Spooks, Misdirection and Wikileaks

AGENTS PROVOCATEURS – LONDON STUDENT DEMO

In London, 24 November 2010, ‘students’ protest against increased tuition fees.

The police planted a rusty police van in front of some of the students.

The police then departed.

“This ‘police van’ was an obvious plant.

“It had no license plates, no riot guard, had police stickers covering up rust, had a ‘police aware’ sticker above the window and no tax disc.

“No one has any footage of the police leaving the van to run from the crowds.

“This was an obvious set up, to coax the crowds into violence whilst the police ‘kettled’ them for up to 8 hours. But, boy, did it make for a photo opportunity.” (van ransacked during student protest.)

“Its always the same agent provocateurs that are undoubtedly there to undermine the valid voices of concern… agents all dressed in black garb with veils.

“How convenient the agent provocateurs wait for team b, the photo journalists, to get into position before they kick the window in.

“Again another coincidental moment where the CCTV operators fail to locate these agents infiltration and evasion.” (Students riot in London over fee increase Immigration Matters)

ASSANGE’S WIKILEAKS IS FAKE


wikileaks_is_CIA left a comment on the post “GENERAL SAYS WIKILEAKS IS CIA AND MOSSAD“:

This is directly from the Wikipedia November 2007, since erased:

“There have been many allegations that Wikileaks is a CIA front (eg. by cryptome)…

Arguments have centered around the location of Wikileaks-related matters and the source of its funding…

National Security Agency HQ Maryland.

“The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland.

“Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a ‘Va Reston.’

CIA building in Reston

“Twenty miles down the road from Adelphi is Reston, Virginia, home to iDefense labs, whose Web site says it is ‘a comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments.’

“The DC telephone number is also on the same telephone exchange as the newly created (2006) Iraq Study Group and the Afghanistan embassy of Washington.”

Website for this image

At http://tinfoilpalace.eamped.com/ we read the following posts on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: Genuine Rebel or the Next Fake …

A. Assange fits all the specifications of a phony rebel, dished up to the public so that we eventually accept the silencing of whistleblowers and the closure of truth-related websites, all in the name of national security.

A few notes of my observations:

1) If Assange was truly rogue, the mainstream media would simply black him out.

2) Assange accepts the official version of the events of 9/11. Red flag.

3) The finances of WikiLeaks have been described as “opaque.”

Website for this image

4) The overly-emphasized “CIA is after Assange” story in the media rings false.

The CIA does not advertise its own agendas and missions, and the media rarely intrudes on their discretion. But here we have something like Wile E Coyote and the Roadrunner. What’s wrong with this picture?

5) The recent (last week) NYT profile of Assange was originally bylined by Eric Schmitt, then the names were changed.

Assange has used Schmitt in the past to communicate.

Schmitt is a senior writer on terrorism and national security for the NYT, and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations!

Red and Black – Satanic.

6) Assange dresses the part: black suit, red tie. C’mon.

7) The WikiLeaks document release reminds many of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Remember, Ellsberg worked for Internal Security Affairs.

He was a spook.

Ellsberg himself has recently come out to say he thinks the CIA may be targeting Assange. Oh, please.

8) The information that has come to light in the massive document release is not particularly groundbreaking, and as such, fits the description of a “limited hang-out.”

The timing, too, scarcely a week before elections, is worth noting.

(I tried three times to post a one-paragraph comment on the NYT Assange profile, suggesting WikiLeaks was disinfo. The moderators turned it down twice, as the comments thread ballooned from 106 into the 400s, with everyone pro and con Assange but swallowing him whole as the real thing. After a direct appeal to the mods on my third attempt, they posted it shortly before locking the thread.)Netanyahu says: “Israel has not been damaged at all by the WikiLeaks publications. On the contrary, the documents showed support in many quarters for Israel’s assessments, especially on Iran.” Website for this image http://incogman.net/

B. He’s as dirty as a they come.

I’ll say it again: 15,000 more dead in Iraq than the U.S. admitted?

Try close to ONE MILLION, per the Lancet several years back.

Do I trust the Lancet or some CIA plant? Well, I don’t trust the Lancet, either; but, I’d trust them over this yackdoodle any day of the week.

