The Plot To Hijack the CIA (Purge Away Mr. President!)

[As the presidential candidate John Kerry already twice stated in his "honest" responses during the presidential debates, he wants our nuclear research stopped and he wants to send money to Russia to "protect the 'former' Soviet era nuclear weapons" from being 'lost' or 'stolen' by Russian Mafia. Please consider the following article in that light of the fact even though it has been written 10 years ago - it was as important then as it is today. Published with permission given by Inside Story Communications. HM note].

In early August, German undercover operatives arrested three foreigners smuggling plutonium out of the "former" Soviet Union. Although the metal was of bomb-grade purity, it was only a fraction of the amount needed to build a bomb. However, over the prior four months, German authorities had made two other arrests for separate acts of smuggling Soviet plutonium or uranium.1

Recent stories leaked by Soviet authorities about a new "Russian mafia" have given the West more reason for nervousness. Mikhail Yegorov, a high official in the new KGB, did his best to heighten the fear: "Crime groups in recent years are demonstrating more and more interest toward defense facilities of the former Soviet Union," he solemnly announced in May.2

The United States is already responding. Soviet personnel have arrived in New Mexico and elsewhere for training in security measures, and in May the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) formally declared it would now open an office in Moscow-to work more closely with Soviet police authorities.3 Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has quietly been setting up a program of cooperation with the Soviet KGB. But behind this facade of international teamwork to prevent terrorism lies another story-a campaign, orchestrated by the Soviet KGB through its agents and arms in the United States, to turn the CIA into a weapon against the United States, using nuclear terrorism as the excuse.

At the center of the drive to capture the CIA lies the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a radical think-tank formed in the late 1960s. IPS co-founder and strategist Richard J. Barnet, a former US official, has written books publicly defending Marxist revolution and terrorism, and has called for the dismantling of US intelligence activities against the Communist Bloc.4 The IPS has long been funded by the tax-exempt Field Foundation and its associated Fund for Peace, which pursue the same goal by advocating cooperation with the Soviet Union.5

IPS members have included such prominent leftists as Morton Halperin, the former National Security Council staffer who supervised the drafting of the classified Pentagon Papers-a review of documents related to the Vietnam War. Foreign policy official Leslie Gelb and National Security Council member Anthony Lake illegally authorized the public release of the Pentagon Papers, and later affiliated with the IPS (Lake is now the National Security Advisor for Bill Clinton). Indeed, a number of IPS members were involved in the 1971 Pentagon Papers scandal, causing the FBI to investigate the IPS for espionage.

The IPS has managed to recruit CIA employees who broke with the agency and leaked top-secret information. Several IPS leaders also work with rogue CIA agent Phillip Agee, who has made career of propagating Soviet disinformation while openly acknowledging his own Communist sympathies and the support of Cuban Communists. And former US Senator James Abourezk, founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and an outspoken supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), is an IPS trustee.6

During the past twenty years, the IPS has worked with Communist front organizations in building a network for the neutralization of US intelligence. In 1974, the Fund for Peace established the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), which has worked closely with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in pursuing political and legal challenges against US intelligence. Staff and leadership for the CNSS have been drawn almost entirely from the IPS and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG); the NLG is the American branch of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), operates as a front of the Communist Party, USA, and publicly supports dozens of terrorist groups ranging from the PLO to the Irish Republican Army (IRA). IPS member Morton Halperin became head of the CNSS.7

For many years, the IPS, CNSS, and dozens of other organizations in this network scored only partial victories against US intelligence. But this began changing in February of 1988, when the Soviet Union hosted a conference in Moscow, sponsored by the Soviet Peace Committee-an arm of the Communist Party's International Deparment.8 Representing the Soviets were such "citizens" as Igor Beliaev, a correspondent for the Literaturnaya Gazeta (Soviet journalists are usually members of the KGB); representing the Americans were such people as John D. Marks, an IPS member who became a leader of the CNSS and headed its Project on the CIA.9 In other words, both sides of the conference were acting on behalf of the Soviet KGB.

