EVIDENCE OF PSYCHOSIS: Deputy Secretary of Defense is a psychotic maniac!

[Dig]

Pentagon may apply preemptive warfare policy to the Internet
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0829/pentagon-weighs-applying-preemptive-warfare-tactics-internet/
By Stephen C. Webster
Sunday, August 29th, 2010 -- 11:39 pm


Grappling with matters of law and policy governing the United States military's cyber-warfare capabilities, Pentagon planners are eying ways of making preemptive strikes across the Internet part of America's toolbox. In a piece for Foreign Affairs, the publication of globalist policy group The Council on Foreign Relations, Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III paints a picture of dire threat to American infrastructure, disclosing for the first time details of a devastating cyber-attack on U.S. infrastructure. While not giving many specifics, Lynn described how malicious code on a USB thumb drive managed to spread across the Department of Defense network, establishing a "digital beachhead" that could siphon key data. "It was a network administrator's worst fear: a rogue program operating silently, poised to deliver operational plans into the hands of an unknown adversary," he wrote. "This previously classified incident was the most significant breach of U.S. military computers ever, and it served as an important wake-up call. The Pentagon's operation to counter the attack, known as Operation Buckshot Yankee, marked a turning point in U.S. cyberdefense strategy." However, "Operation Buchshot Yankee," commenced in 2008 and lasting some 14 months, saw the Department of Defense scramble over what was essentially a very minor security threat that caught their network experts completely by surprise.

[Dig]

CFR has issued the directive.

THIS IS A ROCKEFELLER INITIATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

Coming out next month: OCTOBER SURPRISE:

Defending a New Domain
The Pentagon's Cyberstrategy
By William J. Lynn III
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain

Summary:  Right now, more than 100 foreign intelligence organizations are trying to hack into the digital networks that undergird U.S. military operations. The Pentagon recognizes the catastrophic threat posed by cyberwarfare, and is partnering with allied governments and private companies to prepare itself.

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense suffered a significant compromise of its classified military computer networks. It began when an infected flash drive was inserted into a U.S. military laptop at a base in the Middle East. The flash drive's malicious computer code, placed there by a foreign intelligence agency, uploaded itself onto a network run by the U.S. Central Command. That code spread undetected on both classified and unclassified systems, establishing what amounted to a digital beachhead, from which data could be transferred to servers under foreign control. It was a network administrator's worst fear: a rogue program operating silently, poised to deliver operational plans into the hands of an unknown adversary.

This previously classified incident was the most significant breach of U.S. military computers ever, and it served as an important wake-up call. The Pentagon's operation to counter the attack, known as Operation Buckshot Yankee, marked a turning point in U.S. cyberdefense strategy.  Over the past ten years, the frequency and sophistication of intrusions into U.S. military networks have increased exponentially. Every day, U.S. military and civilian networks are probed thousands of times and scanned millions of times. And the 2008 intrusion that led to Operation Buckshot Yankee was not the only successful penetration. Adversaries have acquired thousands of files from U.S. networks and from the networks of U.S. allies and industry partners, including weapons blueprints, operational plans, and surveillance data.

As the scale of cyberwarfare's threat to U.S. national security and the U.S. economy has come into view, the Pentagon has built layered and robust defenses around military networks and inaugurated the new U.S. Cyber Command to integrate cyberdefense operations across the military. The Pentagon is now working with the Department of Homeland Security to protect government networks and critical infrastructure and with the United States' closest allies to expand these defenses internationally. An enormous amount of foundational work remains, but the U.S. government has begun putting in place various initiatives to defend the United States in the digital age.

THE THREAT ENVIRONMENT

[Dig]

Congress will sneak through Internet ‘kill switch’ in defense bill
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-bill/
By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, August 28th, 2010 -- 9:00 pm

A federal cybersecurity bill that critics say creates a presidential "kill switch" for the Internet could be added on to a defense spending bill and passed without much debate, technology news sources report. Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), one of the sponsors of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, told GovInfoSecurity.com that the Senate is considering attaching the bill as a rider to a defense authorization bill likely to pass through Congress before the mid-term elections.

"It's hard to get a measure like cybersecurity legislation passed on its own," Carper said.

Carper, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), introduced the bill in June in an effort to combat cyber-crime and the threat of online warfare and terrorism. Critics say the bill would allow the president to disconnect Internet networks and force private websites to comply with broad cybersecurity measures. Future US presidents would have those powers renewed indefinitely. The bill (PDF) states that Internet service providers, search engines and other Internet-related businesses "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. But many observers point out that that doesn't necessarily amount to a "kill switch" -- and, in fact, the president already has the power to shut off the Internet. As Time magazine points out, the Communications Act of 1934 grants the president the power to shut down wire communications during a time of war, and the Internet is now recognized as a wire communication medium. Yet the proposed law authorizes the president to declare "cyber emergencies" -- potentially expanding the president's power to shut down the Internet to times when the US is not technically at war. And even some backers of the proposed legislation argue the bill is too broad and vague, and the powers granted to the executive branch could be unpredictable as a result. A summary (DOC) of the bill issued by Sen. Lieberman's office describes the powers granted to the president:

[Dig]

NOW WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PSYCHOPATH JAY ROCKEFELLER MEANT WHEN HE SAID THE FOLLOWING....

Senator (D-WV) John D. Rockefeller IV
[In refererence to why he believes the Internet should not exist]
Wednesday, March 18th, 2009
Commerce Secretary Confirmation Hearing:

[...1:53...]
Both the President Bushs'  Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell who I greatly respect, and President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Admiral (Dennis) Blair, who I greatly respect, have labelled cyber security, perpetrated through the
internet,
as
the #1 national hazard of attack
on the homeland
[...]
It almost makes you ask the question, 'would it have been better if
we'd never invented the internet?'.
[...1:57...]
And it threatens the nation
unlike anything else.
More so than...
suitcase booms,
dirty bombs,
plutonium bombs.
This is what threatens us.
I lay that down as a major, major subject.


[Care of the prison planet forum resident graphics artist Brocke]

[Dig]

Barack Obama nominates Raytheon Lobbyist to Control Preemptive Wars
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/01/obama_lobbying_ban_hits_realit.html
Posted January 22, 2009 11:06 AM
by Frank James

When is a ban on lobbyists in an administration not a ban on lobbyists in an administration? When you need a lobbyist who knows how the Pentagon works to help run the defense establishment. That's the situation the new Obama Administration finds itself in. Obama nominated William J. Lynn III as his Deputy Defense Secretary in a role that would require Lynn to essentially be the chief operations officer in that mammoth bureaucracy. But Lynn was among, other things, a lobbyist for Raytheon Co., one of the nation's largest defense contractors.  To not violate the new executive order the president signed yesterday, Lynn would require a waiver from the new administration.  That would seem to violate the spirit of Obama's ban, something which numerous people, including the Project on Government Oversight, are now pointing out:

"POGO believes strongly in the revolving door restrictions President Barack Obama has outlined to restore integrity and ethics to government," said POGO executive director Danielle Brian. "It is because we believe so strongly in the positive impact that such a change will have that we urge the President to withdraw his nomination of William J. Lynn III as Deputy Secretary of Defense. President Obama should not compromise his standards and the effectiveness of the Department of Defense by allowing a top defense industry lobbyist to receive a waiver from these standards. The defense industry is in a class of its own among all of the industries that have had a pervasive stranglehold on public policy to advance their own financial interests."

In a 2008 lobbying report, Lynn was listed as part of a Raytheon lobbying team on budget and appropriations issues including the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, acquisition policy, missile defense, and Foreign Military Financing. The Obama Administration should not allow its ethics standards to begin with a series of waivers and loopholes which immediately undermine its good intentions.

[Dig]

Obama Nominee For Control Over Weapons is Raytheon Lobbyist
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2009/01/president_barack_obamas_strict.html
POSTED: 01:03 PM ET, 01/23/2009 by Derek Kravitz

President Barack Obama's strict new lobbying rules for cabinet members have put his administration in a difficult spot when it comes to one of its top nominees. William J. Lynn III, a former Pentagon official under President Bill Clinton and Obama's choice for deputy secretary of the Defense Department, spent the better part of the past two years lobbying for defense contractor Raytheon, federal records show. Obama's ethics rules state that ex-lobbyists in his administration cannot work on issues they lobbied on for two years:

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.

That rule complicates matters for Lynn. It also affects William V. Coor, the nominee for deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, who has lobbied for the nonprofit Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. But Coor has pledged not to work on any tobacco issues in his new job. Lynn, however, lobbied the Pentagon on so many Raytheon projects -- acquisitions policy, space, intelligence and command and control, among others -- that it might be hard to find an area within the department that was untouched by his previous work.

