- – Owned the Cocaine airplanes; listed as “Cocaine 1 & Cocaine 2” in FAA logs
- – Owned the rendition airplanes
- – Hits for hire
- – Sold services to private companies and lobbyists
- – Engaged in market manipulations for Silicon Valley VC’s
- – “The BlackWater Tech-Mercenaries of Washington, DC” -Times
- – Stole technology
The Spies That Went Rogue: Clips From “The Story Of In-Q-Tel”:
- – Financial backers and managers of the largest privacy abuse action, against the U.S. Public, in history.
- – Worked for bad Senators and maybe even bad White Housers
- – Political hit squad
- – Nice and “patriotic” when it suits their PR spin. Stealing federal money and insider trading when nobody is looking.
- – Their story begins in the Jeremy Renner film: “Kill The Messenger”, and runs into Meryl Streep’s film: “Rendition”
- – Went rogue. Ties to Silencers deal and other shady things
- – If you thank that this sounds hard to believe, consider the fact that British Police are investigating British Members of Parliament, ie: The British Government, for kidnapping and killing young boys at private “abuse parties” for government officials in London. What you saw in the Snowden disclosures and what has come out in other recent disclosures show you that some “officials” do some of the most extreme things because they think they are untouchable.
INK YOU WHO?
The DEA and the FBI know IN-Q-Tel because they owned the airplanes busted in a huge Cocaine ring smuggling operation.
The U.S. Congress knows IN-Q-Tel because they flew the rendition planes, featured in the Meryl Streep feature film called: “Rendition”, to illegally snatch citizens off to Ukrainian prisons.
The SEC knows them from charges of unethical relationships with Wall Street banks and Silicon Valley billionaires.
The ACLU knows IN-Q-Tel because IN-Q-Tel financed and managed Lucid Technologies, Palantir and all of the key technologies in the largest domestic spy operations on U.S. citizens, in human history.
The ACLU also knows IN-Q-Tel because they sold their services to a private corporate lobby group (The U.S. Chamber) in order to spy on the public so they could manipulate policy law.
IN-Q-Tel = Dirty Deeds R US.
They are a private bunch of yuppie spies that went so sideways, it isn’t funny.
TD- LA Times Researcher
If you want to take over a diamond mine in Sierra Leone or overthrow a little fiefdom, you hire Blackwater. If you want to do dirty tricks in the USA you hire In-Q-Tel: The pinstripe suit version of BlackWater. These are Wannabe-spies with way to much money on their hands. The FBI, DEA, U.S. Senate and Amnesty International were disturbed to find that a fleet of drug smuggling aircraft, some audaciously listed in the flight logs as “Cocaine One” and “Cocaine Two”, had over ten tons of coke in them. They were owned by In-Q-Tel. When citizens were “renditioned” off to “black Sites” in the Ukraine, who flew them there?
Per the U.S. Congress it was good ole In-Q-Tel. When business lobbies want to spy on hundreds of millions of U.S. Citizens for political gain, via hacks and bots on their iPhones, who do they hire to fund, acquire and run the spy bots like Palantir, and other notorious operations (disclosed in the New York Times as part of the social rape of modern society).. yes, our friends at In-Q-Tel. Many times they are paid for with your tax money.
You have heard the song: “..Dirty deeds done dirt cheap..” IN-Q-TEL does the dirty deeds but they ain’t cheap. Investigators from the State Department, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Pro-Publica, Sunshine Foundation and the federal GAO say that In-Q-Tel makes hundreds of millions of dollars off of this work.
Amy Pascal, at Sony, got in a jam for bragging, to Lynton, in her emails that she was at dinner with the Obama’s sitting between Obama and Michelle. She got in more trouble for swapping the connection to get CIA secrets to use in her ZERO DARK THIRTY Movie.
IN-Q-Tel uses “front men” to effect an air of legitimacy. Game Company head Gilman Louie from Spectrum Holobyte, or VC Jonathan Silver planted in the Department of Energy. Behind the scenes, though, it is all dirty tricks and dirty deeds.
They were supposed to be an arm of the CIA but, like the now notorious California Sniper Silencers case (busted open by the Washington Post) and the lady who ran the NSA’s decryption program, who just got canned for running a private spy-ploitation business, the whole thing was taken over by greed and Silicon Valley billionair-ism. It became just another out-of-control rogue spy operation.
