Research Discussion: IRAN Made This ?

IRAN Made This ?
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-02-02 21:17:17 EST

IRAN made this ?

http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z429/moeskyhigh/f31316.jpg

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2126186/pg1


Danger !

MR HVAC !!!

http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/dynamics/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/lost-in-space-robot1.jpg


P.S.
My guess is, certain powers in Space and on Earth
want to make an exciting modern war.
Then trash Earth.
Then put Dinosaurs down here again to make poo and soil and insects.
Then play around with Humans again in 100 million years.
A speck of time in the infinite cosmos.



QUOTE:
"Most of you ignore that non-human creatures took part in the exercise
of those centralising powers without them being neither suspected nor
accessible to your senses. This is so true that they have almost very
subtly taken control. They do not necessarily stand on your material
plan, and that is precisely what could make them extremely efficient
and frightening in the near future."

"For negative multidimensional beings that play a part in the exercise
of power in the shadow of human oligarchy, discretion is motivated by
their will to keep their existence and seizure unknown."





.

______________________________



Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U

One Million U.F.O Researchers Project...
http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com



ART BELL Fans Paranormal Radio Shows MP3s Collectors ART BELL MP3 Downloads ART BELL Fansites Fanpages ART BELL Groups Networks ART BELL Clubs ART BELL Message Board ART BELL Forums and ART BELL Live Chat Rooms.

http://www.facebook.com/ART.BELL.Radio.MP3s

http://Art-Bell-Radio-MP3s.blogspot.com

http://www.YouTube.com/ArtBellMP3s




Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

Dr. Steven M. Greer. Dr. Steven Greer. Dr. Steve Greer...

1.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

2.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AliensUFOsProof/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

3.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Dr_Steven_M_Greer.jpg

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://aliens-ufos-proof-evidence.blogspot.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
Best Aliens UFOs Proof...
http://bestaliensufosproof.wix.com/bestaliensufosproof



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2013-02-03 01:30:51 EST
Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is about
everything except defense - Cyber-threats are the new pretext to
justify expansion of power and profit for the public-private National
Security State

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due
to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces
"a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the
next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."
Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion
would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than
4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this
expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has
focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an
Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under
the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head
of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government
network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and
American citizens. The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this
expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a
wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and
international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale
secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as
always, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will
benefit most from this expansion.

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has
been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, quite
typically, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm.
Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and
a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing
numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the
government expands its "cyber-security" activities.

McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and
inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger
between the government and private sector in all intelligence,
surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the
successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for
their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program).
Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary
focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming
that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are
losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-
attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and
ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration
systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell
advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector"
- "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and
that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution,
geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it,
from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's

Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make

everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the
National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for
retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the
Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-
threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression.
It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified
cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a
government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It
announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with
all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local
governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private
partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to
implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by
President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has
relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into
believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks
from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl
Harbor". This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life,
an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a
profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and
terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than
anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber
tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail
passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains
loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply
in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the
country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This massive new
expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against
cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-
aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's
ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the
Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to
"conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is
the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a
highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June,
the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had
already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama
secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer
systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities,
significantly expanding America's first sustained use of
cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . .
even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the
summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to
escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the
Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood
the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and
aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room
meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he
was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his
predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of
intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past
decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American
acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most
careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries,
terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading
perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert
Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran
"marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual
militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was
the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a
sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb
and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any
credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community)
that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As

Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as

Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and
political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday,
the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out
Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is
the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-
security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending
generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must
defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the
reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring
that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the
world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons
under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as
the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US
Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens
that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality
is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more
countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom - Beyond the aggressive threat
to other nations posed by the Pentagon's "cyber-security" programs,
there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the
ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals
alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security"
programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and
disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under
the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that
there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled
"Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for
this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described
objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par
with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words,
its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based
communications:

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the
most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that
information put out as part of the military's psychological
operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and
television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid
lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO
military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the
report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire
electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone,
every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by
the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine
internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that
"teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in
espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack
digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine
data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless
to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the
Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital
spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and
the Department of Homeland Security."

n 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing
that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet
alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since
the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed:
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages
of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the
world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil
internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that
the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that:
"Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency
intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types
of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded
that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication. It
is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a
massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit
and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010: "Make
no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the
internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet
dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military
industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue
for an arms race". Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext
for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of
cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one
for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for
understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated
control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors - As always, it is not just political
power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As
military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced,
something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security"
contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security
program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its
"private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds
for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp.,
AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for
a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that
they can package as security services for sale to other companies."
This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on
classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was
announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial
program that teams the government with Internet service providers to
protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign
adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing
of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government
and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence
contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger
for national security and intelligence functions. This organization -
the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly
headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by
leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" which "combines
the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector,
and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the
nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new
expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-
security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet.
Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that
the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will
muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and
the private sector." At the very same time McConnell published this
Op-
Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber
Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely
creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government
institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the
Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the
Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-
mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009
- entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and
intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that
"government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration
and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific
roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when
McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI: Well,
the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead
agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you
know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American
intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North
Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet
that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen
is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50%
of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector
contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions
not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public
expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally
reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at
least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these
private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance
and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been
feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending
carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Latin American
Tyrants, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained
it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest. Like all of these wildly
exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by
cyber-attacks. But, as Singel described, all of this can be managed
with greater security systems for public and private computer networks
- just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with
the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-
threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program
have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all
about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities,
consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further
transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue
unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by
the public-private US National Security State over the last six
decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-02-04 03:04:40 EST
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 22:30:51 -0800 (PST), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <garymatalucci@gmail.com> wrote:


>Sir Artie's Copy and Paste.

