CIA Director Issues Bombshell Claim About ISIS… It’s A LOT Worse Than We Thought

CBS will air an episode of 60 Minutes Sunday in which current CIA Director John Brennan confirms what many have feared — ISIS is using chemical weapons in its quest to establish a caliphate in the Middle East.

“We have a number of instances where ISIL has used chemical munitions on the battlefield,” Brennan told CBS, later adding, “There are reports that ISIS has access to chemical precursors and munitions that they can use.”

Brennan additionally confirmed ISIS has the capability to export those munitions to the West.

“I think there’s always the potential for that,” Brennan said. “This is why it’s so important to cut off the various transportation routes and smuggling routes that they have used.”

Brennan’s comments correspond with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony earlier this week. Clapper stated, “ISIL has also used toxic chemicals in Iraq and Syria, including the blister agent sulfur mustard.”

Clapper claimed it was the first time any group has used chemical weapons to kill since a Japanese cult killed subway riders in Tokyo in 1995.

President Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons against militants and, as some had accused, on his own people. Presumably to prove his innocence, al-Assad surrendered all of his chemical weapon stockpile to be destroyed after a chemical weapon was used outside Damascus earlier on in the conflict, drawing the scorn of the international community.

Al-Assad may have surrendered his country’s stockpile of chemical weapons but, as Brennan and Clapper have confirmed, ISIS has not surrendered its supply.

When George W. Bush was president, he accused then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. After the second gulf war against Iraq, those weapons had not been immediately located, leaving many to speculate — and even some to conclude — they never existed.

However, a 2014 U.S. News and World Reports article written by Lamont Calucci, claimed Bush’s fears — that a group like ISIS would use chemical weapons — had already become a reality. Long before Brennan and Clapper would admit it, Calucci wrote,

It is now considered quite possible that the Islamic State group has used chemical weapons at least four times, primarily chlorine gas. (Chlorine gas was first used in 1915 during World War I. Like the other poisons of that war, it was seen as so horrific that no great power has used them against another since.) There has been one attack north of Baghdad in Balad, two attacks against the defenders of Kobani and a fourth in the Saqlawiyah region, again, close to Baghdad. There are reports of other incidents as well.

Now questions remains as to how long the Obama administration has known ISIS was using chemical weapons and why now, at the end of the Obama era, are these facts being confirmed.

Former CIA Director Contradicts Obama: ISIS Expanding, Might Take Part Of Libya

Video Transcript:

ISIS is gaining affiliates among extremist groups around the world. They are signing up, these groups are signing up for what ISIS desires as its objective – a global caliphate. In the mind of ISIS, its global caliphate would extend to the United States of America itself. ISIS has gained affiliates faster than al Qaeda ever did. From nothing a year ago, there are now militant groups in nearly 20 countries that have sworn allegiance to ISIS.

That runs counter to what President Obama said about ISIS in November.

Well, I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true, is that, from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria it, they’ll come in, they’ll leave but you don’t see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain.

But that’s exactly what the former CIA Director says they are capable of.

And they carry the potential to themselves grab large amounts of territory. Libya is a place where this could happen in the near term. ISIS controls territory in Libya, they are currently expanding that territory and foreign fighters are beginning to go to Libya to fight with the ISIS group there. I would not be surprised if we woke up one morning and ISIS in Libya had grabbed a large part of Libyan territory – a blitzkrieg, the same kind of blitzkrieg on a smaller scale that we saw in Iraq.

Is it comments like this that cost the director his job? Why are Obama’s comments at odds with those of his former CIA? Share and comment below.

How The Government Made Me A Dissident

I sometimes say the government turned me into a dissident — after I spent 14 years at the CIA and two more at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I only say it half-jokingly. While I’m proud of winning this year’s PEN Center’s First Amendment award, I never intended to make a career out of being at odds with the government.

Sometimes, though — like when I spent two years in prison for blowing the whistle on the CIA’s torture program — it’s felt like the government’s gone out of its way to be at odds with me.

And it’s clear that our government demonizes people who disagree with the official line. Things got bad for anyone who disagrees with the official line right after 9/11.

We slid down the rabbit hole with the passage of the so-called PATRIOT Act. Enacted six weeks after the terrorist attacks, the law legalized actions against American citizens — including widespread Internet surveillance and phone taps — that had previously been unthinkable.

When the government hired me in 1988, it was widely understood that if the National Security Agency intercepted the communications of an American citizen — even accidentally — heads would roll. Congress had to be informed, an investigation would be launched, and the intercept had to be purged from the system.

Today, the NSA has an enormous facility in Utah big enough to save copies of every email, text message, and phone conversation made by every American for the next 500 years. You can bet they intend to.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my government trampling my civil liberties like this.

Still, people sometimes ask me why they should care if the authorities read their email or listen to their phone calls. “I have nothing to hide,” they say, “so why should I worry about it?”

This question sends chills up my spine.

As anybody who’s worked in the intelligence community will tell you, the government can learn a lot more about you than you realize.

Metadata — the raw information about who you talk to on the phone, or what websites you visit — is incredibly revealing. Analysts don’t need the actual content of your calls or emails to know what you’re up to.

Are you calling an abortion provider? A divorce lawyer? A secret girlfriend or boyfriend? A substance abuse counselor? The feds can find out, even though it’s none of their business.

