Former US Senator Condemns Israel's Lies about Iran

By FARS News Agency - Posting #180

TEHRAN (FNA)- Ex-Senator and former US presidential candidate Mike Gravel condemned Israeli lies about Iran's nuclear activities, and warned Tel Aviv and the US that threatening Iran means playing with fire.

Gravel underlined that beating the drums about attacking Iran is very dangerous and marks the irresponsibility of the Israeli leadership.

"I'm not saying anything new - Sarkozy says Netanyahu is a liar - so in my humble status as a private citizen - I tell you Netanyahu is a liar, because he has made statements about Iran that are absolutely ridiculous - all this to create fear among people in Israel," he said.

Gravel recalled the Bush-created syndrome of 'bunker mentality' that rules people with fear.

"Iran is neither Syria nor Lebanon. Iran is a proud nation and they have missile capabilities - not nuclear-capable - that can rain down on Tel Aviv. I can tell you: if they are attacked - they would attack back. And (because) Israel is so vulnerable and so small that it (Israel) would retaliate with nukes - because they cannot suffer to be destroyed," Gravel predicted, adding that Pakistan and China would join in, with the US to follow - and that is a ready scenario for a nuclear WWIII.

"The best way to solve the problem with Iran is to leave it alone to build a democracy of its own."

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Nuclear Experts Reject IAEA Iran Report :o

War With Iran Would Be Madness

IAEA Exposed as Israeli Spy Front

Iran Controlling US Warships Passing Through Strait of Hormoz

All of Israel Within Iran Missile Reach

Iran Will Not Sit Back And Watch Threats

Illicit Israeli Military Technology Transfers Continued Amidst US State Department Infighting

By IRmep - Posting #179

In March of 1992 US State Department inspector general Sherman Funk issued a classified report about illegal Israeli transfers of US military technology.

The report finds Israel "is systematically violating U.S. arms control laws." The "Blue Lantern" system used in-country checks conducted by Customs officials or other qualified US embassy personnel to verify that "sensitive U.S. Munitions List items and technology are used only for authorized purposes."

The audit uncovered a breakdown in US inspection regimes. The State Department relied on "government to government" assurances that items were not "retransferred" or "used for unauthorized purposes." Shipments to non-government entities could only be checked if Israeli government officials granted permission.

The auditor discovered that "After reviewing the end use procedures, we stated to post officials that relying entirely on government-to-government assurances is an inadequate verification procedure. This is especially true for a country which, according to numerous intelligence reports, is systematically violating U.S. arms control laws." But the US State Department's own Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs (PM) reined in Blue Lantern investigators stating "investigations were generally not to be conducted unless authorized." One Blue Lantern audit found US telemetry equipment being put to prohibited uses. When notified, the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Control refused to take action and closed the Blue Lantern case.

At the time, the executive and some members of the legislative branch were deeply concerned about the ongoing Israeli diversion to China of military technology from the controversial American-funded Lavi jet fighter project. But /Report of Audit/ reveals a highly dysfunctional inspection regime dominated by political infighting. An attached memo from the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs (PM) challenged the inspector general's premises. "There are two glaring
deficiencies in this section. First, the report is premised on two notions; that if a story appears in an intelligence publication, it must be true; that if some agency not charged with responsibility for a program (in this case low level officials in ACDA) [U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency], they must be correct. As is indicated below, these assumptions do not always pertain. It is not PM's job to react in a knee-jerk fashion to intelligence reports, but to analyze and investigate."

Release notes. On August 14, 2009 the US State Department "denied in full" IRmep's February 14, 2009 Freedom of Information Act request for the Funk audit. IRmep appealed twice to the US Department of State Appeals Review Panel, winning a redacted release on August 1, 2011. IRmep then appealed that Israel, the subject of the entire report, be restored to all areas of the document where State Department censors redacted the country reference.

On September 28, 2011 the State Department refused, responding that "the decision of the Appeals Review Panel is the final decision for the Department of State. Your only available option is litigation." The Wall Street Journal allegedly obtained the report in 1992, but never made it available to the public.

Document/File Date: March of 1992 (PDF)

Contents: Report of Audit - Defense Controls Annex, 2-CI-016A United States Department of State Office of Inspector General, Sherman M. Funk - 3.2 MB

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References:

Arms-Export Reports Further Strain U. S. - Israeli Ties

Americans Pay Dearly to Maintain Israel's Nuclear Secrets

Secret CIA/FBI files of NUMEC nuclear diversions to Israel could aid $170 million toxic cleanup

Tribunal Finds Bush - Blair Guilty of War Crimes

By Mathaba - Posting #178 - Yessssssssssssss!!!

Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal Hearing Issues Verdict: Former Prime Minister Blair and Former President Bush Guilty of War Crimes

KUALA LUMPUR, 22 November 2011 - The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal (Tribunal) entered its fourth and final day of hearing war crimes charge of Crimes against Peace against George W Bush (former U.S. President) and Anthony L Blair (former British Prime Minister) in Kuala Lumpur. For the first time a war crime charge has been heard against these two former heads of state in compliance with due legal process, wherein complaints from war victims had been received, duly investigated and formal charges instituted by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (Commission).

The Tribunal had decided the previous day that a prima facie case had been made out against both the accused. The Defense team presented their case and submission defending the accused. Some of the points submitted and argued are stated in the following paragraphs.

The Defense adopted their prior submissions and proceeded to raise additional grounds, relying additionally on the memoirs of the first and second accused. The Defence highlighted that as an amicus curiae, his function is to assist the Tribunal by raising points of law that are in doubt and to organise information or raise awareness of some aspect of the case that the Tribunal otherwise may miss.

No one knows what it is like to have the weight of the nation on his shoulders except a head of state. Both the accused, as former heads of state, took their nations to war. The question now is whether their actions amounted to the offence of Crimes against Peace. Did they ‘plan, prepared and invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the UN Charter’?

9/11 changed the world and cast it into a new atmosphere of fear. The world would be a different place. The Prosecution objected to the Defence attempts to show a video recording of the 9/11 attack, as there is no factual basis for the association of 9/11 with Iraq. The fact that the war occurred had been admitted. The war has taken its toll. The question is, was a crime committed by the accused. The Tribunal ruled that it has taken judicial notice (not having to tender evidence to established a fact) of the 9/11 attack and there was no need for the showing of the video.

The Defence submitted, that the first accused in his memoirs, on the issue of the absence of WMD, the accusation that ‘Bush lied, and people died’, would be illogical because he would not lead his nation to war on a lie which would be easily discernible after the war.