Beliaev and Marks were assigned the task of finding ways to neutralize US opposition to Soviet-sponsored revolutionary movements. They have described the origins of their plan in Moscow:

As much as the Soviet-American relationship has improved, we recognized that our nations still had substantial differences in the Third World-from Afghanistan to Nicaragua to the Middle East. We immediately decided that our best chance to make a difference was to identify a single issue on which effective U.S.-Soviet collaboration might be possible.... After two days of deliberations with the fifteen or so Americans and Soviets who made up our committee, we agreed that terrorism would be our issue.10

Thus was born the "Soviet-American Task Force to Prevent Terrorism." Its first meeting was held in Moscow in January, 1989, and was again co-sponsored by the Soviet Peace Committee. The Task Force quickly gained high-level support in both countries:

The Soviet delegation included officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and key institutes within the Academy of Sciences [read: heavy KGB involvement-Eds.].

[Anti-communist analyst note: As a matter of fact any communist country's Academy of Sciences was in hands of communist espionage, in Czechoslovakia for example these were [are] the technology and also recruitment of western scientists operations involving people like today's Czech president Vaclav Klaus (allegedly his real name is Pruzhinskiy) as Klaus was able to travel to the United States and Western Europe during the communist tyranny era without any obstacles as communists gave him the permit to travel abroad without delays even though this kind of permit was impossible to obtain for any ordinary citizen. Klaus was able to enroll in courses on western universities including the Cornell University and so on and the question remains - who paid for it? The same applies to people like German CDU Christian Democratic Party leader Angela Merkel, formerly from East (communist) Germany and also during the communist era active member of the East German Academy of Sciences!!! HM note].

On the American side, more than half of the delegation were current consultants to the U.S. government on counter-terrorism....

...both the U.S. and the Soviet governments were providing at least tacit support to the Task Force...

...the incoming Bush administration and Soviet authorities gave their tacit blessings and asked for full reports. The week before we convened, the KGB's Deputy Director, Lieutenant General Vitaly Ponomarev, declared on Moscow Radio:

"We realize we have to coordinate efforts to prevent terrorist acts, including hijackings of planes.... We are willing, if there is a need, to cooperate even with the CIA, the British intelligence service, the Israeli Mossad, and other services in the West."

... Within days, James Baker, the new American Secretary of State, testified before Congress: "We ought to find out whether Moscow can be [helpful] on terrorism and if not, why not."11

A subsequent meeting was held at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California, that September.

Beliaev and Marks were still organizing the event, which now included such KGB officials as Lieutenant General Feodor Sherbak and Major General Valentin Zvezdenkov.

The Americans were represented by former CIA director William Colby and former deputy director Ray Cline.12 As CIA station chief in Rome during the 1950s, Colby had directed the CIA apparatus to work closely with Italian Communists. While on assignment in Vietnam, Colby had secretly maintained contact with a probable KGB agent without notifying his bosses at CIA; upon being named CIA director in 1974, Colby promptly fired the counterintelligence officers who investigated him for that suspicious contact. Also in 1974, while still director of the CIA, Colby participated in the founding conference of the CNSS-alongside various Communists and assorted radicals.13

Once again, both sides of the Task Force were loaded with Soviet agents and sympathizers.

The Task Force's recommendations were predictable. Terrorism was redefined so as to exclude Soviet-sponsored revolutionaries. Instead, various potential anti-Communists were labeled as real or potential terrorists-including Soviet citizens who hijack planes to try to escape their walled-off dictatorship. The PLO-orchestrated intifadeh was specifically defined as non-terrorist, whereas "Israeli extremists" were identified as terrorists.14 Under the category of "religious extremism," the Task Force labeled not only "Muslim fundamentalists" but also Lebanese Christians and "Jewish extremists" as terrorist, while the PLO was never suggested as being terrorist. Indeed, the Task Force recommended that Middle East terrorism be solved by pressuring Israel to make concessions at the negotiating table.15 In addition, the news media has already hinted that Christians in the United States might also be labeled potential terrorists for opposing abortion.

The Task Force named two other categories of terrorism: "narco-terrorism" and "techno-terrorism" (meaning nuclear or other high-technology terrorism). Using these as excuses, the Task Force endorsed or recommended such measures as universal and total gun control, tight controls over the international movement of money (supposedly to hinder the laundering of drug money), and the establishment of an international tribunal to which "terrorists" would be extradited.16 Under such a tribunal, extradited suspects would lose the protection of their legal and constitutional rights of their home countries. In making these recommendations, the Task Force praised Soviet criminal law as a model for international law.