The recent torture reports and spy investigations, clearly, show, in no uncertain terms, that the public and the U.S. Congress were lied to. The lines between business greed and defense are rapidly crossed and exceeded by some of these rogues.
In-Q-Tel sells it services to foreign interests that are against the U.S. They sell their services to Chambers of Commerce in order to take down political adversaries. If you have a big enough check book, anybody can buy an In-Q-Tel hit job.
Using partners like Palantir, Axciom and other tech companies, IN-Q-TEL are the people with the resources to go into every database, that an employer or recruiting might ever touch, and crash your history so you never get a job again. They can destroy your company backgrounder so nobody gives your company any contacts again. Wondering why you can’t get a job? Did you piss off IN-Q-TEL’s friends?
IN-Q-Tel is incorporated as a consulting company. They are not a branch of government. They are subject to the same laws as any company. Do they follow those laws… not so much.
They work for ANY political party..whoever will pay the most.
One of IN-Q-Tel’s favorite gig’s is the “reverse sting job”. They do this to U.S. citizens and companies quite a bit. They pretend to want your technology, get you to show it to them under the pretext of giving you money, then steal it and flood the market with clones of your product in order to kill your company.
Here is a story of one of hundreds of U.S, cases of The Reverse Sting used to shut down a competitor, or competing political entity:
AS IF, that was not interesting enough; you then find out that IN-Q-Tel had cash and stock deals with Silicon Valley VC’s including a guy named “Dickie” Blum. These are the very same Vc’s that funded Obama’s political campaign….and that “Dickie” fellow, sound familiar?
He is Dianne Feinstein’s husband. She was one of the heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Now she and Dickie are under investigation for insider deals on Tesla, Solyndra, The Rail Road industry, California Light Rail, The U.S. Post Office real estate and a glut of other strange situations. But, now, Dianne isn’t someone who would use a private spy company for her own personal political and family business reasons..is she?
Now that we know the real CIA went all SONY HACKER on her whole family, we can only but wait to see what the big internet drops reveal…
Besides their airplanes: “Cocaine One” and “Cocaine Two” (Full of 10 tons of Cocaine the FBI and DEA say), let’s not forget about In-Q-TEL’S other fun airplanes as shown in the Meryl Streep, Jake Gyllenhaal film – “RENDITION”:
IN-Q-TEL’s OTHER “GirlFriend” who is not Dianne Feinstein and who is Amy Pascal’s link for ZERO DARK THIRTY:
The Unidentified Queen of Torture
By Jane Mayer – THE NEW YORKER
Photograph by JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty
or the past eight months, there has been a furious battle raging behind closed doors at the White House, the C.I.A., and in Congress. The question has been whether the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence would be allowed to use pseudonyms as a means of identifying characters in the devastating report it released last week on the C.I.A.’s abusive interrogation and detention program. Ultimately, the committee was not allowed to, and now we know one reason why.
The NBC News investigative reporter Matthew Cole has pieced together a remarkable story revealing that a single senior officer, who is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.—a woman who he does not name—appears to have been a source of years’ worth of terrible judgment, with tragic consequences for the United States. Her story runs through the entire report. She dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.
Had the Senate Intelligence Committee been permitted to use pseudonyms for the central characters in its report, as all previous congressional studies of intelligence failures, including the widely heralded Church Committee report in 1975, have done, it might not have taken a painstaking, and still somewhat cryptic, investigation after the fact in order for the American public to hold this senior official accountable. Many people who have worked with her over the years expressed shock to NBC that she has been entrusted with so much power. A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that “she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.”
Instead, however, she has been promoted to the rank of a general in the military, most recently working as the head of the C.I.A.’s global-jihad unit. In that perch, she oversees the targeting of terror suspects around the world. (She was also, in part, the model for the lead character in “Zero Dark Thirty.”)
According to sources in the law-enforcement community who I have interviewed over the years, and who I spoke to again this week, this woman—whose name the C.I.A. has asked the news media to withhold—had supervision over an underling at the agency who failed to share with the F.B.I. the news that two of the future 9/11 hijackers had entered the United States prior to the terrorist attacks. As I recount in my book “The Dark Side,” the C.I.A. got wind that one of these Al Qaeda operatives, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had obtained a multiple-entry visa into the United States eighteen months before 9/11. The agency also learned, months before the attacks, that another Al Qaeda operative, Nawaf al-Hazmi, had flown into Los Angeles. Yet the C.I.A. appears to have done nothing. It never alerted the F.B.I., which had the principle domestic authority for protecting the U.S. from terror attacks. Its agents had, in fact, been on the trail of at least one of the hijackers previously, but had no way of knowing that he had entered the United States. Nor did the C.I.A. alert the State Department, which kept a “TIPOFF” watch list for terror suspects.
