PrisonPlanet Forum
April 18, 2014, 08:38:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: DHS MEMO EXPOSED: Napolitano/Pistole prepare to call opt outers TERRORISTS!  (Read 15437 times)
AlphaM
Guest
« on: November 23, 2010, 10:21:52 PM »

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30286

Quote
The memo, which actually takes the form of an administrative directive, appears to be the product of undated but recent high level meetings between Napolitano, John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA),and one or more of Obama’s national security advisors. This document officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as “domestic extremists.”

The introductory paragraph of the multi-page document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.


The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.


Oh it gets better...

Quote

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.


We have met the enemy and it is us.  Prepare accordingly.
Logged
Monkeypox
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,849


He Loved Big Brother


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2010, 10:34:30 PM »

By the time they're done labeling us, we'll ALL be terrorists.
Logged

War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2010, 10:44:46 PM »

Domestic Extermists --

This is the most inane labelling.

I guess this man is a Domestic Extremist now:


Ron Paul: Crotch Groped by TSA, Calls for Boycott of Airlines
     
     

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 23, 2010

Appearing on the Alex Jones Show today, Texas Congressman Ron Paul expressed his outrage and disgust with the TSA and its unconstitutional naked body scanners and genital groping under the transparent pretense of protecting the American people from terrorists in distant caves.



“If we tolerate this,” Paul said, “there’s something wrong with us.” He added that the American people deserve to be humiliated and demeaned by the government if they refuse to stand up and resist.

Paul predicted Americans will eventually boycott the airlines to put an end to the intrusive searches and the unconscionable use of dangerous backscatter radiation naked body scanners. “Maybe the Congress will get off their duffs and do something in January,” he said, “and insist we reign in the TSA.”


Responding to Alex Jones’ assertion that the TSA’s actions are akin to what the Nazis did in Germany during the 1930s, Ron Paul said that we long ago capitulated on “showing our papers” and now routinely provide Social Security numbers to employers and show our government issued driver’s license as an accepted form of identification. “Now the government wants us to show them our genitalia and they want to take pictures of us and put their hands into our pants,” he said.

Paul said due to pervasive coverage of TSA abuses by the corporate media, the American people are now beginning to ask serious questions about government conduct.

“I think it’s a healthy wake-up call to a lot of Americans,” Paul told Jones. “I just hope they can work that in to the whole concept of what’s been going on with our country for a long time – the government is too big and intrusive and abuses our rights and they do the things the shouldn’t be doing and they forget about the things they were instructed to do.”

Congressman Paul said in the course of his work representing the people of Texas he has to endure TSA abuse, including the latest “enhanced pat down” that verges on sexual molestation. “I have to go through that all the time because I have metal in my knees,” he explained. “I get prodded all the time and it is disgusting and I tell them so.”

When asked by Alex Jones if the TSA had subjected him to an “enhanced” screening, Ron Paul answered yes.

“Specifically,” Alex asked, “have you had the enhanced pat down, sir? Have they touched your crotch?”

“Yes. Absolutely, and like I said, absolutely disgusting,” Paul responded.


He said he believes a boycott of the airlines will be necessary if we are going to force the government to back down and stop acting like a sexual predator. “I am going to be doing everything conceivable to try to change these rules because they are not making us safer, they aren’t better for us – it’s just to enhance the power of the state.”

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-crotch-groped-by-tsa-calls-for-boycott-of-airlines/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy, they sure grabbed the wrong guy's fu%#ing crotch!

Get 'em, Ron.

Logged
Valerius
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,679


« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2010, 10:53:28 PM »

Need to send this link to Drudge.
Logged

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2010, 11:26:17 PM »

The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.



HEY JANE LUTE, WILLIAM LYNN III, PISTONE, NAPOLITANO...

YOU ARE THE ONES CAUSING TRAVEL DISRUPTIONS BY INFECTING MILLIONS WITH CHERTOFF CERTIFIED CANCER AND RAPING OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDMOTHERS!

What the f**k country do you think you are in?

Go to North Korea!

Take a time machine and go to 1930's Germany!

How batshit crazy are you psychopathic degenerate nutballs?

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2010, 11:27:56 PM »

For the record...


WE OBJECT TO BEING RAPED IN PUBLIC TO GET ON A PLANE!

WE OBJECT TO BEING INFLICTED WITH CANCER CAUSING RADIATION TO GET ON AN AIRPLANE!

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2010, 11:35:16 PM »

Guess what Lute, Napolitano, Pistone, and the rest of the Nazi party....


EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OBEYING ROCKEFELLER/CSIS ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL TREASON

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr




Jane Lute is the real Director of Homeland Security and she is married to the ex-war czar and current under NSA! Napolitano is a fake head of the department. Watch this interview, look at her eyes, look at her confidence.

SHE RUNS THE SHOW!

You are watching a behind the scenes meeting of Hitler's SS talking about the plans to enslave the country. It is unbelievable. The way she snaps at people with an attitude like "F You You F-ing slave! Don't you know we own your ass. Be happy you are not in Gitmo!"



Jane Lute on Homeland Security Department
Jun 29, 2010
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294363-1&showFullAbstract=1
[Everybody needs to watch this ASAP]

Jane Lute was interviewed by CNN Homeland Security Correspondent Jeanne Meserve. Topics included an overview of Department of Homeland Security operations, national security efforts, transportation safety and security, as well as the recent federal response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. She also answered questions from the audience.

Aspen Institute Security Forum
June 29, 2010
5 Programs
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/event.php?id=185075




“The old view that ‘if we fight the terrorists abroad, we won't have to fight them here’ is just that — the old view. It is abundantly clear that we have to fight them abroad, we have to fight them at home. We have to fight them, period."

“As I’ve said before, we can’t guarantee there won’t be another successful terrorist attack."



WTF kind of pathetic troll MK Ultra experiment gone bad is this anti-constitutional globalist butthead?





THIS MAKES ME SO ANGRY!



Passenger: "My, what hairy arms you have Ms. Napolitano."

Napolitano: "If you do not feel my love, then the terrorists win!!!"


BTW, wherever you see the Napolitano "good cop", the Lute "psychopathic and demented Nazi" is not far behind...



Looking every bit the part of a body cavity search enthusiast, Jane Lute:


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294363-1&showFullAbstract=1




STFU! THERES NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE POLITICOs, HOLLYWOOD, & MILITARY BRASS

Pssssst.....
Don't let anyone tell you that there's a conspiracy involving political hacks, top military brass, the news media and hollywood. They're just being conspiracy theorists.  Take, for example, Jane Lute - the wife of a four-star general, herself the undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, and Michael Chertoff, now marketing the hell out of full body scanners, what the hell would they be doing hobnobbing with executives and journalists from ABC, Fox, NBC, etc.; and (oh really - get serious) Pamela Anderson and Ben Affleck??? You'd be crazy to think of something so ridiculous. You'd be called a "conspiracy theorist".  

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/generalities/whca_dinner_leftovers_83465.asp

So, we're back in NYC, and sort of moved in to TVNewser's new world headquarters on Park Ave. (we've actually joined up with our Jupitermedia colleagues).

In the midst of unpacking we came across a few un-posted pictures from our weekend in Washington and new details too.

• One time msnbc.com guest Heidi Montag showing up at Fortune's table. (I guess that 'ole print pub has deep enough pockets to fly Montag and boyfriend Spencer Pratt, first class). Insiders tell us it was Pratt's demands that kept The Hills duo from dining with the .com-ers.


• Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner had heads turning Saturday night at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. (Sorry about the pix, that's as close as we got.) Ben and Jen were at table 65 and despite the seemingly high number, that was front row seating. TVNewser was at table 35 with several ABC Newsers and the actor Tim Daly. Point of reference: Mitt and Ann Romney were at table 1.

• This weekend we also learned NBCU was recently considering selling their Nebraska Ave. lot and building in Washington, DC which houses the NBC News bureau, MSNBC-DC and WRC. But no deal, everyone stays put.


• Don't miss Patrick Gavin's outstanding coverage on FishbowlDC. He's got a live vote, video from the Garden Brunch, and more than 200 pictures from before, during and after the dinner, including the one below of Pam Anderson and Washington Times/FNC contributor Bill Sammon.


Chris and Kathleen Matthews at the Tammy Haddad Garden Party Saturday afternoon.


Hillary Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe (we didn't notice if Chris and Terry talked things over).


NBC's Pete Williams chats up DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff.


Beth Wilkinson, her hubby David Gregory and Tammy Haddad.

• After the brunch TVNewser headed to an afternoon taping of the Newseum program Inside Media. Read the story here. We also spotted an ABC News crew prepping the surprisingly small (or is it cozy?) This Week studio for Sunday's show.




ABC's Martha Raddatz and Jane Lute, wife of Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, one of several military brass at the pre-dinner ABC party.


Mike Jerrick of Fox's The Morning Show with Mike & Juliet.

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2010, 11:36:04 PM »

This treasonous piece of disgusting globalist puppet trash was on CSPAN earlier today discussing how the United States needs to be further locked down into a fascist totalitarian control grid (of course she didn't word it that way, it was all "to keep everyone safe" propaganda, and lying saying that they need to "protect America" better).  Same f*cking bullsh*t lies that have been reiterated for over 10 years.  She is doing her part as a piece of sh*t whore for the MIC's Revolution in Military Affairs Agenda.  Look for her Nazi fake interview (read: infomercial for the MIC) on CSPAN to witness the abject batsh*t illegal and high treason insanity for yourself.  No American flag was behind her during this, only names of terrorist corporations like IBM and Boeing.  


BUFFALO, N.Y. – Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute meets with Department of Homeland Security personnel during a visit here April 15, 2009. Coast Guard Captain Robert Burchell, Sector Buffalo Commander, was present to greet Lute when she arrived at Peace Bridge. (Coast Guard Photo by Petty Officer Third Class Brandon Blackwell)

Bio:  http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jane_Lute#FEMA


http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/032609Lute.pdf

Jane Holl Lute – Opening Statement as Prepared for the Record


Hearing on the Nomination of:  
The Honorable Jane Holl Lute
To be Deputy Secretary of the  
United States Department of Homeland Security

Before the
United States Senate Committee  
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

March 26, 2009
10:00 a.m.  
342 Dirksen Senate Office Building



Jane Holl Lute – Opening Statement as Prepared for the Record

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, Members of the Committee, I am deeply honored by the President’s nomination and the opportunity to appear before you today.  
I am joined this morning by my husband, General Douglas Lute – who many of you know and know that he has served proudly as an American soldier, and has been most recently serving at the White House under both President Bush and now President Obama.  

Neither my husband nor I are politicians.  We are public servants.  Both of us were called to serve our country some time ago as soldiers in the United States Army.  That call to service brought me to Berlin at the height of the Cold War; to the Middle East for Operation Desert Storm; to the National Security Council staffs under President George H.W. Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton; to United Nations Peacekeeping –where I ran support operations for the second largest deployed military force in the world.  

That call to service has also brought me here, today, before you.  I am deeply honored by President Obama’s nomination – and Secretary Napolitano’s confidence – and, if confirmed, will continue this tradition of service.
  
Sitting here, I am struck by the sheer array and enormity of the challenges that confront the Department of Homeland Security.  But I am also deeply impressed by the men and women who have made the work of securing the American homeland their calling.  I am also struck by the collective knowledge, experience, and wisdom in this room.  Few understand the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security better than you,  the Members of this Committee, and few understand the challenges of protecting and preparing the American people better than the first-responders, the firefighters, the police officers, the sheriffs, those in the emergency medical services, the emergency managers, the state, local, and tribal governments across this great Nation.  In the process of preparing for this Hearing, I have reached out to many of these groups and sought their guidance, their input, their direction.  
  
The Department of Homeland Security must enhance its relationship with state and local stakeholders.  Secretary Napolitano is deeply committed to that objective and, if confirmed, I will work with her to ensure that that these relationships are built, protected, and improved.    

I have spent my entire adult life working on the issues at the heart of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission—protection, prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and resilience.  

I have managed these challenges in places and in situations where successful operations, livelihoods, and sometimes lives have depended upon the exercise of sound leadership, strong management, and level-headedness.  

Jane Holl Lute – Opening Statement as Prepared for the Record

I have experienced the challenges of managing multi-billion dollar budgets, and supporting operations in some of the most austere, remote, and difficult environments in the world.  As part of that experience, I have spent a great deal of time working in, on, and around international borders, conflicted borders, disputed borders, and borders where a balance has to be struck between maintaining safety and security while permitting and even encouraging legitimate trade and travel.  I believe that my international perspective will compliment the Secretary’s own deep engagement with issues on the southwest border of the United States in leading the Department of Homeland Security’s discharge of this central aspect of its mission.  

I know what it is like to be responsible for preparing for and responding to emergencies when the need to gain accurate information, mobilize critical resources, and manage the coordination of those resources under the pressure of crisis is real.  I know what it is like to be the officer in charge of support to hundreds of thousands of people in far-flung operations from diverse institutional backgrounds, each with legacies, traditions, cultures and languages.
 
I know the imperative of creating an integrated, coherent culture, while respecting the individuality and uniqueness of the parts.  I know what it is like to tackle the problems of interoperability—both from the perspective of a shivering soldier in Berlin splicing wire at 3 a.m. wondering if I could fix the problem before the Brigade Commander even knew there was one; to my work as the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations responsible for supporting Peacekeepers who came to the UN from hundreds of countries, each with their own cultural traditions, training, languages, and, yes, different radios.  

While a new Administration brings change—some things will not change.  The Department of Homeland Security must remain fully committed to its mission of keeping America and Americans safe, and we must do that while protecting the highest values and principles that define this great country.  
The Department must be responsible and responsive, proactive and engaged, robust and efficient.  It must keep us prepared for the majestic force and might of Mother Nature and it must protect us from the cruelty of those who target civilians.  

If confirmed, I will continue that path, searching, fighting, seeking, and creating new, better, more meaningful ways to keep our country safe, to keep our population prepared and protected, and to keep our borders secure.  America is at its best when Americans stand proud and confident.  America is at its best when we are able to secure both our borders and our historical values; when we confront the worst, with power that rests on the deep values and proud traditions that built this great Nation    

Jane Holl Lute – Opening Statement as Prepared for the Record

In conclusion, let me underscore how deeply honored I am by the President’s nomination and how deeply honored I am to appear before you, this distinguished Committee.  If confirmed, I know that this conversation will be just the beginning of our dialogue. I know I will need your insight, your guidance, and your steady hand as we make our way through the rapids that our country will inevitably face in the coming months and years.  

I am no politician, but I am here to present myself for service.  A call my family and I have taken, and continue to take, very seriously.
________________________
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Lt._Gen._Douglas_Lute

Look who her husband is:


Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute

Current Position: Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser, Iraq and Afghanistan (since May 2007)
Boss:  Replace this text with the official's boss

Why He Matters

As the National Security Council's unofficial "war czar," Lute has played a key role in shaping the Obama administration's Afghanistan strategy.

It's a role he has experience with - Lute joined President George W. Bush's team to oversee war policy in 2007, and completed a review of the Afghanistan war for Bush in 2008.(1)

His selection was controversial - Democrats argued that Bush shouldn't delegate the war. He also raised eyebrows with a controversial statement that the U.S. should consider reinstating the draft (which was hastily clarified) earned him some derision, particularly from the left.

Current Position: Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser, Iraq and Afghanistan (since May 2007)
Career History: Deputy Director of Operations, European Command (January 2003-May 2007); Commander, Multi-national Brigade East in Kosovo (2002-2003); Assistant
Division Commander, First Infantry Division (Schweinfurt, Germany); executive assistant, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; Commander, Second Cavalry Regiment (XVIII
Airborne Corps), at Fort Polk, La. (1998-2000); Joint Staff in the Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5); War College Fellowship at the Atlantic Council; 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry at Fort Hood, Texas (1992-1994); Second Armored Cavalry Regiment (Bindlach, Germany), C troop commander
Birthday: N/A
Hometown: N/A
Alma Mater: United States Military Academy, West Point (1975); master's, Harvard University
Spouse: Jane Lute
Religion: N/A
DC Office: The White House
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2010, 11:38:20 PM »

Jane Lute   
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2009/federal-appointments/person/jane-holl-lute/
Department of Homeland Security
Deputy Secretary
Confirmed: April 3, 2009
Nominated: Feb. 25, 2009
Announced: Jan. 23, 2009

Bio
Age: 53
Education:  Georgetown University, JD; Stanford University, PhD
From: Washington, DC
Ethnicity: Caucasian
Gender: Female

Lute spent most of the past decade working with the United Nations and its charities, helping give away the $1 billion donated by Ted Turner and heading up peacekeeping operations. A former National Security Council staffer, she also ran the Carnegie Commission on Ending Deadly Conflict during the 1990s. Her husband, Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, was named as the "war czar" in 2007, and the Obama administration has said it plans to keep him at the National Security Council coordinating Iraq and Afghanistan policy.

Last Job
United Nations, assistant secretary-general, field support; mission support for peacekeeping operations

Other Jobs
United Nations Foundation, executive vice president, chief operating officer, Better World Fund
Carnegie Commission on Ending Deadly Conflict
White House, National Security Council, director of European affairs




Obama enemy alert! Last week I reported that The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee hosted Jane Lute, the Obama appointee as Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Jane Lute was the former UN Asst. Sec. General for Peacekeeping, and also a former Clinton staffer.  Conservatives tried to use her miserable record at the UN to stop her, but failed.

