CIA Agents in Classrooms?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This is from the print edition of the journal "Counterpunch" which can be found at www.counterpunch.org :

 

Alexander Cockburn (COUNTERPUNCH, 1-26-05)

 

The CIA's New Spies on Campus

 

After disclosure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's effort to set a

new and spectacularly unaccountable version of the CIA in the Pentagon,

the sprouting forest of secret intelligence operations set up in the

wake of 9/11 is at last coming under some scrutiny. Here's sinister one

in the academic field that one that that had escaped scrutiny until this

week.

 

Dr David Price, of St Martins College, in Olympia, Washington is an

anthropologist long interested in the intersections of his discipline

with the world of intelligence and national security, both the CIA and

the FBI. CounterPunchers know Price's work well. Now he's turned the

spotlight on a new test program, operating without detection or protest,

that is secretly placing CIA agents in American university classrooms.

 

With time these students who cannot admit to their true intentions will

inevitably pollute and discredit the universities in which they are now

enrolled. Subscribers to our CounterPunch newsletter are now receiving

the edition with Price's full investigation. Herewith a brief resume of

his expose.

 

Even before 9/11 government money was being sluiced into the academies

for covert subsidies for students. The National Security Education

Program (NSEP) siphoned off students from traditional foreign language

funding programs and offered graduate students good money, sometimes

$40,000 a year and up, to study "in demand" languages, but with pay-back

stipulations mandating that recipients later work for unspecified U.S.

national security agencies.

 

When the NSEP got off the ground in the early 1990s there was some huff

and puff from concerned academics about this breaching of the supposed

barrier between the desires of academia and the state. But there wasn't

even a watch-pup's yap about Congressional approval for section 318 of

the 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act which appropriated four million

dollars to fund a pilot program known as the Pat Roberts Intelligence

Scholars Program (PRISP), named after Senator Pat Roberts (R. Kansas,

Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence).

 

PRISP is designed to train intelligence operatives and analysts in

American university classrooms for careers in the CIA and other

agencies. The program now operates on an undisclosed number of American

college and university campuses. Dr Price has discovered that if the

pilot phase of the program proves to be a useful means of recruiting and

training members of the intelligence community then the program will

expand to more campuses across the country.

 

PRISP participants must be American citizens who are enrolled fulltime

in graduate degree programs. They need to "complete at least one summer

internship at CIA or other agencies", and they must pass the same

background investigations as other CIA employees. PRISP students receive

financial stipends ranging up to $25,000 per year and they are required

to participate in closed meetings with other PRISP scholars and

individuals from their administering intelligence agency.

 

>From his enquiries Dr Price has determined that less than 150 students a

year are currently authorized to receive funding during the pilot phase

as PRISP evaluates the program's initial outcomes. PRISP is apparently

administered not just by the CIA, but also through a variety of

individual intelligence agencies like the NSA, MID, or Naval Intelligence.

 

Secrecy is the root problem here, with the usual ill-based assumption

that good intelligence operates best in clandestine conditions. Of

course America needs good intelligence, but the most useful and

important intelligence can largely be gathered openly without the sort

of covert invasion of our campuses that PRISP silently brings.

 

Anyone doubting the superior merits of open intelligence has only to

study the sorry saga of the non-existent WMDs whose imagined threat in

vast stockpiles was ringingly affirmed by all the secret agencies, while

being contested by analysts unencumbered by bogus covert intelligence

estimates massaged by Iraqi disinformers and political placemen in

Langley and elsewhere.

 

Dr Price says, "The CIA makes sure we won't know which classrooms PRSIP

scholars attend, this being rationalized as a requirement for protecting

the identities of intelligence personnel." But this secrecy shapes PRISP

as it takes on the form of a covert operation in which PRISP students

study chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology and

foreign languages without their fellow classmates, professors, advisors,

department chairs or presumably even research subjects (knowing that

they are working for the CIA, DIA, NSA or other intelligence agencies.

 

"In a decade and a half of Freedom of Information Act research," Dr

Price continues, " I have read too many FBI reports of students

detailing the 'deviant' political views of their professors." In one

instance elicited by Dr Price from files he acquired under FOIA, the FBI

arranged for a graduate student to guide topics of 'informal'

conversation with anthropologist Gene Weltfish that were later the focus

of an inquiry by Joseph McCarthy). Today, Dr Price maintains, "These

PRSIP students are also secretly compiling dossiers on their professors

and fellow students."

