Democracy Going Dark: The Electronic Police State
The FBI’s Multi-Billion ”High-Tech Surveillance” Program
- by Tom Burghardt – 2009-05-21

“..and provided details on black ops and secret programs was William Colby“.
And he was later murdered. Interesting reading.

http://www.pythiapress.com/wartales/colby.html

LOL… thanks for the link. I just read that entire story about Colby’s death. It was a for sure as for sure can be without any evidence.

I say his wife, 20 years his junior, was a CIA operative who was assigned to monitor him and go for the kill when the time was right.

What a story. I sent some questions to the website to see if they will respond to me.

I didn’t really believe that they actually assassinate those who speak the truth against their lies. Wow… Panetta better proceed with caution. Could that be why Barack is doing what he is doing, which is nothing toward accountability?

We must keep up the noise!

I will remain skeptical, but if they are really reviewing cables at this level of scrutiny, it may well be a very interesting investigation.

“If they blow this, if stuff leaks or it all gets turned into a political circus, you can close the book on the current system of intelligence oversight,” one intel official warned. “Nobody will trust it.”

Hahahahahahaha!!! After eight years of almost no oversight, after months of CIA claiming it briefed Congress when it didn’t and claiming it said things in briefings that it didn’t. Add in the trumped up intelligence, and there really is no trust in the other direction. And there is no “current system of intelligence oversight.”

((((((((((((((((((((EW!!!!!!!!))))))))))))))))))))

I’ve concluded that this is one of the dark secrets in the heart of whatever lurking monster is weaving its toxic influences in our world. And I’ve come to that conclusion from nothing more than spending approximately the same time at FDL, EW, TPM, and a few other blogsites that I used to spend on a daily commute. You read week, after week, after week, after week… and sooner or later you think, ‘WTF?!!! Cheney had to have been running his Shadow Government completely outside any sphere of Congressional oversight. And Bush had to have been in on it from Day 1. Along with whoever else they were working with, and/or being duped by.’

Just look at the Ghorbanifar Timeline and you think, “Where the f*cking hell was the FBI? Where was Congress?!! How did this happen?!”

If the Congress has an iota of smarts left, they’ll insist on investigations, subpeonas, and penalties — for their own self-protection, even if they don’t do it for ours.

Trust?
Oversight?
I’m totally with you on that “Hahahahahahaha!!!” response.

I really do think this is all just so much kabuki, though. I’d like to proven wrong though. But for now, it seems to me that Democrats know that the imperial pronouncements of non-prosecution didn’t go over well, either at home or as their overseas PR pitch. They know “the numbers” that are being polled are focused on things like KSM being waterboarded – not the stories that they’ve kept hidden in plain sight, like el-Masri, Arar, etc.

The CIA knows it too and knows that it’s got sticky intel relationship wickets right now, as some countries are having to reabsorb people who have been tortured and are having more real investigations of their intel communities with individuals looking at consequences for playing along as the CIAs underlings.

So what do you do? You get someone like Feinstein who is on board with everything from massive illegal warrantless surveillance programs to nutcase judges etc. and who thinks Hayden is the best thing since sliced bread. You have her make noises as if she is holding Obama’s feet to the fire and you get CIA groaners and moaners. Woe is us, woe is us. Those horrible mean congresscritters – grab the sackcloth and ashes.

I think it’s all just a pacificiation program. Set up official graoning from the CIA, but make sure that the committee never actually does anything, but let the groaning and keening and wailing ebb and flow for a couple of years as if something had happened.

Congress critters can go into the elections with little glowy self congratulatory smiles of “see, we iz wurkin so hard, CIA is complainins” It all just seems to me like you have some of the committee and some of the CIA putting on their best WaPo omnbudsman hats and saying, golly, the base is complaining, what we really need to look good here is to get the CIA to complain to.

Here’s hoping I’m wrong, but I truly have no trust in someone like DiFi. She’s had wonderful staff – that you can tell when she dodders in to meetings with questions that she doesn’t even seem to know why she’s asking but which are great stuff usually – but I don’t buy for one minute that they are going to do anything worthwhile. But here’s hoping that I’m wrong.

I’m guessing that the cables requested will conveniently not include anything much on al-Libi and on statements acknowledging that they are sending people to Syria and Egypt et al for the express purpose of having them tortured as opposed “under assurances” that they won’t be tortured.

And someone needs to tell me one more time – why is it that we don’t want to “chill” violatons of law by the CIA? Why is it a bad thing to make them less likely to send al-Libi’s to Egypt to be forced to say whatever Cheney wants said?

And then there’s the “despondency” That sounds like crap to me. I can see CIA operatives being pissed, angry, rebellious, etc. but it sounds very “structured statement” to me that they come up with a word like “despondent” to cover CIA field operatives looking at an investigation under a President and with an AG who have both, extra-Constitutionally and illegally, promised no action and no prosecutions and commitment of full DOJ resources to defending Congressional investigations and civil suits. But “despondency” does make the story all that more, um, poignant.

Gee, well, that’s just tough!

This anonymous source from CIA is a minority voice. There are good guys out there who would confirm this is in fact a minority voice.

NCDem, you have it quite correct.