[Dig]

Statement
of
William J. Lynn, III
Deputy Secretary of Defense
before the
U.S. Senate
Budget Committee
March 4, 2010
For Official Use Only
Until Released by the Senate Budget Committee
http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/testimony/2010/SBC_Lynn_030410.pdf

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of Defense.
On behalf of our Servicemen and women—as well as DoD civilian employees—I
would like to thank the committee for your support of the Department’s vital missions.
Our troops have shown incomparable bravery and compassion in their service in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, and in many other countries around the world.
The budget request for fiscal year 2011 is, in the judgment of Secretary Gates and
DoD’s senior leadership, what is needed to sustain and rebalance our forces to address
the national security threats we face today and anticipate in the future.
This budget continues the reform agenda established by President Obama and
Secretary Gates in the FY10 budget. Building on the FY10 initiatives, the 2010
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) assessed the threats the U.S. faces in the coming
years, established strategic priorities, and identified key areas for investment.
President’s FY 2011 Budget Request
The President’s topline budget for FY 2011 requests $708 billion for DoD. This
amount includes $549 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense
programs, an increase of more than $18 billion over the $531 billion base budget enacted
in FY 2010. The increase amounts to 3.4 percent, or 1.8 percent real growth after
adjusting for inflation. The FY 2011 request includes an additional $159 billion to
support overseas contingency operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It should be noted that, even with modest real growth, DoD outlays as a share of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will remain flat at 4.7 percent in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Considering only the base budget, DoD consumes about 3.5 percent of GDP.
Growth in the DoD Budget Topline
As the President stated in his budget message to Congress, “Our future is
dependent on maintaining American leadership abroad and ensuring our security at
home.” The President’s budget request for DoD accordingly reflects the administration’s
commitment to modest, steady, and sustainable growth in defense spending.
In making his budget decisions, President Obama carefully balanced our national
security needs with our economic needs, including the deficit. Even as the President
imposes a spending freeze on domestic agencies, he has made a strategic choice to
continue funding modest growth in the military and in other national security agencies.
Real growth is projected at 1.8 percent this year and approximately 1.0 percent when
averaged over FY 2010-15.
Modest real growth in the DoD base budget is necessary for several reasons.
DoD has some costs that increase with inflation, such as pay and benefits. Other costs
are growing faster than inflation. In particular, military health care expenses are likely to
increase by as much as five-to-six percent per year over the next five years, reflecting the
rise in overall U.S. health care costs and increasing use of the TRICARE program.
Because the total cost of sustaining the force is growing faster than inflation, DoD
needs real growth simply to maintain present force levels. Sustaining our current size
and capabilities is essential to prosecute current wars, meet U.S. commitments
worldwide, and conduct unanticipated operations, including relief efforts for natural
disasters. We cannot afford to make cuts in the size of our force or our operations while
we are at war.
DOD must also enhance capabilities for which we have an identified need and
prepare for new threats we may face in the future. Building the capacity of partner
nations to support U.S. counter-terrorism operations has emerged as a crucial national
security priority. The budget therefore includes higher funding under the Section 1206
Train and Equip authority. The budget also increases support to defend our computer
networks against cyber attacks, enhance our space capabilities, and deploy advanced
missile defense systems.
We urge Congress to support our full defense request in its upcoming budget
resolution and in subsequent funding allocations by House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. The bottom line is this: We need modest real budget growth to sustain and
equip a military at war while also preparing for the future.
Themes and Programs in FY 2011 Budget Request
The base budget for FY 2011 request reflects three overarching institutional
priorities.
First, it reaffirms and strengthens the nation’s commitment to care for the all-
volunteer force, which Secretary Gates has called our greatest strategic asset.
Specifically, the FY 2011 budget includes $138.5 billion for military pay and
allowances, including a 1.4 percent pay raise; $2.2 billion for enduring programs to
support wounded, ill, and injured Service Members; $50.7 billion for the Unified Medical
Budget and the Military Health System that serves 9.5 million beneficiaries; $8.1 billion
for military family support programs; and $18.7 billion to fund critical military
construction and family housing requirements.
Second, the proposed base budget continues the rebalancing of America’s defense
posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts, while still
enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future.
For the wars we are in, especially the conflict in Afghanistan, the budget provides
for more rotary-wing aircraft; the addition of 1,500 new helicopter pilots per year by
2012; increased Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) support; enhanced
Electronic Warfare platforms; and increased funding for Special Operations Forces.
The FY 2011 base budget also allocates $189 billion to conventional and strategic
modernization, including:
• $10.7 billion for continued development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and
procurement of 42 aircraft;
• $864 million to support development of a new aerial refueling tanker;
• $25.1 billion for procurement of new ships, equipment, and research and
development;
• $3.2 billion support the restructuring of the Army’s Future Combat Systems;
• $9.9 billion for missile defense;
• Funds to strengthen U.S. capabilities in space and to stand up a new U.S.
Cyber Command.
These advanced weapons and capabilities are essential to keep us ahead of our
adversaries. We need weapons systems that give U.S. forces an overwhelming advantage
in combat, which will both save lives and shorten conflicts
Third, the President’s budget will continue the Department’s commitment to
reform the way DoD does business, especially in the area of acquisition.
To ensure that every defense dollar is spent wisely, the FY 2011 base budget will
bolster the capability and size of our acquisition workforce. The eventual creation of
20,000 new positions in the federal acquisition workforce will enhance our ability to
oversee programs and generate independent cost estimates, in compliance with
Congressional legislation. We ask the Congress to support our in-sourcing initiative to
hire new civilian workers in place of contractors, a move that will ultimately reduce costs
and operational risks. Our goal is to serve as good stewards of taxpayer dollars as we
provide the warfighter with world-class capability.
An important component of acquisition reform is having the discipline to curtail
or end unneeded and troubled programs. In last year’s budget, Secretary Gates
recommended canceling or curtailing programs that, if taken to completion, would have
cost the taxpayer $330 billion dollars. This year he has proposed cutting seven major
systems, including:
• The Next Generation Cruiser CG(X)
• The Navy Intelligence Aircraft EP(X)
• The Third Generation Infrared Surveillance system (3GIRS)
• The Net Enabled Command and Control System
• The Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS)
• The C-17
• An alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.
The C-17 and the JSF alternate engine, as Secretary Gates has already discussed,
are two systems in particular that we are opposed to funding further. Three department
studies completed over the past five years each confirm the adequacy of our current
strategic airlift capacity. The C-17 is an excellent plane. But we already have 194 C-17s
and will have procured 223 when the currently authorized procurements are completed.
This is in addition to 111 C-5s.
The second JSF engine is similarly a capability that careful review has found to be
more costly than the benefits it would provide. We took a fresh look at this issue,
considering the $2.9 billion of additional funding it would take to develop a second
engine to take it to competition, the downstream complications of separate maintenance
regimes, potential savings achieved through competition, and the development status of
the original engine. Our bottom line is that pursuing a second engine would not serve the
interests of the taxpayers, our military, our partner nations, or the integrity of the JSF
program.
FY 2011 Costs for Overseas Contingency Operations
Besides the base budget, the FY 2011 budget request contains funds to support
overseas contingency operations. As Secretary Gates has said repeatedly, DoD’s highest
priority is to provide troops in the field with everything they need to be successful.
We are asking for $159.3 billion to fund military operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq in FY 2011. Included are funds for:
• Operations ($89.4 billion),
• Force Protection ($12 billion),
• IED Defeat ($3.3 billion),
• Afghan and Iraqi Security Forces ($13.6 billion),
• Coalition Support ($2.0 billion),
• Commander’s Emergency Response Program ($1.3 billion), and
• Reconstitution or resetting of equipment ($21.3 billion).
The budget supports a responsible drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq and transfer to
Iraqi responsibility and control. The budget also supports the growth of forces in
Afghanistan, including a supplemental request of $33.0 billion in FY 2010 to pay for the
additional 30,000 troops that President Obama has ordered to be deployed.
Longer Term Prospects
As we conduct a responsible drawdown in Iraq and eventually leave Afghanistan,
the Department’s war-related costs will decline. Because we cannot accurately forecast
wartime costs more than about one year in advance, DoD’s long-term budget contains a
placeholder of $50 billion per year for wartime spending from FY 2012 through FY
2015.
Long-term trends in the base budget depend largely on threats to U.S. security and
the forces and equipment that must be maintained to counter those threats. If we must
maintain current force levels, we can expect the base defense budget to require some
continued real growth.
We will continue to search for ways to minimize this growth and to achieve
efficiencies in all areas of the defense budget. Health care is one area in particular where
the introduction of efficiencies may yield cost savings. If present trends continue, we can
expect health care to consume 10 percent of DoD’s budget by 2015. We have proposed
some health care efficiencies in this budget. Our goal is to work with Congress to
continue providing high-quality health care while slowing cost growth.
Closing
Mr. Chairman, in closing I want to thank you and the Committee for the
opportunity to testify about the Department’s topline budget. Your support of our troops
and their families is deeply appreciated. We are confident that the choices and priorities
contained in the FY 2011 budget request will provide for the defense of the United States
and its people. We are committed to ensuring that our Armed Forces have the tools to
prevail in the wars we are presently engaged in, while also making the investments
necessary for the future.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I welcome the Committee’s
questions.

[Optimus]

Is it even possible to be even more of a nazi than Jay Rockefeller?


