be willing to be arrested. He said Mr. Towery had often worked as a “watcher” who tracked law enforcement at the protests.

...

Yet he and Mr. Maslauskas Dunn, who said he worked as a janitor at a lumber mill in Shelton, Wash., said Mr. Towery’s identity was inadvertently discovered after a public records request made with the City of Olympia. The request yielded an e-mail message Mr. Towery had sent to another person with a military address relating to the protesters’ activities.

That led Mr. Hendricks and other group members to try to determine who Mr. Towery was. After they learned it was the man they had known as Mr. Jacob, they discussed it at City Council meeting in Olympia last week and posted the information on a Web site.

Army Looking Into Monitoring of Protest Groups

--

Anti-war activists in Olympia, Wash., have exposed Army spying and infiltration of their groups, as well as intelligence gathering by the Air Force, the federal Capitol Police and the Coast Guard. The infiltration appears to be in direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act preventing U.S. military deployment for domestic law enforcement and may strengthen congressional demands for a full-scale investigation of U.S. intelligence activities, like the Church Committee hearings of the 1970s.

Obama's Military is Spying on U.S. Peace Groups

--

Download COINTELPRO The Danger We Face (pdf file)

via:

ZineLibrary.info

...post(s) in progress...

GTMO Detainees Subjected to "Invasion of Space by Female" and "Dance Instruction" (pdf file)

 
Stalags - Holocaust and Pornography in Israel
http://www.siff.net/festival/film/detail.aspx?id=27259&FID=64

Declaration of Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Esq., Lawyer for Mohammed al Qahtani

The U.S. military transferred Mohammed al Qahtani to Guantánamo in January 2002. At some point in early September 2002, military intelligence personnel at Guantánamo began planning a new, more aggressive interrogation regime for Mr. al Qahtani. Major General Michael Dunlavey, the Commander of the Guantánamo detention center, sent a request up the chain of command on October 11, 2002 for approval for an interrogation plan for Mr. al Qahtani that included 19 techniques outside the traditional guidelines for military interrogations.

...

The interrogation log explicitly documents several instances where Mohammad al Qahtani is subjected to sexual humiliation techniques:

1. There are at least ten separate instances when the interrogation log reports that interrogators used a technique labeled “invasion of space by a female” or that Mr. al Qahtani is repulsed, angered or otherwise bothered by a female interrogator invading his personal space. The details of what this involved are generally lacking.6 “Invasion of Space by a Female” is used to describe a number of tactics, from a female interrogator straddling Mr. al Qahtani and molesting him while other military guards pin his body to the floor against his will to a female interrogator rubbing his neck and hair, often until Mr. al Qahtani resists with force and is subdued by military guards.

2. There are documented instances of forced nudity7 and also

3. “Dance instruction.”
a. In one incident, a mask was placed on Mr. al Qahtani and he was forced to undergo “dance instruction” with a male interrogator.8
b. In another incident, he was forced to wear a towel “like a burqa” and undergo “dance instruction” with a male interrogator.9

4. The interrogators made sexual insults and sexually offensive comments about Mr. al Qahtani and about his female family members, specifically his mother and sisters...10

5. Mr. al Qahtani was forced to either wear11 or to look at and study12 pornographic pictures. Interrogators required him to memorize details of the pornographic pictures and answer questions as a means to “test” his willingness to cooperate and to end other abusive interrogation practices. In addition to explicit sexual and religious humiliation, other aspects of Mr. al Qahtani’s treatment and detention were also morally humiliating and a denial of his human dignity. This included forcing him to urinate in front of U.S. personnel in either a bottle or in his pants while in restraints13 and then subsequently denying him the opportunity to clean himself. Military authorities also deprived him of privacy in his living conditions, specifically during showers when both female and male personnel were present.14 On at least one occasion during an interrogation, he was also stripped and forcibly given an enema while military police restrained him in the presence of multiple U.S. personnel. He was also subjected to the following treatment: “On 20 Dec 02, an interrogator tied a leash to the subject of the first Special Interrogation Plan’s chains, led him around the room, and forced him to perform a series of dog tricks.”15

--

Footnotes:

6 (1) 12/04/02 at 1800 “The detainee was bothered by the presence and touch of a female.”; (2) 12/05/02 at
1800 “Detainee became irritated with the female invading his personal space.”; (3) 12/06/02 at 1930 “The
approaches employed [included] Invasion of Space by a Female.”; (4) 12/09/02 at 2340 “Detainee was
repulsed by the female invasion of his personal space.”; (5) 12/10/02 at 1830 “Detainee became very
annoyed with the female invading his personal space.”; (6a) 12/12/02 at 1830 “SGT L started “invasion of
personal space” approach.”; (6b) 12/12/02 at 2312 “The detainee is still annoyed with the female invasion
of space.”; (7) 12/19/02 at 2320 “He attempts to resist female contact.”; (8) 12/21/02 at 2223 “He was laid
out on the floor so I straddled him without putting my weight on him.”; (9) 12/23/02 at 2245 “Female
interrogator used invasion of personal space and detainee cried out to Allah several times.”; (10) 12/25/02
at 1929 “Detainee spoke in English when the female interrogator invaded his personal space.”
7 See, e.g., 12/20/02 at 2200 “The detainee was stripped searched. Initially he was attempting to resist the
guards. After approximately five minutes of nudity the detainee ceased to resist. He would only stare at the
wall with GREAT focus. His eyes were squinted and stuck on one point on the wall directly in front of him.
He later stated that he knew there was nothing he could do with so many guards around him, so why should
he resist. He stated that he did not like the females viewing his naked body while being searched and if felt
he could have done something about it then he would have.”
8 12/12/03 at 1115 “In order to escalate the detainee’s emotions, a mask was made from an MRE box with a
smiley face on it and placed on the detainee’s head for a few moments. A latex glove was inflated and
labeled the “sissy slap” glove. This glove was touched to the detainee’s face periodically after explaining
the terminology to him. The mask was placed back on the detainee’s head. While wearing the mask, the
team began dance instruction with the detainee. The detainee became agitated and began shouting.”
9 12/20/02 at 1300 “A towel was placed on the detainee’s head like a burka with his face exposed and the
interrogator proceeded to give the detainee dance lessons. The detainee became agitated and tried to kick an
MP. No retaliation was used for the kick and the dance lesson continued.”
10 12/17/02 at 2100 “Detainee appeared to have been disturbed by the word homosexual. He did not appear
to appreciate being called a homosexual. He denies being a homosexual. He also appeared to be very
annoyed by the use of his mother and sister as examples of prostitutes and whores.”
11 (1) 12/19/02 at 0200“While walking out, detainee pulled a picture of a model off (it had been fashioned
into a sign to hang around his neck)…”; (2) 12/23/02 at 0001 “Upon entering booth, lead changed white
noise music and hung pictures of swimsuit models around his neck. Detainee was left in booth listening to
white noise.”; (3) 12/24/02 at 0001 “Control entered booth, changed music playing, and hung binder of
fitness models around detainee’s neck.”; (4) 12/26/02 at 0001 “Detainee was eating his food (given by the
previous team). Lead walked into booth turned on white noise and put picture binder of swimsuit models
over detainees neck.”12 (1) 12/17/02 at 2200 “He appeared disgusted by the photos of UBL and a variety of
sexy females.
Detainee would avoid looking at all of the photos shown to him.”; (2) 12/19/02 at 0300 “Interrogators had
detainee look at pictures of women in bikinis and identify if the women were the same or different.
Detainee refused to look at girls and began struggling. A few drops of water were sprinkled on his head to
gain compliance.”; (3) 12/20/02 at 0001 “Detainee listened to white noise while interrogators added photos
of fitness models to a binder. Once completed, the interrogators began showing the photos and asking the
detainee detailed questions about the photos.”; (4) 12/21/02 at 0001 “New interrogation shift enters the
booth and begins “attention to detail” approach. Detainee looks at photos of fitness models and answers
questions about the photos.”; (5) 12/22/02 at 0030 “Lead began the “attention to detail” theme with the
fitness model photos. Detainee refused to look at photos claiming it was against his religion. Lead poured a
24 oz bottle of water over detainee’s head. Detainee then began to look at photos.”; (6) 12/23/02 “The
“attention to detail” approach began. Lead pulled pictures of swimsuit models off detainee and told him the
test of his ability to answer questions would begin. Detainee refused to answer and finally stated that he
would after lead poured water over detainees head and was told he would be subjected to this treatment day
after day.”; (7) 12/24/02 at 0200 “Control entered the booth and began the “attention to detail” lesson for
the night. The detainee still would not accurately answer questions about the fitness models and control
stated that the lesson would continue the next day.”; (8) 12/26/02 at 0030 “Lead entered the booth and
began attention to detail approach. Detainee missed 3 of 10 questions. He has learned to provide more
details and provides enough information to substantiate his answers.”; (9) 12/27/02 at 0100 “Detainee was
taken to bathroom and walked 10 minutes. The “attention to detail” theme was run with the fitness model
photos.”
13 “Detainee again said he has to go to bathroom. SGT R said he can go in the bottle. Detainee said he
wanted to go to the bathroom because it’s more comfortable. SGT R said “You’ve ruined all trust, you can
either go in the bottle or in your pants.” Detainee goes in his pants.” (11/25/2002 at 1000).
14 12/21/02 at 1630 “Detainee given shower, brushed teeth, and given new uniform. The detainee was very
shy and asked several times to cover himself with his trousers or a towel while in the shower.”
15 Schmidt Report. This is documented in the interrogation log as follows: “Told detainee that a dog is held
in higher esteem because dogs know right from wrong and know to protect innocent people from bad
people. Began teaching the detainee lessons such as stay, come, and bark to elevate his social status up to
that of a dog. Detainee became very agitated.” Then: “Dog tricks continued and detainee stated he should
be treated like a man. Detainee was told he would have to learn who to defend and who to attack.
Interrogator showed photos of 9-11 victims and told detainee he should bark happy for these people.
Interrogator also showed photos of Al Qaida terrorists and told detainee he should growl at these
people.” (12/20/02 at 1115, 1300)

Download Doc14_-_ANG_Declaration_of_Gitanjalifr (pdf file)

Related Article(s):

Taxi to the Dark Side