C. Well, well, well…….

Wikileaks Proves WMDs in Iraq

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/wikileaks_proves_wmd_found_in.html

It gets really boring after awhile, doesn’t it?

D. Funny how Assange and Ellsberg gave a press conference last Saturday at a hotel located “a stone’s throw” from MI6, where yesterday spy chief Sir John Sawyers gave the first public speech in MI6’s 101-year history, defending secrecy in the war against terror.

“Secrecy is not a dirty word,” he said. “Secrecy is not there as a cover-up. Secrecy plays a crucial part in keeping Britain safe and secure.”

Both press conferences were written up in the NYT by John F. Burns.

It’s always interesting to learn a little about the guys who write these stories, right?

Burns studied Russian at Harvard, Chinese at Cambridge, and later Islamic history at Cambridge. He served as bureau chief in Moscow 1981-84, and is currently London bureau chief. He is married to a woman who is currently the NYT Baghdad bureau chief.

Foxes watching the henhouse, if you ask me.

E. For a wanted man he seems able to show up in public with ease.

~~

aangirfan: ASSANGE AND BRAINWASHING
aangirfan: JULIAN ASSANGE PROTECTED BY UK AND MOSSAD?
aangirfan: WIKILEAKS ON DUTROUX
aangirfan: WIKILEAKS WORKS FOR THE CIA AND MOSSAD?
aangirfan: WIKILEAKS TAKES PRO-ISRAEL STANCE?
aangirfan: GENERAL SAYS WIKILEAKS IS CIA AND MOSSAD

Advertisements

Nixon Administration Advocated Use of Death Squads in Uruguay, New Documents Indicate

The U.S. Embassy in Montevideo after its inauguration in 1969.

NEW YORK — Forty years after U.S. AID official Dan Mitrione was kidnapped and executed by Uruguayan guerillas, nine declassified State Department documents prove that high-level officials in the Nixon Administration advocated the use of death threats against Uruguayan guerrillas, political dissidents, and their families.

The Washington-based National Security Archive released the documents last Wednesday on the anniversary of Mitrione’s August 10, 1970 death, when the former U.S. AID official’s body was found shot at close range after ten days in captivity. Mitrione’s death escalated the Uruguayan government’s campaign against the MLN-Tupamaros and other leftist guerilla organizations as well as students, union leaders, and political opposition, eventually leading to the country’s 1973 civil-military coup and twelve years of dictatorship.

According to Carlos Osorio, director of the National Security Archive’s Southern Cone project, “The documents reveal the U.S. went to the edge of ethics in an effort to save Mitrione—an aspect of the case that remained hidden in secret documents for years.”

Mitrione, a former police officer, arrived in Uruguay in 1969 to provide logistical and technical support to the Uruguayan police as director of the U.S Agency for International Development’s Office of Public Safety. Suspecting Mitrione of training security forces to torture detainees during the government’s aggressive counter-insurgency campaign, the Tupamaros kidnapped him on July 31, 1970, and demanded the release of 150 political prisoners in return for his life — a demand that was immediately rebuffed by then-president Jorge Pacheco. Mitrione was found dead ten days later.

The written communications between former U.S. Secretary of State William Rodgers and former U.S. Ambassador Charles Adair are the earliest recorded acknowledgment of death squads in Uruguay by U.S. government officials, although the National Security Archive says more research is needed to determine the full extent of the U.S. government’s involvement in Uruguay’s state security operations prior to the dictatorship.

One of the nine cables shows that while the U.S. was under pressure to save Mitrione after the Tupamaros set a deadline to execute him, former U.S. Secretary of State William Rodgers wrote that he “assumed that the Government of Uruguay has considered use of threat to kill (Tupamaros leader Raúl) Sendic and other key MLN prisoners if Mitrione is killed.” According to the August 9 cable, Rodgers told then-Ambassador Charles Adair that “If this has not been considered, you should raise it with GOU [Government of Uruguay] at once.”

Later that day, Adair cabled back to Secretary Rodgers with the Uruguayan Foreign Minister’s reply that “his type of government did not permit such action.” However, Adair added that “he [the Foreign Minister] understood that through indirect means, a threat was made to these prisoners that members of the ‘Escuadrón de Muerte’ (Death Squad) would take action against the prisoners’ relatives if Mitrione were killed.”

