Lista Oficiales CIA por Paises

ECUADOR

Haeger, Marshall CIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Robb, George CIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Bronke Fulton, Heide CIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Hernandez, Daniel CIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Weber, Nicole CIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Mozdzierz, William CIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Brook, Alfred DIA, ECUADOR, 2013

Collazo, A. J. DEA, ECUADOR, 2013

Saunders, Arthur CIA, ECUADOR, 2013, GUAYAQUIL

Sims, Jeremy CIA, ECUADOR, 2013, GUAYAQUIL

Buzzard, Christine CIA, ECUADOR, 2013, GUAYAQUIL

Kendrick, Mark CIA, ECUADOR, 2013, GUAYAQUIL

Cline, Melissa CIA, ECUADOR, 2011

Miller, Bil CIA, ECUADOR, 2011

Hooker, Robyn CIA, ECUADOR, 2011

Mahoney, Haynes CIA, ECUADOR, 2011

Para otros países ver aquí:

http://percy-francisco.blogspot.com/2014/05/lista-de-oficiales-cia-por-paises.html#sthash.d552iBga.dpuf

Al Qaeda’s Top Recruiting Tool: The CIA

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/al-qaeda-s-top-recruiting-tool-the-cia.html

by Jamie Dettmer

After being tortured by American interrogators, a Libyan freedom fighter became a top terror leader. Jamie Dettmer reports from Tripoli.

What makes someone join Al Qaeda? In the case of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the Al Qaeda luminary killed in an American drone strike in Pakistan last June, his older brother has no doubt. Americans are culpable for his sibling’s embrace of terrorism. He draws a direct line between al-Libi’s recruitment by al Qaeda and the suffering he endured at the hands of American interrogators using techniques similar to those portrayed in the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

Al-Libi’s slaying may have been one of the reasons Libyan jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last September, an assault that led to the death of ambassador Christopher Stevens. In the days leading up to the attack, Al Qaeda’s amir, Ayman al-Zawahiri, focused his annual 9/11 message on the drone war, eulogized al-Libi and called on “Libyan brothers” to avenge the loss.

Lamenting American missteps in the war on terror, Abd Al-Wahhab Muhammad Qaid says his brother had been in Afghanistan for 15 years, as a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, but that he, “like all of us shunned Al Qaeda.” That is, until his mistreatment at Bagram Air Base. “He was tortured very aggressively and humiliated. Naturally, for each action there’s a reaction,” he sighs.

Now the chairman of the national security committee in the General National Congress, Libya’s parliament, Qaid hopes America will rethink how it combats Muslim extremists and base its actions on reason not emotions; on investigation and not supposition.

Sitting in the grand lobby of Tripoli’s Rixos hotel for a rare interview with an American journalist, Qaid disclosed for the first time that, when he was jailed by the then-dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Americans seeking to understand his brother’s psychology visited him in prison to explore whether his brother could be coaxed to break with Al Qaeda.

The American visits were made before his brother became second in command of Al Qaeda, suggesting the CIA had spotted quickly that he was a rising terrorist star. He told them that it might be possible to persuade his brother to leave Al Qaeda and return to Libya, if Gaddafi would guarantee no torture and no jail time.

The 45-year-old Qaid is an imposing man and favors traditional Libyan dress. When I met him he was wearing a black galabeya and white prayer cap. He is the third senior member of the now defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group I have interviewed in recent months. There are similarities between him and his former comrades-in-arms Abdelhakim Belhadj and Sami Mostefa al-Saadi. All three are highly thoughtful and they all exhibit a calm dignity I’ve seen in other long-serving political prisoners.

Al-Libi’s slaying may have been one of the reasons Libyan Jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate in Benghazi

And surprisingly none of them appear to bear any ill will to the West or Americans. All of them have tempered their beliefs and describe themselves as Islamist modernizers.