 

The confluence between academe and intelligence is long standing and

pervasive. In 1988 CIA spokeswoman Sharon Foster bragged that the CIA

then secretly employed enough university professors "to staff a large

university". Most experts estimate that this presence has grown since 2001.

 

But If the CIA can use PRISP to corral students, haul along to mandatory

internships and summer sessions, douse them in the ethos of CIA, then it

can surely shape their intellectual outlook even before their grasp of

cultural history develops in the relatively open environment of their

university.

 

Academic environments thrive on open disagreement, dissent, and

reformulation. As Dr Price writes," The presence of PRISP's secret

sharers brings hidden agendas that sabotage fundamental academic

processes. The Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program infects all

academia with the viruses dishonesty and distrust as participant

scholars cloak their intentions and their ties to the cloaked masters

they serve."

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This is from the print edition of the journal "Counterpunch" which can be found at www.counterpunch.org :

 

Alexander Cockburn (COUNTERPUNCH, 1-26-05)

 

The CIA's New Spies on Campus

 

After disclosure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's effort to set a

new and spectacularly unaccountable version of the CIA in the Pentagon,

the sprouting forest of secret intelligence operations set up in the

wake of 9/11 is at last coming under some scrutiny. Here's sinister one

in the academic field that one that that had escaped scrutiny until this

week.

 

Dr David Price, of St Martins College, in Olympia, Washington is an

anthropologist long interested in the intersections of his discipline

with the world of intelligence and national security, both the CIA and

the FBI. CounterPunchers know Price's work well. Now he's turned the

spotlight on a new test program, operating without detection or protest,

that is secretly placing CIA agents in American university classrooms.

 

With time these students who cannot admit to their true intentions will

inevitably pollute and discredit the universities in which they are now

enrolled. Subscribers to our CounterPunch newsletter are now receiving

the edition with Price's full investigation. Herewith a brief resume of

his expose.

 

Even before 9/11 government money was being sluiced into the academies

for covert subsidies for students. The National Security Education

Program (NSEP) siphoned off students from traditional foreign language

funding programs and offered graduate students good money, sometimes

$40,000 a year and up, to study "in demand" languages, but with pay-back

stipulations mandating that recipients later work for unspecified U.S.

national security agencies.

 

When the NSEP got off the ground in the early 1990s there was some huff

and puff from concerned academics about this breaching of the supposed

barrier between the desires of academia and the state. But there wasn't

even a watch-pup's yap about Congressional approval for section 318 of

the 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act which appropriated four million

dollars to fund a pilot program known as the Pat Roberts Intelligence

Scholars Program (PRISP), named after Senator Pat Roberts (R. Kansas,

Chair, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence).

 

PRISP is designed to train intelligence operatives and analysts in

American university classrooms for careers in the CIA and other

agencies. The program now operates on an undisclosed number of American

college and university campuses. Dr Price has discovered that if the

pilot phase of the program proves to be a useful means of recruiting and

training members of the intelligence community then the program will

expand to more campuses across the country.

 

PRISP participants must be American citizens who are enrolled fulltime

in graduate degree programs. They need to "complete at least one summer

internship at CIA or other agencies", and they must pass the same

background investigations as other CIA employees. PRISP students receive

financial stipends ranging up to $25,000 per year and they are required

to participate in closed meetings with other PRISP scholars and

individuals from their administering intelligence agency.

 

>From his enquiries Dr Price has determined that less than 150 students a

year are currently authorized to receive funding during the pilot phase

as PRISP evaluates the program's initial outcomes. PRISP is apparently

administered not just by the CIA, but also through a variety of

individual intelligence agencies like the NSA, MID, or Naval Intelligence.

 

Secrecy is the root problem here, with the usual ill-based assumption

that good intelligence operates best in clandestine conditions. Of

course America needs good intelligence, but the most useful and

important intelligence can largely be gathered openly without the sort

of covert invasion of our campuses that PRISP silently brings.

 

Anyone doubting the superior merits of open intelligence has only to

study the sorry saga of the non-existent WMDs whose imagined threat in

vast stockpiles was ringingly affirmed by all the secret agencies, while

being contested by analysts unencumbered by bogus covert intelligence

estimates massaged by Iraqi disinformers and political placemen in

Langley and elsewhere.

 

Dr Price says, "The CIA makes sure we won't know which classrooms PRSIP

scholars attend, this being rationalized as a requirement for protecting

the identities of intelligence personnel." But this secrecy shapes PRISP

as it takes on the form of a covert operation in which PRISP students

study chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology and

foreign languages without their fellow classmates, professors, advisors,

department chairs or presumably even research subjects (knowing that

they are working for the CIA, DIA, NSA or other intelligence agencies.

