- Chesterman's paper discusses the role of private companies as torturers and there is little doubt that they carried out waterboarding. Beyond torture, almost every Intelligence and most field roles are being turned over to private companies that get contracts because of "new" problems, crises, influence operations, hacking, danger, threats, or dossiers their companies or related companies happen to find.
- A 2006 report of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence noted that the intelligence community increasingly finds itself in competition with its contractors: Confronted by arbitrary staffing ceilings and uncertain funding, components are left with no choice but to use contractors for work that may be borderline ' inherently governmental ' -- only to find that to do that work, those same contractors recruit our own employees, already cleared and trained at government expense, and then ' lease ' them back to us at considerably greater expense.
If you look at the LinkedIn profiles for either Intel community corporation principals and any of the department heads and other leadership positions in government agencies, the revolving door pattern is there.
Chesterman's paper identifies work given to corporations or individuals that should remain a strictly governmental function is now in the hands of companies that do it for hire. For-profit companies are behind most of the Intel the agency heads and POTUS see. For-profit, companies look after their own bottom line.
Because they are committed to their companies and not public service, the lines have been blurred to the point that some of these contractors no longer distinguish between the work they do for US Intelligence and Security and what they can do legally in the civilian world. There is no difference and they have no problem plying the same tools and techniques on an unsuspecting public.
In a Washington Post Editorial titled "The Value of 'Private Spies" which was meant to answer Dr. Hillhouse's accusations of corruption and mismanagement, the DNI tried to deflect it by giving a much lower percentage of contractors than it was using. The ODNI did recognize the inherent danger of using private companies for Intel and direct action work in the following statement. -"Our workforce has recovered to the point that we can begin to shed some contract personnel or shift them away from core mission areas, and the CIA is leading the way in this. But contract personnel will remain a vital component of the intelligence community, working side by side with government employees to keep our nation safe. RONALD P. SANDERS Associate Director of National Intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence
So, ok, that was 11 years ago. Did the ODNI make good on taking control back from private companies that profit on national security problems? Nope. How are things shaping up in the Intel community today?
In a 2015 article at The Nation titled "How Private Contractors Have Created a Shadow NSA" Tim Shorrock describes the unthinkable. This one sentence encapsulates it: "This small company, and INSA itself are vivid examples of the rise of a new class in America: the cyberintelligence ruling class...
...Over the last 15 years, thousands of former high-ranking intelligence officials and operatives have left their government posts and taken up senior positions at military contractors, consultancies, law firms, and private-equity firms. In their new jobs, they replicate what they did in government--often for the same agencies they left. But this time, their mission is strictly for-profit."
Shorrock goes on to detail how the same 1% Americans claim to be fighting is the cyberintelligence elite that controls the media. Mathew Olsen is an example of the former National Counterterrorism Center director and current IronNet Corp. president. He joined ABC as a commentator. He goes further and shows how this is the rule and not the exception.
This is going on all across media channels. Every network has their own cyber intel 1 percenter to talk through the facts, but their conflicts of interest almost always remain hidden.
The other point Shorrock noted was that their storylines are almost always their companies position. They are why the networks don't deviate often from the official version of things because they provide the official version to the US government.
If it looks like US Intel and the media networks are all working from the exact same narrative, it's because they are. Even the narratives are developed by former military that isn't interested in facts. They are interested in winning- for their reputations, for their companies, for their careers.
By using narrative builders the Intel Elite (1%) avoid Information Fratricide. This happens when there are opposing views to a given situation which neutralize the point you want to push.
"If you write or read outside agendized news, you are not "our side" anymore. The reason is that news that makes "our side" look bad or builds dissenting opinions make the work of IO/IIO professionals difficult or impossible. It's called Information Fratricide. Information fratricide is defined as Actions, perceptions, and information from friendly forces that create improper impressions can adversely affect IO in sensitive situation."
This means everyone in media has to follow the same narrative. Stopping information fratricide was why Propornot was rolled out.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
5
4