Sir Artie's Copy and Paste...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h09bIBrXTws


















.
______________________________



Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U

One Million U.F.O Researchers Project...
http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com



ART BELL Fans Paranormal Radio Shows MP3s Collectors ART BELL MP3 Downloads ART BELL Fansites Fanpages ART BELL Groups Networks ART BELL Clubs ART BELL Message Board ART BELL Forums and ART BELL Live Chat Rooms.

http://www.facebook.com/ART.BELL.Radio.MP3s

http://Art-Bell-Radio-MP3s.blogspot.com

http://www.YouTube.com/ArtBellMP3s




Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

Dr. Steven M. Greer. Dr. Steven Greer. Dr. Steve Greer...

1.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

2.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AliensUFOsProof/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

3.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Dr_Steven_M_Greer.jpg

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://aliens-ufos-proof-evidence.blogspot.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
Best Aliens UFOs Proof...
http://bestaliensufosproof.wix.com/bestaliensufosproof



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2013-02-04 04:33:10 EST
Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is about
everything except defense - Cyber-threats are the new pretext to
justify expansion of power and profit for the public-private National
Security State

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due
to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces
"a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the
next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."
Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion
would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than
4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this
expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has
focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an
Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under
the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head
of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government
network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and
American citizens. The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this
expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a
wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and
international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale
secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as
always, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will
benefit most from this expansion.

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has
been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, quite
typically, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm.
Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and
a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing
numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the
government expands its "cyber-security" activities.

McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and
inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger
between the government and private sector in all intelligence,
surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the
successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for
their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program).
Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary
focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming
that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are
losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-
attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and
ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration
systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell
advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector"
- "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and
that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution,
geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it,
from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's

Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make

everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the
National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for
retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the
Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-
threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression.
It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified
cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a
government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It
announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with
all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local
governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private
partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to
implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by
President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has
relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into
believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks
from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl
Harbor". This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life,
an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a
profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and
terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than
anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber
tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail
passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains
loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply
in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the
country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This massive new
expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against
cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-
aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's
ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the
Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to
"conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is
the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a
highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June,
the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had
already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama
secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer
systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities,
significantly expanding America's first sustained use of
cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . .
even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the
summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to
escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the
Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood
the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and
aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room
meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he
was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his
predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of
intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past
decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American
acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most
careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries,
terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading
perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert
Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran
"marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual
militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was
the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a
sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb
and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any
credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community)
that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As

Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as

Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and
political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday,
the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out
Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is
the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-
security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending
generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must
defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the
reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring
that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the
world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons
under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as
the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US
Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens
that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality
is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more
countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom - Beyond the aggressive threat
to other nations posed by the Pentagon's "cyber-security" programs,
there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the
ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals
alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security"
programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and
disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under
the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that
there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled
"Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for
this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described
objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par
with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words,
its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based
communications:

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the
most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that
information put out as part of the military's psychological
operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and
television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid
lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO
military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the
report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire
electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone,
every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by
the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine
internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that
"teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in
espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack
digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine
data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless
to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the
Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital
spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and
the Department of Homeland Security."

n 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing
that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet
alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since
the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed:
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages
of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the
world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil
internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that
the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that:
"Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency
intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types
of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded
that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication. It
is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a
massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit
and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010: "Make
no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the
internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet
dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military
industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue
for an arms race". Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext
for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of
cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one
for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for
understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated
control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors - As always, it is not just political
power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As
military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced,
something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security"
contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security
program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its
"private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds
for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp.,
AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for
a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that
they can package as security services for sale to other companies."
This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on
classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was
announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial
program that teams the government with Internet service providers to
protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign
adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing
of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government
and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence
contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger
for national security and intelligence functions. This organization -
the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly
headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by
leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" which "combines
the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector,
and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the
nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new
expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-
security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet.
Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that
the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will
muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and
the private sector." At the very same time McConnell published this
Op-
Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber
Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely
creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government
institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the
Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the
Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-
mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009
- entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and
intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that
"government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration
and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific
roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when
McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI: Well,
the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead
agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you
know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American
intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North
Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet
that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen
is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50%
of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector
contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions
not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public
expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally
reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at
least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these
private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance
and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been
feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending
carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Latin American
Tyrants, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained
it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest. Like all of these wildly
exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by
cyber-attacks. But, as Singel described, all of this can be managed
with greater security systems for public and private computer networks
- just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with
the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-
threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program
have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all
about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities,
consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further
transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue
unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by
the public-private US National Security State over the last six
decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-02-04 12:05:01 EST
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 01:33:10 -0800 (PST), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <garymatalucci@gmail.com> wrote:


>Pentagon's new...