Experts Caution Against Federal Web Regulations
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/26/29911.htm
By AVERY FELLOW

     WASHINGTON (CN) - The federal government is "flirting with killing the goose that laid the golden eggs" by contemplating stricter Internet regulations, an ACLU director cautioned Thursday.
     At the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, Jay Stanley, public education director of the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledged that it's important for the government to set Internet security standards for facilities such as power plants and public schools. But he said federal officials should be wary of violating personal liberties by implementing stifling Internet regulations.
     Much of the wealth in the United States is based on the Internet, Stanley said. Strict government regulation threatens to "kill the goose that has laid many golden eggs," he said.
     "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," added the Heritage Foundation's Paul Rosenzweig, quoting the oft-used phrase. "We cannot allow a virus to take down the entire electric grid in fear of violating personal liberties."
     He said government intelligence agencies should work hard to balance Internet security and personal liberties.
     Stanley said he fears that the latest embodiment of the government effort to protect its computer networks, dubbed Einstein 3, will employ "threat-based decision making," making pre-emptive calls on who poses an Internet threat.
     The new system might include personally identifiable information, using a database of signatures to attack malicious code, Stanley said. The system could be placed on the servers of private Internet providers, blurring the line between government and private industry.
     President Obama has promised that the government will not monitor private traffic as part of its cybersecurity initiative, but Stanley remained skeptical.
     "We don't trust that that will remain true," he said. "Security imperatives and security dynamics have a life of their own."
     He added, "What we don't want is watch lists for the Internet." Stanley compared Internet watch lists to "Kafka-esque" no-fly lists in the airline industry that are "based on sloppy lists and questionable computer algorithms."
     Stanley also objected to the notion of needing a license to use the Internet, saying it would eliminate useful discussions in which people can anonymously voice opinions about those in power.
     "We do not want to ruin all that," he said.
     He said giving the government the power to shut down the Internet in the case of an emergency would pose the greatest risk to the freedom of speech and association. Right now, Stanley said, it is easier to see how that kind of power could be abused than how it may prove useful. If it were employed, he added, it would require well-defined parameters as well as checks and balances.
     Rosenzweig said there was no way to stop people or companies from creating profiles based on Internet users' search, travel and shopping data.
     "It's a lost cause," he said.
     With increasing computer power and storage space, Rosenzweig said, "the half-life of secrets is plummeting dramatically."
     Even if the United States shut down analytical capacity, he said, countries such as China or India might continue to create profiles for U.S. consumers.
     "The game's over," Rosenzweig said.

[Dig]

Gather some interoperability with a few thousand UAV's and the genome project and PNAC has got themselves a party!

I now know the new tagline...

"RAYTHEON...WE ARE GOING TO KILL YOU"

[Dig]

2009-             Dept of Defense, Obama               Deputy Secretary of Defense
2002-2008   Raytheon Co    Lobbyist
2001-2002   DFI International                           Exec VP
1997-2001   Dept of Defense, Clinton                Undersec (Comptroller)
1993-1997   Dept of Defense, Clinton                Dir, Prgrm Analysis & Evaluation
1987-1993   Kennedy, Edward M                       Legislative Counsel
1985-1986   Institute for Defense                      Analyses Prof Staff   
1982-1985   Center for Strategic & Intl Studies    Exec Dir, Defense Project

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=31517

[Dig]

William J. Lynn to serve Raytheon as Deputy Secretary of Defense
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2009/01/william-j-lynn-to-serve-raytheon-as.html
Saturday, January 10, 2009

Congratulations are in order to defense contractor Raytheon. The company's former Sr VP, Govt Ops & Strategy, will be brought on to help the defense industry run the Pentagon for the next four years. It was not altogether clear to some naive observers that this day would come. After all, as ABC News reports:

President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, violates his campaign pledge that no lobbyists will be allowed on his team working on subjects they've recently lobbied on, Transition officials acknowledged Friday. Officials say they were aware that Lynn had lobbied for defense giant Raytheon as recently as last summer, but they defended their pick. [Obama spokesman's justification for the hire printed here. Rest assured is the most qualified person available to serve the defense industry.] Lynn, a former undersecretary of defense in the Clinton administration, currently serves as senior vice president of government operations and strategy at Raytheon, a military contractor. The deputy defense secretary traditionally supervises hiring such contractors.

It's lucky for Raytheon that Obama did not allow prior promises to voters to muddle the priorities of the defense industry. After all, not only the next big defense procurement, but the whole trajectory of US defense policy might have been been put in unfamiliar hands.

[Optimus]

Hey Jay Rockefeller and Paul Rosenzweig, go plug the Einstein 3 into your asses! You guys are a threat to free speech on the internets!

[Dig]

Raytheon's Presentation on C4ISR

Cool, huh?

[Dig]

Expect these outside everybody's window

"THE PREEMPTIVE STRIKE IS JUSTIFIED ON 100 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS" Said former Raytheon lobbyist.

[Dig]

We are coming for you!

[Dig]

"We need to preemptively strike that entire city because someone is blogging about a birth certificate"

[Dig]

"Without a trace...Raytheon can make sure your false flag goes off without a hitch!"

"Remember, it is all legal because the CFR and Jay Rockefeller said so."

"Operation Cyber-Northwoods in Full Effect!"

[Dig]

"Wow, we can see everybody's naked body from up here"

"Quick, call THE FINDERS and FRANKLIN...we got a few more for the CIA Special Ops"

[Dig]

You think LA County has a pain ray? THIS IS A PAIN RAY!

[Dig]

Raytheon Soldiers are here to protect you!

[Dig]

If you see these on your streets do not worry...

Raytheon is planning a pre-emptive strike after gathering up over 1,000 hours of video evidence on every person in the city they are illegally monitoring.

[Dig]

[Anti_Illuminati]

http://media.csis.org/sf/090615_lynn.mp3

http://csis.org/event/statesmens-forum-deputy-secretary-defense-william-j-lynn-iii

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain?page=show

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense suffered a significant compromise of its classified military computer networks. It began when an infected flash drive was inserted into a U.S. military laptop at a base in the Middle East. The flash drive's malicious computer code, placed there by a foreign intelligence agency, uploaded itself onto a network run by the U.S. Central Command. That code spread undetected on both classified and unclassified systems, establishing what amounted to a digital beachhead, from which data could be transferred to servers under foreign control. It was a network administrator's worst fear: a rogue program operating silently, poised to deliver operational plans into the hands of an unknown adversary.

This previously classified incident was the most significant breach of U.S. military computers ever, and it served as an important wake-up call. The Pentagon's operation to counter the attack, known as Operation Buckshot Yankee, marked a turning point in U.S. cyberdefense strategy.

Over the past ten years, the frequency and sophistication of intrusions into U.S. military networks have increased exponentially. Every day, U.S. military and civilian networks are probed thousands of times and scanned millions of times. And the 2008 intrusion that led to Operation Buckshot Yankee was not the only successful penetration. Adversaries have acquired thousands of files from U.S. networks and from the networks of U.S. allies and industry partners, including weapons blueprints, operational plans, and surveillance data.

As the scale of cyberwarfare's threat to U.S. national security and the U.S. economy has come into view, the Pentagon has built layered and robust defenses around military networks and inaugurated the new U.S. Cyber Command to integrate cyberdefense operations across the military. The Pentagon is now working with the Department of Homeland Security to protect government networks and critical infrastructure and with the United States' closest allies to expand these defenses internationally. An enormous amount of foundational work remains, but the U.S. government has begun putting in place various initiatives to defend the United States in the digital age.

THE THREAT ENVIRONMENT

Cold War deterrence models do not apply to cyberspace, where it is so difficult to identify an attack's perpetrator.

Information technology enables almost everything the U.S. military does: logistical support and global command and control of forces, real-time provision of intelligence, and remote operations. Every one of these functions depends heavily on the military's global communications backbone, which consists of 15,000 networks and seven million computing devices across hundreds of installations in dozens of countries. More than 90,000 people work full time to maintain it. In less than a generation, information technology in the military has evolved from an administrative tool for enhancing office productivity into a national strategic asset in its own right. The U.S. government's digital infrastructure now gives the United States critical advantages over any adversary, but its reliance on computer networks also potentially enables adversaries to gain valuable intelligence about U.S. capabilities and operations, to impede the United States' conventional military forces, and to disrupt the U.S. economy. In developing a strategy to counter these dangers, the Pentagon is focusing on a few central attributes of the cyberthreat.

First, cyberwarfare is asymmetric. The low cost of computing devices means that U.S. adversaries do not have to build expensive weapons, such as stealth fighters or aircraft carriers, to pose a significant threat to U.S. military capabilities. A dozen determined computer programmers can, if they find a vulnerability to exploit, threaten the United States' global logistics network, steal its operational plans, blind its intelligence capabilities, or hinder its ability to deliver weapons on target. Knowing this, many militaries are developing offensive capabilities in cyberspace, and more than 100 foreign intelligence organizations are trying to break into U.S. networks. Some governments already have the capacity to disrupt elements of the U.S. information infrastructure.

In cyberspace, the offense has the upper hand. The Internet was designed to be collaborative and rapidly expandable and to have low barriers to technological innovation; security and identity management were lower priorities. For these structural reasons, the U.S. government's ability to defend its networks always lags behind its adversaries' ability to exploit U.S. networks' weaknesses. Adept programmers will find vulnerabilities and overcome security measures put in place to prevent intrusions. In an offense-dominant environment, a fortress mentality will not work. The United States cannot retreat behind a Maginot Line of firewalls or it will risk being overrun. Cyberwarfare is like maneuver warfare, in that speed and agility matter most. To stay ahead of its pursuers, the United States must constantly adjust and improve its defenses.

It must also recognize that traditional Cold War deterrence models of assured retaliation do not apply to cyberspace, where it is difficult and time consuming to identify an attack's perpetrator. Whereas a missile comes with a return address, a computer virus generally does not. The forensic work necessary to identify an attacker may take months, if identification is possible at all. And even when the attacker is identified, if it is a nonstate actor, such as a terrorist group, it may have no assets against which the United States can retaliate. Furthermore, what constitutes an attack is not always clear. In fact, many of today's intrusions are closer to espionage than to acts of war. The deterrence equation is further muddled by the fact that cyberattacks often originate from co-opted servers in neutral countries and that responses to them could have unintended consequences.

Given these circumstances, deterrence will necessarily be based more on denying any benefit to attackers than on imposing costs through retaliation. The challenge is to make the defenses effective enough to deny an adversary the benefit of an attack despite the strength of offensive tools in cyberspace. (Traditional arms control regimes would likely fail to deter cyberattacks because of the challenges of attribution, which make verification of compliance almost impossible. If there are to be international norms of behavior in cyberspace, they may have to follow a different model, such as that of public health or law enforcement.)