Sec. General for Peacekeeping. Once has to wonder what action (or inaction) Lute took in the punishment of those UN Peacekeepers who systematically raped and trafficked in children (more on that here). The child rape was rampant, recurring and disgraceful. Worse, the perps were never prosecuted; they were moved to other parts of the globe to exact their sick, perverted revenge on oppressed innocents.

Muslims Against Sharia named Lute the "Gihadi Useful Idiot".

The American-Arab anti-discrimination jihad announced Lute this way:

Quote
Deputy Secretary Lute to discuss the ongoing challenges facing law enforcement and the post-9/11 communities and the struggle to maintain and promote civil rights and security simultaneously.


Lute has a history of anti-semitism and anti-Israel actions in the UN.

For example, during the Israel/Hezbo war, Lute accused Israel of targeting intentionally a UN building -- when it was known for weeks that the building was coming under Hezb'allah fire. Evidence said otherwise -- check out an email from a victim of the bombing (from FOX News):

Quote
The email from Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener warned that the post had come under "unintentional" artillery fire and aerial bombing several times in the previous weeks, and that several Hezbollah positions were in the area of the patrol base.

"It is not safe or prudent for us to conduct normal patrol activities," wrote Kruedener in the July 18th e-mail. "(The artillery and aerial bombing) has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

Kruedener was one of four unarmed U.N. military observers killed in Tuesday's bombing.

"I think that e-mail is very important, because unfortunately these are practically the last words of somebody who eventually paid with his life,” said Israel's U.N. ambassador Daniel Gillerman. “He's telling his commander that Israel was not targeting them and that there is Hezbollah activity around there."

Here is Lute's testimony (CBC.ca):

Quote
In a briefing note to the UN, Jane Lute, assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations, said the IDF had been repeatedly firing too close to the patrol base on Tuesday.

She said 21 strikes occurred within 300 metres of the base and 12 artillery rounds fell within 100 metres of it, with four hitting the base directly.

The strikes occurred despite the fact "Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the patrol base," she said.

She lied for Hezballah during the Israel/Hezbo war? Under Bush/Cheney/Bolton? Wow. That's hardcore. [My comment: "bwaaahahahahaaaaa"]



UPDATE: Related: Homeland Security Trains Scouts To Fight Terrorism



The United Nations always hires only the most respectable of society!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"We are not
going to achieve a
NEW WORLD ORDER
without paying for it in
BLOOD
as well as in words and money"

-Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs.


UN "peacekeepers" torture a Somali child over fire

Beasts in Blue Berets

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html
by William Norman Grigg

"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," warned Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Schlesinger had taken to the pages of the flagship journal of the Council on Foreign Relations to vindicate the dubious proposition that the United Nations military represents the thin blue line dividing peaceful civilization from savagery — in short, our planetary police. But what happens when the planetary police run amok and become the agents of bloodshed? When local police abuse their power, the abused have avenues of redress. From what body can those abused by the planetary police seek justice? The escalating scandal of unpunished atrocities committed by UN "peacekeepers" illustrates that the planetary police are beyond accountability.

"Perhaps our leaders should put the question to the people: what do we want the United Nations to be?" Schlesinger wrote. "Do we want it to avert more killing fields around the planet? Or do we want it to dwindle into impotence, leaving the world to the anarchy of nation-states?" Critics of the UN should eagerly embrace such a debate — provided that a copy of the above photograph is made available to all participants. First published in the United States on the cover of the June 24th issue of the left-wing weekly Village Voice, the photograph depicts two Belgian paladins of the new world order giddily holding a Somali child over an open flame. Other series of photographs depict UN soldiers kicking and stabbing a Somali, and another soldier apparently urinating on the Somali’s dead body; yet another shows a Somali child being forced to drink salt water, vomit, and worms. A second group of photos published in the July 15th Village Voice shows the dead bodies of bound Somalis — what appears to be the work of a death squad.

One atrocity not caught on camera involved the "punishment" of a Somali child by placing him in a metal container and withholding water from him for two days; predictably, the relentless African heat killed the child. One Belgian UN soldier testified that it was a regular practice to use metal boxes as prison cells, and that other Somalis probably died similarly gruesome deaths.


Strangely Silent

One might expect the photographs and first-person accounts of such atrocities to arouse public indignation against the UN’s "planetary police," just as the endlessly replayed videotape of the Rodney King arrest turned public opinion against the Los Angeles Police Department. Perhaps this is why the photographs have been all but invisible in the United States, and precious little media attention has been devoted to an examination of UN atrocities.

Village Voice reporter Jennifer Gould came across the accounts of the Belgian atrocities while doing an earlier story about sexual harassment of female employees at UN headquarters. "When I spoke with people at the UN, time after time I was told, ‘If you think it’s bad here, you ought to see what happens in peacekeeping operations,’" Gould told The New American. "I started looking into that issue and found that the abuses I reported were well-known and easily documented. They were all over the media abroad, and I was really surprised it hadn’t been written about over here."

Belgian military authorities launched an investigation into the atrocities following publication of a front-page story by Belgium’s Het Laatste Nieuws. In early July, Privates Claude Baert and Kurt Coelus, the two paratroopers photographed dangling the Somali child over a flame, were acquitted by a military court, which ruled that the incident — described by Baert and Coelus as a punishment for stealing — was "a form of playing without violence," according to prosecutor Luc Walleyn. And what of discipline from the UN, whose "Code of Personal Conduct for Blue Helmets" requires that peacekeepers "respect and regard the human rights of all"? Gould reports that a UN spokesman dismissed the acquittal of Baert and Coelus by insisting that "the UN is not in the habit of embarrassing governments that contribute peacekeeping troops."

For its diligence in reporting unwelcome news, Het Laatste Nieuws was rewarded with a bomb threat. Reporter Lieve Van Bastelaere informed The New American that the man arrested for making the threat owned a local bar that is frequented by many people in the military, including veterans of "peacekeeping" missions. "He apparently had been angered by what he had read," Bastelaere observed dryly. "We’ve enhanced our security here at the paper, and the police took the threat seriously, even though he may have been drunk when he made it. He claimed not to remember phoning in the threat when he was arrested."

In September, another military tribunal will be held to investigate the actions of Sergeant Dirk Nassel, the soldier photographed forcing a Somali boy to ingest worms and vomit. However, the Belgian military system — which is deeply entwined with the UN "peacekeeping" apparatus — has yet to inflict substantive penalties for abuses committed in the service of the UN. Several years ago, according to Gould, "Belgian soldiers were also accused of holding mock executions for Somali children and forcing them to dig their own graves; though their officer was given a suspended sentence, the soldiers were acquitted." It is thus firmly established in Belgian military jurisprudence that service in the new world army is a license to commit barbarities with impunity.

Canadian, Italian Atrocities

Nor was the Belgian component of the UN’s "Operation Restore Hope" uniquely barbarous. Three members of a now-disbanded elite Canadian paratroop regiment were tried and convicted of criminal charges in the beating death of a 16-year-old Somali boy named Shidane Arone; the three "peacekeepers" had been photographed smiling beside the bloody corpse of the boy, whose hands had been bound. The incident prompted the creation of a Canadian government commission to review that nation’s military and its involvement in "peacekeeping" missions; however, the inquiry foundered on the obstructionism of political and military bodies and produced what Canadian critics call an incomplete and inadequate report.

On August 8th, Italian military officials admitted that Italian soldiers assigned to UN duty in Somalia had also tortured and otherwise abused Somali civilians. According to the Washington Post, "Two generals who led the Italian forces to Somalia resigned in June following publication of graphic reports of sexual violence against a Somali woman, electric torture of a young man and allegations that an officer had murdered a young boy." Drugs and prostitutes also were allowed to circulate freely among Italian UN troops.

The Italian government assembled a five-member commission of inquiry, which interviewed 145 people and traveled to Africa to interview Somalis who had been tormented by UN troops or witnessed the bestial acts firsthand. The panel’s 46-page report documented that "the criminal events were not just the result of ‘rotten apples’ that you may find in any structure, but were rather the consequence of a stretched line of command and amused compliance toward such high jinks by some junior officers."

"Shocking as it is, the UN scandal in Somalia is no anomaly," wrote Gould in the Village Voice. "[An analysis] of documents and reports relating to recent UN peacekeeping operations has uncovered incidents ranging from murder and torture to sexual exploitation, harassment of and discrimination against local women and children."

The January 18th New York Times reported that 47 Canadian UN troops who served in Bosnia were accused of "drunkenness, sex, black marketeering and patient abuse at a mental hospital they were guarding." The soldiers had been assigned the "humanitarian" chore of guarding a mental hospital at Bakovici in order to secure it for the staff’s return. "The hospital instead became the setting for heavy drinking; sex between soldiers, nurses and interpreters that violated regulations; black-market sales; and harassment of the patients...."

During the "frenzy of looting" that broke out in Liberia in the spring of 1996, peacekeepers used UN vehicles to make off with pilfered goods, according to the April 12, 1996 issue of USA Today. UN vehicles — and the troops responsible for them — have also been a boon to Balkan drug smugglers. The August 9, 1996 Washington Times reported that "U.S. and Bosnian officials suspect that high-ranking UN officials from Jordan based in the central Bosnian towns of Bugojno and Travnik have routinely provided UN vehicles to help smugglers get contraband past checkpoints. The officers appear to have received money and the services of prostitutes from the smugglers, led by Islamic foreigners who entered Bosnia with U.S. approval to defend the Muslim government."

Significantly, the Bosnian narco-ring apparently received critical support from UN police monitors, who were stationed in the Balkans in order to facilitate the creation of a civilian police force dedicated to upholding "world law." A Pentagon official told the Washington Times that such problems are predictable, given that "the international police task force [in Bosnia] is a compendium of people from diverse countries with different degrees of professionalism and training and different backgrounds in operations and ethics" — a fairly compelling explanation of why UN-style "world law" cannot work.

The UN’s "nation-building" mission in Cambodia — long touted as among the world body’s proudest achievements — added to that unfortunate land’s abundant history of lawlessness. In 1993, 170 residents of Cambodia protested the abusive behavior of blue helmet troops in a letter to Yasushi Akashi, who served as then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s representative in Cambodia. Prominent among the complaints was the mistreatment of women, who were treated to abuse and harassment by UN officials "regularly in public restaurants, hotels and bars, banks, markets, and shops."

New York Times correspondent Barbara Crossette, whose primary beat is the UN, elaborated: "The bad behavior [of UN forces in Cambodia] was not limited to abuse of women. There were bar fights, brawls, and shootouts and a proliferation of brothels, stolen vehicles and general drunken boorishness. Geographical origins were no indicator of what to expect. While some Asian and African troops got out of line, it was the soldiers of a Bulgarian battalion who had the worst reputation. They went down in local legend as ‘the Vulgarians.’" Cambodia has descended again into murderous chaos, and Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, believes that "the mess that Cambodia finds itself in today is in large part a product of the UN’s failure to uphold the rule of law" in the course of its "nation-building" mission.

Nightmare in Rwanda

The same lawlessness infected the UN mission to Rwanda, which suffered a Cambodia-style genocide earlier this decade. Crossette noted that Rwandans accused UN troops "of illicit trading, hit-and-run driving, sexual harassment and criminal abuse of diplomatic immunity they have bestowed on themselves. The disruptive personal behavior of some troops has been a factor in Rwanda’s demand that all peacekeepers be withdrawn from the country...."

Also contributing to that demand is the fact that UN forces in Rwanda actually abetted the worst bloodletting in recent memory — the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which a half-million Tutsis were annihilated in approximately 100 days. "Many of the mass murderers were employees of the international relief agencies," testified Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship in Holocaust in Rwanda. In one incident recounted by Hammond, Belgian UN troops stationed in a heavily fortified compound in Kigali "deceived the [Tutsi] refugees by assembling them for a meal in the dining hall and then [they] evacuated the base while the refugees were eating. Literally two minutes after the Belgians had driven out of their base, the Presidential Guard poured into the buildings annihilating the defenceless Tutsi refugees."

When the Tutsi-organized Rwandan Patriotic Front drove many of the worst Hutu murderers from Rwanda into the Congo (then called Zaire), the UN intervened militarily — on the side of the murderers. One year after the genocide, wrote Peter Beinart in the October 30, 1995 issue of The New Republic, "former [Rwandan] government militias, often armed and sometimes in uniform, control many UN refugee camps, terrorizing civilians and plotting to reinvade." Janet Fleischmann of Human Rights Watch-Africa reported, "The UN clearly took the lead in assisting these refugees who were in uniform and armed … and that helped them establish control over the refugee camps." This development provoked the renowned French humanitarian group Medecins sans Frontieres and several other charitable organizations to withdraw from militia-controlled UN refugee camps.

When the UN "peacekeeping" mission to Rwanda finally furled its blue banner in March 1996, the reaction on the part of Rwandans was one of unalloyed relief. "Hundreds of genocide survivors protesting outside the UN headquarters in Kigali cheered … as the UN flag was lowered to mark the end of the United Nations’ peacekeeping mandate," reported a March 3, 1996 Reuters wire service report. Apparently, Rwandans would rather face the prospect of bloody anarchy than submit to the variety of "peace" administered by UN troops.

Follow the Brothels

The market in prostitution — including child prostitution — thrives wherever blue berets decamp. According to Gould, records of UN peacekeeping missions document that "brothels have sprouted nearby — and in one case allegedly inside — UN compounds. In the latter case, prostitutes were allegedly employed by the UN and were reportedly even shipped on UN planes to fornicate with a UN staff member in hotels paid for by the UN."

Last December a UN study on children in war reported that blue berets had been involved in child prostitution in six of the 12 countries which had been studied. In country after country unfortunate enough to attract the UN’s "humanitarian" intervention, "the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been accompanied with a rapid rise in child prostitution," the document reported. Following the signing of a peace treaty in Mozambique in 1992, for example, "soldiers of the United Nations operation … recruited girls aged 12 to 18 years into prostitution."

However, as Jennifer Gould learned, the mistreatment of women is something of a UN tradition — the world body’s enthusiastic support for radical feminism notwithstanding. In a report published in the May 20th Village Voice, Gould described the plight of Catherine Claxon, a UN employee who filed the first-ever sexual harassment complaint against the UN in 1991. After Claxon filed her complaint, "Someone fired a shot through the glass window of a coffee shop by the United Nations" — just above Claxon’s head. "Another bullet shattered Claxon’s windshield as she drove home from her job at the UN one night on the Long Island Expressway." On three other occasions, Claxon was nearly run off the road — at the same spot where she was nearly killed by the gunshot. According to Gould, "UN women describe a godfather-like institution" — a network of cronyism and corruption. "This is compounded by the fact that in some UN member countries, women are treated as chattel instead of as equals."

Haunting Prophecy

Gould described the UN as "a bizarre universe of intrigue and outrage, where diplomats from 185 countries — stuffed suits simmering with regional, religious, and class-bred hatreds — try to promote world peace." Such is the character of the institution whose masters crave the power to enforce "world law." The essence of that abstraction is captured in the photograph of "peacekeepers" Baert and Coelus playfully swinging a Somali child over a fire: Unaccountable power employed mercilessly against the helpless.

More than seven decades ago, while the U.S. Senate was debating ratification of the League of Nations Covenant, Senator William Borah (R-ID) sought to cool the ardor of the League’s supporters by dousing it with a bracing shower of cold reality. Those who believed that a world army would consist of stainless champions of "world peace" were ignoring the unyielding facts about human nature. A world army, Borah declared, would consist of "the gathered scum of the nations organized into a conglomerate international police force ordered hither and thither by the most heterogeneous and irresponsible body or court that ever confused or confounded the natural instincts and noble passions of a people." Can there be any doubt that the UN has vindicated Borah’s dismal prophecy?

Yet Another UN Child Sex Abuse Scandal
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/yet-another-un-child-sex-abuse-scandal/
Posted by iusbvision on January 21, 2009

Today – The latest from the New York Daily News:

A high-ranking human rights worker with ties to the United Nations was nabbed at Kennedy Airport Tuesday with kiddie porn in his suitcase, officials said.

Clarence Dias, 65, president of the International Center for Law in Development, whose offices are located at the UN, had the smut in his carry-on bag as he passed through security on his way to a flight bound for Bangkok, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

Transportation Security Administration officials doing a random bag check around 8:20a.m. allegedly found a DVD whose cover featured an apparently underage nude boy and an adult male in Dias’ handbag, prosecutors said.

The video’s title – “Winner Pub Pattaya” – apparently refers to a beach resort in Thailand, authorities said. There were also other lewd photographs in the bag, authorities said.

This is the latest sex scandal to roil the UN.

The agency came under fire in 2002 for turning a blind eye to wide-scale sexual abuse of West African refugee children by its own aid workers and peacekeepers.

UN workers from nine countries – including Britain and India – were accused of sexually exploiting children in dozens of refugee camps in war-torn Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia, the internal report found.

Last Week - U.N. probes peacekeeper sex abuse:
Agency has collected 217 allegations of abuse of girls, women in Congo
The Associated Press
Jan. 14, 2009

GENEVA – A United Nations probe collected 217 allegations of abuse of girls and women by peacekeepers in eastern Congo, from sex with teenagers in the back room of a liquor store to threats of “hacking” victims for cooperating with investigators.

The 2006 investigation found many allegations credible and said evidence suggests “frequent and ongoing” sexual exploitation in the region. But it could only establish proof against one of 75 peacekeepers accused of wrongdoing.

Details of alleged incidents dating back to 2004 are summarized in a “strictly confidential” 17-page document.

