Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Rove: Smear efforts to intimidate knowledgeable CIA NOCs to keep silent about WMD ruses

Quick link: What are Chatham House Rules?

The White House smearing and outings were in direct support of the "fixing of facts" to justify an unlawful war of aggression.

The scope of the smearing and intimidation is large. US citizens have been subject to direct intimidation to keep silent about the unlawful war of aggression.

  • Sample testimony on smear efforts against NOCs.

    This information needs to be investigated and the public needs to understand the link between the Downing Street Memo and the White House efforts to silence the public about the unlawful war of aggression.


    I had some thoughts on the Non Official Cover [NOC] status of CIA agents.

    At this juncture, it is clear that the White House did orchestrate in a conspiracy to provide false information about the reasons for invading Iraq.

    The Downing Street Memo shows us that facts were fixed.

    Also, we know that evidence and documents were fabricated by someone.

    Further, we know that the NYT Judith Miller is in jail for her failure to reveal information.

    Moreover, prosecutor Fitzgerald has other information he has not disclosed.


    My concern at this juncture is that it appears the scope of the White House public propaganda campaign in the run-up to the war in Iraq wasn't simply a smear effort against those agents and families who spoke out.

    Rather, there was another domestic component and objective to the intimidation effort.

    Non Official Cover status appears to be something that allows CIA agents to operate overseas.

    However, keep in mind what this Non Official Cover [NOC] status is really all about: It is wink-wink between the CIA and the employee that they will get paid, but if they are caught there is no protection. In short the NOC status is a green light by the CIA to violate laws in exchange for compensation.

    I believe the White House propaganda effort in the lead-up to the war didn't merely involve smearing those who spoke out [Wilson, Ritter, Brazilian chemical inspector], but also those Non Official Cover status CIA employees who work in the Untied States.

    Bluntly, it appears as though part of the propaganda effort by the White House, DoD, and Office of Special Plans [OSP] was to influence key "influencers" in society and get them to publicly make public statements favorable to the White House position.

    In hindsight, these positions were not only unlawful, but they were based on fabricated evidence and were known by the White House counsel and Number 10 Attorney General as being fabrication. Note that the Deputy Attorney General in the UK resigned, calling the plans a war of aggression.

    Which leads us back to the US domestic efforts to influence public opinion.

    I believe the part of the puzzle that the Grand Jury is looking at, and could be connected to the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife, is related to this Non Official Cover status.

    It would appear as though particular individuals operating in the media, universities, think tanks and other information clearing houses are actually CIA agents. Moreover, my concern is that their NOC status isn't to protect them, as much as it is to have a means for the White House to spew forth non-sense and prevent those in the know from speaking out.

    In short, it appears as though the outing of the CIA operative's name wasn't simply to punish Wilson but was to send a signal to all the other CIA operatives working in Academia, think tanks, and other places that can influence the media to "get on board" or you're in jeopardy.

    Thus, I would encourage the Special Prosecutors to broaden the White House investigation and look at the other lists of names and organizations that were on the White House smear list.

    With time, perhaps some of these NOC agents may choose to come forward and say, "Yes, they were also threatened; and knew of falsehoods; but were dissuaded from providing information to the CIA IG or Congress."

    In short, it appears as though the larger WMD-ruses are linked to the Downing Street Memo. Facts were fixed; and then the other side of the coin was to impose discipline on those who knew the facts.

    And those in Academia who may rely on Chattham House rules to share the truth, they were blackmailed to keep silent about the implications of the Downing Street Memo and the real shams.

    I argue that this intimidation was not only applied to CIA NOCs operating stateside, but also onto those who may have been given hints.

    Namely, the White House was hoping to send a signal: "Hay, we're willing to expose our own agents over this. The American public better cooperate."

    Indeed, we saw on the streets of New York how evidence was fabricated.

    It remains a matter of time to understand to what extent JTTF, FBI, and US Army National Guard have also been spun up to similarly intimidate American citizens to be quiet about their legitimate concerns prior to the launch of the war of aggression.

    I further propose that the full "evidence" being used to "justify" the patriot Act renewal be put in the context of these smear efforts:

  • To what extent is information still being fabricated to justify what amount to unconstitutional violations of civil liberties;

  • To what extent is DoD, DoJ, JTTF, CIA NOCs being intimidated through Plame-like-outings to be silent about the continuing ruses and non-sense used to dissuade public knowledge of the full scope of the conspiracy;

    At this point, all bets are off. For it appears the White House intimidation effort as evidenced by Rove's-connection-to-Plame is just the tip of the iceberg of a fraud not only committed on the Congress, Constitution, and American public, but the Entire UN General Assembly.

    These are more than issues of treason. They are matters of criminal law.

    If the US refuses to look into these broader issues, then it would be fitting for the UN General Assembly to require a vote so that both the US and UK are held accountable for this unlawful war of aggression.

    If you fail to act, Mr. Bolton will soon be arriving to the UN to ensure you are distracted with non-sense reforms and dissuaded from canceling the arguably unlawful and unenforceable agreements "not to prosecute" the US for war crimes.

    with time we will come to understand to what extent the White House smearings and outings were related to other evidence related to keeping quiet about torture, abuse, whitewash intelligence investigations, war crimes, and US government involvement in 9-11.

    Fitzgerald needs more than a larger staff. He needs a larger budget and support from the American Public: He remains the last check on the White House tyranny.

