BFP Exclusive: Karzai Clan Attorney Threatens US Journalist, Uses Intimidation Tactics

An Inside Story into How the Beltway Powers Intimidate & Silence Journalists

karzai1Boiling Frogs Post has obtained a threat letter issued by Technologists Inc to the Examiner in response to its recent exposé involving President Hamid Karzai’s brother Qayum Karzai and his mob-like operations.

In a letter dated May 5, 2012, the company’s General Counsel Michelle E. Crawford accuses the investigative reporter of being inaccurate and libelous without providing any specific or concrete counter claim, and threatens the Examiner with legal action:

If the Examiner.Com fails to print the requested correction/retraction , Ti will be left with no choice but to seek legal action against your organization and will seek damages as well as the costs of litigation, including any filing fees, attorney’s fees, and any other costs that may be incurred.

...

The letter was provided to Boiling Frogs Post by an anonymous source familiar with the case. To read the letter click here.

karzai2On April 27 the Examiner published an exclusive article written by investigative journalist Michael Hughes titled ‘Karzai Family Looks to Extend Boss Rule in Afghanistan.’ The article exposes President Hamid Karzai’s mob boss brother Qayum Karzai, who has lived and operated businesses in the United States and has reportedly been on the list of ‘hand-picked’ potential candidates as Afghanistan’s next president.

Two of Qayum Karzai’s companies, Technologist Inc. and Daman Construction, are known to dominate the construction, logistics and security sectors throughout southern Afghanistan, and win every government contract with zero competition:

Qayum's primary companies, Technologist Inc. and Daman Construction, win every government contract without having to deal with the nuisance of free market competition, which allows Qayum to reap healthy margins by, for example, selling $4 million generators to the governor of Kandahar for $50 million.

...

Hughes provides accounts of Qayum Karzai’s manipulation of business and news sectors in Afghanistan and his mob-style intimidation tactics including assassination plots against competitors: [Read more...]

BFP Breaking News: Confirmed Identity of the CIA Official behind 9/11, Rendition & Torture Cases is Revealed

Update 1: It was brought to our attention that the webmaster at Secrecykills.com had mistakenly scanned and posted the uncensored documents containing the names of the two CIA officers. Per their request we now are removing the second CIA officer’s name. Boiling Frogs Post had independently obtained and confirmed the first name: Alfreda Frances Bikowsky, but had included the second name, M. A. C., based on the uncensored documents posted by mistake at Secrecykills.com previously. Due to the government pressure on and threats to the producers Nowosielski-Duffy we were asked to remove the references to their site and previous post…At least for now. As you can see the mainstream media and pseudo alternatives (including Raw Story) have abided by their government masters and fund-ers, and have refused to pick up the story or support the producers-reporters or Boiling Frogs Post. We rely on ‘your’ support. The story is still developing-please stay tuned.

Alfreda Frances Bikowsky: The Current Director of the CIA Global Jihad Unit


BNBoiling Frogs Post has now confirmed the identity of the CIA analyst at the heart of a notorious failure in the run-up to the September 11th tragedy. Her name is Alfreda Frances Bikowsky and she is the current director of the CIA Jihad Unit. Through three credible sources and documents we have confirmed Ms. Bikowsky’s former titles and positions, including her start at the CIA as an analyst for the Soviet Desk, her position as one of the case officers at the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit-Alec Station, her central role and direct participation in the CIA’s rendition-torture and black sites operations, and her current position as director of the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit.

The producers Nowosielski and Duffy have now made both names available [link removed] at their website. They also identify the second CIA culprit as M. A. C. We have not been able to obtain confirmation by other sources on this person yet, but we are still working on it.

Alfreda Frances Bikowsky is the person described in New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side as having flown in to watch the waterboarding of terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammad without being assigned to do so. "Its not supposed to be entertainment," superiors were said to have told her.  She was also at the center of "the el-Masri incident,” in which an innocent German citizen was kidnapped by the CIA in 2003 and held under terrible conditions without charges for five months in a secret Afghan prison. The AP characterized it as "one of the biggest diplomatic embarrassments of the U.S. war on terrorism."

Both the previous and current administrations appear to have deemed Alfreda Frances Bikowsky’s direct involvement in intentional obstruction of justice, intentional cover up, lying to Congress, and overseeing rendition-kidnapping-torture practices as qualifying factors to have kept promoting her. She now leads the CIA’s Global Jihad Unit and is a close advisor to the President.

