Skip to content or view screen version

Wikileaks’ CIA release -- say what?

Michael Collins | 01.09.2010 16:16 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Other Press | Sheffield | World

Wikileaks offered its first release since the controversial distribution of documents related to the United States effort in Afghanistan.

The current leak was posted to their web site on August 25. It is titled CIA Red Cell Memorandum on United States “exporting terrorism,” 2 Feb 2010.

The leak describes Red Cell as a CIA unit created by the director to develop “out-of-the-box” analysis offering “alternative viewpoints” on key intelligence issues.

This document doesn’t disappoint in being out-of-the-box.

"The CIA Red Cell memorandum" was released by the WikiLeaks
"The CIA Red Cell memorandum" was released by the WikiLeaks



Wikileaks offered its first release since the controversial distribution of documents related to the United States effort in Afghanistan.

The current leak was posted to their web site on August 25. It is titled CIA Red Cell Memorandum on United States “exporting terrorism,” 2 Feb 2010.

The leak describes Red Cell as a CIA unit created by the director to develop “out-of-the-box” analysis offering “alternative viewpoints” on key intelligence issues.

This document doesn’t disappoint in being out-of-the-box.


CIA perception management -- how the world sees the United States

CIA Red Cell starts out by stating, “This report examines the implications of what it would mean for the US to be seen increasingly as an incubator and exporter of terrorism.” Don’t hold your breath. There’s nothing there about the School of the Americas, the shock and awe invasion of Iraq and the carnage that entailed, or 300 dead Panamanians and United States soldiers as a result of the 1981 manhunt for General Manuel Noriega, a former US asset.

This document lists four examples of terrorism exported by citizens of the United States. Five Muslim Americans traveled to Pakistan, tried to join the Taliban, and were arrested. Red Cell notes that, “In 1994, Baruch Goldstein, an American Jewish doctor from New York, emigrated to Israel, joined the extremist group Kach, and killed 29 Palestinians during their prayers.” Also singled out are those Irish Americans who provided cash to the Irish Republican Army used to fund terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom.

Of most interest, convicted terrorist David Headley is cited as an example. A Pakistani American from Chicago, Headley recently pleaded guilty to providing “advanced surveillance” for the 2008 mega-terror attack on the Indian financial capitol, Mumbai.

The London Sunday Times pointed out that Headley had been “working for” the US Drug Enforcement Administration as part of a plea deal in 1997. The Times of India quoted unnamed Indian officials investigating the attacks as speculating that Headley “could have been a double agent for American agencies and Pakistan-based outfits.” US government officials deny any connection with Headley after a brief association with the DEA.

The analysis concludes “that Americans can be great assets in terrorist operations overseas.”

The perception that the US is an “incubator and exporter of terrorism” may create push back by other governments in the War on Terror. The report cautions that this may lead to formal inquiries concerning US citizens by foreign intelligence agencies who may “even request the rendition of US citizens.” Renditions involve the transfer of suspected terrorists from one state to another where torture is used to extract information.

The report warns that US failure to cooperate with these requests, “might lead some governments to consider secretly extracting US citizens suspected of foreign terrorism from US soil.”

All this might limit cooperation by US allies in anti-terror efforts.


The Red Cell Memorandum makes no sense

We are told that the perception of the US exporting terror would limit the cooperation of other nations in anti-terror efforts. If that’s true, then we would expect that the US would be less than cooperative with other nations that export terrorism, defined as citizens leaving their country and committing terrorist acts elsewhere.

Didn’t President George W. Bush kiss the Saudi King and hold his hand in a garden walk in 2005? Was that indiscreetly affectionate behavior deterred by the perception that the Saudis are an “exporter of terrorism” in the form of bin Laden and the Saudi citizens named as pulling off 9/11? Didn’t the current Justice Department support Saudi Arabia’s attempt to block a suit by 9/11 victims? Didn’t the US have up to 10,000 troops in Saudi Arabia from 1991 through 2003 at the very time that Saudi nationals were sponsoring schools throughout the Middle East that taught hatred of what is now called the homeland?

