After the Watergate scandal, a Congressional committee and other related investigations found that the country’s intelligence services had extensive surveillance powers and were involved in a number of illegal or unconstitutional actions.

They secretly undermined and killed foreign leaders. They have engaged hundreds of journalists and many media outlets around the world to spread false narratives. They spied and infiltrated political and human rights groups. And they manipulated public discourse to protect and expand their powers.

Senator Frank Church himself warned that the power of the intelligence community could at any moment “turn against the American people, and no American will have any privacy left, such is the ability to monitor everything… there will be nowhere to hide.”

Since then, the technological possibilities for invading privacy have increased dramatically, and the capabilities of the intelligence services, especially after September 11, have expanded in ways that Church could never have foreseen.

That’s why it’s high time to create a new church committee. And finally, in the most contradictory circumstances and for the most biased reasons, some kind of revival can finally happen.

The protracted struggle within the Republican Party over the election of Kevin McCarthy as the new speaker of the House of Representatives last month forced him to yield to the demands of the right wing of his party. Last but not least, he agreed to create a committee on what is called “arming” the federal government.

It held its first meeting last week. The group said its task would be to address “the politicization of the FBI and the Department of Justice and encroachments on American civil liberties.”

Earlier, in his speech to the House of Representatives about the new committee, Republican Representative Dan Bishop said it was time to cut out the “rot” in the federal government: “We pay attention to the deep state. We’re coming for you.”

Democrats have already condemned the committee as a tool that will be used in the interests of Donald Trump and his supporters, saying that right-wing Republicans want to discredit the security services and hint at abuses in the treatment of the former president.

A snowball of power

But while the committee will almost certainly end up being used to settle political scores, it could still shed light on some of the appalling new powers that the security services have acquired since the Church Committee report.

The extent to which these forces have grown should be obvious to everyone. Documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden ten years ago testify to illegal mass surveillance at home and abroad by the NSA. And Julian Assange’s transparency organization Wikileaks has published dossiers revealing not only US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also a huge global hacking program of the CIA.

It is noteworthy that both Assange and Snowden have suffered terrible consequences, which may be a sign of the ability of security agencies to retaliate against those who challenge their might.

Snowden was forced to leave Russia, one of the few jurisdictions where he cannot be extradited to the United States and locked up in custody. Assange has been jailed because the US authorities are seeking his extradition, so he can disappear in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life.

THE DEMOLITION OF “9/11” – AS IT WAS IN NEW YORK…

Now, in an unexpected turn of events, the billionaire has opened another window for covert manipulation by the security services — this time in relation to social media platforms and the electoral process in the United States. The key players this time are the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created by the administration of former President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks.

After Elon Musk bought the social network Twitter last year, he gave several independent journalists access to its corporate archives. In an ongoing series of investigations called “Twitter Files”, published as long streams on the platform, these journalists found out what happened under the previous owners of Twitter.

The bottom line is that after Trump’s election, the US security services — with the help of political pressure, especially from the Democratic Party — aggressively penetrated the decision-making processes on Twitter. It seems that other major social media platforms have taken similar measures.

“Nothing burger”?

The Twitter files suggest a rapidly emerging but covert partnership between government intelligence agencies, Silicon Valley, and traditional media to manipulate the nationwide dialogue in the U.S. as well as much of the rest of the world.

WESTERN MEDIA POWER AS IT IS: ROCKEFELLERS, ROTHSCHILDS AND MORGANS

The sides of this alliance justify to each other their interference in US politics — hidden from public view — as a necessary response to the rapid growth of a new populism . Trump and his supporters began to dominate the Republican Party, and a left-wing populist led by Senator Bernie Sanders made limited penetration into the Democratic Party.

The special services were particularly concerned about social networks, as they were seen as a means of causing this wave of popular discontent. According to the Intercept, one of the FBI employees last year noticed that “subversive information on social networks can undermine the support of the US government.”

It seems that the national security state viewed the alliance with the big tech private sector as an opportunity to protect the old guard of politics, especially in the Democratic Party. Figures such as President Joe Biden and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were considered a reliable pair of hands capable of preserving the legitimacy of turbocharged neoliberal capitalism and eternal wars, which were the lifeblood of the intelligence community.

CENSORSHIP IN THE AMERICAN WAY: THE MAIN CONSPIRACY THEORIST OF THE UNITED STATES WAS REMOVED FROM THE NETWORK

This partnership has served all parties well. Silicon Valley has been the chosen career for many liberals who believe that progress is best achieved through technological means dependent on social stability and political consensus. Populism and the polarization it generates naturally cause them discomfort.

And both intelligence agencies and more centrist politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties understand that they are in the firing line in populist politics due to years of failures: the growing polarization of wealth between rich and poor, the creaking US economy, depleted or non-existent social security services, the ability of the rich to buy political influence, the constant loss of treasure and lives in seemingly meaningless wars that are being waged in distant countries, and the media, which rarely touch on the problems of ordinary people.

Instead of focusing on the real causes of the growing anger and sentiment against the establishment, the security services offered politicians and Silicon Valley a more comforting and convenient narrative. Populists — both on the right and on the left — did not express dissatisfaction with the failure of the US political and economic system. They worked to sow social discontent in the interests of Russia.

Or, as recorded in the minutes of the DHS meeting last March, a new emphasis was placed on curbing “subversive data used to drive a wedge between the population and the government.”

This strategy reached its climax with Russiagate, years of unsubstantiated hysteria promoted by the intelligence community and the Democratic Party. The main claim was that Trump was able to defeat his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election only because of collusion with Moscow and Russian influence operations through social networks.

As in the game “Hit the Mole”, any signs of illegal actions or criminal actions on the part of the special services or systemic failures of the US political class were now regarded as “Russian disinformation”.

POVERTY AS A SYMPTOM

Snowden’s expulsion to Russia — the only choice left to him — was used to discredit his denunciations of the NSA. And the disclosure by Assange and Wikileaks of war crimes and violations of the law by the intelligence community was actually negated by the alleged collusion with “Russian hackers” in uncovering corruption in the Democratic Party during the 2016 elections.

In practice, statements about “Russian disinformation” simply further polarized US policy.

The key issues raised by the Twitter files — the collusion of the state with the technology and media industry, interference in elections, as well as manipulation and distortion of the narrative — were classified as political bias and obscured by them.

Interest in Twitter files has been mostly limited to the right. Reflexively, the Democrats mostly dismissed the revelations as “nothing burger.”

Climate of fear

Perhaps coincidentally, after taking over Twitter, Musk turned from a liberal favorite—because of his Tesla electric cars -into almost an outcast. In October, the Biden administration denied reports that it was considering vetting his business for national security in the face of Musk’s “increasingly friendly stance.” His status as the richest man in the world quickly collapsed along with his reputation.

The irony is that the same special services that fanned the hysteria around the “Rashagate” are now being exposed in Twitter files as guilty of the very interference they accused Moscow of.

DEATH OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

It was reported that during the 2016 presidential election, Russia colluded with Trump and helped him, using social networks to sow discord and manipulate the American electorate. The subsequent official investigation by Robert Mueller did not confirm these allegations.

Instead, I believe that the Twitter files indicate that not Russia, but the FBI, DHS and CIA — the very agencies claiming that Russia threatens the political order in the United States — aggressively and secretly sought to influence American public opinion.

The Twitter files suggest that the real threat to democracy in the US is the US security state, to a much greater extent than Russia. The atmosphere of fear fueled by these agencies over alleged “Russian disinformation” not only influenced public opinion, but also gave the intelligence community even more leverage over social networks and an additional license to accumulate more power. Whether it’s Russiagate, Skripal or Syria, the media has lost touch with reality

Statesmen are increasingly responsible for deciding who is allowed to be heard on social media — even Trump was banned when he was president — and what can be said. These decisions are often made not to prevent crimes or enforce laws, or even for the public good, but to tightly control political discourse in order to marginalize serious criticism of the establishment.

The fact that the collusion between the social media platforms and these agencies was secret in itself indicates the nefarious nature of what is happening.

Latent pressure

The Twitter files open a window into a phenomenon that seems to be playing out across all social networks. Traditionally, liberals have defended the use of censorship on social media on the grounds that these platforms are private companies that can do whatever they want. Their behavior allegedly is not a violation of the First Amendment to the protection of freedom of speech.

However, the reality revealed by the Twitter files is that networks have often responded to covert pressure either directly from the federal government or through its intelligence agencies by limiting what can be said. As it was repeatedly noted in the Files, Twitter, like other social networks, began to function not so much as a private company, but as “a kind of subsidiary of the FBI.”

In 2017, at the height of the panic around the “Rashagate”, the FBI created a Task Force to study foreign influence, the number of which soon increased to 80 agents. His alleged job was to keep in touch with various networks to stop alleged foreign interference in the election.

Soon, Twitter executives began meeting and communicating regularly with senior FBI officials, while receiving an endless stream of demands for the removal of content to prevent “Russian disinformation.” It seems that the CIA also attended the meetings under the pseudonym OGA or “another government agency.” Although the task of the task force was foreign influence, it reportedly became “a channel for many internal requests for moderation, from state governments and even from local police.”

It is reported that under growing behind-the-scenes pressure from intelligence agencies and publicly from politicians, social networks have begun to compile secret blacklists using information from security services to restrict access to accounts or stop the appearance of topics. The effects were often hard to miss since Trump said he was investigating the practice in 2018.

In response, Twitter executives publicly denied that they practiced a “shadow ban” — a term denoting when posts or accounts are difficult or impossible to find. In fact, Twitter just came up with another phrase for exactly the same speech suppression mode. They called it “visibility filtering.”

Such censorship was applied not only against accounts suspected of bots, or those who spread obvious misinformation. Even prominent public figures who had the right to speak on the topic were secretly persecuted if they challenged the key narratives of the establishment.

Stanford epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya, for example, suffered from “visibility filtering” during the Covid-19 pandemic after criticizing blockages for harming children. He was put on the “black list of trends”.

Due to recent mass layoffs on Twitter, Middle East Eye was unable to contact the company for comment on these and other allegations made in Twitter files. The CIA had not responded by the time of publication, while the FBI sent a response stating: “The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter shows nothing but examples of our traditional, long-standing and ongoing obligations of the federal government and the private sector… As can be seen from the correspondence, the FBI provides important information to the private sector so that they can protect themselves and their clients.”

The files found that other leading doctors who questioned the government’s orthodoxy were also suspended from Twitter, often under direct pressure from the White House or lobbyists for vaccine companies.

But the most notable victim of the Twitter censorship regime was Trump himself. He was banned on January 8, 2021, although employees reportedly agreed behind the scenes that they could not base such a decision on any direct violation of their rules.

Russian “influence”

The consequences of the “Rashagate” further dragged Twitter into the arms of the special services. In early 2018, Republican Representative Devin Nunes submitted a secret memo to the House Intelligence Committee detailing alleged abuses by the FBI while monitoring a figure associated with Trump.

The FBI allegedly relied on the so-called Steele dossier, which was partially funded by Clinton and the Democratic Party, but was initially presented to the media as an independent intelligence investigation confirming collusion between the Trump team and Moscow.

The news of the memorandum provoked a storm on social media among Trump supporters, giving rise to a viral hashtag: #ReleaseTheMemo. Nunes ‘ allegations were confirmed almost two years later by a Justice Department investigation . However, at that time, Democratic politicians and the media were quick to ridicule the memorandum, describing any demand for its publication as a “Russian influence operation.”

The heat was scored on Big Tech. Twitter’s own investigations failed to reveal any Russian involvement, suggesting that the hashtag was trending naturally thanks to VIT – very important tweeters.

But Twitter executives weren’t in the mood for a fight. Instead of engaging in a fight with the Democratic Party — and, most likely, the FBI, concerned about the revelations of the memorandum — Twitter followed a “slavish scheme not to challenge Russia’s statements in the protocol,” said Matt Taibbi, one of the journalists who worked on this report. Twitter files.

Soon, major media outlets blamed Russia for all the embarrassing hashtags that went viral, such as #SchumerShutdown, #ParklandShooting and #GunControlNow. As Russiagate’s campaign of statements intensified, Twitter came under increasing pressure to act. In 2017, he manually checked about 2,700 accounts marked as potentially suspicious. The vast majority have been cleared. Twitter blocked 22 accounts as possible Russian, and another 179 were found with “possible links” to these accounts.

Democratic politicians were outraged, apparently relying on intelligence sources to confirm their claim that social networks were flooded with Russian bots. Twitter responded by creating a “Russia task force” to investigate further, but again found no evidence of a Russian influence campaign. All that was discovered were a few lone posters who spend limited money on advertising.

Nevertheless, Twitter plunged into a PR crisis, and politicians and official media accused it of inertia. Congress has threatened to pass draconian legislation that would deprive Twitter of advertising revenue. Twitter’s inability to find accounts of Russian influence led to an accusation from Politico: “Twitter deleted data potentially important for investigations against Russia.” Twitter’s initial investigation of 2,700 accounts sparked ridiculous claims in the media that a “new network” of Russian bots had been discovered.

In the midst of this firestorm, Twitter suddenly changed course, publicly stating that it would remove content “at our sole discretion,” but in fact it was much worse. As Taibbi reported in one of the Twitter files, this happened when the company privately decided to “take off board” everything that was “identified by the US intelligence community as a state-sponsored organization conducting cyber operations.”

Twitter was increasingly under siege. A Twitter file published last month claims that a well-known online lobby called Hamilton 68, with ties to the intelligence community, committed “fraud” against Russian disinformation.

The site caused endless headlines in the American media after a report that it revealed a campaign of Russian influence on social networks, in which hundreds of users participated. The media published these claims as proof that social networks are flooded with Russian bots. Hamilton 68 employees were even invited to testify before senior Congressional politicians.

However, despite this furore, Hamilton 68 has not released a list of bots that, according to her, were discovered. Internal Twitter investigations revealed that almost all of those on the list were regular users.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which hosted Hamilton 68 and its successor Hamilton 2.0, published a “help” in response to Twitter files refuting the allegations and suggesting that its data was “constantly misunderstood or misrepresented” by the media and lawmakers, despite “extensive efforts to correct misconceptions at that time.” ASD noted that they never assumed that all the bots were Russian, but tracked some of them.

It is noteworthy that Hamilton 68 was headed by a former senior FBI official. Twitter executives did not publicly resist the pressure of the media and faced being brushed off when they tried to privately express their concerns to journalists.

FBI “navel”

In a sign of how close the relationship between the FBI and Twitter has become, Twitter has hired James Baker, the former chief lawyer of the FBI, as legal counsel. Baker has been one of the central figures in attempts to paint a picture — now discredited again — of collusion between Trump and Moscow.

Many others who left the FBI went straight to Twitter. Among them was Dawn Burton, the former deputy chief of staff of the head of the FBI James Comey, who initiated the investigation of the “Rashagate”. In 2019 , she became Twitter ‘s director of strategy .

Similar connections existed with the British special services. Twitter has hired Gordon McMillan as its chief editorial adviser on the Middle East. This was a part-time position, as at the same time he was serving in the psychological warfare unit of the British Armed Forces, the 77th Brigade.

By 2020, when the pandemic broke out, other government agencies saw their chance to launch a parallel campaign against Twitter, focused on China’s alleged efforts to spread misinformation about Covid-19. The State Department’s intelligence arm, the Global Engagement Center, used federal government data to claim that 250,000 Twitter accounts were amplifying “Chinese propaganda,” once again sowing unrest. These accounts included the Canadian military and CNN.

Correspondence between Twitter executives shows that they had their own views on the goals of the campaign. State Department officials wanted to “fit in” with a consortium of agencies like the FBI and DHS that were allowed to delete Twitter content.

Significantly, Twitter objected to the inclusion of the State Department—and in terms that strongly contrasted with their approach to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Executives viewed the staff as more “political” and “Trumpian.”

In the end, it was proposed that the FBI serve as a “navel” through which Silicon Valley would inform other government agencies. As a result, according to the Files, Twitter “accepted requests from every conceivable government agency,” often en masse. The platform has almost never refused to respond to requests to delete accounts accused of being Russian bots.

As Twitter became increasingly passive, even senior US politicians tried to intervene. Adam Schiff, then the head of the House Intelligence Committee, asked a journalist he doesn’t like to de-report. Although Twitter has been reluctant to agree to such requests, it is “deamplifying” some accounts.

As the 2020 election approached, the flood of security demands turned into a torrent that threatened to overwhelm Twitter. Many of them had nothing to do with foreign influence — an obvious target of the FBI task force. Instead, the submissions often concerned internal accounts. They rarely detailed threats of lawbreaking or terrorism, which appear to be the FBI’s primary area of interest, but instead focused on much less clearly defined violations of Twitter’s “terms of service.”

Often accounts were subjected to “digital execution” not because what was said was verifiable disinformation, but because the tweets crossed political red lines: noting the neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine or being too sympathetic to Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro or Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Laptop Revelations

It is reported that after the introduction of Big Tech, the security services used their powers to secretly form a nationwide dialogue around the 2020 presidential election.

Perhaps the biggest revelation so far, confirming the suspicions of the right, is that social networks and state security agencies played a role in hiding the so-called Hunter Biden laptop story a few weeks before the 2020 election.

On the eve of the vote, the FBI task force prepared the ground by telling Silicon Valley executives that Russia would try to “dump” hacked information in order to damage Democratic presidential candidate Biden. Presumably, this was a repeat of the 2016 election, when the publication of internal Democratic Party emails damaged then-candidate Hillary Clinton.

After Trump’s election, much of the “Rashagate” narrative grew out of unsubstantiated claims by the security services that these embarrassing emails pointing to political corruption in the leadership of the Democratic Party were hacked by Russia.

HOW DEMOCRATS LAUNDER MONEY IN THE USA AND UKRAINE

Evidence suggesting a different explanation— that the emails were leaked by a disgruntled insider—has been widely ignored. The furor caused by this story overshadowed the fact that the emails and their damning revelations about the Democratic Party were all too real.

Based on warnings from the intelligence community, social media platforms hastily blocked the Hunter Biden laptop story, which alleged problematic ties between the Biden family and foreign officials in Ukraine. Joe Biden’s officials denied any wrongdoing on the part of the then presidential candidate, and Hunter himself evaded the question.about whether the laptop belonged to him. The story, which was published by the right-wing New York Post newspaper, was immediately declared a Russian influence operation by dozens of former intelligence officers.

But in fact, the FBI knew almost a year before this story became public that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden and that the information contained in it was unlikely to have been tampered with or hacked. The owner of a computer store in Delaware, whom Hunter Biden asked to repair his laptop, reported his concerns to the FBI. The agency even subpoenaed the device.

This chain of events raises questions about whether the FBI decided to pre-empt the impact of the laptop story, which threatened Joe Biden’s chances in the 2020 election, before the right-wing press could publish the information. It appears that they manipulated the media, including social media, to suggest that any story harming Biden before the election is Russian disinformation.

At the time, Big Tech had other reasons to believe that this story was probably true. The New York Post conducted the usual checks. Other reporters soon confirmed that the information came from Hunter Biden’s laptop.

However, Twitter hastily accepted the statement that this story violates its policy regarding the publication of hacked materials, repeating the FBI’s statement that this is Russian disinformation. Others, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, agreed with the FBI’s demands for trust too, as he later admitted.

Social networks have taken the unprecedented step of blocking attempts to share this story on their platforms, which could affect the outcome of the 2020 election — something that most right—wing Republicans consider a crime against democracy, and many supporters of the Democratic Party consider a crime against democracy.

Psychological warfare

Collusion between social media platforms and the US security service over the “Rashagate” was not a deviation from the norm. According to the files, Twitter gave the Pentagon special permission, in violation of its own policy, to create accounts to conduct a “digital execution.”

Twitter helped the military to whitelist 52 fake accounts in Arabic in order to “expand certain messages.” These accounts promoted U.S. military objectives in the Middle East, including reports of attacks on Iran, support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, and claims that U.S. drones are striking Iran.

ROBERTO QUAGLI: IS A MULTIPOLAR WORLD POSSIBLE IN A UNIPOLAR INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT ?

By May 2020, Twitter had discovered dozens more accounts that the Pentagon had not disclosed, which wrote in Russian and Arabic on topics such as Syria and the Islamic State. According to Li Fang, one of the journalists who worked on the Twitter files: “Many emails sent during 2020 show that high-level Twitter executives were well aware of the extensive network of fake accounts and covert propaganda [of the Ministry of Defense] and did not suspend the accounts.”

Another study revealed the Pentagon’s extensive propaganda network in other social media apps such as Facebook and Telegram.

Twitter’s leniency towards these secret Pentagon accounts stands in stark contrast to its treatment of the media and individuals accused of having ties to countries the US government considers hostile states. They are widely known as such, including Western dissident journalists and academics who allegedly worked with Russian, Chinese, Iranian or Venezuelan media.

According to a study by the FAIR media monitoring group, Twitter continues to conceal the nationality of accounts funded by the US government, including those that promote its propaganda goals in Ukraine and other countries. FAIR was unable to find any examples of accounts identified as “US state media” or accounts labeled as such in the UK or Canada.

The group concluded: “Twitter allows American propaganda agencies to maintain the appearance of independence on the platform, tacit approval of US soft power and influence operations… Twitter acts as an active participant in the ongoing information war.”

A dense veil of secrecy

After the Twitter files began to be dumped in December, the FBI responded not by verifying the authenticity of the documents, but by playing the same game as before. He accused the journalists of spreading “conspiracy theories” and “disinformation” aimed at “discrediting the agency.”

Hillary Clinton, an elder of the Democratic Party establishment, continues to blame Russian disinformation for her country’s troubles.

The truth is that both the security services and the political establishment have invested too much in their current secret arrangements with social networks to agree to changes.

And it is unlikely to increase while the United States continues to rush from crisis to crisis: from the “war on terror” to the Trump presidency, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. All these crises — it should be noted that in different ways — are the legacy of political decisions made by the same actors, who now reject control and supervision.

These crises serve as a pretext not only for inaction, but also for ever closer and tighter control of the state over the digital public space — and not transparently, but under a dense cover of secrecy.

As Church warned almost half a century ago, the biggest threat facing the United States is the possibility that its security services will direct their huge forces inward, against American society. And this process is exactly what the Twitter Files document is.

They show that the intelligence community has come to reconsider its main role — protecting American society from external threats — and has included American society itself in this threat.

THE STUDY OF SOCIAL NETWORKS IN THE INTERESTS OF US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES

In 2021, one of the first priorities of the Biden administration was the promulgation of a National strategy to Counter domestic terrorism. It says the loss of faith in the government and extreme polarization is “fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation, often channeled through social media platforms.”

It seems that the growth of discontent among US citizens is not the fault of a failed political leadership or an arrogant deep state. Instead, the same failed establishment considers the negative reaction of the population and discontent with voters solely for selfish purposes, as proof of foreign interference.

In the Twitter files, Musk opened a small window to show a little what’s going on behind closed doors. But even that window will close again soon. And then the darkness will return—unless the public demands their right to know more.

The post HOW SOCIAL NETWORKS BECAME THE “DAUGHTER” OF THE FBI AND THE CIA first appeared on Global Policy.

They are, according to American researchers of the secret war, defined as a competitive interaction between and within States. It is “characterized by the complexity of the nature of the conflict, the secrecy of the parties involved, the uncertainty of the political mechanisms and the legal framework”.

Regarding the uncertainty of the legal basis of the war in the GZ, the dialogue at the hearings in the us Congress at the end of 2015 on the us campaign against ISIS (a banned organization in Russia) is indicative. Congressman R. Forbes asked the then Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff J. Danford: “you have heard the Minister of defence both in writing and verbally stating that we are in a state of war. Who declared this war?”. There was no clear answer. Official statements all the more.

According to the expert John. Nifela, the American leadership believes that after the terrorist attacks “9/11” the United States is at war, although it is not formally declared. Its legal basis was not fixed by an official statement of the Congress, which, however, in 2001 authorized the use of military force, which since then has been the justification for any military action by the US armed forces against the is.

The law permits the use of the army, but does not specify the specific location and level of use. Not named criteria to classify the fighting in a particular region to the category of armed conflict. It is unknown who is considered an ally of the Islamists, and who “moderate opposition”. In other words, the GCC is a war without norms and restrictions, which unleashes the us hands to commit any crimes.

According to Nifel, “the outdated binary model of’ war-peace ‘ can be discarded forever. Now we live in a Gray area. The American counter-terrorism campaign in Pakistan, conducted mainly with the help of drones, also provides for secret actions of armed mercenaries, such as Raymond Davis, carried out on the instructions of the special services.”

Wild geese and goats

This is a sensational story in its time. A former member of the us special operations forces with ten years of experience, Davis after his dismissal from the armed forces became a PMK mercenary, performing tasks under contracts with the CIA and the Pentagon. Spying and crossing the red line. In January 2011, he killed two Pakistan intelligence officers who were following him.

The media reported on the participation of Davis in subversive actions in the territory of this country, possibly associated with a wave of terrorist attacks, which resulted in the destabilization of the Central leadership. The authorities arrested and prosecuted 45 Pakistanis allied with Davis a permanent relationship. The subversive activities of 30 us citizens conducting covert operations in Pakistan were uncovered. However, by this time a large group of “quiet Americans” had already left the country.

Davis was taken under protection by the us President. Obama motivated this by the fact that “broader principles are at stake, which we must adhere to.” The state Department immediately demanded that Islamabad release Davis. Us national security adviser Tom Donilon told the Pakistani Ambassador that if he refused, he would lose his post. Sources in the Pakistani foreign Ministry reported that President Zardari categorically demanded the release of Davis. The murder happened in January, in March the American was released. The lawyer of relatives of the victims said that they were forced to agree with this decision.

It is known that Davis first worked in a private military company Blackwater, then moved to PMC Hyperion.

Pakistan’s interior Minister said after the scandal, ” No foreign security company will be allowed to work in Pakistan anymore.” This can be considered the official position of Islamabad. Former adviser to the Prime Minister for national security, General M. Durani, confirmed, referring to the leadership of the armed forces and intelligence: “the case of Davis concluded that foreign inclusion in the security sphere works exclusively against our vital national interests.”

In such circumstances, Pakistan has decided to leave the largest multinational military and security company G4S with headquarters in the United States and the UK. According to Reuters, it operates in 120 countries and employs 623,000 people. The number of G4S personnel on the territory of Pakistan at that time was 15 000 people, the majority – former military. However, there was information that the company leaves the country only in words. In fact, it will simply be re-registered as a citizen of Pakistan.

G4S became famous for a series of high-profile scandals

Omar Matin, the shooter who slaughtered the Orlando gay club, was an employee of this company. In 2013 and 2014, he was interrogated by the FBI on suspicion of links with terrorists, but the G4S did not pay any attention to it. The company has long enjoyed notoriety. It is known that its staff beat and raped detained migrants, held children in solitary confinement and tortured prisoners around the world.

American journalists specializing in the study of terrorism in the United States, came to the conclusion that mass murder in public places, as a rule, satisfied managed on the basis of the program MK-Ultra (mind control) arrows, which in the jargon of the security services called “scapegoats”. Complex research in this area was supervised by the CIA in cooperation with the Pentagon. They were customers of developments and suppliers of “human material” for experiments.

From the publications of American experts on terrorism, it is concluded that terror is carried out through mercenaries recruited and trained by the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries, and is aimed at inciting fear among the population to force it to meekly agree to the transformation of America into a police state. And to make this regime the Foundation of an emerging global Empire.

An important part of the megamachine dealing with the problem of control and manipulation of consciousness, became Tavistock Institute in England. The expert in the field of communication D. Estulin in the book about this institution writes: “the Process of creating a new fascist political order, according to the Tavistock model, had to go through the following stages:

1. Destroy the existing constitutional and democratic institutions… The planned uprising of gangs and counter-gangs with the participation of police-controlled terrorist organizations creates a political environment in which the population will be more willing to tolerate or even demand the strengthening of the military police regime, that is, the creation of the police regime with a “democratic” face.

2. By overthrowing, killing, military intervention or “spontaneous” popular uprising to eliminate regimes that have ceased to be useful, and replace them with “democratic” governments. Appointed “democratic” rulers will be able to function only within the framework that will be established for them by representatives of supranational authorities.”

Terror is an effective means of manipulating mass consciousness and establishing a global fascist order with the full consent of the masses, exerting a powerful stressful effect. This topic was part of an experiment conducted by Brigadier General John Reese, head of the Tavistock Institute. L. Marcus in the magazine Campaign for April 1974, writes:

“If the controller is able to properly take advantage of the stressful situation, he will be able to encourage the victims on their own, “democratic” way to establish for themselves the very restrictions that the dictator would like to impose on them.” In this sense, the United States has become the main testing ground for technologies of aggressive manipulation of mass consciousness.

The terrorist attack “9/11” in the United States allowed the authorities to establish unprecedented restrictions in the field of rights and freedoms, which previously did not know American history. He was instrumental in the formation in the mass consciousness of the population of America the full support of the rate of suicide for his permanent global war.

Divide and conquer!

Any terrorist attack is designed to create a situation of stress, the benefits of which are derived by those who organized the attack. The answer to the question about Orlando, who benefits, leads to thinking about different interest groups. The famous American writer P. K. Roberts lists:

“This is beneficial to the anti-Islamic lobby and trump’s company, which offers to deport Muslims from the United States. This is beneficial to the lobby, advocating the prohibition of weapons. It is beneficial to the left that wish to present as the norm for gays and transgender people and after killing them awaken people’s sympathy for them. It’s in the hands of the spy industry and the police state, who want to keep an eye on everyone. This is in the hands of Washington’s foreign policy aimed at killing, which gets grounds for justifying its actions under the pretext: if you do not interfere, then Islamic children, look what they will do to us when they grow up. This is in the interest of the neoconservatives and the military complex, including the security sector, who need a war against Muslims, promoting their agenda and filling their wallets.”

There is an artificial fragmentation of the population into groups and the cultivation of differences between them: local residents – migrants, fascists – their opponents, LGBT homophobes… In parallel, they are set off, including with the help of provocations and terrorist attacks (such as Orlando), organized by us intelligence agencies with the help of PMCs.

Investigative journalist L.Wolf writes: “The Nazi state was a product of the same financial and political circles that today control the so-called media and television. Forget about what you’re told on TV about the circumstances of Hitler’s rise to power: the path was cleared by the same oligarchs who are now paying brainwashers to create television programs. In the post-world war I period, the economic policies of this international elite contributed to the strengthening of Germany. Hitler’s Nazis were funded and supported as a political option, and then, in 1932-1933, they were helped to take power. In many ways, it would be right to view the Nazi period as an experiment in mass brainwashing and social control. This experiment was based on the desire to create a new world order…»
The fact that transnational PMCs are involved in mass killings and terrorist attacks is a well-known fact. In the tragedy in California’s San Bernardino in December 2015 featured another contractor of the Pentagon and the CIA-Craft International. As a result of the attack on the regional center for disabled people, 14 people were killed and 21 injured. During the shooting, police arrested suspects in the shooting Sayed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik. Police said they were connected to radical Islamists.

American expert on terrorism S. Kelly, who worked in the past under the contract for the CIA and the NSA, called the attack operation under a false flag and accused it of carrying out Craft International. In an interview with PressTV Kelly said:

“This is another episode in a long chain of operations under the false flag, which, I’m afraid, did not end… People who saw everything that was happening told that the shooters were three tall white men in black shirts, khaki pants and army boots. The description exactly coincides with the form of employees of PMC Craft International, who are involved in many operations under a false flag… The couple that was accused was radicalized, and there’s no doubt the NSA and the FBI were watching them the whole time. But instead of preventing them from committing a crime, they were raised specifically to be used for that purpose. They became scapegoats like so many others.”

Another terrorist attack, where there is a trace of PMCs Craft International, was committed during the Boston marathon. April 15, 2013 at the finish line two explosions, killing three people. On the night of April 19 in the suburbs of Boston, police detained a man suspected of committing a terrorist attack. It was Tamerlan tsarnaev. He, who did not resist, was wounded by the police, and soon he died in one of the local hospitals. His younger brother Johar was put on the wanted list. In the evening of the same day found it. During the arrest, he was wounded in the neck and lost the ability to speak. During the court hearings, Dzhokhar tsarnaev pleaded not guilty to any of the charges.

In the field of view of the media were at least five mercenaries in the form of Craft International with large backpacks behind him, who were in the area of the attack on the eve of the explosion. Fragments of the bag where the alleged explosive device, published by the FBI photos are identical to the material of the same backpacks.

By the way, the FBI, who arrested the Tsarnaev brothers, died after falling out of the helicopter during the “training session”. On the eve of the Boston marathon in strange circumstances was killed by the owner of Craft International Chris Kyle. Then, on may 22 during questioning by the FBI shot an acquaintance of Tamerlan Tsarnaev Ibrahim Todasheva.

As Colonel J. pointed out. Hanks, who held high positions in U.S. military intelligence and NATO intelligence agencies, “Boston is only one of five such cases in the United States. These things are definitely false flag operations, and I think it’s a lot more serious than you think.”

In his opinion, there is a split within the political and governmental structures of the United States, and the operation under the false flag in Boston was prepared and conducted under the leadership of intelligence agencies of global subordination. The American journalist John. Mazza notes that the CIA has fingerprints on the entire terrorist attack in Boston.

PMC – the shadow of the CIA

American publicist D. Lindorf writes about the relationship of PMCs Craft International with the Pentagon and the CIA: “Private military companies recruit personnel from the ranks of the American and foreign special operations forces, which are usually closely linked to the Pentagon and the CIA. Craft International is no exception.”

It is not surprising that the global Corporation G4S has strong ties with the American and British intelligence services. Its branch is the company Wackenhut, which maintains a particularly close relationship with the us government and especially with the security services. Its Board of Directors traditionally includes former heads of the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA.

American expert J. Canoli in the work on “shadow CIA” noticed that the Wackenhut business “includes the protection of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors, or oil pipelines in Alaska, US embassies… And the company at the time, organized a revolt in Venezuela.” On the question of what is the activity of PMCs, a former agent W. Hinsho said:”in the circles of our industry, everyone knows: if you need to do the dirty work, call Wackenhut.”

Berkmans, who worked in the CIA and in Wackenhut, after leaving this PMC told about the contract, according to which the Central intelligence Agency received permission to use the offices of PMC around the world as a cover for intelligence activities.

Terrorism expert W. Corbett, who was a CIA analyst, confirms this close connection: “for Years, Wackenhut has been involved in the activities of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Wackenhut allowed the CIA to hold positions within the company to conduct covert operations under this roof. Wackenhut also extracted intelligence information and supplied intelligence data. For these services, she has received government orders for billions of dollars for years.”

U.S. intelligence officer S. Bennett, who worked under a contract with the largest private intelligence company – the main contractor of the CIA Booz Allen Hamilton, in an interview with the Common Sense Show accused the PMCs and the us defense Ministry that they are involved in secret operations to Finance terrorism through the Swiss Bank. Bennett with the help of the employee of the Bank Union Bank of Switzerland brad Birkenfeld managed to find and track the grandiose program of financing of terrorists of IG. It, along with the CIA and the NSA, included Swiss banks and PMCs Booz Allen Hamilton. Bennett considers is as a hybrid terrorist organization, artificially created by the CIA during a special operation.

Transnational PMCs and CRCs are called mercenaries of the shadow government in the United States, eager to power over the world of the global elite, which builds its global Empire on the ruins of the States destroyed by it. The main goal is to turn the world into a concentration camp. It is no coincidence that the official motto of Craft International is “Violence solves problems”.

