Wikileaks publishes CIA "Red Cell" memo on risks of US perceived as "exporter of terrorism"

Discuss

39 Responses to “Wikileaks publishes CIA "Red Cell" memo on risks of US perceived as "exporter of terrorism"”

  1. bobhughes says:

    Utter sillyness, yet I have to laud the CIA for taking time to explore all of the possible angles.

    American terrorism: the weathermen, tim mcveigh, abortion clinic bombings and dr slayings, envrio-whacks raiding animal test facilities and setting dealership lots on fire.

    Nope, no see much export for that. Oh wait, there’s always Blackwater/Xe, and their evangelical “tenth crusader” founders, but that connection’s coming from Alex Jones and Hamid Gul of the ISI from a live interview last week. Is that what they perchance mean by “exporting terorism”?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Kind of a confidence builder for anyone wondering if they can outsmart the CIA.

  3. Anonymous says:

    there’s a page sampling early reaction to the release. feel free to click.

    http://tinyurl.com/2v6xyak

  4. Dio says:

    The majority of these scant examples in the document are Americans who joined foreign terrorist organizations and caused trouble. The ideologies were all from outside the US. To say we “export” terrorism based on these examples is as weak as the people trying to claim this is proof of anything significant.

    • grimc says:

      Yes, and we can all be sure that foreign citizens and governments will make the same distinction, because it’s unpossible for the US to be the bad guy.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t there a bigger issue here: Why was this document was classified as “secret” in the first place? Secret classification is supposed to be reserved for documents with the potential to “cause grave damage to national security” if released to the public. At worst, this is awkward and potentially embarrassing.

    Keep at it, Julian. The sad fact is that the U.S. government has been misusing its classified information system to hide its own doubts and misgivings about policy from the public.

  6. Anonymous says:

    What I’d like to know is, is downloading either a file or torrent from wikileaks protected in any way? They say they keep no server logs, but what is done to protect the people who download things from there?

    Can anyone comment on that? Their site does not.

  7. Prufrock451 says:

    Let’s not forget Contras, anti-Castro exiles, the School of the Americas, Operation Rollback, Chinese Nationalists in Burma, CIA-trained Tibetan exiles, William Walker, the Gutierrez-Magee Expedition, the Kemper brothers, Joel Poinsett, privateers in a half-dozen wars, CIA air interventions (Congo, Indonesia, and Guatemala, mercs (Rhodesia, Congo, Angola), the PLM in Baja California, Charles Lallemand, Porfirio Diaz, Joseph Shelby (Mexico, 1865), Jose Carvajal, Henry Crabb, Juan Jose Flores, Lee Christmas, and I will stop there before I cramp up.

  8. Trotsky says:

    Our war colleges would *NEVER* provide instruction on committing effective terrorist acts. What we do teach is “asymmetrical warfare” and “counterinsurgency” which are totally, totally different!

    Problem with producing so many accomplished graduates is that sometimes your star pupils get tired of killing Russians and decide to hold a reunion back in the nation that educated them just for “old time’s sake.”

    America is a nation of blow-out and blow-back.

    We suck *AND* blow.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I’m going theorist here because, frankly, it’s fun.

    I think it’s odd that the one document to be released that the average American might read (3 pages, perfect) both makes the government look good, AND ties in that little possibility of a threat that “Hey, people dissapear ’round here ALLLL the time.”

    You mutants need to take a course at ATS.. those guys think way outside the box, for free. So i consider them a service.
    and this a controlled release.

  10. anwaya says:

    The document presents a surprisingly narrow definition of the terrorism the US has exported over the years: none of it is performed by State actors.

    So NORAID gets a mention for its support of the IRA in the 1970′s, but says nothing of the School of the Americas (SOA: now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHINSEC). According to SOA Watch, the SOA taught some 14% of Pinochet’s Intelligence Service in counter-insurgency, interrogation, and counter-intelligence: in the league of States that maintained power through terror, Pinochet’s Chile must be near the top, and the SOA made an important contribution to Pinochet’s ability to sustain his brutal reign for as long as he did.

  11. MrJM says:

    Don’t they understand?

    We’re the Good Guysâ„¢

    If you don’t believe it, just look at our white hats!

    • Anonymous says:

      I think a lot of you aren’t understand the article because of the wording. Here’s the most important sentence:

      “The report looks at a number cases of US exported terrorism, including attacks by US based or financed Jewish, Muslim and Irish-nationalism terrorists.”

      Okay, now let’s take out part of “based or financed” conjunction and see what it’s saying:

      “The report looks at a number cases of US exported terrorism, including attacks by US FINANCED Jewish, Muslim and Irish-nationalism terrorist.”