Belhadj and Saadi were among the 15 Libyan Islamists opposed to Gaddafi that the Americans and British delivered to Libya’s spy chief, Musa Kusa. The Americans tortured several of them before rendering them illegally to Libya, where they were tortured again. When Gaddafi’s intelligence boss interrogated al-Saadi he bragged: “Before 9/11, you went to countries where we couldn’t reach you. But now, after 9/11, I can just pick up the phone and call MI6 or the CIA.”

The renditions constitute one of the darkest chapters in the war on terror and they highlight a point Qaid is eager to convey: the failure of the West to distinguish between different Islamists and to view them all as being Al Qaeda.

Qaid wasn’t rendered himself. He joined the LIFG after years as a student activist in Benghazi. His brother, an Islamic scholar, lagged him by two years and both ended up in Afghanistan. Qaid was captured in 1995 in Libya while on a clandestine mission, spending the next decade-and-half in Tripoli’s notorious Abu Salim prison. His brother remained in Afghanistan but was swept up after the fall of the Taliban and handed over to the Americans by the Pakistani authorities.

Explaining why he joined the LIFG, Qaid says: “We rejected oppression. We wanted, like all Libyans, to live a free life, an honorable life, but unfortunately that wasn’t possible. We were students and we tried to be peaceful but we had no space and many of my colleagues were killed and in 1989 I left Libya.”

In Afghanistan the Libyan Islamists kept Al Qaeda at arm’s length, he says. It is a claim several independent experts who have studied the group confirm. Osama bin Laden, on several occasions. urged the anti-Gaddafi Libyans to fold in with Al Qaeda and in two notable meetings in Kandahar he debated the Libyan Islamists. “He was polite, never lost his temper,” al-Saadi told me. “He was soft-spoken but obdurate.” And never more so than when the Libyans urged bin Laden to stop using Afghanistan as a base to attack the West.

Qaid wasn’t part of those discussions—he was already in Abu Salim. But he says: “We were focused on Libya and Osama bin Laden was calling for international jihad and fighting against Christians. He had a very different agenda.” The British and American governments, though, never picked up the difference. They were eager to benefit from the infamous March 2004 rapprochement between the Western powers and Gaddafi.

When his brother pulled off a legendary escape from Bagram air base along with several other detainees, there were few people around he could trust. “Belhadj and al-Saadi were gone from Afghanistan,” says Qaid. “There were no Libyan Islamists left to guide him and he found others such as bin Laden. Al Qaeda adopted him and fed him their thoughts.”

How does Qaid feel about the West in the wake of his brother’s death? “I have no problem with the West—America or Europe,” he says. And he is grateful for the support the Libyan revolution received at a critical time. He says Libya needs Western expertise now to build the state institutions of a new Libya and its democracy.

But he does disagree with how the war on terror has been fought and believes America has to adopt a new approach with Muslim extremists, one less reliant on force. “I hope America adopts dialogue and negotiation. I hope that America doesn’t reach for force immediately.”

It is an approach he favors in Libya, too, when dealing with radical Islamists in the East. He doesn’t believe core Al Qaeda was involved in the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. “I don’t think there are strong networks of Al Qaeda in Libya but there are some Libyan jihadists who are inspired by the Al Qaeda message.”

He remains appalled at the death of ambassador Stevens, arguing like many Libyans that he was “one of us and contributed very positively to our revolution.” The last thing America should be thinking of doing, though, is using drones or Special Forces in Libya to hunt those responsible. “America should not try to bypass the Libyan government—it will prompt a reaction not just from the extremists but from all Libyans, who are sensitive to territorial sovereignty.”

He knows that some in the West still harbor doubts about the motives of Libyan Islamists like himself—several of the group eventually did join Al Qaeda after the renditions. But he concludes our interview by opening up his huge hands and saying: “You may have heard about the brother of Abu Yahya, that extremist, that member of Al Qaeda, that terrorist. And now you are sitting with him. If you had judged me from all of that, you may have developed a very bad picture of me, but now you are talking with me and may have another picture.”