Taking into account the above – mentioned transnational PMCs, we can conclude that they are the subjects of a secret war in the Gray zone in the interests of the world elite. The goal is the destabilization of States, their destruction and the creation of a global Empire on their ruins. The main target in this war was Russia, as the main obstacle in this way.

Offices of PMC Booz Allen Hamilton, G4S, Wackenhut are open and work in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They advise managers and provide services in a variety of areas – from the environment and the economy to nuclear and defense technologies, conduct investigations and organize the personal safety of their clients.

On the Russian site HeadHunter posted jobs with Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. From the description of the company’s activities: “the Firm helps the government and commercial customers to solve their most complex problems related to services in the field of strategy, operations, organization, transformation and information technology”.

The post THE UNITED STATES WAR IN THE GREY ZONE first appeared on Global Policy.

According to a well-informed source, this meeting, which took place about ten years ago, the scouts prepared a few months. Through a shell company, they funded and organized a conference at an unrelated international science center, invited participants and brought their people into the ranks of the maintenance staff — all in order to lure a nuclear worker from Iran, separate him from the guards for a few minutes and talk to him one-on-one. At the last moment, the plan almost fell through: the scientist changed the hotel, because the hotel offered by the conference cost 75 dollars more than the Iranians were willing to spend.

To demonstrate sincerity and goodwill, the agent had a hand to heart. “Salam, Habibi,’ he said. “I’m from the CIA and I want you to fly with me to the United States.” On the Iranian’s face was a mixture of surprise, fear and curiosity. The agent already had experience with defectors, so he understood well what questions swarmed in the head of the scientist: what will happen to my family? How will you protect me? Where will I live and for what? How do I obtain a visa? Will I have time to pack? What happens if I say no? The scientist had already opened his mouth to ask something, but the interlocutor interrupted him: “first, take a bucket of ice.” “Why?» “If your guards Wake up, tell them you went for the ice.”

***

Carrying out probably the most daring and complex plan in its history to invade the academic world, the CIA secretly spent millions of dollars on the organization of scientific conferences in different countries. His goal was to lure Iranian nuclear scientists from Iran into a more favorable environment, where intelligence representatives could work individually with them and convince them to change sides. In other words, the Agency tried to delay the development of the Iranian nuclear program, using the international nature of the academic environment. To this end, it was forced to resort to large-scale deception and mislead both the structures that held these conferences and the scientists who spoke at them. Participants of scientific events did not even suspect that they were involved in the staging, only simulating reality. You can argue about how tasks national security to justify such manipulation of the professors, however, do not doubt that most scientists disagreed that the CIA may use them as “dummy”.

Conferences – the most convenient side of scientific life for espionage

Thanks to globalization, this social and intellectual ritual has become widespread. Like Golf and tennis tournaments, they are held wherever the climate is favorable enough — and in the same way attract a successful audience. Although scientists are constantly communicating with each other remotely, virtual communication is not a substitute for personal meetings, allowing you to make useful connections, look at new devices and read the report, which will later be released in the collection. “This engaging conference, wrote the English novelist David Lodge (David Lodge) in 1984, in his satire on academic life called “small World” — they allow you to combine useful with pleasant, that is, professional occupations in tourism, the money from someone else’s pocket. Wrote an article — see the world” (op.CIT. by lane O. E. Makarova).

The importance of the conference can now be measured not only by the number of Nobel laureates or Oxford professors who participate, but also by the number of spies. American and foreign intelligence are drawn to conferences for the same reasons that army recruiters are drawn to poor areas: there is most production. If a certain University can have only a couple of professors who are interested in the security services, then at the right conference-say, drones or ISIS (an organization banned in Russia — approx. TRANS.)- there may be dozens of them.

“Every intelligence Agency in the world works with conferences, sponsors conferences and looks for ways to send their people to conferences,” a former CIA officer told me.

“Recruitment is a long process of seduction,” says mark Galeotti, a senior researcher at the Prague Institute for international studies (Mark Galeotti), a former special adviser to the British Ministry of foreign Affairs. — First you need to be on the same partition with the object. Even if you just exchange a couple of meaningless remarks, next time you can already say, “I think I saw you in Istanbul?”».

The FBI warned in 2011, American scientists to be cautious conferences, outlining this scenario: “the Researcher suddenly receives an invitation to send abstracts to an international conference. She sends them and receives an invitation. At the conference, a representative of the host party asks her for a presentation, attaches the flash drive to her laptop and quietly downloads all files and data from it.”

The FBI and the CIA also do not leave the conference without attention

According to a former FBI agent, at events in the United States, “foreign intelligence agents hunt for Americans, and we hunt for them.” The CIA works with conferences in several different ways: it sends its agents to them, it organizes them through Washington shell companies so that the intelligence community can access scientific knowledge, and it holds fake conferences to get in touch with potential defectors from hostile countries.

The CIA monitors upcoming conferences around the world and identifies those that may be of interest to him. Suppose, for example, Pakistan hosts an international conference on centrifuge. The CIA will either send their undercover agent there or contact the scientist who was going there anyway to write the report. If it finds out that there was someone from the Iranian nuclear industry, it will mark it as a potential target for recruitment at the next event.

Intelligence gathered at academic conferences, can influence policy

For example, they helped convince the George W. Bush administration that Saddam Hussein continued to develop weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which proved to be untrue). “Our staff and informants, of course, noticed that Iraqi scientists involved in chemistry, biology and, to a lesser extent, nuclear physics, continued to appear at international symposia — wrote in 2009 in his memoirs, a former CIA officer John kiriaku (John Kiriaku), specializing in the fight against terrorism. “They made reports, listened to other people’s speeches, actively took notes and returned to Jordan, from where they went by land to Iraq.”

Perhaps the scouts sometimes making invalid conclusions, due to the fact that among them there were few professional chemists, biologists and nuclear physicists. Without specialized education can be misunderstood what is at stake. In addition, the stranger is more likely to get caught. At conferences held in Vienna International atomic energy Agency on topics such as isotope hydrology, and nuclear fusion, spies probably has more than scientists, says gene Coyle (Gene Coyle), who worked for the CIA from 1976 to 2006: “There is only one little problem. When you send an agent to a conference like this, he has to keep talking. A man with a degree in history is very difficult to pretend to be a specialist in plasma physics. In addition, it is a very small world. If an agent, for example, says that he works at the Chicago Fermi Institute, he will immediately be asked how Bob, Fred and Susie are doing.”

Therefore, according to Coyle, the office attracts people from the scientific world through the Sector of national resources — its secret internal service, “cooperating” with many scientists. “After learning, say, about a suitable conference in Vienna, they ask Professor Smith if he will be there.”

“Smith might say, Yes, I’m going there and then I’ll let you know who I’ve been in contact with. If I run into any Iranian, I will not run away from him.” If he says he would love to go, but the University doesn’t have the funds, the CIA or the FBI can say, “Well, maybe we can get you a ticket — in economy class.”

***

Recruitment of a scientist often begins with an allegedly random meeting — as experts say “first contact” – at the conference. One former CIA officer — let’s call him R. — explained to me how it works.
“I recruited a lot of people at conferences, “he says. – I was good at it — but, however, it’s easy.”

