Update On The State of Surveillance - OMG

by Pratap Chatterjee - Posting #205

A German tech company is selling the ability to track "political opponents." An Italian company promises to remotely seize control of smartphones and photograph their owners. A U.S. company allows security services to "see what they [the targets]see." A South African company can store recordings of billions of phone calls, forever.

Welcome to the new covert world of surveillance contractors. Shining a light on this $5 billion (and growing) industry, Wikileaks today released "Spy Files": hundreds of secret sales brochures. The companies involved hand this promotional material only to key contacts -- often government agencies and police forces -- at trade shows that are closed to the public and the press.

“The tools revealed in these brochures demonstrate the previously unfathomable power of mass surveillance. It makes phone-hacking look like a schoolboy's game,” says Eric King of Privacy International. “Some of the most tyrannical regimes in the world are buying the power to monitor the behavior and communications of every single citizen -- and the technology is so effective that they are able to accomplish this with minimal manpower.”

An analysis by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Privacy International of the brochures shows that at least 160 companies in 25 countries from Brazil to Switzerland are selling an array of technologies so sophisticated that they often seem to have come of a Hollywood studio.

But what the “Spy Files” reveal is real. The documents add weight to campaigners’ claim that these proliferating technology companies constitute a new, unregulated arms industry. "What we are seeing is the militarization of cyber-space. It's like having a tank in your front garden," says Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks.

The industry brochures state that they only sell “lawful interception” gear to official authorities: the police, the military and intelligence agencies.

But the sales brochures also boast of vast powers of covert observation using off-the-shelf gear that, activists worry, repressive security forces and corrupt officials can easily abuse.

"Why sample, when you can monitor all network traffic inexpensively?” trumpets a brochure from Endace, a New Zealand-based company. “Total monitoring of all operators to plug any intelligence leakage is critical for government agencies,” offers Indian-based ClearTrail.

China Top Communications, in Beijing, claims to be able to crack passwords of more than 30 email service providers, including Gmail, “in real time by a PASSIVE WAY [sic].” In the obfuscating language of the surveillance industry, “passive” is a euphemism for intercepting data without the targets’ knowledge.

The surveillance technology being offered for sale falls into four broad categories: tracking real-time locations of mobile phones and vehicles, hacking into electronic devices such as computers and phones to monitor every keystroke, recording and storing data traffic of an entire telecommunications network, and analyzing vast streams of data to track individual users.

In recent months, news has filtered out on how repressive governments are using these technologies to crack down on dissent. In October, for example, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Privacy International revealed that Syria, despite US export ban, is deploying web filtering equipment from California-based Blue Coat Systems to censor internet traffic. The company later explained the equipment had been diverted from an importer based in the United Arab Emirates.

The Italian company, Area SPA, also aided Syrian government’s repressive policies by installing a surveillance system, an investigation by Bloomberg recently uncovered. The news emerged as Syria was convulsed by mass protests that have left 3,500 dead at the hands of state security forces. Area's lawyers announced last Monday that the company had cancelled the project.

The speed at which this technology is advancing, and the way it is being used raise serious concerns. As technological capacity expands, "the dominant use of surveillance technologies is increasingly the wholesale spying on entire populations, rather than targeted monitoring of a few individuals," says Dr. Steven Murdoch, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University. "As communication becomes ever more critical to civil society, the abuse of surveillance is a rapidly increasing, and already substantial, threat to democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights in general." Special Note: See NBIC Report

Phone Tracking

One popular mobile-phone tracking technology is an IMSI catcher. This highly portable device poses as a mini mobile phone tower that can capture all the mobile phones signals in an area, effectively identifying all phone users in a particular place. Today, dozens of companies sell IMSI catchers. Some can fit into a briefcase; others are as small as a mobile phone.

Once up, the IMSI catcher tricks phones into wirelessly sending it data. By setting up several IMSI catchers and measuring the speed of the responses or 'pings' from a phone, the surveiller can follow on a computer screen the location and movement of anyone with turned-on mobile, anywhere within the parameters of the IMSI catchers -- even when they are not using their phones.

Companies that offer this equipment include Ability in Israel, Rohde & Schwarz in Germany, and Harris Corporation in the US.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which uses these devices to track suspects, claims it can do so without a court order. Many police forces around the world have also bought, or are considering buying, IMSI catchers.

Other companies offer passive surveillance devices that can be installed at phone exchanges, or even stand-alone equipment that can covertly vacuum up all the mobile phone signals in an area.

Specialized gadgets attached to a vehicle can track where it goes. (to include factory installed black boxes) While logistics and trucking companies have long used these devices to ensure on-time delivery of goods, UK-based Cobham sells Orion Guardian covert devices that can be secretly attached to the bottom of a car. Hidden Technology, another British company, sells similar devices.

“For years, there has been a gentleman's agreement on how these technologies are used,” says Chris Soghoian, a Washington DC-based fellow at the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research. “The US and the UK know that the Chinese and the Russians are using IMSI catchers -- but so are we. Each government believes that the benefit of being able to use it abroad outweighs the risk to their own citizens.

"But today, anyone -- a stalker or a private company- - can show up in Chelsea or Tottenham Court Road [London] and listen to everyone else,” adds Soghoian. “It is time to switch to more encrypted systems that keep everyone safe.”

Hacking

Several companies offer “Trojan” software and phone “malware” that allow the user to take control of a target's computer or phone.

The software can be installed from a USB drive, or delivered remotely by disguising itself as an email attachment or software update. Once in place, a surveiller can riffle through a target's files, log every keystroke, and even remotely turn on phone and computer microphones and cameras to spy on the target in real-time.

Hacking Team of Italy, Vupen Security in France, Gamma Group in the UK, and SS8 in the US, each offer such products, which they variously claim can hack the Apple iPhone, BlackBerry, Skype, and the Microsoft operating system.

Hacking Team is probably the most public of these companies, advertising on a public website that its “Remote Control System” can “monitor a hundred thousand targets.”

SS8 of Milpitas, California, claims that its Intellego product allows security forces to “see what they [the targets] see, in real time” including a “draft-only emails, attached files, pictures and videos.”

These technologies often rely on software vulnerabilities. While major software manufacturers claim to fix these flaws as soon as they are discovered, at least one company, Vupen, boasts dedicated researchers in its “Offensive Solutions” division who are constantly looking to exploit new security holes in popular software.