Cyberthreats to U.S. national security are not limited to military targets. Hackers and foreign governments are increasingly able to launch sophisticated intrusions into the networks that control critical civilian infrastructure. Computer-induced failures of U.S. power grids, transportation networks, or financial systems could cause massive physical damage and economic disruption. Such infrastructure is also essential to the military, both abroad and at home: coordinating the deployment and resupply of U.S. troops and equipping troops with goods from private vendors necessarily requires using unclassified networks that are linked to the open Internet. Protecting those networks and the networks that undergird critical U.S. infrastructure must be part of Washington's national security and homeland defense missions.

Modern information technology also increases the risk of industrial espionage and the theft of commercial information. Earlier this year, Google disclosed that it had lost intellectual property as a result of a sophisticated operation perpetrated against its corporate infrastructure, an operation that also targeted dozens of other companies. Although the threat to intellectual property is less dramatic than the threat to critical national infrastructure, it may be the most significant cyberthreat that the United States will face over the long term. Every year, an amount of intellectual property many times larger than all the intellectual property contained in the Library of Congress is stolen from networks maintained by U.S. businesses, universities, and government agencies. As military strength ultimately depends on economic vitality, sustained intellectual property losses could erode both the United States' military effectiveness and its competitiveness in the global economy.

Computer networks themselves are not the only vulnerability. Software and hardware are at risk of being tampered with even before they are linked together in an operational system. Rogue code, including so-called logic bombs, which cause sudden malfunctions, can be inserted into software as it is being developed. As for hardware, remotely operated "kill switches" and hidden "backdoors" can be written into the computer chips used by the military, allowing outside actors to manipulate the systems from afar. The risk of compromise in the manufacturing process is very real and is perhaps the least understood cyberthreat. Tampering is almost impossible to detect and even harder to eradicate. Already, counterfeit hardware has been detected in systems that the Defense Department has procured. The Pentagon's Trusted Foundries Progam, which certifies parts produced by microelectronics manufacturers, is a good start, but it is not a comprehensive solution to the risks to the department's technological base. Microsoft and other computer technology companies have developed sophisticated risk-mitigation strategies to detect malicious code and deter its insertion into their global supply chains; the U.S. government needs to undertake a similar effort for critical civilian and military applications.

The United States rarely predicts accurately when and where military conflicts will occur. Predicting cyberattacks is also proving difficult, especially since both state and nonstate actors pose threats. More important, given that information technology is evolving rapidly, policymakers are left with little historical precedent to inform their expectations. Thus, the U.S. government must be modest about its ability to know where and how this threat might mature; what it needs is a strategy that provides operational flexibility and capabilities that offer maximum adaptability.

NEW STRATEGY

The cyberthreat posed to intellectual property may prove to be the most significant one facing Washington.

As a doctrinal matter, the Pentagon has formally recognized cyberspace as a new domain of warfare. Although cyberspace is a man-made domain, it has become just as critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space. As such, the military must be able to defend and operate within it. To facilitate operations in cyberspace, the Defense Department needs an appropriate organizational structure. For the past several years, the military's cyberdefense effort was run by a loose confederation of joint task forces dispersed both geographically and institutionally. In June 2009, recognizing that the scale of the effort to protect cyberspace had outgrown the military's existing structures, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the consolidation of the task forces into a single four-star command, the U.S. Cyber Command, which began operations in May 2010 as part of the U.S. Strategic Command. Cyber Command is slated to become fully operational by October.

Cyber Command has three missions. First, it leads the day-to-day protection of all defense networks and supports military and counterterrorism missions with operations in cyberspace. Second, it provides a clear and accountable way to marshal cyberwarfare resources from across the military. A single chain of command runs from the U.S. president to the secretary of defense to the commander of Strategic Command to the commander of Cyber Command and on to individual military units around the world. To ensure that considerations of cybersecurity are a regular part of training and equipping soldiers, Cyber Command oversees commands within each branch of the military, including the Army Forces Cyber Command, the U.S. Navy's Tenth Fleet, the 24th Air Force, and the Marine Corps Forces Cyberspace Command. Because military networks are not impervious to attack, a critical part of the training mission is to ensure that all operational forces are able to function in a degraded information environment.

Cyber Command's third mission is to work with a variety of partners inside and outside the U.S. government. Representatives from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, and the Defense Information Systems Agency work on-site at Cyber Command's Fort Meade headquarters, as do liaison officers from the intelligence community and from allied governments. In partnership with the Department of Homeland Security, Cyber Command also works closely with private industry to share information about threats and to address shared vulnerabilities. Information networks connect a variety of institutions, so the effort to defend the United States will only succeed if it is coordinated across the government, with allies, and with partners in the commercial sector.

Given the dominance of offense in cyberspace, U.S. defenses need to be dynamic. Milliseconds can make a difference, so the U.S. military must respond to attacks as they happen or even before they arrive. To grapple with this, the Pentagon has deployed a system that includes three overlapping lines of defense. Two are based on commercial best practices -- ordinary computer hygiene, which keeps security software and firewalls up to date, and sensors, which detect and map intrusions. The third line of protection leverages government intelligence capabilities to provide highly specialized active defenses. And the government is deploying all these defenses in a way that meets its obligation to protect the civil liberties of U.S. citizens.

The National Security Agency has pioneered systems that, using warnings provided by U.S. intelligence capabilities, automatically deploy defenses to counter intrusions in real time. Part sensor, part sentry, part sharpshooter, these active defense systems represent a fundamental shift in the U.S. approach to network defense. They work by placing scanning technology at the interface of military networks and the open Internet to detect and stop malicious code before it passes into military networks. Active defenses now protect all defense and intelligence networks in the ".mil" domain.

Because some intrusions will inevitably evade detection and not be caught at the boundary, U.S. cyberdefenses must be able to find intruders once they are inside. This requires being able to hunt within the military's own networks -- a task that is also part of the Pentagon's active defense capability.

Active defense has been made possible by consolidating the Defense Department's collective cyberdefense capabilities under a single roof and by linking them with the signals intelligence needed to anticipate intrusions and attacks. Establishing this linkage was one of the most important reasons for the creation of Cyber Command.

The speed at which active defense systems must act means that the rules of engagement governing network defense must be set largely in advance. Devising these protocols is not easy. Indeed, the effort to define clear rules of engagement for responding to cyberattacks has been exceedingly difficult, and for good reason. These rules of engagement will first have to assist in distinguishing between the exploits of a mere hacker, criminal activity (such as fraud or theft), espionage, and an attack on the United States. They will then have to determine what action is necessary, appropriate, proportional, and justified in each particular case based on the laws that govern action in times of war and peace.

The best-laid plans for defending military networks will matter little if civilian infrastructure -- which could be directly targeted in a military conflict or held hostage and used as a bargaining chip against the U.S. government -- is not secure. The Defense Department depends on the overall information technology infrastructure of the United States. For example, it relies on many outside networks in the ".gov" and ".com" domains, including those run by defense contractors that are not protected as effectively as the military's own network. The Department of Homeland Security has the lead in protecting the ".gov" and ".com" domains, but the Pentagon must leverage its ten years of concerted investment in cyberdefense to support broader efforts to protect critical infrastructure.

The new U.S. Cyber Command will be fully operational by October.

The U.S. government has only just begun to broach the larger question of whether it is necessary and appropriate to use national resources, such as the defenses that now guard military networks, to protect civilian infrastructure. Policymakers need to consider, among other things, applying the National Security Agency's defense capabilities beyond the ".gov" domain, such as to domains that undergird the commercial defense industry. U.S. defense contractors have already been targeted for intrusion, and sensitive weapons systems have been compromised. The Pentagon is therefore working with the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector to look for innovative ways to use the military's cyberdefense capabilities to protect the defense industry.

Given the global nature of the Internet, U.S. allies also play a critical role in cyberdefense. The more signatures of an attack one can see, and the more intrusions one can trace, the better one's defenses will be. In this way, the construct of shared warning -- a core Cold War doctrine -- applies to cyberspace. Just as the United States' air and space defenses are linked with those of allies to provide warning of an attack from the sky, so, too, can the United States and its allies cooperatively monitor computer networks for intrusions.

Some of the United States' computer defenses are already linked with those of U.S. allies, especially through existing signals intelligence partnerships, but greater levels of cooperation are needed to stay ahead of the cyberthreat. Stronger agreements to facilitate the sharing of information, technology, and intelligence must be made with a greater number of allies. The report NATO 2020, a NATO-commissioned study chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, rightly identified the need for the alliance's new "strategic concept" to further incorporate cyberdefense. The U.S. government must ensure that NATO moves more resources to cyberdefense so the member states can defend networks integral to the alliance's operations.

LEVERAGING DOMINANCE

The United States enjoys unparalleled technological resources, and it can marshal its advantages to create superior military capabilities in cyberspace. The Pentagon has already begun to explore how major companies can help the public sector address the cyberthreat. Through a public-private partnership called the Enduring Security Framework, the chief executive officers and chief technology officers of major information technology and defense companies now meet regularly with top officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Defense.

The U.S. government's research and development institutions have also turned their attention to cybersecurity. One of the more important innovations to emerge is the National Cyber Range program, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Although the U.S. military routinely exercises units on target ranges and in a variety of simulations, the Pentagon has had no such capability when it comes to cyberwarfare. This is why DARPA, which helped invent the Internet decades ago, is developing the National Cyber Range -- in effect, a model of the Internet -- which will allow the military to test its cyberdefense capabilities before fielding them. Simulations are also relevant to understanding malicious software designed to infiltrate computer systems. The Department of Energy's national laboratories have developed computer farms that function as digital petri dishes, capturing live viruses from the Internet and observing how they spread. These training and diagnostic capabilities can help the United States stay ahead of its adversaries' innovative cyberweapons.