It is dated Jan. 30, 2007, and was published Wednesday by whistleblower Web site Wikileaks.org. The report has previously been referred to by human rights organizations and the U.N. itself, but not made public. U.N. officials confirmed its authenticity.

Allegations of sex abuse and other crimes have dogged U.N. peacekeeping missions almost since their inception in 1948; the global body has in recent years adopted a “zero tolerance” approach.

The report cited a number of cases where victims may have been pressured or bribed to keep silent. “One victim informed (investigators) that she had received a message from a peacekeeper that he would ‘hack them’ if he ever saw them again,” the report said.

2005 – Sexual misconduct by U.N. personnel in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere:
Officials Acknowledge ‘Swamp’ of Problems and Pledge Fixes Amid New Allegations in Africa, Haiti

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post
Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page A22

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations is facing new allegations of sexual misconduct by U.N. personnel in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere, which is complicating the organization’s efforts to contain a sexual abuse scandal that has tarnished its Nobel Prize-winning peacekeepers in Congo.

2004 – 68 cases of alleged rape, prostitution and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers:

The 34-page report, which was obtained by The Washington Post accuses U.N. peacekeepers from Morocco, Pakistan and Nepal of seeking to obstruct U.N. efforts to investigate a sexual abuse scandal that has damaged the United Nations’ standing in Congo.

The report documents 68 cases of alleged rape, prostitution and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers from Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal. U.N. officials say they have uncovered more than 150 allegations of sexual misconduct throughout the country as part of a widening investigation into sexual abuse by U.N. personnel that has plagued the United Nations’ largest peacekeeping mission, U.N. officials said.

Special thanks to Ed Morrissey from Hotair.com for archiving some of this information.

2002 – Child sex abuse by UN workers:

A shocking report jointly issued on February 26th by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Save The Children detailed evidence of widespread sexual exploitation of children at refugee camps in West Africa.

According to the report, aid workers from the UNHCR and a number of different NGOs have been sexually abusing children in camps in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, where refugees have fled to escape civil war.

According to Paul Nolan of Save The Children, “what emerged was a problem that was widespread, quite possibly endemic and which also included people who were actually in place to provide those refugee children with the care and protection they were entitled to…. It’s a problem we know has been around for some time. Nolan also admitted that the investigation had uncovered a “fairly widespread culture of exploitation” in which “a whole range of people in a position of authority and trust were abusing these positions. All in return for sexual favors.” Still more despicably, many aid worke rs apparently coerced sexual favors from children by withholding food and relief-agency services unless the children complied with their twisted demands.

1987 – Child porn ring ran from UNICEF offices and computers:

By PAUL LEWIS,
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: June 25, 1987

LEAD: The head of the United Nations Children’s Fund in Belgium resigned today after the disclosure of a child pornography case linked to the Belgian branch of the organization.

The head of the United Nations Children’s Fund in Belgium resigned today after the disclosure of a child pornography case linked to the Belgian branch of the organization.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2010, 11:39:40 PM »

It gets even better.

Jane Lute is on the f*cking DSB - Defense Science Board.  IN a document talking about false flag terror operations (using MIC the MIC language "Effects Based Operations").  Sane, remember the CEO of IBM saying how everything would be "about the analytics"?  Read the below partial extraction of this PDF, and look at the people she rubs elbows with:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/dsb_duf.pdf

Report of the
Defense Science Board Task Force
on
Discriminate Use of Force



July 2003


Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics  
Washington, D.C. 20301-3140



This report is a product of the Defense Science Board (DSB). The DSB is a Federal Advisory Committee established to provide independent advice to the Secretary of Defense. Statements, opinions, conclusions, and recommendations in this report do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Defense.


This report is UNCLASSIFIED.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DSB Transmittal Letter ............................................................................................ i
Chairmen’s Transmittal Letter ...............................................................................iii

I.     Introduction ... 1
II.  Criticisms of Discriminate Use of Force (DUF) and  
Effects-Based Operations (EBO) ................................................................... 2
III. Enablers... 3
IV. Findings... 5
V.   Recommendations .......................................................................................... 6

Appendices
A.   Terms of Reference ........................................................................................ 9
B.   Task Force Membership............................................................................... 11
C.   Briefings Received ....................................................................................... 13
D.   Effects-Based Operations: A Synopsis of Papers and Position.................... 17
E.   Acronyms ... 27


I. INTRODUCTION
In the terms of reference, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics directed the task force “to conduct a comprehensive study of the ends and means of precision compellence, or the nuanced use of force, in concert with coalition partners, to achieve political, economic and moral change in countries affecting US interests.” Real-world events have since underscored the need for such a study; indeed, the U.S. military applied key elements of a measured, nuanced approach in both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. We are pleased to note this evolution in operations and a parallel evolution in the thinking of the combatant commands and Services. Because of this evolution, it is no longer as necessary as it once was to sell the fundamental objectives of what we term here the discriminate use of force (DUF).1 The notion of using military force in discriminate fashion goes back at least to the teachings of Sun Tzu. In the past, however, the military tools available to political and military leaders rarely supported such an approach. As recent events have shown, this situation is changing. New precision and “non-lethal” weapons and emerging capabilities such as information dominance now enable the discriminate use of force.  

These emerging capabilities exist within a political context that requires the use of discriminate force. Moreover, destructive power alone is not sufficient to reach many U.S. goals, and it must be properly applied. Efficiency is one motivation. More significant is the need for discriminate use, particularly when multiple strategic and operational objectives are in tension. This is clearly a challenge, one that—in the same campaign—may require U.S. forces to roll back an aggressor, effect a regime change, and destroy a terrorist organization while minimizing casualties (theirs and ours), preserving infrastructure, maintaining international coalitions, not waging war on a people or a religion, and even not waging war on much of the adversary’s military forces.  

DUF is about more than the limited use of force. When competing objectives exist, attacking the “wrong” target can wreak more damage to America’s interests than not attacking the right one. The intent is to apply force discriminately in order to achieve the desired and avoid the undesired. In fact, overwhelming force may be appropriate in some situations. Thus, DUF is largely about military effectiveness in the face of competing objectives and the inevitable frictions of war. In most cases the desired effect is a change in behavior. Physical effects (e.g., destruction of targets) can produce an automatic effect in reducing adversary capabilities, but more often are a means to the end of influencing behavior.  

1 Few civilized combatants in the modern era would associate themselves with the indiscriminate use of force. The antonym of discriminate is the inability to meet the complex strategic and political objectives of warfare, especially when the technical means exist for economy in force and the minimization of gratuitous collateral damage.

The task force’s concept of the discriminate use of force harmonizes with some contemporary thinking about effects-based operations (EBO). We say some, because there are a number of differing articulations of EBO.
•   Some emphasize efficiency—a way to avoid waste of munitions, sorties, and lives by attacking an adversary’s center of gravity.  
•   Others emphasize comprehensiveness—a way to use all the elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—
DIME) together in concert against an adversary.  
•   Still others emphasize   speed—a way to impose the will of the United States on an adversary quickly, in order to halt aggression, stop the killing, or prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  The EBO construct we associate with most is the systematic and explicit attempt (in planning and executing a campaign with competing objectives) to assess for and adapt to the effects from kinetic and other actions. This includes military and non-military effects, desired and undesired effects, and expected and unanticipated effects. (See Appendix D for summaries of a number of papers that reflect the evolution in thinking about EBO over the past decade.) The task force’s recommendations focus on how the Department of Defense (DoD) can (1) implement DUF or EBO more consistently, and (2) achieve the needed institutional and organizational changes, particularly in career structures.

II. CRITICISMS OF DUF (AND EBO)
The task force encountered several strongly held criticisms of DUF that challenged the study’s rationale. These include the following:
•   “DUF is not new—we are already doing this.” As this report shows, however, a number of factors prevent DoD from executing DUF to the extent possible and the degree necessary.  
•   “We shouldn’t plan for or encourage DUF—restraint in the use of force will be seen as weakness.” To this we reply that DUF is not about restraint; it is about the clarity of objectives and attention to achieving multiple and often competing objectives.  
•   “DUF is too difficult to actually use.”  
•   Some point out that quick and bloodless campaigns are not possible.
We agree, but we have no such expectations. DUF is not about assuming away friction and the fog of war.
•   Others point out that most sought-after effects reside only in the enemy’s mind and will never be fully known. We see this as a challenge worth pursuing. Our nation must improve its ability both to assess the enemy’s capabilities and intentions and to adapt to them.  We cannot simply dub as important what’s most easily assessed.

•   “DUF is too big for DoD—it does not own all the assets needed to conduct discriminate campaigns and other government agencies need to play important roles.” The ultimate solution may be to reengineer the nation’s national security processes, but in the meantime we offer some recommendations for how DoD can itself do better.

III. ENABLERS

The capability for discriminate use of force does not flow automatically from the desire to do it. The task force identified five “enablers” that are critical to discriminate force use in a wide range of circumstances.

1. Understanding the adversary as a complex adaptive system. The need here is not to rapidly develop the ability to predict an adversary’s actions and reactions during a contingency, as desirable as that would be. Rather, the real need is for a comprehensive, long-term, and coherent effort to understand adversaries in a systemic way, to enable the nation in a contingency to exploit decision superiority to pursue an effects-based campaign. This puts great demand on intelligence and the fusion of contradictory, fragmented, and dispersed information—in peacetime and in a contingency.  

Doing this requires creating models of the adversary that account for not only the physical dimensions (e.g., those associated with military forces and infrastructure) but the “softer” dimensions as well (e.g., those associated with human networks). Substantial capabilities and experience exist in synthesizing and using models of the physical dimensions (transportation, power, telecommunication, and so on). The Joint Warfare Analysis Center (JWAC), for example, is a leader in this area. However, capabilities and experience with the softer networks are much less mature and far more difficult. Both will need to be tied intimately to operational planning and execution

2. Military capabilities conducive to DUF. While recognizing that all instruments of national power—DIME—should be used in a campaign, the task force focused on the military instruments that could contribute most to DUF. New military capabilities of particular interest—exploited extensively in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)—are precision standoff weapons and “non-lethal” weapons, coupled to delivery platforms able to penetrate defenses to weapon delivery ranges.

A key enabler for these weapons is comprehensive and persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), to support

−   Targeting (in its broadest sense), and  
−   Assessment of the actual effects, physical and other (military and
political)—or battle damage assessment (BDA) writ large.
Special forces are trained and increasingly used as both precision weapons and as ISR, in situations (e.g., urban areas) where remote weapons and traditional ISR are less effective. Finally, offensive information operations (including psychological operations) offer the potential for providing desired effects with little or no physical damage.  

3.   Robust collaboration in a contingency among key participants.   Planning, executing, and assessing should involve the coordinated use of all elements of national power. As noted above, the United States does not have standing mechanisms for doing this. So for now the burden often falls on the joint force commander (JFC)—often the regional combatant commander—to bring it all together.

The JFC’s collaboration should extend to the leaders of the key U.S. agencies (e.g., State, the Intelligence Community, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Commerce), coalition partners, military subordinates, and experts on the adversary as a complex adaptive system. The objective of these collaborations is to move beyond instantaneous sharing of information, through discourses to the higher cognitive level of shared understanding, and over time to a shared knowledge:

•   To develop and pursue an adaptive campaign against an adaptive adversary, given the needs of allies and the concerns of other key countries and international organizations (including non-governmental organizations, or NGOs).  

•   To deal with the friction, uncertainties, and ambiguities inherent in any military campaign (recognizing that plans are less important than the process of planning).
  
4.   Peacetime preparation—intellectual and cultural—for the collaborative planning and execution of an adaptive campaign. Peacetime preparation is essential for wartime collaboration. Part of the preparation is organizational, some outside the control of DoD. But a larger part is creating a culture—within DoD and the interagency process of which DoD is a part—which values the following:

•   Achieving synchronization and unity of effort of all the elements of national power (DIME);

•   Considering the full range of possible effects (military and other, desired and other, expected and other, primary and other) from the use of national powers; and
•   Working together collaboratively, over time, to develop the basis for shared knowledge of the implications of these effects.

Part of the preparation involves developing a greater capability to surge the peacetime 9-to-5 activity into a wartime 24/7 activity.

5.   Anticipatory instead of reactive strategic orientation to adversaries. The preparation of information and modeling for discriminate use of force has to begin long before the contingency begins. It is a difficult job to continuously collect and analyze information related to a wide range of potential adversaries. An anticipatory orientation also puts a burden on the potentially affected regional combatant commanders to use the results of the intelligence community’s efforts (1) to plan the military campaign and (2) to actively involve the interagency in developing a synchronized DIME plan.

IV. FINDINGS

The good news is that across all five enablers there is either a substantial effort already underway (e.g., precision weapons, collaborative environments) or widespread agreement of the need to improve (e.g., to transform low-density, stovepiped ISR assets into a more pervasive integrated network of sensors). There are also outstanding relevant recommendations from other DSB task forces and study groups (e.g., recommendations regarding intelligence fusion, non-lethal effects, and understanding adversaries as complex adaptive systems).  However, important issues have yet to get the attention they deserve. These include:

•   Observing, assessing, and adapting to actual effects. Adaptive planning fosters adaptation in execution.  

•   Conducting “battle damage assessment” writ large. Assessing physical damage has been a long-standing problem. Assessing all effects—military, political economic, other—from the use of military force is harder. Assessing campaign-level effects from combinations of instruments of national power (again taking account of “all” effects) is harder yet.  

•   Examining in peacetime a broader range of countries and contingencies to prepare for “surprises.” (A few hot issues tend to get almost all the attention).

•   Integrating “all” available information to provide a more robust foundation for planning and conducting effects-based campaigns.  We offer two recommendations that would help address all these needs.  The first is to create a capability to conduct campaign planning at the strategic/operational level that would approach the standards of detail, coherence, and comprehensiveness of current U.S. military operational/tactical-level campaign planning.

The second is to make a long-term commitment to develop military leaders for effects-based operations, a commitment that will require changes to DoD personnel practices and professional military education. The planning and conduct of effects-based campaigns place great demands on military commanders: to balance multiple and competing objectives, to invent effects that tie tactical actions to strategic objectives, and to develop metrics for assessing effects.  


V. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.   Establish a Strategic Campaign Support Center. The United States needs a strategic focus on the broad array of potential threats, similar to the focus that led to success during the Cold War. The task force recommends establishing a Strategic Campaign Support Center. The center’s primary mission would be to develop “strategic campaign plans” for future contingencies. As part of its responsibilities, the Center would account for potential strategic and operational contexts (including U.S. objectives), invent concepts of operations involving all the instruments of U.S.  power, and game alternative courses of action. The Center would focus beyond current hot spots—these are already getting the necessary attention; rather, it would direct its attention toward several dozen or so possible future threats, chosen on the basis of likelihood and consequence.  

The Center would attempt to do at the strategic level what joint force commanders and their staffs do at the operational level (and what their subordinates do at the tactical level). Its texture should be perceived as too diplomatic for DoD, too military for State, too oriented to open-source information for the intelligence community, and too transnational for anyone. The Center would work closely with the intelligence community and other sources of information and focus on JWAC-like efforts that develop systemic “models” of possible adversaries.  Products of the Center would be offered for consideration to the Deputies Group and other national leaders. In response to a potential crisis, the Deputies Group could quickly expand preferred options into a draft interagency tasking order coordinating all elements of national power. The appropriate combatant commander would use the tasking to develop military plans that support an integrated national response. Other agency heads would use the tasking order similarly to guide their efforts.

The Center would complement, not replace, responsibilities and authorities of regional combatant commanders. It would be useful to combatant commanders in peacetime by providing a strategic campaign context for the command’s operational level plans. The Center’s scope would be broader than a combatant commander’s in that it would provide strategic planning options and formulations for the departments of State, Commerce, Treasury, Transportation, Homeland Security, and others.  Consequently, the center’s products would help coordinate America’s diplomatic, informational, intelligence, and economic actions prior to the need for military force.  Where should the Center be located, organizationally and geographically? We do not have a definitive answer—perhaps it should be part of a new Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) in the Washington, DC, area.

But we do suggest that in the first steps the focus be on working with the combatant commands that have new global responsibilities: Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and Strategic Command (STRATCOM). These commands need to prepare for operations in any part of the globe to integrate military operations within a broad strategic campaign plan. While full implementation could take years, we believe that a center working with SOCOM and STRATCOM would have substantial early payoffs.  

2. Make a long-term commitment to develop leaders for the discriminate use of force and effects-based operations, and identify and implement the needed changes to DoD personnel practices and professional military education. The nature of DUF calls for military leaders who are able to plan and execute military operations within a larger strategic context. The task force concluded that it will be difficult for these concepts to be integrated into military practice unless changes are made in the education and preparation of military and civilian professionals.  We appreciate that considerations of DUF are not the sole drivers of change to DoD personnel practices and thus need to be examined in a context broader than this study. We also are aware of ongoing activities aimed at effecting substantial change to personnel practices. We suggest that the needs of DUF should be major considerations in these activities. As a first step, we recommend mining the experiences and lessons of recent campaigns, particularly Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, which provided real-world laboratories for DUF.  

During the Cold War the United States could deter its major adversary even though it could not defeat it. By contrast, the post-Cold War world has seen several cases in which the United States and its allies had both the ability and the willingness to defeat the other side, but were unable to successfully practice deterrence and compellence. Recent instances are the campaigns against the regimes in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Given American capabilities and previous behavior, the adversary “should” have known that if it did not give in, the United States would successfully use force to gain its objectives. Why the adversary did not is open to conjecture. The crucial question is how the United States can extend deterrence and compellence further in future contingencies. It is likely that the answer lies with more knowledge, not more weapons.  