Hacking systems have recently surfaced in countries with repressive governments. In March when Egyptian democracy activists raided the intelligence headquarters of Hosni Mubarak's regime, they uncovered contract documents for a hacking program called FinFisher that is marketed by Gamma Group, a UK company. Governments can use this product to “identify an individual's location, their associates and members of a group, such as political opponents,” according to a brochure from Elaman, a German company with close links to Gamma which also sells FinFisher.

Massive Surveillance

While hacking software targets individuals, other technologies on the market can monitor and censor an entire data or telecommunications network. Massive surveillance works by capturing everyone's activities -- whether they are a suspect or not -- and then sifting it for valuable information. For example, US companies Blue Coat Systems and Cisco Systems offer corporate and government buyers technology that can filter web access based on commercial, political, religious or cultural criteria.

Businesses routinely these web-filtering products to catch employees surfing the web when they should be working. But the same technologies can also be used to block social networking websites such as Facebook, multimedia services including Flickr and YouTube, and internet phone services like Skype in countries ranging from China to the United Arab Emirates.

An extension of this technology, “deep packet inspection,” allows the user to scan web and email traffic, and to read through huge volumes of web searches and emails searching for keywords:

--Companies including ipoque in Germany and Qosmos in France offer the ability to peer inside email traffic and block specific users such as dissidents.

--Datakom, a German company, sells a product called Poseidon that can “'search and reconstruct... web, mail, instant messaging etc.” The company also claims Poseidon “collects, records and analyses VoIP calls,” such as Skype conversations.

--Datakom, which offers “monitoring of a complete country,” says it has sold two “large IP monitoring'” systems to unnamed buyers in the Middle East and North Africa region.

--South African VASTech sells Zebra, a product that gives governments the ability to compress and store billions of hours of phone calls and petabytes (a billion megabytes) of information for future analysis. In August, the Wall Street Journal reported that VASTech devices had been installed at the country's international phone exchanges.

Data Analysis

Needless to say, the sheer volume of data form internet traffic, the locations of individuals and their phone conversations could overwhelm. But a parallel analytical technology is providing intelligence agencies, the military, and the police with sophisticated tools that compile and sift information for use in criminal investigations and even in the battlefield.

For example, Speech Technology Center, based in Russia, offers a product called STC Grid ID that it claims provides “reliable identification [of a] nation-wide database of speakers.”

Czech Republic-based Phonexia, with the help of the Czech military, claims to have developed a similar voice-recognition program. Italian-based Loquendo uses 'voice-prints' -- the unique signature of the human voice -- to identify targets and flag up their calls in real-time. And yet another company, Massachusetts-based Intelligent Integration Systems (IISi), sells Geospatial Toolkit, a “location-based analytics' program.”

But legal documents filed in the US show that these technologies do not always work as promised.

Another Massachusetts company, Netezza, allegedly bought a copy of Geospatial Toolkit, reverse-engineered the code, and then sold a hacked version to the CIA for use in remotely piloted drone aircraft. IISi, which says that the software could be wrong by a distance of up to 40 feet, sued Netezza to prevent the use of this software. Company founder Rich Zimmerman stated in court that his “reaction was one of stunned amazement that they (CIA) want to kill people with my software that doesn't work.”

The two companies settled out of court in November 2010. The CIA has refused to comment.

Digital Past, Dystopian Future

Wikileaks warns that the surveillance contractors revealed in the Spy Files are selling the ability to irrevocably alter our lives with their ability to delve into the digital past.

"We all aware of traditional spy stories of intelligence agencies like MI5 bugging the phone of one or two people," says Julian Assange. “In the last ten years, something else has happened. We now see mass surveillance, where computer systems of an entire country are infected by surveillance programs, where the entire phone calls of a nation can be and are recorded by a company.”

"Previously we had all thought, why would the government be interested in me, my brother? My business is not interesting, I am not a criminal,” Assange told the Bureau earlier this week. “Now these companies sell to state intelligence agencies the ability to spy on the entire population at once and keep that information permanently. In five or six years’ time, if your brother or someone becomes of interest to that company or the government, they can go back in time and look to see what you said or what you emailed."

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　

References: In 1976, NSA Was Tasked to Help Secure Private Communications LOL LOL LOL

IMSI Catcher

STC Grid ID

The Spy Files :o

ADSL Interception

Privacy International

State of Surveillance - TBOIJ

Intelligent Integration Systems (IISi)

State of Surveillance: The Data - TBOIJ

LEST WE FORGET - The Science of World Domination

By Denis Boneau - Posting #204 - Excellent :)

Communication sciences, whose development have been monitored by the CIA since the 50s, have been a key instrument in the “psychological warfare” waged against pro-Soviet governments and the countries that could follow the socialist block.

Texas A&M University, the army and the secret services gathered information on “the enemy,” drew up NATO’s propaganda, prevented the emergence of liberation movements opposed to Washington and even served as torture advisers. Out of this “alliance between science and politics” a mechanism still used by the U.S. was created.

Since 1945, Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower institutionalized the propaganda agencies founded during WWII and gave them their new mission: to fight the Soviet Union and the socialist republics, labeled as satellites. “Containment”, the general strategy designed by Truman and his advisers, consisted in blocking the expansion of communism through the control of the national emancipation movements that could give the power to pro-Soviet or pro-socialist leaders. This ambitious project demanded the collaboration of experts capable of providing geographical, economic, cultural, psychological and sociological data useful to the army and the secret services. In this context, certain behavioral “scientists”, some of which had already worked against the Third Reich, were included in the new Cold War propaganda services.

In November 1945, General John Magruder proposed the military intelligence to be in charge of a “peace time” ambitious propaganda project based on the achievements of human sciences. However, his initiative did not convince American President Truman who decided to dismantle Donovan (Wild Bill)’ OSS [1], Roosevelt protégée. On its side, the Office of War Information (OWI) [2] was dismantled too on the ground of favoring Roosevelt’s 1944 reelection. In January 1946, Truman founded the Central Intelligence Group (CIG) which was renamed several weeks later the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) whose operations were unmentionable and unimaginable: «propaganda, economic war, direct preventive action, sabotage, anti-sabotage, destruction, subversion against hostile States, assistance to clandestine liberation movements, guerrilla, murders, assistance to indigenous groups opposed to the enemy countries of the ’free world’...». The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) [3] was the office in charge of implementing all these activities under the command of OSS veteran, Franck Wisner.

Theoretically speaking, the OPC depended on the CIA. But in real life, Wisner, backed up by George Kennan, had an enormous freedom of action. The OPC was in charge of a considerable part of “psychological warfare” operations. Wisner recruited scientists to guarantee data search, to convince “neutral” intellectuals and, obviously, to draw up NATO’s propaganda.