# # # #

*For more background check out the following links:

Boiling Frogs Breaking News: CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

Podcast: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Subs

Boiling Frogs Exclusive: September 11th Advocates’ Statement on Recent Developments Involving 9/11, CIA & Richard Clarke

Punitive Actions Are Once Again Being Taken Against the Wrong People


PressForTruthIn Boiling Frogs Post’s recent interview with Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, Sibel Edmonds questioned the timing of former Counter-Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke’s willingness to speak out about alleged 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar, and the CIA’s knowledge of their whereabouts after the January 2000 Malaysia “terrorist summit.”  Sibel asked Ray and John, “why now?”  We would like to note that the interview with Clarke was actually recorded two years ago, in October 2009.  As such, the “why now” question should actually be posed to Ray and John.  The real questions for Clarke should be, “why then?”  Why then and not during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, when it would have been meaningful to the Commission’s investigation?  In addition, in his October 2009 interview, Clarke revealed pertinent insight into information sharing at high levels, which would clearly counter the misleading findings of the 9/11 Commission regarding the “failures” of communications between the FBI and CIA.
 
It is extremely troubling to us that the former Counter-Terrorism Czar, for both the Clinton and Bush Junior Administrations, as well as chair of the Counter-Terrorism Security Group for Bush Senior (essentially working in an anti-terrorism related capacity since about 1992), took so long to speak out about why the CIA would intentionally fail to share such critically important information with the FBI.  If nothing else, he should have mentioned in his testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2004 that information sharing was not a problem between intelligence agencies themselves or with the Executive Branch.  Clarke was clearly well aware of how he, and the FBI, received raw data from CIA sources and had to be keenly aware that the Commission was basing many of their recommendations on this misinformation.  Clarke did not bother to clear that up during his testimony or immediately afterwards.
 
This is just another glaring example of how the 9/11 Commission failed.  How could the Commission have been unaware of how information sharing was actually accomplished within the agencies and with the White House?  Did they fail to ask any appropriate questions to the key witnesses?  Why did they purposely choose to relegate the extremely important fact that the CIA intentionally withheld information from the FBI to a tiny footnote (Chapter 6, Footnote 44) in their final report?  Worse yet, according to the 9/11 Commission, they allegedly have never found out who in the CIA gave the order to keep the FBI out of the loop.  They had to know that this deliberate failure to share information could only be fixed by removing the individuals responsible and not be cured by a reorganization recommendation.  Despite logic, that is what they recommended.
 
Furthermore, we find it truly disturbing that Ray and John are potentially being legally challenged by the CIA for attempting to bring to light information that they reportedly were able to glean from open source material for their current project.  Instead of going after a minority of journalists who are doing their job of informing the public, we would prefer to see the unnamed agents held responsible for their past actions, which according to the official story, would have led to two American Airlines Flight 77 hijackers.  If the agents had merely used the information they had to stop, search and ultimately arrest al Hazmi and al Mihdhar, the 9/11 plot may have been foiled and almost 3,000 lives may have been saved.  We find it incredulous that these agents are still employed by the CIA.
 
To our dismay, punitive actions are once again being taken against the wrong people.

# # # #

September 11th Advocates:

Patty Casazza

Monica Gabrielle

Mindy Kleinberg

Lorie Van Aucken

*For more background check out the following links:

Boiling Frogs Breaking News: CIA Goes After Producers Nowosielski & Duffy 

The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

Podcast: The Boiling Frogs Presents Ray Nowosielski & John Duffy

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Subs

The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to Producers Nowosielski & Duffy

CIA’s Maneuver: A Case of Bluffing? Buying Time? Or Something More?


ciaLast week we broke the story of the CIA issued legal threats against producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers. The analysts were referred to only by first names initially, but were going to be fully named in a follow up segment. It appears the story is still developing,  but we now have further details on the case, an analysis by an expert producer, and a few comments on assessing the nature and possible implication of this move by the CIA.

I asked Mr. Nowosielski how the CIA was informed about the schedule and the content of their upcoming segment, and he provided us with the following details:

We emailed CIA Public Affairs on Thursday morning telling them of our intention to name two current agents in our journalism piece and explained the context of their use -- the things they were accused of. We also explained that their names had been deduced through open-source materials and that our sources had told us they were working from headquarters.