A study group should be established to examine the DUF experience and lessons from OEF and OIF—accomplishments, shortfalls, adaptation—in order to identify changes to DoD personnel practices (and other initiatives) that would make DUF a more powerful tool in future operations. Participants in these operations should have a strong presence on the study group.

Changes to five areas of professional development may be needed to enhance substantially our ability to implement DUF: promotions, retirement, Foreign Area Officer programs, Foreign Officer Exchange programs, and professional education.  (There may be other leverage areas as well that could be included in this study.) Service personnel systems are still unduly influenced by World War II-era mobilization assumptions and governed by legislation from the 1940s and 1950s.  With the demands of “up or out” and the requirements of a military career, there is precious little time to provide the education that would lead to a more intellectually agile officer corps able to deal with the complexities of the emerging strategic environment.  

This “up or out” process forces Service members to seek a relatively limited set of assignments to be competitive for promotion or resign themselves to an early exit from active military service. Consequently most officers “fill the squares” they perceive as competitive for promotion, while many talented people leave their Service prematurely, people who, for whatever reason, fail to “fill the squares” and hence see themselves as doomed to failure in the military.  Many assignments that would prepare officers for DUF are not found on the “squares” deemed essential for advancement in today’s military. As the variety of challenges facing America’s military has grown, so has the need for people with expertise in foreign cultures, history, sociology, economics, psychology, and a broad range of other disciplines.

Such expertise can be attained in several ways, e.g., by service as an instructor at one of the nation’s Service academies, in graduate education, by participation in one of the Services’ Foreign Area Officer programs, or in the Foreign Officer Exchange program. Unfortunately, these assignments are not valued by Service promotion boards, at least as compared to operational command or duty on a senior Service or joint staff. They simply do not “fill the square.” The practice of packing many “squares” into a relatively short career has adversely affected the career development process. Most noticeable is the compression of tour lengths to where it is common for mid-grade officers to serve in assignments for less than 2 years. At the other end of the spectrum, the lack of retirement vesting until 20 years of service undoubtedly encourages some to serve longer than either they or their Service would desire. Allowing longer careers and lengthened tours of duty in key assignments would promote stability of leadership as well as accountability for performance.  

A number of studies, ranging from the Hart-Rudman Commission to the National Defense Panel, have called for major changes in how the services develop the intellectual framework of their officers. Many officers hold advanced academic degrees, but few hold degrees that are relevant either to the duties they will assume or to the unique requirements of the military services and DUF. Professional military education (PME) is an important “square” for senior rank, but curricula reinforces existing Service or joint doctrines rather than promote a deep intellectual inquiry into the art and science of modern warfare.  

Understanding the implications of effects-based operations, a world of complex-adaptive systems, the increasing use of unconventional forms of force, and the tension of competing strategic objectives will demand a broader and more rigorous system of education. Caution must be exercised to avoid the temptation to centralize the PME institutions and thereby limit the breadth and diversity of approaches which can make them so valuable.

The United States needs military and civilian professionals who understand the historic and strategic contexts of areas throughout the world, the cultures and religious influences that guide popular thinking, and the nature of human conflict, past and present. This will require more breadth and diversity than the current PME institutions provide: namely, graduate schools, language schools, and foreign military exchange programs at staff and war colleges.

A. TERMS OF REFERENCE

CHAIRS

B. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP

Dr. Theodore Gold               Institute for Defense Analyses

Dr. Joshua Lederberg           Rockefeller University



MEMBERS

Dr. Ruth David         ANSER, Inc.

Mr. Joe Eash         Center for Technology and National Security Policy

Dr. Richard Cooper      Center for International Affairs
   
Dr. Craig Fields              Corporate Director   

Dr. John Foster, Jr.      TRW   

Gen Richard Hawley, USAF (Ret)   Independent consultant

CAPT C.J. Heatley, USN (Ret)   Institute for Physical Sciences, Inc.

Dr. Robert Jervis              Columbia University

Mr. David Kay         SAIC

Dr. Jane Lute         United Nations Foundation

Dr. John Steinbruner      University of Maryland

LTG Richard Trefry      Army Force Management School

Dr. George Whitesides      Harvard University


GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

VADM Art Cebrowski, USN (Ret)   Director of the Office of Force Transformation

Mr. Daniel Franken      USJFCOM

Dr. Paul Kozemchak      DARPA



EXECUTIVE SECRETARIES
LtCol Mark Arbogast      OUSD(AT&L)/S&TS/MW

CAPT Kathleen McGrath         Joint Advanced Warfighting Program

CDR Michael Pease               Joint Advanced Warfighting Program
 
DSB SECRETARIAT

LtCol Roger Basl               Defense Science Board

SUPPORT

Mr. Matthew Amitrano      SAIC

Mr. Jay Dutcher         SAIC




D. EFFECTS-BASED OPERATIONS:
A SYNOPSIS OF PAPERS AND POSITIONS

As an explicit concept, effects-based operations (EBO) is relatively new. It has been promoted and argued about for more than a decade. But we now realize that there are a number of military campaigns that can be considered effects-based operations.  Proponents of EBO understand this and have focused their efforts on making what has been historically rare and exceptional to being more prevalent, even routine in modern-day operations.  

Within the past few years, EBO appears to have evolved from an air power-centric notion to having much broader relevance to modern military operations. This appendix will review the viewpoints and themes of several of the papers that contributed to its evolution and relevance. We examine the following sources here:  

1.   Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume II: Operations and Effects and Effectiveness. Washington, DC, 1993.

2.   “Effects-Based Targeting: Another Empty Promise?” Maj. T. W. Beagle, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, June 2000.
3.   “A Concept Framework for Joint Experimentation: Effects-Based Operations.”
Version .5 (Draft) Joint Forces Command, J-9, 2001.

4.   Effects-Based Operations: A Grand Challenge for the Analytical Community.
Paul K. Davis, RAND, 2001.

5.   “New Perspectives on Effects-Based Operations: Annotated Briefing.” Dennis Gleeson, Gwen Linde, Kathleen McGrath, Adrienne Murphy, Williamson Murray, Thomas O’Leary, and Joel B. Resnick. Joint Advanced Warfighting Program, Institute for Defense Analyses, June 2001.

6.   “An Historical Perspective on Effects-Based Operations.” Dr. Williamson Murray, Thomas O’Leary, Dennis Gleeson, and Col. Gwen Linde (USAF). Joint Advanced Warfighting Program, Institute for Defense Analyses, October 2001.  7.   “Effects-Based Operations: A New Operational Model?” Lt. Col. Allen W.
Batschelet, USA, U. S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, April 2002.

8.   “Effects-Based Operations: Theory, Application and the Role of Airpower.” Lt.  Col. Brett T. Williams (USAF), U. S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA, April 2002.

9.   “ACC White Paper: Effects-Based Operations.” ACC/XP, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, May 2002.

10. “Thinking Effects: Effects-Based Methodology for Joint Operations” Col.  Edward C. Mann (USAF, Ret.), Lt. Col. Gary Endersby (USAF, Ret.), and Thomas R. Searle, College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, October 2002.

11. “Effects-Based Operations: Building the Analytic Tools,” Defense Horizons, No.  19, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, National Defense University, Desmond Saunders-Newton and Aaron B. Frank. October 2002.  12. Effects-Based Operations: Applying Network Centric Warfare in Peace, Crisis, and War. Edward A. Smith, Command and Control Research Program, November 2002.

13.  “Effects-Based Operations (Draft) Joint Forces Command,” J-9, February 2003.

1.   Gulf War Air Power Survey: Volume II, Operations and Effects and Effectiveness (1993). This survey is one of the earliest contemporary works on EBO thinking. It focuses on “what Coalition air power accomplished at the operational level and above relative to the military and political objectives for which the war was waged (p. 1, Part II).” While the phrase “effects-based operations” had not yet been coined, the questions the survey asks also appear (in some form) in later writings on EBO.
   “What were the effects of Coalition air power on the will and capability to fight of the Iraqi field army in the KTO [Kuwaiti Theater of Operations], as well as on other forces deployed there, prior to the beginning of the ground campaign on 24 February 1991? How were these effects achieved, and how did they accumulate over time?”

   “Does the combination of technological capabilities embodied in advanced strike platforms such as the F-117, together with the operational concepts used to structure the air campaign, reflect a revolutionary advance in warfare? In Desert Storm the ability to deliver ordnance with great precision at night from medium altitudes, combined with operational concepts such as great emphasis on targeting for functional effects rather than physical damage, produced remarkable results against entire target categories, often in very short periods of time. Should such success be attributed to the continuation of earlier trends and the unique circumstances of this particular war, or to fundamental changes in the nature or efficacy of air power?”

   “What limits to strategic air attack with modern, survivable delivery systems, if any, are suggested by Desert Storm? Various forces and factors—among them, enemy reactions and countermeasures, foreign and domestic political constraints, and the recurring frictions of war—limited the effectiveness of Coalition air efforts in ways that suggest parallels to earlier strategic bombing campaigns, including the Anglo-American bomber offensive against Nazi Germany during World War II. To what extent did comparable problems recur in Desert Storm?”

   “Finally, what can be concluded about air power as a political instrument from the Gulf War? Desert Storm air commanders and planners hoped that air power might be able to force some fundamental change of the regime in Baghdad; they also hoped that air power might be able to achieve the political aim of forcing the Iraqis out of Kuwait without requiring a ground campaign.  Were such goals feasible even in circumstances as unconstrained and conducive to the effective application of air power as existed in this particular conflict?” (GWAPS, p. 11-12, Part II)

The Survey appears to be concerned with effects on enemy capability and decision-making, timing of effects, an adaptive enemy, and dimensions of the war broader than military objectives, and how those all related to the application of air power in that war. The articulation of these themes in the survey, along with works by Gen. David Deptula (USAF), is one reason that some in other services have labeled EBO as an “Air Force-centric” concept. This categorization has been used to dismiss the concept as simply a buzzword created by the Air Force to garner more budgetary dollars. But with continued evolution and refinement of EBO theory, that initial rejection seems to have faded away.
2. “Effects-Based Targeting: Another Empty Promise?” (June 2000). Major T.  W. Beagle of the School of Advanced Airpower Studies wrote a thesis on effects-based targeting, following a path similar to that of the Gulf War Air Power Survey.  His focus is on the relationship between effects-based targeting and air power, specifically, on the planning and assessment portions of effects-based operations.  Beagle defines effects-based targeting as a means of directing “airpower against targets in ways that produce specific, predetermined, military and political effects” (p. vi), and as “identifying and engaging an adversary’s key capabilities in the most efficient manner to produce a specific effect consistent with the commander’s objectives” (p. 5).  

Beagle is most interested in examining “how effectively…the US Air Force [has] incorporated the concept of effects-based operations into its procedures for targeting and combat assessment” (p. vi).

Beagle’s paper incorporates “…the historical development of effects-based targeting theory and then conducts a focused comparison of four major air operations—Pointblank, Linebacker II, Desert Storm and Allied Force—in order to survey US airpower’s actual combat experience with regard to effects-based operations. This study
determines that senior decision makers have always been interested in creating specific effects rather than simply destroying targets; however, as a whole, the USAF has been inconsistent in employing effects-based operations across the spectrum of conflict. American airpower has accomplished its most significant improvements at the tactical level of war, but is less reliable in creating operational and strategic effects. In a similar vein, airpower has become very effective at producing direct, physical effects, and it is becoming increasingly capable of creating certain widespread systemic effects” (Beagle, p. vi).  

In sum, Beagle argues for getting away from traditional destruction-based operations as the ultimate end and focusing on generating effects, rather than destruction, to achieve political, military, and strategic goals.

3. “A Concept Framework for Joint Experimentation: Effects-Based Operations” (2001). This paper was designed to link rapid decisive operations (RDO) with EBO to illustrate their relationship, and to demonstrate that RDO is “predicated upon effects-based operations” (JFCOM 2001, p. E-ii). EBO is examined as a subset of another concept—RDO—and is also defined as a “basic cornerstone for concept experimentation” (JFCOM 2001, p. E-ii).

Understanding the adversary is the major focus area for this paper. The means of understanding the adversary can be found through the following:

1.   U. S. interagency cooperation, as well as cooperation among other agencies;  
2.   The ability to “predict” the intentions of the adversary; and  
3.   The ability to shape the environment through political-military interface through internal U.S.-organization cooperation.  

The assessment portion of EBO is also given emphasis in this paper:  

“Effects-based operations demand an assessment process that can quickly take into account a comprehensive understanding of the adversary, the results of the collaborative planning process which established the current course of action, the tactical actions taken to date (both Blue and Red), and the effects which were created by these actions to measure the level of success achieved in order to facilitate decisions by commanders on whether or not to adjust the current course of action” (p. E-iii).

Therefore, understanding the adversary is really the overarching concept that will drive the conduct and execution of effects-based operations.

4.  Effects-Based Operations: A Grand Challenge for the Analytical Community (2001). As the title makes clear, this book by Paul Davis on effects-based operations focuses on the challenge it poses to the analytical community. His work seeks out new methods of analysis and modeling to represent EBO. Davis’s motivation in producing his work appears to be “the belief that analysis methods need to be improved so that they can be useful in studies and operations undertaken from an effects-based perspective.” (Davis, p. xviii)  

Davis defines EBO as “operations conceived and planned in a systems framework that considers the full range of direct, indirect and cascading effects, which may—with different degrees of probability—be achieved by the application of military, diplomatic, psychological and economic instruments” (Davis, p. 7).  Davis discusses EBO in terms of the type of modeling requirements the concept will generate.
 
“Because much of EBO is tied to affecting decisions and behaviors of people and organizations or the operation of complex systems and organizations, much of the related modeling should be organized around adaptive systems for command and control and other matters, rather than around the mass and physical characteristics of forces. This implies emphasis on the concepts and technology of agent-based modeling (albeit in many variations), as well as on system engineering” (Davis, p. 80).
5. “New Perspectives on Effects-Based Operations: Annotated Briefing” (June 2001). The Joint Advanced Warfighting Program (JAWP) at the Institute for Defense Analyses in Alexandria, Virginia, studied EBO from the perspective of the future joint force commander. It examined historical examples, developed a description and definition of EBO, and explored the idea of discourses as essential to its execution.

The annotated briefing focuses on “…effects-based operations and the military instrument of national power (in the form of a joint force). More than just linking planned actions to strategic outcomes, there must be an operational assessment and feedback mechanism. Adversaries must be viewed as complex, adaptive systems of systems in dimensions beyond just the physical. Staffs must provide their commanders with courses of action that are not only executable, but also where the intended effects are observable. The emerging notion of information superiority is powerful, but decision superiority is of crucial importance.” (abstract, JAWP internal website).

This JAWP paper discusses the relationship of EBO to the emerging capabilities associated with DoD’s force transformation.  “US forces will not gain the significant benefits of these new capabilities unless the precision of the systems are matched with precision of thinking: analyzing, planning, executing and assessing the effects of the systems. These new capabilities offer the opportunity to achieve an efficiency of effects that past commanders could never realize” (JAWP Annotated Briefing, p.  5).
6. “An Historical Perspective on Effects-Based Operations” (October 2001).

This paper compares campaigns from the Civil War and World War II. The authors

argue that effects-based operations are not new and stress the adaptive nature of effects-based operations, to include adaptation of the adversary and ourselves. Here, effects-based operations are defined as “a systematic approach to the operational cycle of analysis, planning, execution and assessment that results in the focused application of military and other capabilities to realize specific, desired effects at all the levels of war and in the face of friction, ambiguity, uncertainty and adaptive adversaries” (abstract, JAWP internal website). The authors write:

“Military leaders must understand the enemy well enough to gain real insights into his structure and processes, characterize what is important to him and why, and conduct operations in which they aim their actions at producing effects that will contribute to or realize outcomes. A successful commander is willing to alter his prewar preconceptions and assumptions when confronting tactical and operational realities.   This is the essence of effects-based operations: assessing and adapting operations to suit actual conditions before those conditions dramatically change” (JAWP Historical Perspective, p. ES-1).

Surprisingly enough, these historical examples also reveal the length and difficulty of the learning curve for adaptation. In both the Civil War and World War II examples, the learning took years, with a great cost in lives. Today military officers, analysts, and decision makers study and seek to gain real-time experience in effects-based operations in order to shorten the learning curve and adaptation process down to days or even hours.

7. “Effects-Based Operations: A New Operational Model?” (April 2002). This paper draws heavily from the 2001 JFCOM White Paper on EBO. The language and focus are similar, but Batschelet seeks to define EBO while examining the utility of the concept for future operations. He takes a Service-specific approach, determining the implications for the U. S. Army should EBO be institutionalized. However, despite a Service-centric focus, Batschelet takes on the interesting question of whether EBO can serve as a common conceptual denominator for the U. S. forces.

“Implementing effects-based operations in the Army should prove relatively easy. However, leading the transition to effects-based operations in the joint community is likely to be problematic and will require a culture change within all the services. Perhaps the most explicit challenge will be to overcome service parochialism and the rejection of the concept due to the ‘not invented here’ prejudice. Changing the culture will take many years as leaders and staffs become familiar with the concept and effects-based thinking becomes inculcated in service and joint educational programs and institutions” (Batschelet, p. 14).

Batschelet discusses the necessity of change in education. His paper serves as a reminder that at some point, grappling with that issue must occur as the next part of the EBO evolutionary process.