DARPA is pursuing even more fundamental research that may improve the government's ability to attribute attacks and blunt intruders' capabilities, thereby making cyberspace a less offense-dominant environment. The agency is also challenging the scientific community to rethink the basic design of the Pentagon's network architecture so that the military could redesign or retrofit hardware, operating systems, and computer languages with cybersecurity in mind. Complex information technology infrastructure will not change overnight, but over the course of a generation, the United States has a real opportunity to engineer its way out of some of the most problematic vulnerabilities of today's technology.

The government must also strengthen its human capital. The Pentagon has increased the number of its trained cybersecurity professionals and deepened their training. This includes a formal certification program that is graduating three times as many cybersecurity professionals annually as a few years ago. Following industry practices, the Pentagon's network administrators are now trained in "ethical hacking," which involves employing adversarial techniques against the United States' own systems in order to identify weaknesses before they are exploited by an enemy.

Even as the U.S. government strengthens its cadre of cybersecurity professionals, it must recognize that long-term trends in human capital do not bode well. The United States has only 4.5 percent of the world's population, and over the next 20 years, many countries, including China and India, will train more highly proficient computer scientists than will the United States. The United States will lose its advantage in cyberspace if that advantage is predicated on simply amassing trained cybersecurity professionals. The U.S. government, therefore, must confront the cyberdefense challenge as it confronts other military challenges: with a focus not on numbers but on superior technology and productivity. High-speed sensors, advanced analytics, and automated systems will be needed to buttress the trained cybersecurity professionals in the U.S. military. And such tools will be available only if the U.S. commercial information technology sector remains the world's leader -- something that will require continuing investments in science, technology, and education at all levels.

Making use of the private sector's innovative capacity will also require dramatic improvements in the government's procedures for acquiring information technology. On average, it takes the Pentagon 81 months to make a new computer system operational after it is first funded. Taking into the account the growth of computing power suggested by Moore's law, this means that by the time systems are delivered, they are already at least four generations behind the state of the art. By comparison, the iPhone was developed in 24 months. That is less time than it would take the Pentagon to prepare a budget and receive congressional approval for it.

Critical infrastructure could be targeted in a conflict or be held hostage as a bargaining chip against the U.S. government.

To replicate the dynamism of private industry, the Pentagon is developing a specific acquisition track for information technology. It is based on four principles. First, speed must be a critical priority. The Pentagon's acquisition process must match the technology development cycle. With information technology, this means cycles of 12 to 36 months, not seven or eight years. Second, the Pentagon must employ incremental development and testing rather than try to deploy large complex systems in one "big bang." Third, the U.S. military must be willing to sacrifice or defer some customization in order to achieve speedy incremental improvements. Fourth, the Defense Department's information technology needs -- which range from modernizing nuclear command-and-control systems to updating word-processing software -- demand different levels of oversight. An approach to information technology acquisition that embodies these principles is essential to the U.S. military's effectiveness when it comes to cyberdefense.

ENTERING A NEW ERA

The daunting challenges of cybersecurity represent the beginning of a new technological age. In this early hour, the United States' greatest strength is its awareness of the transformation. Today's predicament calls to mind an urgent letter written to President Franklin Roosevelt on the eve of another new technological era. Dated August 2, 1939, it read in part, "Certain aspects of the situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations." The letter was signed, "Yours very truly, Albert Einstein." Einstein's warning that breakthroughs in nuclear fission might make possible an atomic bomb led Roosevelt to launch the Manhattan Project, which helped prepare the United States for the atomic era.

The cyberthreat does not involve the existential implications ushered in by the nuclear age, but there are important similarities. Cyberattacks offer a means for potential adversaries to overcome overwhelming U.S. advantages in conventional military power and to do so in ways that are instantaneous and exceedingly hard to trace. Such attacks may not cause the mass casualties of a nuclear strike, but they could paralyze U.S. society all the same. In the long run, hackers' systematic penetration of U.S. universities and businesses could rob the United States of its intellectual property and competitive edge in the global economy.

These risks are what is driving the Pentagon to forge a new strategy for cybersecurity. The principal elements of that strategy are to develop an organizational construct for training, equipping, and commanding cyberdefense forces; to employ layered protections with a strong core of active defenses; to use military capabilities to support other departments' efforts to secure the networks that run the United States' critical infrastructure; to build collective defenses with U.S. allies; and to invest in the rapid development of additional cyberdefense capabilities. The goal of this strategy is to make cyberspace safe so that its revolutionary innovations can enhance both the United States' national security and its economic security.

[Dig]

[Dig]

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
The age of nations is over.
The United States is Dead.
The new age has begun.
BY PARAG KHANNA | SEPT. / OCT. 2010
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/beyond_city_limits

The 21st century will not be dominated by America or China, Brazil or India, but by the city. In an age that appears increasingly unmanageable, cities rather than states are becoming the islands of governance on which the future world order will be built. This new world is not -- and will not be -- one global village, so much as a network of different ones.

Time, technology, and population growth have massively accelerated the advent of this new urbanized era. Already, more than half the world lives in cities, and the percentage is growing rapidly. But just 100 cities account for 30 percent of the world's economy, and almost all its innovation. Many are world capitals that have evolved and adapted through centuries of dominance: London, New York, Paris. New York City's economy alone is larger than 46 of sub-Saharan Africa's economies combined. Hong Kong receives more tourists annually than all of India. These cities are the engines of globalization, and their enduring vibrancy lies in money, knowledge, and stability. They are today's true Global Cities.

Columbia University scholar Saskia Sassen has done the most to contribute to our thinking about how urban advantage translates into grand strategy. As she writes in The Global City, such places are uniquely suited to translate their productive power into "the practice of global control." Her academic work has traced how Europe's largely autonomous Renaissance cities such as Bruges and Antwerp innovated the legal frameworks that enabled the first transnational stock exchanges, setting the stage for international credit and the forerunners of today's trading networks. Then as now, nations and empires did not restrain cities; they were merely filters for cities' global ambitions. The supply chains and capital flows linking global cities today have similarly denationalized international relations. As Sassen argues, in cities we can't make trite divisions between the government and private sector; either they work together or the city doesn't work at all. Even massive national investments in telecommunications or other infrastructure don't equalize the balance of power between cities and the rest; they ultimately reinforce the power of cities to conduct their own "sovereign" diplomacy.

[citizenx]

That last piece seems like some very heady intellectual crap.

Dig, what do you really make of that one?

Somehow, I don't see the globalists allowing autonomous cities  -- they are not even very fond of the constitutional independence of our individual states.

What do you think all this really means?

As for the topic, why should the deputy secretary of state be any less psychotic than Hilary herself?  

[Dig]

That last piece seems like some very heady intellectual crap.

Dig, what do you really make of that one?

Somehow, I don't see the globalists allowing autonomous cities  -- they are not even very fond of the constitutional independence of our individual states.

What do you think all this really means?

As for the topic, why should the deputy secretary of state be any less psychotic than Hilary herself?  

FUSION CENTERS

Cities will be glorified concentration camps

[citizenx]

Gotcha.

That I could see.

[Satyagraha]

That last piece seems like some very heady intellectual crap.

Dig, what do you really make of that one?

Somehow, I don't see the globalists allowing autonomous cities  -- they are not even very fond of the constitutional independence of our individual states.

What do you think all this really means?

As for the topic, why should the deputy secretary of state be any less psychotic than Hilary herself?  

Saskia Sassen

The CFR is pushing Saskia Sassen's latest fascist how-to manual:

"Columbia University scholar Saskia Sassen has done the most to contribute to our thinking about how urban advantage translates into grand strategy. As she writes in The Global City, such places are uniquely suited to translate their productive power into 'the practice of global control.' "

The article's author paraphrases Sassen with this line, "As Sassen argues, in cities we can't make trite divisions between the government and private sector; either they work together or the city doesn't work at all.

Sassen is a fascist. She's shilling on behalf of the wet dreams of the Rothschilds/Rockefellers et al: the hope for GLOBAL CONTROL by ignoring national sovereignty and going directly for city states. After all, we have the Vatican, City of London and Washington DC as 'models' for corporate/government fascism. She's on point. She's getting her bonus credits. She's a nwo whore.

[Dig]

That last piece seems like some very heady intellectual crap.

Dig, what do you really make of that one?

Somehow, I don't see the globalists allowing autonomous cities  -- they are not even very fond of the constitutional independence of our individual states.

What do you think all this really means?

As for the topic, why should the deputy secretary of state be any less psychotic than Hilary herself?  

dep sec of defense, my bad, it is changed

Also be aware:

Agenda Is Geo-Cybernetics
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=179812.0

Brzezinski is scared to death that you now know Cybernetics is the real agenda
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=180481.0

IBM: Transforming the military through Sense & Respond
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=176777.0

[Dig]

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
The age of nations is over.
The United States is Dead.
The new age has begun.
BY PARAG KHANNA | SEPT. / OCT. 2010
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/beyond_city_limits

The 21st century will not be dominated by America or China, Brazil or India, but by the city. In an age that appears increasingly unmanageable, cities rather than states are becoming the islands of governance on which the future world order will be built. This new world is not -- and will not be -- one global village, so much as a network of different ones.