What is Psychological Warfare?

Psychological warfare includes a number of actions that range from radio propaganda to torture and require comprehensive information on the targeted populations. In a document written in 1948, American ground forces defined “psychological warfare” in the following way: «It is based on moral and physical means different from those upon which orthodox military techniques are based on. Its purpose is:

• To destroy the will and the fighting spirit of the enemy and avoid its allies support.
• To encourage our troops and our allies’ will of being victorious.

The psychological warfare uses every possible weapon to have an influence on the will of the enemy. The weapons are labeled as psychological because of their effect and not because of their own nature. This is the reason why, open propaganda (white), secret (black) or grey propaganda -subversion, sabotage, murders, special operations, guerrilla, espionage, political, economic and racial pressures- are considered as useful weapons [in the psychological warfare] ». To implement this program of “psychological warfare” the secret services recruit specialists on behavioral sciences capable of inventing the “simple, clear and repetitive” white propaganda and the black propaganda aimed at provoking «disorder, confusion and... terror» within the enemy forces.

Projects Troy and Camelot

Project Tory consisted in mobilizing scholars to identify the available means to transmit “Truth” (American propaganda) to the other side of the Iron Curtain [4]. Its objective was to strengthen the Voice of America (VOA), the broadcasting network founded by the International Information Service (IIS) which was an institution established by Truman to replace OWI. The Voice of America was a “white” propaganda operation whose objective was to promote the U.S. (“democracy”, “the American way of life”, “freedom”, were obviously the leitmotiv of the VOA discourse). One of the main leaders of Project Troy was James Webb, adviser to Secretary of State Dean Acheson and a quick follower of “psychological warfare” who suggested university experts and the government to work closer.

The scientists of Project Troy wrote a report in which they affirmed that Voice of America would not be enough to penetrate the Iron Curtain. Therefore, they suggested other means. Project Troy had to focus first on broadcasting and propaganda. Once they analyzed the purposes of their sponsors -the armed forces, the navy and probably the CIA- they decided to go further and proposed other channels to implement their “white” propaganda: university exchanges, publications of books... and affirmed that information could be transmitted by simply using the mail, through professional journals and other commerce or industrial publications. The report included very precise recommendations such as the centralization of propaganda operations and, consequently, Truman founded the Psychological Strategy Board, encouraged the studies on the “Soviet society” [program of interviews with dissidents] and favored the establishment of CENIS [5].

After this first important collaboration, the air force demanded a report on the Korean population in 1950. Wilbur Schramm (considered as the founding father of the mass communication paradigm), John Ridley and Fredericks Williams were given the mission of interviewing anti-communist refugees to draw up a propaganda strategy on Korea. The study produced two kinds of documents: publications in Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ), the official magazine of «psychological warfare» followers, a book titled The Reds Take a City and a secret report for the ground forces.

Another expression of the «psychological warfare», was the Camelot Project during the 60s. It was about defining models of the processes that led to national revolutions in Third World countries to facilitate counter-insurgence operations. Camelot was a real example of the strengthening ties between behavioral scholars and the American secret services. Begun in 1963, this project was aimed at facilitating interventions in Yemen, Cuba and Congo and -theoretically speaking- foreseeing and preventing the risk of revolution. In Chile, some left-wing newspapers denounced the American government involvement which directed Camelot through the Special Operations Research Office (SORO). The “yankee espionage plan” failed partially for, it seemed, the conclusions of the report were used by the American secret services to overthrow Allende and establish General Pinochet junta [6].

College Involvement: My Posting On This :)

The understanding between a number of university graduates and the ground forces brought about the emergence of a new science used by the secret services. Communication sciences and the paradigm of “mass communication”, financed by the air force, the navy, the CIA, the State Department (...) led to an effective propaganda that was to penetrate the Iron Curtain through different ways: (leaflets, broadcasting...). The discipline’s field of study was wide: persuasion techniques, opinion polls, interviews, military and political mobilizations, dissemination of ideology... In order to satisfy the demand of scientific data, several institutions were financed:

• Paul Lazarsfeld’s Bureau of Applied Social Research (BASR), located in Columbia university

• Hadley Cantril’s Institute for International Social Research (IISR) [.pdf]

• Ithiel de Sola Pool’s Center for International Studies (CENIS) (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) whose funds were distributed by the Ford Foundation [7], but were actually provided by the CIA.

• Bureau of Social Science Research (BSSR), directly financed by the CIA which wanted to improve its interrogation techniques.

• Torture was considered a research field in social sciences [8]. During the Korean war, the BSSR (main “black” propaganda research center) was in charge of carrying out studies for the army. It had to identify Eastern Europe population’s “vulnerability targets and factors” while defining different “aspects of psychological violence”. To be precise, BSSR wrote reports on the effects of traditional interrogation techniques -electric shocks, blows, drugs... Financed by the CIA (50% of the center’s social budget), these studies gathered information, especially on the populations of Viet Nam and Africa with the purpose of improving torture effectiveness [9].

A Magazine: Public Opinion Quarterly

In 1937, De Witt Poole, of Princeton University, founded the Public Opinion Quarterly (POQ) magazine. It published articles on “psychological warfare”, mainly written by the people working for the OWI, studies on civil Germans’ morale, essays on troop training, reflections on war propaganda...Certain researches seemed to be directly inspired in the concerns of the secret services and propaganda agencies (opinion polls in France and Italy...) The magazine board of directors comprised specialists working for the psychological project of the CIA: Paul Lazarsfeld, Hadley Cantril, Rensis Likert and De Witt Poole (who later became the president of the National Committee for a Free Europe).

The study on the systems of communication of the countries controlled by the Soviet Union or the countries that could be conquered by the communist groups allowed for information gathering to be used immediately by the ground forces’ strategists and the directions -usually very precise - on the propagation modalities of “white” propaganda and the «black» methods of terror. Communications sciences, considered as means of surveillance and coercion had therefore a purely manipulative nature.

The Sciences of Coercion against Neutralism

The paradigm of mass communication, brought into being due to the financing of the Cold War services, was inserted in a broader intellectual plan consisting in the division of the world map based on the American strategists’ logic. The thesis defended by the patriarch of this discipline, Wilbur Schramm, offered a perspective of this reductionist dimension of communication sciences.

Schramm’s system (as Leo Strauss’) was based on the «good guys/bad guys» antagonism. This moral principle (communism symbolized Evil and America symbolized Good) was shared by the majority of the intellectual and scientists committed to the American government in the fight against the Soviet expansion. In this fight, neutralism was considered treason.

