CIA threatens "Press for Truth" producers over release of new documentary

[Childlike Empress]

Breaking and developing:

Boiling Frogs Breaking News: CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy
Sunday, 11. September 2011

On Thursday, September 8, 2011, the CIA issued legal threats against producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers. The analysts were referred to only by first names initially, but were going to be fully named in a follow up segment.

Nowosielski and Duffy are working with legal advisors and we will have more on this soon. Meanwhile you can listen to our recent exclusive interview with the producers and their discovery here at Boiling Frogs Post:

Podcast Show #55: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy

Also, here are related interviews with Paul Thompson based on the exposé by the two producers: Part 1 & Part 2.

The producers’ website was taken down yesterday. We are in touch with them, and we will keep you informed. Please disseminate this stunning new development, the CIA’s panic, and the content of their interview. Thank You.

Sibel Edmonds

The interview was apparently recorded some weeks ago but released a couple of hours ago, most likely in knowledge of the threats. I already listened to it because I was waiting for the third part of the excellent interview series with Paul Thompson and checked their newsfeed last night.

These are the folks who also released the Richard Clarke interview recently, which was part of the same project which was originally planned to be a film documentary called "Footnote 44", but now was scheduled to be released as an audio documentary today. The two hijackers are obviously al-Hazmi and al-Midhar. In the interview they report that they also interviewed, among many others, Thomas Kean and even Philip Zelikow on the issue, with some interesting results. The two CIA analysts in question are only refered to by pseudonym at that time.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Strange, how the CIA dislikes it when you commit a crime. Suggestion: Don't commit crimes.

 

[twinstead]

Strange, how the CIA dislikes it when you commit a crime. Suggestion: Don't commit crimes.

You mean it's not because the CIA is afraid that the discovery that 9-11 was an inside job is imminent?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Strange, how the CIA dislikes it when you commit a crime. Suggestion: Don't commit crimes.

I'm willing to bet that after Bushes people outed Valerie Plame and went to trial and jail over it CE was just as outraged.

No. Wait. I'll bet she was as happy as a pig in **** over it.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Strange, how the CIA dislikes it when you commit a crime. Suggestion: Don't commit crimes.

Who has committed a crime in this case and what crime have they committed?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Who has committed a crime in this case and what crime have they committed?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/here-is-the-crime-in-outi_b_9489.html

It is in reference to the Valerie Plame outing but the same basic rules apply. The author is former US Senator Gary Hart (D-CA) who was on the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.

 

[KDLarsen]

But doesn't that rule/law only applies to undercover operatives? I'm not too sure the analysts mentioned here would qualify as such.

I can imagine it's the CIA not being happy to see key personel named and shamed, especially in such a sensitive case as 9/11 obviously was.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

But doesn't that rule/law only applies to undercover operatives? I'm not too sure the analysts mentioned here would qualify as such.

I can imagine it's the CIA not being happy to see key personel named and shamed, especially in such a sensitive case as 9/11 obviously was.

As I recall (and it was awhile ago so I might be a bit fuzzy on the whole thing) Plame was no longer what anyone might call an operative for at least a few years before the leak. She was an analyst in the CIA though (or at least she reported for work there in some similar type capacity on a regular basis).

Like I said it wasn't exactly the same situation but I believe the same basic rules still apply. I may be wrong and if I am then I stand corrected.

 

[bill smith]

As I recall (and it was awhile ago so I might be a bit fuzzy on the whole thing) Plame was no longer what anyone might call an operative for at least a few years before the leak. She was an analyst in the CIA though (or at least she reported for work there in some similar type capacity on a regular basis).

Like I said it wasn't exactly the same situation but I believe the same basic rules still apply. I may be wrong and if I am then I stand corrected.

I thought she was that agent who was high up in the Bin Laden detection group who was shot dead by that crazy sniper guy while putting gas in her car.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I thought she was that agent who was high up in the Bin Laden detection group who was shot dead by that crazy sniper guy while putting gas in her car.

No. You're thinking of Hillary when she was dodging those sniper bullets being shot at the car next to her while Chelsea was getting some gum at the counter inside the gas-n-go.

Makes about as much sense I guess...

 

[bill smith]

No. You're thinking of Hillary when she was dodging those sniper bullets being shot at the car next to her while Chelsea was getting some gum at the counter inside the gas-n-go.

Makes about as much sense I guess...

She was shot dead in the end though wasn't she ? Must have been quite a blow for the Bin Laden detection group. What was her second name by the way ?

 

[carlitos]

I crack up every time CE cites this blog (Boiling Frogs). The irony in a blog about alleged conspiracies being named after an urban myth is just too rich.



So outing Valerie Plame was bad, but outing these two cats is good?

 

[newton3376]

Just as an FYI....

Most people that work for the CIA are actually "overt" and not "covert"....only a small percentage are "case officers".