Other nations allow the US to violate their sovereignty to kidnap and torture their citizens as a result of asymmetrical power. The US can crush these nations militarily and financially. The US also offers financial inducements to the leaders of some nations involved. Therefore, they cooperate.

The report assumes that there’s some sort of rule book that allows other nations to behave toward the US as the US does toward them, if somehow US citizens leave the country and commit terrorist acts. In reality, there’s no referee or rule book, just a one-sided power equation in favor of US action. It’s all about power and dominance.

This leak doesn’t amount to much more than a peek at what is viewed as a “thought provoking alternative” view within the CIA. It misses the main point regarding the perception of the US throughout the world.


The real export of terror -- reality trumps perception

The United States operates what is commonly known as the School of Americas in Georgia. The school offers training in counterinsurgency, interrogation, and anti terror tactics and strategies. Thousands of Latin American military personnel have trained there over the years. Graduates include some of the worst dictators in that region, including those behind the deadly Operation Condor in the 1980s. Some of the worst atrocities in the region were committed by school graduates. The school’s level of responsibility for the behavior of graduates can’t be quantified in precise terms. However, for some graduates, the training failed to instill a respect for humanity and taught tactics that were employed against the citizens that the military leaders were to protect.

The US has held the leadership position in NATO since its inception in 1949. In 1990, the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning Operation Gladio and US involvement (European Parliament resolution on Gladio, Nov. 22, 1990, Clause G. 2). This involved paramilitary groups in NATO member nations and France. The groups were created by US and British intelligence after World War II. The original goal was to provide resistance in case of a takeover by the Soviet Union. Long after that was a viable concern, the groups continued by staging false-flag terror attacks against their own citizens. The incidents, which killed thousands, were committed by the Gladio groups and falsely attributed to Communists and Soviet sympathizers.

These are just two examples of the unrestrained and counter-productive use of power exported by successive US administrations. It’s no accident that this information is kept from US citizens. Sufficiently informed, the vast majority would find these programs offensive and counterproductive. But it’s no secret to the rest of the world. The concerns expressed in the Red Cell Memorandum are moot. It’s too late. The word is out.



* Michael Collins is a writer in the DC area who researches and comments on the corruptions of the new millennium. His articles focus on the financial manipulations of The Money Party, the abuse of power by government, and features on elections and election fraud. His articles can be found here:

 http://www.electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm

His website is called The Money Party:

 http://electionfraudnews.com/

Michael Collins
- Homepage: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6283.shtml

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

Political spinning of WikiLeaks release:Antiwar whistleblowing or warpropaganda?

01.09.2010 16:26

Since the release of classified US military papers by WikiLeaks, the material has been aggressively spun by various political factions. Meanwhile, virtually no attention has been devoted to investigating the source of this “leak,” or questioning the agenda behind it.

According to the Associated Press, a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity stated that the US government is not certain who “leaked” the 91,000 documents to the online whistle-blowing web site, other than suspicion again falling on Pfc. Bradley Manning.

Unlike a previous WikiLeaks exposing the murder of Iraqi civilians in a US airstrike, nobody has been apprehended, arrested or pressured by the Pentagon, the CIA or any US agency.

The White House has expressed no intense concern. It did not block the release or deny the material. Government officials, led by President Obama, have almost casually dismissed the exposé as nothing new.

The major mainstream newspapers that had full early access to the material -- The New York Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian -- also had ample time to frame and steer the discourse surrounding it, and (particularly in the case of the White House-friendly New York Times) conduct damage control.

Leak as antiwar fodder

The new material obviously adds to what is already known for years: US forces are mired in a dirty and horrific war, and committing atrocities and war crimes. Corruption is rampant, allies are despicable and untrustworthy, and there appears no end in sight.

For critics of US policy, the exposé reinforces their tired call for the war to end. However, the value of these particular papers (in terms of turning public opinion against the war) is questionable. This is not a potent high-level Pentagon Papers-type leak, and today’s society is a far cry from the 1970s.

Today’s acquiescent, ignorant and grossly manipulated mass populace -- one that fully embraces and supports the manufactured “war on terrorism” -- wholeheartedly supports any and all means to “prevent another 9/11.” A decade of Bush-Cheney criminality and mass murder failed to trigger any interest from a general US population that has been shocked into servitude, and further brain-addled by ubiquitous corporate right-wing media. Another day, another massacre.

