From: Adam Flinton 

Gene McAloon wrote:
> 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.

Yeah right & the CIA took day trips over the SU just coz they felt like
it & not because the SU was their directed enemy.Gee wasn't it just so
nice of the USAF to lend em so many resources for this effort...blimey your
airforce are just so altruistic.


> They are independent, autonomous agencies,

They are not independant nor autonomous of the executive.

> each with it
> own supporters in Congress.

& they are both directed by the executive.

> 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.
>

Fine. Next you'll be saying the FBI have never sent anyone to GT to talk to
people there "because it's an army prison".


> 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.
>

Bulsh*t. The State dept is once more under the executive. If the executive
decides that there will be an agriculture dept representative who is going
to talk to the locals & take photos of "landscapes" then the
state etc have no power to block it.


> As I say, you really don't have a clue about this stuff.
>

Gene, have you ever left America & visited any of your embassies
abroad? Do you know any staff of said embassies? Downtown Chicago still
counts as being in the US.


>>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.

Indeed but you seem not to be aware of the fact that the US executive is
not a single man but an office with staff.


> In affect, those agencies are independent of direct control by the
> White House and each agency has its supporters in Congress.

Really. So what do people like Ms Rice do all day?

> 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.
>

Ah right so any CIA bod can just wake up one morning & go "Gee I
think I'd like to visit Afghan & Iraqi prisons this week...humm I
wonder if I have enough airmiles to cover the flights & the hotel
bills..."


> 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.
>

You wouldn't recognise knowledge if it headbutted you.


>>>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 stepping deeper into the mire of your own ignorance with every
passing paragraph. I can quote examples from all over the world with a
whole list of dates ranging from "air america" in the 60'es
through various groups operating in latin America up till the 90'es.

& then there are the people helping the mujeheddin & indeed groups such
as UNITA in Angola etc.etc.etc. The "unattached" civilian has a
long history in these things.


> You are confusing the civilian contractors often used by the CIA in Central
> America in the 80's with contractors now in Iraq.

No I'm not.

> Dumb stuff. The contractors
> nowadays even run Army mess halls. Who hires them? It sure as hell is not the
> CIA.
>

Not just the CIA. The mil have picked up so CIA techniques & tactics
wrt plausible deniability. I am not talking about Haliburton truck drivers.

Adam

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