Connect with us

U.S.

Ex-CIA Goes Rouge; Accused Of Helping Chinese Assassinate US Informants Arrested At JFK

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

A former CIA officer suspected of helping China identify the US spy agency’s informants was arrested at JFK International Airport on Monday on charges of unlawful retention of national defense information, according to the Department of Justice.

Many of the agency’s informants were killed in a “systematic dismantling of the C.I.A.’s spy network in China starting in 2010,” according to the New York Times, which notes it was one of the American government’s “worst intelligence failures in recent years.”

The arrest of the former agent, Jerry Chun Shing Lee, 53, capped an intense F.B.I. investigation that began around 2012 after the C.I.A. began losing its informants in China. Mr. Lee was at the center of a mole hunt in which some intelligence officials believed that he had betrayed the United States but others thought that the Chinese government had hacked the C.I.A.’s covert communications used to talk to foreign sources of information. -NYT

“Jerry Chun Shing Lee, aka “Zhen Cheng Li”, 53 – a U.S. Citizen currently living in Hong Kong, began working for the CIA as a case officer in 1994, where he would spend the next 13 years with a Top Secret clearance and signing “numerous non-disclosure agreements,” according to a DOJ press release.

According to court documents, in August 2012, Lee and his family left Hong Kong to return to the United States to live in northern Virginia. While traveling back to the United States, Lee and his family had hotel stays in Hawaii and Virginia. During each of the hotel stays, FBI agents conducted court-authorized searches of Lee’s room and luggage, and found that Lee was in unauthorized possession of materials relating to the national defense.

Specifically, agents found two small books containing handwritten notes that contained classified information, including but not limited to, true names and phone numbers of assets and covert CIA employees, operational notes from asset meetings, operational meeting locations and locations of covert facilities.

Lee appeared in an New York courtroom Tuesday afternoon where he was ordered held without bail. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison if convicted. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Lee, 53, served in the U.S. Army from 1982 through 1986 and worked for the CIA between 1994 and 2007 according to an affidavit filed by an FBI agent.

The FBI agent wrote that Lee and his family left Hong Kong in August 2012 to travel to northern Virginia. Along the way, they stayed in hotels where the FBI found the books.

The small books were discovered inside Lee’s luggage, sealed in a small clear plastic travel pack.

The handwritten information inside ranged in terms of classification, but the agent said at least one page contained top secret information, “the disclosure of which could cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.” -Reuters

The FBI agent’s affidavit also noted that classified cables written by Lee while he was a case officer describing his interactions with CIA informants corroborated what was found in the two books.

Lee was interviewed five times by the FBI according to Reuters, never disclosing that he had the books. He also met with former CIA colleagues around that time without returning the classified materials, said the Justice Department.

Over a dozen CIA informants were imprisoned or killed by the Chinese government, a serious setback for the agency, as discussed here first last May:

The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A. -NYT

By the end of 2011, senior CIA officials realized they had a problem; their assets in China were disappearing. The FBI and CIA opened a joint investigation in response, run by top counterintelligence officials out of an office in Northern Virginia – code named “Honey Badger.”

As more and more sources vanished, the operation took on increased urgency. Nearly every employee at the American Embassy was scrutinized, no matter how high ranking. Some investigators believed the Chinese had cracked the encrypted method that the C.I.A. used to communicate with its assets. Others suspected a traitor in the C.I.A., a theory that agency officials were at first reluctant to embrace — and that some in both agencies still do not believe. -NYT

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump / Kennedy 2024 – The Golden Ticket

Published

on

In what many are calling a political phenomenon, Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have forged an unexpected partnership, transcending traditional political boundaries to reshape America’s political discourse. This unique collaboration, announced amidst the fervor of the 2024 election cycle, brings together two figures from what seemed like opposite poles of the political spectrum in a bid for a unified vision for America.

Their coming together is less about the granular details of policy and more about a shared ethos of change and national rejuvenation. Trump, known for his direct approach and strong voter base, and Kennedy, recognized for his environmental advocacy and critique of corporate overreach, are crafting a narrative that seeks to move beyond partisan divides.

During a joint appearance in Arizona, the synergy between Trump and Kennedy was evident. Trump introduced Kennedy not merely as a political ally but as a co-architect in this new chapter of American politics. Their interaction was marked by a mutual endorsement of each other’s dedication to what they describe as the welfare of the nation, rather than an endorsement of specific policies.

This partnership, while only once referred to as an ethereal alliance, embodies the spirit of transcending conventional political warfare. It’s built on the premise of respect for diverse viewpoints, aiming to cultivate a political climate where constructive dialogue overshadows conflict. They focus on broad themes like individual freedoms, government transparency, and resistance against what they see as an entrenched bureaucratic elite.

Their campaign does not delve into the contentious issues that typically cause rifts. Instead, it champions a vision where the political conversation is lifted to a higher plane, emphasizing unity, shared values, and a collective push towards what they believe could be a more harmonious America.

The public narrative they present is one of an America where political discourse can be elevated, where the focus is on what unites rather than what divides. Their speeches resonate with a call for a new kind of politics, one that’s not just about winning an election but about altering how political engagement is perceived and practiced.

This surprising union strikes a chord with those disenchanted with the usual political bickering, offering a glimpse into what might be possible when leaders choose collaboration over confrontation. It’s an experiment in political unity, where the success lies not in the triumph of one ideology over another but in demonstrating that, even in a polarized society, moments of unity can emerge.

In this venture, Trump and Kennedy are not just campaigning; they are inviting the electorate to envision a political landscape where the clash of ideas can lead to a confluence of visions, aiming to lead and heal America through an unconventional yet potentially transformative partnership.

Continue Reading

Tech

Force Free Speech By Regulating Big Tech

Published

on

In an era where the digital landscape is dominated by a handful of tech giants, the right to free speech is increasingly under threat. These companies, with their immense power and influence, have taken it upon themselves to police speech, often suppressing conservative and nationalist voices under the guise of combating “hate speech” or “misinformation.” It’s time to reclaim our freedom and ensure that the marketplace of ideas remains open and accessible to all.

The current situation is untenable. Big Tech companies have become the arbiters of truth, deciding what information is permissible and what must be censored. This has led to a chilling effect on free speech, with many individuals and groups afraid to express their opinions for fear of being deplatformed or silenced. This is a direct assault on our fundamental right to free speech, a cornerstone of our democracy.

It is clear that these companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. They have repeatedly shown a bias against conservative and nationalist viewpoints, while allowing leftist and progressive voices to flourish. This is not only unfair, it’s a violation of the principle of equal treatment under the law.

To ensure that all voices are heard, we must regulate these tech giants. This does not mean government control over speech, but rather the enforcement of a level playing field where all viewpoints are treated equally. Companies should be held accountable for their actions, and any bias in their moderation policies should be addressed.

One way to achieve this is through the creation of an independent body to oversee the moderation practices of these companies. This body would be tasked with ensuring that all viewpoints are treated fairly, and that any bias is rooted out. It would also have the power to impose fines or other penalties on companies that fail to uphold these standards.

Another approach is to encourage competition in the tech sector. Currently, a handful of companies dominate the market, making it difficult for new entrants to compete. By breaking up these monopolies, we can create a more diverse and competitive marketplace, where no single company has the power to control the flow of information.

In conclusion, the time has come to regulate Big Tech and protect our right to free speech. We cannot allow these companies to continue their biased moderation practices, suppressing conservative and nationalist voices while promoting leftist and progressive viewpoints. It’s time to level the playing field and ensure that all voices are heard. The future of our democracy depends on it.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.