The second accused in his memoir said that he understood the need for the 2nd UN resolution for political legitimacy but knew the difficulty in getting one due to the politics within the UN Security Council permanent members. And also that there was no UN resolution for the action in Kosovo. While the first accused was of the view that Saddam had not adhered to numerous UN Security Council resolutions

There was a moral ground that many critics of the war do not appreciate. Liberating the people of Iraq from Saddam seems to be lost on the critics. The Defence also referred that the first accused had said that Saddam was a threat. Saddam had invaded two neighbours, Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in the 1990s. He had killed his own people. Had used chemical weapons. Had links with terrorists. And Saddam was developing WMD. And after 9/11, Saddam was a threat that could no longer be ignored.

Some have seen the brutality of war while many are fortunate to have experienced peace. In any event the Defence urged the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence and return a verdict of non-guilty.

Prosecution in their reply stated that everyone has a right to lead unmolested lives governed by law. And in the case before the Tribunal that law is international law. We have to adhere to treaties and conventions that govern international relations. From the documents tendered the first accused had conducted himself in manner that showed that he had decided to invade Iraq long before 2003. And this is also evident from his memoir, which amounts to an admission.

In a criminal trial such as this, there are two elements that need to be proven. The actus rea (the act), which was the war, which is an accepted fact. The mens rea (intention) is shown clearly from the planning and preparation as early as November 2001 when he had asked his Secretary of Defence to draw up plans for the invasion of Iraq. And that in September 2002, the Defence Secretary had informed the first accused, who was the commander in chief that it would take six months to mobilise for invasion. On 4 November 2002, the UN resolution 1441 was passed and the invasion was launched on 19 March 2003. On 17 March 2003 the first accused stated “…Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing”. And on 19 March, the ‘shock and awe’ campaign called Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

The same is true of the second accused who had attacked Iraq. And that he had planned and prepared to invade since 1998. The reason is to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from Saddam through the use of military action.

There are 40 UN Security Council Resolutions against Israel but no action is taken. But Saddam had not adhered to 16 resolutions and Iraq is invaded. This is gangsterism.

This is a historic moment for the Tribunal to hear the distance drums of war rumbling even today due to the actions of the first and second accused. War criminals have to be dealt with, convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice.

The Verdict - Guilty!

The Tribunal deliberated over the case and decided unanimously that the first accused George W Bush and second accused Anthony L Blair have been found guilty of the Crimes against Peace.

The second accused at the material time as heads of state launched an invasion on Iraq on 19 March 2003. The charge was duly served in accordance with the Charter of the Commission. The accused did not appear and an amicus curiae was appointed.

The evidence showed that as far back as 15 September 2001 the accused had planned to invade Iraq. Documents showed that this plan was conveyed by the first accused to the second accused. The accused had attempted to seek he UN approval for invasion. On 2 November 2002, UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of force against Iraq. Weapons investigators had confirmed that there were no WMD. It was also established that the Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.

Humanitarian intervention was not a basis for the invasion. The UN Security Council must authorise any use of force. An individual state cannot replace the UN in deciding the use of force. The 9/11 attack did not show any connection with Iraq but instead the US had used this as a pretext to invade Iraq. Invasion to effect regime change has no legal basis under international law.

The Evidence showed that the drums of wars were being beaten long before the invasion. The accused in their own memoirs have admitted their own intention to invade Iraq regardless of international law. Unlawful use of force threatens the world to return to a state of lawlessness. The acts of the accused were unlawful.

The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are found guilty. The Tribunal orders that the names of the 2 convicted criminals be included in the war register of the KL War Crimes Commission. And the findings of this Tribunal be publicised to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statue.

Despite all the facts both the accused had nevertheless invaded Iraq. A detailed written judgment will be published at a later date.

The trial was held in an open court from November 19-22, 2011 at the premises of the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) at 88, Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur.

Further Information

For further information, please contact:

Dato’ Dr Yaacob Merican
Secretary General of the KLWCC Secretariat
Tel: +6012-227 8680

Ms Malkeet Kaur
Media Representative of KLWCC
malkeet@dbook.com.my
Tel: +6012-3737 886

The Tribunal Members

Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman
Dato' Zakaria Yatim (Recused)
Tunku Sofiah Jewa
Prof Salleh Buang
Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre :o
Prof Emeritus Datuk
Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi
Prof Niloufer Bhagwat (Recused)

The Prosecution

Prof Gurdial S Nijar
Prof Francis Boyle
Mr Avtaran Singh

Amicus Curiae (appointed Defence team)

Mr Jason Kay and (((3))) other counsels.

The Charge

Crimes Against Peace filed against George W Bush (former President of the U.S.) and Anthony L Blair (former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) wherein they are charged as follows:

The Accused persons had committed Crimes against Peace, in that the Accused persons planned, prepared and invaded the sovereign state of Iraq on 19 March 2003 in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented on facts and law as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement. The verdict and the names of the persons found guilty will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide.

“WHY is it that the murder of one man is considered a criminal act whereas the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people committed in wars, is not considered so?" -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Report: Pentagon Assists Mossad in Assassination of Iraqi Scientists, Elites

Government, Parliament and military of Sweden reported for war crimes in Libya

On 9/11, U.S. Military Was Preparing for a Simulated Nuclear War

By Shoestring 9/11 - Posting #177

While September 11, 2001 is well known as the day when the U.S. suffered its worst terrorist attack, what is little known is that it was also a day when large sections of the armed forces around the nation had been preparing to fight a simulated nuclear war, as part of major training exercises being conducted at the time.

In their annual exercises "Vigilant Guardian" and "Global Guardian," the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the United States Strategic Command (Stratcom) were scheduled to carry out what has been described as a "simulated air war," a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise, a "fictional nuclear war," and a "practice Armageddon."

No official attempts have been made to fully investigate these exercises and what effect they had on the military's response to the 9/11 attacks. But evidence indicates they caused at least some confusion over what was "real-world" and what was simulation, and they may also have been a factor behind the communication problems experienced by military personnel that day. Other evidence suggests that some actions that have been presented as reactions to the terrorist attacks may actually have been related to these exercises--actions such as raising the alert status of American armed services to Defcon 3 and closing the huge "blast doors" to NORAD's operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado. There is also evidence that other "practice Armageddon" exercises were being conducted at the time of the 9/11 attacks, but details of these are unknown.

AMERICA'S AIR DEFENDERS WERE SET TO FIGHT A 'SIMULATED AIR WAR' ON 9/11

Perhaps the most important exercise to consider is NORAD's exercise called "Vigilant Guardian." Close examination of this exercise is imperative due to the crucial role NORAD had to play in responding to the 9/11 attacks.