The intellectual struggle went beyond convincing communism followers to involve neutrals. In the Congress for the Freedom of Culture, the New York Intellectuals followed by a bunch of European NATO’s defenders, such as Raymond Aron in France, pointed neutralism as the key target of “their” work. Communication scholars worked on the general plan designed by the CIA and the OPC. In an article published in POQ by Daniel Lemer different aspects of neutralism were questioned and a “model” of the individuals included in this category was designed. Lemer’s response to question: How to identify a neutral? was: «[For a neutral] to choose between the U.S. and the USSR is not the same as choosing between freedom and slavery». Lemer defined several elements of neutralism: “Peace, security, détente of international relations”.

Apart from the similarities between the ideological lines of «psychological warfare» and those of the Congress for the Freedom of Culture which showed the relative coherence of the plan designed by Wisner and CIA leaders, it could also be noted that the specialists of “masses manipulation” were usually reformed Marxists. An example of this was Paul Lazarsfeld’s career who would become one of the main ideologues of “mass communication” and during the late 20s was an active socialist. Special Note: See NBIC Report

In France, he had relations with the SFIO and Leo Lagrange. In 1932, the Rockefeller Foundation offered him a scholarship to study in the U.S. Based on the idea that there was a “methodological relation between the act of buying soap and the socialist vote”, he became famous by writing articles about marketing. The government and the secret services quickly noticed him and asked his collaboration in a research program on the effects of radio broadcasting (the Radio Research Program) financed by the Ford Foundation and founded by BASR whose fundings came from the army and the CIA.

In 1951, he was appointed Ford Foundation’s Social Sciences adviser. Then, he facilitated the foundation of the Institute of Advanced Studies on Social Sciences in Austria and the beginning of an exchange program with Yugoslavia and Poland. During the 60s, he was appointed for expert posts in UNESCO and OCDE [10]. Therefore, Paul Lazarsfeld broke relations with the socialist groups to join the “psychological warfare” scientific teams. But he was not the only one to do this, something commendable by the New York Intellectuals [11]. Leo Lowenthal, one of the main contributors of POQ participated actively too in the drawing up of the “psychological” techniques to fight his former Marxists’ friends.

The scientific field of “behavioral scholars” was the study of the systems of communication of the “risky” countries. Consequently, the relationship between the history of this discipline and the conflicts in which the U.S. was involved during the Cold War (Korea, Viet Nam... and secretly, Chile and Angola...) was not surprising.

The Validity of the “Psychological Warfare”

The mechanism founded by Wisner was still in force at the end of the Cold War. While “behavioral scholars” were being recruited, the CIA was financing numerous international research centers or “study areas” with the purpose of gathering information on the “risky” geographical zones. In 1947, the Carnegie Foundation provided the necessary funds for the establishment of the Russian Research Center. Since 1953, one of the main CIA’s fronts, the Ford Foundation, provided funds to 34 universities to carry out international researches.

This project was not only implemented in the U.S. The Rockefeller Foundation financed several «Area studies» in France, once the financed researchers’ political beliefs were carefully verified. The VI Section of the Practical School of Higher Studies, which later became the “Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales” (EHESS), welcomed several research teams that produced works on China, Russia and other regions of interest for the American services. Even today, international studies are still an essential part of the EHESS’ concerns.

On its side, the Voice of America, the American broadcasting network, -the favorite toy of project Troy’s behavioral scholars- is still in effect. The law, passed by the Congress in 1960, and enacted by President Ford stipulated that: «direct radio communication [white propaganda] with the peoples of the world is useful in the long term for the American interests (...) the news of the VOA will be precise, objective and complete (...) The VOA will present the American policy in a clear and effective way!». Today, the VOA programs broadcasted through the transmitter in Greenville (North Carolina), are aimed at African countries and essentially seem to counteract the French influence in the region (the VOA founded its French broadcasting services in 1960). [To include the American public]

By proclaiming its independence, the VOA ended its charter in the following way: «In the world, and especially in Africa, radio is still the main information mean. Today, as in the past (sic), our purpose is to broadcast programs with reliable and unbiased information to our listeners». In general, communications sciences favored the emergence of a new form of war propaganda adapted to the Cold War that was not conceived for a classical confrontation but for the ideological struggle between the East and the West and the low-intensity conflicts that took place in the Third World.

In 2001, the Bush Administration reactivated the Cold War mechanisms not to fight the Soviet Union but to impose a New World Order. Since September 11, 2001, the excuse for this reactivation has been the “war against terror”. In this context, the CIA turns again to universities. The director of scientific researches in the Agency, John Philips, took control of the Rochester Institute of Technology; Michael Crowl, vice director of the joint economic association of CIA in the computer sector, was appointed rector of the University of Arizona whereas Robert Gates (former CIA patron under Bush Senior) has become the director of Texas A&M University.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　

References:

[1] The OSS (Office of Strategic Services) is an intelligence and foreign action secret service founded during WWI. It used personalities of the social sciences such as Herbert Marcuse o Margaret Mead

[2] The Office of War Information was directed by Elmer Davis

[3] The OPC (Office of Policy Coordination) is the executive committee of the “stay-behind” network. See Thierry Meyssan: «Stay-behind, les réseaux d’ingérence américains», Voltaire, August 20, 2001

[4] Alan Needell: «Project Troy and the Cold war annexation», in Universities and Empire, Money and politics in the social sciences during the Cold war, The New Press, 1998

[5] The Center for International Studies (CENIS) is a department within the famous MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) directed by Max Millikan

[6] Ellen Herman: «Project Camelot and the Career of Cold War Psychology», ibid

[7] «La Fondation Ford, paravent philanthropique de la CIA», Voltaire, April 5, 2004

[8] Arthur Lepic: «Les manuels de torture de l’armée des États-Unis», Voltaire, May 26, 2004

[9] Christopher Simpson: Science of Coercion, Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960, Oxford university press, 1994

[10] Michael Pollack: «Paul Lazarsfeld, fondateur d’une multinationale scientifique», in Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n° 25, January, 1979

[11] Denis Boneau: «Les New York Intellectuals et l’invention du néo-conservatisme», Voltaire, November 26, 2004

[12] Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies after the Cold War

[13] Behavioral and Social Sciences (BSSR)

[14] Bureau of Applied Social Research-War Documentation Project Records, 1950-1956.

