By Janet Phelan
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 50 USC 421 Sec. 601. (a)
In the wake of revelations that the Washington Post—which has been leading the charge against the so-called “fake news Russian propagandists” in the independent press—is owned by CIA business partner Jeff Bezos, new concern should be raised about the possibility that the long arm of Langley extends into foreign press, as well.
And specifically, into Russian media.
And why wouldn’t the CIA try to infiltrate the Russian press? Short of eliminating Putin and putting in a body double, using the Russian press to pursue the US’s information-disseminating interests would be standard operating procedure. Certainly the Western European press has already succumbed to US imperatives.
The CIA has a long history of attempts at press control. Operation Mockingbird, launched in the 1940s by Frank Wisner, was reportedly operational “at least” during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and recruited journalists to represent the CIA’s position. While Mockingbird was reportedly terminated in 1976 by an order of then CIA Director George Bush, the relationships continued.
At this juncture, we appear to have two medias entire. We have the mainstream press and the “independent” or “alternative” press. Would it really be so shocking to learn that the latter is also now infested with CIA golems?
A case in point might be made by the coverage of my recent presentation at the Biological Weapons Convention in Geneva. Literally hundreds of press releases were sent out to the Western media, not only in the US but also to press organizations in Germany, France, Great Britain and Switzerland, advising them that proof would be provided to the BWC that the US was in violation of the treaty in some rather alarming ways.
As it eventuated, the only mainstream coverage given the allegations that the US was violating the treaty was provided by TASS, the Russian news giant, which published an article specifically detailing these claims.
The behavior of one reporter at a Moscow-based online news group (which I at one time wrote for) further heightens suspicions about the long arm of the CIA. The reporter, an American citizen named REDACTED1, agreed to write an article about what transpired at the BWC. He subsequently sent me the article, which had already been submitted to this outlet. Shockingly, the article made the following assertions:
However, if the US is actually allowing the release of selective evidence at this convention it does suggest that it will look elsewhere for programmes to do wrong under….But it may convert them to other purposes if it can find a better way of doing the same thing, bio warfare—and a controlled release of information suggests it has begun to do in some hotspots.
In other words, according to REDACTED1, my groundbreaking presentation at the BWC was “allowed” by the US government. According to the implications, by making this presentation at the BWC, I served as a vetted tool for US interests.
I happen to know that even the reporter in question does not believe this. After returning from Geneva in mid November, I received a Facebook message from him inquiring how I was able to do what I did in Geneva and get out of there alive.
As his article also involved plagiarism and numerous factual errors, I wrote the editors to lodge my protest. To date, it has not been published.
That very same reporter, interestingly, has ties with another “independent” news outlet which has recently come under fire as being a CIA operation, and which has many more reporters also doing double duty and writing for this Moscow-based organization. One in particular, REDACTED2, makes no bones about his intelligence ties. His published bio includes his membership in “Association of Intelligence Officers.” Others involved with these suspect organizations have been scrutinized in this post on the Wayne Madsen forum.
Apparently, this forum post relates to an unavailable article by Madsen, entitled “Spooks Today” and is possibly available only at this link, which turns out to be “private.” Alas. . . .
The stated concerns in the above post about the shadowy Adamus Group, however, have been at least partially verified. Both REDACTED2 and numerous others are publicly known to be affiliated with Adamus. One website in question describes Adamus thus, “Adamus, among other things, manages a series of organizations that oversee high security databases for national intelligence agencies, law enforcement groups and financial institutions…..Adamus is privately held, quasi-governmental and operates under the authorities of several treaties and conventions.” Adamus has also been referred to as a defense contracting firm.
A defense contractor, however, generally has contracts. Right? When no contracts between the US government and Adamus could be found on usaspending.gov, this reporter contacted the press office with the Department of Defense and was told that CIA contracts were non discloseable and would not therefore appear on usaspending.gov.
REDACTED3 is listed as a Senior Editor in “independent media” as well as a board member of Adamus.
REDACTED1, REDACTED2 AND REDACTED3 are regular contributors to Russian outlets.
One might also notice that some of the commonly cited Russian independent outlets all heavily use Western reporters. Strangely, none of these websites has published a word about the allegations made at the BWC implicating the US government in treaty violations, although all received the press release and other materials. Only TASS, Russian to the core, reported on this.
As Russia is now reportedly going to be hit with sanctions for their alleged hacking of emails negative concerning Hillary Clinton, one must wonder how deep the US’s desperation to control the truth has become. If infiltrating Russian media with CIA-connected journalists is not enough to sway the hearts and minds of international readers, is the next step going to be to devastate Russia’s ability to even promote an alternate version of the facts? If infiltration does not succeed, will all out cyberwar and economic sanctions do the trick? And if Russia submits to what amounts to US mandates of what can and cannot be published, does this mean that truth is not welcome in any latitude?
Perhaps it is best that each one of us learns to employ a new level of discernment within an information matrix growing more complex by the day.
Janet Phelan is an investigative journalist whose articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The San Bernardino County Sentinel, The Santa Monica Daily Press, The Long Beach Press Telegram, Oui Magazine and other regional and national publications. Janet specializes in issues pertaining to legal corruption and addresses the heated subject of adult conservatorship, revealing shocking information about the relationships between courts and shady financial consultants. She also covers issues relating to international bioweapons treaties. Her poetry has been published in Gambit, Libera, Applezaba Review, Nausea One and other magazines. Her first book, The Hitler Poems, was published in 2005. She is also the author of a tell-all book EXILE, (also available as an ebook). She currently resides abroad.
December 30, 2016 at 09:41PM