“The U.S. documents are irrefutable proof that the death squads were a policy of the Uruguayan government, and will serve as key evidence in the death squads cases open now in Uruguay’s courts,” said Clara Aldrighi, a professor at Uruguay’s Universidad de la Republica who collaborated with the National Security Archive on its two-year research project. “It is a shame that the U.S. documents are writing Uruguayan history. There should be declassification in Uruguay as well,” she said.

Nine declassified State Department cables relating to the Mitrione case can be seen in their entirety on the National Security Archive website. According to Amnesty International, at least 134 Uruguayans were disappeared and thousands detained and tortured in the period between 1973 and 1985.

Image: U.S. Embassy Montevideo @ Flickr.

American Corporations, Paramilitary Death Squads, Class Warfare and FARC

Ex-president of Colombia and visiting scholar at Georgetown University, Álvaro Uribe Vélez. 

WASHINGTON — On Nov. 3, as ex-president of Colombia Álvaro Uribe left a class he teaches at Georgetown University as a visiting scholar, a second-year law student named Charity Ryerson hid behind the corner of the Inter-Cultural Center, waiting for a student perched on a hill in front of her to signal that Uribe was about to pass.

Gliding through a hole in his security detail, Ryerson poked Uribe in the chest with a subpoena to appear for depositions in a civil suit accusing Drummond Company of supporting Colombian paramilitaries. “No! No! No!” Uribe said, throwing his hands in the air, according to Ryerson who dropped the document at his feet as process servers often do when someone won’t accept a summons.

Uribe’s appointment as a visiting scholar has touched off a controversy at Georgetown. Many observers credit the U.S.-backed leader’s military offense against the FARC—Latin America’s longest lasting guerrilla army—with restoring a measure of security to a country mired in civil war and drugtrafficking violence for over half a century.

“Having such a distinguished world leader at Georgetown will further the important work of students and faculty engaging important global issues,” according to Georgeown’s president, John DeGioia

But a group of professors and students at Georgetown University who have banded together as the “Adiós Uribe Coalition” accuse the Colombian leader of involvement in human rights abuses ranging from support of paramilitaries todomestic espionage.

Such allegations have plagued the controversial Colombian politician for years, but conclusive evidence of Uribe’s alleged involvement in human rights abuses has not surfaced. But Washington-based attorney Terry Collingsworth has taken advantage of Uribe’s visiting scholar appointment to attempt to force a showdown.

***

Terry Collingsworth has dedicated much of the last few years to suing American multinational companies in U.S. civil court on the basis of an obscure, 18th-century law called the Alien Tort Claims Statute, which allows foreigners to sue U.S. citizens for damages over violations of international law or treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory.

Legal scholars believe lawmakers intended the Alient Tort Statute to provide a framework for resolving international trade disputes, but it fell out of use for over a century before pioneers including Collingsworth repurposed the law as a tool to bring multinational corporations to court to face allegations of human rights abuses. In a landmark case against Unocal Corporation on behalf of Burmese victims of forced labor, Collingsworth secured a favorable settlement after nine years of litigation.

Colombia has proven a breeding ground for the Alient Tort Claims lawsuits that Collingsworth specializes in. In addition to his latest case against Drummond — Collingsworth has filed at least three — he has represented Colombian plaintiffs in cases against the Coca-Cola Company, Dole and Chiquita.

The current case against Drummond was brought by the heirs to 113 Colombians murdered by the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC, in Spanish), who suspected them of sympathizing with guerrillas. The AUC was Colombia’s largest rightwing paramilitary group, but had been largely demobilized by 2006, lured by government offers of light prison sentences in exchange for testifying about the group’s crimes.

Based largely on the testimony of demobilized paramilitary leaders, the 174-page complaint (.pdf) alleges that by 1999 Drummond began colluding with the AUC after leftist guerrillas targeted the company’s mining and transportation operations. Key witnesses include former paramilitary leaders Salvatore Mancuso, Rodrigo “Jorge 40” Tovar, Jhon Jairo Equivel Cuadrado, as well as Rafael García, a former official of Colombia’s intelligence service, known as the DAS.