NORAD is the military organization responsible for monitoring and defending U.S. airspace. It was created during the Cold War, to protect North American airspace against nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union. Its Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado, where numerous staffers were involved in Vigilant Guardian, was described by the BBC as "the nerve centre of North America's air defense." [1] The center's role, according to the Toronto Star, was "to fuse every critical piece of information NORAD has into a concise and crystalline snapshot." [2] And NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York, which was also participating in the exercise, was responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings on September 11. [3]

Vigilant Guardian, described as a "Cold War-style training exercise," was held annually by NORAD. It was reportedly scheduled to last two weeks and was several days underway on September 11. [4] All of NORAD, including its subordinate units, was participating in the exercise that day. [5] NORAD's CMOC was fully staffed for the exercise, with more than 50 members of staff in the Battle Management Center taking part. [6] According to Ken Merchant, NORAD's joint exercise design manager, the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon--which also played a key role in the military's response to the 9/11 attacks--regularly contributed to NORAD exercises. It was therefore presumably set to play a role in Vigilant Guardian on September 11. [7]

EXERCISE SIMULATED A 'FULL-BLOWN NUCLEAR WAR' AGAINST RUSSIA

Full details of Vigilant Guardian are unknown, but various accounts have given indications of what it involved. The 1st Air Force's book about the 9/11 attacks described Vigilant Guardian as a "simulated air war" and as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States." [8] It was a "transition to wartime operations command post exercise," according to an information page for exercise participants. [9] Ken Merchant called Vigilant Guardian a "full-blown nuclear war" exercise. [10] According to the Denver Post, it would involve "ever-escalating scenarios, from strained diplomacy to the outbreak of conventional warfare that headed inexorably toward nuclear conflict." [11]

Lieutenant Colonel William Glover, the commander of NORAD's Air Warning Center on September 11, said Vigilant Guardian involved NORAD "simulating war," with "attacks coming from the outside, Soviet-style bombers coming in, cruise-missile attacks, that type of thing." [12] The 9/11 Commission Report said the exercise "postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union." [13] According to Merchant, it included "bomber response and intercontinental ballistic missile response." [14]

The imagined enemy in Vigilant Guardian was Russia. [15] Merchant told the 9/11 Commission that "NORAD must use Russia in its exercises at the strategic level since no other country poses a great enough threat to NORAD's capabilities and responsibilities." [16]

EXERCISE INCLUDED A SIMULATED HIJACKING

Full details of what scenarios were scheduled for September 11 are unknown, but some information has been revealed. Vanity Fair reported that Vigilant Guardian had been "designed to run a range of scenarios" that day, "including a 'traditional' simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum." [17] Jeff Ford, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was working in the CMOC on September 11, recalled that it involved "air exercise events and then some scripted inputs that we were reacting to ... whether it be unknown aircraft that we scramble aircraft for to intercept, or whatever." According to Ford, "The big event that day was supposed to be a B-1 bomber that was flying out of Fairchild Air Force Base [in Washington State] and going out over the Pacific." [18]

'GLOBAL GUARDIAN' EXERCISE TESTED STRATCOM'S ABILITY TO FIGHT A NUCLEAR WAR

The other major exercise simulating a nuclear war that is known to have been taking place on September 11 was Global Guardian. This annual exercise was run by Stratcom, which is "the single U.S. military command responsible for the day-to-day readiness of nuclear forces." [19] Like Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian was scheduled to last about two weeks and had already been running for several days by September 11. [20]

Global Guardian was in fact held "in cooperation with" a number of other military exercises, including Vigilant Guardian. [21] Ken Merchant told the 9/11 Commission that it "was coordinated with Vigilant Guardian so the combined Stratcom offensive abilities and the NORAD defensive abilities could be exercised." [22]

Global Guardian, according to an official after-action report on the exercise, was designed to exercise Stratcom "and supporting forces during a simulated crisis, validate war-fighting procedures, and verify command relationships." [23] Military analyst William Arkin described it as an "all-out game involving multiple regional conflicts that lead to a global nuclear war." [24]

The goal of the exercise, according to the Omaha World-Herald, was to test Stratcom's "ability to fight a nuclear war." [25] One reporter said it would involve America fighting "a fictional nuclear war," and would test the "response to a fictional attack from another nation." [26] The adversary preparing this nuclear attack on the United States was a fictional rogue nation called "Slumonia," a small nuclear power in northeast Asia. [27]

SUBMARINES, BOMBERS, AND HUNDREDS OF PERSONNEL PARTICIPATED IN GLOBAL GUARDIAN

Numerous military units were participating in Global Guardian in September 2001. [28] Around the U.S. and off its shores, bombers, missile crews, and submarines were taking part, following orders from Stratcom's command bunker at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. [29] As well as Offutt, other Air Force bases around the U.S. that were involved in the exercise included Barksdale, Minot, and Whiteman Air Force bases, where "dozens of aircraft and hundreds of personnel" were participating. [30]

"Other support" for the exercise was provided by personnel at the Pentagon, Camp H. M. Smith in Hawaii, Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, and NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center. [31] According to William Arkin, several senior civilian and military leaders participated in Global Guardian exercises, including individuals from the offices of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so presumably this was the case in the September 2001 Global Guardian. [32]

STRATCOM WAS AT INCREASED STATE OF ALERT, AIRCRAFT WERE 'SIMULATING THEIR WARTIME ROLES'

Admiral Richard Mies, at that time the commander in chief of Stratcom, has described how Global Guardian was proceeding when the 9/11 attacks took place. He said Stratcom had been "ready to respond to a potential attack from a hypothetical adversary. ... We had intelligence indicating that they were preparing to attack us." Stratcom was positioning its forces "to be ready to offer the president the ability to respond in a wide variety of ways. A lot of our command and control systems that, in peacetime, are normally not on alert were at a much, much higher state of alert and we had a number of aircraft, manned control aircraft that were airborne that were simulating their wartime roles." Preparations underway in the exercise included "elevating our readiness status to a heightened state of readiness," "preparing bombers to potentially launch, if required," and "getting submarines that were in port ready to go to sea."

Mies added that Global Guardian involved "a lot of the elements of what ultimately would be the nuclear command and control system in support of a national emergency." It included "an exercise secretary of defense" and "an exercise president." [33] Among the exercise's objectives were disseminating "presidential nuclear decisions ... to the forces," and preparing and issuing National Command Authority directives, so presumably the participants acting as the president and the secretary of defense were involved in these activities. [34] (The National Command Authority refers collectively to the president and the secretary of defense.)