Amazingly, perhaps, more than thirteen years after the 9/11 attacks, no one at the C.I.A. has ever been publicly held responsible for this failure. Evidently, the C.I.A. was adamant in its negotiations with the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee that the American public never learn the names of anyone directly involved in this failure.
As NBC recounts, this egregious chapter was apparently only the first in a long tale, in which the same C.I.A. official became a driving force in the use of waterboarding and other sadistic interrogation techniques that were later described by President Obama as “torture.” She personally partook in the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks, at a black site in Poland. According to the Senate report, she sent a bubbly cable back to C.I.A. headquarters in 2003, anticipating the pain they planned to inflict on K.S.M. in an attempt to get him to confirm a report from another detainee, about a plot to use African-American Muslims training in Afghanistan for future terrorist attacks. “i love the Black American Muslim at AQ camps in Afghanuistan (sic). … Mukie (K.S.M.) is going to be hatin’ life on this one,” she wrote, according to the report. But, as NBC notes, she misconstrued the intelligence gathered from the other detainee. Somehow, the C.I.A. mistakenly believed that African-American Muslim terrorists were already in the United States. The intelligence officials evidently pressed K.S.M. so hard to confirm this, under such physical duress, that he eventually did, even though it was false—leading U.S. officials on a wild-goose chase for black Muslim Al Qaeda operatives in Montana. According to the report, the same woman oversaw the extraction of this false lead, as well as the months-long rendition and gruesome interrogation of another detainee whose detention was a case of mistaken identity. Later, in 2007, she accompanied then C.I.A. director Michael Hayden to brief Congress, where she insisted forcefully that the torture program had been a tremendous and indispensable success.
Readers can speculate on how the pieces fit together, and who the personalities behind this program are. But without even pseudonyms, it is exceedingly hard to connect the dots. It seems entirely possible—though, again, one can only speculate—that the C.I.A. overcompensated for its pre-9/11 intelligence failures by employing overly harsh measures later. Once they’d made a choice that America had never officially made before—of sanctioning torture—it seems possible that they felt they had to defend its efficacy, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. If so, this would be worth learning. But without names, or even pseudonyms, it is almost impossible to piece together the puzzle, or hold anyone in the American government accountable. Evidently, that is exactly what the C.I.A. was fighting for during its eight-month-long redaction process, behind all those closed doors.
This piece originally appeared at Slate.
As bad as the stories in the Senate torture report are, there is a whole class of victims who aren’t even mentioned. The executive summary released last week makes only passing reference to an integral component of the CIA program: the “extraordinary rendition” of prisoners to foreign custody for “interrogation” by those countries’ intelligence services—with the full knowledge that the men would be tortured.
Because rendition was beyond the report’s scope, there’s still no official account of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other victims of torture that the CIA is responsible for.
As the Washington Post revealed in 2005, the CIA identified two categories of prisoners for detention and interrogation: “high value” detainees that the agency held onto and “second tier” ones who were farmed out for detention and interrogation toother governments. As former CIA officer Bob Baer explained in disturbing detail, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt.”
There’s still no official account of the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other victims of torture that the CIA is responsible for.
How many detainees met such fates? ThePost reported that more than twice as many prisoners were rendered by the CIA to foreign governments as were held by the agency. Since we now know that 119 men were held by the CIA, that would mean at least 238 people were sent to other countries. And this figure could be much higher: In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said that “more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries.”
Much of what we know about this practice of outsourcing torture is from the harrowing accounts of its victims and survivors who have bravely come forward to tell their stories. One of them is Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian citizen who lived with his wife and young family in Sweden, where they were seeking refugee status. In December 2001, Ahmed and a friend were apprehended by Swedish police, who turned them over to the CIA. In what was reportedly the Bush administration’s first rendition operation, Ahmed and his friend were sent to Egypt, where they were held incommunicado by Egyptian Intelligence Services, interrogated, and mercilessly tortured. In an unfair trial in 2004, Ahmed was convicted and sentenced to 25 years for membership in an organization banned under Egyptian law.
The next year, an official Swedish investigation confirmed that the CIA had been involved in the rendition operation, and that the agency had cruelly and inhumanely treated the two men during their capture and transportation to Egypt. The U.N. Committee Against Torture and the U.N. Human Rights Committee also verified the men’s claims of torture and inhumane treatment in Egypt.