      Explanation: We regularly finance terrorists.

      Here’s the second and third most important points:

      It concludes that foreign perceptions of the US as an “Exporter of Terrorism” together with US DOUBLE STANDARDS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, may lead to noncooperation in renditions (including the arrest of CIA officers) and the decision to NOT SHARE terrorism related intelligence with the United States.

      Explanation: We regularly break international law and the rest of the government and citizens ignorant.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Again, an interesting point of view from ATS, by user Regensturm:

    “The document appears to look at the issue of the US being an exporter of terrorism via it’s citizens.

    Actually, the issue of US being an exporter of terrorism and it being internationally understood is not because of American citizens on the whole, but because of the US Government and it’s alphabet agencies (mainly the CIA) sponsoring military coups, dictatorships, terrorist groups, assassinations, bombings, shootings and economic sabotage and sanctions globally to achieve the aims of the US Corporate elite and government and it’s backers which have led to the suffering, maiming, and killing of countless numbers of people worldwide.

    The CIA document wishes to portray the danger of the US being recognised as an exporter of terrorism internationally because of American citizens.

    A poor attempt by the CIA to deflect the blame for the US being recognised as exporting international terrorism away from itself.

    The CIA is saying here to blame the American citizen, Make the American citizen the enemy terrorist instead, putting aside the fact that terrorist attacks by American citizens are minicule compared to those carried out in the name of the CIA and American government.

    A precursor document ‘justifying’ a real clampdown, I fear. The citizen it seems, is now to be designated the enemy and the terrorist, not the CIA.”

    this would also support a controlled leak.

  13. TomDArch says:

    If this proves to be a real CIA document, all snarkyness aside, it really is good to know that there are non-morons at the CIA. I’m sure they’re a minority, but they, hopefully, help to moderate the overall culture of stupidity.

    Perhaps, though, it’s telling that such a memo actually had to be written – that this isn’t plainly obvious to everyone in the CIA.

    “Really? Funding and training nasty people around the world for short-term gain in proxy conflicts can turn around and bite us in the ass? I hadn’t thought of that! Next you’re going to tell me that training and funding Islamic militants in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet occupation somehow created problems for the US. That would be silly!”

    • Nadreck says:

      Yeah, I guess we should have just left the Afghans to be killed in the biggest genocide since WWII (Cambodia was a bigger percentage of population but Afghanistan has the biggest body count.). I would argue that the problem was hardly the arming of the populace against the Soviet puppet government’s publicly stated goal of killing 9 million people so as to leave their 2 million “progressive” pets free to screw things up. After all, all of that equipment rusted away long ago and it’s not like the Afghans couldn’t fight asymmetric warfare before the Yanks took an interest. Rather it was our callously walking away from any restoration attempts after the drama of the war was over. Since Afghanistan didn’t, and still doesn’t, have any easily exploitable resources no one cared about the resulting chaos (eg, the most landmines per capita in the world) except the Taliban.
      Well, that and the War On Some People Who Use Some Drugs that puts narcocracies in charge of much of the world.

    • Anonymous says:

      You’re sure that they are in the minority? Are you kidding me? The intelligence community in general is staffed by some of the most intelligent people in the USA, and the CIA is at the top. If you are looking for morons, then you should be honing in on elected representatives. I wept for my country when I read your comment.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Nobody in the US wants to listen to Noam Chomsky. Who has been saying exactly all of this for his entire activist career and getting the cold shoulder from the US.

    Hopefully wikileaks can get some heads turned to this truth with another great leak! (Though I doubt it…)

    • Anonymous says:

      Really? Nobody in the US wants to listen to Noam Chomsky?

      That’s weird because I though that me, my family and friends, classmates and dozens of others who I know have been listening to him for decades. Guess I just imagined all that.

    • Anonymous says:

      I totally agree about Chomsky. I stopped reading books about six years ago. All he does is explain the problems, never the solutions.

  15. Junior says:

    Jeebus, are you guys so blinded by your foregone conclusion about the evil of the modern state to even read the damn thing?

    Is the memorandum about us as an exporter of terrorism as your headline suggests, or is it about the hypothetical perception of that?

    It’s not suggesting we sponsor, or even export terrorism – it’s about the hypothetical of what happens if we are *perceived* as doing so.

    It cites examples of American citizens who become terrorists and attack *us* and our allies from outside the country. Not terrorists that we have fostered/sponsored/exported.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not only that, but this article does not say the U.S. is training these “exported” terrorists … merely that they originate from here.

      Some of these replies seem to think the U.S. is training and exporting terrorists as a matter of policy. That might be true, but that’s not what the article is about.