CREWS LOADED LIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ONTO BOMBERS

At Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, according to journalists Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, air crews taking part in the exercise were "pulling nuclear bombs and missiles out of their heavily guarded storage sites and loading them aboard B-52s" on the morning of September 11. Real, live nuclear weapons were being used, but "their triggers were not armed." [35]

American History magazine described the scene at the base: "Even though it was only a drill, the command center was tense, everyone proceeding as if the planes would soon take off on bombing runs, instead of just idling at the end of the runway." Then, at precisely 9:00 a.m. (Eastern time), "an alarm sounded across the base and the crews raced to their planes." After news was received about the terrorist attacks in New York, the base's command staff "ended the drill, but left the fueled and armed planes where they were." [36]

Also as part of Global Guardian, three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes that were based at Offutt Air Force Base were airborne on September 11. The E-4B, nicknamed the "Doomsday" plane during the Cold War, is a militarized version of a Boeing 747-200. It is equipped with advanced communications equipment, and in times of national emergency can act as an alternative command post from which top government officials can direct forces, execute war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities. Even after Global Guardian was terminated, the three E-4Bs remained in the air. [37]

AIR FORCE COMMANDER THOUGHT FIRST ATTACK WAS EXERCISE SIMULATION

That these training exercises were being conducted on the morning of September 11 raises important questions. As the Omaha World-Herald noted, the fact that Global Guardian was "in full swing" when the United States came under attack was "at least an odd coincidence." [38]

We need to investigate how much confusion military personnel experienced because they were preparing for a simulated attack on America at the time an actual attack on America took place. We already know of some instances of confusion caused by the exercises. For example, when Lieutenant General Thomas Keck, the commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base, who had been monitoring the Global Guardian exercise, was told a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, he initially thought this was a simulated scenario. He therefore told the junior officer who had brought him the news: "That's not the way you interject a situation into a training exercise! When you have a scenario injection, you say, 'Sir, this is an exercise input,' and then you give me the information."

Additionally, some of the airmen at Barksdale who had been participating in the exercise appear to have been only vaguely aware of the real-world crisis. American History noted that after Global Guardian was called off, the crews in the B-52 bombers knew only "that something very serious was happening and they were not being ordered to stand down." Even by early afternoon, they had only heard "the most basic reports about the attacks on New York and the Pentagon." [39]

EXERCISE INCLUDED SIMULATED COMMUNICATION OUTAGES

We also need to consider whether actions incorporated into the training exercises affected lines of communication that would have been critical for enabling a swift response to the terrorist attacks. Some evidence indicates this may have been the case. For example, one of the listed objectives of the September 2001 Global Guardian was to "simulate outages between NC2 [nuclear command and control] nodes requiring alternate routes to maintain connectivity." Another objective was for participants to "determine operational impacts and work-arounds to simulated C4I [command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence] outages." The official after-action report on the exercise did not elaborate on what these "simulated C4I outages" involved. [40]

Certainly, those in NORAD's CMOC, who had been participating in Vigilant Guardian, appear to have experienced significant communication problems. William Glover recalled that the time of the 9/11 attacks was his "first time, you know, thinking about the fog of war, because we didn't know what was going on." [41] Major General Rick Findley, NORAD's director of operations, commented, "I wouldn't call it flat-footed, but we were a little bit behind the power curve most of that morning as we were trying to figure out exactly what transpired." [42] And Lieutenant Colonel Steven Armstrong, NORAD's chief of plans and forces, has complained that he and his colleagues "were out there in an information void, just looking for anything that we could find." He said, "All the information we were getting at the time was really off the TV." [43]

The causes of this "information void" surely need to be investigated. Might it have been the result, at least partly, of an attack on military communications systems that was incorporated into one (or more) of the exercises that day?

Some actions carried out on September 11 have been reported as if they were responses to the terrorist attacks, but evidence suggests they may actually have been conducted as part of an exercise, or at least perceived within the military as being part of an exercise. Two such actions, described below, are the closing of the blast doors to NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center and the order to raise the military's alert status to Defcon 3. If these actions were connected to the exercises taking place that day, it would raise further questions about how much confusion was caused by these exercises, and would indicate that the exercises continued even after it became obvious the U.S. was suffering a major terrorist attack.

NORAD CLOSED DOORS PROTECTING OPERATIONS CENTER FROM A NUCLEAR ATTACK

On the morning of September 11, the thick steel doors to NORAD's operations center in Cheyenne Mountain were closed for the first time in a real-world crisis since the CMOC opened in 1966. [44] The two doors are three feet thick and each weighs 25 tons. [45] They were designed to seal the operations center, to protect it from a nuclear blast. [46]

The time the blast doors were closed at is unknown, although a BBC documentary placed the event at 10:15 a.m. [47] The reason they were shut is also unclear. A number of reports suggested they were closed in response to information the CMOC received about an aircraft that was incorrectly thought to have been hijacked and targeting Cheyenne Mountain. [48] However, as the Regina Leader-Post pointed out, "Protected by 2,600 feet of granite, the NORAD command center and hundreds of personnel in their green flight suits were actually in the safest place in North America." [49] The CMOC was therefore already safe against an aircraft crashing into the mountain.

Furthermore, the blast doors are located at the end of a tunnel, about a third of a mile into the mountain. [50] Closing them would therefore have been a needless action as protection against a threatening aircraft, as a plane could hardly have made it all the way along the tunnel to the entrance to the CMOC! Brigadier General Jim Hunter, the vice commander of the CMOC on September 11, commented on the lack of danger, saying, "They could have driven airliners into that mountain all day." [51]

BLAST DOORS WERE CLOSED DURING EXERCISES

It is worth considering if there was a different reason why the blast doors were shut. Might they have been closed as part of one of the exercises? Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian both involved simulating a nuclear war. And since the doors were designed to protect the CMOC from a nuclear strike, it would seem logical that they might be closed during an exercise simulating a nuclear attack on the United States.

Furthermore, while the doors had never been closed in a real-world crisis before September 11, they had been closed during exercises. Air Force officer William Astore wrote that when he worked inside Cheyenne Mountain between 1985 and 1988, the blast doors were kept open, "except, of course, during 'exercises,' when the mountain 'buttoned up' its self-contained world." [52]

MILITARY'S ALERT STATUS WAS RAISED TO DEFCON 3

Another event on September 11 that has yet to be properly explained is the order to raise the defense readiness condition from Defcon 5, the lowest possible level, to Defcon 3, the highest alert level for 28 years. [53]

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued the order to go to Defcon 3 at around 10:45 a.m. after conferring with General Richard Myers, the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld also discussed the issue with Vice President Dick Cheney over the air threat conference call, and later briefed President Bush on his actions and was given the president's approval for what he had done. [54]....continued

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe

The 911Dataset Project [Added 9/11 Studies Page]

Clear the Skies. BBC

The Scene at NORAD on Sept. 11

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

"NORAD" The Early Edition

Vigilant Guardian: Northeast Air Defense Sector

References continued......

The CIA Returns to Campus and Resistance Begins Again

By By Philip Zwerling - Posting #176 [pdf Version]

Like recurring bad dreams of Freddy Krueger in endless iterations of Nightmare on Elm Street, after 9/11 the Central Intelligence Agency and its friends in the warm-and-fuzzy sounding Intelligence Community (the 16 spy agencies constituting the ODNI, the Office of the Director of National Security) have set up shop again on university and college campuses across the U.S., procuring students, “modifying” curricula, and spying on faculty just as they did in the 1960s and 1990s. But this time, few professors raised dissenting voices, fewer students demonstrated, and academic freedom took a direct hit in the name of patriotism and jobs.