Time, technology, and population growth have massively accelerated the advent of this new urbanized era. Already, more than half the world lives in cities, and the percentage is growing rapidly. But just 100 cities account for 30 percent of the world's economy, and almost all its innovation. Many are world capitals that have evolved and adapted through centuries of dominance: London, New York, Paris. New York City's economy alone is larger than 46 of sub-Saharan Africa's economies combined. Hong Kong receives more tourists annually than all of India. These cities are the engines of globalization, and their enduring vibrancy lies in money, knowledge, and stability. They are today's true Global Cities.

Columbia University scholar Saskia Sassen has done the most to contribute to our thinking about how urban advantage translates into grand strategy. As she writes in The Global City, such places are uniquely suited to translate their productive power into "the practice of global control." Her academic work has traced how Europe's largely autonomous Renaissance cities such as Bruges and Antwerp innovated the legal frameworks that enabled the first transnational stock exchanges, setting the stage for international credit and the forerunners of today's trading networks. Then as now, nations and empires did not restrain cities; they were merely filters for cities' global ambitions. The supply chains and capital flows linking global cities today have similarly denationalized international relations. As Sassen argues, in cities we can't make trite divisions between the government and private sector; either they work together or the city doesn't work at all. Even massive national investments in telecommunications or other infrastructure don't equalize the balance of power between cities and the rest; they ultimately reinforce the power of cities to conduct their own "sovereign" diplomacy.

Just like clockwork...32% of US Tax funded weapons systems can now be sold to enemies of the sovereignty of the United States of America thanks to Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski

(don't anyone dare blame the bullshit failed Soetoro puppet for this one - he does not have the power to do this and everybody knows it)

Council on Foreign Relations moves to remake US weapons controls
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Obama_moves_to_remake_US_weapons_co_08302010.html
Published: Monday August 30, 2010

President Barack Obama will on Tuesday move to reform US export rules, hoping to boost trade while hampering the sale of sensitive technology. Capping a year-long review of weapons controls, Obama will tell a Washington non-proliferation conference that previous rules were fractured, making it difficult for some legitimate firms to do business. "These reforms will focus our resources on the threats that matter most," Obama said in recorded video remarks. "They'll help us not just increase exports and create jobs, but strengthen our national security as well." The reforms will include more specific definitions of goods that need export licenses and restructuring how requests are dealt with. The move is expected to result in around 32 percent of items on the munitions list being "decontrolled."

[citizenx]

dep sec of defense, my bad, it is changed

Gates and Hil seem like they are joined at the hip anyway lately.

Visting the DMZ together -- highly unusual for two cabinet mebers to travel together like this, especially to a place like that.

And now, Hil has her own troops and military equipment - her own army -- like a Sec. of Def., Jr.

[Dig]

Gates and Hil seem like they are joined at the hip anyway lately.

Visting the DMZ together -- highly unusual for two cabinet mebers to travel together like this, especially to a place like that.

And now, Hil has her own troops and military equipment - her own army -- like a Sec. of Def., Jr.

This is beyond Gates, this is beyond hillary.

This is the queen bitches in their glorified holy mountains declaring first strike on all slaves.

This is the Pharaohs decree.

Hildog and gates (who is still covering up JFK and Iran Contra - WTF?) cannot do shit, the CFR is running the show.

David Rockefeller and his Bohemian Grover circle jerk buddies are playing ring around the rosie with this plan.

[Note: sorry just got done with that rant and realized that was not your point at all, oh well, the rant is really intended to expose how totally kookoo it is for anyone who actually gives a crap about the constitution and the actual and real government of this country to propose such auto-genocide]

[Dig]

Department of Justice Lists Constitutionalists in Extremism Guide
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-department-of-justice-puts-out-master-patriot-hit-list/../department-of-justice-lists-constitutionalists-in-extremism-guide/
Public Intelligence
August 30, 2010

A recent Department of Justice guide for investigators of criminal and extremist groups lists “constitutionalists” and “survivalists” alongside organizations like Al-Qaeda and the Aryan Brotherhood.  The 120-page, “Law Enforcement Sensitive” guide to “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism – Terms and Concepts” describes itself as “a glossary designed primarily as a tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations.”

Constitutionalist, defined by Random House’s 2010 Dictionary as an “adherent or advocate of constitutionalism or of an existing constitution”, is described in the report as a “generic term for members of the ‘patriot’ movement”.  Survivalists are described in the document as fearing a “coming collapse of civilization” and are trying to prepare themselves for this collapse.  Such individuals are said to have “typically stockpiled food, water, and weapons, especially the latter, and instructed themselves on topics ranging from first aid to childbirth to edible plants”.

The guide defines the term “New World Order” as being “used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism”.  The Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and Council on Foreign Relations are described as organizations “targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world”.  The guide also defines “One World Government” as the “concept that there will ultimately be a single governing body that will control the world”, adding that “some right-wing extremists fear this occurring, believing that white people will be in the minority, with Jewish people ultimately controlling the world”.

While the document’s introduction does state that “the fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity”, it goes on to say that the guide consists of “terms that may be germane to members of an extremist movement” or are “singularly employed by specific extremist groups”.  The obvious result of the inclusion of terms such as “Bilderberg Group” and “Trilateral Commission” in a report titled “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism” is that law enforcement officials unaware of these groups will tend to associate legitimate discussion as “extremist” speech.  This diminishes the credibility of any person attempting to rationally discuss such groups and fosters a perception that any discussion of such groups could be associated with a supposedly “extremist” ideology.

Examples of “Extremist” Terminology

To see the full list read the U.S. Department of Justice Terrorism and Criminal Extremism Terms 2005-2009.

Black Helicopters: Unmarked dark helicopters allegedly observed by many members of the “patriot” movement, who claim that the helicopters are part of some vast conspiracy, perhaps involving the United Nations or the “New World Order.” Various explanations have been offered for some of the sightings, but the term has since entered the popular vocabulary and is often used as a generic, sometimes satirical reference to conspiracy-related beliefs.

Bilderbergers (Bilderberg Group): Along with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the three groups targeted by right-wing extremists for conspiring to dominate the world.

Collection (of Information): The identification, location, and recording/storage of unanalyzed information, typically from an original source and using both human and technological means, for input into the intelligence cycle to determine its usefulness in meeting a defined tactical or strategic intelligence goal.

Concentration Camps: Detention camps supposedly being built or already built by the United States government, according to conspiracy theorists.

Constitutionalists: A generic term for members of the “patriot” movement. It is now often used to refer to members of the sovereign citizen or common law court movement. Sometimes the word “constitutionist” is also used.

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR ): Along with the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, one of the three key groups that conspiracy theorists claim operate behind the scenes to control the world and to establish the “New World Order.”

Executive Orders: The formal means by which the President of the United States determines the conduct of business in the Executive Branch. Typically, such executive orders take two forms: (1) orders governing administrative or policy matters in Executive Branch agencies or (2) orders for which the authority is derived from congressional authorizations. The “patriot” movement, however, contends that executive orders are “presidential laws” that bypass Congress and subvert the Constitution.

Flag of Peace: The American flag preferred by the “patriot” movement; a red, white, and blue flag without any gold trim, braid, balls, tassels, eagles, fringe, or spear on the flag or pole. Patriots believe that any other American flag is a military flag that denotes military jurisdiction. Only under the “flag of peace” do U.S. citizens receive their constitutional rights and due process.

Globalization: This term generally refers to the denationalization of economies, markets, products, and populations brought about by ever faster travel, improved communications, and advances in technology.

Illuminati: An intellectual society and social club formed by a university professor, Adam Weishaupt (1748–1811), in southern Germany in the 1770s in the spirit of the Enlightenment. It was suppressed by Bavarian authorities in the 1780s. Weishaupt spent the rest of his life writing about the Illuminati. People who believe Illuminati conspiracy theories believe the society never died away but lived on, run by people intent on controlling the world through devious means.

Information Warfare: Synonymous with cyberwarfare, information warfare is the offensive and defensive use of information and information systems to deny, exploit, corrupt, or destroy an adversary’s information, information-based processes, information systems, and computer-based networks while protecting one’s own. Such actions are designed to achieve advantages over military or business adversaries.

Jack-Booted Thug (JBT ): A law enforcement officer (especially federal) draped in combat fatigues or other military or paramilitary uniform, wearing a ski mask or similar headgear guaranteeing anonymity, wielding powerful military weapons, and utilizing other military vehicles and gear.

New World Order: A term used by conspiracy theorists to refer to a global conspiracy designed to implement worldwide socialism.

One-World Government: The concept that there will ultimately be a single governing body that will control the world. Some right-wing extremists fear this occurring, believing that white people will be in the minority, with Jewish people ultimately controlling the world.

Open Source Information or Intelligence: Individual data, records, reports, and assessments that may shed light on an investigatory target or event and do not require any legal process or any type of clandestine collection techniques for a law enforcement agency to obtain. Such information is obtained through means that meet copyright and commercial requirements of vendors, as well as being free of legal restrictions to access by anyone who seeks that information.

Patriot Movement: The “patriot” movement is a general term used by its members to describe the collective movements and individuals on the extreme right wing. In one form or another, this practice dates back many decades; in the 1930s, many on the far right referred to themselves as “superpatriots.” In the 1960s and 1970s, it was common to refer to the “Christian Patriot” movement, but this term is less common now than then. Among the types of individuals that can be found within the “patriot” movement are white supremacists, sovereign citizens, tax protesters, militia members, and sometimes antiabortion or anti-environmental groups.

