
A former CIA spy has revealed his key role in the arrest of Nelson Mandela - randomname2
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/cia-tip-off-led-to-jailing-of-mandela-9mwcsdq9c
======
cm3
The CIA is the reason for most of the unstable regions and it's hard to
understand how after messing with other places and making it worse for
everybody but weapons manufacturers, they're still doing the same thing over
and over. Previously it was the fight against Communism, now Islam, I wonder
what it will be in 2020. Middle-east, Asia, South America, all are right to be
very angry with the CIA, but turn it into a "Burn America" rethoric, which
doesn't help their argument. CIA's policy is probably controlled by someone
else, and that's where changes need to be made because I like to think they
don't come up with the stuff on their own.

~~~
kangar00
> CIA's policy is probably controlled by someone else, and that's where
> changes need to be made because I like to think they don't come up with the
> stuff on their own.

Beyond you liking to think that, what evidence do you have that the CIA's
policy is controlled by anyone other than the CIA's Deputy Director who
commands internal operations, and its Director, who reports to the director of
National Intelligence as well as having to answer to Congress and the White
House?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Or...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Organizational_structure)

For the most part, theories of secret groups that control things are false,
not counting well-known groups like the Masons, etc. that make secrecy part of
their identity. There is plenty of evidence to support that Congress and the
White House are lobbied heavily by outside interest, and that's no secret.
Combine that with the varied interests and agendas in the involved
organizations, human error, incorrect or misinterpreted information, etc. and
you have plenty enough reason for things like this to go wrong.

If you are an American citizen, and you believe the U.S. government is so
wrong and misguided, nothing is typically stopping you from leaving the
country or attempting to vote for others that might be able to make some
changes, but the fact is that there is an extreme momentum of the country that
is simultaneous chaotic and well-intentioned, so no matter who you vote for,
things will typically continue on. Well- maybe not if Trump is elected,
because the entire country could turn into a sideshow ;) , but this is true
for the most part.

If you live in another democratic country, vote for leaders that you believe
will positively influence the U.S. in one way or another, or you can speak up
about it.

Belief in some shadowy group is just not helpful, and is a result of the
imprint on the psyche from movies, television, and other media sources. There
are real groups out there with influence, and real single players with
influence, but it's really not that hidden; it's just complex.

~~~
arca_vorago
I think you are completely wrong about this. There is plenty of evidence to
indicate that "shadow groups" of varied interests that sometimes align and
sometimes dont, are often pulling the strings of "public puppets". Your view,
while common, (especially in the academic world where conspiracy is avoided
like the plague) doesnt seem to reflect reality.

The conspiratorial view of history is the correct one.

Would you like me to go into more detail?

~~~
467568985476
Please go into more detail. Start with the evidence.

~~~
WayneBro
Could we start with asking you what kind of evidence would actually satisfy
you? How much effort are you prepared to expend in questioning this?

Honestly. What do you need to just to consider the _small_ possibility that
your view of things is the incorrect one?

Do you want macro/micro/historical/current evidence and do you expect such
evidence to be easily disseminated here or are you just asking without any of
these things in mind?

I guess we could start with the fact that it's proven beyond a shadow of a
doubt that very few people control the economy in modern times -
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-
the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/)

We could also prove that for historical times.

The evidence is there. It just takes a little work to dig through and a lot of
reading. So, I suggest trying to look around on your own first. Read about the
United Fruit Company. 1950's Iran. Rand Corporation. There's just so much out
there already that I think anybody who hasn't read about this stuff by now
must not really care.

~~~
IsaacL
Not the OP, but it's sunday afternoon and you've piqued my curiosity. I'm not
opposed to conspiracy theories, but my view of the world is one of different
groups competing for power without a guiding plan. I find it interesting
reading about individual conspiracies and learning how the world really works,
but in my view they eventually backfire on the people who instigate them.

Take the United Fruit Company - so they lobbied the US government to instigate
a coup in Guatemala. That's devious. (I've just looked up the coup in more
detail, and the consequences for Guatemala were horrendous, so I'd say the
coup instigators were not merely devious, but outright evil).

Thing is, neither party benefited. The US got involved to prevent communism
growing in its backyard, but ended up pissing off the entire region. The UFC
wanted to protect its assets in Guatemala, but was forced by Eisenhower to
divest them all 4 years later.

What's the grand pattern here? What's the motive behind all these conspiracy
theories? Do they intentionally backfire, or are the people pulling the
strings just short-sighted?