Medals For Killing Women And Children: Majority Of Americans Support Drone Strikes

http://www.infowars.com/medals-for-killing-women-and-children-majority-of-americans-support-drone-strikes/

Steve Watson

Senator: “If there’s a line of traffic coming out of a camp and we think that is populated by people who don’t like America — we bomb them”

The Pentagon is to reward drone operators with medals, despite the fact that strikes have killed thousands of innocent civilians in Yemen and Pakistan; and the majority of Americans will support the action.

AP reports that the DoD is creating a new ribbon, called the Distinguished Warfare Medal that will be awarded for “extra achievement” related to a military operation. This will encompass sitting at a computer console and pressing a button to release Hellfire missiles from Predator drones hundreds and thousands of miles away.

The AP report notes that the medal would become the fourth-highest ranking combat decoration, placing above the Bronze Star, but below the Silver Star. The medal will be the first combat-award created by the Armed Forces since World War II.

Pentagon guidelines state that “The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from comrades or from other persons in similar situations.”

Critics immediately jumped on the development, with some referring to the new medal as the “Geek Cross”, and suggesting that video game heads could soon be awarded Purple Hearts in recognition of animated wounds.

Research by the Pew Center, published Monday, found that “Overall, 56 percent [of Americans] approve of the U.S. conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft to target extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; just 26 percent say they disapprove.”

The majority registered approval despite a leaked Justice Department memo earlier this month concluding that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens with drones “even if,” as NBC reported, “there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.”

Senator Rand Paul described support for the drone program as “very scary and worrisome”, Wednesday, and said he feared it would open up a “Pandora’s box” as far as federal government authority goes.

“It is very scary and worrisome to me… We don’t even name the target of people we kill with drones. If there’s a line of traffic coming out of a camp and we think that is populated by people who don’t like America — we bomb them,” Paul said.

“Is that a high enough standard for Americans maybe coming out of a city or an encampment somewhere in the U.S. where they’re meeting and saying anti-government things? Are we going to have signature strikes in America? I mean, it opens Pandora’s box once you say we may as well kill Americans in America without any judicial trial, with politicians making the decision, that’s very worrisome.” the Senator continued.

In the interview with CNN, Paul said he was considering filibustering the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director, after Brennan refused to answer Paul’s line of questioning during Brennan’s confirmation hearing.

“If you’re not going to answer, No,’ I think that means you’re telling us, ‘Yes’ — you believe that the president has the power to kill an Americans in America. That is appalling,” Paul said during the interview.

In a further statement today, Paul noted:

“I have asked Mr. Brennan if he believed that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and my question remains unanswered. I will not allow a vote on this nomination until Mr. Brennan openly responds to the questions and concerns my colleagues and I share.”

“These issues must be discussed openly so that the American people can understand what constraints exist on the government’s power to use lethal force against its citizens. Before confirming Mr. Brennan as the head of the CIA, it must be apparent that he understands and will honor the protections provided to every American by the Constitution.” Paul’s statement reads.

 

30-Year CIA Vet Talks False Flag At Brookings Institution

Veterano de 30 años dentro de la CIA habla sobre Operaciones de Bandera Falsa en el Brookings Institution

Las operaciones de bandera falsa son operaciones ocultas llevadas a cabo por gobiernos y organizaciones, con el fin de que aparenten ser de otras entidades. En este caso el ex agente de la CIA Bruce Riedel, habla sobre los escuadrones antiterrorismo de Argelia y las tácticas que utilizan.

http://www.infowars.com/30-year-cia-vet-talks-false-flag-at-brookings-institution/

Jurriaan Maessen

In a recent article published on the website of the Brookings Institution, 30 year CIA veteran and current Brookings senior fellow, Bruce Riedel talks false flag ops in relation to Algerian counter-terrorism units. In his article Algeria a Complex Ally in War Against al Qaeda, Riedel gives a description of the Algerian counter-terrorism unit DRS and its methods:

“(The) DRS is (…) known for its tactic of infiltrating terrorist groups, creating “false flag” terrorists and trying to control them.”, Riedel writes. “Rumors have associated the DRS in the past with the Malian warlord Iyad Ag Ghali, head of Ansar al Dine AQIM’s ally in Mali, and even with Mukhtar Belmukhtar, the al-Qaeda terrorist who engineered the attack on the natural gas plant.”