Patriots for Profit: A term used to describe those individuals in the “patriot” movement who perpetrate scams and frauds against other people, usually fellow members of the movement. It also refers to people who attempt to make money by selling various products and “kits” to members of the movement. By far the most numerous of the “patriots for profit” are the people who cater to would-be tax protesters.

Pirate Radio: The operation of radio transmitters without a license from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Although some of the most notable pirate stations, such as Free Radio Berkeley, have been primarily left-wing in orientation, a large number of pirate stations adhere to right-wing or antigovernment philosophies

Sovereign Citizen: A term used to describe adherents to a philosophy derived from the group Posse Comitatus that posits that there are two types of citizens: “Fourteenth Amendment Citizens,” who are subject to the laws and taxes of the federal and state governments, and sovereign citizens, who are subject only to “the common law.” Sovereign citizens claim that they have absolute mastery over all their property (including freedom from taxes, regulations, ordinances, or zoning restrictions), that they essentially do not have to pay taxes (aside from tariffs and a few other insignificant taxes), that they are not citizens of the United States but are “nonresident aliens” with respect to that “illegal corporation,” that the only court which has jurisdiction to try them for any matter is a common law court, and that they can never be arrested or tried for a crime or matter in which there is no complaining victim, as well as various other notions. Typical signs that someone is a sovereign citizen include the use of punctuation between their middle and last names (i.e., John Wayne; Doe); a refusal to have a social security card or any paper, license, or document related to automobile ownership or driving; a refusal to use zip codes; and the displaying on various items—from envelopes to paper money, to time cards, or to forms—of the phrase “UCC 1-207,” or variants thereof. Sovereign citizens are often also known as state citizens, freemen, preamble citizens, common law citizens, or other appellations.

Survivalists: The survivalist movement feared a coming collapse of civilization, generally as the result of nuclear war, and tried to prepare themselves to survive it. Survivalists typically stockpiled food, water, and weapons, especially the latter, and instructed themselves on topics ranging from first aid to childbirth to edible plants.

Tax-Protest Movement: A movement consisting of people who do not simply want to avoid paying taxes but generally claim they should not have to pay them. The right-wing movement started in the 1950s and 1960s and has concentrated on interpreting the Constitution, U.S. law, and the tax code, in particular, in such a way as to be able to claim that most people do not have to pay income taxes. The motivating force behind the right-wing tax-protest movement was to find loopholes, actual or manufactured, that would allow people to claim that they had no tax obligation.

Trilateral Commission: A group, along with the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations, that is viewed by the “patriot” movement as being one of the major organizations seeking to implement the “New World Order.” Formed in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission consists of slightly over 300 members from Europe, Japan, and North America (the three main democratic-industrial regions of the world, thus the term “trilateral”). Members include prominent figures in the media, politics, business, and academia. Conspiracy theorists claim it is a group of elitists determined to promote a one-world government.

[Dig]

Obama’s Department of Justice Puts Out Master Patriot Hit-list
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-department-of-justice-puts-out-master-patriot-hit-list/
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
August 30, 2010

The Department of Justice has fired a salvo in the war against patriotic Americans supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The DOJ has issued Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism –Terms and Concepts, a 120-page propaganda addendum described as “a glossary designed primarily as a tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations.”   
   
The DOJ glossary will be used by the federal government and increasingly federalized law enforcement to criminalize language used by the patriot movement.

The glossary describes the word “constitutionalist” as a “generic term for members of the ‘patriot’ movement. It is now often used to refer to members of the sovereign citizen or common law court movement. Sometimes the word ‘constitutionalist’ is also used.”

According to Merriam-Webster, a constitutionalist is a person who adheres to a form of government according to constitutional principles.

The DOJ is now apparently in the business of newspeak. In his dystopian novel on totalitarian government, Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell introduced the term doublethink, from which the terms newspeak and doublethink were later derived. Newspeak has come to mean any attempt by the government to restrict or modify language. The DOJ, in an effort to further demonize a growing patriot movement, has attempted to redefine the word consitutionalist in true newspeak fashion.

The word constitutionalist is now shorthand for the sovereign citizen movement, in other words people who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are violent cop killers. Earlier this year, two West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers were killed in a shootout allegedly involving a man and his son who were supposedly linked to the sovereign citizen movement in Ohio and Florida.

Prior to this incident, the FBI, an agency of under the DOJ, profiled the “domestic terror threat” posed by the sovereign citizen movement. “Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or ‘sovereign’ from the United States. As a result, they believe they don’t have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments, or law enforcement,” the FBI wrote on April 13, 2010. The FBI provides contact information for turning in people who espouse “the bogus claims and scams of sovereign citizens.”

The DOJ prefaces its glossary by stating that “the fact that an entry appears in this publication does not imply a connection to illegal activity,” and then precedes to connect constitutionalists to alleged cop killers.

In addition, the DOJ’s glossary attempts to criminalize people who use the terms New World Order, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and One World Government. The latter term, according to the DOJ — obviously under the ideological sway of the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center — is used by “some right-wing extremists” to claim “white people will be in the minority, with Jewish people ultimately controlling the world.” In short, if you believe there is an effort to establish world government, you are an anti-semitic Jew hater.

The DOJ glossary arrives after the appearance of the Department of Homeland Security’s report on “right-wing extermism” and a similar report produced by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) and leaked to Alex Jones by a police officer last year. The MIAC report specifically singles out supporters of Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin — the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party in 2008 — as domestic terrorists posing a threat to law enforcement.

The DOJ glossary will be used by the federal government and increasingly federalized law enforcement to criminalize language used by the patriot movement. It will be used in an effort to compile a hit-list of patriots and target them as threats to national security. The glossary is part of an ongoing campaign to demonize those of us who insist the United States is a constitutional republic and portray people who insist the government respect and follow the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as violent cop killers and white supremacist extremists.

For more on the DOJ glossary, see Department of Justice Lists Constitutionalists in Extremism Guide. A PDF of the glossary is available here.

[Anti_Illuminati]

This is beyond Gates, this is beyond hillary.

This is the queen bitches in their glorified holy mountains declaring first strike on all slaves.

This is the Pharaohs decree.

Hildog and gates (who is still covering up JFK and Iran Contra - WTF?) cannot do shit, the CFR is running the show.

David Rockefeller and his Bohemian Grover circle jerk buddies are playing ring around the rosie with this plan.

[Note: sorry just got done with that rant and realized that was not your point at all, oh well, the rant is really intended to expose how totally kookoo it is for anyone who actually gives a crap about the constitution and the actual and real government of this country to propose such auto-genocide]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Strategy-and-Security-in-the-Information-Age-Grading-Progress-in-Americas-War-on-Terrorism



"In the midst of the 1975 Cypriot Crisis, after a long day of arduous negotiation, American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and British Foreign Secretary James Callaghan engaged in a profoundly melancholy and prophetic exchange.

KISSINGER: You know, one respect in which all the humanitarians and liberals and socialists were wrong in the last century was when they thought that mankind didn't like war.... They love it.

CALLAGHAN: Most of us like it for a day or two, but there is a handful who like it forever.

KISSINGER: That's right. It doesn't mean that the humanitarians were wrong, it just means that life is harder than we thought....

CALLAGHAN: I don't know what sort of an age we're passing through or going to pass through, but historians like yourself ought to give us a rundown on it sometime and tell us how you think this next half century is going to look.

KISSINGER: I'll tell you...I'm glad I'm not going to be running part of it. It's going to be brutal.1

They were right. Twenty-five years down and 25 to go, we still live in a brutal world at war.

Nor has understanding the challenges of strategy and security changed much. Even in the information age, knowing war requires both historical perspective and cautious prophecy. I hope to provide a bit of each: defining the nature of the current conflict; summarizing what has been so far; describing future trends and challenges; and, finally, suggesting potentially fruitful areas of U.S.-Indian partnership in the exploitation of commercial information technology."

This is the key to being able to enforce and maintain global tyranny, now almost fully in place.  This will allow seamless C2 over all foreign troops/mercenaries, Xe/Blackwater/EODT, Local & State Police, Firefighters/All other 1st responders/InfraGard/FBI/NRO (& all of its subordinates)/All defense contractor BlackOps/MILCOM/Chinese "anti-terror" police/ worldwide, in real time.  

http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2009/09/01/Unisys-Stealth-encryption-for-JFCOM.aspx?Page=1

Joint Forces Command to test new network encryption

Successful deployment could encourage cloud usage

    * By Amber Corrin
    * Sep 01, 2009

The U.S. Joint Forces Command  plans to begin using a new encryption technology that will allow separate, secure virtual communities to coexist on a single network infrastructure. The move, planned for later this month, will protect data while reducing costs by collapsing local-area networks.

The new cryptographic technology enables the convergence of various Defense Department Global Information Grid networks that operate at different security levels, which currently require individualized infrastructure designed to handle restricted data – and also individualized costs.

“The government spends a considerable amount of money on these networks, and they’ve been looking for years for a way to combine them,” said David Gardiner, vice president of security technology and solutions at Unisys, which is deploying its Stealth technology under a one-year JFCOM contract.

[INSERT:

John Osterholz

Chair, Technical Council
Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium

Vice President, Advanced Network Systems BAE Systems

John Osterholz serves as the Chair of the Technical Council, Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium (NCOIC). The NCOIC is an international not-for-profit corporation formed in 2004, and dedicated to forming a common industry-wide technical infrastructure for enabling network centric operations – for faster delivery of NCO solutions to customers worldwide. He became Chair in April 2008.