~~~
WayneBro
Thanks, great response. I guess my overall point would be that once you think
you know something, you've stopped thinking about it.

I agree that it's a fact that there are different groups competing for power
and that there is a constant struggle. I would quibble over the "without a
guiding plan" part because I don't know what you mean by that exactly. Large
and powerful groups can certainly exert leverage over numerous smaller and
less powerful groups.

A guiding plan could be a general philosophy. Look at all of our political and
military power systems. They are designed hierarchically, so that the nearer
you get to the top, the smaller and more powerful the group is. The pyramid on
the dollar bill is obviously symbolic of this. That's indicative of some sort
of guiding plan. I mean, there's one group (the Masons) who can get all of
their secret symbols implanted into our money forever? That's scary to me.

Regarding United Fruit - yes, the company suffered but can you say that
company profit was the prime motive for messing with South America? Have you
considered that all warfare starts with economic warfare? What if de-
stabilizing a region makes you all sorts of profits in other ways, with other
companies? What if you can get all sorts of secret money to do secret things
by controlling illicit trade that now comes out of that region?

I have a LOT of questions. How could the Taliban have virtually ended poppy
production in Afghanistan in 2001 and yet our own government which supposedly
is at "war" with drugs like Heroin, cannot quell the supply from that area
which produces 90% of the drug for the rest of the world?

In my view of the world - the puppets change all the time but somehow shit
stays the same, so I just am not that sure that there isn't a guiding plan of
sorts. (EDIT: Even if that plan is just "greed". Endless greed. And "do what
you want" mentality, which is the philosophy of Satan/Lucifer. You might think
I'm crazy just for mentioning Satanism but secret power didn't start in modern
times.)

------
zo1
It's kind of odd that the DailyMail and RussiaToday (RT) have more "info" than
the linked article that's paywalled. Not necessarily a bigger "scoop" of the
story, but they provided more info about the parties, backstory, pictures
included. Honestly, I tried looking for a decent article after encountering
the paywall, but most were just "rehashed" quotes and links to the TheTimes
article, with absolutely nothing of substance added.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591000/How-CIA-
got-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591000/How-CIA-got-Nelson-
Mandela-arrested-Unrepentant-agent-confirms-tipped-South-African-security-
forces-meaning-leader-jailed-27-years.html)

[https://www.rt.com/usa/343096-cia-nelson-mandela-
arrest/](https://www.rt.com/usa/343096-cia-nelson-mandela-arrest/)

Anyone have a decent article on this with more info and backstory?

------
mark_l_watson
Not too far off topic:the book "The Devils Chessboard", the history of Allen
Dulles and the CIA is informative. The author was at Harper's Magazine for
decades, and this book is full of personal accounts and information gleaned
from historical records. The book is an eye opener. I was particularly shocked
by how Dulles suppressed information of the holocost as it was happening,
preventing obvious steps like bombing the railway lines leading to the death
camps. Dulles was so fixated by the communists that any actions were to him
justified.

Edit: Dulles was also fixated by protecting the interests of his law firm's
Wall Street clients and he viewed the Nazi apparatus, minus Hitler, as a
potential resource, something to be protected and largely left in place after
the war.

------
Tharkun
You know how we're still hunting down and jailing formers nazis and
concentration camp guards? Why aren't we doing the same to these CIA agents
and decision makers?

~~~
sbarre
Because the United States of America didn't lose any wars, and winners make
policy.

~~~
galuggus
How about Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan?

~~~
hasenj
How did they "lose" Iraq? They successfully invaded the country, changed the
regime, changed the military, the police, the government .. everything. Then
they left.

Iraq is in utter chaos, the US is doing just fine.

How exactly did the US "lose" in Iraq?

~~~
awinder
Because the stated goal of that war was for the instilled government to
survive and for democracy to transform the region. Not for the country to
become destabilized with former military operatives to go into Syria and form
the next great political catastrophe. That definitely wasn't a "win" long
term.

~~~
hasenj
That's completely different from winning or losing a war.

The events you describe don't affect the US's dominance at all.

The region's current turmoil is all internal. The US can just wait it out and
then when it's all over, the winner will be weak and the US can just come in
again any time and reset the whole thing.

So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.