Here the CIA-vet admits that the Algerian intelligence agency is in the business of “creating false flag terrorists”, and that this agency is “rumored” to have ties to terrorist attacks in North Africa. This statement is quite interesting, as the very concept of “false flag” is usually labeled as some outrageous conspiracy theory. We of course know that false flag terrorism is standard modus operandi of intelligence agencies all over the world. We are also aware of the fact that the Brookings Institution is one of the think tanks that warm to the idea of using false flag attacks to attain public support for an invasion of Iran.

In my original June 29, 2009 article titled Brookings Publication mentions possibility of ‘Horrific Provocation’ to Trigger Iran Invasion” I cover false flag proposals made by the Brookings Institute in their Which Path To Persia document.

In the 2009 paper, the authors openly contemplated a possible “provocation” to escalate things to the point of armed conflict:

“(…) it is not impossible”, they write, “that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.”

Under the headline “The Question of a Provocation” on page 66 in this document, the authors press the point even further:

‘With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.”

Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil (probably because they know which party is usually responsible for such mass terror attacks):

“Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?”

Regarding the question of international support for an US invasion of the Islamic Republic, the Brookings people lament:

“Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds.”

The same goes for their plans in regards to that old favorite of the elite, covert psychological warfare in order to subdue a sovereign nation. In chapter 7 of the manuscript, called “Inspiring an Insurgency”, it examines the possibility of propagandizing the Iranian people into helping out the globalists plunder their nation:

“The core concept lying at the heart of this option would be for the United States to identify one or more Iranian opposition groups and support them as it did other insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kurdistan, Angola, and dozens of other locales since the Second World War. The United States would provide arms, money, training, and organizational assistance to help the groups develop and extend their reach. U.S. media and propaganda outlets could highlight group grievances and showcase rival leaders.”

The entire Arab Spring hoax springs to mind, doesn’t it? As Paul Joseph Watson reported in September of 2012, a member of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) think tank proposed a false flag operation to kick off a military conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The think tank’s director of research Patrick Clawson stated:

“(…) if (…) the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war,” Clawson said.

CNN rompe record de informaciones falseadas, infundadas o inventadas

http://www.contrainjerencia.com/?p=60774

Aburrida, exageradamente llena de anuncios, y con “periodistas” mediocres y manipuladores, la televisora norteamericana CNN, mejor dicho, CMM (Cadena Mas Mentirosa) se le debería otorgar, si existiera, el Premio Nobel del Embuste, y de seguro le fuera bien merecido…

Asiduamente difamando de Latinoamérica, y en general de la mayoría de los llamados países del Sur, la CMM cuenta en su haber con records de informaciones falseadas, infundadas o inventadas, al tiempo de no tener escrúpulo alguno en tergiversar o censurar incluso hasta jefes de Estado y de Gobiernos.

Recientemente, esa cadena estadounidense, vinculada sin duda alguna a la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) u otros servicios secretos de Washington, fue denunciada por Rusia por mentir sobre la actual situación en Siria, como igual hizo con Libia en 2011, y lo ha hecho con Cuba, además de Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia en los últimos años, por citar solo algunas de las naciones blancos constantes de sus disparos embusteros.

Enumerar el haber de ignominias de la CMM sería interminable, pero hay ejemplos que valen la pena referir para demostrar su total falta de profesionalismo, que oculta la verdad y subestima la inteligencia de los televidentes. Acaso un día podría ser demandada internacionalmente por tales razones.