Leak as imperial war propaganda

Where the WikiLeaks papers gain significance is in the detail revealed about the operations of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) and, more specifically, the manner in which leading government figures and the media have interpreted these items.

The ISI is being accused of “undercutting” US operations, “conspiring with’ and aiding the “powerfully resurgent” Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, aiding the killing of US forces, and organizing “networks of militants” across the region. An all-out propaganda attack against Pakistan led by the White House is underway.

Essentially, Pakistan is being branded as a terrorist state and a worthy target of military attack, along with Iran, which is also fingered by the WikiLeaks’ leaks for backing Taliban militants within Afghanistan.

Hamid Gul, former ISI chief and major regional player, accuses the US of orchestrating the exposé to shift attention away from the US government’s “own failings,” in order to “force Pakistan’s hand on policy in Afghanistan.”

According to Gul “they [the Americans] want to bash Pakistan, at this time to come up with this leak. I refuse to believe it is not on purpose.”

The Obama administration, eager for a pretext to escalate the Central Asia/Middle East (resource) war into Pakistan and Iran, has certainly found ammunition with the WikiLeaks exposé.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the “leak” occurred just prior to a new $33 billion/30,000 troop surge for Afghanistan was approved by the US House, and ahead of a possible military attack on Iran, which former CIA Director Michael Hayden says is “inexorable”.

The glaring omission

As accusations and attacks on Pakistan and its “terrorist ISI” rise in intensity, not one mainstream media report mentions the fact that the ISI is a virtual branch of the CIA, and one that operates on behalf of Anglo-American policy.

It is fact that the ISI, with full Anglo-American direction, has long been a driving force behind “Islamic militants” and “terrorists” throughout the world, including “Al-Qaeda.” The CIA and ISI have cooperatively fomented instability and tension throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, playing all sides for geostrategic gain. This “strategy of tension” is one of the hallmarks of the “war on terrorism.” The ISI was also directly involved with the false flag operation of 9/11.

According to Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization, “The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a ‘go-between’ in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.”

If the ISI is responsible for terrorism, the funding and aiding of “Islamic militants,” and the killing of US forces, logic dictates that its big brethren -- the CIA and officials in Washington -- are also guilty and involved.

The manner in which the ISI is under fire, while omitting any mention of the ISI’s guiding superiors in Washington, speaks to a deliberate anti-Pakistan/pro-US bias.

Whose political weapon?

Until the source of this WikiLeaks is revealed, along with the motive for the “leak,” all that remains is a political Rorschach test, open to interpretation.

The ultimate beneficiary is whatever faction controls the interpretation.
In the end, only Pakistan and Iran have been politically damaged, while the Obama administration has a new pretext to escalate and intensify its continuing resource war.

Larry Chin
- Homepage: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6171.shtml


Solidarity with WikiLeaks

01.09.2010 16:59

The repression of Wikileaks suggests they have the US State worried:

From Democracy Now: "The Obama administration is reportedly pressuring some of its top allies to crack down on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for releasing thousands of classified US military records on the Afghan war. According to the news website The Daily Beast, the US has asked Britain, Germany, Australia and other Western governments to open criminal investigations of Assange and severely restrict his international travel. The US is considering charges of its own against Assange, including violation of the Espionage Act. Assange, meanwhile, is claiming the Pentagon is refusing to assist him in his group’s attempt to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who could be endangered by the release of 15,000 additional military documents. Assange says neither the Pentagon nor human rights groups that have urged him to censor the names have been willing to help foot the bill for an exhaustive review. The Daily Beast also reports the US may review its relations with Iceland, where WikiLeaks is effectively based."

Fighters of the World Unite, all you have to lose is your Generals!


Support!

02.09.2010 12:03

Haha, Iceland have just passed a law making it a centre of press freedom. I guess Assange will end up there, if the rest of the world is so desperate to try and get at him. Hopefully this won't stop other people involved in Wikileaks from taking over the roles assigned or taken up by Assange.

Krop