Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Is the CIA Using EPJ to Discredit an Ex-CIA Trainee?

I have no idea. But someone is saying some pretty nasty things about former DIA agent and former CIA trainee Lynnae Williams, in the EPJ comments section.

As far as I am concerned, Williams is a pretty brave young lady. She refused to buy into what she considered a CIA torture program, she refused to be drugged up by the CIA and now she speaks up on the internet about her views on the CIA.  Very brave.


  1. Why would anyone bother to post negative comments about an "Ex" CIA agent/whistleblower??

    The CIA is after all, the most disliked governmental entity in the world (even more hated than the FED), why would anyone defend the institution if they weren't paid to do so?

  2. What if i bash the cia and the ex-agent . The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Do i still get to be a cia troll?

    1. The chance to answer that question passed as the opportunity to do both before the label has come and gone and hence for the label in the first place.

    2. Not true. I first said that i agree with what she said but then went on to point out the danger of trusting anyone exposed to that agency, as she was. Even if they are telling you what you want to hear.

      For this i was branded a cia operative?

      The question stands. If you bash both the cia and the tweeter are you still a cia operative? And based on what...."spectral evidence"?

    3. "Not true. I first said that i agree with what she said but then went on to point out the danger of trusting anyone exposed to that agency, as she was."

      My response was directed at the thread starting with "Anon @ 5:48", which clearly is a slam against the "schizophrenic" tweeter with no reference to the big bad "CIA".

      If you're taking credit for the earlier post so be it, but that's not what I was referencing.

      I stand by my original statement in the above context.

      While you're at it why not post the link about her taking the anti-psychotic meds in your response as my google skills haven't yielded the "proof" of your statement.

    4. Actually I was anon 5:01am & 5:06pm. So I see now that you were not referring to me. Please excuse the mix-up as I was also accused of being a cia troll. (lol, I'm a Golf Pro at a club in Maine & a voluntaryist)

      I don't care much for psychological labels either...so that whole tangent is a waste of my time as well.

      take care...

  3. No doubt, why would anyone defend the institution?
    Why would anyone take the time to write, and the time to enter the Captcha "prove you're not a robot" phrase?

    When I post uncomfortable truths on internet discussion boards about the military, the only People who seem to react to it and defend their actions are People who claim to be former military. Not once has Joe the Plumber ever jumped into the conversation.

  4. I remember someone in 'Reason' many years ago, writing about the CIA, noted that any defense agency, whether a state or a private alternative, would need to engage in intelligence gathering and that this would necessitate both overt and covert operations.

    The problem with the CIA is not so much the CIA, or even it's core mission, as the size and scale of the CIA / "intelligence community" operations necessitated by America's globalist foreign policy (and associated pretensions.)

    There may be a dwindling rump of liberals left who think you can have globaloney without a CIA. There is probably a larger number who think CIAs or their no name equivalents are a threat to open democracy and traditional republican government. Unfortunately not all within this later camp have made the obvious logical connection between 'threat to the republic' from globaloney. At least Ron Paul is flagging the logical disconnects.

  5. Next she'll have the courage to tell us the sky is blue.

    Its easiest to just have the cia direct deposit you check. Sometimes it posts to your account a day early.

  6. post the IP address the suspects have commented from and someone will have an answer to your question.