Drummond has consistenly denied supporting any illegal groups in Colombia. The company’s public relations office declined to comment for this article.

Uribe’s visiting scholar position at Georgetown provided Collingsworth with a unique opportunity. The controversial ex-president of Colombia would visit Washington, where Collingsworth’s office is located, twice a semester for the next year to give lectures.

The complaint accuses Uribe of having a role in supporting paramilitaries tied to the murder of Colombian unionists, though Uribe is not a defendant in the case.

“When Colombian President Uribe was still the Governor of (the province of) Antioquia he implemented the plan to establish the government-registered front groups called ‘Convivirs’ to allow the AUC to collect government and private funds to support the military activities of the AUC,” the complaint alleges. “Further, the Convivirs provided legal status to the AUC and allowed the Colombian government to coordinate activities with it.”

According to Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America, it remains to be seen whether or not the plaintiffs can prove the allegation that Uribe established the Convivirs as a front for the AUC. “Certainly paramilitaries benefitted from it,” Isacson said of the Convivirs in a telephone interview. “But there’s no smoking gun there that says this is a deal for the AUC.”

However Isacson added that under Uribe, paramilitaries saw their influence grow. “Paramilitaries thrived as never before in Antioquia when Uribe was governor,” Isacson said.

A District of Columbia federal judge granted Collingsworth’s request on Oct. 26 to subpoena Uribe to appear for depositions. “Mr. Uribe has direct knowledge of several key issues in the case,” Collingsworth said in a press release.

Those issues, according to the statement, included government military support of Drummond mining facilities, the relationship and level of cooperation between the military and the AUC, and “the efforts by the Colombian government during Mr. Uribe’s tenure to suppress evidence of Drummond’s relationship to the AUC.”

***

Whatever Uribe may know about those issues, Collingsworth will have to wait to find out.

On Nov. 22 when Uribe was called to appear for depositions at Collingsworth’s office in Washington, he was visiting Honduras, where he received a congressional award for his contributions to democracy. 

Uribe’s attorney, Gregory Craig — President Barack Obama’s former top White House lawyer — said in a telephone interview that the government of Colombia had invoked sovereign immunity for Uribe, a doctrine that allows government figures immunity from prosecution for tort claims for acts committed as part of their duties in office. Craig said he informed Collingsworth of the Colombian government’s decision, but did not contest the subpoena.

“Often when people claim sovereign immunity, they don’t appear. The whole purpose of claiming sovereign immunity is that they don’t have to,” said Bert Neuborne, a law professor at New York University.

Ignoring the subpoena will not necessarily bring disciplinary action against Uribe, Neuborne said. Collingsworth would have to file a motion to get a hearing first. “They won’t punish him for not appearing, without a hearing to determine whether he was obliged to appear.”

Collingsworth did not return several phone messages and emails seeking comment for this report.

Uribe’s decision not to appear did not surprise Ryerson. She said that prior to the Colombian government’s intervention, Uribe had claimed she assaulted him when serving him with the summons. “Walking into it, I knew they would try to charge me with assault,” Ryerson said, noting that a charge of assault can invalidate the service of a summons.

Ryerson also said that the Georgetown administration had attempted to prevent her from serving the summons at the university. “The plan was to serve him before a class he was teaching at 3:15,” Ryerson said. “As we tried to serve him the first time, campus police called backup because they wanted to help him to evade service of process. Administrators were also there telling us he couldn’t be served on campus.”

The Georgetown communications office would not answer questions about the administration or campus police’s actions on the day Ryerson served Uribe’s summons, but forwarded a press release saying “Georgetown is not a party to this suit. The University does not have a policy forbidding the service of process on its property, but does not, as a general matter, work with process servers to facilitate service.”

Uribe’s attorney declined to comment regarding the allegation of assault, as did the Georgetown University communications office and the campus police.

Whatever action Collingsworth plans to take regarding the Uribe subpoena, Ryerson continues to believe that Uribe will come to testify in Washington. “Eventually, he’s going to have to appear. It’s not clear when, but he will have to,” Ryerson said. “He’s been compelled by a court to do so.”

Image: Center for American Progress @ Flickr.