>Sir Artie's new reminder...

Sir Artie's new reminder...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k61AN4fynDM





















.
______________________________



Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U

One Million U.F.O Researchers Project...
http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com



ART BELL Fans Paranormal Radio Shows MP3s Collectors ART BELL MP3 Downloads ART BELL Fansites Fanpages ART BELL Groups Networks ART BELL Clubs ART BELL Message Board ART BELL Forums and ART BELL Live Chat Rooms.

http://www.facebook.com/ART.BELL.Radio.MP3s

http://Art-Bell-Radio-MP3s.blogspot.com

http://www.YouTube.com/ArtBellMP3s




Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

Dr. Steven M. Greer. Dr. Steven Greer. Dr. Steve Greer...

1.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

2.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AliensUFOsProof/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

3.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Dr_Steven_M_Greer.jpg

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://aliens-ufos-proof-evidence.blogspot.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
Best Aliens UFOs Proof...
http://bestaliensufosproof.wix.com/bestaliensufosproof



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2013-02-04 23:34:30 EST
Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is about
everything except defense - Cyber-threats are the new pretext to
justify expansion of power and profit for the public-private National
Security State

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due
to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces
"a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the
next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."
Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion
would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than
4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this
expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has
focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an
Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under
the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head
of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government
network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and
American citizens. The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this
expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a
wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and
international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale
secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as
always, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will
benefit most from this expansion.

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has
been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, quite
typically, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm.
Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and
a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing
numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the
government expands its "cyber-security" activities.

McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and
inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger
between the government and private sector in all intelligence,
surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the
successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for
their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program).
Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary
focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming
that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are
losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-
attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and
ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration
systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell
advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector"
- "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and
that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution,
geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it,
from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's

Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make

everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the
National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for
retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the
Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-
threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression.
It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified
cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a
government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It
announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with
all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local
governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private
partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to
implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by
President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has
relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into
believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks
from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl
Harbor". This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life,
an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a
profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and
terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than
anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber
tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail
passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains
loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply
in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the
country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This massive new
expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against
cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-
aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's
ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the
Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to
"conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is
the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a
highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June,
the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had
already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama
secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer
systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities,
significantly expanding America's first sustained use of
cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . .
even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the
summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to
escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the
Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood
the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and
aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room
meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he
was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his
predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of
intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past
decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American
acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most
careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries,
terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading
perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert
Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran
"marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual
militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was
the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a
sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb
and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any
credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community)
that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As

Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as

Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and
political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday,
the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out
Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is
the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-
security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending
generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must
defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the
reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring
that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the
world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons
under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as
the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US
Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens
that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality
is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more
countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom - Beyond the aggressive threat
to other nations posed by the Pentagon's "cyber-security" programs,
there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the
ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals
alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security"
programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and
disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under
the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that
there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled
"Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for
this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described
objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par
with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words,
its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based
communications:

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the
most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that
information put out as part of the military's psychological
operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and
television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid
lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO
military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the
report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire
electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone,
every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by
the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine
internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that
"teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in
espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack
digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine
data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless
to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the
Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital
spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and
the Department of Homeland Security."

n 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing
that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet
alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since
the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed:
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages
of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the
world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil
internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that
the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that:
"Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency
intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types
of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded
that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication. It
is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a
massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit
and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010: "Make
no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the
internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet
dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military
industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue
for an arms race". Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext
for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of
cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one
for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for
understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated
control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors - As always, it is not just political
power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As
military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced,
something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security"
contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security
program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its
"private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds
for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp.,
AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for
a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that
they can package as security services for sale to other companies."
This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on
classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was
announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial
program that teams the government with Internet service providers to
protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign
adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing
of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government
and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence
contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger
for national security and intelligence functions. This organization -
the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly
headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by
leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" which "combines
the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector,
and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the
nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new
expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-
security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet.
Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that
the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will
muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and
the private sector." At the very same time McConnell published this
Op-
Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber
Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely
creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government
institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the
Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the
Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-
mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009
- entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and
intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that
"government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration
and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific
roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when
McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI: Well,
the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead
agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you
know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American
intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North
Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet
that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen
is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50%
of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector
contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions
not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public
expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally
reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at
least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these
private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance
and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been
feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending
carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Latin American
Tyrants, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained
it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest. Like all of these wildly
exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by
cyber-attacks. But, as Singel described, all of this can be managed
with greater security systems for public and private computer networks
- just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with
the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-
threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program
have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all
about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities,
consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further
transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue
unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by
the public-private US National Security State over the last six
decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-02-05 00:51:25 EST
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:34:30 -0800 (PST), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <garymatalucci@gmail.com> wrote:


>Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is about...

