U.S. USING PRIVATE SPY RING

Military brass in Afghanistan and Pakistan are relying on a ring of private spies despite legal concerns among authorities. News broke earlier this year that the CIA had enlisted retired intelligence officers as contract spies. At the time, the program was portrayed as unofficial and said to be brought to a close. Now, The New York Times reports, it's clear that the work of those private agents continues in places like Pakistan. The spies send reports to top commanders. Their presence in Pakistan is particularly shocking as the American military is prevented from operating there and the Army is not supposed to hire contract spies under Pentagon rules.

Read the entire shocking revelation at The New York Times


Has it ever occurred to anyone at the New York Times that our intelligence operations are not constrained by such artificialities as the Law of Land Warfare? In the time-honored history of American espionage, the ONLY rules or references in our laws that define ANY kind of legal requirements, when it comes to intelligence-gathering, is Executive Order 12333, which provides for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.

This same Executive Order 12333 ALLOWS for private contracting, by the way:



Executive Order 12333, United States Intelligence Activities

Part 2 - 2.7 Contracting.

"Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. Contracts or arrangements with academic institutions may be undertaken only with the contract of appropriate officials of the institution."



Historically, the United States has used military men, diplomats, private businessmen, mercenaries and adventurers, foreigners - even members of other countries governments - in espionage and reconnaissance. Somebody tell me: WHEN DID THAT CHANGE?

Personally, I don't have a problem with doing anything and everything it takes to WIN THE GLOBAL WAR AGAINST TERRORISM.

What we gotta ask ourselves is . . . DO WE WANT TO WIN THIS THING OR WHAT ? ? ?

I guess the answer to that question is another question: does the New York Times want to win this thing, or what?

- Sean Linnane


.

PROFESSIONALS WANTED

Although not new by any means, the privatization of the military was foreseen as early as 1993 by futurists Alvin and Heide Toffler in their book WAR & ANTI-WAR:




The idea is nothing new - no army in history has ever marched one step without private enterprise providing everything from boots and uniforms to meals, weaponry, tires, spare parts and maintenance - in an earlier era horseshoes - and of course the horses themselves and the feed they ate.



Berlin, 1961, height of the Cold War.


The Toffler's book was timely because it coincided with the immediate end of the post-Cold War Era; hallmarked by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Soviet Union two years later. The First Gulf War against Saddam Hussein - a long-time client of the Soviet Union - was viewed by many historians as an epilogue of the Cold War.



Fall of the Berlin Wall, 1989.


At that point in history it was immediately evident that there was no longer a requirement for a huge standing military; the Communist Block had imploded and the commonly-held belief was that a kind of World Peace would ensue.


The need for a standing military along the lines of World War II armies was over; the United States had long since dispensed with the draft and had gone with a conscription-free, all-volunteer professional army. To streamline operations, to enhance the flexibility this new army requires, many functions have been contracted out. While the Army still has cooks and mechanics, most overseas messhalls are staffed by locally hired civilians, and military motor pools include qualified technicians representing commercial suppliers such as Land Rover.

I joined the US Army in 1983. Infantry, Airborne, 11 Charlie. Our squad leaders and platoon sergeants were professionals, and they told us horror stories of serving amongst draftees of the Vietnam era; drugs, rampant crime within the ranks, disciplinary problems in garrison AND in combat.




We listened and learned; whatever the Army threw at us, we were willing to deal with, because we wanted to be there. What we DIDN'T want; was to be with people who didn't want to be there. We were professionals.




Everywhere I served overseas, our operations were enhanced by civilian contractors. They ran the mess halls, fixed our radios, issued boots and uniforms, and in very extraordinary circumstances served in a paramilitary role, providing us with security details, training resources and even sources of intelligence. Of these activities there is nothing unethical, illegal, unorthodox or new in any way.


It is my professional opinion that it is better - and CHEAPER - to hire civilian contractors to perform service functions - to include personal security details - than to add these "garrison" duties to troops who should be out on patrol, taking the fight to the enemy.



Byron Cousin, an instructor of battlefield forensics, briefs students of his class. Cousin spent 18 years with the 82d Airborne Division, where he retired in 2006 as a first sergeant. On this day, his students were 82d Paratroopers.

Consider; a uniformed soldier has to be recruited, uniformed, armed & equipped, fed, paid, kept healthy, trained, paid, housed, educated (and his FAMILY has to be housed, fed, medically taken care of & educated) and then paid retirement for X # of years. A contractor just has to be paid, point blank & simple.

Since I retired from active duty I have provided goods and consulting services to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and to various state and local law enforcement agencies. At this time I am a professional security consultant. There is nothing unethical, irregular, or illegal in any of these activities. I provide a service, and a perspective, that an active duty soldier simply could not perform. I am paid well for what I do, and this is exactly what I am worth - less than, if anything.

To anyone out there who suggests the United States should revert to involuntary conscription, populate the Army with unwilling draftees who don't want to be there, and tie up the military performing chores outside of the military role or mission, I ask: what are the details of your honorable military service?

.