On Sunday I read an article about the connections between some American and a terrorist group in Iran. One American in particular worked for the CIA. Then when it no longer trusted him he moved over to the FBI. When it was reluctant to support one of his adventures he found a willing hand and source of funds in the Defense Department. Just reading the story showed how despite our best efforts our federal intelligence and enforcement communities rather than cooperating are playing games of one-upmanship with each other. This game and lack of coordination reminiscent of how we operated prior to September 11, 2001, will surer than snow this winter be responsible for enabling the next terrorist attack on our shores.
But that’s beside the point, as are the facts in the article that show that rather than taking action against the terrorist group the federal agencies were supporting it. Apparently in the eyes of these government agents it is all right to murder Iranian civilians for that is what this group was doing. It recalled to me a recent comment from my man in Ireland Henry that the federals are two-faced when it comes to terrorism. It’s all right if it is done against people we don’t like; or if it pleases a significant in-favor ethnic group in the country such as the Irish or Cubans, but is not when done by some misguided young kids who do nothing more than seek to join ISIS.
I was not surprised reading that but what struck me most in the article, which shows the media’s lack of understanding of the on-going situation in America, was the article’s reference to Whitey Bulger. Here’s what it said:
“Still, the risk of such arrangements [with the terrorist] is that atrocities committed by people working with the United States could be seen as sanctioned by the government. In Guatemala, for example, a military officer working with the C.I.A. ordered the killing of an American citizen in 1990. When that came to light, it became a major scandal that forced the C.I.A. to review its entire informant network. The F.B.I., too, has a checkered history in this area. In one widely publicized case, F.B.I. agents in Boston used the mobster James (Whitey) Bulger as an informant, even as he and his gang committed murder. That scandal led the F.B.I. to rewrite its rules, which now require extensive record keeping and scrutiny of informants who commit crimes.”
The sense I get from reading that is that the FBI’s use of Whitey was an outlier done in Boston. That is the myth that the FBI has successfully put out. The truth is what happened in Boston happened in many other FBI offices throughout the country. That is a matter that has yet to be investigated. To this date we do not know how many Top Echelon Informants of the FBI were committing murders while working with the FBI. We only know in Boston there were at least three and of several others in New York, Cleveland and Chicago. All of these were approved by the bosses at FBI headquarters.
Worse, there is the pretense that the FBI rewrote it rules and the practice stopped. We know that is false. Back in 2011 the FBI had a Top Echelon Informant named Mark Rossetti who is supposed to have been involved in several murders.
What we don’t know and as a nation we should know is how many informants the FBI used who were murderers and continue to murder while working with the FBI. We should know how the FBI protected these informants. We should also know how many is it using today.
We saw in all the proceedings surrounding the Wolf hearings in 1997 that the FBI had all the proper rules and records in place but it never enforced them. There is no reason to think that it is doing that today. Until once and for all the Top Echelon Program is exposed to the light of day, which it probably never will be because of the enormous liability the United States would incur if sued by all those families who lost loved ones because the FBI was protecting their murderers, there is every reason in the world to believe the FBI is still working hand-in-hand with murderers to the detriment of all us American citizens just as it has done in the past.