[15] Bureau of Applied Social Research Records, 1944-1976

[16] Institute For Social Research ISR

[17] Hadley Cantril

[18] The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies

[19] "Worldview Warfare" and The Science of Coercion

[20] New World War

[21] The Ace Menace

[22] Coalition for an Ethical Psychology

[23] The Torture Report Diary

Returning Military - Face Job Discrimination by Federal Govt. et al.

By Steve Vogel - Posting #201

"Yo Steve, It's not just returning Veterian's, but, any persons who has "Battlefield" skills that the Federial Government has deemed a threat (if "they" put this country into a state of Marshall Law).

Can ya hear me now? - Obama plan:Hire vets as cops, firefighters

After "years" of containment operations being used against our vets to lock them down, the US government shows it's endgame. Make vets "dependant" on government to survive as to contain and lock down their battlefield skills. [W.H.Y.]

This "transferance" should give all Americans a "heads-up" insomuch as to whats coming down the pike (long-term)."

Every year, more than a thousand National Guard, reserve and active-duty troops coming back from Iraq, Afghanistan or other military duties complain of being denied jobs or otherwise being penalized by employers because of their military obligations.

The biggest offender: the federal government.

It is against federal law for employers to penalize service members because of their military service. And yet, in some cases, the U.S. government has withdrawn job offers to service members unable to get released from active duty fast enough; in others, service members have been fired after absences.

In fiscal 2011, more than 18 percent of the 1,548 complaints of violations of that law involved federal agencies, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

“On the one hand, the government asked me to serve in Iraq,” said retired Army Brig. Gen. Michael Silva, a reservist who commanded a brigade in Iraq and was fired from his job as a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol contractor on his return. “On the other hand, another branch of government was not willing to protect my rights after serving.”

The federal government is the largest employer of citizen-soldiers. About 123,000 of the 855,000 men and women currently serving as Guard members and reservists, or about 14 percent, have civilian jobs with the federal government. Over a fourth of federal employees are veterans.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), enacted in 1994 to ensure that members of the military do not face a disadvantage in their civilian careers because of their service, calls on the federal government be “a model employer” for service members.

But critics contend that the federal government has been far from perfect, and they fear that with troops back home from Iraq and more on the way from Afghanistan, violations of the law could increase.

Obama “priority”

The problems persist even though the Obama administration has made a priority of cutting the rate of veterans’ unemployment, which is significantly higher among post-9/11 veterans than in the population as a whole.

Advocates for veterans say the system set up for service members to challenge alleged USERRA violations is onerous, with no single agency having oversight. And they note that the federal government doesn’t have much incentive to improve. The federal government can be ordered to pay back wages for being in willful violation of the law, but it incurs no other penalties. A private company, by contrast, could be liable for double an employee’s lost wages.

“There seems to be a feeling that the federal government can get away with what they’re doing,” said Matthew Estes, a USERRA lawyer with the law firm Tully Rinckey.

Some federal employers have forced reservists to leave military service as a condition of their hiring, which is also against the law, according to Samuel Wright, director of the Service Members Law Center at the Reserve Officers Association.

“Federal agencies are routinely doing that,” Wright said. (p.2) (p.3)

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

Employment Discrimination Law In The United States - A Fucking Joke!

Iraq War Draws To A Quiet Close

Veterans’ Unemployment Outpaces Civilian Rate

Senators Demand Military Lock Up American Citizens in a "Battlefield" Outside Your Window

Officer Accuses U.S. Military of Vast Afghan Deception/Delusions

By Stephen C. Webster - Posting #200

An internal report on the occupation of Afghanistan, penned by an active-duty military officer and published weeks ago - but not released by the Pentagon - was leaked on Friday by Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, who called the 84-page examination "one of the most significant documents published by an active-duty officer in the past ten years."

The document, written by Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, explains there has been a 12-year-long cover-up of the reality on the ground in Afghanistan. Davis was the source of a New York Times feature last Sunday, which cited his report but did not release it.

The Pentagon has since launched an investigation of Davis for possible security violations.

Davis reportedly wrote two versions - one classified and one not - and briefed four members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Senior Pentagon officials also have the report, but they've decided not to release it. For that reason, the unclassified report was published by Rolling Stone on Friday afternoon.

"As I will explain in the following pages I have personally observed or physically participated in programs for at least the last 15 years in which the Army's senior leaders have either "stretched the truth" or knowingly deceived the US Congress and American public," Davis explains in his introduction.

"What I witnessed in my most recently concluded 12 month deployment to Afghanistan has seen that deception reach an intolerable low. I will provide a very brief summary of the open source information that would allow any American citizen to verify these claims. But if the public had access to these classified reports they would see the dramatic gulf between what is often said in public by our senior leaders and what is actually true behind the scenes. It would be illegal for me to discuss, use, or cite classified material in an open venue and thus I will not do so; I am no WikiLeaks guy Part II."

He essentially concludes that America's top generals should be placed under oath and questioned about incidents detailed in the report.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References:

The Afghanistan Report the Pentagon Doesn't Want You to Read

Officer: U.S. paints false picture of Afghan war

Pentagon investigates colonel over critical report on US progress in Afghanistan

The report is available to read here (.pdf)

RICO Court Blocks 9/11 Discovery (Again) - Sanctions Lawyers

By Terry Baynes - Posting #199 - Judge John M. Walker :o

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court sanctioned two California lawyers on Thursday over a lawsuit they filed, dismissed as frivolous, that accused former officials in the Bush administration of allowing the September 11 Pentagon attack to occur as part of a broad conspiracy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordered the two lawyers to pay $15,000 total in sanctions in addition to double an unspecified amount the government spent defending the case.

Three attorneys -- Dennis Cunningham, William Veale and Mustapha Ndanusa -- filed the lawsuit in 2008 on behalf of April Gallop, a member of the U.S. Army injured in the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001.

The lawyers accused then-Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of allowing the Pentagon attack to occur through inaction, despite having what the suit described as real-time information that a hijacked plane was approaching.

The suit, which also questioned the nature of the attacks, said the inaction rose to the level of conspiracy to create a political atmosphere that would allow the U.S. government to pursue domestic and international policy objectives.

The suit accused the men and others of conspiracy to cause death and bodily harm and a violation of the Antiterrorism Act.

The September 11 attacks, carried out by 19 hijackers from the global militant network al Qaeda, led U.S. forces to invade Afghanistan to topple the Taliban rulers who had harbored al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

That war served as a precursor to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, which the administration chiefly justified by citing intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons were subsequently found.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case in 2010, ruling that the complaint was frivolous and a product of "cynical delusion and fantasy." A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, imposing $15,000 in sanctions on the three lawyers for filing the suit. All three appealed.