~~~
Udik
> So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.

It does, this thread (and thousands others like it) is the proof. The US are
internationally much weaker than they were before the wars in the Middle East,
and their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of
people as illegitimate and harmful.

~~~
hasenj
> their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people
> as illegitimate and harmful.

That has always been the case.

------
sehugg
NYT reported this in 1990, we just didn't have confirmation and the name of
the agent: [http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/10/world/cia-tie-reported-
in-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/10/world/cia-tie-reported-in-mandela-
arrest.html)

And it's still unclear whether anyone else was involved in the decision to tip
off the police.

------
tempodox
> ...the world’s most dangerous communist...

How fads change. Had it happened today, they would have called him a
terrorist.

Sadly, it's not really news that the U.S. only pay lip service to Democracy.
After all, the dictator of our choice can guarantee our economic and military
interests much better than any democratic regime.

~~~
Havoc
>they would have called him a terrorist.

Actually the ANC (or at least a splinter group) did bomb civilian locations in
a terror campaign so yes it was considered a terrorist organisation. Now
they're considered the liberators/bringers of democracy. Hows that for a pivot
hn?

~~~
qznc
If terrorists win they are not called terrorists anymore. Compare the Boston
Tea Party which started the war of independence.

~~~
dhd415
The Boston Tea Party was most certainly not terrorism. No one was hurt or
killed, either combatants or civilians. It cheapens the word to use it for any
act of defiance against a government.

------
gfgjmfgjmgh
The CIA was also behind the assassination of Homi Bhabha (father of Indian
atomic energy program) and Lala Bahadur Sastry (Prime Minister of India).

~~~
newjersey
> Later, Gregory Douglas, a journalist who interviewed former CIA operative,
> Robert Crowley, over a period of 4 years, recorded their telephonic
> conversations and published its transcribe in a book titled, "Conversations
> with the Crow". In the book, Crowley claimed that CIA was responsible for
> eliminating Dr. Homi Bhabha, Indian nuclear scientist whose plane crashed
> into Alps, when he was going to attend a conference in Vienna and Lal
> Bahadur Shastri, who died at Tashkent summit in 1966. Crowley said that USA
> was wary of India's rigid stand on nuclear policy and then PM Lal Bahadur
> Shastri, who wanted to go ahead with nuclear tests. He also said that agency
> was more worried about collective domination of Indo-Russian over the
> region, for which a strong deterrent was required.

If that's true and if it was planned, there's probably a memo justifying it
somewhere and we will declassify it in the future.

~~~
HillRat
"Gregory Douglas" has written a number of conspiracy-theory books that
encompass Holocaust revisionism and JFK assassination theories; he is widely
believed to be the _nom de plume_ of Peter Stahl, who is also believed to have
forged wartime Nazi documents and disseminated them to historians. It's all a
bit of a rabbit hole, but the upshot is that there's very little reason to
believe anything he writes.

------
dijit
Given the serious effort CIA puts into destabilising regions (Lets not forget
the large amounts of sources who said people were being ferried and paid to go
to Kiev when the Ukrainian uprising was occuring) it would not surprise me
very much if they were also behind the Britain "exit" from Europe, since that
would cause an economic collapse of the EU and would remove a super-power from
play.

I feel like a conspiracy theorist when saying it out loud, but given the
history...

I mean it's economic suicide for britain to leave the EU, yet someone is
plastering it all over the media and it's not the politicians. :\

~~~
krisdol
It's the workers who have been shafted by declining standards of living,
stagnant wages, rising prices, false promises about the benefits of free trade
agreements, and increased immigrant labor -- coupled with an increasingly
bureaucratic EU organization that pushes more political change than
economic/trade change. The citizens of Britain signed up for the EU when they
saw it as a trade agreement that would benefit them down the line, instead
they are giving up more sovereignty to EU's bureaucracy in exchange for
benefits that disproportionately flow up to the elite.

And it's not economic suicide. In the short term it will most likely hurt but
in the long term, Britain will survive and the EU will need to bend to
accommodate Britain's consumers, even if the UK is not a member state. It is
one of, if not the, biggest importers of EU goods and it's the EU, not
Britain, who cannot survive without accommodating the other.

Also I don't see why the US would benefit in any way from a collapsed EU or
UK. Trade and travel becomes harder when they are not a single unit.