What kind of porn do you like? What websites do you visit? What church, club, or political group do you belong to? They can figure that out, too.

Most of us don’t want anyone poking around our lives, even if we’re perfectly innocent. (Though with a little manipulation, anybody can be made to look like a troublemaker.)

Believe it or not, our founders saw this coming.

James Madison, the Constitution’s primary author, wrote the First Amendment to protect everyone — especially people who disagree with the government’s policies. We all have a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition.

The Bill of Rights is the only thing standing between us and fascism. Monitoring the things we say is the first step toward prosecuting them.

So am I a dissident? I don’t know. I don’t care.

The important thing is that I’ve become passionate in my defense of our constitutional rights. I have an inalienable right to freedom of speech, and I’ll continue to exercise it — even at the risk of getting locked up again.

As more of us tough it out in prison, the government will lose its power to take our rights away. As more of us write and speak about government overreach, our chances of preserving our freedoms will grow.

It’s worth the risk.

John Kiriakou is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and the winner of the 2015 PEN Center USA First Amendment award. 

This article was originally posted at

The CIA Is An Ethics-Free Zone

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at

I joined the CIA in January 1990.

The CIA was vastly different back then from the agency that emerged in the days after the 9/11 attacks. And it was a far cry from the flawed and confused organization it is today.

One reason for those flaws — and for the convulsions the agency has experienced over the past decade and a half — is its utter lack of ethics in intelligence operations.

It’s no secret that the CIA has gone through periods where violating U.S. law and basic ethics were standard operating procedure. During the Cold War, the agency assassinated foreign leaders, toppled governments, spied on American citizens, and conducted operations with no legal authority to do so. That’s an historical fact.

I liked to think that things had changed by the time I worked there. CIA officers, I believed, were taught about legal limits to their operations — they learned what was and wasn’t permitted by law.

I was wrong.

After 9/11, the CIA seemed to believe the rules of engagement had fundamentally changed. But when it came to prohibitions against torture, assassination, and other rights violations, they hadn’t. We had to fight al-Qaeda, but we should have done it within the law.

All CIA officers should have been trained in carrying out intelligence operations ethically. That never happened — and today we can see the results.

Let’s say you’re a CIA officer and you’ve recruited an amazing source. Your source has direct access to the leadership of the Islamic State, and everything he’s reported to you so far has checked out. You’ve vetted him, so you know he’s telling you the truth about the details of his access.

One day you’re meeting with him. He tells you that he’s done everything you’ve asked and he feels that you “owe” him. He says that he wants a prostitute, and if you don’t get him one, he’s going to stop cooperating.

Would you?

Frankly, just about every case officer I’ve ever known would. But what if he asks you to get him a child prostitute? Would you do it?

The answer, clearly, ought to be no. But some case officers would. There’s no training to say that they shouldn’t. Instead, CIA officers are trained to violate the law. They’re in a foreign country, after all, and they likely have diplomatic immunity. They don’t care about local laws.

Want a real-life example?

Last December, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the CIA torture program, which detailed gruesome and systemic human rights violations by agency employees. The CIA hadn’t only tried to cover up its actions — it actually spied on the Senate’s investigators, too.

The report concluded that these brutal tactics weren’t even useful for gathering intelligence. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that something about the CIA’s culture, its collective mindset, allowed it to make a crime against humanity into policy. It’s become an ethics-free zone.

Officers of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other U.S. intelligence agencies are told to penetrate terrorist cells and prevent attacks against Americans. They’re pressured to “go do it” or suffer the consequences. But no one’s able or willing to tell them the rules.

That’s what’s wrong with the CIA today. And that’s where the moral and ethical rebuilding of the organization should begin.

OtherWords columnist John Kiriakou is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He’s a former CIA counterterrorism officer and senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

WATCH: Fox News Host EXPLODES On Ex-CIA Guest For Making 1 Comment That Stuns Him – ‘Excuse Me?’

US airstrikes hit a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, and killed more than 30 staff members and patients on October 3rd of this year.

Doctors Without Borders, an international medical organization, released its initial review of the attack on Thursday, and stated that: “Patients were burned in their beds, medical staff were decapitated and lost limbs, and others were shot by the circling AC-130 gunship while fleeing the burning building.”

The Pentagon has called the bombing a “mistake.”

Barack Obama issued an apology to the organization several days after the attack.

On Thursday, Fox News host Shepard Smith invited an ex-CIA covert officer, Joshua Katz, on to his program to discuss the deadly airstrikes.

It didn’t take long for the clash between Smith and Katz to start.

Katz stated: “We have Doctors Without Borders who in all cases are actually providing material support to terrorists. They have knowingly and willingly admitted.”

Smith was startled by the comment, and quickly said: “Excuse me?”

Katz then said: “Doctors Without Borders here, Shep, has said that they have provided support to the Taliban.”

Smith began to argue back: “Oh hang on. What doctors do is treat the wounded in war zones since time began. Are you suggesting here that they should not have treated members of the–the ‘terrorists’ as you call them, when they were bleeding and at their doorstep. They should have said ‘No go away’?”

Smith then said he found Katz’s comment “disgusting.”

The two continued to argue throughout the segment.

What do you think of Katz telling Shepard Smith, in reference to the airstrikes, that Doctors Without Borders was “providing material support to terrorists?”