RE: Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is
about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KwuTxjYzrM

Alien Matrix Multi-Dimensional Dance Attacks !!!


















.
______________________________



Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U

One Million U.F.O Researchers Project...
http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com



ART BELL Fans Paranormal Radio Shows MP3s Collectors ART BELL MP3 Downloads ART BELL Fansites Fanpages ART BELL Groups Networks ART BELL Clubs ART BELL Message Board ART BELL Forums and ART BELL Live Chat Rooms.

http://www.facebook.com/ART.BELL.Radio.MP3s

http://Art-Bell-Radio-MP3s.blogspot.com

http://www.YouTube.com/ArtBellMP3s




Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

Dr. Steven M. Greer. Dr. Steven Greer. Dr. Steve Greer...

1.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

2.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AliensUFOsProof/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

3.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Dr_Steven_M_Greer.jpg

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://aliens-ufos-proof-evidence.blogspot.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
Best Aliens UFOs Proof...
http://bestaliensufosproof.wix.com/bestaliensufosproof



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2013-02-05 02:13:20 EST
Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is about
everything except defense - Cyber-threats are the new pretext to
justify expansion of power and profit for the public-private National
Security State

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due
to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces
"a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the
next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."
Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion
would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than
4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this
expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has
focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an
Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under
the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head
of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government
network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and
American citizens. The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this
expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a
wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and
international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale
secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as
always, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will
benefit most from this expansion.

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has
been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, quite
typically, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm.
Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and
a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing
numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the
government expands its "cyber-security" activities.

McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and
inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger
between the government and private sector in all intelligence,
surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the
successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for
their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program).
Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary
focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming
that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are
losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-
attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and
ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration
systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell
advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector"
- "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and
that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution,
geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it,
from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's

Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make

everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the
National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for
retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the
Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-
threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression.
It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified
cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a
government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It
announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with
all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local
governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private
partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to
implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by
President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has
relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into
believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks
from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl
Harbor". This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life,
an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a
profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and
terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than
anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber
tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail
passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains
loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply
in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the
country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This massive new
expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against
cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-
aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's
ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the
Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to
"conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is
the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a
highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June,
the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had
already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama
secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer
systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities,
significantly expanding America's first sustained use of
cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . .
even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the
summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to
escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the
Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood
the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and
aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room
meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he
was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his
predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of
intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past
decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American
acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most
careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries,
terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading
perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert
Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran
"marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual
militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was
the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a
sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb
and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any
credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community)
that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As

Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as

Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and
political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday,
the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out
Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is
the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-
security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending
generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must
defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the
reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring
that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the
world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons
under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as
the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US
Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens
that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality
is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more
countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom - Beyond the aggressive threat
to other nations posed by the Pentagon's "cyber-security" programs,
there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the
ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals
alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security"
programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and
disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under
the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that
there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled
"Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for
this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described
objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par
with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words,
its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based
communications:

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the
most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that
information put out as part of the military's psychological
operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and
television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid
lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO
military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the
report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire
electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone,
every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by
the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine
internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that
"teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in
espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack
digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine
data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless
to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the
Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital
spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and
the Department of Homeland Security."

n 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing
that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet
alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since
the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed:
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages
of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the
world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil
internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that
the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that:
"Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency
intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types
of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded
that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication. It
is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a
massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit
and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010: "Make
no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the
internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet
dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military
industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue
for an arms race". Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext
for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of
cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one
for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for
understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated
control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors - As always, it is not just political
power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As
military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced,
something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security"
contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security
program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its
"private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds
for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp.,
AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for
a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that
they can package as security services for sale to other companies."
This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on
classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was
announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial
program that teams the government with Internet service providers to
protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign
adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing
of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government
and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence
contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger
for national security and intelligence functions. This organization -
the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly
headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by
leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" which "combines
the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector,
and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the
nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new
expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-
security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet.
Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that
the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will
muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and
the private sector." At the very same time McConnell published this
Op-
Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber
Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely
creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government
institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the
Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the
Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-
mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009
- entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and
intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that
"government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration
and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific
roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when
McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI: Well,
the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead
agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you
know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American
intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North
Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet
that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen
is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50%
of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector
contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions
not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public
expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally
reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at
least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these
private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance
and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been
feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending
carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Latin American
Tyrants, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained
it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest. Like all of these wildly
exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by
cyber-attacks. But, as Singel described, all of this can be managed
with greater security systems for public and private computer networks
- just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with
the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-
threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program
have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all
about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities,
consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further
transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue
unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by
the public-private US National Security State over the last six
decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

Sir Gilligan Horry
2013-02-05 02:40:30 EST
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 23:13:20 -0800 (PST), "Sir Arthur C.B.E.
Wholeflaffers A.S.A." <garymatalucci@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pentagon's new friends Sir Artie and Sir Horry are Genius...
>Let's Love and Save the Galaxy!