~~~
dijit
the EU being overly bureaucratic is due to age, the UK system has the same
issues.

our sovereignty is not important as long as we have the choice to leave in
future, but the benefits awarded the middle/working/lower classes is
unquestionable and we may not be awarded such luxury under a malevolent or
overly 'for the rich' party. Rights are only rights until they aren't.

Workers rights in the UK are the best they've ever been, and better than those
in the US, which is where our model seems to steer towards without EU
guidance.

Quality of living (I'm guessing housing?) is bad in spite of the EU rules, not
because of it.

We are awarded many luxuries and exceptions by the EU because of our status as
one of the "core" members, if we renegotiate we don't have that. In addition
trade agreements are not going to be in our favour unless with have something
to barter with.

most of our industries are service/management layer, we're the middle people
to a lot of things and without being a pivotal hub we may lose this and the
foundation of British economy will be rocked, we need to produce something
that the world cannot live without before making such threats.

Additional:

Without the EU being a unified block we do not have the clout to stand up to
US bullying.

 _edited to remove condescension and provide only my points_

~~~
tomarr
I'm British and back staying in the EU, but I think your post is unnecessarily
condescending and incorrectly portrays your opinions as facts.

The immigration argument is about EU citizens which the Danish system can do
nothing to stop/slow, and stopping the 'free-flow' of EU citizens is most
Brexiters biggest desire from the campaign. The economic studies are
definitely in Remain's favour, but economics as a field is very 'woolly',
often wrong and more importantly does not resonate with a large populace who
have seen living standards broadly stagnate since the last prolonged
recession.

There are arguments for and against - the Remain camp don't have a
satisfactory answer to people who are genuinely concerned over immigration or
(albeit discretely) do not like immigration in their surrounding, and the
Leave campaign have the consensus on the economic side due to uncertainty over
post-Brexit state and agreements.

~~~
dijit
Fair enough I could have worded things nicer, I've seen a lot of very bad
"facts" circulating about the EU leave/remain debacle and mostly it comes down
to peoples feelings about sovereignty.

However, the Danish system does indeed stop and slow EU migrants.

As a British citizen living in Sweden, I can't go live over the bridge in
Copenhagen unless I have a residence permit, which requires having a job, or
meeting the required points.

Without a residence permit I cannot rent property or pay bills. I had to go
through all the pain with my sister-in-law who is Estonian and studies
business in Copenhagen. I'm fully versed on the difficulties of getting a
residency there and it's certainly not as simple as being an EU citizen.

I've edited my first post to remove the comments about brainwashing as it's
not productive to conversation.

------
mrslave
In the interest of some context: Mandela was a communist and a terrorist.
While a "political prisoner" he was offered freedom as soon as he would
publicly renounce violent protest (i.e. terrorism) and he persistently refused
to do so. His second wife, Winnie, enjoyed the necklacing opponents. So nice
people all round.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Of course the government of SA didn't have to renounce violence, which is the
way they dealt with any resistance. Violence, torture, intimidation. Refusal
to negotiate.

Of course we don't call the Apartheid government "terrorists" for these
crimes.

He was not a communist, but an African nationalist. This is something he has
always maintained and was confirmed when he became president, the national
economic policy was pretty much neoliberal. The reason why he remained close
to the communists is because they were sympathetic to his cause and lent a lot
of support.

~~~
sandisk5
> Of course we don't call the Apartheid government "terrorists" for these
> crimes.

Almost everyone agrees that the Apartheid government was horrible. Almost no
one holds them up as a positive example.

Conversely, almost everyone holds Mandela and his terrorist organization up as
an example and as a hero despite them intentionally setting off bombs in
civilian locations like shopping malls and restaurants.

~~~
soneca
From the biographies I read, they never put bombs in public, civilian
locations. Only in strategic industrial/infrastructure locations, making sure
there was not a person in place.