To finish off the CIA completely, the Task Force also recommended that the United States begin training Soviet police agents, and that the two countries begin sharing intelligence information. The former would lead to international US/Soviet teams to fight terrorism, and would allow Soviet agents to enter the United States to move against alleged "terrorists"-potentially even innocent anti-Communists. The latter proposal would provide the Soviet KGB direct access to our intelligence, while allowing the Soviets to hand us carefully-engineered disinformation that US officials would presume to be reliable. The Task Force even called for the US to hand over classified information on security measures protecting our "civilian nuclear facilities."17 The use of such information can only be imagined.

Have the Soviet-dominated Task Force, and the IPS network of Marxist organizations, been succeeding? The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Two months after the Task Force's first conference, "[Soviet] Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze and [US] Secretary of State James Baker agreed to put anti-terrorist cooperation on the superpower agenda. By June, the two governments had opened up official discussion at the working level and had reached their first agreements on superpower cooperation to prevent terrorism." The news media accorded the meetings favorable coverage.

"In December 1989, the KGB formally accepted the [Task Force's] recommendations regarding information sharing. Two months earlier, William Colby and Ray Cline personally presented these same recommendations to CIA Director William Webster.... Then, in October 1990, Webster told the Associated Press that the CIA and KGB were sharing intelligence about terrorist threats and that several times U.S. information had been 'pivotal' to Soviet preventive action."18 As of this year, the US has already begun training Soviets in nuclear security measures. President Clinton is meanwhile arranging to provide additional hundreds of millions of dollars to the Soviets, supposedly to prevent the smuggling of nuclear materials.

During June and July, FBI director Louis Freeh concluded agreements with Russia, "former" Soviet Republics, and Eastern European governments for sharing intelligence and to allow foreign agents to operate throughout the various countries. Speaking to officers of the renamed KGB, Freeh declared that "we are proud to join in this battle with you," and praised the "police-to-police bridge" now being established between the FBI and KGB.

"We have now already joined (forces)," boasted KGB official Sergei Stepashin, head of the Soviet Federal Counterintelligence Service. "When we are together, we're undefeatable."19

1 Whitney, C.R., NY Times, "Russian security services linked to plutonium plot," SF Chronicle, 8-16-94, pp. A1, A13. 2 Sniffen, M.J., AP, "FBI warns of danger of nuclear theft rings in Russia," SF Chronicle, 5-26-94, p. A17. 3 Ibid.; Perlman, D., "Russian nuclear security so bad it almost invites bomb thieves," SF Chronicle, 8-22-94, p. A12. 4 Barnet, Intervention and Revolution (1968), and Barnet, The Economy of Death (1969), as cited in Broken Seals, report of the Western Goals Foundation, Alexandria, VA, 1980, pp. 3-7, passim. 5 McIlhany, W.H., The Tax-Exempt Foundations, Arlington House, Westport, CT, 1980, p. 213; Gannon, F.X., Biographical Dictionary of the Left, Vol. II, Western Islands, Boston, 1971, pp. 97-105. 6 Broken Seals, Op cit., passim; Findley, P., They Dare to Speak Out, Lawrence HIll Books, Chicago, 1989. p. 98. 7 Broken Seals, Op cit., passim; 'Outlaws of Amerika,' report of the Western Goals Foundation, Alexandria, VA, 1982, pp. 51-60, passim. 8 Barron, J., KGB Today, Reader's Digest Press, New York, 1983, p. 61. 9 Marks, J. and Beliaev, I, Eds., Common Ground on Terrorism, WW Norton & Co., New York, 1991, p. 10; Broken Seals, Op cit., pp. 10, 12, 15, 18. 10 Marks & Beliaev, Op cit., pp. 20-21. 11 Ibid., pp. 21-22. 12 Ibid., p. 25. 13 Martin, D.C., Wilderness of Mirrors, Harper & Row, New York, 1980, pp. 183-184, 217; Epstein, E.J., Deception, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989, p. 100; Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22 (9-10), June 1994, p. 4; Broken Seals, Op cit., p. 17. 14 Marks & Beliaev, Op cit., pp. 53, 56. 15 Ibid., pp. 65, 71-72, 179. 16 Ibid., pp. 139, 152-154, 173, 175 17 Ibid., pp. 168, 171, 174. 18 Ibid., pp. 24-27. 19 Perlman, Op cit.; Smith, R.J., Washington Post, "US-Russia nuclear effort stalls," SF Chronicle, 8-29-94, p. A12; LA Times, "FBI chief vows to aid Russian cops," SF Chronicle, 7-5-94, p. A8.