En nombre de su “libertad de prensa”, que es engañar y adulterar, ese hoy poco visto medio norteamericano ha jugueteado con la salud del Presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, hasta el punto prácticamente de desearle la muerte, a la vez de embestir continuamente contra el proceso revolucionario en ese país.

Similar ha especulado incisivamente, y todo lo que ha querido, con la enfermedad que padeció el líder de la Revolución cubana, Fidel Castro, y con las transformaciones socioeconómicas que se escenifican en la isla caribeña, estas últimas tratándolas de poner en entredichos y minimizarlas.

En 2012, por mencionar otras infamias de la CMM, dicha cadena manipuló afirmaciones de Rafael Correa e hizo cortes con mala fe a sus declaraciones, e insinuó que el Presidente de Ecuador debería “estar en su casa”.

Otro caso parecido protagonizó la misma televisora con el mandatario boliviano, Evo Morales, a quien censuró también, en junio del pasado año, en una entrevista que abordaba diversos temas relacionados con su presencia en una cumbre del Mercosur y el golpe de Estado en Paraguay, entre otros.

Morales fue interrumpido en reiteradas ocasiones por el entrevistador con preguntas y adjetivos que le obligaron a pedirle al periodista que lo dejara terminar de hablar, y al final CMM corto la respuesta del líder boliviano.

Claro que si no respeta a los jefes de Estado, menos aun a sus televidentes, a quienes ese medio engañó cuando difundió supuestas imágenes de un terremoto en Haití, que en realidad correspondían a otras de archivo de un movimiento telúrico similar ocurrido en Japón, con el objetivo de “demostrar que tenía la primicia informativa”.

Entre sus “figuras estrellas”, denominadas analistas o expertos, la CMM cuenta con personajes como el terrorista de origen cubano Carlos Alberto Montaner, y el converso excanciller mexicano, Jorge Castañeda, además de otros “periodistas” conocidos por sus posiciones reaccionarias, e incluso racistas.

Según diversas fuentes, la difamación sobre determinados países es oxigeno para esa cadena, que subestima a los latinos, sus supuestamente principales televidentes, y oculta la verdad porque puede ser peligrosa para Estados Unidos.

Lo cierto es que la CNN, perdón CMM, tiene cada vez menos influencia y receptores en Latinoamérica, contrario a Telesur que, con su veracidad y objetividad, ha crecido en teleaudiencia hasta llegar a los 376 millones en señal abierta, y unos 40 millones por suscripción.

La CMM tiene los días contados, o muere por falta de suscriptores o por una demanda internacional, quizás sin poder recibir el Premio Nobel del Embuste.

The Lies Of Democracy and the Language Of Deceit

By Colin Todhunter

In an increasingly media-driven age, language is everything and is often used by officialdom to tyrannise meaning. With the deaths of millions on its hands since 1945, the US has become the world’s number one terror state. By the 1980s, former CIA man John Stockwell had put the figure at six million. As a recent article has indicated, from mass bombing in Southeast Asia to employing death squads in South America, the US military and the CIA have been directly and indirectly responsible for an updated figure of an estimated ten million deaths (1). But it’s not called mass murder these days. Ironically, the US has hijacked the word ‘terror’ to justify its brand of tyranny through a war on terror.

You can also add to that ten million, countless others whose lives have been sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit, which did not rely on the military to bomb peoples and countries into submission, but on a certain policy. It’s not browbeating. It’s structural adjustment.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers have taken their own lives over the past decade and a half largely as a result of US agribusiness manipulating global commodity prices courtesy of policies enacted on its behalf by the US government or due to the corporate monopoly, or frontier technology, of terminator seeds that also landed farmers in debt which was just too much for them to bear (2).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lies-of-democracy-and-the-language-of-deceit/5319515

 

Espía de la CIA en Iran confiesa planes de la agencia

http://www.contrainjerencia.com/?p=60552

El servicio de inteligencia de Irán informó que capturó recientemente a Matthew Waluk, espía de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia de Estados Unidos (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) en la nación persa.