Pentagon's new friends Sir Artie and Sir Horry are Genius...
Let's Love and Save the Galaxy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ycWTqGiiF4

???????














.

______________________________



Alt Alien Research Intelligence Agency Official Admiral Wizzard.
(i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Alien_UFO_Research_Intelligence_Agency.jpg)
... here... http://goo.gl/A7l9U

One Million U.F.O Researchers Project...
http://MillionUFOs.blogspot.com



ART BELL Fans Paranormal Radio Shows MP3s Collectors ART BELL MP3 Downloads ART BELL Fansites Fanpages ART BELL Groups Networks ART BELL Clubs ART BELL Message Board ART BELL Forums and ART BELL Live Chat Rooms.

http://www.facebook.com/ART.BELL.Radio.MP3s

http://Art-Bell-Radio-MP3s.blogspot.com

http://www.YouTube.com/ArtBellMP3s




Best Aliens UFOs Videos Proof Evidence...
http://BestAliensUFOsVideos.blogspot.com

Aliens UFOs Extraterrestrials Videos Documentaries...
http://YouTube.com/JimsSpaceAgency

Documentary "WATER" ... by Saida Medvedeva.
Beautiful Documentary ...
http://www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/watermovie.html

Dr. Steven M. Greer. Dr. Steven Greer. Dr. Steve Greer...

1.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

2.
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj256/AliensUFOsProof/ALIENS_UFOS_EXTRATERRESTRIALS_PROOF.jpg

3.
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t2/SirGilliganHorry/Dr_Steven_M_Greer.jpg

"Project Mothership" UFOs Aliens Proof Evidence...
http://aliens-ufos-proof-evidence.blogspot.com
http://ProjectMotherShip.medianewsonline.com
http://BestUFOVideosOnYouTube.site11.com
Best Aliens UFOs Proof...
http://bestaliensufosproof.wix.com/bestaliensufosproof



Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
2013-02-05 11:48:50 EST
Pentagon's new massive expansion of 'cyber-security' unit is about
everything except defense - Cyber-threats are the new pretext to
justify expansion of power and profit for the public-private National
Security State

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due
to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces
"a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the
next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold."
Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion
would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than
4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this
expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has
focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an
Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under
the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head
of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government
network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and
American citizens. The Pentagon's rhetorical justification for this
expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a
wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and
international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale
secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as
always, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will
benefit most from this expansion.

Let's begin with the way this so-called "cyber-security" expansion has
been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, quite
typically, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm.
Michael McConnell, Bush's former Director of National Intelligence and
a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing
numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the
government expands its "cyber-security" activities.

McConnell's career over the last two decades - both at Booz, Allen and
inside the government - has been devoted to accelerating the merger
between the government and private sector in all intelligence,
surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the
successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for
their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program).
Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary
focus now.

McConnell's Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming
that "the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are
losing", it warned that "chaos would result" from an enemy cyber-
attack on US financial systems and that "our power grids, air and
ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration
systems are in jeopardy as well." Based on these threats, McConnell
advocated that "we" - meaning "the government and the private sector"
- "need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace" and
that "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution,
geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment - who did it,
from where, why and what was the result - more manageable." As Wired's

Ryan Singel wrote: "He's talking about changing the internet to make

everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the
National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for
retaliation."

The same week the Post published McConnell's extraordinary Op-Ed, the
Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-
threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression.
It began with this sentence: "President Obama has identified
cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national
security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a
government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter." It
announced that "the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with
all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local
governments and the private sector" and to "strengthen public/private
partnerships", and specifically announced Obama's intent to "to
implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on
the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by
President George W. Bush."

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has
relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into
believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks
from "aggressors". This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a "cyber-Pearl
Harbor". This "would cause physical destruction and the loss of life,
an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a
profound new sense of vulnerability." Identifying China, Iran, and
terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than
anything since Condoleezza Rice's 2002 Iraqi "mushroom cloud":

"An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber
tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail
passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains
loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply
in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the
country."

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This massive new
expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against
cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world's leading cyber-
aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US's
ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the
Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to
"conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries".

It is the US - not Iran, Russia or "terror" groups - which already is
the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a
highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June,
the New York Times' David Sanger reported what most of the world had
already suspected: "From his first months in office, President Obama
secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer
systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities,
significantly expanding America's first sustained use of
cyberweapons." In fact, Obama "decided to accelerate the attacks . . .
even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the
summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to
escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the
Internet." According to the Sanger's report, Obama himself understood
the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and
aggressive cyber-warfare:

"Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room
meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he
was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his
predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of
intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past
decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American
acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons - even under the most
careful and limited circumstances - could enable other countries,
terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks."

The US isn't the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It's the leading
perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert
Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama's cyber-attack on Iran
"marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual
militarization of the Internet."