I'm really confused here. THIS speech below, this is the Daniel Ellsberg, intelligence specialist, that leaked the Pentagon Papers? Didn't he ever get charged for that? And why is he speaking in foreign countries about our operation plans and how he influenced them?

Isn't this inappropriate?

Daniel Ellsberg, who revealed the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times during the Vietnam War, speaking in Tel Aviv, Israel on 13 October 1996 at a conference chaired by Joseph Rotblat in support of Mordechai Vanunu, the world's longest imprisoned anti-nuclear activist, described what he calls
"the most evil plans that have ever been made in the history of humanity."

Broadcast by Co-op Radio, CFRO Vancouver, on 30 November 1996, from a tape made by Mordechai Briemberg of the Vancouver Committee to free Vanunu.
(Transcribed by David Morgan)

''In 1961 I drafted a question for the president, John F.Kennedy, to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff(JCS). I was in the process of drafting for the Secretary of Defense, Robert MacNamara, the Kennedy Administration Annual Operating Plans for General Nuclear War. I wrote a twenty-page top-secret draft, which was adopted totally by MacNamara, who sent it to the JCS, thus changing completely the general war plans from those of the Eisenhower Administration. I was very proud of doing that for reasons that you will see in a moment; I thought the Eisenhower plans were disastrous and that those I had drafted were much better. I can still say that they were better, but I fooled myself that they were that much better. They were still disastrous, and I bear that on my conscience. But in the course of drafting these new plans, I was in a very good position as a consultant to pose the following question for the President to give to the JCS:

"If your plans, i.e., the Eisenhower plans, which were still in effect in early 1961, were executed as planned (and weren't disrupted by some typhoon, total incompetence or some pre-emptive attack by the Soviets) how many people would die in the Soviet Union and China?"

Now I actually asked that question believing that they did not have an answer. I had been working with the planners for some time had asked the same question, but they had never seen any such estimate done by the Air Force staff, and I didn't think that it existed. I assumed that they didn't WANT to know how many people they could kill. So I thought that they would either have to waffle and admit that they didn't have an answer, which would be very embarrassing for a bureaucrat and would put them off balance, and less resistive to my revisions, or they would come up with some fast estimate that would be absurdly low, and thus have the same effect.

Actually they did have an answer. It was addressed, "for the President's eyes only," but since I had written the question, they showed it to my eyes. So I held in my hands a very unusual piece of paper, a one-page sheet with a graph on it. It showed the number of people they expected to be killed in the Soviet Union and China alone--which is what I had asked, since I didn't want them to have an excuse for delaying by saying "we don't have the figures for Albania, give us another month."

So I had the graph for the Soviet Union and China. It was an ascending line, a simple graph, starting with the immediate deaths the first day and the deaths from fall-out over the next six months, and the total figure was three hundred and twenty million (320,000,000) dead. So they knew what their plans entailed!

It was obviously a computer model. They had done the calculations, so I figured let's ask the rest then--how about the rest of the Sino-Soviet block?
Well I won't go through the whole thing, but there were 100 million in West Europe if the winds blew the wrong way over our NATO allies; 100 million in East Europe; neutral countries adjacent to the Soviet Union, like Finland, Afghanistan, Austria, Japan were wiped out by fallout from our attacks, without getting into any calculation of what Russian retaliation to our first strike, might have done. So the total body count over the next couple of weeks was about 600 million (six hundred million)--that means one hundred holocausts!

I asked myself how colonels and majors that I drank beer with, saw in the evening, worked with every day, how they could have written such plans. These were not just hypothetical plans--they were the estimates used for the targeting of planes that were on alert all over the world, misssiles, submarines, all the machinery was out there. This was not ten years in the future, this was next week if we went to war. This is what would have happened if we had gone to war over Cuba, which was really possible in 1962, or Berlin in 1961. Six hundred million people!

I thought they were the most evil plans that had ever been made in the history of humanity and I've spent the thirty five years since trying to understand how humans, how Americans, had created such plans and such machinery.''