These are usually spit up between staff and field positions....staff positions being the support staff for the field operatives. Both of these types of positions are "covert", but most people who work for the Agency are not in these positions.

Although....to be honest most people that work for the agency don't go around broadcasting it for obvious reasons....discretion is always advised.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Folks ... this:

But doesn't that rule/law only applies to undercover operatives? I'm not too sure the analysts mentioned here would qualify as such.

The interview with the producers in the OP will clue you in about the role of those analysts, but if you don't know what's meant by the "Tenet-Black-Blee" cover-up and don't know the story of Hazmi and Midhar, you should start with the Thompson interviews or read this thread.

edit: also this and this article tells the story - to be continued.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Update: Press release and statement

STATEMENT ON THE DELAY IN RELEASING WHO IS RICH BLEE?

While producing our investigative podcast "Who Is Rich Blee?," intended to be released on Sunday, our team managed to deduce the likely identities of two CIA employees at the heart of a notorious failure in the run up to the September 11th tragedy.

Savvy internet searches based on minimal background details helped us determine candidates for the two CIA employees. When the names were used by our interviewers repeatedly during interviews and never corrected by the interviewees, we began to feel more certain. Ironically, it was the response from CIA that provided final confirmation.

On Thursday, we submitted our script to CIA along with a request to interview the two employees. We wanted to be fair in giving them a chance to tell their sides of the story. Instead, the Agency sent us a message threatening that if we went forward with the names included in the piece that it would be a potential violation of federal criminal law.

A prominent civil liberties attorney has advised us that the law cited, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, has never been used to convict a journalist. The law pertains to government employees who violate their security clearances, certainly not those who find "classified information" in open-source materials posted on the Net.

The threat of prosecution under this act may be a baseless attempt by CIA to intimidate journalists exposing wrongdoing by their employees. Or it may announce an intention by the U.S. government to dangerously expand precedent in the application of this law. That would certainly be in line with a general anti-transparency movement in recent years.

[case background snipped]

We have done nothing wrong. In fact, we have done some excellent investigative journalism, mostly unpaid, and were ready to release it for free as a kind of public service. The CIA have now put us in a position where we must choose between participating in their decade-long protection of these individuals at the expense of public safety or possibly facing prosecution. We are weighing our options and deciding what is right and best for all concerned. We will release our decision and some version of the investigative podcast in the coming days.

 

[Lenbrazil]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/here-is-the-crime-in-outi_b_9489.html

It is in reference to the Valerie Plame outing but the same basic rules apply. The author is former US Senator Gary Hart (D-CA) who was on the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee.

Actually Hart was a senator from Colorado.

He wrote about a few 'ironies' but failed to mention one of the biggest ones. He along with Moynihan, Biden and a Republican from MD was one of only four senators to vote against the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. I generally like Hart but his omission lessens my respect for him a bit.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...entities+protection+act+gary+hart+biden&hl=en

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Breaking and developing:




The interview was apparently recorded some weeks ago but released a couple of hours ago, most likely in knowledge of the threats. I already listened to it because I was waiting for the third part of the excellent interview series with Paul Thompson and checked their newsfeed last night.

These are the folks who also released the Richard Clarke interview recently, which was part of the same project which was originally planned to be a film documentary called "Footnote 44", but now was scheduled to be released as an audio documentary today. The two hijackers are obviously al-Hazmi and al-Midhar. In the interview they report that they also interviewed, among many others, Thomas Kean and even Philip Zelikow on the issue, with some interesting results. The two CIA analysts in question are only refered to by pseudonym at that time.

This would be a positive development if true.

it's about time the "most gagged woman in America" was finally forced to shut up.

 

[Triterope]

I fail to see what the big deal is. The story can be told with pseudonyms.

Besides, if they accuse people by name of covering up 9/11, potential CIA prosecution is going to be just one of their problems.

Personally, I think they're just milking the OMG CIA THREATENED US angle to promote their movie.

 

[BCR]

I fail to see what the big deal is. The story can be told with pseudonyms.

Besides, if they accuse people by name of covering up 9/11, potential CIA prosecution is going to be just one of their problems.

Personally, I think they're just milking the OMG CIA THREATENED US angle to promote their movie.

I'm with you. In the case of the OKC bombing, reputable journalists used pseudonyms. Example, the NYT used one in describing a witness and his place of business where McVeigh stopped just before the bombing. Jayna Davis used an entirely different name for the business and individual. She did likewise with the "terror motel" she described in her book "The Third Terrorist".

A responsible journalist can tell the story without putting sources and individuals at risk. To out a CIA agent/analyst for 15 minutes of fame may or may not be illegal, but it is most certainly not in keeping with journalistic standards and ethics.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm surprised the CIA is the first to go after the group with the amount of legal risk they've taken with libel against 9/11 victims, and witnesses.