 

"In a decade and a half of Freedom of Information Act research," Dr

Price continues, " I have read too many FBI reports of students

detailing the 'deviant' political views of their professors." In one

instance elicited by Dr Price from files he acquired under FOIA, the FBI

arranged for a graduate student to guide topics of 'informal'

conversation with anthropologist Gene Weltfish that were later the focus

of an inquiry by Joseph McCarthy). Today, Dr Price maintains, "These

PRSIP students are also secretly compiling dossiers on their professors

and fellow students."

 

The confluence between academe and intelligence is long standing and

pervasive. In 1988 CIA spokeswoman Sharon Foster bragged that the CIA

then secretly employed enough university professors "to staff a large

university". Most experts estimate that this presence has grown since 2001.

 

But If the CIA can use PRISP to corral students, haul along to mandatory

internships and summer sessions, douse them in the ethos of CIA, then it

can surely shape their intellectual outlook even before their grasp of

cultural history develops in the relatively open environment of their

university.

 

Academic environments thrive on open disagreement, dissent, and

reformulation. As Dr Price writes," The presence of PRISP's secret

sharers brings hidden agendas that sabotage fundamental academic

processes. The Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program infects all

academia with the viruses dishonesty and distrust as participant

scholars cloak their intentions and their ties to the cloaked masters

they serve."

 

 

So what's the big deal? If a college student wants to make a career in the intelligence field and the CIA is willing to grease the skids with cash then I think its a good deal. I think students who want to work for the CIA are sharp enough to know what they're getting themselves in for.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nuke, its like the agent provacateurs of the Vietnam era. But the illegalities and authoritarianism of COINTELPRO are another discussion...

 

The part that struck me was:

 

"In a decade and a half of Freedom of Information Act research," Dr

Price continues, " I have read too many FBI reports of students

detailing the 'deviant' political views of their professors." In one

instance elicited by Dr Price from files he acquired under FOIA, the FBI

arranged for a graduate student to guide topics of 'informal'

conversation with anthropologist Gene Weltfish that were later the focus

of an inquiry by Joseph McCarthy). Today, Dr Price maintains, "These

PRSIP students are also secretly compiling dossiers on their professors

and fellow students."

 

Are we coming to a thought police of just acceptable speech?

[Rex Kickass]

Nuke, its like the agent provacateurs of the Vietnam era.  But the illegalities and authoritarianism of COINTELPRO are another discussion...

 

The part that struck me was:

Are we coming to a thought police of just acceptable speech?

 

If the case is that CIA agents (through this program) are creating files and surveilling Professors, students, etc. - then there's a problem.... The CIA isn't allowed to gather intelligence on Domestic sources to begin with.

 

The rest of this, I frankly have no problem with it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, its like the agent provacateurs of the Vietnam era.  But the illegalities and authoritarianism of COINTELPRO are another discussion...

 

The part that struck me was:

Are we coming to a thought police of just acceptable speech?

 

 

Maybe some people need it.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/31/professor.resigns.ap/

[Rex Kickass]

He lost his job. That's appropriate.

 

CIA surveillance is not.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Maybe some people need it.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/31/professor.resigns.ap/

 

Nuke, here's his reply:

 

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

 

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

 

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

 

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

 

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

 

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

 

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

 

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

 

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

 

Ward Churchill

Boulder, Colorado

January 31, 2005

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I guess in addition to being an anti-american piece of s*** he's a liar as well

 

Didn't favor the 9-11 attacks?

 

In an essay written after the September 11 attacks, Ward Churchill said the World Trade Center victims were "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Europe's Jews. Churchill also spoke of the "gallant sacrifices" of the "combat teams" that struck America.

 

 

-Doesn't advocate violence?

 

See above. Victims are the perps and perps are the victims. Typical leftist trash.

 

 

-500,000 Iraqi Children died as a result of sanctions?

 

More like 500,000 Iraqi children died because Saddam Hussein used his oil for food money on golden palaces, military hardware and bribes to Kofi Annan and company to keep quiet about it all.

 

 

-Comparing "technocrats" working in the WTC to Eichmann is not the same as comparing them to Nazi's? PUHLEEZE! Nice try but your little backtrack isin't cutting it with me.

 

I'm sorry but there is no defense for what this guy said.

 

f*** him.