    • Junior says:

      (Not that I’d dispute that the modern state is inherently evil, mind you; but don’t stop reading.)

    • grimc says:

      It’s not suggesting we sponsor, or even export terrorism

      Incorrect. The report treats ‘exporting’ as any acts of terrorism committed by US citizens or coming from our shores, and even lists real-life examples.

      US-based terrorism isn’t hypothetical. The question being asked is, ‘What if the world puts 2 and 2 together?’

      • Junior says:

        I’d agree that there are some semantics at play – they do seem to define ‘export’ a lot more loosely than is usually done. They are looking at anything that comes from within. But when it comes to being perceived as an ‘exporter’, the word implies some action on the state’s part to nurture/foster/sponsor/deliver it – which is not a case this memo makes.

        • Brainspore says:

          But when it comes to being perceived as an ‘exporter’, the word implies some action on the state’s part to nurture/foster/sponsor/deliver it…

          I don’t see it that way. Mexico is unquestionably an “exporter” of marijuana, but that doesn’t mean the trade was the government’s idea.

        • grimc says:

          they do seem to define ‘export’ a lot more loosely than is usually done

          I think that’s the purpose of the exercise–what if the international community starts applying the same wobbly definition that the US government applies to others e.g. Saddam’s Iraq vis a vis Al Qaeda.

    • conflator says:

      Is the memorandum about us as an exporter of terrorism as your headline suggests, or is it about the hypothetical perception of that?

      It’s not suggesting we sponsor, or even export terrorism – it’s about the hypothetical of what happens if we are *perceived* as doing so.

      That’s not quite what I got from it. The memo gives concrete examples of terrorism exported from the US. (Note that this is not “we encourage terrorists here and then ship them overseas”, it’s an acknowledgement that the US is as capable of breeding terrorists as any other nation.)

      What I found most interesting was this bit:

      As a recent victim of high-profile
      terrorism originating from abroad, the US Government has had significant leverage to press
      foreign regimes to acquiesce to requests for extraditing terrorist suspects from their soil.
      However, if the US were seen as an “exporter of terrorism,” foreign governments could
      request a reciprocal arrangement that would impact US sovereignty.

      …and goes on to talk about how advantageous it is to be able to continue playing the victim, but if people started to realize it was a global problem, foreign governments might start demanding the same things of the US (detention, rendition, extradition.)

      It’s not surprising that they’re warning about the possibility of the playing field being leveled, but the rest of the world does find it rather distasteful the way the US likes to demand things of other nations it doesn’t want to give itself.

  16. Roger Wilco says:

    Red Cell – putting the “intelligence” back in CIA one leaked document at a time.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I don’t get it. We’re going to complain about the CIA being self aware now?

  18. VICTOR JIMENEZ says:

    When I readed the document I was like “No shit Sherlock! CIA has discover the wheel!”

    Certainly putting the Intelligence back into the CIA acronym.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I’m just speculating, but perhaps the content isn’t the purpose. Maybe some leaks are leaks, and others are signals

  20. Anonymous says:

    @Junior: the first line of the memo reads “Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin.”

    The memo goes on to immediately cite several examples of American-based support of terrorists. While not directly addressing the issue of US-sponsored terrorists/”freedom fighters” or oppressive regimes, it’s obviously a very short leap to that conclusion, and seems pretty clear the author intended the reader to make that connection themselves. He/She/They could have made that explicit in the memo, but I’m guessing they probably would like to keep their job(s).

  21. 0x90 says:

    This is old news. Did Julian think that this document would make the CIA look bad? If anything, it makes the U.S.A. look stronger and self aware.

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t think Julian really cares about that angle – the document makes interesting reading and is classified (for no justifiable reason that I can discern).

      For the latter reason alone it should be leaked. If you look at WikiLeaks’ short history it’s basically a whole load of documents like this, they’re not interesting on their own – but fascinating when the picture begins to come together.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why so cynical? Wikileaks’ policy isn’t to just stir shit up, it’s to encourage (/force) openness. Maybe the attempts to vilify Assange and co. are working if people automatically assume Wikileaks is on a “destroy the establishment” mission.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I have the original download of this memo when wikileaks first brought these documents about so for the lucky people who do have the full memo and document downloads then and only then will you understand how deep the information is and as far as it goes the USA is keeping vast information far more than we will ever know under raps and hidden from public eyes and what i can tell you is that they are secretly funding organisations to intercept and create red cells for own purposes in reaching own selfish goals and completely no consideration for well being of there own let alone the rest of the world civilisation. Thank you….people really need to open there minds….no wonder education fees will go up we have been getting too smart for some lol hint

  23. Yamara says:

    Shorter CIA: What if someone notices all that stuff we do?

Leave a Reply