But, of course I read that in biased biographies. Do you have source that a
person was killed by these attacks?

~~~
sandisk5
I'm no expert. Mandela cofounded
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings)
has a list of atrocities committed by them. During most of them Mandela was in
prison I believe. I don't know about his influence over the organization
during that time or if he condemned these attacks, I'd guess he didn't but am
happy to be proven wrong.

"five civilians were killed and 40 were injured when MK cadre Andrew Sibusiso
Zondo detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre shortly
before Christmas."

"a bomb was detonated in a bar, killing three civilians and injuring 69"

" terror campaign continued with attacks on a series of soft targets,
including a bank in Roodepoort in 1988, in which four civilians were killed
and 18 injured. Also in 1988, a bomb outside a magistrate's court killed
three. At the Ellis Park rugby stadium in Johannesburg, a car bomb killed two
and injured 37 civilians. A multitude[14] of bombs at restaurants and fast
food outlets, including Wimpy Bars,[15] and supermarkets occurred during the
late 1980s, killing and wounding many people."

------
brudgers
A non-paywalled report of the news:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591000/How-CIA-
got-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591000/How-CIA-got-Nelson-
Mandela-arrested-Unrepentant-agent-confirms-tipped-South-African-security-
forces-meaning-leader-jailed-27-years.html)

------
Pica_soO
Agency's like the CIA are just symptoms, the obvious to late, to little effort
done after problems seem unsolvable by politicians. And they often are. If you
have a population that basically votes with there feet for a war every second
generation. If you have a social system that depends on constant corruption,
to get everyone through the day. If you have resources that allow those in
power to get by without any responsibility to there country's. If you got
armed groups, which provide to second sons of a second sons a future in
guerilla warfare - what is a group of man in a office building to do about
that? The answer is nothing. They cant turn stone to bread. They cant reason
with the unreasonable. They can try to gamble who gets to sit on the iron
throne. The sad fact is- the CIA- on a larger scale, has no power over the
population, which going in murderous cycles, stomps there own future into the
ground. They make a excellent blame-pinata though.

------
thomasahle
I think it's interesting how the CIA's goal seems to be more or less
"maintaining the status quo" in the global power struggle. This is obviously a
useful thing to have, but if it gets too strong, how can we ever have the
positive revolutions that have given us things like democracy?

~~~
_nedR
Not really. They have repeatedly sought overthrow of numerous governments in
the past (including democratic, communist and dictatorial). Not really
maintaining the status quo.

~~~
thomasahle
Mostly relative young governments though, no? Governments that were trying
something too radical, or were positioned too far from the established way of
doing things.

~~~
_nedR
Yeah. You are right. When i think about it, Even in case of old governments,
the cia was motivated by maintaining some status quo which the government was
trying to change.

------
vidoc
Oh my God! This can't be true can it? I dont want to wake up tomorrow and
learn that the Iraq war adventure was not based on wrong CIA intelligence, but
a manufactured one, and 100% of the US political establishment knew it (in
addition to basically the rest of the world).

~~~
mpweiher
Not sure if trolling... ??

Just for the record: of course large parts of it were manufactured. Some of it
was manufactured by a so-called "source", but that source was so in-/non-
credible that you wouldn't buy a used hammer from him, never mind a used car.
And it was well known that this source was completely non-credible.

In addition, various other bits were combined in ways that the appearance of a
threat was manufactured out of pieces of information that both weren't
threatening in themselves and also did not constitute a real threat when
combined appropriately (the infamous 45 minute claim is among these). For
more, see the various UK inquiries regarding "intelligence failures" leading
up to the Iraq war.

The difference between that and manufacturing the whole thing from scratch is
at best marginal.

~~~
spriggan3
> Just for the record: of course large parts of it were manufactured. Some of
> it was manufactured by a so-called "source", but that source was so in-/non-
> credible that you wouldn't buy a used hammer from him

Yet Powell built his case, before the UN with Curveball's informations.
Curveball who ultimately admitted he was a taxi driver and not a scientist.
Some might say "the US has been misled", I don't believe one second, the Bush
government was looking for any excuse, even fake to invade Irak. I pity the
families of all the soldiers who died there, they died for nothing. And the
locals who were massacred,during and after the war,the US is directly
responsible for their death.

~~~
Hondor
Why do you pity the families of US soldiers who invaded Iraq but blame the US
for the deaths of Iraqis? If what the US did was wrong, then the soldiers who
carried out those orders were wrong too.

How do Americans maintain this doublethink that their government's military
actions are bad but the people who carry them out are good? Is a US soldier
somehow more righteous than an ISIS soldier? They both kill innocent people,
they both do it to serve "bad" purposes. Why not treat them all as what they
are - killers?