The Swedish government compensated Ahmed for its role in his torture, and later granted him official residence status. The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the American aviation company—Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan—that provided logistical support to the CIA aircraft used to render the two men to torture in Egypt. The case was dismissed on the grounds that allowing it to continue would reveal “state secrets.” The United States has yet to acknowledge its involvement in Ahmed’s torture.
Another victim is Abou Elkassim Britel, an Italian citizen of Moroccan descent, who was unlawfully rendered by the CIA from Pakistan to Morocco in May 2002. There, he was handed over to Moroccan intelligence agents and taken to the notorious Temara prison, where he was held incommunicado, interrogated, and tortured. He was imprisoned for more than eight months before being released in February 2003 without explanation or charge. Britel was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, and the U.S. government has yet to own up to its role in his ordeal.
A final disturbing story is that of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria and left at 17. Transiting through JFK airport on his way home from a family vacation in Tunisia in 2002, he was arrested and held virtually incommunicado for 13 days at a detention facility in Brooklyn. Then early one morning, the CIA secretly flew him in a private jet to Syria, even though he repeatedly told his American captors he would be tortured there.
And so he was, brutally, once the CIA delivered him to Syrian intelligence. Maher was held in a coffin-like cell for nearly a year before the Canadian government secured his release home. A two-year-long official inquiry into the Canadian government’s involvement in Maher’s rendition found that he had been tortured, and that Canadian officials—in concert with their U.S. counterparts—were complicit. The Canadian government apologized and compensated Maher for his suffering.
Maher brought a federal lawsuit with the Center for Constitutional Rights in an attempt to hold the U.S. government accountable, but Justice Department lawyers successfully argued that his case should be dismissed because it concerned matters of “national security” and “foreign relations.” In 2010, the Supreme Court let the dismissal stand. To this day, the United States will neither confirm nor deny its role in Maher’s rendition and torture, let alone apologize.
Because the Senate report covers only prisoners held by the CIA, there is still no official accounting of what happened to these men and others like them, forcibly disappeared and handed over to foreign governments for torture. We don’t even know whether the practice was authorized—and if so, by whom—and who was subject to it. We don’t have details of the inhumane treatment and torture that these individuals faced at the hands of CIA officials, or once in the hands of the CIA’s foreign partners.
Just as the victims of CIA torture named in the Senate torture report deserve justice, so do those who aren’t in the report. Investigating and publicly acknowledging their stories would be a good start, followed by criminal prosecutions and compensation where justified.
THE SPY AGENCY SHOULD CLOSE ITS VENTURE CAPITAL FIRM
IF former National Security Agency chief Michael Hayden hangs in there as President Bush’s nominee to head the CIA and makes it to a Senate confirmation hearing, one of the panel’s members should ask him this:
“Sir, please tell the committee how much further you anticipate allowing the CIA to expand its presence on Wall Street via the private venture capital firm known as In-Q-Tel, Inc.”
Hayden came under withering fire in Washington last week as word spread that the ex-NSA chief had presided over the White House’s post-9/11 surveillance program of monitoring domestic U.S. telephone calls. The White House, politically weakened from a year of setbacks both at home and abroad, may decide to withdraw Hayden from consideration and submit an alternative nominee burdened with less civil liberties baggage.
Yet whoever winds up in the CIA’s top job will inherit a developing mess involving In-Q-Tel that was largely ignored by the agency’s departing director, Porter Goss. Hints that all is not well with In-Q-Tel have begun seeping into view as this little-known domestic CIA front operation continues to funnel agency money into penny stock and micro-cap companies in Wall Street’s murkiest back alleys.
Two In-Q-Tel CEOs have resigned from the six-year-old venture capital fund in just the last four months; the fund is being run on a day-to-day basis by a man from Washington’s politically greased Carlyle Group who has been with In-Q-Tel for only a few weeks. Headhunters are said to be having trouble coming up with candidates for a permanent replacement.
And there are even reports, largely unconfirmed, that the Securities and Exchange Commision is looking into several penny stock promoters with ties to In-Q-Tel.
Launched in 1999 by CIA director George Tenet as a Wall Street venture fund to finance new technologies for the spy world, In-Q-Tel quickly found friends on Capitol Hill, where policymakers seized on the fund as a way to remind constituents that the ghost of Vietnam no longer walked the land. The attacks of 9/11 gave In-Q-Tel even more stature in Congress, where the fund came to be seen as an essential element in the war effort.