Emboldened, the spies even reached out to high school and middle school students, sponsoring free summer “spy camps,” linking government agents with impressionable teens. At one such program, Reagan Thompson, 17, told a reporter, “I want to be a spy when I grow up. You learn different perspectives and it opens your mind.” Meriam Fadli, also 17, said: “I was like, ‘Oh my God, I am so joining the FBI’.”

As Former CIA Personnel Director F.W.M. Janney wrote: “It is absolutely essential that the Agency have available to it the greatest single source of expertise: the American academic community.” As CIA spokesperson Sharon Foster bragged 20 years later: “The CIA has enough professors under Agency contract to staff a large university.”

Steadfast Goals - Lest We Forget - Philip Agee - CovertAction Quarterly

The CIA has penetrated U.S. campuses for the past 60 years with 3 steadfast goals: (1) To recruit students. They target institutions like mine, the University of Texas Pan American, and 22 other racial minority majority campuses (historically black colleges, hispanic serving institutions, tribal institutions, and majority female campuses) to set up, beginning in 2006, Intelligence Community Centers of Academic Excellence (IC/CAE) and spending millions of dollars because, as Congressperson Jane Harmon stated: “We need spies who look like their targets.” The IC/CAEs recruit minorities and the poor during an economic recession that leaves our young people few other career options: enrolling them for all of the assassinations, coups d’etat, extraordinary renditions (read kidnapping), enhanced interrogations (read torture), and “black site” imprisonment that the CIA has practiced throughout its history, as documented by the 1975 Frank Church and 1977 Otis Pike Congressional inquiries.

(2) To conduct “research.” In the past this included using LSD and other drugs in mind control experiments conducted on unsuspecting college students on 44 campuses (Project MK- ULTRA) that resulted in depressions, breakdowns and suicides—and the training of Salvadoran death squads as at Northwestern University. Today, as Stephen Soldz, President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, has shown it means recruiting university psychology professors for CIA torture research.

(3) To spy on faculty. In MH- CHAOS, the CIA collected files on 13,000 individuals and 1,000 legal organizations. Former CIA agent Verne Lyon has recounted how he received monthly payoffs and a draft exemption to spy on faculty and students for the Agency at Iowa State University in the mid 1960s. Students on the CIA payroll played the same role on 30 other campuses.

Buying Access

Today the ODNI/CIA Centers of Academic Excellence and their millions of dollars buy access to campuses across the country. This money funds undergraduate degree programs, certificate programs, and masters degrees in innocuously titled “Global Security Studies” programs. How do we know there are strings attached to these funds? IC/CAE grants require that universities host CIA speakers at annual campus conferences, sponsor summer camps for teenagers, set aside a named room in the campus library stocked with ODNI/CIA brochures, subsidize study abroad programs in countries of national security interest, and, in the CIA’s words, “modify curriculum,” often complete with CIA officers teaching such credit-bearing classes as Officers in Residence.

Section 38 of the 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act set up the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program with $4 million a year to recruit and train graduate students for the CIA. The identities of those participating in the program, faculty and students, are kept secret. The 2010 intelligence authorization bill “invites schools to apply for grants for courses that would meet the needs of the intelligence community. Students taking the courses would have to receive security clearances and their participation would remain secret. After graduation the students would be required to work for the CIA.

In the end, scholars who do research for the CIA find their research classified. This scholarship cannot be shared in the academic community where the very reason for research is dissemination and discussion. Such scholars simultaneously become complicit in the nefarious workings of the CIA. Imagine how suspect medical research touting a major drug benefit becomes when other researchers and the public find out it has been funded by the drug manufacturer. Imagine as well how researchers may trim their inquiries and tune their conclusions not to offend a major funding source, whether that source be Merck, R.J. Reynolds, or the CIA.

This conflict of interest extends to publication where we must wonder whether CIA-sponsored scholars who submit work to CIA-funded publications where their work is peer reviewed by other CIA-funded scholars do not find a friendlier reception than scholars who refuse CIA funding. In this manner the CIA affects not only which scholars get published (and what we get to read), but indirectly affects academic promotion and tenure which ensures that professors who go along get along.

The CIA funding largesse may also explain the absence of articles critical of CIA activities in academic journals. Researcher George Gibbs, associate professor of political science at the University of Arizona, reports: “I surveyed the five top journals in political science that specialize in international relations during the period 1991-2000. I did not find a single article in any of these journals that focused on CIA covert operations.” CIA money can publish articles and it can also ensure silence.

The CIA returned to campus with a free hand because, by and large, faculties forgot and current students never learned the dark history of the CIA on campus. Those faculty and administrators who today collaborate with the CIA in spite of this past either argue that the CIA has changed its ways or that their personal involvement may moderate future CIA activity. Both attitudes were adopted by American intellectuals in every decade since the 1950s and have proved naive and illusory every time. Clearly individuals’ scruples have had less impact than the culture, mission, history, and raison d’etre for this secret organization. A bad system does not allow much room for people to do good.

The Struggle Begins Again

So the struggle against the CIA on campus begins again. Past models of success abound. In 1984, at the University of Colorado at Boulder, civil disobedience demonstrations outside school buildings where CIA recruiters set up shop led to arrests by campus police, then more demonstrations, more arrests, and then more demonstrations. The CIA finally stopped visiting UC-Boulder for the next ten years. In April 2005, the CIA withdrew from recruiting events at New York University when they learned of planned student demonstrations.

Since 2006, the presence of an IC/CAE at the University of Washington has ignited faculty senate debates and student demonstrations. In fall 2010, at the University of Texas Pan American, the College Council of the College of Arts and Humanities unanimously passed a resolution stating the Council: “opposes...further ODNI funding for academic programs at UTPA, rejects establishing an ‘Intelligence Analysis Campus’ as incompatible with the independence of the University and the traditional mission of liberal education and asks the Faculty Senate to initiate a public inquiry into the appropriateness of the de facto collusion between the University and these intelligence agencies....”

The Senate responded by sponsoring a public debate on the subject in Spring 2011. The IC/CAE grant ended at UTPA in May 2011 and the Intelligence Analysis Campus proposal died.