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was
the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a
sovereign country - just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb
and then drones - would make it impossible for it to claim with any
credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community)
that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As

Professor Glenny wrote: "by introducing such pernicious viruses as

Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and
political credibility." That's why, as the Post reported yesterday,
the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out
Sanger's source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is
the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of "cyber-
security" is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending
generally. It's all justified under by the claim that the US must
defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the
reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring
that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the
world. It's the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons
under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as
the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US
Army lab). It's how the US government generally convinces its citizens
that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality
is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more
countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.

Threats to privacy and internet freedom - Beyond the aggressive threat
to other nations posed by the Pentagon's "cyber-security" programs,
there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the
ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals
alike. The US government has long viewed these "cyber-security"
programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and
disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under
the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that
there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled
"Information Operations (IO) Roadmap", which laid the foundation for
this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon's self-described
objective was "transforming IO into a core military competency on par
with air, ground, maritime and special operations". In other words,
its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based
communications:

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: "Perhaps the
most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that
information put out as part of the military's psychological
operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and
television screens of ordinary Americans." And while the report paid
lip service to the need to create "boundaries" for these new IO
military activities, "they don't seem to explain how." Regarding the
report's plan to "provide maximum control of the entire
electromagnetic spectrum", the BBC noted: "Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone,
every networked computer, every radar system on the planet."

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by
the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine
internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that
"teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in
espionage." They "also are taught to write computer viruses, hack
digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine
data from broken cellphones and flash drives." The program, needless
to say, "has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the
Pentagon's National Security Agency, which conducts America's digital
spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and
the Department of Homeland Security."

n 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing
that the US intends to abandon its policy of "leaving the Internet
alone". Noting that this "has been the nation's Internet policy since
the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s", he decreed:
"This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages
of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the
world. But that was then and this is now."

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil
internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that
the Washington Post's 2010 "Top Secret America" series noted that:
"Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency
intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types
of communications." And the Obama administration has formally demanded
that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication. It
is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a
massive expansion of the National Security State's efforts to exploit
and control the internet. As Wired's Singel wrote back in 2010: "Make
no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the
internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet
dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military
industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue
for an arms race". Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext
for this control, the "mushroom cloud" and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of
cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: "the only war going on is one
for the soul of the internet." That's the vital context for
understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated
control over cyber programs.

Bonanza for private contractors - As always, it is not just political
power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As
military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced,
something needs to replace it, and these large-scale "cyber-security"
contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security
program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its
"private-sector partners", who receive large transfers of public funds
for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that "Lockheed Martin Corp.,
AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for
a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that
they can package as security services for sale to other companies."
This is part of a government effort "to create a market based on
classified US information about cyber threats." In May, it was
announced that "the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial
program that teams the government with Internet service providers to
protect defense firms' computer networks against data theft by foreign
adversaries" - all as "part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing
of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government
and industry."

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence
contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger
for national security and intelligence functions. This organization -
the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) - was formerly
headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a "collaboration by
leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community" which "combines
the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector,
and academia."

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the
nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new
expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-
security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet.
Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that
the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs "will
muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and
the private sector." At the very same time McConnell published this
Op-
Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled "Addressing Cyber
Security Through Public-Private Partnership." It featured a genuinely
creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government
institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the
Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the
Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-
mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009
- entitled "Cyber Deterrence Conference" - government officials and
intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that
"government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration
and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific
roles and responsibilities."

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when
McConnell - then at Booz Allen - was first nominated to be DNI: Well,
the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead
agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you
know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American
intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North
Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet
that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen
is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50%
of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector
contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions
not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public
expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally
reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at
least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these
private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance
and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been
feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending
carousel of Menacing Enemies - Communists, Terrorists, Latin American
Tyrants, Saddam's chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs - has sustained
it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest. Like all of these wildly
exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by
cyber-attacks. But, as Singel described, all of this can be managed
with greater security systems for public and private computer networks
- just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with
the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-
threat - just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program
have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all
about strengthening the US's offensive cyber-war capabilities,
consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further
transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue
unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by
the public-private US National Security State over the last six
decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.


Mystery, Paranoia, Confusion: You Won't Believe What's Happening at
Guantanamo
February 3, 2013 |

Over the week of January 28-31 a great mystery played out at JTF-GTMO,
the notorious military base and indefinite detention facility better
known as Guantanamo Bay. The question at hand: who cut the media feed
during a pre-trial hearing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, self-proclaimed
mastermind of 9/11, thus temporarily censoring the proceedings? Was
there an unknown, outside force controlling the court? If so, who was
it? What was intended to be a dry week of legal wrangling became a
full-on whodunnit that was part Law & Order, part spy novel – if the
final 50 pages had been blacked out.

On top of that, the week ended with defense attorneys openly
questioning whether their conversations with clients were being
secretly monitored. “We have significant reasons to believe we have
been listened in [on],” David Nevin, defense attorney for KSM said at
at press conference. “After this week,” said defense attorney James
Connell, “the paranoia levels have kicked up a notch.”