    Let's hope the White House chooses to cooperate before the staff is brought up on charges of obstruction of justice.

    My bet is that they'll be stupid and fail to understand the full public outrage at what is rapidly escalating into an impeachment hearing.

    You are either with the Constitution or you are with Tyranny.

    Fitzgerald is with the Constitution. If you get in his way, you made the wrong choice.

    Try again. You have brought this on yourself. And we will be relentless in hunting you down and brining you to justice.

    It is time the public is encouraged to come forward with what they know about how they were dissuaded to speak out, or how they were induced to embrace fiction. Also, to what extent they were promised financial rewards for keeping silent about the ruses over WMD.

    Corporate finance

  • How many contracts were they promised in exchange for silence?

  • How many stock options were they promised to go along with the ruse?

  • What contracts were negotiated on the unlawful foundation for war?

  • How many contracts were issued that are not enforceable because they contribute to an unlawful objective?

  • How much money will the insurance companies lose because they back policies that requirement payments to firms who will suffer financial losses for having provided services, but are denied payment because those contacts and repayments are not enforceable?


  • Unlawful interference with open debates on unlawful WH objectives

    How many university professionals [actually CIA NOCs] were threatened with outing if they dared discuss with their academic peers [Non NOCs] about their valid concerns about the legal foundation for war?

  • Unlawful damper on free exchange of ideas on issues contrary to WH unlawful objectives

    How many university endowed chairs [actually CIA NOCs] were threatened with loss of funding, promised benefits, or other valuable consideration if they dared open their mouth about the unlawful war of aggression, or the lack of scholarly research that would support the invasion?

    How many CIA NOCs were denied trips, conference attendance, training or other valuable skills enhancement benefits because they arrived at conclusions contrary to the unlawful White House objectives?

  • Unlawful suppression of peer interactions on issues contrary to WH objectives

    How many CIA NOCs in the United States were threatened with loss of promotion, downgraded, or lost their jobs/benefits/valuable consideration because they engaged in conversations contrary to the White House official policy; and then suffered retribution that was without any credible basis; and the sanctions were imposed without any logical connection to any sanctionable conduct?

  • Unlawful damper on scholarly research in issues contrary to WH unlawful objectives

    How many CIA NOCs [in the United States in academia, the media, and other places of significant public opinion influence] were threatened to keep quiet about the unlawful foundation for war, war crimes, and other information that scholarly academics could easily piece together as they did in TWA 800 explosion and the 9-11 Twin Tower collapses?

  • Unlawful interference with scholarly research and peer review process on issues contrary to unlawful WH objectives

    How many research grants have been cancelled or threatened to have been cancelled if knowledgeable CIA NOCs in academia published peer-review articles showing the information running up to the invasion of Iraq was scientifically flawed and that this information was known to the White House to be flawed and without any scientific merit?

  • Unlawful suppression scientific research inconsistent with WH unlawful objectives

    To what extent were academic professionals, researchers, scientists, experts in physics/chemistry/nuclear physics dissuaded from speaking out about the glaring disconnect between the information being provided from the White House and the credible evidence showing the run up to the war was a sham?

  • Unlawful threats and retaliation against legal community for arriving at legal conclusions contrary to the unlawful WH objectives

    How many legal scholars have been threatened with disbarment for speaking out about the war crimes, unlawful foundation for war, or the violations of the laws of war in re Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rendition program?


    Recall, that the opening clauses of the Constitution talk about free people coming together to form a more perfect union.

    In short, it means people can do more on their own if they work together.

    However, when the White House dissuades free and open debate and inputs from academia it moves contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Rather than acting as a form to dovetail threads of truth, the White House has been the scissors to cut the link between truth and accountability.

    In short, the White House by engaging in this outing effort has not only violated the laws of war, but has simply used the fruits of its educational system as the excuse to impose sanctions on those bold enough to speak out.

    That is more than unAmerican. It is outrageous and in itself warrants a complete understanding by the public: What is this "leadership" doing talking about "Freedom" when all its actions are focused on suppressing free minds!

    That is not a question. We know the answer of "why". The real objective is to ensure that all know what is going on and that the White House needs to stop this outrageous and unlawful intimidation.

    Rove's head is on the proverbial judicial chopping block.


    With time, we will see the link between the Downing Street memo and the war crimes committed not just on Iraq but on the American public. These "leaders" have done this to their own citizenry.

    And for that, there is no excuse. And to that end, they shall be hunted down and brought before the court to face judgment.

    Freely cooperate or choose to be hunted down and brought to justice.

    Either way, you've already lost. We know. And the Constitution grows stronger.


    Subj: WH continued smearing of Wilson -- Evidence of wider WH efforts to silence NOCs stateside from speaking out about war crimes

    I had some thoughts on the Non Official Cover status [NOCs]. It appears as though the White House operative-outings were designed to dissuade the NOC's stationed stateside from speaking out about the ruses leading up to the Iraq invasion.

    I go into some further discussion and hope you find this a catalyst for broadening the scope of the Grand Jury investigation into Rove and looking at the wider efforts by the White House to silence American citizens about a war of aggression. [ More . . . ]

    I look forward to reading your responses.


    Hannah and Libby apparently part of a wider US Govement effort to intimidate CIA NOCs to keep quiet about the facts: WMD, 9-11, and war crimes.