In requesting a rehearing, the lawyers asked the court to disqualify the three-judge panel "and any like-minded colleagues" from participating in the decision to grant review, accusing the panel of "severe bias, based in active personal emotions arising from the 9/11 attack."

But the 2nd Circuit took exception to the request, concluding no attorney would make such a demand in good faith.

The court upheld sanctions against Veale and Cunningham but reversed them against Ndanusa, who only served a minor role as local counsel. Ndanusa said all of the lawyers acted in good faith in bringing the lawsuit.

The court also ordered Cunningham, who described himself as "the decider" in developing the case, to inform other federal courts in circuit of the sanctions order for the next year.

"We are not delusional by any means. We have the F.A.C.T.S., and they cannot be explained," said Veale, a former chief assistant public defender for Contra Costa County, California.

Cunningham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: Why is Senator Maria Cantwell Shielding NIST from Investigation? [Hint]

BFP: Who is Ken, or Kenneth, Wainstein?

The Toronto Hearings

Obama Rewards Judges 5 Feb 2012

PBC Radio Show: 9/11 Case Against Cheney and Rumsfeld [.mp3 podcast]

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Money Trails Lead to Bush Judges :o

Judge John Walker, George Walker Bush’s Cousin, Judges April Gallop’s Suit

List Of Federal Judges Appointed by George W. Bush

U.S. Supreme RICO Court

April Gallop’s Attorney on The Kevin Barrett Show:

German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:

“No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.”

Also, that “it is not acceptable for a constitutional state…to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation,” without first identifying suspects.

Dieseroth also said the U.S. “was under burden of proof” that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, yet the FBI admits it has no evidence presentable in court to back this up.

The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world’s understanding of history, not to mention American citizens’ relationship with their government.

Obama Drones: CIA Tactics in Pakistan Targeting Rescuers - Funerals

By Chris Woods/Christina Lamb - Posting #198 [My Ass]

The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.

The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a ‘targeted, focused effort’ that ‘has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.’

Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.

‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days. Because the attacks are carried out by the CIA, no information is given on the numbers killed.

Administration officials insist that these covert attacks are legal. John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, argues that the US has the right to unilaterally strike terrorists anywhere in the world, not just what he called ‘hot battlefields’.

‘Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al- Qaeda, the United States takes the legal position that, in accordance with international law, we have the authority to take action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces,’ he told a conference at Harvard Law School last year. ‘The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qaeda as being restricted solely to”hot” battlefields like Afghanistan.’

State-sanctioned Extra-Judicial Executions

But some international law specialists fiercely disagree, arguing that the strikes amount to little more than state-sanctioned extra-judicial executions and questioning how the US government would react if another state such as China or Russia started taking such action against those they declare as enemies.

Related article: A question of legality

The first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009. According to Mushtaq Yusufzai, a local journalist, Taliban militants had gathered in the village of Khaisor. After praying at the local mosque, they were preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces. But the US struck first.

A CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured.

But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.

‘We lost very trained and sincere friends‘, a local Taliban commander told The News, a Pakistani newspaper. ‘Some of them were very senior Taliban commanders and had taken part in successful actions in Afghanistan. Bodies of most of them were beyond recognition.’

Related article: Witnesses Speak Out

For the Americans the attack was a success. A surprise tactic had resulted in the deaths of many Taliban. But locals say that six ordinary villagers also died that day, identified by Bureau field researchers as Sabir, Ikram, Mohib, Zahid, Mashal and Syed Noor (most people in the area use only one name).

Yusufzai, who reported on the attack, says those killed in the follow-up strike ‘were trying to pull out the bodies, to help clear the rubble, and take people to hospital.’ The impact of drone attacks on rescuers has been to scare people off, he says: ‘They’ve learnt that something will happen. No one wants to go close to these damaged building anymore.’

The Legal View

Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said killing people at a rescue site may have no legal justification.

‘Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution’, she said. ‘We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.’

The Khaisoor incident was not a one-off. Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.

It is notoriously difficult for the media to operate safely in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Both militants and the military routinely threaten journalists. Yet for three months a team of local researchers has been seeking independent confirmation of these strikes.

Eyewitness Accounts

The researchers have found credible, independently sourced evidence of civilians killed in ten of the reported attacks on rescuers. In five other reported attacks, the researchers found no evidence of any rescuers – civilians or otherwise – killed.

The researchers were told by villagers that strikes on rescuers began as early as March 2008, although no media carried reports at the time. The Bureau is seeking testimony relating to nine additional incidents.

Often when the US attacks militants in Pakistan, the Taliban seals off the site and retrieves the dead. But an examination of thousands of credible reports relating to CIA drone strikes also shows frequent references to civilian rescuers. Mosques often exhort villagers to come forward and help, for example – particularly following attacks that mistakenly kill civilians.

Other tactics are also raising concerns. On June 23 2009 the CIA killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud, a mid-ranking Pakistan Taliban commander. They planned to use his body as bait to hook a larger fish – Baitullah Mehsud, then the notorious leader of the Pakistan Taliban.

‘A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,’ according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent. ‘True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.’

The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. Speaking with the Bureau, Pulitzer Prize-winner Warrick confirmed what his US intelligence sources had told him: ‘The initial target was no doubt a target anyway, as it was described to me, as someone that they were interested in. And as they were planning this attack, a possible windfall from that is that it would shake Mehsud himself out of his hiding place.’

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again, killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders. Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud escaped unharmed, dying six weeks later along with his wife in a fresh CIA attack.

Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer who heads the Anglo-US legal charity Reprieve, believes that such strikes ‘are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.’

Christof Heyns, a South African law professor who is United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra- judicial Executions, agrees. ‘Allegations of repeat strikes coming back after half an hour when medical personnel are on the ground are very worrying’, he said. ‘To target civilians would be crimes of war.’ Heyns is calling for an investigation into the Bureau’s findings.

One of the most devastating attacks took place on March 17 last year, the day after Pakistan had released American CIA contractor Raymond Davis, jailed for shooting dead two men in Lahore. Davis had been held for two months and was released after the payment of blood money said to be around $2.3m.

A Case Of Retaliation?

The Agency was said to be furious at the affair. The following day when a massive drone strike killed up to 42 people gathered at a meeting in North Waziristan, Pakistani officials believed it to be retaliation.

The commander of Pakistan forces in the area at the time was Brigadier Abdullah Dogar. He admits that in drone attacks in general ‘people invariably get reported as innocent bystanders’. But in that case he has no doubt. ‘I was sitting there where our friends say they were targeting terrorists and I know they were innocent people’, he said.