~~~
thinkloop
The soldiers didn't know any better, and the situation wasn't clearly evil
enough for there to be expectation of rebellion or refusal of orders.

The leaders, by contrast, knowingly engineered it (according to parent)

No one brought up isis soldiers.

~~~
ZenoArrow
If the soldiers didn't know any better, then that's a sign that our cultural
attitudes towards war are somewhat lacking. Those people were not forced to
sign up to the military, and if their moral compasses were distorted enough to
believe wars not based on self defence can somehow be justified then why is
that message getting across?

We shouldn't blame the soldiers for doing a difficult job, especially after
the damage is done, but we can and should discourage people from signing up in
the first place.

~~~
toyg
_> Those people were not forced to sign up to the military_

You should read up a bit on the US military. A lot of those people came from
disadvantaged backgrounds where army careers are the only ticket out of
poverty.

The US political and military establishment literally preys on the poor for
their cannon fodder. It's the post-Vietnam equilibrium: they won't draft, so
(white) sons and daughters of the middle-classes will be left alone, and in
return such middle-classes don't ask too many questions about where, how and
why the military is used.

To assuage collective guilt, a narrative has emerged in which grunts are not
blamed, since they are effectively victims of a system nobody really wants to
change.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "A lot of those people came from disadvantaged backgrounds where army
> careers are the only ticket out of poverty."

They are not the only ticket out of poverty, speaking broadly these people
have choices. What is happening is that the military provides, for some
people, an attractive way to get out of poverty, because it comes along with a
certain level of prestige. Change the level of prestige and you change the
influx of new recruits.

~~~
toyg
_> Change the level of prestige and you change the influx of new recruits._

Who can change the level of prestige? Upper and middle classes. Why would they
do that, when the system works just fine for them? Nobody is legally coerced,
and still cannon fodder is overwhelmingly provided by the "right" people.

From a certain perspective, it's a beautiful system.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Who can change the level of prestige?"

We all can, and we can start by resisting the narrative to refer to those
involved in preemptive war as 'heroes'. There's nothing heroic about playing
the role of the aggressor.

Furthermore, we need to find a way to better engage with those who have taken
part in war so that we can learn from their experiences. The more we can see
war for what it is, the less likely we'll be so casual about it continuing.

~~~
toyg
You also have to design and pay for alternative careers and education streams.
It's not a coincidence that the countries who most value military careers are
often ones where higher education is extremely expensive or restricted.

That will mean raising taxes and fighting tax evasion, which might mean less
"free money" from VC gluts.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Putting aside the situation in developing countries, I'm suggesting making the
changes closer to home.

In developed countries potential soldiers already have other options so it's
not a question of making economic changes, it's a question of changing how we
cut through the propaganda that glorifies soldiers. The only cases for
soldiers as heroes are in cases of defending against an external aggressor or
defending the helpless. Becoming a soldier does not automatically make you a
hero, just as lawyers are not automatically heroes, it all depends on the
causes they serve.

------
bunkydoo
I wonder what would happen if we just told everyone at the CIA to go on a 1
year vacation. We might have world peace

------
nxzero
Here's another source:
[http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14271](http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14271)

------
raverbashing
Well, sending him to jail helped make him an important figure. True, there's
no way of knowing how it have gone otherwise

Not to be demonized but not to be idolized as well

~~~
Strom
I'm curious, how did it help? I've always been under the impression that he
succeeded despite the 27+ year prison time.

~~~
phire
Being in prison isolated him from the less moral things the ANC did during the
'70s and '80s, while still being seen as a figurehead.

------
ccvannorman
""The agent firmly believed Mandela was in the pocket of Communist Russia and
was planning to incite the Indian population in the Natal region, where he was
based, to rise up.""

