From: Gene McAloon 

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:10:10 +0100, Adam Flinton
 wrote:

>Gene McAloon wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 00:38:44 +0100, Adam Flinton

>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gee & if it had been a marine prison then the cia would have been
>>>banned...nope maybe that was a USAF prison...what crap. Heck they ran
>>>the place in part on "civilian contractors" who
"in theory" were neither
>>>DoD nor CIA nor indeed of any specific US gov dept.
>>>
>>>Plausible deniability was broken by the poor reservists who didn't
>>>understand the rules of the game wrt photos.
>>
>>
>> It is obvious you don't have a clue about this stuff.
>
>ROFLMAO.
>
>> The prison in question is
>> run by the US Army which is part of the Defense Dept.
>
>Gosh really? Gee whiz...are they the guys wot dress in green & have guns?
>
>> The CIA is an entirely
>> autonomous agency and neither can or does interfere with the other.
>
>Ah right. So they're not "fighting together in the war on terror" then?
>This is as much bollox as the US Embassy in Amman having no CIA, only
>"agriculture department officals" even though the place is a forest of
>aerials & odd people who know very little about growing stuff.

They are fighting the alleged war on terror together only to the extent
they feel like cooperating. They are independent, autonomous agencies, each
with it own supporters in Congress. The original Homeland Security Dept.
was supposed to
contain both the CIA and the FBI, for example, thus supposedly compelling
cooperation of the two. Congress would not accept that.

As for embassies, the Ambassador is under the State Dept. If there is a CIA
agent within the embassy, under whatever title, the ambassador has no
control over him or over what he does. The CIA man has even got a desk in
the embasy only at the sufferance of the State Dept.

As I say, you really don't have a clue about this stuff.
>
>Gee Gene I suppose next you're going to tell me that Iraq has such a
>deep need for an agricultural overhaul that Baghdad too is completely
>lacking in CIA but well staffed with agriculture departments people.
>
>Maybe the FDA & the US parks service also have people there.
>
>
>> If the Army
>> doesn't want the CIA in its prison, they will not be present. It is as
simple as
>> that.
>>
>
>Bollox. You are either (a) ignorant (b) disengenous or (c) naive.
>
>Who's their boss? Oh right they all serve the same master & have the
>same aims given to them by the US executive.

Again and as always you display your profoung ignorance of how the US government
operates. It is rare for a president to take a day by day interest in what
any agency does. In affect, those agencies are independent of direct
control by the White House and each agency has its supporters in Congress.
Furthermore, not even the civilian head of an agency necessarily exercises
all that much control if the working stiffs in the agency don't like what
he wants and what he wants isn't liked by its supporters in Congress
either.

If you knew anything about your own govenment, you would know that your
cabinet ministers often face the same problem with the civil service types
in every ministry. But of course you don't know that. At that, I can't but
wonder just what it could be that you do know something about. It certainly
isn't government
or politics, either yours or ours.
>
>> The "contract" people are not CIA people in civilian clothes.
>
>A fair few of them will be. Ooops I mean they are agriculture department
>doing some "intense interrogation" wrt "local
agricultural practices".
>
>A fair few will be ex Special forces who can get paid 5 years salary in
>6 months & then following their "sabbatical" can oddly
enough rejoin the
>armed forces as if they had never been away.
>
>> They are employees
>> of private companies hired by various government departments.
>
>Gee just like Gary Powers then.
>
>> The contractors,
>> if indeed there were any, in that prison would have been hired by some
office or
>> group in the Defense Dept or perhaps by the Army itself. This kind of
>> privatization of work previously done by the military itself has accelerated
>> enormously under Bush, the impetus having come primarily form the former
>> Secretary of the Army who pushed it heavily.
>>
>
>It has always happened. No airforce people in or involved with the U2
>either, oh no it was all  "civilian contractors".

In case you were unaware of it, that stuff goes back to the '50s and only
someone as utterly ignorant as you would see any relevance between then and
now.
You are confusing the civilian contractors often used by the CIA in Central
America in the 80's with contractors now in Iraq. Dumb stuff. The
contractors nowadays even run Army mess halls. Who hires them? It sure as
hell is not the CIA.
>
>> Get a clue, Adam, and stop demonstrating your anti-US bigotry induced
ignorance.
>> It long ago became . . . tiresome.
>>
>
>ROFLMAO. How is any of the above "anti-US bigotry"? You are simply
>ignorant You try & hide that beneath a veneer of bigotry & then when
>both are noted you resort to the above. Sad really.
>
>Adam
>
>
>Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5