In between assignments, he studied the list of upcoming conferences, chose one of them and found out which of the interested scientists participated in it in the previous years at least twice, and therefore likely to visit it again. He then instructed interns from the CIA and the national security Agency to prepare a profile of the facility-where he studied, from whom, and so on. Then he telegraphed his superiors, asking for funding. The request had to be sufficiently persuasive for the office to allocate the money, but sufficiently unconvincing that other agents who would become familiar with it and who were closer to the conference venue would not hunt for the same object.

Then R. developed a cover. He used to be a businessman. He came up with the name of the company, built a standard website, printed business cards, created for a non-existent company documents, phone and credit card data. He also chose which of his several aliases he would use this time.

R. was not a scientist and could not easily start a conversation about the hypothesis of Riemann. Therefore, he, realizing that most scientists are introverts and have difficulty communicating, turned to the object before the reception: “you also do not like crowded events?”After that R. stepped aside. “The first contact should be fleeting,”he believes,” it is Important that your face is simply remembered.” In this case, no one should notice such contact. A typical beginner’s mistake is to start a conversation in the presence of people who may be observers assigned to the scientist by the authorities of his country. If they report this conversation, the security of the facility will be at risk, and he will not be able — and will not want — to go to further contacts.

The rest of the time R. “rushed like crazy”, trying to contact the scientist at every opportunity. With each interaction (in CIA jargon they are called “time at the object” and are taken into account when measuring the efficiency of work), he tried to win the sympathy of the object. This has been helped by the habit to get well prepared for recruitment. Let’s say he told the subject that he’d read an amazing article on a subject, but he couldn’t remember the author. He was embarrassed and admitted that this is his article.

After a couple of days, R. invited the scientist to lunch or dinner and threw a fishing rod — said that his company is extremely interested in the subject on which the object works, and would like to support his work. “All the scientists I know are constantly looking for grants to Finance their research. They only talk about it,” he says. They discussed the scientific project and the amount that varied depending on the country: “for Pakistanis it is usually from 1000 to 5000 dollars, for Koreans — more.” After the Professor receives money from the CIA, he, even if the source of funding is unknown to him, becomes dependent, because at home exposure can jeopardize his career — and sometimes life.

Scientific conference of so drawn to intelligence that the CIA almost first began to fear the intervention of the colleagues in office, chasing the same academic production. “We navodayam such actions,” — says a retired tsereushnik, writing under the pseudonym Ishmael Jones (@Ishmael Jones), in his book in 2008 called “the Human factor: inside look at ineffective intelligence culture of the CIA” (“The Human Factor: Inside the CIA”s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture”).

Jones writes that in 2005, having come to a conference in Paris, which seemed to him “a suitable feeder for weapons developers working for rogue States”, he fell in spirit when he noticed two other CIA agents (and part-time scientists) in the hall. This, however, did not prevent him, trying not to catch their eye, scour the room, consider the badges of participants and seek out “potential sources of information”, ideally — from North Korea, Iran, Libya, Russia or China.

“I am surprised how large the open presence of special services at such events — said Karsten Geier (Karsten Geier). – At every step you come across people from abbreviation offices”. We spoke with Geyer, who is responsible for cybersecurity policy at the German foreign Ministry, at the Sixth annual international conference on cybersecurity, which was held on April 26, 2016 at Georgetown University in Washington. On it, program reports on the confrontation of one of the main challenges of the 21st century — cyber attacks — were made by the leaders of the NSA and the FBI. Objects of religious art, stained glass Windows and classic quotes that adorn the Gaston hall, where it all happened, looked on this background something like a carefully designed cover.

Among the speakers were a former chief cryptanalyst from the NSA, a former Chairman of the National intelligence Council, Deputy Director of the Italian security service and Director of the center conducting classified research for Swedish intelligence. Judging by the badges of the participants (there were 700 of them), the vast majority of them worked for the American government, foreign embassies, contractors cooperating with the security services, and companies that produce products that are related to cybersecurity — or taught at universities.

Probably not all intelligence presence was open. 40 countries — from Brazil to Mauritius, from Serbia to Sri Lanka-but not Russia were officially represented at the conference. However, at the same time in the audience, in the gallery, a thin young man with a briefcase, listening to the reports, was spinning. He didn’t have a badge. I approached him, introduced myself and asked his name. “Alexander,” he said. Then, hesitated and added: “Belousov. “How do you like the conference?» “I don’t know,” he said, obviously trying to avoid further questioning. – I’m from the Russian Embassy, I’m not an expert, just trying to understand.” I handed him a business card, but he refused to give me his, “I’ve only been here a month, my cards haven’t been printed yet.” I did not lag behind and began to ask him about his position in the Embassy (later it turned out that in the diplomatic Handbook he is listed as “second Secretary”). In response, he only looked at his watch: “Sorry, I have to go.”

***

When the CIA wants to know the opinion of Professor John booth (John Booth), call him and ask if he could participate in the conference. At the same time, the name of the Department is not on the official invitation and in the program of the event, the formal sponsor of which is one of the Washington contractor companies.

Hiding his involvement, the CIA makes life easier for scientists

This allows them to indicate their participation in conferences on resumes without disclosing that they actually consulted with the CIA. Such information could not only incite some of their colleagues in science against them, but also damage their reputation in the countries in which they conduct research.

Booth, Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of North Texas, specializes in Latin America. In this region, historical experience has taught officials to be wary of the CIA. “If you’re going to travel to Latin America, it’s very important that you don’t have certain things in your biography”, Booth explained to me in March 2016. – When you go to such conference even if it is carried out by intelligence services or military, in the summary it isn’t reflected. Participants need such a Fig leaf also because there are still some biases in academic circles. For example, at the events of Latin Americans, I will not tell you that I recently participated in a conference organized by the CIA.

The CIA holds conferences on foreign policy issues so that its analysts familiar with classified information can learn from researchers who see the picture as a whole and are familiar with open sources. Professors usually pay $ 1,000 in the idea of the fee and compensate for the costs. The events themselves look like an ordinary scientific conference with reports and questions to the speakers — minus the fact that many participants (as you can assume, CIA analysts) wear badges, which indicate only the name.

Of the ten intelligence conferences that Booth attended — the last of which was held in 2015 and was dedicated to the wave of refugee children from Central America that swept the United States-only two were held directly by the CIA and the Office of the Director of national intelligence [ADNR]. The rest was engaged in the company Centra Technology Inc-one of the leading Washington intermediary firms (“pads”, as they are called), which organize conferences for the CIA.

The CIA provides Centra with funding and tells us who to invite. The events themselves take place at the Centra Convention center in Arlington, Virginia. As reported on the company’s website, it is “an ideal place for conferences, meetings, games and joint events held by our customers.”

“Those who in the subject, when you see the Centra conference, you know that we are talking about the CIA or about the of the Academy, — said the Professor of international politics at Columbia University Robert Jervis (Robert Jervis), a long time consultant to the CIA. “They understand that some scientists benefit from formal cover.”

Centra, established in 1997, has since received more than $ 200 million in government contracts, including $ 40 million from the CIA for organizational support — in particular, for the selection and editing of classified dispatches for the Senate intelligence Committee, five years of studying the practice of torture Department. In 2015, the company’s management consisted of many retired high-ranking intelligence officers. Its founder and head of the Harold Rosenbaum (Harold Rosenbaum) was a scientific and technical consultant to the CIA. Senior Vice President Rick Bogusky (Rick Bogusky) headed the Korean Department in the Intelligence Department of the Ministry of defense. Vice President for research James Harris (James Harris) 22 years led the research projects of the CIA. Director of international Affairs Peggy Lyons (Peggy Lyons), has long been a CIA agent, several times sent to East Asia, held administrative positions in the office. David Kanin, Director of analytical work, worked for 31 years in the CIA as an analyst.