Yet the public’s visceral reaction to last week’s NSA revelations suggests that war or no war, a backlash against government snooping may be starting. And that in turn promises to crank up the heat under In-Q-Tel, where at least some of the fund’s investments raise questions of judgment regarding how taxpayer money is being spent by the organization, as well as who it is choosing for business partners.
A year ago, this column drew back the curtain on a fishy In-Q-Tel in vestment, financed out of the black box budget of the CIA, in a defense-sector start-up called Ionatron Inc.
Run by a longtime Wall Street regulatory violator named Robert Howard, Ionatron used a cash infusion from In-Q-Tel to promote itself around Washington as the developer of a laser-equipped, remotely controlled device the size of a golf cart that could patrol the highways of Iraq, ferreting out and detonating insurgent land mines ahead of troop movements.
We warned in this space that the technology being trumpeted by Ionatron was not only unproven, but had been obtained by Howard and some midlevel researchers at Raytheon Corp. under highly irregular circumstances designed to persuade a West Coast laser researcher into turning over his research to Howard’s group.
Nonetheless, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her Democratic colleague from California, Barbara Boxer, quickly embraced the Ionatron program, which eventually devoured more than $12 million in government funding before the Pentagon finally concluded last week that the devices are not reliable and cancelled plans to deploy them.
Ionatron’s stock price has tumbled more than a third in the last three weeks, leaving the company’s largest investor – prominent hedge fund SAC Capital Advisors, run by Steven A. Cohen of Connecticut – sitting with millions in paper losses.
SAC Capital has acknowledged that it is under investigation by the SEC in what appears to be a separate matter involving stock trading, and the SEC may soon start taking a look into the hedge fund’s buying of Ionatron’s shares.
In-Q-Tel’s growing portfolio of investments includes a few successes. Yet the fund has more often poured money into companies that were barking dogs long before In-Q-Tel showed up, and have failed to improve since.
Consider a North Carolina outfit called ID Technologies Corp., which began life in 1994 as CardGuard International Inc. to promote a fingerprint identification system no one wanted to buy. In the four years that followed, the company racked up losses of $3 million on a mere $92,000 in revenues.
In 1998, the company changed its name to ID Technologies and added $2.5 million more to the loss column on barely $100,000 more in revenues.
Along the way, In-Q-Tel popped up with plans to invest $400,000 more in ID Tech, but the firm collapsed, leaving investors with $5.58 million in cumulative losses and a stock that now sells for a fraction of a penny per share.
Another In-Q-Tel investment, in a data software company called Convera Corp., may be headed in the same direction, bearing much greater losses. In 2004 the fund took a stake in Convera, which had yet to turn a profit while piling up more than $1 billion in cumulative losses since its founding in the mid-1980s.
By the end of 2005, a resulting bounce in Convera stock had topped out at $16, and the shares have since lost half their value. Last week they were trading below $8 on investor disenchantment with the perennial money loser’s latest offering: an Internet search engine for extracting information from video files.
Because its funding comes from the CIA, In-Q-Tel has been an irresistible target for conspiracy theorists who charge that the CIA is somehow linked through it to every penny stock that goes south.
Last week, one left-leaning Web site reported that SEC investigators think the CIA-backed venture fund has been steering money into penny stock “pump and dump” firms in Israel, Dubai and Malaysia.
But a day’s worth of phoning around traces these claims to a tireless complainant named Tony Ryals, who has been bombarding the SEC and Internet message boards for years with claims that he has uncovered a submerged world of In-Q-Tel-linked fraud stretching for Kuala Lumpur to the Middle East.
The alleged linkages are bewildering in their complexity and typically impossible to follow, but conspiracy buffs find them irresistible, since they seem to echo some of the CIA’s worst excesses from 30 to 40 years ago, and by their nature, they can never be entirely disproved.
WHETHER the SEC has looked into Ryals’ charges and found them baseless isn’t known, but thanks to In-Q-Tel and the lengthening shadow of the CIA on Wall Street, the most improbable of such claims once again have a whiff of credibility.
Bottom line: There are many sensible ways the CIA could have gone about developing the technologies it needs, but funneling money into Wall Street via an outfit like In-Q-Tel was never one of them. So it will be a good thing for Wall Street – and for America, too – if the CIA’s next spymaster simply shuts the operation down.