Osterholz is Vice President of Advanced Network Systems, BAE Systems. He has served as Vice President and General Manager for Integrated C4ISR and Vice President of the Center for Transformation within Electronics and Integrated Solutions (E&IS) Operating Group of BAE Systems. Osterholz is responsible for the establishment of BAE Systems capabilities as an industry leader in net-centric operations related programs, and for the integration of modeling, simulation and operations analysis capabilities across the E&IS Group.

Prior to joining BAE Systems in early 2004, he was a senior executive in the U.S. Department of Defense. As director of C4ISR Architecture and Interoperability, Osterholz was responsible for the development, oversight and integration of DoD Global Information Grid architecture and programs relating to the strategy of information superiority. He has held several leadership positions within the government including director, C4ISR Integration Support Activity; director, Military Satellite Office; deputy director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA); and assistant director, White House Military Office.

Prior to his assignments in Washington, D.C., Osterholz served as a U.S. Army officer with assignments in special operations, reconnaissance and intelligence. He is the recipient of the Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Service in the aftermath of September 11th, The Federal IT 100 award, three-time recipient of the Presidential Rank Meritorious Executive Award, Federal Interagency Council Leadership Award and the White House Military Office Distinguished Service Medal.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Rutgers University and a master’s degree in Information Systems from George Washington University.
______________________________________________________
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml



November 2002. Still no raid. Singh threatens to send her report to ten Chief Intelligence Officers per month until something is done (i.e., until Ptech is raided). She begins by personally bringing the Ptech story to Charlie Lewis, a Chief Technology Architect for Air Products and Chemicals (a powerful company which had earned over 5.7 billion dollars in sales during 2000); to the CIO of Gartner (a major enterprise architecture / IT firm); to the CIO of the U.S. Department of Defense; and to John Osterholz, DOD Director of Architecture and Interoperability.
# December 6, 2002. Ptech is raided by Operation Greenquest, but the White House announces that Ptech is clean - on the very day of the raid: "The material has been reviewed by the appropriate government agencies, and they have detected absolutely nothing in their reports to the White House that would lead to any concern about any of the products purchased from (Ptech)."

# April 2003. Singh is debriefed at the National Threat Assessment Center (CERT).
__________________________________________________________
Defense Department Will Require IPv6 Compliance, Says DoD's John Osterholz

Market Wire, June 2003

IPv6 SUMMIT -- John Osterholz, director of architecture and interoperability for the Department of Defense, told a gathering of technology elite that the DoD would phase out purchases of IPv4 network technologies by this fall and would instead begin trials of equipment and applications based on the new IPv6 protocol for the Internet within 30 days. He said the move was intended to build a "Global Information Grid" of Net-Centric operations that was fully distributed, available and secure. He noted that this would be an important part of fighting terrorism and ensuring homeland security.

"Al-Qaeda maintains a low profile and is highly distributed," noted Osterholz. "Until recently, we had no capability to operate similarly, and we understand it is an important capability. They were Net-Centric, we were not. Their command and control capability requires us to have a similar capability."

In his keynote, Osterholz laid out his plans for moving the entire DoD information technology infrastructure -- the world's largest, with an annual IT budget exceeding $30 billion -- into full IPv6 compliance by 2008. This represents an unprecedented move by the Defense Department to approach the entire commercial Internet infrastructure, which includes IPv6 Summit sponsors Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HP), Nokia (NYSE: NOK) and the Verio division of NT&T (NYSE: NTT), with detailed instructions on the networking standards it plans to support.

Historically, the DoD has created or commissioned vendors to build proprietary infrastructure. But the DoD's need for global, immediate access to secure, real-time information has moved the department from an infrastructure of data links between proprietary systems to a secure global enterprise built on the next generation of open systems. Osterholz called this system the Global Information Grid (GIG) and said one of its primary DoD uses will be "predictive battlespace awareness" that combines intelligence and operations technologies in a connected, real-time environment.

[INSERT:  Predictive Battlespace Awareness to kill 307,000,000 Al-Qaeda in America]
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=132855.0

"Our soldiers need better information in order to make better decisions -- who to help and who to kill," continued Osterholz. "The lack of security and flexibility in the current IPv4 protocol is a drag on our wing. This isn't about do you trust the Internet for your kid's homework, it's do you trust your kid's life. If we fail, people die."

[INSERT:  IF YOU FAIL, THE NEW WORLD ORDER WILL DIE.]
_____________________________________________________________
“It’s a community-of interest-problem for data in motion,” Gardiner said. Under the contract, Stealth will be assessed at JFCOM’s site in Norfolk, Va., and its subordinate Joint Transformation Command for Intelligence site in Suffolk, Va. If the tests are successful, the technology could be deployed on a wider basis – perhaps even overseas, Gardiner said.

[INSERT:  "perhaps overseas"?, it's going to simultaneously be global, wtf do they think 10+ years of JWID/CWID was for?]

Stealth works by splitting bits of data into multiple packets as it moves through the network, then reassembles the information packets when delivered to authorized users. Only authenticated users who have obtained a workgroup key, authorized by a Stealth Solution server, would have the means to reassemble and unscramble the packets.

“Stealth is unique in its security capabilities; the encryption technology makes a lot of sense,” said Juergen Urbanski, managing director of industry analyst firm Tech Alpha. “Security is just one barrier to cloud adoption, and we’re seeing a tipping point among enterprises endorsing the cloud more broadly,” which could offer more wide-ranging possibilities for the bit-splitting technology.

“It’s an obvious on-ramp for a heavy-duty move to the enterprise cloud” on an industrywide basis, Urbanski said.

Still, hurdles remain for commercial adoption of such capabilities. “Wider adoption of Stealth will depend on bigger-picture issues like these barriers to cloud computing,” Urbanski said, adding that standardization and virtualization for data security and storage will also be important for the technology to grow.

[citizenx]

[Note: sorry just got done with that rant and realized that was not your point at all, oh well, the rant is really intended to expose how totally kookoo it is for anyone who actually gives a crap about the constitution and the actual and real government of this country to propose such auto-genocide]

No problem.  I think we're actually largely in agreement on this one.  They are just two tools working closely together for the moment, it would appear.

Rant on with your bad self.

As you know, I can rant myself silly at times.

[Dig]

Kay Griggs exposes that wars are created for weapons testing to later be used on the US population:

Part 1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-341031042963487862

Part 2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9137016279925999679

This Deputy Sec of Defense is now declaring that anyone with a computer is regarded as a rogue state, a valid target. And he can FIRST STRIKE you if an IBM analytics system says that he can.

It will all be automated.

What total f**king freaks!

Hey Pentagon, the weapons systems are being sold out from under you to international bankster elites and pharaohs of the new world order.

Wake up and expose this shit, wtf? they are taking control out of the US, just read the CFR headlines, it is so in our face.

[Dig]

Hey look, Britain and France have merged their militaries for Bilderberg Banksters (Napolean would be proud):

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3118476/UK-and-France-tobr-share-aircraft-carriers.html
BRITAIN and France are preparing to reveal unprecedented plans to share the use of their aircraft carriers in a controversial step to maintain military power in an era of cost-cutting. In a potential threat to thousands of shipyard jobs, the move would make it easier for Britain to scrap or downgrade one of the two replacement carriers which are already under construction at a cost of £5.2billion. David Cameron and President Sarkozy are expected to outline the proposal in a November summit, which will lead to British and French flagships working together and protecting the interests of both countries.

[Dig]

Dear Southern Poverty Law Center and Department of Justice
http://www.infowars.com/dear-southern-poverty-law-center-and-department-of-justice/
Sally O’Boyle
Activist Post
August 30, 2010

Re: SPLC list of “Active Patriot Groups” and DOJ’s “Criminal Extremist List”   

I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?   

I am wondering if you will start a Patriot Persons list to go along with your Patriot Groups list? If so, I’d like to apply. If your criteria* is the same for People as for Groups, I might be a pretty good fit!

I am definitely against any “New World Order” or “One World Government” scheme. The U.S. must remain a sovereign nation as outlined in our Constitution. (Besides, and I don’t mean to be catty here, but the idea doesn’t seem to be working out so bloody well for the EU.) Do you know if there is an active attempt by the U.S. government to join into a world government? If so, please let me know! I’d like to sign and circulate a petition against that.

I don’t engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing; all the conspiracies about which I theorize have grounds. Do you think you could make an exception? And which conspiracies are the groundless ones? A list somewhere on your site would be helpful.

Also, how do you define “extreme anti-government doctrines”, please? Can you give any examples? I am personally extremely pro-Constitutional governance, something which has been in short supply during the last few administrations, including the current one. I would only be anti-government about a government that was extremely anti-U.S. Constitution. Will this count for or against me?

I am glad to see Oath-Keepers made the list of Patriot Groups! I am a member of Oath-Keepers. They are educating military and law-enforcement personnel about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, encouraging them to keep their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Thank goodness! Since the Constitution is no longer adequately taught in our schools (having just educated two teenagers, I can attest to that fact), I am thrilled to see that someone has taken on this monumental task!

Could you let me know if I make the list? You can find me at Campaign for Liberty or at Liberty-Candidates.org.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

I hope I’m not asking too much, but maybe you could give a plaque or something? Or how about a pin that we could wear all the time identifying us as Patriots who made your list? Then we could easily spot each other. That would be way cool. Thanks!

God bless,

Sally O’Boyle

P.S. Thanks for printing that list of Patriot Groups broken out by state. Now I can find friends no matter where I am. Kind of like an A.A. meeting list! Now, I’m thinking I should join a militia. Don’t mean to be greedy, but would I get extra points for that?

*Criteria: “Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines.” (http://tinyurl.com/patriotgroups)