If none of this sounds familiar, you can be forgiven. In the Obama
era, news about GTMO (the military doesn't use the “i”) is either
unwarrantedly optimistic – we're closing it, we swear – or, more
frequently, totally ignored. And, quite tellingly, rather than close
the prison, Obama has instead decided to close the office responsible
for determining how to close the prison. [3]

Last week the government held a round of what's called pre-trial
motion hearings, which establish the specific rules of a trial. Given
the almost complete lack of precedent in military commissions – more
on that shortly – this process is even more important than it would be
in a normal court.

The cast of characters in this would-be Agatha Christie play are
numerous and colorful. At the center are Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his
four co-defendants, all of whom stand accused of war crimes and face
the death penalty. They've been detained at GTMO since 2006.

The attorneys representing the accused are an impressive posse of
civilian and military lawyers given the difficult task of navigating a
legal universe that, despite the government's claims to the contrary,
often feels like it's being created before our very eyes.

Brig. Gen. Mark Martins is the lead prosecutor and the man most
singularly tasked with defending the legitimacy of this young legal
universe. Gen. Martins is the picture of the military's self-
perception. Tall, disciplined, and by all accounts extremely
intelligent, he's also stoic as a Brit. He once said, after being
asked his feelings on a week's events, “I don't tend to experience
highs and lows in litigation.”

Overseeing the endeavor is Army Colonel Judge James Pohl, a man with a
self-deprecating sense of humor and a passing resemblance to Bill
Murray.

The final character in this drama is the new legal universe itself.
Military commissions, as GTMO trials are called, are a confusing mix
of civilian court, which is overseen by the judicial branch, and
courts martial, the justice system for members of the military, which
is under the purview of the executive branch. Military commissions are
similarly overseen by the executive branch, though Gen. Martins is
quick to point out any similarity they share with civilian court.
Congress created military commissions in 2006, and updated them in
2009.

Last week was supposed to be boring. But then lightning struck, the
lights went out, and when they came back on there was a dead body in
the middle of the room – metaphorically speaking, of course. The
mystery had been set in motion.

Mystery

It's hard to imagine the week going any worse for the government. On
the first day of proceedings, a previously unknown, outside entity
reached into the courtroom like the hand of god and cut the audio/
visual feed to the media – which is on a 40-second delay – apparently
surprising even the judge. The judge and his assistant, a court
security officer (CSO), have always had the authority to cut the feed,
but they didn't hit the button. Neither had the CSO's assistants.

When the button is pushed, a red light that looks like a hockey light
goes off. That has now happened three times including the most recent
instance, and each time the judge ruled the censoring inappropriate,
so the hidden testimony was put on the public record.

So who was that outside entity? The open secret among everyone on base
is it was the CIA, though no one can confirm that on the record
because the information is classified. That's just one of many
instances where “classified” doesn't mean secret as much as it means
controlled.

Whoever secretly pushed the button is known as an Original
Classification Authority, or OCA. OCA is not a position, rank, or job
title. It's a term to describe someone, usually fairly high-level
though not always, who “owns” the information that's classified, and
is able to declassify it. There are also OCAs in the DoD, FBI, NSA,
and other government agencies, and we don't know if any of them also
had access to the kill switch.

Whether or not the judge knew an outside someone – or several someones
– had the power to cut the media feed prior to it actually happening
is unclear. Once the feed came back on, he certainly seemed surprised,
and furious, about what had happened. “[N]ote for the record, that the
40-second delay was initiated, not by me,” Judge Pohl said when the
feed came back. “I'm curious as to why.” He continued, “if some
external body is turning the commission off under their own view of
what things ought to be … we are going to have a little meeting about
who turns that light on or off.”

But it's also possible that he wasn't totally aware of or familiar
with his own rules for shutting court to ensure classified information
doesn't “spill” accidentally.

What's certain, however, is that the defense was not aware that an
outside entity could shut down the court. “I would like to know who
has the permission to turn that light on and off, who is listening to
this,” defense attorney Nevin said once the feed returned.

Many at the prosecution table, however, seemed non-plussed. Prosecutor
Joanna Baltes actually offered to explain to the judge what had
happened in his chambers, away from the public. James Connell, defense
attorney for Ammar al-Baluchi, said that the OCA's cutting of the feed
on Monday, "demonstrates a level of involvement by the OCA on the
prosecution side that we had never previously seen.”

Judge Pohl issued a ruling at the end of the week demanding the
government disconnect any system that allows an outside body to
trigger the hockey light and cut the media feed, but as lawyers like
to say: you can't unring a bell. The damage caused by an independent
entity that is widely recognized to be the CIA temporarily shutting
court – to the apparent surprise of everyone but the prosecution –
will be difficult, if not impossible, to repair. Making matters worse
for the government, defense attorney Cheryl Bormann characterized the
discussion that triggered the closing as “innocuous.”

The location of the OCA could be important as well. A reporter for the
Miami Herald asked defense attorney David Nevin if there could be
constitutional implications if the OCA killed the feed from US soil.
Nevin said there almost certainly would be, though he reiterated that
the government has provided no information about who the OCA is or
where they were.