Edited February 2, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I guess in addition to being an anti-american piece of s*** he's a liar as well

 

Didn't favor the 9-11 attacks? 

-Doesn't advocate violence?

 

See above.  Victims are the perps and perps are the victims.  Typical leftist trash.

-500,000 Iraqi Children died as a result of sanctions?

 

More like 500,000 Iraqi children died because Saddam Hussein used his oil for food money on golden palaces, military hardware and bribes to Kofi Annan and company to keep quiet about it all.

-Comparing "technocrats" working in the WTC to Eichmann is not the same as comparing them to Nazi's?  PUHLEEZE!  Nice try but your little backtrack isin't cutting it with me.

 

I'm sorry but there is no defense for what this guy said. 

 

f*** him.

 

Nice cherry picking...but I'll bite.

 

He said that it took a lot of balls for them to kill themselves while doing such an action -- just like any military activity that has gone down. Acknowledging the courage of a military activity does not mean you advocate it. I acknowledge the balls and bravery of soldiers being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. It does not mean that I approve of the violence being used there or believe in the war.

 

You're bogged down in his semantics while refusing to see his wider point that if the US goes around and bombs the f*** out of people then they really don't get to claim ignorance and innocent because the government is acting in our name. And Nuke, if he's right about the technocrats being supporters of the military destruction throughout the world then his claims are correct -- The other victims: "According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name." Also: "What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies."

 

And the comment by Albright was after it was abundantly clear the sanctions were not working and there was no purpose for the sanctions to be in place. Under the ICC she could have been tried for intent to commit genocide.

Edited February 2, 2005 by LowerCaseRepublican

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nice cherry picking...but I'll bite.

 

He said that it took a lot of balls for them to kill themselves while doing such an action -- just like any military activity that has gone down.  Acknowledging the courage of a military activity does not mean you advocate it.  I acknowledge the balls and bravery of soldiers being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.  It does not mean that I approve of the violence being used there or believe in the war.

 

You're bogged down in his semantics while refusing to see his wider point that if the US goes around and bombs the f*** out of people then they really don't get to claim ignorance and innocent because the government is acting in our name.  And Nuke, if he's right about the technocrats being supporters of the military destruction throughout the world then his claims are correct -- The other victims: "According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name."  Also: "What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies."

 

And the comment by Albright was after it was abundantly clear the sanctions were not working and there was no purpose for the sanctions to be in place.  Under the ICC she could have been tried for intent to commit genocide.

 

 

Yeah, it takes a lot of balls to take a plane load of civillians at knife point hostage then crash them into another bunch of civillians who are sitting at their desks doing their jobs. A whole lot more than it takes for a fighter pilot to bomb a radar station or a bunch of tanks or a defense building with people shooting guns and SAM's at him. His ( and your ) argument is rediculous.

 

BTW. How were these people "running the infrastructure of genocide"?

 

Was it the bond trading? Was it the overseas shipping? Was it the guy serving appetizers to the people who happened to be eating dinner in the restaurant on the top floor?

 

By your logic there are no innocent people in this country because we all pay taxes right? I guess that means we're all supporting the evil U.S. war machine. I guess that makes you a "little Eichmann" in this loony's eyes then.

 

 

BTW No. 2. Obviously sanctions wouldn't work on Saddam since he basically said to hell with the citizens, I don't have enough palaces, there isin't enough gold in my existing palaces, I have to buy military hardware illegally from France and Russia......etc. etc...etc...

 

 

Semantics nothing. He has no point.

[Rex Kickass]

He didn't have weapons either. To drag up that old argument... and that was our justification for war.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yeah,  it takes a lot of balls to take a plane load of civillians at knife point hostage then crash them into another bunch of civillians who are sitting at their desks doing their jobs.  A whole lot more than it takes for a fighter pilot to bomb a radar station or a bunch of tanks or a defense building with people shooting guns and SAM's at him.  His ( and your ) argument is rediculous.

 

BTW.  How were these people "running the infrastructure of genocide"?

 

Was it the bond trading?  Was it the overseas shipping?  Was it the guy serving appetizers to the people who happened to be eating dinner in the restaurant on the top floor?

 

By your logic there are no innocent people in this country because we all pay taxes right?  I guess that means we're all supporting the evil U.S. war machine.  I guess that makes you a "little Eichmann" in this loony's eyes then.

BTW No. 2.  Obviously sanctions wouldn't work on Saddam since he basically said to hell with the citizens,  I don't have enough palaces, there isin't enough gold in my existing palaces, I have to buy military hardware illegally from France and Russia......etc.  etc...etc...

Semantics nothing.  He has no point.

 

Nuke -- companies that develop weapons like cluster bombs were investors there. We both know the "collateral damage" that cluster bombs do. Nuke, if the US Army didn't have as much money, they'd be resorting to similar tactics to get things accomplished. With the Pentagon logic, these victims of 9/11 were collateral damage.

 

Yeah and Nuke for #2, don't forget about the illegal items sold to him from US corporations from the 80s til now that haven't been discussed much.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke -- companies that develop weapons like cluster bombs were investors there.  We both know the "collateral damage" that cluster bombs do.  Nuke, if the US Army didn't have as much money, they'd be resorting to similar tactics to get things accomplished. With the Pentagon logic, these victims of 9/11 were collateral damage.

 

Yeah and Nuke for #2, don't forget about the illegal items sold to him from US corporations from the 80s til now that haven't been discussed much.

 

 

Your argument gets weaker and weaker by the post. How exactly were they investors at places like Cantor Fitzgerald? Was it some machinists 401K plan? You're making quite a stretch here aren't you?

 

You say the only reason that the Army doesn't deprive U.S. citizens of food and medicine is because it has plenty of money in its budget? LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

 

BTW Pre-Persian Gulf war there were no sanctions on Iraq. So explain to me how US companies selling him weapons was illegal and at the same time explain to me how that is relevant to the these 500,000 children that Hussein killed with his gross neglect.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Your argument gets weaker and weaker by the post.  How exactly were they investors at places like Cantor Fitzgerald?  Was it some machinists 401K plan?  You're making quite a stretch here aren't you?

 

You say the only reason that the Army doesn't deprive U.S. citizens of food and medicine is because it has plenty of money in its budget?  LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

 

BTW  Pre-Persian Gulf war there were no sanctions on Iraq.  So explain to me how US companies selling him weapons was illegal and at the same time explain to me how that is relevant to the these 500,000 children that Hussein killed with his gross neglect.

 

Nuke in the 80s, we knew he was a genocidal dictator and still gave him the weapons by which he was slaughtering the Kurds. After that there are the illegal technology sales like companies such as Halliburton. And the reasons about the Army having money was linked to the fact that the Army would also use guerrilla tactics if they did not have the money for stealth bombers, cruise missiles, etc. There's no moral higher ground saying that dropping bombs from thousands of feet up is more noble than accessorizing with dynamite.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke in the 80s, we knew he was a genocidal dictator and still gave him the weapons by which he was slaughtering the Kurds.  After that there are the illegal technology sales like companies such as Halliburton.  And the reasons about the Army having money was linked to the fact that the Army would also use guerrilla tactics if they did not have the money for stealth bombers, cruise missiles, etc.  There's no moral higher ground saying that dropping bombs from thousands of feet up is more noble than accessorizing with dynamite.

 

 

No. We sold him weapons that were used to slaughter Iranians whom they were at war with the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" deal. I made my point about how Saddam was getting his hardware in the face of sanctions and you said the US would do the same thing if they had that type of problem.

 

Yes there is moral high ground for attacks made against military targets in wartime as opposed to using a civillian airliner packed with civillians to target and kill more civillians. There is no comparison between the two. PERIOD.

Edited February 3, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[JUGGERNAUT]

Someone mentioned thought police & the analogy is obvious. There's no solution to this because the students are doing this intel on their own volition. There is no CIA directive coming down to them to do it. No orders to follow. No paper trail that can be used to mount a legal challenge.

 

In the book, 1984 they don't give much credence to the almighty dollar. It seems the thought police are a by-product of brain-washing & correction education. But in the year 2005 money is the greatest human influence. The thought police will arise from the payoff. Make it high enough & these same students will be gathering intel on their own mom & dads.

 

What's scary is when you tie this to the extremist viewpoint that Iraq & the war against the Al-Queda is just a diversionary exercise. They believe that officials in the US knew an attack was imminent. They didn't know the details but they did know that they need to put a plan into place to get the Saudi's & other members of Wahabi's out of the country in the event an attack were to occur. They believe that Wahabi's are using all of this to expand their sphere of influence around the world while moving governments to a form of control they favor. The nightmare of course is that when the level of control & influence reaches a state they desire the Wahabi's will control what is acceptable or unacceptable thought.

 

I don't know if it's true or not but I do know that some of the construction companies in Iraq are controlled by members of the Wahabi.