Given ubiquitous surveillance and increasing state power, how long before
average citizens start getting locked up because a single cowboy at an agency
"firmly believes" they are a threat?

~~~
notahacker
Never mind "ubiquitous surveillance", this has always happened.

And given that Mandela was a member of a banned organization that was wanted
by his own government for attempting to start armed rebellion using weapons
(acquired from from sympathtic communist-aligned powers), it wasn't exactly as
if the whim of a single agent was the main factor behind his detention (or the
CIA's ultimately unfounded belief in what might happen if he succeeded)

------
ebbv
The title of this link is misleading. A former CIA spy (is that even
confirmed?) claimed it. That's incredibly different from the CIA actually
admitting it.

Which is not to say I really doubt his claims (assuming it can be verified he
was a CIA operative who was in South Africa at that time.)

------
fiatmoney
Mandela & his organization were responsible for a terrorist (in the classical
sense - using unfocused attacks on civilian populations as a bargaining chip
and method of instilling fear) insurgency that killed thousands of people in
incredibly brutal ways. The ascendancy of that government has resulted in
South Africa turning from a reasonably prosperous & stable country into one of
the most dangerous countries on earth, especially for the white minority, who
is ~ one election away from genocide at any given moment.

Props on Mandela for being gracious in victory & not immediately going Full
Zimbabwe, but it is insane to suggest that he was some sort of sainted figure
that there was no reason to even fight.

------
Lerumo
Find it funny that they label Mandela a communist while the apartheid
government owned all important sectors of the economy eg telkom
(telecommunications), eskom (electricity), amscor n denel (weapons), sabc
(radio and tv broadcasting), spoornet (rails and ports) acsa (airports) just
to list a few. Apartheid was basically socialism for white people and brutal
facism africans.

------
known
"If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world,
it is the USA. They don't care." \--Nelson Mandela
[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/nelson-
mandela-i...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/nelson-mandela-iraq-
israel_b_4396638.html)

------
JHof
Here's a very similar article from 1990 -
[http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/10/world/cia-tie-reported-
in-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/10/world/cia-tie-reported-in-mandela-
arrest.html)

------
proksoup
The new title "an individual admitted something not the organization" is
definitely more accurate, but represents an unsettling (to me) blame shift. I
suppose the original title incorrectly placed responsibility on the
organization and not the individual.

------
ertyui
Linkbait title. If the testimony is true then at best its a tip off about a
then wanted man's location, nothing to do woth cia behind a conviction or
anything else.

~~~
jonathankoren
As if Mandela was going to go free by Apartheid regime.

When you know the outcome, you don't get to wash your hands of the guilt.

------
irunbackwards
Of course we did. We've been behind almost every coup of any truly democratic
(we Americans like to call this communism) society in the last century.

------
c2the3rd
I would like to thank all the people who had a comment on this article, but
did not post it. Truly, you improve the community with your silence. I'm aware
of my own hypocrisy on this point, but logical consistency would prevent this
sentiment from ever being expressed.

As it is, perhaps 5% of these comments know anything about what they are
talking about. One of the biggest intellectual failings of the sort that
frequents this place is mistaking being smart with being informed.

~~~
nxzero
>> "I'm aware of my own hypocrisy on this point"

Given I commented, calling you out to explicitly state why you feel that my
comments on this page somehow show that I don't know what I'm talking about.

~~~
proksoup
I am also curious to hear why c2the3rd is so confident about the ignorance
displayed here and why silence instead of noise is the solution. Hacker news
seems to do a pretty good job of at least up voting the majority thoughts, and
perhaps with some effort by all of us we can respond intelligently to those
popular thoughts and also get up voted. Even if ignorant, isn't it worth
discussing and responding to if that's what most people are thinking?

~~~
april1stislame
>>> Hacker news seems to do a pretty good job of at least up voting the
majority thoughts...

And therein lies the problem. Echo chambers are only good at making you wish
to be deaf, if even...