8. “Effects-Based Operations: Theory, Application, and the Role of Airpower” (April 2002). This paper is a thesis from the U. S. Army War College, written by Lt.  Col. Brett Williams (USAF). It seeks to dispel the idea that effects-based operations rely on the unattainable concept of “perfect information,” ignoring the fog and friction inherent in war, and thus are not useful. Specifically, Williams argues that “…effects-based operations does not depend on information dominance, high-end warfare, or even precision strike to make it useful and as a theory, it is applicable across the spectrum of conflict.

The paper defines effects-based operations theory and explains how it helps develop and assess strategy within the constraints of information analysis and acceptable risk. It describes how to use effects-based operations at the operational level with emphasis on interagency coordination, effects-based mission planning, and continuous assessment. Finally, the paper addresses how the Air Force should use effects-based operations to define airpower’s role in joint warfighting, employ airpower in a gradual context, and develop better joint air operations plans” (Williams, p.iii).

The role of airpower with respect to EBO appears to be a common theme, due in part to USAF Major General David Deptula, who has been prolific on the subject and on the larger concept of EBO. As EBO means so many different things to different people, it only makes sense to bound the research using a particular theme.  However, there is still a need to answer broader questions. Airpower is not the only element that can benefit from using EBO. Those studies that look to improve joint operations of all sorts are necessary as well as the more narrowly focused papers.

9. “ACC White Paper: Effects-Based Operations” (May 2002). The Air Combat Command (ACC) White Paper emphasizes an EBO methodology in order to plan, execute, and assess operations “designed to attain specific effects required to achieve desired national security outcomes…this methodology improves our ability to use all elements of national power to achieve national policy goals” (ACC White Paper, p.  iii). A methodology is needed (1) to fight against inconsistency when effects-based thinking is applied to military operations, and (2) to legitimize EBO so EBO becomes accepted into joint and Service doctrine. This paper argues that failure to codify EBO in doctrine can explain why EBO has not been prevalent throughout the history of warfare.

The paper discusses a proposed EBO methodology whose purpose is to examine causal linkages and, as a first step, to develop planning processes for EBO.  “The EBO methodology takes the objectives-based process a step further, allowing planners and commanders to examine conditions and causal linkages through which actions lead to objectives…”  “Causal linkages explain why planners think the proposed actions will create desired effects.”  

“Not only does this type of analysis help to understand why a given action may work, it is also likely to reveal the fact that historically relevant actions may not work in a particular case.  This is true, once again, because it is not the action itself that achieves the effect, but the relevance of the causal linkages activated by the action, in light of the current situation, that determines whether or not the effect is achieved” (ACC White Paper, p 5-6 and 8 ).  

10. “Thinking Effects: Effects-Based Methodology for Joint Operations” (October 2002). This paper discusses the effects of transformation and how transformation will affect how the military thinks and operates. Effects-based operations are the means by which this new thinking and operating will be conducted.
  
This paper draws from the Air Combat Command White Paper of May 2002.  Both papers state that “EBO is not focused on conquest or necessarily even warfare as traditionally defined” (Mann, Endersby, and Searle, p. 1). The authors create a methodology to address the concerns raised when creating effects and conditions, and to better assess the results of military actions. The main problem the authors identify is that of out-thinking and out-adapting competing organizations, and they believe that the EBO methodology is a means of solving it. They also seek to create a common language so that various, disparate concept thinkers can better understand EBO.

The paper argues that the new security environment created by the end of the Cold War era is the impetus behind the development of this thinking on EBO.  “Our nation’s armed forces need to move to a new paradigm; one based not on conquest, which is almost never the goal today, but on achieving success across the entire spectrum of engagement whether political, military, humanitarian or some combination thereof…This study proposed correctives to incorporate EBO in USAF and joint doctrine through an effects-based lexicon, theory and process” (Mann, Endersby, and Searle, p. 4-5).  

This paper has a strong Air Force focus. It discusses the steps the Air Force has taken to implement changes in education to facilitate a learning environment conducive to EBO.  

The strongest challenges to successful implementation of the EBO methodology are identified as   anticipatory assessment (the ability to anticipate outcomes) and high-order analysis (rigorous and accurate analysis).  

11. “Effects-Based Operations: Building the Analytic Tools,” (October 2002). In this paper, Desmond Saunders-Newton and Aaron Frank argue for the development of new analytic tools to operationalize the EBO concept. They note, for example, that “…the lynchpin of EBO ultimately will be the development of conceptual tools that link military operations with strategic effects. In the context of EBO, assessments require considering the second-, third-, fourth-, and nth-order effects of actions and how these effects may propagate through time.”

According to Saunders-Newton and Frank, this requires a more complete understanding of “friendly and adversary systems,” which in turn requires the development of eight different information sets: technical, geographic, infrastructure, organizational, sociopolitical, psychological, context, and dynamics. Taken together, and embedded within a dynamic framework designed to model adversary behavior, these information sets will help analysts and decision makers better understand our nation’s adversaries as complex adaptive systems.  

They further note the importance of interagency cooperation and suggest the development of interagency analytic centers. These centers would tap into a set of “skills and organizational resources” broader than those possessed by DoD alone.  This, they believe, will challenge the DoD and require it to reorganize in such a way that it becomes capable of “coordinating its operations with all relevant governmental agencies to ensure that military operations are synchronized with other forms of national power.”

12. Effects-Based Operations: Applying Network Centric Warfare in Peace, Crisis, and War (November 2002). This book discusses EBO in the context of the network-centric warfare (NCW) concept; within the larger context of the changed security environment after 11 September 2001; and with regard to technological revolutions in sensors, information technology, and weapons.

“…effects-based operations are not new. Their roots can be traced back for centuries and are what good generals and statesmen have always attempted to do. When combined with network-centric thinking and technologies, however, such an operational approach offers a way of applying the power of the network to the human dimension of war and to military operations in peace and crisis, as well as combat. In essence, effects-based operations represent an opportunity to use networked forces to achieve non-linear impacts and to expand the scope of action across the entire spectrum of conflict” (Smith, p. xxiii).  Smith takes a concept that has already been written about extensively (network-centric warfare), and uses it to illustrate the complementary nature of NCW in partnership with EBO. The changed security environment provides the impetus for his book.

13. “Joint Forces Command Paper: Effects-Based Operations” (February 2003). JFCOM says that EBO  “…brings decision superiority to the conduct of national security.  This decision-making capacity spans the entire range of human activity from cooperation to conflict. However, conflict and its antecedents remain the principal concern of national leaders because their consequences normally yield clear winners and losers. Moreover, those who can outthink their competition are most likely to prevail. Yet, this capacity to triumph is not based solely on the wisdom of the contenders, but the ability to translate decisions into actions to achieve the desired effects: faster and better than an opponent. In short, the nation that is able to use its instruments of power in a deliberate, coherent, precise and timely manner will dictate the policy effects—whether managing cooperation or conflict” (JFCOM, p. 1-2).  

More than the other papers reviewed here, this paper emphasizes the need for interaction between all levels and elements of government. The DIME concept (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic) is a major point of discussion within the paper and illustrates the meaning behind the phrase “all elements of national power.” The political and military aspects are discussed in equal detail. The commander and his battlespace are given mention but not priority.  JFCOM also makes an argument for preemption as an acceptable course of action. The paper argues that “improved thinking and new capabilities must be developed and instituted to ensure that the nation can take actions that will achieve explicit policy aims while mitigating unanticipated or unintended consequences” (JFCOM 2003, p. 1).
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2010, 11:42:22 PM »



Monday, November 22, 2010
TSA chief THREATENS AMERICANS "opt-out" boycott ON NOVEMBER 24 would be a mistake



"If you boycott the scanners, you will be shot on sight! We protect your liberties by removing your liberties. This is the New American Way! I, Big Sis, have spoken!"



Transportation Security Administration chief John Pistole took to the airwaves this morning, using the TV network morning talks shows to urge opponents of stepped-up screening procedures not to follow-through on a pledge to boycott airport scans this Wednesday, November 24.



BOYCOTT THE AIRLINES. DRIVE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS. IT IS THE ONLY NON-VIOLENT WAY TO END THIS INSANITY!


The Dumbing Down And "Training" Of American Kids To Become "We The Sheeple"

 http://chimpplanet.blogspot.com/2010/11/tsa-chief-threatens-americans-opt-out.html


Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2010, 11:45:25 PM »

Until DHS can explain what happened with ANSER, PTECH, GoAgile, and PROMIS...they have absolutely zero authority over anything! Explain it already! Give us a fricking explanation to how every single electrical device on the planet is able to be hijacked by foreign terrorists! How dare they rape everyone at airports and give us cancer without explaining the bare minimum issues of actual bona fide breeches in National Security!
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
pac522
Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2,774


Peace sells, but who's buying?


« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2010, 11:55:25 PM »

Bump for later
Logged

This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.
agentbluescreen
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7,510


« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2010, 12:04:58 AM »

Dear little Ms NAPOLitano:


Our Constitution is not a Fatweh


it's called the law.
Logged
CheneysWorstNightmare
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,019


F*CK THE NEW WORLD ORDER!


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2010, 12:15:49 AM »

I'm 15 minutes in.  This is mindboggling disinformation.

f**king Nazis.
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2010, 12:25:48 AM »

DHS & TSA: making a list, checking it twice
http://theneinblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/dhs-tsa-making-list-checking-it-twice.html
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

23 November 2010: Following the publication of my article titled “Gate Rape of America,” I was contacted by a source within the DHS who is troubled by the terminology and content of an internal memo reportedly issued yesterday at the hand of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. Indeed, both the terminology and content contained in the document are troubling. The dissemination of the document itself is restricted by virtue of its classification, which prohibits any manner of public release. While the document cannot be posted or published, the more salient points are revealed here.

The memo, which actually takes the form of an administrative directive, appears to be the product of undated but recent high level meetings between Napolitano, John Pistole, head of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and one or more of Obama’s national security advisors. This document officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as “domestic extremists.”

The introductory paragraph of the multipage document states that it is issued “in response to the growing public backlash against enhanced TSA security screening procedures and the agents conducting the screening process.” Implicit within the same section is that the recently enhanced security screening procedures implemented at U.S. airports, and the measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President. In other words, Obama not only endorses the enhanced security screening, but the measures outlined in this directive to be taken in response to public objections.

The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day” as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

For “any person, group or domestic alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel “disruptions” at U.S. airports (as defined above) in response to the enhanced security procedures, the [applicable DHS administrative branch] is instructed to identify and collect information about the persons or entities, and submit such information in the manner outlined [within this directive].

It would appear that the Department of Homeland Security is not only prepared to enforce the enhanced security procedures at airports, but is involved in gathering intelligence about those who don’t. They’re making a list and most certainly will be checking it twice. Meanwhile, legitimate threats to our air travel security (and they DO exist) seem taking a back seat to the larger threat of the multitude of non-criminal American citizens who object to having their Constitutional rights violated.

As I have written before, it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with control.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2010, 12:30:12 AM »

http://theamericanjingoist.net/index.php/2010/11/23/how-to-become-a-%E2%80%9Cdomestic-extremists-%E2%80%9D/
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2010, 12:31:14 AM »

TSA Tactics Find Ominous Parallel in Nazi Germany - Alex Jones Tv Sunday Edition 1/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xFz23n1M9s&feature=sub
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2010, 12:31:39 AM »

At this point in the game to be (ironically) labelled a "domestic extremist" by these fascist aholes, I would take to be a badge of honor.

Soetoro and Napolitano, $crew you!
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2010, 12:36:07 AM »

we always knew it was true, but now DHS confirms...


HILARY CLINTON IS A TERRORIST!

Hillary Clinton joins row over 'intimate' TSA airport pat-downs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331781/Hillary-Clinton-joins-intimate-TSA-pat-downs-row-Id-avoid-I-could.html
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2010, 12:38:52 AM »

TSA Administrative Directive: Opt-Outters To Be Considered “Domestic Extremists”
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010
Author: Mac Slavo
- November 24th, 2010
                           

If the information recently acquired by Doug Hagmann of Northeast Intelligence Network is accurate, then something really big is happening in America right now - and it’s most certainly not a step towards individual liberty.

According to Mr. Hagmann, he was contacted by a source within the DHS who provided an alarming memo detailing a new administrative directive agreed upon by DHS chief Janet Napolitano and the head of TSA John Pistole. The memo, according to Doug Hagmann, “officially addresses those who are opposed to, or engaged in the disruption of the implementation of the enhanced airport screening procedures as ‘domestic extremists’.”

The memo leaves no doubt as to who, exactly, is leading the charge to label Americans who refuse current security measures due to health and privacy concerns as extremists. “The measures to be taken in response to the negative public backlash as detailed [in this directive], have the full support of the President,” it says.

Under the new labeling procedures, those who choose to opt-out or are perceived as being troublemakers will be detained, questioned and processed for further investigation:

The terminology contained within the reported memo is indeed troubling. It labels any person who “interferes” with TSA airport security screening procedure protocol and operations by actively objecting to the established screening process, “including but not limited to the anticipated national opt-out day”  as a “domestic extremist.” The label is then broadened to include “any person, group or alternative media source” that actively objects to, causes others to object to, supports  and/or elicits support for anyone who engages in such travel disruptions at U.S. airports in response to the enhanced security procedures.

For individuals who engaged in such activity at screening points, it instructs TSA operations to obtain the identities of those individuals and other applicable information and submit the same electronically to the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division, the Extremism and Radicalization branch of the Office of Intelligence & Analysis (IA) division of the Department of Homeland Security.

The United States government, under complete control and direction of our elected President, is now actively labeling anyone who exercises their 4th amendment Constitutional right which protects against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures as, essentially, engaging in terrorism as defined by Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act:

Section 802 [USA Patriot Act]

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
‘(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that–
‘(B) appear to be intended–
‘(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
‘(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

Though it may seem a broad interpretation, the definitions for domestic terrorism are very vague, allowing for a variety of views depending on who happens to be making the decisions. The very fact that TSA is allegedly going to label opt-out travelers as ‘domestic extremists’ suggest that they are, by today’s standards, considered no different than terrorists - and thus - may have their Constitutional rights stripped and be held without trial. In a previous article we discussed Matt Kernan, who may have found a Constitutional argument that works to avoid enhanced security in the airport. But, what if the-powers-that-be determined, by whatever vague definition, that the Constitution doesn’t apply?

With the outrage from American travelers and the pressure being put on corporate profits, the President and TSA may eventually change their tune. But if they don’t, then we can expect more intrusive checkpoints from our government in the very near future. Ms. Napolitano has already publicly stated that DHS is looking at other mass transit systems like buses and trains as the next target.

Something big is happening. And either the American people are going to force the change - starting with each individual making a personal decision to stand up against policies that can be described as nothing less than tyrannical - or the expansion of surveillance and control systems will continue to spread.

If the American people fail this time as we did with bailouts and healthcare, the end result will be backscatter machines in schools, malls, stadiums, and any other public venue which is deemed a security threat by our government.

Sources: Northeast Intelligence Network, Electronic Privacy Information Center

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: November 24th, 2010
Visit the Author's Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2010, 12:46:27 AM »

BREAKING:

Over 95% of America (over 280 million people) are against
the Cancer Raposcans and the Sexual Assault by TSA!

So with the memo, Lute, Napolitano, Pistone have created over 280 million terrorists all in the homeland.

HOW F*CKINS STUPID ARE THESE TOTAL DEVIL'S REJECTS?!?!?!
Napolitano...HOW STUPID ARE YOU? RESGN ALREADY!
Pistone...resign also you nut!
Lute, go back to the UN!
Lynn III, go back to Raytheon (as if you ever left)!
Soetoro, go back to the CIA (as if you ever left)!

Are new security screenings affecting your decision to fly?

Take the poll here:

http://blogs.reuters.com/ask/2010/11/12/are-new-security-screenings-affecting-your-decision-to-fly/

Current results:

Yes - I will make alternate travel plans to avoid intrusive security scans and patdowns (96%, 72,320 Votes)

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2010, 01:02:44 AM »

The cat is out of the bag!



Absolute proof:
CSIS is planning the next 9/11 attacks to usher in new government


Executive Summary

America is not ready for the next catastrophe. Almost seven years have passed since the nation was attacked here at home by violent Islamist extremists who remain free and who have made clear their willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States, should they be able to acquire or build them. Almost three years have passed since Hurricane Katrina devas- tated the Gulf Coast and laid bare myriad flaws in the nation’s preparedness and response system. Simply creating the Homeland Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Northern Command was not enough to make the country prepared. There are still no detailed, government-wide plans to respond to a catastrophe. There is still considerable confusion over who will be in charge during a disaster. There are still almost no dedicated military forces on rapid alert to respond to a crisis here at home.

There are still no guidelines to determine and assess the capabilities that states, cities, and towns should have to ensure they are prepared for the worst. To be sure, a number of significant steps have been taken, and the nation is clearly more prepared than it was seven or eight years ago. There is a National Homeland Security Strategy that provides overall direction for the federal government’s homeland security policies and programs. Hundreds, if not thousands, more people focus each and every day on improving national preparedness than before the September 11 attacks.

A National Response Framework describes how the federal government will work with state, local and tribal governments as well as the private sector and nongovernmental organizations during domestic incidents. Fifteen National Planning Scenarios have been drawn up to guide government planning for catastrophes. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed more than 200 prescripted mission as- signments across 27 federal agencies to strengthen and streamline response capabilities in advance of actual events. The Department of Defense is creating a trained and ready Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE) Consequence Management force that will be able to respond rapidly during a catastrophe, and the National Guard has almost completed its development of 17 CBRNE Emergency Response Forces spread around the country to help bridge the gap between the immediate response to a crisis and the arrival of more extensive federal capabilities.