As for the CIA’s reaction and response Mr. Nowosielski recounted the following:

Their media spokesperson called back almost immediately. After a brief discussion, we emailed him the script for official reply. We also requested an interview with the two to ensure that we were telling the full story accurately. The reply email began "This is off the record:" and then informed us that we may be violating federal law by including those two names. When we asked him to cite the law, we were told it was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This and follow up calls occurred on Thurs, Fri, and Sat, until we explained that we were not recognizing "off the record" in our official interactions with the Agency. We have heard nothing further since.

My own immediate response to the way in which CIA responded to the producers can be summed up in three questions:

1- Is this one of those fairly common cases where the government agency tries its ‘bluffing tactic’ to see whether that suffices to intimidate and stop the whistleblower or reporter in question?

Because the threat is issued by e-mail, and ludicrously, it starts off by stating ‘off the record.’ When confident and on solid ground the agencies come after the targets armed with official- legal letters or even court orders. In my days, in my own case as a government whistleblower, and later as the director of NSWBC dealing with many intelligence agencies whistleblowers and  also reporters, I have experienced the government agency ‘Bluffing Tactic’ more than a few times. For example, the FBI tried to stop my interview with CBS-60 Minutes and later attempted to stop the airing of the segment, but when challenged and invited to go ahead and take legal action, they changed their mind; they went away.

2- Is this an attempt by the CIA to buy needed time to take further action against the producers through the Department of Justice?

One thing I know is that government bureaucracy takes time. It takes time to get ‘things done’ when it comes to the government. In this case, the CIA would have to bring and make the case to the Justice Department. The DOJ then would have  to go through its own bureaucracy and reviews to decide whether it could turn this into a legal action via the courts. Thus, this could possibly be a case of the CIA trying to buy more time to translate its ludicrous ‘off the record’ threat issued by a casual e-mail into a real threat with some teeth. If so, wouldn’t that mean a window of opportunity for the producers to release the information? Or not?

3- What are the real legal liabilities facing the Producers, since the names of the two culprit CIA analysts are already out in public records? Further, with other sources in addition to the public records ‘outing’ the names of the analysts who happen to be involved in possible criminal actions, what level of threat are the producers faced with?

Again, based on my own experience and the experiences of many government intelligence agencies whistleblowers, the CIA would have to first classify the already public information-documents out there revealing the identities of the two CIA analysts; classification after the fact. Next, they would have to legally pursue the other involved sources who have either confirmed or released those names. The CIA hasn’t done that. At least not yet. And what does this mean? Does it mean the producers still have the burden of abiding by the casually issued ‘off the record’ e-mail by the CIA? Or not?

BorjessonWe are still waiting for further analysis by our legal experts and other intelligence sources. Meanwhile I asked our media advisor Kristina Borjesson to give us her take and expert analysis on this case. Internationally acclaimed for her work, Ms. Borjesson has produced for major American and European television networks and published two groundbreaking books on problems of the U.S. press: Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press and Feet to the Fire: the Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak out. Her awards include an Emmy and Murrow Award in TV, the National Press Club’s Arthur Rowse award for Media Criticism, and two Independent Publishers Awards for her books.

Here is the analysis of this case by Ms. Borjesson for Boiling Frogs Post:

The Pitfalls of Due Diligence for Deep Journalism

When independent filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy interviewed Richard Clarke in 2009, the former counterterrorism czar dropped a bomb on camera.  Clarke accused former CIA head George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of withholding critical intelligence from the FBI, DOD, White House and Immigration on the presence in the US of two alleged 9/11 hijackers well before 9/11.  In their film, “Who is Richard Blee?” Nowosielski and Duffy also identify two CIA analysts who participated in the cover-up.

After interviewing Clarke, the filmmakers tried for more than a year to interest media outlets in their bombshell information. “We pitched everywhere and were told no,” says Nowosielski, “We always held out hope to get funding for it to be a real documentary, which we thought [the subject] deserved.” Finally, the filmmakers settled on putting the film out as a podcast.

The CIA is now holding up the release of the recording as a result of the filmmakers doing due diligence as reporters.  It is a standard practice of good journalism to get in touch with subjects that other subjects in a print or TV news piece are talking about if the talked-about subjects are being accused of malfeasance or illegal or unethical behavior.  It is only fair to allow accused subjects to answer and/or defend themselves. It is also then incumbent upon the reporter to get to the bottom of who exactly is telling the truth—the accuser or the accused. [Read more...]