De acuerdo con las autoridades, tras su detención, Waluk confesó su intención de ejecutar amplios proyectos de espionaje en Irán a partir del año 2009, reseñó Hispan TV.

“Esperaba la cena en un hotel en Teherán cuando llamaron a mi puerta, la abrí y me encontré con el representante de los servicios de inteligencia de Irán, quien sabía todo sobre el nuevo plan de la CIA. Entonces, me vi obligado a rendirme y confesar”, dijo Waluk luego de ser detenido.

El espía de la CIA se dedicó a recolectar información sobre Irán y la situación científica de este país durante casi un año, con el fin de ofrecerlas al oficial de alto rango de esta agencia en París, Francia.

El servicio de inteligencia iraní manifestó que Waluk ejecutaba el nuevo plan de la CIA para infiltrarse en los grupos élites iraníes y conseguir datos relacionados con los avances científicos del país, sin embargo, fracasó en su misión, al igual que otros espías, al ser capturados por los oficiales de la república islámica.

El nuevo jefe de la CIA, un “teórico” de la tortura

http://www.contrainjerencia.com/?p=60085

John Brennan, a quien el presidente Barack  Obama designado por Obama como nuevo jefe de la CIA luego de la caída de David  Petraeus, es un veterano de la agencia de inteligencia que asesoró a la Casa  Blanca en estrategias antiterroristas durante los últimos cuatro años.  

Veterano de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) durante 25 años,  Brennan es un árabe parlante experto en Medio Oriente quien, interrogado en una  ocasión por periodistas acerca de su ética laboral, respondió: “Yo no pierdo el  tiempo”.

Formado y entrenado como un espía, Brennan ascendió rápidamente en tanto  analista y jefe de antiterrorismo en la oficina regional de la CIA en Medio  Oriente y sur de Asia.  

En 1995, era asistente ejecutivo de George Tenet, el subdirector de la  agencia, quien luego se convirtió en el director que fungió en ese cargo  durante más tiempo dentro de la CIA.

Brennan siguió avanzando y devino responsable de la base de la CIA en Medio  Oriente en 1996, y volvió a Washington en 1999 para desempeñarse como jefe de  staff de Tenet hasta 2001, y como director ejecutivo asistente de la CIA en  2003.

Concluyó una carrera de 25 años dentro de la CIA convirtiéndose en director  interino del Centro Anti-Terrorismo desde 2004 hasta agosto de 2005.

Durante esos años, Brennan presenció de primera mano la puja entre la CIA y  la Casa Blanca sobre la inteligencia previa a la guerra de Irak en torno a las  armas de destrucción masiva y la supuesta vinculación del régimen de Saddam Hussein con  el terrorismo.

Luego, se apartó del gobierno por algunos años, en los que trabajó como  consultor en temas de defensa y seguridad, hasta que aceptó la oferta de Obama  de ser su asesor principal en materia de antiterrorismo.

En 2009 fue duramente criticado por las declaraciones que realizó en  entrevistas defendiendo el uso de “técnicas de interrogación controvertidas”.  

Dijo que el “submarino”, una suerte de simulación de ahogo considerada como  tortura, era incoherente con los valores de Estados Unidos y que debía  prohibirse.   Pero en noviembre de 2007 afirmó en una entrevista con la cadena de  televisión CBS que esas técnicas de interrogación habían dado resultado en la  obtención de información que la CIA ha usado contra “terroristas realmente  duros”.  

“Ha salvado vidas. Y no olvidemos que se trata de terroristas reincidentes,  que fueron los responsables del 11 de Septiembre, que han demostrado no tener  remordimiento alguno por la muerte de 3.000 inocentes”, afirmó.

En otras entrevistas, Brennan ha defendido la práctica de trasladar a los  detenidos para interrogarlos en agencias del exterior, rechazando la acusación  de que ese programa busca eludir las leyes anti-tortura vigentes en Estados  Unidos.  