Although significant progress has been made in the past several years– with many achievements extremely hard-won, through the tireless work of senior leaders and public servants across the government—what ultimately matters to the American public is not how far we have come but how far away we still are from being prepared for the next catastrophe. The task of readying America to face the threats of the post–September 11 era is an enormous one and poses a fundamental challenge for the next President.

Preventing, protecting against, preparing for, and responding to a domestic catastrophe are basic tasks of government at all levels. Unfortunately, today’s efforts to provide homeland security, particularly at the federal level, are not unlike the governmental equivalent of a children’s soccer game. One can see a tremendous amount of activity under way and considerable energy on the field, but the movements are often not very well coordinated. Players tend to huddle around the ball—in this case, whatever happens to be the crisis or headline issue of the day—and follow it wherever it goes, even if in doing so they neglect their assigned positions. In such an environment, it is not impossible to score a goal, but that outcome is usually due more to luck than to skill. Given that this is not a competition the nation can afford to lose, what can be done to improve America’s odds?

The key for the next Administration will be to bring order to the relationships, processes, and implementation of its homeland security system. Which organizations at the federal, state, and local level will perform what roles, who is the lead official at each level of the response, and how do all the players work together as a team? What processes should guide how stakeholders interact and ensure that everyone is working toward the same goals? What plans are needed to prepare the government to deal effectively with future catastrophes, and how should government at all levels decide what it needs so that it can execute those plans? Finally, how can the government translate its strategies and plans into trained and ready capabilities on the ground that can be deployed effectively in accordance with comprehensive, integrated plans developed in advance of a specific catastrophe?

Many of the building blocks required to move the country toward being truly prepared to handle a catastrophe already exist in some form, but the next Administration needs to bring the pieces together, fill in the gaps, and provide the resources necessary to get the job done. If implemented, the following major recommendations –slightly condensed from their full discussion in the body of this report—would go a long way toward getting America ready to manage the next domestic catastrophe, whatever form it might take.



Recommendations

■ Merge the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council into a single organization with a single staff.

The U.S. government has artificially separated homeland security from national security. Securing the homeland is a matter of national security—and it has both domestic and international components. Dividing homeland security from national security has resulted in fractured, partial solu- tions and has greatly weakened the ability of the federal government to generate unity of effort. Merging the National Security and Homeland Security Councils and their staffs will greatly enhance the federal government’s ability to develop holistic strategies and policies, and it will ensure that the homeland security aspects of national security policy are also supported by the political and bureaucratic power of the White House.

■ Establish a clear chain of command inside DHS to ensure that the Secretary can carry out his or her responsibility to serve as the federal government’s coordinator for incident management.

The relationship between DHS and FEMA continues to be murky and confusing. If the Hurricane Katrina experience showed anything, it illustrated the perils of not having a clear understanding of who is in charge of what—both in Washington and in the field—during a catastrophe. The absence of a clear framework for the DHS-FEMA relationship has had an extremely pernicious effect on homeland security policy in the past several years and has noticeably hampered the federal government’s efforts to improve preparedness. The next Administration and Congress should work together to put into a law a clear chain of command, from the President down to the field level, for the coordination of domestic incidents.

Under this new clarified framework, the Secretary of Homeland Security will serve as the principal federal coordinator of domestic incidents as directed in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 5, “Management of Domestic Incidents,” and will report directly to the President. While the FEMA Administrator should be able to advise the President directly on the subset of emergency management matters, as specified in law, the operational chain of command for the overall incident should run from the President to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and then within DHS from the Secretary to the FEMA Administrator. In the field, the DHS chain of command during an incident should extend to the 10 FEMA Regional Administrators, who would execute their responsibilities on the ground through designated “Lead Federal Coordinators,” as discussed in more detail in the following recommendation. During a catastrophe, the Lead Federal Coordinator would be the single federal official on the ground responsible for coordinating the overall federal effort with all of the other response efforts.

■ Consolidate the positions of Principal Federal Official and Federal Coordinating Officer into the single position of Lead Federal Coordinator, who would report through the FEMA Administrator to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

During and after a catastrophe, there must be one DHS official on the ground, responsible to the President and accountable for the agency’s performance. It makes no sense to have a Principal Federal Official (PFO) who reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security and lacks line authority over a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) who reports to the FEMA Administrator, particularly when the FEMA Administrator works for the Secretary and FEMA is part of DHS. The continuing existence of the PFO and FCO positions perpetuates confusion at all levels—federal, state, local—and indeed reflects the larger DHS-FEMA bureaucratic battle. It is time for this battle to end. As the relationship between DHS and FEMA is restructured, the PFO and FCO positions should be eliminated in the National Response Framework and in statute, respectively, and replaced with a single position: Lead Federal Coordinator (LFC). In practice the LFCs should typically be very senior officials in each of the 10 FEMA regional offices and they should have the authorities of the FCO as described in the Stafford Act of 1988. Ensuring that there is a single DHS senior official on the ground during a crisis—who reports through the Secretary to the President, who has the power to coordinate and distribute federal assistance (whether directly or through delegation of authority), and who already knows the state and local players—would greatly increase unity of effort.

■ State clearly that the Department of Defense will not have the lead in responding to catastrophic incidents but will be expected to play a substantial support role when needed.

The persistent debate about whether the Department of Defense (DoD) should ever lead the response to a catastrophe instead of DHS should be settled. The next Administration should restate emphatically that DHS will be the Lead Federal Coordinator during domestic incidents, but should also make clear that DoD will be expected to play a significant supporting role in catastrophes, working within the HSPD-5 framework. As outlined in the National Response Framework, the federal government should have a single, scalable framework for incident management, led by a single federal agency. The nation cannot afford to have one system for 98 percent of all events, and a different, DoD-led system for the 2 percent of events that are “high end.” At the same time, the next Administration should make very clear that DoD will no longer hold the civil support mission at arm’s length and will be expected to play a very significant supporting role in the aftermath of a catastrophic event—a role that will require that DoD resource, train, and equip its forces accordingly.

■ Initiate a robust dialogue on the subject of how to balance the need to enable the federal government to directly employ federal resources within a state or states during the most extreme circumstances with the constitutional rights of states.

The idea of expanding the role of the federal government during a domestic catastrophe is anathema to many in the homeland security community; but in light of the threats faced by the nation in the post–September 11 environment, it is only prudent to ensure that the country’s preparedness system includes the ability of the federal government to exercise its full authority under the law to save lives and protect property during a major disaster. It is not impossible to imagine scenarios in which state leadership is severely weakened in its ability to orchestrate an effective response effort, or others in which the state leadership is in place but the state’s capacity to execute decisions made by those leaders is severely degraded. In such instances, it may be appropriate for the federal government to exercise the authority granted to it under the Stafford Act more fully than is envisioned today.

The goal of adapting the current system is not to enable the federal government to “take over” management of a catastrophe over the objections of a state governor, but rather to develop an understanding with state governors in advance about the conditions under which the federal government might need to directly employ federal resources within a state or states in the most extreme circumstances in order to execute its responsibility to save lives and protect property. The principle of managing a crisis at the lowest level of government possible should remain a fundamental feature of the American approach to domestic emergency management. At the same time, the next Secretary of Homeland Security, with the President’s strong backing, should work closely with state governors to begin exploring how the current system could be adapted in a mutually acceptable way that balances the need to fully empower the federal government under existing law with maintenance of the constitutional right of states to self-governance during a catastrophe.

■ Conduct a Quadrennial National Security Review and create a National Security Planning Guidance.

There is growing consensus that the federal government needs a mechanism to develop an inte- grated set of national security priorities, assess trade-offs among these different priorities, and assign roles and responsibilities for these priorities across the interagency. To achieve these objectives, the next Administration should direct the National Security Council (NSC) to lead a Quadrennial National Security Review (QNSR) in the first few months of the new term. The review would engage the relevant national security agencies, focus on a select set of critical national security priorities, and produce two major documents: an integrated National Security Planning Guidance and a public National Security Strategy, both of which would include treatment of homeland security issues. The National Security Planning Guidance would elaborate on the broad priorities articulated in the QNSR; provide more specific guidance on priorities, roles, and missions; and lay out timelines for the implementation of major planning objectives. In addition, the planning guidance would be the starting point for Cabinet agencies to develop their own more detailed strategies.

■ Create a Senior Director for Strategic Planning within the merged NSC to lead interagency strategic planning efforts and oversee their implementation.

The federal government cannot develop or implement the kinds of integrated national security strategies and programs that are needed to meet the challenges of the 21st-century security environment in the absence of strong leadership and coordination at the White House level. As part of the NSC, the next President should create and empower a robust strategic planning directorate, led by a Senior Director for Strategic Planning. Rather than relying on the 1- to 2-person strategic planning offices that have sometimes been a part of the NSC organization, the next President and National Security Adviser need at least 10–15 people leading strategic planning efforts on a daily basis. This office should be responsible for leading the QNSR and developing the National Secu- rity Planning Guidance. This office also should be responsible for guiding the interagency process to develop detailed plans for responding to catastrophic events, as well as the associated effort to develop requirements for catastrophe response at the federal level that are then fed into the federal budget process.

■ Establish a robust interagency organization overseen by the NSC but housed at DHS that is responsible for the development of integrated and detailed interagency plans and for identification of specific requirements for the federal departments.

Although considerable progress has been made in 2007 and 2008, the federal government still does not have a set of detailed interagency plans associated with the 15 National Planning Sce- narios. The next Administration should establish a strong interagency organization—closely overseen by the NSC Strategic Planning Directorate but housed at DHS—that is responsible on a daily basis for developing integrated, interagency operational plans for responding to catastrophic events. These plans would be updated regularly, perhaps every year or two. Creating such plans is one of the most important steps that the federal government can take to improve national readiness, and the interagency organization should be backed strongly by the NSC, should be staffed with the best possible personnel with planning expertise, and should be high on the radar screen of the next Secretary of Homeland Security. Complementing its deliberate planning function, it should be focal point for identifying specific requirements for federal departments, which are then validated by the relevant agencies and fed into their internal resourcing systems.

■ Create a partnership between the Office of Management and Budget and the NSC Strategic Planning Directorate to lead the development of integrated budget planning across homeland security mission areas.

To more fully integrate the implementation of homeland security policy, the next Administration should develop a partnership between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the NSC Strategic Planning Directorate charged with devising a method of examining budgets across homeland security mission areas. This process should entail a front-end review of agency budget proposals in the planning stages, across mission areas and programs to identify priorities, capability gaps, overlaps, and shortfalls at the outset of the budget cycle. This partnership will require that NSC and OMB begin reviewing the agency budget plans together over the course of the summer before the President’s budget is submitted. The final budget submission to Congress could then include proposals presented not only by mission area but also by major programs that support the mission requirements. Participating NSC staff, taking the lead role, should be drawn mainly from the Strategic Planning Directorate but should also include other members of the NSC staff with deep knowledge of the particular subject matter areas. To facilitate this integrated review across mission areas, a new OMB staff group with significant policy expertise and cross-agency purview should be developed and should play a major role in the process.

■ Substantially revise the Target Capabilities List.

The federal government has directed state and local governments today to focus their preparedness investments on 37 target capabilities, but the target capability levels do not differentiate between big cities, smaller cities, small towns, and rural areas. Nor is there very clear guidance on how to measure whether state and local jurisdictions have achieved the prescribed target capability levels. The next Secretary of Homeland Security and FEMA Administrator should build on work that is just getting under way in FEMA to substantially revise the Target Capabilities List (TCL) so that desired target capabilities levels are linked to different types of jurisdictions and the guidelines provided differentiate between cities and towns around the country in terms of area, population size and density, numbers of potential high-risk targets, and other factors.

This effort should also clearly describe performance objectives for target capabilities in commonsense terms, linking those objectives to the particular needs of different sizes and types of jurisdictions. Equally important, a revised TCL will specify how progress toward those objectives will be judged. Once the objectives and evaluative measures are developed, DHS and state and local governments will have an agreed-on basis for assessing capability development, something that does not exist today. Particularly in light of the great dissatisfaction expressed by many state and local officials with the consultation process for the original TCL, published as part of the National Preparedness Guidelines, it is critically important that FEMA to adopt a truly collaborative process in undertaking this revision.

■ Reform the DHS grants program to be a flagship component of DHS that is well managed, transparent, highly credible, and tightly linked to federal priorities.

The DHS grants program and the organization within the department that administers the program will inevitably be crucial to DHS’s success in building preparedness at the state and local levels. Recognizing that the grants program and its administration contribute strongly to how DHS is viewed beyond the Beltway, the next Secretary and FEMA Administrator should make reforming the grant program a high priority. The FEMA regional offices should become in effect the front lines of the grant program process, as they are much closer to the state and local grant recipients than is DHS headquarters in Washington. Central to the reform effort should be linking the grant program more tightly to the strategic priorities outlined in policy guidance documents such as the Guidelines and a revised Target Capabilities List. Grant applications should explain how proposed investments will achieve target capability levels, grant recipients should report progress toward target capabilities using agreed-on evaluative measures contained in a revised TCL, and federal evaluations should be undertaken in addition to the self-assessment process, perhaps as a condition of grant eligibility.

■ Host a catastrophic event tabletop exercise for very senior officials early in each new Administration.

The new Administration should bring together its Cabinet officials for a tabletop exercise focused on managing a catastrophic event in the first 60 days of the new term. Such an exercise would force Cabinet officials to become familiar with their basic homeland security responsibilities and would give them all a better understanding of the scope and type of challenges the federal gov- ernment would likely face should some catastrophe occur. This kind of exercise also would help spur Cabinet Secretaries toward focusing their agencies on critical vulnerabilities early in the next Administration.

■ Reform TOPOFF to make it much closer to a “no-notice” exercise.

Because it involves extensive advance coordination, TOPOFF—the “top officials” capstone exercise—may not offer sufficient insight into the nation’s overall preparedness for catastrophic events. Only an exercise that is “no-notice,” or close to it, will provide an accurate picture of how well the federal government can coordinate its own efforts internally and work collaboratively with state and local governments as it responds to a catastrophe. Given the practical challenges associated with major field exercises, it may be useful to focus initially on holding no-notice tabletop exer- cises at the federal and state government level to test decisionmaking and coordination processes before determining whether it is possible to proceed to a full-fledged no-notice field exercise.

■ Complete and expand the existing effort to create homeland security regional hubs that leverage the resources of the FEMA regional offices.

Common sense dictates that leaders in Washington, D.C., cannot directly manage the response to a catastrophe taking place hundreds or thousands of miles away. FEMA’s recent initiatives to rein- vigorate its regional offices and make them the essential link between Washington and the field are critical and must be fully implemented. Without this connective tissue between Washington and the state and local levels, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to realize any meaningful vision of national preparedness. The FEMA regional offices should be responsible for developing regional strategies and plans, functioning as a one-stop shop for preparedness activities and the grant programs, and building on existing regional collaborative structures. To ensure that the regional offices can be fully effective, the next Administration should establish requirements making them the principal coordinators for federal agencies in the field. Finally, a very senior official in each regional office with bureaucratic, operational, and “Washington” skills should be predesignated as the Lead Federal Coordinator for each region.

■ Create regional homeland security task forces, drawn largely from existing National Guard units, to complement the regional homeland security hubs.

Creating regional homeland security task forces from existing National Guard units would provide a military complement to the FEMA regional offices. The next Secretary of Defense and Chief of the National Guard Bureau should work closely with governors and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) to organize National Guard–led homeland security task forces in each region. Not only would these task forces create a focal point for regional military planning, exercising, and training, they would ensure that each region of the country has a rapid response force able to help bridge the three- to five-day gap between the immediate aftermath of an event, when local first responders are the only capabilities on the scene, and the arrival of most federal capabilities.

■ Implement and fund a strengthened version of the National Security Professional Program and fund and implement an expanded DHS professional development and education system.

The next Administration needs to beef up the requirements in the National Security Professional Program and provide additional resources for implementing Executive Order 13434, which created it. Without a workforce that has the skills and experience to operate across all the dimensions of homeland security—prevention, protection, preparedness, response, and recovery—the nation will not be able to protect itself against future catastrophes or manage them when they do happen. Rotation through different positions in the government to gain core competencies needs to be linked explicitly to eligibility for career advancement, as it was for uniformed military officers as part of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act.

Ideally, the professional development and education program envisioned in the executive order would also include opportunities for state- and local-level personnel to serve in the federal government. To support these rotational assignments and build a robust system of training and professional education, the next Administration should work with Congress to mandate that participating agencies fund a 3–5 percent personnel float. Complementing professional development at the interagency level, the next Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the DHS Learning and Development Strategy is appropriately funded and implemented, expand current education and development plans, and engage institutions of higher learning in a dialogue about future needs for homeland security professionals.

