Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The DC Madam case: Honeytrap?

I just received a rather interesting missive from Montgomery Sibley, the lawyer for Jeane Palfrey, the accused "DC Madam":
...Jeane has filed pro se this morning a pleading of note. That pleading explains the factual basis for invoking the "Classified Information Procedures Act" and is entitled "Memorandum of Fact In Support of Motion for Pretrial Conference to Consider Matters Relating to Classified Information". That Memo details Jeane's basis for raising the "Honey Pot" defense in which she alleges that the United States Government has been directly or indirectly benefiting from the operation of her service by monitoring her customers and is thus equitably barred from prosecuting her. In that Memo, Jeane identifies not only already-known customers of the escort service -- Senator Vitter, Randall Tobias of USAID and Harland Ullman -- but also confirms for the first time that another individual with very high government security clearance -- Ronald Roughead of SAIC -- was also a customer. This nexus of CIA backed USAID, Senator Vitter on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and two beltway bandits appears to be more than a coincidence.
Emphasis added. When I spoke with Palfrey, she emphasized the oddity of her prosecution. Washington hosts quite a few "escort" services, all more-or-less tolerated. Why target Palfrey?

Wendy Ellis, the prostitute who claims to have serviced Vitter, has passed a lie detector test and will, at some point later in this day, provide details of a four-month affair with the senator.

This fine piece by Bill Keisling reminds us that...
Sen. Vitter serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight responsibilities of U.S. foreign policy agencies, including Tobias's former office at USAID.

Vitter is also currently the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights, which oversees, among other things, the State Department, the U.S. Foreign Service (i.e. the diplomatic corps), and U.S. participation in the United Nations.
The "Tobias" mentioned above is the appropriately-named Randy Tobias, former head of USAID (the United States Agency for International Development). As Keisling notes -- and as I emphasized in a previous piece published in April -- USAID has a long history of providing cover for CIA operations.

Both Tobias and Vitter probably had access to very sensitive information, such as the names of agents using USAID cover. Any unfriendly intelligence service had motive to compromise these men sexually.

(This is, of course, but one scenario; you may be able to conceive of other possibilities.)

SAIC possesses close ties to the American intelligence community. Over 80 percent of its revenue comes from government contracts, and its directors have included former NSA head Bobby Inman, former CIA Director John Deutch, Secretary of Defense and former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates, and former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird. The company has been mentioned in stories about computerized voting, data-mining, spy satellites, and the not-terribly-successful training of Iraq's army.

Roughead -- another amusingly-named player in this drama -- is said to have expert knowledge of terrorist use of the internet. A short bio can be found here (pdf file), and a longer one (very unofficial) is here. We learn that Roughead...
...briefed the House Intelligence Committee on the dangers and uses of the internet and video games allegedly modified (for recruiting purposes) by Al-Qaida, amongst other things on May 4th, 2006, cagily representing SAIC. A video game--probably a fraud authored by Pentagon disinfo campaigns that were created by Donald Rumsfeld--is ostensibly called "Sonic Jihad." The dialog and voice-overs are in English.
Ronald Roughead is the director of something called the Iraq Media Network, or IMN, which one blogger has labeled a "psyop" group. I can't confirm that assessment.

Were women employed by the DC Madam's escort service used in a "honeytrap" operation? The present state of evidence is suggestive, but hardly conclusive.

Tobias. Vitter. Roughead. "Three times is enemy action," as Ian Fleming used to remind us.

3 comments:

Matt Janovic said...

Thanks Joseph, thanks for writing about these matters. I've done some of the real footwork on Col. Roughead (Ret.), and running an operation like IMN in Iraq constitutes psy-ops because it's all about disinformation and propaganda. But let's not beat-up on our media too much. ;0) We know that there are stories planted in the media that are illegally authorized by the president, and that's also a psy-ops operation--to misinform the public so that they cannot make informed opinions and actions. That would constitute a psy-ops program as well.

I should add that your readers can find a more detailed picture on Col. Roughead at my blog, 'J to the Power of 7,' though most searches of Ron Roughead will bring my articles up on the first page. Also, I have called Mr. Roughead (703-836-0522), and the man who answered confirmed he was Ronald Roughead.

He also seemed to know who I was. Time to watch SAIC--forever-and-ever. I'm the first researcher to identify what Col. Roughead's possible significance to Ms. Palfrey's case constitutes--an intelligence 'honey trap,' or at least it appears to be very likely. he called Pamela Martin & Associates three-times on December 17th of 2005 (found in 'Cingular 2005, page 4'). He wasn't with IMN at that time as far as I can tell. A little credit for some of this would be nice, but that's not what this is about--it's about saving our country.

Joseph Cannon said...

A lot of credit is due, and I'll give myself a good punch in the face for not providing more than a link in my main piece.

I'd like your ideas as to what kind of honey trap might be at play here. My first thought was of an enemy service trying to get a list of CIA officers working undercover. My second thought was of the Israelis scooping up blackmail info. But Jeane now seems to be hinting that an American intelligence group could have been running some of her girls.

How might that have worked?

Matt Janovic said...

Nobody knows, even now (Jan. 14, 2008). This is likely the year we will know what really happened.