A political scientist from the University of Indiana. Sumit (Sumit Ganguly) spoke at several conferences Centra. “Everyone who cooperates with Centra knows that they are actually working for the us government,” he says. – If events were held by the CIA itself, some would be nervous. As for me, I’m not embarrassed in front of my colleagues. If they don’t like something, it’s their problem. I am an American citizen and I am always ready to give my government good advice.”

According to another political scientist, who made four reports at Centra events, he was told that the company represents some unnamed “clients”. He realized that we are talking about the us intelligence services, only when he saw in the audience of people with badges without names, with the same names. Then he met some of them at another academic conference. They did not have badges, and they did not appear in the program.

Centra’s trying to mask its ties to the CIA. In 2015, it has removed from its website the biography of leadership. Among the” leading customers ” on the site mentioned the Ministry of internal security, the FBI, Land forces and 16 Federal government agencies — but not the CIA. When I called Rosenbaum and asked him if Centra was holding a conference for the CIA, he said, ” That’s not where you’re calling. We have nothing to do with it,” and hung up.

Then I came to the office Centra, located in Burlington, Massachusetts, a Northern suburb of Boston. It is located on the fifth floor. In the logbook all visitors are asked to indicate citizenship and “type of visit” – secret or unclassified. The receptionist led the Director of human resources Diane Colpitts (Dianne Colpitts). She politely listened to me, contacted Rosenbaum, and said that Centra would not comment on anything. “To be honest,” she added, ” our customers prefer that we do not communicate with the press.”

***

For Iranian academics fleeing to the West, a scientific conference has turned into the modern equivalent of the underground railroad. The CIA is actively using it. As the head of the Institute of science and international security David Albright (David Albright) told me, since the time of President George W. Bush, the US government has allocated “unlimited funds” for covert operations to slow down Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In particular, the CIA organized an operation “brain Drain”, the purpose of which was to push the leading Iranian nuclear scientists to flee to America.

As a former intelligence officer explained to me, it was difficult to get to scientists in Iran itself, and so the CIA lured them to friendly and neutral countries at the conference. Management, in consultation with the Israelis, chose the object for development. Then it organized a conference at a famous scientific Institute. To do this, we used a “gasket” — usually some entrepreneur, allegedly allocated for the event (at the expense of the CIA) the amount of 500,000 dollars to 2 million dollars. It could be the owner of a technology company — or intelligence could specifically create a shell company for him, so that his sponsorship did not cause suspicion in the Institute, which should not have been aware of the involvement of the CIA. “The less you know, the scientists, the safer the situation for everyone,” says the former tsereushnik. The pads knew they were working for the CIA, but they didn’t know the purpose of the job — and the Agency only used them once.

The conference was to be devoted to one of the aspects of nuclear physics having peaceful application, as well as to correspond to the research interests of the facility. Iranian nuclear scientists usually work in universities at the same time. Like any Professor, they love to travel at someone else’s expense. The Iranian government has allowed them to occasionally attend conferences-even if under protection-to keep up with the latest research and to get acquainted with suppliers of modern technology. In addition, it was of propaganda value.

“From the Iranian point of view, it certainly made sense to send scientists to the conference on the peaceful use of nuclear energy,” Ronen Bergman (Ronen Bergman) told me. Bergman is a prominent Israeli journalist, published a book “the secret war with Iran: 30 years of a hidden struggle with the most dangerous terrorist country in the world” (“the secret war with Iran: the 30-year clandestine struggle against the most dangerous terrorist power”) and is now working on a political history of the Israeli intelligence — Mossad. “It was advantageous for them to say that they were sending their researchers to the conference to then use peaceful technologies for peaceful purposes.”

A CIA agent leading the operation, was able to impersonate a student, a technical consultant or representative of the company with an exhibition stand. His first task was to rid the scientist of the guards. Let’s say there was a case where a CIA-recruited kitchen staff poisoned the guards ‘ food with a drug that caused them to vomit and diarrhea. The calculation was that they will carry the disease at the expense of eaten on the plane lunch or unusual cuisine.

With some luck, the agent was able to catch the object alone for a few minutes and talk to him. Usually before that, the intelligence agent carefully studied the Iranian-read the file and talked with “access agents” who were in direct contact with him. As a result, if the scientist doubted whether he was really dealing with the CIA, the scout could say that he knew everything about it — and prove it. For example, one agent told a potential defector, “I know you had cancer and had your left testicle removed.

Even after the scientist agreed to switch sides, he could change his mind and escape. “He had to constantly recruit, again and again,” explains the former intelligence agent. Even when he was already sitting in the car going to the airport, and the CIA together with allied intelligence services organized a visa and tickets. The CIA also made every effort to take his wife and children to the United States — but not his mistress, as one of the defectors demanded. The office provided him and his family with housing and certain long — term benefits-in particular, paid for the higher education of his children.
As I was told by a competent source from among the former employees of CIA, in the USA — through conferences and not only — scientists ran enough to seriously brake the Iranian nuclear program. According to him, the engineer who built centrifuges for the Iranians agreed to flee on one condition: that he would be allowed to defend his thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of technology. Unfortunately, the CIA took him out of Iran without documents – including without diplomas. Therefore, the MTI first, and then the CIA turned him down. However, in the end, the Agency insisted, and the famous engineering UNIVERSITY agreed to meet the scouts and cancel the formalities. To test the defector, a group of professors from different departments was assembled. He brilliantly passed the oral exam, was admitted to graduate school and defended himself.

MIT Administration claims that they know nothing about it. “I’ve never heard anything like it,” said the head of the Department of mechanical engineering, Gan Chen (Chen gang). However, two academic sources confirmed the credibility of the story at key points. Muhammad Sahimi, Professor of oil field studies at the University of southern California (Mohammad Sahimi), who studies Iranian policy in the nuclear industry, said that a defector who worked in the Iranian nuclear program defended his thesis at MIT on mechanical engineering. Professor of mechanical engineering from MIT Timothy gutovsky (Timothy Gutovsky), in turn, said: “in our laboratory worked one guy. One day I learned that in Iran he was dealing with centrifuges, and I wondered how we had it.”

Due to the fact that in 2015 Iran agreed to limit — in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions — the development of nuclear weapons, the issue of recruiting defectors from the Iranian nuclear program has partially lost importance for us intelligence. However, if President trump abandons this deal, which he condemned in his September speech to the UN General Assembly, or decides to revise it, the CIA can once again engage in a secret hunt for prominent Iranian nuclear scientists with the help of staged conferences.

This is an edited excerpt from the book of Daniel Golden, “Espionage in higher education: how the CIA, FBI and the foreign intelligence agencies secretly used by American universities” (“spy schools: how the CIA, FBI, and foreign intelligence secretly to exploit America’s universities”) opening November 1 in the publishing house of Henry Holt.

The post THE SCIENCE OF SPYING: HOW THE CIA SECRETLY RECRUITS SCIENTISTS first appeared on Global Policy.