Hey look...Butler declares that contractors (an overt security risk) will have unfathomable power over all of this data
whooopeeeeeeee (how is this "Butler" dude an actual human being? No wonder everyone else resigned from this insane position)


UPDATE 1-Pentagon seeks tight ties with cyber contractors
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2023673520101020
By Jim Wolf
WASHINGTON, Oct 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department aims to tighten ties with its cybersecurity contractors in an effort to better protect sensitive computer networks against growing cyber threats. The department's use of top-level system integrators and entrepreneurs will continue to grow, along with the need for so-called "active" defenses that scan incoming code to shield network perimeters, Robert Butler, the Pentagon's top official for cyber policy, said on Wednesday. "And as we thread those together, what we want to do is a very very tight partnership with industry," Butler, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for cyber policy, told reporters at a breakfast session. One key goal, Butler said, was to cut the lag between development of new protective technology and its deployment.
Let's make some their faces known to 6.7+ billion people worldwide:

1st, let's see who this shitbag traitor Butler is:



Looky here, the Editor of Wired magazine even made an appearance at this ultra fascist enslavement agenda symposium:





Here's enemy terrorist psychopath high traitor William J. Lynn:














Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2010, 01:07:30 AM »

Who are the true terrorists...
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=187085.0
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2010, 01:08:19 AM »

Who are the terrorists? Dyncorp - Dan Quayle - Kroll - Leumi - Cerebus
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=187254.0
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2010, 01:12:26 AM »

If You Oppose Deathcare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the WH wants Stasi Intel

http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/04/call-for-informants-if-you-oppose-obamacare-the-white-house-wants-to-know-about-it/

If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.

From the White House website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

    There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Emphasis added. Of course, as we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.

The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.

Interestingly, as Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter this morning, the title of that post on the White House is a quote from John Adams’ 1770 “Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials.”

(h/t Jon Henke)
_________________________________________________________
There are so many things wrong with the WH statement that I'm not even going to bother.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2010, 01:15:13 AM »

ATTN: DHS/DoD employees-YOU ARE ALL SLAVES! YOU ARE WITH THE PEOPLE!

ALL OF YOU WHO SERVE THE SYSTEM, YOU ARE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT!  STOP SERVING YOUR MURDEROUS BOSSES!  YOU ARE HITLERS SA IN THE 21ST CENTURY.  YOU ARE BEING TOLD THAT YOU NEED TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS (PRIVACY/RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE) IN ORDER TO HAVE GREATER SECURITY.  I AM NOT SAYING THIS, YOUR OWN CRIMINAL LED GOVT. PUPPET BOSSES ARE TELLING YOU THEMSELVES!  WAKE THE F*CK UP!!!

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/07/01/dhs-expanding-data-collection-on-employees.aspx

DHS requires more personal information from employees, contractors

New data elements include financial history and mother's maiden name

    * By Alice Lipowicz
    * Jul 01, 2009

The Homeland Security Department is updating and expanding its record collection to include new categories of personal information on all employees, contractors and volunteers who regularly need access to DHS facilities. The new categories of information include maiden name, mother's maiden name, clearance level, identifying physical information, financial history, duty date and weapons-bearer designation, states a Federal Register notice on June 25 .

Other information to be collected includes date of birth, Social Security Number, organizational and employee affiliations, fingerprints, digital color photograph, digital signature and telephone phone numbers.

The Personal Identity Verification Management System is being updated to support implementation of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 that covers physical and logical access to federal facilities. Public comment will be taken until July 27.

The system covers all DHS employees, contractors and their employees, consultants and volunteers who require long-term access to DHS facilities and computer systems, the department said. The system also has been expanded to cover federal emergency responders, foreign nationals on assignment and other federal employees detailed to DHS.

Personal information that is provided to DHS may be shared in DHS, as well as with appropriate federal, state, local and tribal agencies on a need-to-know basis, the notice states.
_________________________________________________________
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-14905.htm

[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]              
[Page 30301-30305]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-49]  

http://washingtontechnology.com/Blogs/Editors-Notebook/2009/07/DHS-rule-reader-feedback.aspx

Readers blast DHS effort to harvest personal information

Washington Technology received a number of trenchant comments about the July 1 Web story, “DHS requires more personal information from employees, contractors,” by staff writer Alice Lipowicz.

The majority of those commenting took Homeland Security Department officials to task for launching an initiative to expand the personal information it retains on employees, contractors and volunteers who regularly need access to DHS facilities.

Paul John Russo called the effort “onerous” and wrote: “The data should only have to be collected during the course of background investigations by either DHS or supporting organizations to support hiring or security clearance investigations by DHS or supporting organizations but should not be required simply to get an ID card that has a fixed expiration date.”

Arthur Downs took a grim view of events, asking “Does this reflect an agenda promoted by Janet Napolitano or some unnamed ‘commissar’ serving in subordinate capacity.”

Russo and others were deeply concerned about the privacy aspect in light of a number of data breaches by government agencies. An anonymous commenter, citing the growing number of data breaches from government mismanagement as opposed to cyberattacks, asked: “How many employees and contractors have confidence that all this personal information will be handled correctly and used correctly?”

In the minority, Frank Landry felt that it was appropriate for the department to ask employees and contractor personnel for additional information. “It’s about time some one stood up and said, 'If you want to work in this business, then you have to give up more information about yourself.'”

[INSERT-  Translation:  "I love being a SLAVE by giving up my rights to be safe from my bosses at Kissinger Associates, CSIS, Bilderberg who carry out false flag terrorism with the same Artificial Intelligence based software that is used to store my personal information.  I feel so safe, it makes me warm and fuzzy!  John Zachman, the Father of Enterprise Architecture was a LIAR about Ptech!"



Posted by William Welsh on Jul 02, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2010, 02:31:35 AM »

Report: TSA officer abducts, assaults woman
http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/1110/Report_TSA_officer_abducts_assaults_woman.html?showall
November 23, 2010

A TSA employee in Atlanta allegedly abducted and sexually assaulted a woman this week and then tried to kill himself, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

A TSA employee based at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport tried to kill himself after allegedly abducting a woman, sexually assaulting her then giving her a suicide note to deliver.

MARTA police are among the law enforcement agencies investigating the claim that Randall Scott King, 49, kidnapped the woman from the Lakewood station Wednesday night. King accompanied her there from the airport where she left with him voluntarily, Hartsfield-Jackson spokeswoman Katena Carvajales told the AJC.

But King allegedly restrained the woman in the MARTA parking lot and took her to his house in Hogansville, about 50 miles south of Atlanta, where the sexual assault occurred, police there say. ...

King, a behavior detection officer, has been with the Transportation Security Administration for nearly five years, spokesman Jon Allen told the AJC.

"We are cooperating fully with law enforcement during this ongoing investigation," Allen said.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2010, 02:34:54 AM »

***High level DHS Officers use "Electronic Dog Collars" to create Sex Slaves


Christopher Clark, Fmr Officer in Department of Homeland Security
Used IBM Electronic Dog Collars to Create a Sex Slave

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/31/29997.htm

"Clark also wanted to see how good plaintiff's tongue was and that he was attracted to the plaintiff," according to the complaint. Dahl claims Clark traveled to Montana on Aug. 8 "under the guise of an official business trip" and asked her to meet him. She says he made her feel "that she did not have a choice but to do whatever he suggested or he would fire her." That night Clark took her back to his hotel room "where he demanded to have sex and forced himself on her and, after initially attempting to fight him off, she gave up and he had his way," the complaint states. It adds: "The sex was not of her free will and was unwelcomed." A week later, she says, Clark e-mailed her the lyrics to Jimmy Buffett's song "Come Monday" and wrote about "loving" her. Dahl claims Clark met her in Minneapolis to join her for her move to Washington and "demanded sex" on each of the four nights they spent on the road. Once in Washington in her new job, she says she tried to refuse to have sex with him, but "Clark exhibited an attitude including body language which conveyed that he was entitled to have sex with the plaintiff if she wanted to maintain her job and it so scared the plaintiff that she backed off her stance and even suggested make-up sex."

Clark also monitored her in Washington, "particularly her movements and communications with other people and he sought to restrict, insulate and isolate the plaintiff so as to maintain and continue his control and dominion over her," she claims. "There was an expectation that the plaintiff would be providing Clark sex and he treated the plaintiff as if she was his sex slave," the complaint states.




“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
https://www.mega.nu/ampp/privacy.html
-Zbigniew Brzezinski




Hey DHS...what you are doing right now is so f**king illegal it is not even funny. You guys have gone so far off the reservation, you are creating actual damages to humanity. Same as the Nazis did, same as Mao did, same as Pol Pot did. Wake up and realize what is going on. In the end they will turn the grid on you too. It is in the plans. IBM's system will require no humans, it will be sense and response without any human intervention. You are giving IBM all the data it needs to put the same electronic dog collar that psychopath used automatically. They will not need 500 humans in a room looking at computer screens. You are logging everything you think is suspicious. That is getting fed into IBM's analytics so that they no longer need you. It works on the same principals as Google's Human Tabulation Workshop. Watch this video and you should be able to see what you are doing for the beast behind the scenes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143

And of course the psycho used the system to create a continually monitored and stalked sex slave. This was by design, it is so easy to do at that level and there is no oversight so of course he decided to get himself a sex slave, his profile probably showed he would do it, that is why he was hired. Don't you guys notice the type of people hired as your co-workers? Doesn't it freak you the f**k out sometimes?
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Ruth
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2010, 02:42:40 AM »

We have met the enemy and it is us.  Prepare accordingly.

No, you guys aren't the enemy - they are! (Napolitano, Pistole and TSA flunkeys).

This was always what they wanted.
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2010, 02:58:30 AM »



Senator Rockefeller To TSA Chief John Pistole:
“I Think You’re Doing A Terrific Job”

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/senator-rockefeller-to-tsa-chief-john-pistole-i-think-youre-doing-a-terrific-job


The backlash against new TSA airport screening procedures has reached a deafening crescendo, and so you would think that the politicians in Washington D.C. would be getting the message. But so far, most of them seem to be just as supportive of the TSA as ever. For example, what did the chairman of the Senate committee overseeing air travel, Jay Rockefeller, have to say to TSA chief John Pistole during a Senate hearing on these new security procedures the other day?

"I Think You're Doing A Terrific Job."


Yes, you read that correctly. Senator Rockefeller had nothing but praise for Pistole and the new screening procedures. Apparently Rockefeller thinks that TSA officials feeling up the genitals of U.S. air travelers with the fronts of their hands is a wonderful thing. It is even being reported that in some instances TSA officials are actually reaching down the pants of men and up the skirts of women during these enhanced pat-downs. Not only is this totally criminal, but considering the fact that TSA officials do this countless times without changing their gloves it is also a serious health hazard. But most of our "leaders" in Washington D.C. continue to insist that we should stop protesting because this is all being done "for our own good".

But should we expect anything less from elitists such as Rockefeller?  This is the same guy who is publicly talking about how wonderful it would be if the FCC would just go in and shut down Fox News and MSNBC.  He also has publicly expressed his belief that we would probably be "better off" if the Internet had never been invented.  Obviously Rockefeller is not a big fan of freedom of expression.

But it is not just Rockefeller that is applauding these new TSA security procedures. U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar seems convinced that the American people will change their minds once they understand the reasons behind these new rules.  According to Klobuchar, the American people "have to understand that this is being done for their best interests and their safety." U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill also believes that ordinary Americans will quickly change their opinions once they fully understand what is going on....

"And then I think we can--the majority of Americans I think--I hope will become supportive of the measures that TSA is trying to do to keep us safe."

Do you think that Klobuchar and McCaskill will still feel the same way once they have been groped and fondled by TSA officials? The truth is that the outrage of the American people about these ridiculous airport security procedures only seems to be growing.  If you doubt this, just go spend a few minutes on the We Won't Fly Facebook page.  The American people are angry and they are only getting angrier. But is TSA chief Pistole listening? Not a chance. During the Senate hearing, Pistole made his feelings abundantly clear....

"If you are asking me, am I going to change my policies? No."

Many Americans had hoped that once George W. Bush was out of office that many of these thug-like security tactics would go away, but the truth is that they have only gotten far worse under the Obama administration. TSA officials would not be touching our genitals with the fronts of their hands if Barack Obama himself had not given the green light to these new procedures. Barack Obama could stop these enhanced pat-downs tomorrow if he wanted to.  But he does not want to. The American people need to wake up.  It seems like the Big Brother police state tactics just keep getting worse with each new presidential administration.  Instead of "the land of the free and the home of the brave", we are rapidly becoming "the land of the peon and the home of the slave". Liberty and freedom are very precious things.  Once they have been taken away, they are very difficult to get back.  Unless the American people speak up now, TSA groping and fondling is going to become a permanent part of America.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2010, 03:00:26 AM »

22 Incredibly Revealing Quotes About Enhanced Pat Downs And TSA Groping
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/22-incredibly-revealing-quotes-about-enhanced-pat-downs-and-tsa-groping

At what point will Americans finally stop losing more liberty and freedom?  With each passing year, the iron grip of the government gets even tighter, and each time it does we are told that it is either for "our safety" or for "national security".  One can only imagine what is going to happen the next time there is any kind of "terror incident" on an airplane.  They are going to point to all those Americans who are complaining about "enhanced pat downs" and TSA groping as the reason why security is not tough enough.  So where does all this end?  Will we eventually all have to go through a body cavity search just to get on an airplane?  Will they start groping us at school, at work and at sporting events?  Are we going to have to "lock down" America from coast to coast to ensure that no terrorist ever is able to harm any American?

The way that we are going, we soon won't have to worry about "terrorists" taking away our freedoms because they will already be gone.  Is any amount of "safety" worth living like this?  If America turns into one big prison camp where we are all prodded, poked, groped, watched, tracked and treated like sub-human slaves will it even be worth living in anymore?

The following are 22 quotes about enhanced pat downs and TSA groping.  They are presented without commentary because they speak for themselves.  Please share these quotes as widely as possible.  If Americans do not wake up now, when will they ever wake up?....

#1 Blogger Erin Chase:
I stood there, an American citizen, a mom traveling with a baby with special needs formula, sexually assaulted by a government official. I began shaking and felt completely violated, abused and assaulted by the TSA agent. I shook for several hours, and woke up the next day shaking.

#2 ABC News producer Carolyn Durand:
"The woman who checked me reached her hands inside my underwear and felt her way around."

#3 Wendy James Gigliotti:
"She said 'spread your legs.' And then she took her full palms and started at my neck and ran all the way down my body, full palms, constant contact. And when she got down to my feet, she was in constant contact from my ankles all the way up to my groin, across my groin, and down the other leg. And she did that twice."

#4 Female air traveler Ella Swift:
"The female officer ran her hand up the inside of my leg to my groin and she did it so hard and so rough she lifted me off my heels."

#5 Flight attendant Cathy Bossi:
"She put her full hand on my breast and said, 'What is this?'.  And I said, 'It's my prosthesis because I've had breast cancer.' And she said, 'Well, you'll need to show me that'."

#6 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano:
"I think we all understand the concerns Americans have. It's something new. Most Americans are not used to a real law enforcement pat-down like that."

#7 A 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor:
"One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants."

#8 An anonymous TSA worker:
"Molester, pervert, disgusting, an embarrassment, creep. These are all words I have heard today at work describing me. ...These comments are painful and demoralizing."

#9 Robert Colella:
If some total stranger walked up to you in the street and said "I am either going to see you naked or touch your genitals", What would be the likelihood of that person walking away from that encounter?

#10 CNN employee Rosemary Fitzpatrick:
"As an experienced traveler for work who was in tears for most of the search process, I have never experienced a more traumatic and invasive travel event!"

#11 Meagan Quinn:
I will not board an airplane in America until the TSA body scanners are gone. No one is seeing my naked body unless I let them. I will also not settle for being GROPED in public as an alternative.

#12 A lawsuit filed on behalf of a female college student from Amarillo Texas:
"As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff’s blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs’ breasts to everyone in the area."

#13 Bruce Sargent:
The sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib is not so very different then the sexual humiliation being heaped on American air travelers at airports. Why is TSA torturing us to protect us?

#14 A 37-year-old Texas woman who had her nipple ring removed with a pair of pliers before she was allowed to pass through security:
"My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way."

#15 A soldier returning from Afghanistan:
"So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers."

#16 A flight attendant named Megan:
The agent went up my right leg first and then met my vagina with full force….the same on the other leg with the same result. She then used both of her hands to feel my breasts and squeezing them. At this point I was in shock.

#17 Jay Glover:
I spend on average $30K per year on business travel. The airlines get the bulk of this but hotels, car rentals, meals and miscellaneous expenses add up as well. Where I can cut travel, I will. When those associated with airport travel feel the financial pinch just watch how fast this all will change.

#18 Paul Craig Roberts:
It is difficult to imagine New Yorkers being porno-screened and sexually groped on crowded subway platforms or showing up an hour or two in advance for clearance for a 15 minute subway ride, but once bureaucrats get the bit in their teeth they take absurdity to its logical conclusion.

#19 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when asked if she would like to go through the new pat-downs:
"Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?"

#20 TSA Administrator John Pistole during a Congressional hearing:
"If you are asking me, am I going to change my policies? No."

#21 U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller to TSA chief John Pistole:
"I Think You're Doing A Terrific Job."