Tal como sucede con las escuchas telefónicas, dijo que es necesario  encontrar el balance entre la necesidad de proteger a los ciudadanos y su  derecho a la privacidad, agregando que debería librarse un debate público sobre  dónde debería trazarse ese límite.

Como asesor de Obama en antiterrorismo, Brennan ha trabajado para crear el  “libro de jugadas” de la Casa Blanca, que identifica los “objetivos” (los  supuestos terroristas) que el gobierno se propone eliminar físicamente,  incluyendo para cada uno su justificación legal por actuaciones sospechosas en  Yemen, Pakistán y otros lugares.

“Lo que intentamos hacer en este momento es fijar un conjunto de  estándares, sentar criterios y lograr un proceso de toma de decisiones que  gobierne nuestras acciones antiterroristas”, dijo Brennan al Washington Post el  año pasado.

Periodista chileno amplia su denuncia de complot CIA contra Correa

http://www.contrainjerencia.com/?p=58366

El periodista chileno Patricio Mery ratificó hoy su denuncia de que la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA), de Estados Unidos, estaría financiando una campaña para impedir la reelección del presidente de Ecuador, Rafael Correa. “Tenemos la certeza de que en Ecuador se está utilizando la estrategia Irán-Contras, como en México”, dijo Mery al diario ecuatoriano El Telégrafo.

En una entrevista difundida este lunes, señaló que el narcotráfico sería la fuente para sufragar la operación contra Correa, incluso su asesinato.

El comunicador denunció recientemente también en un reportaje difundido por varios medios internacionales una operación secreta de la CIA para sacar droga desde Bolivia con la anuencia de las autoridades de Chile.

Añadió que funcionarios honestos de la CNI (Central Nacional de Inteligencia) de Chile descubrieron una red de narcotráfico que estaba ingresando más de 300 kilos de cocaína mensualmente a Chile.

Sin embargo, dijo, solicitaron autorización para decomisar esa droga, pero sus superiores no lo permiten, por lo cual empezaron a sospechar y solicitaron una reunión con el ministro del Interior, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, actualmente titular de Defensa.

Según el periodista, una vez con todos los antecedentes sobre el tráfico de drogas Hinzpeter se comprometió a resolver el asunto en cuatro días, no obstante no se produjo ninguna solución y fueron expulsados los funcionarios, tras lo cual inició la investigación periodística al respecto.

Afirmó que la CIA y su país mantienen una relación desde hace mucho tiempo en la cual está involucrada la Marina.

También reveló que ahora este cuerpo se vincula el narcotráfico para lavar dinero muy al estilo del Plan Colombia o lo que ocurre en México, que consiste en entrar droga a través del Departamento Antidrogas de Estados Unidos (DEA).

En su criterio, a la Inteligencia estadounidense le interesaría sacar a Correa del poder porque él lidera toda una corriente en la región a partir del asilo concedido por Ecuador al fundador de WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, y también por haber cerrado la base militar de Estados Unidos en Manta.

Señaló que por su inteligencia, capacidad, liderazgo, el presidente ecuatoriano ha ido construyendo una opinión más moderada sobre el proceso revolucionario socialista, que es una tendencia en otros países, lo ven como referente.

Correa, dijo, “es el presidente de un país pequeño, pero que se ha sentado frente a potencias como Inglaterra, Estados Unidos para defender a Assange por razones humanitarias. No es fácil tampoco llegar y cerrar la base de Manta”.

Manifestó que Estados Unidos es el principal consumidor de droga del mundo, por lo tanto se estaría disputando el mercado.

El periodista chileno instó a los ecuatorianos a estar preocupados y cuidar a su presidente, además de hacer análisis que permitan prever estas situaciones de riesgo para el jefe de Estado, a quien, expuso, buscarían involucrar con un tema de droga, enriquecimiento ilícito, pedofilia o cualquier montaje en su contra.