Whether or not the Constitution applies at Guantanamo Bay remains an
unresolved matter. Judge Pohl denied a defense motion to presume the
applicability of the Constitution, saying instead he would review the
matter on a case by case basis, as the prosecution argued was
appropriate.

Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the lead prosecutor and primary advocate for
the legitimacy of the commissions, constantly extols the openness of
the proceedings and the fairness of the process. He's in an unenviable
position, and this week only made his job more difficult.

Paranoia

The procedures for military commissions are unclear, especially when
compared with civilian court. In response to a question I asked
regarding whether or not the case could effectively be tried in a
regular courtroom in the United States, Gen. Martins reiterated that
Congress had ruled GTMO detainees couldn't be transferred to US soil.
“The case is in this jurisdiction, this is the only place it's gonna
be tried,” he said at a press conference at the beginning of the week.
“That doesn't mean it's gonna be unfair. It urges us on to make
[military commissions] laudable, fair, and accountable.”

Despite Gen. Martins' reassurances, the five defense teams are united
in their criticisms of the entire system as fundamentally flawed, and
possibly susceptible to outside influence. “Who is the master of
puppets?” Commander Walter Ruiz asked at the end of the week in a wry
homage to Metallica, suggesting that there are hidden players pulling
the strings of the case. Ruiz also said he believed the killing of the
media feed on Monday was in direct violation of the rules governing
closure of the court. The judge's order removing the outside entity's
ability to kill the feed is further evidence for Ruiz's claim.

The defense is also united by a troubling concern that goes to the
very heart our our idea of justice: they claim to have reason to
suspect their private conversations among themselves and with their
clients may have been secretly recorded. Defense attorney David Nevin
introduced an emergency motion on Thursday morning to abate – or halt
– the proceedings until the question of whether or not attorney/client
privilege has been compromised has been adequately explained and
resolved. Judge Pohl saw the importance of the motion, and moved it to
the top of the pile.

All the tables in the courtroom have desktop microphones with mute
buttons on them. On the final day of the proceedings, defense
attorneys James Connell and Lt. Col. Sterling Thomas both bent their
microphones away from them, pointing them at the floor. “The question
of who listens to microphones from the defense tables is still very
much an open question,” Connell said, regarding the motion defense
attorney Nevin filed on Thursday morning. A note on the courtroom door
reads: “Assume microphones are live at all times.” During a brief
recess on Thursday morning, the five defense teams huddled against the
wall, away from their desks for fear of secret monitoring.

If it is true that defense attorneys' private conversations, among
themselves or with their clients, have been surreptitiously recorded
it would a catastrophic blow to a system who's fairness is constantly
under scrutiny. Even if that information hasn't been provided to the
prosecution – Gen. Martins has stated unequivocally that his team has
not been given any privileged information – the ramifications would be
hard to overstate. “If attorney client privileges are being violated,
and it's not clear that is the case, it would be a serious violation
of one of the most important fundamental protections provided in the
US criminal justice system and would have serious implications for the
validity of these proceedings,” Laura Pitter of Human Rights Watch
wrote in an email.

The first evening we were there, security officials gave reporters a
tour of the Expeditionary Legal Complex – the courtroom and nearby
holding cells. There hadn't been a tour in years, as near as I could
tell. DoD officials repeatedly stressed that they were trying to make
the GTMO experience more transparent; this tour was one example of
that.

Inside the courtroom a security expert said, “Everything said in here
is recorded.” Ironically, journalists weren't allowed to bring
recording devices inside. Our tour happened before the defense's
allegations of secret monitoring, and one wonders whether that
security expert would've used the same phrasing had the tour been
given at the end of the week.

Beyond the defense's specific questions, general suspicions of
surveillance are common at GTMO. Some people will say off-handedly
that they have no idea if their phone conversations or personal email
are actually private, or are subject to monitoring. I've certainly
wondered about that, and I doubt I'm the only journalist who has.

Uncanny Justice

As the military commission system begins to take shape, slowly, I'm
reminded of the artificial intelligence phenomenon of the uncanny
valley. That theory states that as the appearance of non-human
entities comes to resemble real humans closely but not exactly, the
observer responds with revulsion.

What's happening at Guantanamo Bay now is something that could be
called uncanny justice. As the proceedings inch toward what defense
attorney Nevin suggested was merely the “appearance of justice,” the
military commissions don't become more pleasing and comforting.
Rather, they've taken on a ghastly, unfamiliar complexion, like if the
Department of Justice had a wax museum wing.

It's not only human rights groups that are critical of the military
commission system. Phyllis Rodriguez's son Greg was killed on
September 11th. She attended the week's hearings along with several
other family members of victims. She's against the death penalty, and
so was her son. She characterized the attacks on 9/11 as “political
opportunities to get into the Middle East.” On numerous occasions over
the week, she said she'd prefer that the trial took place in regular
civilian court.

The secrecy and civil liberties concerns that have arisen in the
United States since 9/11 bother her, too. “Our rights have been
compromised,” she said, standing in a gigantic hangar that houses the
media center. “We live in fear. It reminds me of the Cold War and
McCarthy era.”
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron