Google+ Badge

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

WAYNE MADSEN: The U.S. Continued Biological Weapons Research Until 2003

Work no doubt continues at Ft. Detrick and other hidden sites  

By Wayne Madsen

President Richard Nixon ordered the destruction of all US biological weapons in 1969. His White House declaration, Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs, declared that "the United States shall renounce the use of lethal biological agents and weapons, and all other methods of biological warfare. The United States will confine its biological research to defensive measures such as immunization and safety measures." 

With that and the ratification of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by the United States, Soviet Union, and Great Britain, the US biological weapons program came to an end. Or did it?

Pursuant to Nixon’s order to end America’s biological warfare program, the US Army’s Biological Warfare Laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland changed its name to the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). 

The facility made headlines in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks when the weaponized anthrax strain sent through the US postal system was found to have originated at USAMRIID. 

A USAMRIID scientist, Dr. Bruce Ivins, was named as a "person of interest" in the anthrax attack, even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had scant evidence to charge the scientist. After Ivins allegedly "committed suicide" in 2008, the FBI declared Ivins the chief perpetrator and closed the case.

There has always been a belief that the Central Intelligence Agency and Pentagon never stopped their offensive biological warfare research, actions that were in contravention of the 1972 treaty and Nixon’s 1969 order. 

The National Security Agency, which is located at Fort Meade, Maryland, a one-hour drive from USAMRIID, referred to USAMRIID as the "US Army's bio-weapons research facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland" in a TOP SECRET/Special Intelligence/Talent-Keyhole Signals Intelligence Directorate newsletter dated November 6, 2003. The NSA news item stated that the "bio-weapons research facility" worked closely with the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center (AFMIC). Not found in the NSA report is any mention of USAMRIID, which appears to have been a benign cover name for a continuing offensive US biological warfare program.

The close relationship between AFMIC at Fort Detrick, USAMRIID, and NSA is an illustration of the fact that USAMRIID continues to play a role in offensive biological warfare regardless of the 1972 treaty obligations of the United States. According to the leaked NSA newsletter, NSA’s International Organizations Branch "exploits and reports the communications of non-governmental (NGO) and treaty monitoring organisations worldwide." 

Such surveillance means that any bio-warfare outbreak of any virulent disease is practically immediately known to NSA since the agency and its partners constantly monitor the communications of the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. 

The 2003 newsletter reveals that NSA and AFMIC paid close attention to "SARS in China, cholera in Liberia, and dysentery, polio, and cholera in Iraq." SARS is a dangerous coronavirus, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It is noteworthy that the NSA newsletter states that AFMIC happened to provide a "technical expert in epidemiology" at the same time that China experienced a severe outbreak of the SARS virus, Russian scientists who examined SARS claimed that the virus was genetically created by fusing mumps and measles pathogens. They pointed their fingers at Fort Detrick.

NSA’s Target Office of Primary Interest (TOPI) ensured that NSA surveillance resources were marshaled against "complex public health targets." These public health targets would have included health ministries, hospitals, international and local Red Cross and Red Crescent chapters in affected countries, and other NGOs.

There are strong indications that a secret American offensive biological program survived the 1972 treaty and Nixon’s order, at the very least, into the early 1990s. Rather than destroy its own germ warfare caches, the CIA merely transferred its bio-war programs to USAMRIID and continued bio-warfare research under the cover of "non-proliferation" enforcement and research.

An August 2, 1977, letter from CIA director Admiral Stansfield Turner to Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) revealed the nature of the CIA’s work with USAMRIID on bio-warfare projects. The letter states that as part of the CIA’s MKUltra project, various subprojects involved "funding for unspecified activities connected with the Army’s Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, Maryland. Under CIA’s Project MKNAOMI, the Army assisted CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery systems for use against humans as well as against animals and crops. The objectives of these subprojects cannot be identified from the recovered material beyond the fact that the money was to be used where normal funding channels would require more written or oral justification than appeared desirable for security reasons or where operational considerations dictated short lead time for purchases. Most of the files on MKNAOMI were destroyed on the order of CIA director Richard Helms. One of Helms’s successors as director, William Colby, called the MKNAOMI and other highly-classified files destroyed by Helms the "Family Jewels."

In the 1980s, during the CIA’s illegal involvement in warfare in Zaire and Angola, two novel viruses appeared on the scene: Ebola and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The CIA’s longtime "Dr. Strangelove" for creating exotic methods to kill people, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, saw Africa as a virtual "Petri dish" for carrying out his macabre experiments. In 1960, Gottlieb developed a deadly poison that was to be put on Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba’s toothbrush and cause instant death. Gottlieb also worked on various "exotic" medical means to dispatch Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, at left

In 1990 and 1991, USAMRIID was the recipient of the germ warfare stocks amassed by apartheid South Africa’s Project Coast. South African weaponized strains transferred to Fort Detrick prior to the fall of the apartheid government included West Nile virus and anthrax.

Other Gottlieb exploits included the deployment of blue mold against Cuba’s tobacco crop and cane smut against its sugar crop. African swine fever, which is related to the SARS, which, in turn, is related to the deadly 1918 Spanish flu; and a hemorrhagic strain of Dengue fever were also employed by the CIA’s germ warriors against Cuba's human population. In the months after 9/11 and long after Gottlieb’s retirement from the CIA, a cousin of hemorrhagic Dengue fever, the Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), made its debut among civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The timing of the outbreak was suspicious.

The 2009 H1N1 swine influenza "novel" strain, which became a worldwide pandemic in 2009, was the product of resurrecting the deadly 1918 Spanish flu from DNA extracted from the corpse of a female Inuit teen who died from the disease in 1918 by scientists from the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Rockville, Maryland, not far from Fort Detrick. 

Johan Hultin, "Dr. Death" dug up the body of an Alaska native woman in Brevig Mission

Although there were the usual denials from the US government about genetic engineering of various pathogens, on October 16, 2014, the Obama White House announced that it was cutting off funding to risky government experimentation that studied certain infectious agents by making them more dangerous.

The 2014 White House cut-off of funds for genetic manipulation of diseases, coupled with the 2003 NSA newsletter’s revelation that USAMRIID is known within the US intelligence community as the US Army’s bio-warfare research laboratory, calls into question decades of American denials that it continues to maintain an offensive biological warfare capability. What is more astounding is the fact that Washington used the bogus threat of biological warfare dangers from Iraq in 2003 to invade and occupy that nation. Hypocrisy within the corridors of power in the United States knows no bounds.

Wayne Madsen

Wayne Madsen
Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist, Madsen has over twenty years experience in security issues. 

As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. Madsen has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, BBC and MS-NBC. He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and an terrorism investigation panel of the French government. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club, Madsen is based and reports from Washington, D.C.

Pentagon Decides To Officially Support Al Qaeda In Syria

Obama finally comes out of the closet on Al Qaeda support as he prepares to provoke Russia into WWIII

By Alex Christoforou

The masks are coming off. 

The Pentagon today made some big announcements.

One, it will protect the Kurds, much to Turkey’s dismay.

Two, it will protect Al Qaeda/Al Nusra jihadists, in a last gasp effort to overthrow Assad.

Three, the US is gearing up for a full on war with Russia. Be assured, Hillary Clinton will not press the reset button if she becomes President. 

This is what neocons and the progressive left have been pushing for, and now it seems they will finally get it: war with the multipolar world, and it all starts with Russia.

We begin with Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook saying:

“Our warning to the Syrians is the same that we’ve had for some time, that we’re going to defend our forces and they would be advised not to fly in areas where our forces have been operating.”

When pressured by the press to clarify it the US is setting up a “no-fly zone," Cook responded:

“It’s not a ‘no fly zone.'”

Pressed some more by the press, Cook conceded:

“You can label it what you want.”

Asked if this means the US will shoot down Syrian and Russian jets trying to destroy Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and ISIS forces in Syria, Cook said:

“If need be we will send aircraft again to defend our forces.”

Defend US forces fighting side by side with the Kurds…and Al Qaeda/Al Nusra?

Asked whether the U.S. policy is to shoot down a Syrian or Russian aircraft if it poses a threat to U.S. troops on the ground, Cook said:

“We’re going to defend our forces on the ground, absolutely.”

Now that Aleppo is about to be reclaimed by the internationally recognized government of Syria, against foreign Al Qaeda/Al Nusra invaders, the US is setting up “no-fly” “exclusion” zones, to prevent Syrian forces to fly in their own territory.

The US is willing to risk war with Russia to protect the very people that took down the WTC in 2001.

That about sums it up…oh and their is the small little detail of the US working diligently to finally clear a path (any path) for Saudi and Qatar gas to reach Europe via Syrian territory. Always follow the money.

Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook was asked numerous times in numerous ways whether this amounts to a US “no fly zone” over parts of Syria. His first response was vague but threatening:

“We will use our air power as needed to protect coalition forces and our partnered operations. …We advise the Syrian regime to steer clear of [certain] areas.”

The policy shift was so apparent that, one-by-one, the press corps asked for clarification.

Does this mean that the US would shoot down Russian or Syrian planes if they attacked any US-backed partners even if they were engaged against Syrian government forces?

Are those “coalition forces” and “partnered operations” receiving US protection against attack from the air always in receipt of that protection, or only when they are actively engaged in military operations? What are the rules of engagement?

There was no clear answer from the Pentagon spokesman.

“Is this a ‘no-fly’ zone, then,” asked another reporter. It’s not a “no-fly zone” Cook responded.

Another journalist tried to get some clarity:

How is telling Syria not to fly in certain areas not a ‘no fly’ zone? “Call it what you will,” Cook eventually said.

Another journalist asked, “Do you think the Syrian regime has the right to fly over its own territory?”

Same answer: “We will use our air power as needed to protect coalition forces and our partnered operations.”

The anti-Russia rhetoric in Cook’s comments was inexplicable as well. According to the Pentagon spokesman, the suffering in parts of Aleppo is not due to its ongoing occupation by al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, but rather by Russian and Syrian government attempts to expel Nusra from the city. Cook’s explanation defied logic. Russian actions in Aleppo are:

“…only adding fuel to Syria’s civil war and [do] nothing to degrade extremist groups, which is Russia’s original reason for its military intervention in Syria.” 

The sentence only makes sense if one accepts the premise that al-Qaeda in Syria is not an extremist group, as it makes no sense to argue that bombing a certain group does nothing to weaken that group. Unless the Pentagon is suggesting that Russia and Syria are only bombing the civilian population, presumably for fun?

Whatever the case, this is a trial balloon. If this de facto “no fly zone” becomes a fact on the ground, it will be expanded beyond Hasakah and may be a US last-ditch effort to prevent Syrian government forces, aided by Russia, from taking back Aleppo and thus breaking the back of the foreign-backed insurgency.

This is endgame time.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Aleppo Poster Child

CNN warmongering shills and frauds using children for Obama's propaganda blitz on Syria "regime change"  

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Washington’s media presstitutes are using the image of the child to bring pressure on Russia to stop the Syrian army from retaking Aleppo. Washington wants its so-called moderate rebels to retain Aleppo so that Washington can split Syria in two, thereby keeping a permanent pressure against President Assad.

CNN geriatric war-whore Christiane Amanpour
As for the little boy in the propaganda picture, he does not seem to be badly injured. Let us not forget the tens of thousands of children that Washington’s wars and bombings of 7 Muslim countries have killed without any tears shed by CNN anchors, and let us not forget the 500,000 Iraqi children that the United Nations concluded died as a result of US sanctions against Iraq, children’s deaths that Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said were worth it.

Let us not forget that Washington’s determination to overthrow the Syrian government has brought many deaths to Syrians of all age groups. 

Washington alone is responsible for the deaths. The evil Obama regime has stated over and over that “Assad must go” and is prepared to destroy the country and much of the population in order to get rid of him.

According to the Obama regime, Assad must go because he is a dictator. Washington tells this lie despite the fact that Assad was elected and re-elected and has far higher support among Syrians that Obama has among Americans. Moreover, whatever Washington accuses Assad of doing to Syrians is nothing compared to the death and destruction that Washington brought to Syria.

CNN propaganda prostitute, fraud Kate Bouldwan cries fake tears on air for bogus airstrike story

Perhaps the tragedy of Aleppo could have been avoided if the Russian government had not prematurely declared “mission accomplished” in Syria and withdrawn only to have to rush back after the Russian government was again deceived by Washington.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Will States Acquire Nuclear Weapons To Deter Regime Change By U.S.?

U.S. government warmongering and "regime change" fuels new arms race  

By Christina Lin

America’s senseless pursuit of regime change has destroyed lives and ruined nations in the Middle East and Africa. Drawing lesson from what had happened to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, countries blacklisted by Pentagon will now go nuclear like North Korea and Pakistan to prevent US from toppling their governments.

Uncle Muammar found out the hard way just what
it meant to be "friends" with Obama
In 2011, Christian Science Monitor published an important article on lessons learned from US’ illegal war against Libya. Entitled “A troubling lesson from Libya: Don’t give up nukes”, the implication is that if a state gives up nukes, it risks being invaded by the US.[1]

In 2003, Muammar Gaddafi agreed to dismantle its fledgling nuclear program in exchange for diplomatic recognition and integration into the global political economy. However, in 2011 he was murdered and his country violently destroyed when the US aggressively pursued regime change.

In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. In 2003, US invaded Iraq and killed Saddam Hussein in another pursuit of violent regime change.

In 2007, Israel destroyed Syria’s Al Kibar nuclear reactor. In 2011/2012, on the heels of its Libyan regime change operation, US began to work with Saudi Arabia//Qatar/Turkey to conduct regime change in Syria.

This begs the question. Would US have been so eager to invade these countries if they had nuclear weapons?

General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, disclosed that in 2001 the Pentagon actually had a list of seven countries targeted for regime change: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.[2] He was perplexed that none of them were linked to al Qaeda or Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Now with several of the targets already checked off the list, some of the remaining countries may be compelled to seek the ultimate deterrent against regime change. In fact, North Korea cited Libya and Iraq as prime examples of why Pyongyang would never give up its nukes.

In January 2016, when Pyongyang conducted a fourth nuclear test, its official KCNA news agency stated, “the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and the Gaddafi regime in Libya could not escape the fate of destruction after being deprived of their foundations for nuclear development and giving up nuclear programs of their own accord.”[3]

It is also a twist of irony that after Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program and Tripoli was cited as a model for Iran and North Korea to follow for nuclear disarmament, now it is a model for nuclear armament.

"Obama just threatened us again!"

As Doug Bandow argued in The National Interest, US “regime change” foreign policy would now have the unintended consequence of provoking states to seek nukes as a security guarantee, since “no foreign state, no matter how close it might appear to be to Washington at any point in time, can feel secure from a future attempt at regime change.”[4]

Indeed, Turkey may be another state feeling those sentiments. Lauded as a NATO ally for decades, after the recent coup attempt, Ankara could seek the nuclear path to deter future regime change.[5]

As Reza Sanati observed in the Christian Science Monitor, US treatment of Libya and Pakistan differed greatly due to presence of nuclear weapons. Tripoli dismantled its nuclear program and halted support for terrorism in return for western benefits, but it was still attacked. In contrast, nuclear-armed Pakistan hid the world’s most-wanted terrorist Bin Laden for roughly a decade, supported jihadi groups aiding the Taliban, yet suffered no consequences and still enjoys US economic and military aid.

Now, Doug Bandow issued a sober lesson learned that US war against Libya “has done more than destabilize North Africa. The West’s eagerness to overthrow a government that had given up nuclear weapons creates yet another incentive for proliferation. Washington may rue this precedent for years to come.”

However, looking at current policy, one does not get the impression Washington would rue this precedent. If anything, it seems bent on checking off the rest of the regime change list and weaponizing “human rights” as a mean toward that end.

Already the photo of an injured boy in East Aleppo is plastered all over US media in an effort to push for a full-scale invasion of Syria to finish the job of overthrowing the government. However, a similar photo of a little girl in government-controlled West Aleppo, injured by US-backed jihadists’ shelling, never made it into mainstream media.

Nor did the photo of a little boy refusing to leave his mother buried under rubbles as a result of US/Saudi war against Yemen.[6] Or the photo of a little Yemeni girl struggling to get access to safe water in a country completely destroyed by US/Saudi airstrike campaign.

This type of selective humanity and outrage to further US regime change agenda only prolongs the suffering of all the civilians and especially the children.

As Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) told CNN last week: “There’s an American imprint on every civilian life lost in Yemen.” US supplies the bombs, the jetfighters, refuels them midair, and provides intelligence and targeting assistance for the Saudis.”

This also begs the question how serious is US in countering ISIS when it supports the Saudis and their Wahhabism.

There is also an American imprint on many civilian lives lost in the various countries US has targeted for regime change—Iraq, Libya, Syria. As such, in order to avoid similar fates as failed states and to protect their children, more countries now may indeed seek the nuclear option as the ultimate deterrent against regime change.

Dr. Christina Lin is a Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University where she specializes in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations, and a research consultant for Jane’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence Centre at IHS Jane’s.

[1] “A troubling lesson from Libya: Don’t give up nukes”, CS Monitor, August 30, 2011,

[2] “General Wesley Clark reveals 2001 US plan to conduct ‘regime change’ in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”, SOTT, May 22, 2011,;

[4] Doug Bandow, “Thanks to Libya, North Korea Might Neve Negotiate on Nuclear Weapons”, The National Interest, September 2, 2015,

[6] “The US is promoting war crimes in Yemen”, The Guardian, August 18, 2016,; “Why is the US Aiding and Enabling Saudi Arabia’s Genocidal War in Yemen?”Counterpunch, October 8, 2015,

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1 : The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States. They are a diverse collection of . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.




CIA Al Jazeera Dutch Spy Step Vaessen Compiles Yet Another Indonesian Hit Piece To Destabilize Indonesian Economy, Government

Following ejection from the Middle East countries of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and other nations, the CIA/Obama owned and operated Al Jazeera now turns it's sights on Indonesia, utilizing it's CIA cutout Step Vaessen as a proxy "journalist" to foment sectarian violence and the disruption of the Indonesian economy.

Vaessen has a long history with Western and Australian intelligence agencies and has been financed and...