~~~
ZenoArrow
Only if you treat downvotes as bad. My own comments on this thread have
received a fair number of both upvotes and downvotes. I consider when that
happens (assuming I haven't been overly antagonistic, which I don't think I
have been) that I've hit a raw nerve. I could be wrong, but alternatively I
could've said something someone isn't willing to hear. That can be useful
feedback in its own right (though I prefer the clarity of comments over
votes).

~~~
nxzero
Maybe it's me, but it's rare that my comments get more that 10 votes (up/down)
- and as such, I don't make anything of votes to my comments; statistical
significance, poor sample, puppet accounts, etc.

What I do make something of is meaningful responses to my comments.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Sure, such feedback is rare, it does require significant feedback in both
directions, it doesn't work with single upvote/downvote swings.

It's also very obvious when you've said something that annoys one individual
as you can get a string of downvotes in quick succession across multiple
comments. Such feedback is easy to spot and see as childish, so I enjoy it for
what it is instead.

That said, I much prefer comments, even those that disagree with me.

------
rubyfan
Non-paywalled: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591000/How-CIA-
got-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3591000/How-CIA-got-Nelson-
Mandela-arrested-Unrepentant-agent-confirms-tipped-South-African-security-
forces-meaning-leader-jailed-27-years.html)

~~~
merlin_g
Why is everything behind a damn paywall these days?

~~~
chippy
It's newspapers and the decline in print.

~~~
branchless
Newspaper death throes.

------
franky303
Paywalled. Next.

~~~
SoonDead
Get my upvote.

------
hugh4
Not really an "admission", he was guilty of the crime for which he was
charged.

~~~
nxzero
Given the systematic abuses by the state authority in South Africa, at the
time of Mandela's arrest, against the social and civil rights of a certain
group of citizens due to ethnic prejudices, believe a some context is worth
considering in deciding who was right and wrong.

~~~
viiaezumu
The "abuses" by the Apartheid government was actually negligible compared to
the violence South Africa has experienced since the unbanning of the ANC.
[http://issafrica.org/uploads/CQ7Thomson.pdf](http://issafrica.org/uploads/CQ7Thomson.pdf)

~~~
nxzero
Reviewed the document, though see no evidence to support your claim. What
exactly is your point and the evidence supporting in and why do you feel the
sources and methods used to collect it are valid?

~~~
viiaezumu
People point to a few abuses and then say the Apartheid government was so
terrible. But it did a decent job of providing safety and security, which is a
basic human right.

The ANC undermined the police service when they were unbanned When they took
office, they ran the police service into the ground. They do not protect the
rights of minorities.

------
DonHopkins

        struct NelsonMandela *nelson_mandela =
            (struct NelsonMandela *)malloc(
                sizeof(struct NelsonMandela));
        free(nelson_mandella);

------
equalsnil
Would South Africa be a better place if it had become a Russian-influenced
Communist country?

If Mandela was a secret operative for the communists in South Africa, as the
local communist party claimed when he died, and as this former CIA operative
has claimed, then he had to have known he was playing a tricky game. Ending
apartheid, creating a communist paradise, pick one.

[Edit] I know I'm being downvoted, but I also doubt anyone commenting here
lives in a communist country, or has ever spent much time in one.

~~~
sangnoir
Why are you talking in hypotheticals when Mandela became president of South
Africa in 1994?

Your false dichotomy is empirically false because apartheid was ended without
creating a 'communist paradise'.

Even if we were to accept your limited worldview/binary choices; it is not
clear how a state with codified racism (apartheid) is superior to an
egalitarian communist one.

~~~
_yosefk
An egalitarian communist state has never existed, it's always a state where
the ruling party does as it pleases while the majority has no rights
whatsoever. (Whether _this_ is superior or inferior to an apartheid state is a
tough question.)

~~~
Synaesthesia
That's not true, Cuba is egalitarian, to a far greater degree than the Soviet
Union was. Revolutionary Spain was very egalitarian. The Soviet Union can't
really be called socialist, it was more of a totalitarian dictatorship.

~~~
_yosefk
Grandparent said "communist", not socialist, so while many people argue about
the difference it doesn't seem relevant here.

Revolutionary Spain did not survive long enough to discuss IMO.

Cuba... egalitarian in what way? Is there anything the government does that
the citizens can legally undo without overthrowing it? (Note that a benevolent
dictatorship can exist, in theory, and among other things it can be a
communist - or a racist - dictatorship; nothing prevents from the dictator to
grant freedoms to the subjects, the point is that nothing prevents him from
taking them away, either. If you don't refer to rights in the sense of things
the government cannot prevent you from doing but instead refer to
"egalitarian" in some sense of Cuban citizens living substantially different
lives than Soviet citizens, I'd be curious to hear what exactly you mean.)

