Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (134406)	5/25/2004 6:17:55 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

{Your post told me more details than I needed to know. It all sounds so 80's, like a bad spy Movie with Redford or Harrison Ford. And look at this..Feith is in the thick of everything!} TPM reports on...today's Times ... In one of several cases in which an Iraqi prisoner died at Abu Ghraib in connection with interrogations, a hooded man identified only by his last name, Jamadi, slumped over dead on Nov. 20 as he was being questioned by a C.I.A. officer and translator, intelligence officials said. The incident is being investigated by the C.I.A.'s inspector general, and military officials have said that the man, whose body was later packed in ice and photographed at Abu Ghraib, had never been assigned a prisoner number, an indication that he had never been included on any official roster at the prison. The memorandum criticizing the practice of keeping prisoners off the roster was signed by Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, and a James Bond, who is identified as "SOS, Agent in Charge." Military and intelligence officials said that they did not know of a Mr. Bond who had been assigned to Abu Ghraib, and that it was possible that the name was an alias. An intelligence official said Monday that he could not confirm the authenticity of the document, and that neither "SOS" or "Agent in Charge" was terminology that the C.I.A. or any other American intelligence agency would use. A military official said he believed that the document was authentic and was issued on or about Jan. 12, two days before abuses at Abu Ghraib involving military police were brought to the attention of Army investigators. Isn't that Feith's nom de guerre when he's in the field? I need to make some calls on that. -- Josh Marshall Rascal @LivingInRealTime.com

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (134406)	5/26/2004 2:05:00 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi." Whoa nelly. The CIA has hated Chalabi for years now, and done everything in their power to discredit him. And now they claim to have been helpless pawns of his disinformation campaign? Do they expect me to believe that they hated him, discredited him every way they knew how, and believed him implicitly all at the same time? This does not compute.

To: Harvey Allen who wrote (134406)	5/26/2004 2:37:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials. "This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said. The real question is exactly how Chalabi managed to get his hands on such tremendously classified information in the first place.. The CIA allegations bring to a head a dispute between the CIA and the Pentagon officials instrumental in promoting Mr Chalabi and his intelligence in the run-up to the war. By calling for an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, the CIA is, in effect, threatening to disgrace senior neo-conservatives in the Pentagon. There's going to be a "mole-hunt" of the highest order, IMO. Because only the most stringently cleared Americans would have had access to such level of intelligence. And, in general, the list of people who have such access is generally quite limited and traceable. Hawk