Dissecting CIA’s History

I began researching this issue two years ago when I discovered the CIA on my campus. With the help of college professors across the country we produced The CIA on Campus: Academic Freedom and the National Security State (McFarland and Company). In this book, seven academics on five campuses dissect CIA history, current college outreach, and how to get the spies off campus. Perhaps the most disturbing essay is by Verne Lyon who describes step by step how, when recruited by the CIA as an apolitical college student, his life became a descent into secrecy, lies, and criminal activity that negatively impacted the careers and lives of his fellow students and corrupted the ideal of an academy that values a search for truth. _Z

Philip Zwerling is a college professor in Texas and editor of The CIA on Campus: Essays on Academic Freedom and the National Security State. Photo credits: Sit-in at Notre Dame to protest CIA and Dow Chemical campus recruitment, 1960s. Photo from Notre Dame archives; Iraq Veterans Against the War protest CIA recruitment at the University of Illinois, Campaign-Urbana, 2009. Photo from Champaign-Urbana online magazine.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Freeing the World to Death - The Pike Report [.pdf]

Jailed CIA Operatives Spied In Every Field (The United States of Oil Corporations Scarfices)

Secrets of the CIA Video!

CIA on Campus

The CIA on Campus: Essays on Academic Freedom and the National Security State

American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain

The CIA slips onto campus to conduct 'a Model U.N. for the intelligence community

WC Wins High Honors at CIA Tri-State Intelligence Simulation

Intelligence Community Center of Excellent (CAE)

Church Committee Hearings

Peter B. Collins & Boiling Frogs: Prof. Philip Zwerling, The CIA On Campus Part 1

Peter B. Collins & Boiling Frogs: Prof. Stephen Soldz, The CIA on Campus Part 2

Peter B. Collins & Boiling Frogs: Prof. Roberto Gonzalez, The CIA on Campus Part 3

Recent Declassified CIA Files |-:o

The CIA on Campus: Essays on Academic Freedom and the National Security State

Operation CHAOS

Declassified CIA Profile Requirements |-:o

Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010

A Terrible Mistake

Declassified MK-Ultra Project Documents

Declassified Internal IG Report on (A)buse |-:o

CIA Support of Death Squads

Top Secret Investigation Findings on CIA (A)buse |-:o

America's Premier International Terrorist Organization

Mapping the FBI: Uncovering Abusive Surveillance and Racial Profiling -- TIs -- Heads Up!

By the ACLU - Posting #175

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is collecting racial and ethnic information and “mapping” American communities around the country based on crude stereotypes about which groups commit different types of crimes.

Nationwide, the FBI is gathering reports on innocent Americans' so-called “suspicious activity” and sharing it with unknown numbers of federal, state and local government agencies.

In response, the ACLU's “Mapping the FBI” initiative seeks to expose misconduct, abuse of authority, and unconstitutional profiling and other violations of Americans' rights and liberties across the country.

As our nation's predominant law enforcement agency, the FBI should be tracking true threats, not wasting resources and inappropriately mapping American communities on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. Law enforcement programs based on evidence and facts are more effective than a system based on racial stereotypes or mass suspicion.

Yet, in the decade since 9/11, long-standing safeguards on the FBI's investigative and intelligence collection activities have been erased, allowing it to engage in racial and profiling and to initiate intrusive investigations with little or no suspicion of wrongdoing.

Taken together, the changes in the FBI's authority have vastly expanding its ability to engage in unlawful and abusive surveillance of innocent Americans. See: Expanded FBI Authority »

The ACLU is working in the courts, in Congress and in communities to expose the ways in which the FBI's expanded authority threatens civil rights and civil liberties. Our work includes:

* Eye on the FBI: Consolidating information obtained through ACLU records requests, lawsuits and reports, the ACLU's “Eye on the FBI” alerts provide regular and detailed analysis of FBI activities that pose a threat to civil liberties. These activities include the use of factually incorrect and bigoted biased counterterrorism materials and FBI racial profiling. Learn more »

* Racial and Ethnic Mapping: 34 ACLU affiliates have filed public records requests to uncover how the FBI is using racial and ethnic demographic information and data about “ethnic-oriented” business and facilities to “map” and investigate local communities. ACLU affiliates in Michigan, New Jersey and Northern California are in federal court to enforce their records requests and secure information for the public. Learn more »

* eGuardian: The ACLU has sued the FBI and the Justice Department to learn more about an FBI monitoring and information-sharing program known as “eGuardian,” through which the bureau collects so-called “Suspicious Activities Reports” (SARs) from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies nationwide. Learn more »

* Spy Files: This ACLU effort paints a comprehensive picture of the vast and expanding infrastructure of surveillance in the U.S. today by local, state and federal law enforcement—including the FBI. Documents obtained by the ACLU show that through this de facto domestic intelligence system, our government is monitoring and recording Americans' First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities. Learn more »

* FBI Interviews: The ACLU is working to educate individuals and community organizations across the country about their rights when encountering law enforcement. Over the past two years, the FBI has significantly increased its use of “voluntary” interviews – especially within specific racial, ethnic, and religious communities – often encouraging interviewees to serve as informants in their communities. LOL Know Your Rights » LOL

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: Fake terror plots, paid informants: the tactics of FBI 'entrapment' questioned

ACLU Spy Files

Eye on the FBI: Exposing Misconduct and Abuse of Authority

Mapping the FBI

Tell the FBI: Don't Map Me or My Community!

Expanded FBI Authority

ACLU Letter to Attorney General Holder

Learn more: Expanded FBI Authority

Yet More Spy Vultures Take Flight From The Tor Nest

By: Anon - Posting #174 - Original by Cryptome

Note* Anon exposes some disturbing issues concerning rouge developers working under the Tor umbrella. Can some of the security issues surrounding SSL be traced back to Tor development and developers.

An interesting bug report was filed on the Mozilla bug tracker in September. [1] It is titled ``Addons can silently disable certificate validation and alter errors that are presented to the user'' and names the Convergence Firefox plugin what it really is -- a spy tool.

But first, recall my expose of the EFF's Firefox plugin -- the Decentralized SSL Observatory. [2] This plugin was a joint effort by the EFF and the Tor Project, with Mike Perry as a developer. Another of the developers is Peter Eckersley who maintains the plugin's source code repository on Tor's servers. [3] The purpose of this plugin was to intercept all SSL certificates seen by the user's browser and secretly send them all back to EFF servers for `observation'. It was shown how all this was to be pushed to users' machines without their knowledge nor consent. I'll take this opportunity to remind the EFF -- as a legal entity in the United States -- of the possible implications of not reigning in their wannabe spy friends' behaviour.

This brings us to the Convergence Firefox plugin. [4] The author, `Moxie Marlinspike' (real name unknown) openly bragged in 2009 of intercepting Tor exit node traffic. [5] In fact, passive spying was not enough for `Moxie', he actively tampered with exit node traffic, specifically the SSL layer, removing any encryption which got in the way of his spying. This way, he was able to collect passwords and credit card numbers alike. Supposedly all this was to raise awareness of the insecurity of HTTPS. However, not only did Tor users remain oblivious to his actions -- the Tor Project kept mute -- so that they could perhaps modify their behaviour accordingly (like, say, not using Tor), but `Moxie' then went on to lecture cadets at West Point about his spying skills. [6] An anarchist security researcher wanting to raise awareness? Or a wannabe spy wanting a piece of the spy establishment's pie?

Back to that Mozilla bug. `Moxie' has been itching to push his plugin on ignorant users -- which, he openly brags, intercepts users' SSL certificates and distributes them to his network of servers (just like the EFF/Tor Project's Distributed SSL Observatory plugin). Seeing this, a Mozilla developer opened the bug to discuss how to protect users from these malicious plugins. The reply from `Moxie', apart from flames on Twitter, was:

``Addons can execute arbitrary code, and the potential for malicious addons is somewhat infinite.'' [7]

Apart from being absurd (in the logical sense), this sentence is incorrect. Something is either finite or infinite, there is no ``somewhat infinite.'' Machines are finite, and their possibilities are also finite. His reponse to developers trying to protect users by fixing a bug he exploits to spy on them is ``There's so many other bugs, and I will never give up trying to spy on people, so just give up now.''

Note that Google LOL not only makes Moxie's spying on Chrome users impossible by design (Google's policy is only NSA gets to spy on you, no one else), but Google Chrome developers have outright rejected the possibility. LOL (Does someone smell bullshit here)[8] Not because Google is concerned about user privacy, but because Google wants to own all the notaries first...

Finally, note that Jacob Appelbaum has been one of the few vocal supporters of Moxie's work. Appelbaum has also been outed as a spy of Tor users' traffic. Note also that Anonymous recently outed Mike Perry as a Tor exit spy -- and worse, as probably the target of their recent takedown of child pornography. Anonymous' expose is well worth the read. [9]

The moral of this story is that birds of a feather flock together -- `Moxie' is a one trick poney and is looking to replicate his success in spying on Tor users by bringing the spying straight to the browsers of a wider audience (maybe West Point will fly him out again and put him up in a nice hotel). This person has no integrity, they don't even use their real name.

SSL, like Tor, were designed from the bottom up as spy tools. Only once another government gets a clue and begins exploiting them (cf. Comodo/DigiNotar) do the wannabe spies take exception. Keep this pattern in mind, it is important.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References:

Bug 686095 - Addons can silently disable certificate validation and alter errors that are presented to the user

Planned not-so-secret Backdoor in Tor/EFF Software Exposed

In this memo, a planned not-so-secret backdoor in Tor/EFF software is exposed. ``HTTPS Everywhere'' is a Firefox extension developed by the EFF. [1] Basically, this extension forces your browser to use HTTP with SSL (HTTPS), when browsing common websites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Wikipedia. HTTPS Everywhere intercepts the (unencrypted) HTTP requests your browser sends when browsing various websites, and replaces these on the fly with (encrypted) HTTPS requests, whenever possible. This is great, since HTTPS is supposedly more secure than HTTP (cf. Firesheep). Note, however, that this browser extension now has access to: all your browsing habits -- visited sites, precise timestamps, etc.; all content -- whether it's encrypted on the wire or not; and specifics of the SSL connection -- SSL certificates contain a bundle of metadata. The importance and relevance of this fact will become clear briefly.

Projects / pde/https-everywhere.git / summary

An agile, distributed,and secure strategy for replacing Certificate Authorities

[Tor-talk] Tor spying

Video - Beginning at 55 minutes into the video.

Moxie 2011-09-10 08:54:27 PDT:

Agreed, I think this bug is a step backwards. Addons can execute arbitrary code, and the potential for malicious addons is somewhat infinite. Even if malicious addons were not able to intercept SSL traffic, they could simply intercept keystrokes and transmit those home instead. It'd be a lot easier.

Why not Convergence? (07 Sep 2011)

False stories were planted against the IT community LOL [I wonder WHO did this?] LOL

At-last, we cracked the lock and found the true identity of the builder and architect of Freedom Hosting. What we found was truly shocking, it was the deeds to a California, USA 'shell' company for 12 Tor Exit Nodes named Formless Networking LLC.

Top Secret America: The Rise of the Nazi American Security State

By Dana Priest and William M. Arkin - Posting #173
Analysis of the FY 2011 Defense Budget
State of Homelessness in America 2011 
Report: Military Blew $1 Trillion on Weapons Since 9/11

A Perpetual State of Yellow

Though she could barely walk anymore at age seventy-six, Joy Whiteman remained calm as she fumbled to remove her new white tennis shoes, lift herself out of her wheelchair, and grab the side of the X-ray machine. She teetered slowly, in socks, through the security scanner at the Boise Airport in Idaho. Airport security guards folded her wheelchair and rolled it through the scanner, keeping an eye on the frail woman in a bright flowered jacket.

“Can you make it without pain?” a guard asked her.

“Oh, sure,” she replied.

Whiteman followed instructions, lifted her hands above her head, emptied her pockets of crumpled pieces of paper, then apologized for having left her driver’s license in her purse rather than having it in hand for the guards to examine with her plane ticket. The line slowed behind her. Some people sighed at the inconvenience. Others smiled in sympathy at the awkward sight. I grimaced. What were the odds that she was a terrorist?

But Whiteman didn’t mind at all. “I have no problem with it. I don’t want to blow up,” she said when I asked about the hassle. “I could be carrying a gun or something.”

“Yeah,” her husband, Bill, 72, said. “These people are always one step ahead of us.”

Whiteman’s smile faded. “Last time, they wheeled me through without looking at the X-ray,” she said. “I could have had a bomb or explosives.”

A decade of terrorism warnings about possible attacks in the United States had convinced Whiteman that she had much to fear. Walking through a body scanner without her wheelchair was a small price to pay for safety. Never mind that no terrorist had ever fit her profile or been foiled walking through a security scanner. Never mind that the Department of Homeland Security, which was responsible for setting airport security policy, was ridiculed by people at every other intelligence agency because it hadn’t learned to hone its focus and still saw threats everywhere.

The scene of Joy Whiteman holding herself up with the walls of the body scanner while a crew of security guards, paid by taxpayers, made sure she didn’t fall, seemed a perfect metaphor for what has transpired in the United States over the past ten years. Having been given a steady diet of vague but terrifying information from national security officials about the possibility of dirty bombs, chemical weapons, biotoxins, exploding airliners, and suicide bombers, a nation of men and women like the Whitemans have shelled out hundreds of billions dollars to turn the machine of government over to defeating terrorism without ever really questioning what they were getting for their money. And even if they did want an answer to that question, they would not be given one, both because those same officials have decided it would gravely harm national security to share such classified information— and because the officials themselves don’t actually know.

LOL - In the panic-filled chaos of late 2001 through 2002, this dragnet approach to terrorism was understandable, given how little the CIA, the FBI, and military intelligence agencies knew then about al(cia)-Qaeda.- LOL But in ten years, they have made vast strides in technical surveillance capabilities and intelligence analysis. They have killed so many al(cia)-Qaeda operatives that only hundreds are left in the world (in addition to the organization’s post-9/11 affiliates). The dragnet approach no longer makes much sense.

One reason America is stuck at Yellow Alert — “Significant Risk” of terrorist attack accompanied by no specific information — and stuck with such an enormous complex of organizations and agencies trying to defend the country is that being wrong is too costly for politicians in Washington. “Who wants to be the guy that says we don’t need this anymore and then three weeks later something happens?” asked Obama national security adviser James Jones, former commandant of the Marine Corps. “I don’t think you can ever get it back” to a smaller size.

We believe the primary reason for this is that the government has still not engaged the American people in an honest conversation about terrorism and the appropriate U.S. response to it. We hope our book will promote one.

Many people in the intelligence community wish this book were not being published at all. Before publishing our initial series on Top Secret America in the Washington Post in July 2010, we showed the government a database of government organizations and private companies working at the top secret level, assembled over several years as part of our research. We described how the data had been culled from publicly available information, and asked to hear any national security concerns. After detailed discussions with most of the sixteen agencies of the intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is supposed to lead those agencies, returned with a surprising request: don’t publish the database. It might harm national security, we were told. The office declined to offer specifics and issued a warning to contractors about the impending publication of the series. The Post, meanwhile, had already begun to identify possible national security issues, and executive editor Marcus Brauchli ordered appropriate changes.

We are grateful to Little, Brown for allowing us to put this case before readers in much greater detail.

Despite all the unauthorized disclosures of classified information and programs in scores of articles since September 11, 2001, our military and intelligence sources cannot think of an instance in which security has been seriously damaged by the release of information. On the contrary, much harm has been done to the counterterrorism effort itself, and to the American economy and U.S. strategic goals, by allowing the government to operate in the dark, by continuing to dole out taxpayer money to programs that have no value and to employees, many of them private contractors, who are making no significant contribution to the country’s safety. Allowing outsiders like us to signal shortcomings is one of the great protections the U.S. Constitution gives to the media.

Calling the reaction to al(cia)-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack a “war” ensured that the government could justify classifying everything associated with fighting it. Under President George Bush, journalists’ efforts to figure out how the United States was waging this war against al-Qaeda were often criticized by senior administration leaders, members of Congress, cable television pundits, even the public. Many of those journalists hoped that would change under the presidency of Barack Obama. It is true the president and his cabinet members have not publicly disparaged the news media as much as his predecessor did. But behind the scenes, the situation is actually much worse. President Obama’s Justice Department has taken a more aggressive tack against the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by pursuing more so-called leak investigations than the Bush administration. Recent indictments were issued against a former CIA employee who allegedly talked to book author James Risen, a New York Times reporter, about a botched attempt to slip faulty nuclear plans to Iran; and a former National Security Agency official, Thomas Drake, who helped a Baltimore Sun reporter detail the waste of billions of dollars at his agency. In early June 2011, the government was forced to offer Drake a deal because its lawyers said they did not want to reveal classified information related to the case in court. Drake accepted the prosecution’s offer to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor of misusing a government computer to provide information to an unauthorized person. He is expected to serve no prison time. Then there is the case of former Justice Department official Thomas Tamm. In August 2007, eighteen FBI agents, some with their guns drawn, burst into his home with only his wife and children present, to raid his files during an investigation into his alleged role in helping the New York Times develop its seminal warrantless surveillance story in 2004. The government dropped his case nearly four years later, in April 2011, after Tamm’s career had been ruined and he faced financial peril.

The Justice Department is also mulling an indictment on LOL espionage charges LOL against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing tens of thousands of pages of classified U.S. diplomatic cables and war-related field reports, some of them allegedly provided by a young army private first class, who is also under arrest. Regardless of Assange’s publicly stated bias against U.S. policies and the allegations against his personal behavior, this unprecedented trove of material has allowed reporters around the world to write some of the most insightful and revealing stories of our time. In some cases those revelations even fueled brave public protests against undemocratic, corrupt regimes, developments the U.S. government says it supports in the name of promoting democracy.

Congress has jumped on the secrecy bandwagon, too. Maryland senator Benjamin Cardin — whose state is home to the National Security Agency, the nation’s eavesdroppers — introduced a bill in 2011 making it a felony to disclose classified information to an unauthorized person. This legislation expands considerably the current law that makes it illegal to disclose information on nuclear codes, cryptography, electronic intercepts, nuclear weapons designs, and the identities of covert agents. But most important, it places even greater power into the hands of the executive branch to just declare something classified rather than to have to demonstrate that harm would be done if the information were to be made public.

Had Cardin’s law been on the books shortly after 9/11, newspapers would have had a much harder time publishing stories about the CIA’s covert prisons and waterboarding and other harsh treatment of detainees. Journalists may have been kept from revealing that many of the captives held at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, turned out not to be terrorists at all; that U.S. Army soldiers were abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison; that the National Security Agency was collecting communications of people living in the United States without the required permission; and even that in 2011 Pakistan had rounded up men in their country they believed had helped U.S. authorities find Osama bin Laden.

The laws under consideration also would have made it illegal for government employees to help reporters research articles in 2002 and 2003 about the weakness of evidence surrounding Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction or, seven years later, the stunning admission by the key one-time German intelligence source, code-named Curveball, that his story was entirely fabricated.

Another piece of legislation now under consideration would criminalize the disclosure and publication of information about human intelligence — spies and informants. That law may have made it illegal for newspapers to have published articles about Canadian citizen Maher Arar, whom U.S. authorities turned over to the infamously inhumane Syrian police in 2002 after mistakenly deciding he was a terrorist. Or the CIA’s bungled operation in Macedonia, where case officers mistook German citizen Khalid al-Masri for someone else and disappeared him for months, something that has cost him his sanity. He is a broken man today, one without even a public apology from the United States.

This book offers a counterproposal: that only more transparency and debate will make us safe from terrorism and the other serious challenges the United States faces. Terrorism is not just about indiscriminate violence. As its name suggests, it is about instilling paranoia and profound anxiety. It aims to disrupt economies and inspire government clampdowns. It is time to close the decade-long chapter of fear, to confront the colossal sum of money that could have been saved or better spent, to remember what we are truly defending, and in doing so, to begin a new era of openness and better security against our enemies.

"And Ye Shall Know The Truth And The Truth Shall Set You Free"

WAKE UP AMERICA....ITs OUR COUNTRY!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don

References: [Just for you PeRpS] [CIAIdiots following Twitter, Facebook] LOL LOL LOL

The Ominous Parallels

The Ominous Parallels [Mirror]

The Ominous Parallels [Library]