#22 Congressman Ron Paul:
I introduced legislation last week that is based on a very simple principle: federal agents should be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. If you would face criminal prosecution or a lawsuit for groping someone, exposing them to unwelcome radiation, causing them emotional distress, or violating indecency laws, then TSA agents should similarly face sanctions for their actions.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2010, 03:08:18 AM »

Avoid These 68 Airports If You Don't Want An X-Ray Body Scan
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-airports-have-scanners-2010-11
Gus Lubin | Nov. 19, 2010, 3:10 PM

Here are 68 airports with the scanners:

Albuquerque International Sunport Airport
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport
Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Boston Logan International
Bush Houston Interncontinental Airport
Boise Airport
Bradley International Airport
Brownsville
Buffalo Niagara International Airport
Charlotte Douglas International
Chicago O'Hare International
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
Cleveland International Airport
Corpus Christie Airport
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport
Denver International Airport
Detroit Metro Airport
Dulles International Airport
El Paso International Airport
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Fort Wayne International Airport
Fresno Airport
Gulfport International Airport
Grand Rapids Airport
Harrisburg International Airport
Harlingen/Valley International Airport
Honolulu International Airport
Indianapolis International Airport
Jacksonville International Airport
John F. Kennedy International Airport
Kansas City International
LaGuardia International Airport
Lambert/St. Louis International Airport
Laredo International Airport
Lihue Airport
Los Angeles International
Luis Munoz Marin International Airport
McAllen Miller Airport
McCarran International Airport
Memphis International Airport
Miami International Airport
General Mitchell Milwaukee International Airport
Mineta San José International
Minneapolis/St.Paul International Airport
Nashville International Airport
Newark Liberty International Airport
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport
Oakland International Airport
Omaha Eppley Field Airport
Orlando International Airport
Palm Beach International Airport
Philadelphia International Airport
Phoenix International Airport
Pittsburgh International Airport
Port Columbus International
Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Richmond International Airport
Rochester International Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Salt Lake City International Airport
San Antonio International Airport
San Diego International Airport
San Francisco International Airport
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Spokane International Airport
T.F. Green Airport
Tampa International Airport
Tulsa International Airport

These airports are getting them soon:
Chicago Midway International Airport
Houston William P. Hobby Airport
Saipan International Airport
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2010, 03:11:06 AM »

It’s gone too far
Naked Scanners paid for by Stimulus money; George Soros holds financial interest in company
It’s about control, not security
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/4209
By Douglas J. Hagmann

14 November 2010: Perhaps one of the most controversial topics today is the use of “naked” body scanners at airports by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As this investigation found, it is indeed a matter deserving of such controversy and further investigative focus.

Using the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by 23-year-old “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as “Exhibit A” for needing the ultra-intrusive “naked” body scanners, the TSA, under the direction of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, stepped up their purchases and deployment of the scanners to U.S. airports.

On Christmas day 2009, a total of 40 full body scanners were present at only 19 airports in the U.S., but that would soon change. Immediately following the significantly odd incident aboard flight 253 where Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national traveling from Amsterdam to Detroit reportedly attempted to light explosives hidden in his crotch, former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff and co-author of the U.S. Patriot Act took to the airwaves to lobby for the placement of the nuclear scanners at all airports. Chertoff, the head of the Chertoff Group, a private security consulting agency, served as former DHS secretary from 2005 to 2009.

While working in that capacity in 2008, Secretary Chertoff authored a 38 page terror assessment warning of terrorists, posing as refugees for example, would exploit our security deficiencies, including air travel. In hindsight, his warning seemed almost like a prediction that Christmas day.

In the wake of his flurry of media appearances suggesting that full body scanners would have likely caught Abdulmutallab before he boarded flight 253, and article critical of Chertoff appeared in the January 1, 2010  edition of The Washington Post. The former DHS secretary was criticized for “using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.” It was disclosed that Chertoff’s security consulting agency included a client that manufactures the controversial scanners. That client is Rapiscan Systems, the leading provider of the scanners to the TSA and numerous other airports across the world.

The units often referred to as “naked” or “nuclear” body scanners are more officially known as the Secure 1000 Single Pose scanners, made by Rapiscan. They also produce scanning units for air cargo inspection.

Rapiscan is a wholly owned subsidiary of OSI Systems, Inc., a worldwide company based in California that develops and markets security and inspection systems.  It is one of a handful of such companies trying to corner the market on security hardware for the air transportation industry – a market estimated to be worth $300 billion in the United States alone.

As indicted by the per-share price of the company’s stock, various divisions within OSI Systems, Inc., with the exception of Rapiscan were posting financial losses during the fiscal years 2007 through 2009. Month end stock prices of OSI Systems, Inc. (OSIS) fell from $27.35 per share in June 2007 to $20.85 in June 2009.

OSI Systems, Inc. received a financial boost in September 2009 when it entered into a $173 million Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration. On October 1, 2009, the TSA purchased “multiple scanners” from Rapiscan at a cost of approximately $25 million under the terms of that contract.

As shown by the following graph, demand for the scanners and the value of OSI stock did not take off until the attempted ChristmasDay bombing. The demand sharply increased not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Rapisan suddenly grew as other countries contracted with Rapiscan for their scanning units. Most notably, perhaps, was a February 2010 deal between Rapiscan and the government of Nigeria, the very country of origin of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Immediately before that deal, OSI Systems, Inc. announced a deal with Great Britain for scanners at Heathrow and Manchester International Airports.

Thanks to the worldwide scanner market demand, the revenues of OSI Systems, Inc. grew nearly 25% during the first quarter of 2010 over the same period of 2009, to over $65 million as a direct result of major government investments.

A second purchase for “multiple units” was announced on 29 April 2010 for $16 million. It is interesting to note that OSI Systems, Inc., announced at this time that the “naked” body scanners were bought with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus) money, from a bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on 17 February 2009.

On 22 September 2010, Rapiscan announced that it received orders from the TSA totaling $35 million for the 620DV Advanced Technology (AT) checkpoint X-ray baggage inspection system. The delivery orders were the first of that type placed by TSA under the terms of a five year Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The systems will be deployed by TSA at airport checkpoints in the United States, where they are to be used to screen passengers’ carry-on baggage.

A look at OSI Systems, Inc., including its Rapiscan subsidiary identifies Deepak Chopra as the president and CEO. Chopra, individually and through his PAC, has been identified as a significant donor to the Democratic party, including contributions to the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. It should come as no surprise, then, to learn that he accompanied President Obama and his royal entourage by invitation on his trip to India to promote further trade between the two countries. The trip was paid for by U.S. tax dollars.

Investigation into the financials of Rapiscan and its parent company becomes even more interesting when it is learned that George Soros also holds a financial stock interest in the company. As of last June, Soros held about 12,000 shares of OSI stock.

But if these scanners have been around for some time, what then, caused the most recent uproar regarding their use?

Based on my investigative findings, I submit that there are two primary reasons for the growing public outcry over the “naked body scanners.”  Both have been expertly addressed by investigative blogger and talk show host Alex Jones via the Drudge Report, who has been warning the public about the scanners since they were first introduced.

First, there has been heightened awareness of the possible radiological dangers posed to the TSA agents operating the scanners as well as to the passengers being screened. Although there have been numerous official assurances to the public that the scanners pose no health risks, several scientists and radiologists have concluded otherwise.

Secondly, there are the images themselves. It is important for the public to understand that the images of scanned passengers shown to the public have passed through filters to “tone down” their graphic nature. In reality, the images that are visible to TSA officials are much more revealing. Having seen actual images of a full body scan on a TSA computer for the purpose of completing my investigation, I can tell you that the images are extremely graphic and leave very little to the imagination. To be sure, they do not resemble the images that are being shown to the public.

Additionally and despite assurances to the contrary, there have been many documented abuses and misuses of the scanned images taken by TSA officials. Despite denials, images are stored in databases, ostensibly for “training” purposes. However, the number of images currently being maintained, along with the location of their storage (in some cases, outside of the TSA), indicate a purpose beyond any legitimate training program.

What has yet to be publicly disclosed is, in my professional opinion, most alarming.

Based on the instructions from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a directive was reportedly issued by the TSA on 29 October 2010. That directive instructs all TSA screening agents to perform “enhanced” pat down searches that involve the actual groping of women’s breasts and the genitalia of all passengers, including children.

Upon learning of that directive, I conducted an interview with a trusted source working within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on 12 November 2010. According to the information obtained during that interview, the enhanced pat down directive was not in response to any intelligence or actionable threat. Instead, it was issued as a result of the number of airline passengers “opting out” of the body scans. The reasoning was that passengers would be more likely to select the more passive and less invasive of the two options. In other words, the directive was meant to “convince” people to choose the (ostensibly) less personal and humiliating scrutiny of a full body scanner instead of being groped by a TSA agent.

One might wonder why one option over the other would matter so much to the Department of Homeland Security. The answer might possibly be found in DHS documents described as “conceptual discussions” about trial deployments of the full body scanners to non-aviation public locations, such as sports stadiums, schools and malls. It appears that it is the intent of DHS to eventually install naked body scanners in these venues. But first, the public must be “conditioned” to accept their use at airports.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2010, 03:26:11 AM »



full size image at:

http://www.forkparty.com/tsa-infographic/
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2010, 03:36:18 AM »

TSA pat-downs are spreading sexually-transmitted disease and contributing to pandemics
http://www.a-w-i-p.com/index.php/news/2010/11/24/tsa-pat-downs-could-spread-sexually-tran

There's a startling fact about the TSA pat-downs that most of us have not realized: TSA agents often do not change their latex gloves between pat-downs! With these pat-down reaching into your pants, feeling your genitals, and sweeping bare armpits and buttocks, those latex gloves being worn by the TSA agents are obviously teeming with germs.

And yet TSA agents often don't change gloves between patting down passengers. They're often using the same gloves on you and your crotch as they were using on the previous passenger's exploratory crotch feel. This means, of course, that the TSA is now engaged in extremely risky behavior that could spread sexually-transmitted disease, cold viruses, skin fungi (such as ringworm), and even contribute to a pandemic outbreak. So now, while the TSA claims to be protecting your safety, they could actually be infecting you with pandemic disease at the same time.
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2010, 03:53:39 AM »

True, but they don't need to start changing gloves or changing them more often, they need to just stop -- stop feeling us up:  our genitals and boobies.

They need to stop now.

And no peeking at us naked thru your nifty X-ray machine.

You guys got that perverted idea out of Boy's Life didn't you?  The X-ray Specs in the ad in the back?

Sick, just sick.
Logged
citizenx
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,086


« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2010, 04:07:37 AM »

Apparently, TSA (unlike Santa) don't check their list twice!
==========================================

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

DHS-TSA Terror Watch List Includes Dead & Long-Dead US Citizens
Resilient Founding Fathers with Propensity for Resistance among One Million+ Terror Watch List Suspects!


By Sibel Edmonds STAFF WRITER


In May 2009 the Inspector General of the Justice Department found that 35% of the nominations to the Department of Homeland Security’s Terror Watch Lists were outdated, many people were not removed in a timely manner, and tens of thousands of names were placed on the list without predicate.  A September 2009 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security found that the process for clearing innocent travelers from the list is a complete mess. Although significant, both reports failed to mention their findings on the number of names of already-dead US citizens who seem to be stuck there permanently.

Even more significantly, it’s been reported that the TSA Terror Watch List includes the names of Long-Dead but well-known and well-respected US citizens, including several members of a group collectively known as the Founding Fathers of the United States. So far, based on our former and current TSA sources, we have been able to confirm the inclusion of two such long-dead persons on at least one DHS-TSA joint Terror Watch List: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

A former TSA manager and a member of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) provided us with his first-hand knowledge of what he referred to as the ‘DHS-TSA Terror Watch List Black Hole’, where US citizens’ names remain ‘forever.’ According to this source:
‘The current one million plus list contains the names of many deceased US persons, since there is no working mechanism in place to remove names, whether due to mistaken inclusion or those deemed cleared later, or even those no longer alive…We are talking about the names of thousands of dead Americans who still remain on our terror watch list, and keep getting renewed! Yet they spend millions of dollars to maintain this black hole and keep it classified-secret from the public…’
The most explosive aspect of these recent reports, confirmed by three former and current government officials, was the revelation that since 2002 several well-known historical figures known as the ‘Founding Fathers’, who served our nation in various capacities, including one US President, and all that over two hundred years ago, have been on one joint DHS-TSA Terror Watch List. Through documents and several sources we have been able to confirm two such cases involving Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

After several attempts I was able to secure a phone interview with the current TSA Chief John Pistole by agreeing to his condition. Mr. Pistole asked me to sign an agreement pledging that I would provide him with the names of my sources who had leaked these reports and the names of the Founding Fathers currently on the DHS-TSA Terror Watch List. I complied (At the end of this article I will provide you with additional details on this fulfilled agreement), and within an hour after I faxed his office the signed and notarized agreement we began our interview:

Sibel Edmonds (S.E.): Sir, I have confirmation from three sources, but for the record I would like to receive your confirmation on the report that at least two members of the group ‘Founding Fathers’, Mr. Thomas Jefferson and Mr. Benjamin Franklin, are on one of your most comprehensive joint Terror Watch Lists.
John Pistole (J. P.): Let me first express my utter contempt for those who leak classified and highly sensitive information such as this. As you will see soon we will hold these individuals accountable for divulging sensitive national security intelligence. And to answer your question…YES. Based on solid evidence, evaluation, and subsequent investigations and reviews we have determined that those individuals, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, pose a high-level threat to our national security. After careful review and investigation they were placed on our watch list in 2003, and have remained there since our bi-annual review still finds them to be a threat to our security.
S.E.: Could you please explain what you mean by ‘threat to our national security. I mean these individuals are revered as the founders of our democracy, our political system… architects of our nation’s Constitution. How could they possibly be perceived as a ‘threat to national security’?
J.P.: It is because whether indirectly or even unwittingly they aid and abet our enemy, who happen to be the bad, very bad terrorists. With inflammatory writings and speeches they undermine our national security and that my friend is what the terrorists are hoping for, waiting for!
S.E.: I still don’t see it, Mr. Pistole. Okay, let’s take Thomas Jefferson here. Please tell me how Mr. Jefferson can possibly aid and abet terrorists.
J.P.: Have you read this man’s preposterous writings? Have you paid attention to his shameless propaganda against the government? Just listen to this quote: “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all” This man, this anarchist, is encouraging Americans to resist us; to resist us the government, who are in charge of protecting their national security!! By making us the government the enemy of you the people, he is making the terrorists the friends of you the people. Because you the people are either with us the government or with the enemy! You understand that, Ms. Edmonds?! And while we are at it, here is another one: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” We the rulers are the protectors of your security, and this man uses his fame and name to make us the real enemy of the people??! He may as well work for the terrorists!
S.E.: Okay, let’s move to the next one. Tell us about Mr. Benjamin Franklin.
J.P.: Oh, that Franklin guy! First, he is what we despise the most. He is what his current highness Obama is determined to quash forever. Yes, he is a known leaker, a whistleblower, a proven traitor. He defied the higher power in charge of people’s security by leaking the Hutchinson Letters, thus, undermining the rulers’ government. Our regime won’t show the meekness and weakness of the Bush regime. As you can see we now arrest and jail these leakers-whistleblowers. And Franklin is not and won’t be an exception!!! Of course, there also are his inflammatory and preposterous propaganda against national security such as this: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” What kind of nonsense terrorist-abetting sh.. is this?! We have also suspicions that he may be behind this ludicrous OPT-OUT movement. I wouldn’t put it past him!! If so we’ll also issue him a $11,000 fine, and have the right to indefinitely hold him in custody…
As we approached the end of our interview I quickly asked him the following question:
S.E.: Sir, these men have been dead for over two hundred years. How can long-dead men be of any threat to our national security?!
J.P.: We haven’t found any hard-evidence, any scientific proof of their deaths; have you?! Sure, it is ‘said,’ only ‘said,’ that they in fact died. Can you, with no doubt, prove that the men inside those graves marked with the names Jefferson and Franklin are indeed the real Jefferson and Franklin? Maybe with excavation and DNA samples and …however, that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Come on, these guys were known for their resilience with a propensity for resistance. Who says they couldn’t still be alive today?! When it comes to our national security we do not take any chances, and this is NO EXCEPTION. Americans have trusted us with their security through their private parts and hard-earned dollars, and we are not about to let them down by taking chances on resilient men keen on resistance who may unwittingly and indirectly aid and abet terrorists; whether they are said-to-be-long-dead Founding Fathers or Quaker grandmothers…
S.E.: One last question, Mr. Pistole. How about Patrick Henry, John Paine…or even the US Constitution, are those all classified as terror threats and watch-list inhabitants?
J.P.: We are not going to divulge classified information, and the names of our suspects are all considered classified. As for the Constitution? Who says there is a Constitution? Last time we investigated we found it to be mythical and highly irrelevant. Now I am going to hang up and wait for your list of names, the sources you pledged to divulge.
At this point Mr. Pistole, also known as Mr. Pee-Stool, hung up. As for my list of names faxed to his office? I kept my word, and faxed him a signed paper containing the following names: John Brown, Aaron Dwight Stevens, and Mary Jenkins Surratt. They may all be long-dead men and women, but as Mr. Pistole says, these people were known to be resilient, and who can prove they are really dead!


http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/11/dhs-tsa-terror-watch-list-includes-dead.html
Logged
Dig
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 63,100



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2010, 04:26:09 AM »

god bless Sibel Edmonds!
Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately
s3d1t0r
Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


F̱̹̳̖o̤llow the mon̐ͫ͂̓̊̓͊ë́͐͒̍ȳ̏ͨ̾͆


WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2010, 04:26:39 AM »

22 Incredibly Revealing Quotes About Enhanced Pat Downs And TSA Groping
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/22-incredibly-revealing-quotes-about-enhanced-pat-downs-and-tsa-groping

#20 TSA Administrator John Pistole during a Congressional hearing:
"If you are asking me, am I going to change my policies? No."

Sounds exactly like what a DICTATOR says.

And one of the best ways to expose a dictator is to make them act like one.
Logged

“go to work, send your kids to school
follow fashion, act normal
walk on the pavement, watch T.V.
save for your old age, obey the law
Repeat after me: I am free
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!