Related Article: Get the Data: Obama’s Terror Drones

The mountains in the area contain chromite mines and the ownership was disputed between two tribes, so a Jirga or tribal meeting had been called to resolve the issue.

‘We in the Pakistan military knew about the meeting’, he said, ‘we’d got the request ten days earlier.’

‘It was held in broad daylight, people were sitting out in Nomada bus depot when the missile strikes came. Maybe there were one or two Taliban at that Jirga – they have their people attending – but does that justify a drone strike which kills 42 mostly innocent people?’

‘Drones may make tactical gains but I don’t see how there’s any strategic advantage’, he added. ‘When innocent people die, then you’re creating a whole lot more people with an issue.’

Growing Tensions

Drone attacks have long been a source of tension between the US and Pakistan despite the fact that the Pakistan government gave tacit agreement, even allowing them to fly from Shamsi airbase in the western province of Baluchistan, while publicly denouncing the attacks.

In return the US made sure that some of the terrorists killed were those targeting Pakistan.

However the relationship has been stretched to breaking point, first with the raid to kill Osama bin Laden in May and subsequent US accusations of Pakistani complicity, then the NATO bombing of a Pakistani post in November, killing 24 soldiers. In December Pakistan ordered the CIA to vacate the Shamsi base. For a while drone attacks stopped but they resumed two weeks ago.

The US claims the drones are a vital tool that have helped them almost wipe out the leadership of al Qaeda in Pakistan. But others point out they have stoked enormous anti-American sentiment in a country with an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons.

Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Initiative at the Brookings Institution, points out the operation has never been debated in Congress which has to approve sending US forces to war.

So dramatic is the switch to unmanned war that he says the US now has 7,000 drones operating and 12,000 more on the ground, while not a single new manned combat aircraft is under research or development at any western aerospace company.

After a remarkable lack of debate, there is starting to be unease in the US at the lack of transparency and accountability in the use of drones particularly as the campaign has expanded to hit targets in Libya, Yemen and Somalia and until recently to patrol the skies in Iraq.

Three US citizens were killed by missiles fired from drones in Yemen last September. Anwar al Awlaqi, an alleged al Qaeda operative, was deliberately targeted in what some have described as the US government’s first ever execution of one of its own citizens without trial. His colleague and fellow citizen Samir Khan also died in the attack. Two weeks later Awlaqi’s 16 year old son Abdulrahman died in a strike on alleged al Qaeda militants.

Such unmanned war is a politician’s dream, avoiding the inconvenience of sending someone’s son or daughter, mother or father, into harm’s way.

The fact that the operations are carried out by the CIA rather than the US military enables the administration to evade questions. The Agency press office responds to media inquiries on the subject with no comment and refusal to give names of those killed or who are on the target list.

Until Obama’s comments last week, the White House would not even confirm the programme existed.

‘We don’t discuss classified programs or comment on alleged strikes’, said a senior administration official in response to the findings presented by the Sunday Times.

Lawsuit

The ACLU filed a lawsuit last week demanding the Obama administration release legal and intelligence records on the killing of the three US citizens in in Yemen.

Privately some senior US military officers say they are extremely uncomfortable at the way the administration is carrying out these operations using the CIA which is not covered by laws of war or the Geneva Convention.

The use of drones outside a declared war zone is seen by many legal experts as setting a dangerous precedent. Aside from allies such as Israel, Britain and France, other countries have drone technology including China, Russia and Pakistan. Iran recently captured a downed US drone.

Heyns, the UN rapporteur, said an international legal framework is urgently needed to govern their use.

‘Our concern is how far does it go – will the whole world be a theatre of war?’ he asked. ‘Drones in principle allow collateral damage to be minimised but because they can be used without danger to a country’s own troops they tend to be used more widely. One doesn’t want to use the term ticking bomb but it’s extremely seductive.’

Additional reporting by Rahimullah Yusufzai in Peshawar, Pakistan

Christina Lamb is the Washington Bureau Chief of the Sunday Times

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: Theater of the Absurd: US-NATO Support "Al Qaeda in Libya" :o

Obama Adviser Discusses Using Military on Terrorists

A Question Of Legality

25 Militants Are Killed in Attack in Pakistan

Witnesses Speak Out

Pakistan Says U.S. Drone Kills 13

Pakistani officials: Latest suspected drone attack kills 10

Suspected US missiles strikes kill 11 in Pakistan

Collateral Damage of U.S. Drone Attacks

US Drone Strikes Hit Pakistan

The Triple Agent: The Al-Qaeda Mole Who Infiltrated the CIA :o LOL

U.S. Drone Strike Said to Kill 60 in Pakistan

How Media Distortions Promote Wars - 1999-2008 Kosovo, Iraq, and Mid-East

Tens of millions of human beings have died starting with World War I, because well meaning Americans were taken in by public relations atrocity campaigns to get us to go to war for the benefit of other nations. See How to Get America to Go to War. Below are links about the Kosovo war as much as about Iraq.

We urge conservatives to look beyond the conservative media (NATIONAL REVIEW, WASHINGTON TIMES, HUMAN EVENTS, WALL STREET JOURNAL op-ed (the worst of all), FOX NEWS most of which are dominated by the Neo-conservatives, the War Party, and Empire wanters.. We refer you to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting for updates on Middle East news distortions, the area of greatest propaganda and lies. Note also that American TV usually does not show the mangled bodies if caused by U.S. actions, which most of the rest of the world's TV does show. That's a major reason anyone seeing foreign TV broadcasts gets another view. U.S. networks are afraid to lose audience if they show pictures critical of suffering caused by U.S. policies. See also an excellent update on National Review and the "War" Street Journal

Truth, Lies and Afghanistan - How Military Leaders Have Let US Down

Behold: The U.S. God Of War - The Holy Fire of Patriotism

O Lord our God, ... help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, - Mark Twain

Independent Report Contradicts Western Portrait of Syria

While the Western media act like the Syrian government is wantonly and indiscriminately killing its own people without provocation, an independent investigation has found a different reality on the ground.

Specifically, over 160 monitors from the Arab League – comprised of both allies and mortal enemies of Syria – toured Syria and published a report on January 27th showing that the situation has been mischaracterized.

A Must Listen To: Guns and Butter, for January 18, 2012

Thanks goes out to Dr. Bramhall for this link :)

Download this clip (mp3, 10.28 megabytes)

"Iran and the Globalization of War" with Michel Chossudovsky.