Daniel Ellsberg, 13 October 1996, Tel Aviv, Israel

You might want to check out the following link and then read Epstein's piece on Angleton just below it. Very eye opening stuff!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1224848/posts

WAS ANGLETON RIGHT?

What does it say about the state of US intelligence in the late nineteen-eighties and early ninety-nineties that two top counterintellgence officials-- Aldrich Ames in the CIA's anti-Soviet counterintelligence and Robert Phillip Hanssen in the FBI Soviet counterintelligence-- were moles for the Russian Intelligence Service? Under such circumstances, who controlled the recruitments the CIA and FBI were making during this period?

ANSWER:

James Jesus Angleton, the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff from in 1953 to 1974, principal concern was not with "moles" per se, but with the inherent vulnerability of intelligence services to systematic deception. To him, "moles" were a means to this end if, and only if, they were in a position to provide timely feedback to an adversary about what channels his intelligence service were monitoring and how it is was interpreting the data it was intercepting. With such a feedback loop in place, he believed perfect deception was possible. Imagine, he suggested, a wife, attempting to deceiving her husband and using his psychiatrist as her feedback source. By bribing the psychiatrist to tell her on an ongoing basis how her husband was interpreting her lies and deceptions, she would be able to modify them, elaborating on those stories which he believed and discarding or altering those stories which he doubted. Through this trial and error process, she could continue to fit her deception perfectly to what her husband believed. "The deceived becomes his own deceiver" in Angleton's example. (You might recall Woody Allen used such a similar device to seduce Julia Roberts in the movie Everyone Says I Love You)

While manipulating a suspicious spouse might require only a bribed shrink, manipulating an entire intelligence service would require a feedback source capable of getting access to secret information that is both compartmentalized and restricted on a "need to know" basis. Angleton held that a penetration able to accomplish this feat would most probably located in the counterintelligence branch, which through its investigative function can access to multiple compartments. Even so, the access of a single mole would be limited by what cases he had been assigned. What would greatly expand the feedback would be two moles, each located in a different counterintelligence branch, for example, CIA counterintelligence and FBI counterintelligence. Such a combination, if efficiently managed, could cosmically expand their access, since each could produce leads for the other to investigate--- leads which would generate a legitimate need to know for each mole. For example, if such a combo existed, Mole A in CIA could inform the FBI through the CIA-FBI liaison that there was suspicion about X. The FBI, charged with investigating all espionage in the US, which turn the case over to its counterintelligence branch, which would give Mole B the access and need to know to delve into the concerning X. Angleton feared that such a dual penetration would allow the KGB to effectively control the assessment of American intelligence Others, including J. Edgar Hoover in the FBI and William Colby in the CIA, did not share Angleton's concern. Hoover threatened to sever its cooperation with Angleton~s staff and Colby characterized the likelihood of the Russian intelligence service recruiting moles simultaneously in both the CIA and FBI counterintelligence as preposterous and Angleton as paranoid. Angleton was fired.

Yet, the dual recruitment Angleton feared is precisely happened in the nineteen-eighties when both Aldrich Ames, heading the CIA's anti-Soviet counterintelligence, and Robert Phillip Hanssen, working in the FBI Soviet counterintelligence, both operated as moles for the Russian Intelligence Service.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/question_angleton.htm

Your# 12.....Yup!

Yet,.....J. Edgar Hoover 'really' shared "Jesus'"....Bi-counterintelligence view,....(even decades before '73').....and cause of death?....naw.

/sarcasm

.......American intelligence Others, including J. Edgar Hoover in the FBI and William Colby in the CIA, did not share Angleton's concern. Hoover threatened to sever its cooperation with Angleton~s staff and Colby characterized the likelihood of the Russian intelligence service recruiting moles simultaneously in both the CIA and FBI counterintelligence as preposterous and Angleton as paranoid. Angleton was fired.(Hoover-DEAD) Yet, the dual recruitment Angleton feared is precisely happened in the nineteen-eighties when both Aldrich Ames, heading the CIA's anti-Soviet counterintelligence, and Robert Phillip Hanssen, working in the FBI Soviet counterintelligence, both operated as moles for the Russian Intelligence Service.

(The 'Iceberg' is NOT the 'tip'.....)

/sarcasm

Porter.....happy hunting!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.