Recent developments in the Middle East including the wider implications of the destabilization of the entire area; the current global war as a different kind of conquest than that of World War I and II; US military deployment in the area; the role of Israel; Iranian Defenses; US war planning and war scenarios since 2003 concerning the nation of Iran, including Austere Challenge 12, Theatre Iran Near Term, Global Strike 2003, Concept Plan 8022, and Vigilant Shield; the effect of sanctions; and The Responsibility To Protect.

Fact Checking the U.S. Media (Murder Inc.) Mind Viruses On Iran :o

By Just Foreign Policy - Posting #197

In the wake of the latest IAEA report on the status of Iran's nuclear program, the confrontational tone of the US media and politicians has escalated considerably. What's more, the same media and politicians have been distorting or falsely characterizing the findings of the report and of the US and Israeli intelligence communities, taking them to confirm that Iran is currently trying to acquire a nuclear weapons when, in fact, they do not.

Distortions and falsehoods justified one recent US war. We won't let them justify another.

In December, Just Foreign Policy began to aggressively monitor the media for these misleading practices. And some major media outlets have responded. Check out who's been nabbed, who's repented, and who just won't admit that they've done wrong.

Washington Post:

Offense: "Iran's quest to possess nuclear weapons"
Outcome: Full Acknowledgement, Formal Correction

In December, Just Foreign Policy initiated a campaign to get the Washington Post to correct a photo gallery headline which asserted as if it were fact the mere allegation that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Over 1500 Just Foreign Policy advocates emailed the Post ombudsman, Patrick Pexton. In response, the Post edited their headline and added an editor's note to explain the change. Mr. Pexton also wrote about the issue in his Sunday column.

Read more:

* Victory! WaPo Fixes Headline Claiming Iran Has Nuclear Weapons Program, Megan Iorio, Just Foreign Policy Blog, December 7, 2011
* On Complaints Over Iran Nuclear Weapon Claims, WaPo Ombud Rules for the Plaintiffs, Robert Naiman, Huffington Post, December 12, 2011
* Getting Ahead of the Facts on Iran, Patrick Pexton, Washington Post, December 9, 2011

Offense: "Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon"
Outcome: Text Corrected, No Correction Published

On January 19, 2012, a Washington Post article evoked a bit of deja vu when it claimed that "Israel’s supporters worry that Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon and greater instability in the Middle East pose existential threats to Israel," despite the fact that the paper's own ombudsman had agreed just a month before that this particular shorthand was "misleading." An email was sent to Mr. Pexton, the Post's ombudsman, informing him of the infraction. The online text was subsequently corrected, about six hours after its initial publication. Read the full account, with original screenshots >

New York Times:

Offense: "Iran's nuclear program has a military objective"
Outcome: Acknowledgement; Text Corrected, No Correction Published

On January 4, 2012, the New York Times published an article that falsely claimed that the latest IAEA report assessed that "Iran's nuclear program has a military objective." The Times deleted this error without publishing a correction. What's more, on the same day, another article in the Times referred to Iran's "development of nuclear weapons" as if it were a known fact that Iran were engaging in such activity.

Robert Naiman's article on the issue was published in a number of outlets, including the Huffington Post and Al Jazeera. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also picked up the case and issued an action alert. The Times public editor ultimately responded in his column, recognizing the justice of our criticism, but falling short of publishing a correction.

Read more:

* The New York Times misleading public on Iran, Robert Naiman, Al Jazeera, January 9, 2012
* On Iran IAEA Reporting Complaints, NYT Public Editor Rules For The Plaintiffs , Robert Naiman, Huffington Post, January 10, 2012
* Times errors: Iran’s nukes, SF’s voting, Arthur Brisbane, New York Times, January 10, 2012

NPR:

Offense: US policy "to convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program"
Outcome: Maintains Innocence, Will Not Correct

On January 8, 2012, NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday reporter Tom Gjelten said, "The goal for the U.S. and its allies … [is] to convince Iran to give up a nuclear weapons program." But one cannot give up something one does not have, and thus this claim implied that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, which is not a known fact. Just Foreign Policy began a campaign to get NPR to issue a correction, but the ombudsman instead defended the reporting with a rather sketchy linguistic analysis of the indefinite article.

PBS:

Offense: Panetta's assertion, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."
Outcome: Maintains Innocence, Will Not Correct

Just Foreign Policy joined FAIR in calling out PBS's NewsHour in their misleading edit of a clip in which Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that Iran is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon at the moment; however, US intelligence believes them to be seeking a nuclear capability. NewsHour edited out the first part of the quote, only leaving the part about Iran seeking a nuclear capability, thus potentially misleading viewers into believing that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

PBS's ombudsman was admittedly "mystified" by the edit. Even the NewsHour editor responsible for the segment said that "it would have been better had we not lopped off the first part of the Panetta quote." However, PBS did not go so far as to claim wrongdoing, and refused to issue a correction.

Meet the Press:

Offense: Santorum made false claim that Iran doesn't allow weapons inspectors
Outcome: No Acknowledgement

On January 1, 2012, Rick Santorum, candidate for the Republican nomination for president, told David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press that, unlike President Obama, he would "be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those [nuclear] facilities, you begin to dismantle them and, and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through airstrikes and make it very public that we are doing that." Gregory did not challenge this claim, even though he should have known full well that Iran's nuclear program is currently under inspection by the IAEA. NBC, Meet the Press, nor David Gregory responded to our criticism. Read more >

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!....Its "OUR" country!!!

Love "Light" and Energy

_Don 　　　

References: Current Actions

Iran: This Is What Propaganda Looks Like

WaPo: Fact-Check "Iran's Quest to Possess Nuclear Weapons"

Victory! WaPo Fixes Headline Claiming Iran Has Nuclear Weapons Program

On Complaints Over Iran Nuclear Weapon Claims, WaPo Ombud Rules for the Plaintiffs

Getting Ahead Of The Facts On Iran :o

WaPo: Still Getting Ahead of the Facts on Iran

The New York Times misleading public on Iran

On Iran IAEA Reporting Complaints, NYT Public Editor Rules For The Plaintiffs

Times errors: Iran’s nukes, SF’s voting :o

U.S., Iran Play Economic Knockdown

Tell PBS, NPR: No Proof Iran Has a Nuclear Weapons Program

Is NPR Fomenting A War With Iran? No.

PBS's Dishonest Iran Edit

A FAIR Catch But UnFAIR Conclusion

Meet The Press Transcript January 12, 2012

David Gregory Tell Rick Santorum There Are UN Inspectors in Iran